Afghanistan

[Cheimoon]

If they choose not to, then ultimately that's on the public. Maybe the issue wasn't as important to the masses as one might have previously thought.

You're moving the goalposts here. The point is not whether the public care enough to vote differently for it, but whether the government represent the people in everything they do. The answer remains no.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Home isn't Government

A ‘subtle’ distinction that is often glossed over. The person you’re responding to seems to think that if you live in a certain country, you shouldn’t be allowed to complain about the government of that country sanctioning the invasion and bombing of other countries. Which makes no sense.

 

[Raoul]

the Iraq example is also a tragic one. To such an extent that even Blair admitted that in hindsight mistakes were made in that war, resulting in hefty consequences such as the vacuum where Isis saw a chance to come to power. McCain in 2018 also said the war was a mistake. These type of countries do not operate on the ‘mechanisms of democracy’. There is a thousand year tradition of hierarchy and culture/traditions, which need carefull understanding before flying over with state of the art f-16’s. War can ‘solve’ a problem, but it can not oversee the problems as a results thereof.

I see that you have mentioned you were in Iraq? I don’t know if it’s appropiate to ask, did you serve there? In your opinion, decades later was this war a succes?

Nearly 8 years total in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Somewhat paradoxically, Iraq will probably come out of this as more the success given that it successfully transitioned from totalitarianism to democracy and will wind up as a major player in the Middle East. Afghanistan will probably always be viewed as a protracted failure (or close to it) since the force that was expelled in 2001 casually resumed power 20 years later.

 

[Sultan]

Hypothetically, the secret services you reference are still a part of a democratically elected government. If they happen to do something illegal, then the public have the ability to take action by electing politicians who can do something about it.

Then the newly elected simply wash their hands and blame the past governments for their mistakes. It's a revolving door. I've hardly ever seen any past or present governments apologise for their mistakes.

 

[Raoul]

NATO (US) invoked article 5 after 9/11, which wound up sending NATO troops to Afghanistan from 2002 until this week. There was no bullying involved, as the US would've simply gone in alone.

They are just tools to gain legitimacy.

Take it up with the more than two dozen countries who volunteered to participate.

 

[TheReligion]

BBC News - UK student who travelled to Afghanistan for holiday evacuated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-58244518

 

[Raoul]

Then the newly elected simply wash their hands and blame the past governments for their mistakes. It's a revolving door. I've hardly ever seen any past or present governments ever apologise for their mistakes.

New governments are voted in every few years and often implement their own policies. That's democracy for you.

In the US, apologies are almost unheard of because they the opposition will use it as a sign of weakness against the ruling party in the next election, which in turn incentives the ruling party to act "tough" instead.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

BBC News - UK student who travelled to Afghanistan for holiday evacuated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-58244518

Lucky bastard.

 

[Raoul]

You're moving the goalposts here. The point is not whether the public care enough to vote differently for it, but whether the government represent the people in everything they do. The answer remains no.

They represent the majority of the people though don't they, since that is usually required to win elections.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

If they choose not to, then ultimately that's on the public. Maybe the issue wasn't as important to the masses as one might have previously thought.

Politicians are rarely steeped in integrity. And in the US most are hawks who wouldn't deign to reign in groups like the CIA and the private contractors they employ no matter what the people that elected them want.

 

[TheReligion]

Lucky bastard.

He is. He's also a complete idiot. No doubt from a very wealthy background.

 

[Sultan]

Nearly 8 years total in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Somewhat paradoxically, Iraq will probably come out of this as more the success given that it successfully transitioned from totalitarianism to democracy and will wind up as a major player in the Middle East. Afghanistan will probably always be viewed as a protracted failure (or close to it) since the force that was expelled in 2001 casually resumed power 20 years later.

Transitioning a country into a democracy a success? The US's aim was never to change Iraq into a democracy but it rid it of WMD. Hundreds of thousands were killed and the invasion brought into play ISIS and has destabilised a large part of the Middle East. If that was the aim of the US, then yes it's been a massive success story.

