Afghanistan

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

Afghanistan is a big worry for us, Central Asian neighbors. Analysts predict that Taliban will march into Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. They claim that Central Asian armies are no match to Taliban equipped with high tech US weapons.
I don’t believe that Talibs will invade their northern neighbors. They want to be legitimate in the eyes of the international community.

I am worried about long term consequences for us. Taliban victory means that China extends its arms around Central Asia. Pakistan military are Chinese vassals. Not Pakistani people, please don’t get offended! I am concerned that so called Islamic Emirate will become another asset of China who is responsible for brutalities against Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

 

[Cheimoon]

Afghanistan is a big worry for us, Central Asian neighbors. Analysts predict that Taliban will march into Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. They claim that Central Asian armies are no match to Taliban equipped with high tech US weapons.
I don’t believe that Talibs will invade their northern neighbors. They want to be legitimate in the eyes