 

[iKnowNothing]

BBC News - UK student who travelled to Afghanistan for holiday evacuated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-58244518

I read this as executed and went oh $hit for a minute.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Nearly 8 years total in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Somewhat paradoxically, Iraq will probably come out of this as more the success given that it successfully transitioned from totalitarianism to democracy and will wind up as a major player in the Middle East. Afghanistan will probably always be viewed as a protracted failure (or close to it) since the force that was expelled in 2001 casually resumed power 20 years later.

8 years is a long time and I’m sure that is not a period quickly to forget.

I tend to look at it slight differently. The objective was mainly to find the WMD’s, that was the sole reason for the declaration of war and not to install a democracy. The main objective was never fulfilled because those weapons were not found. In the meanwhile the nation destabilized immensely with 100.000’s innocent deaths, sectarian violence and the rise of extremists like Isis. The recent elections which were deemed as one of the of not most ‘fair’ in their history is a step to begin with, but undoubtedly there is a long road ahead in recovery (lack of a better word here).

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Transitioning a country into a democracy a success? The US's aim was never to change Iraq into a democracy but it rid it of WMD. Hundreds of thousands were killed and the invasion brought into play ISIS and has destabilised a large part of the Middle East. If that was the aim of the US, then yes it's been a massive success story.

i have to agree here. War is a succes for those who got their interest protected the most. The havoc and dispair in the proces of that is usually categorized as ‘collateral damage’ which I find a dehumanizing term to describe it as.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

I read this as executed and went oh $hit for a minute.

This is what everyone thought was going to happen to him.

 

[Raoul]

Transitioning a country into a democracy a success? The US's aim was never to change Iraq into a democracy but it rid it of WMD. Hundreds of thousands were killed and the invasion brought into play ISIS and has destabilised a large part of the Middle East. If that was the aim of the US, then yes it's been a massive success story.

The reasons for going in and the actions taken after going in are two different issues. For better or worse, Iraq is now a democratic state because of the US.

 

[Sultan]

They represent the majority of the people though don't they, since that is usually required to win elections.

They represent the people, granted. However, Bush or the Republicans were not elected on the manifesto of invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Those decisions were not taken on public consensus.

 

[Raoul]

They represent the people, granted. However, Bush or the Republicans were not elected on the manifesto of invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Those decisions were not taken on public consensus.

Bush had a 92% approval rating after 9/11, so you could say that the public were pretty good with anything he wanted to do.

 

[PoTMS]

This is what everyone thought was going to happen to him.

There's Afghans clinging to transport planes and falling to their deaths attempting to leave the country all the while this silly little cnut who has no business being there in the first place gets a nice comfy chair inside the plane.

 

[Sultan]

Bush had a 92% approval rating after 9/11, so you could say that the public were pretty good with anything he wanted to do.

Ratings would have been due to the 9/11 bloodthirst. You would hope politicians would be above taking decisions in anger and when emotions are high.

 

[Cheimoon]

They represent the majority of the people though don't they, since that is usually required to win elections.

Not even in non-proportional democratic systems. Few recent Canadian govenrments have actually had a majority of Canadians behind them. And let's not get started how the US Senate reflects the US population as a whole. In any case, that wasn't my point. You keep dodging it, but my real point is that governments do not necessarily represent the majority opinion of their jurisdictions' people in everything they do. Just because a government gained power because of their stance on, say, health care and the economy, doesn't mean that their voters like whatever they do in international affairs.

 

[milemuncher777]

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Bush had a 92% approval rating after 9/11, so you could say that the public were pretty good with anything he wanted to do.

there are factors which play a part in this. The sentiment and feelings after 911, which was a shock to the whole world, was at an all time feeling. People were in fear and the ‘logical’ thing in their mind was to fight the ‘evil’ that create that.


Quote:
‘Bush's approval rating five years ago, at the start of the Iraq war, was 71 percent, and that 40-point drop is almost identical to the drop President Lyndon Johnson faced during the Vietnam War," CNN polling director Keating Holland said.

full article:https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

‘Afghanistan accounted for approximately 84% of global opium production over the five years ending in 2020, according to the United Nation’s World Drug Report 2020.’

sure, they will relinquish bilions a year…

it could be all PR. Them wanting to be seen as ‘Islamic’ considering wealth from incomes as drugs are not allowed.

I personally don’t believe they will halt the production of it or dissociate from it, considering they have been doing it for decades. Who’s going to monitor that they actually have halted production? It’s not as if international watch groups are allowed to actually investigate that..

 

[Sky1981]

Bush had a 92% approval rating after 9/11, so you could say that the public were pretty good with anything he wanted to do.

Bush action was 100% correct. Justified. Measured.

The problem is it's based on a fabrication.

It's like hanging a man correctly and accordingly at court based on the facts available. Just that the facts are planted. Can you blame the jury?

 

[2cents]

It’s wel known for those who have insight in this topic that Al-Qaeda were actually trained by American Intelligences during that Sovjet Union invasion

This, along with the “Graveyard of Empires” cliche, is probably the most persistent myth commonly attached to the history of Afghanistan. There’s actually no evidence for it, and pretty much every serious scholar/journalist who has looked into it has rejected it.

 

[Raoul]

‘Afghanistan accounted for approximately 84% of global opium production over the five years ending in 2020, according to the United Nation’s World Drug Report 2020.’

sure, they will relinquish bilions a year…

it could be all PR. Them wanting to be seen as ‘Islamic’ considering wealth from incomes as drugs are not allowed.

I personally don’t believe they will halt the production of it or dissociate from it, considering they have been doing it for decades. Who’s going to monitor that they actually have halted production? It’s not as if international watch groups are allowed to actually investigate that..

Its impossible to eradicate since too many farmers use it as a cash crop. The profit motive is too high (no pun).

 

[RedTiger]

‘Afghanistan accounted for approximately 84% of global opium production over the five years ending in 2020, according to the United Nation’s World Drug Report 2020.’

sure, they will relinquish bilions a year…

it could be all PR. Them wanting to be seen as ‘Islamic’ considering wealth from incomes as drugs are not allowed.

I personally don’t believe they will halt the production of it or dissociate from it, considering they have been doing it for decades. Who’s going to monitor that they actually have halted production? It’s not as if international watch groups are allowed to actually investigate that..

I don't know mate. Opium production did fall during their last tenure as rulers. Perhaps they'll still grow it to provide China with medical morphine?

 

[Camilo]

BBC News - UK student who travelled to Afghanistan for holiday evacuated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-58244518

We had a great trip there a couple of years ago, cracking country. This guy just got some bad timing.

I don't really understand the negative comments about it.. We're all so timid about life now, basically because we read sensationalist news. Most of the middle east is/was fine - it's hardly all a war zone. There's a few twats but you'll probably be fine.

I wouldn't be going now personally, but each to their own. Depends on when he went I suppose.

 

[TheReligion]

We had a great trip there a couple of years ago, cracking country. This guy just got some bad timing.

I don't really understand the negative comments about it.. We're all so timid about life now, basically because we read sensationalist news. Most of the middle east is/was fine - it's hardly all a war zone. There's a few twats but you'll probably be fine.

I wouldn't be going now personally, but each to their own. Depends on when he went I suppose.

My issue is the foreign office advise not to travel to the country as a UK citizen and have done for several years.

Potentially puts other people at risk all for the reputation and status. Otherwise why bother live posting whilst you're there on social media?

 

[The Corinthian]

‘Afghanistan accounted for approximately 84% of global opium production over the five years ending in 2020, according to the United Nation’s World Drug Report 2020.’

sure, they will relinquish bilions a year…

it could be all PR. Them wanting to be seen as ‘Islamic’ considering wealth from incomes as drugs are not allowed.

I personally don’t believe they will halt the production of it or dissociate from it, considering they have been doing it for decades. Who’s going to monitor that they actually have halted production? It’s not as if international watch groups are allowed to actually investigate that..

The main factor of their involvement in the opium trade to begin with was due to the fact that they needed the money to sustain the fight against the occupying regime. Now that the occupying regime has fled, perhaps they want to exit the trade.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

There's Afghans clinging to transport planes and falling to their deaths attempting to leave the country all the while this silly little cnut who has no business being there in the first place gets a nice comfy chair inside the plane.

Sad. He knew they would come for him. That's why he went in the first place.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

This, along with the “Graveyard of Empires” cliche, is probably the most persistent myth commonly attached to the history of Afghanistan. There’s actually no evidence for it, and pretty much every serious scholar/journalist who has looked into it has rejected it.

Im suprised you say this, considering this is actually well documented. Its classified as 'operation Cyclone' during the presidency of Jimmy Carter in 1979. Brezinski was the US national security advisor during that period.

Here is the one minute video of Brezinsky openly flying to Pakistan (could be Afghanistan) to give these mujahideen fighers a speech resassuring them that they will win the war.



from 0: 12 second upwards: he wanted to arm the Mujahideen, without revealing America's role''

I can assure you that video is not a random episode of The A-team.

 

[Spoony]

‘Afghanistan accounted for approximately 84% of global opium production over the five years ending in 2020, according to the United Nation’s World Drug Report 2020.’

sure, they will relinquish bilions a year…

it could be all PR. Them wanting to be seen as ‘Islamic’ considering wealth from incomes as drugs are not allowed.

I personally don’t believe they will halt the production of it or dissociate from it, considering they have been doing it for decades. Who’s going to monitor that they actually have halted production? It’s not as if international watch groups are allowed to actually investigate that..

They(Taliban) drastically reduced opium production initially but this made the rural population unhappy because for the majority it was their only source of income. Clearly they've got support in those parts but they'll become unpopular again if they do the same this time around. That said we'll see how the countries with interest in Afghanistan will help with nation building - this time they've not been invaded by foreigners, so countries like China will work with the locals and it could/should work.

 

[The Corinthian]

This, along with the “Graveyard of Empires” cliche, is probably the most persistent myth commonly attached to the history of Afghanistan. There’s actually no evidence for it, and pretty much every serious scholar/journalist who has looked into it has rejected it.

That’s incorrect. Operation Cyclone was established to work with ISI to help sustain the Mujahideen against the Soviets.

 

[shamans]

This, along with the “Graveyard of Empires” cliche, is probably the most persistent myth commonly attached to the history of Afghanistan. There’s actually no evidence for it, and pretty much every serious scholar/journalist who has looked into it has rejected it.

Again, I know you can find parallels/exceptions to both cases and sometimes it is a generalization but neither are "myths". The graveyard of empires doesn't mean Afghanistan has literally never been conquered and cannot been conquered but there have been several examples throughout history that gave them that label.

It's a tough terrain and may empires have suffered there. Saying "there's actually no evidence for it", I'm not sure you actually believe that but maybe you are tired of people who claim Afghanistan has never been conquered etc which obviously is an exaggeration.

With funding and birth of militant groups, seldom will it be a clean direct cause and effect but events that lead to the formation of a group can be labelled as such.

 

[fishfingers15]

Pakistan doesn't need Afghan territory, Pakistan needs an Afghan government that will deny it's enemies access to Afghan territory. As a Pakistani what happens inside Afghanistan is secondary. Afghanistan has been the launchpad for terrorism against Pakistan for nearly 2 decades, terrorism funded by India. Now with the anti Pakistani Karzai/Ghani regimes and their Indian friends running with their tails between their legs, Pakistan is going to be a safer place. We lost 70,000 lives whilst NATO turned a blind eye and the Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies openly facilitated terrorism against Pakistan. The Taliban have the opportunity to end this, if they don't, we'll be engineering against them too. Ahmed Shah Masoods two brothers were in Islamabad yesterday.

Now of course that doesn't mean I don't feel for the Afghan people. Pakistani's gave the Karzai regime and the Ghani regime every opportunity to work peacefully with us. We allowed trade, we even fenced the border at our own cost, despite several attacks on teams building the border from Afghanistan. However as a Pakistani passport holder, my priority will always be Pakistan over Afghanistan. The Taliban are an entity that provide an opportunity to Pakistan, they are not our dogs. it is 2021 not 1996. If we had a remote control that operated the Taliban we'd have had them target their forces against anti Pakistan elements in Afghanistan.

Somehow I remember you calling yourself a Kashmiri.

 

[2cents]

Im suprised you say this, considering this is actually well documented. Brezinski at that times in the 70's was the US national security advisor.

Here is the one minute video of Brezinsky openly flying to Pakistan (could be Afghanistan) to give these mujahideen fighers a speech resassuring them that they will win the war.



from 0: 12 second upwards: he wanted to arm the Mujahideen, without revealing America's role''

That’s incorrect. Operation Cyclone was established to work with ISI to help sustain the Mujahideen against the Soviets.

The mujahidin were not al-Qaeda. There were seven (Sunni) mujahidin groups based in Peshawar which were authorized to receive American funding via the ISI. A small number of Arab volunteers traveled to Peshawar during the war to join up with them, although only one of the seven mujahidin commanders (Abdul Rasul Sayyaf) was actually enthusiastic about receiving them, and he was one of the least powerful of them. Elsewhere Jalaluddin Haqqani also happily received some.

Al Qaeda was not formed until the very end of the Soviet War, partly due to bin Laden’s frustration that the Arab volunteers were essentially being ignored by the mujahidin. A small cadre of Arab fighters led by bin Laden set up a tiny ramshackle camp just inside the Afghan border and blundered into maybe three genuine skirmishes. Many if not most Arab volunteers for the mujahidin did not join al Qaeda, and there was at least one other independent Arab training camp set up close to Haqqani (and others such as al-Zarqawi’s would emerge long after the Soviets left).

So while some Arab volunteers undoubtedly got their hands on weaponry provided by US funds, they did so before Al Qaeda was even a thing, and in any case their contribution to the war was negligible.

I know many will roll their eyes and say these details are unimportant, but fudging the lines between the mujahidin, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda is exactly how you end up with innocent men spending years in Guantanamo.

I really recommend reading The Caravan by Thomas Hegghammer on all this.

 

[Cheimoon]

The mujahidin were not al-Qaeda. There were seven (Sunni) mujahidin groups based in Peshawar which were authorized to receive American funding via the ISI. A small number of Arab volunteers traveled to Peshawar during the war to join up with them, although only one of the seven mujahidin commanders (Abdul Rasul Sayyaf) was actually enthusiastic about receiving them, and he was one of the least powerful of them. Elsewhere Jalaluddin Haqqani also happily received some.

Al Qaeda was not formed until the very end of the Soviet War, partly due to bin Laden’s frustration that the Arab volunteers were essentially being ignored by the mujahidin. A small cadre of Arab fighters led by bin Laden set up a tiny ramshackle camp just inside the Afghan border and blundered into maybe three genuine skirmishes. Many if not most Arab volunteers for the mujahidin did not join al Qaeda, and there was at least one other independent Arab training camp set up close to Haqqani (and others such as al-Zarqawi’s would emerge long after the Soviets left).

So while some Arab volunteers undoubtedly got their hands on weaponry provided by US funds, they did so before Al Qaeda was even a thing, and in any case their contribution to the war was negligible.

I know many will roll their eyes and say these details are unimportant, but fudging the lines between the mujahidin, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda is exactly how you end up with innocent men spending years in Guantanamo.

I really recommend reading The Caravan by Thomas Hegghammer on all this.

As one of those twitter chains quoted in this thread said (can't remember which one), the way in which casual observers group all these groups together into one mash as if they're all the same is a form of Orientalism.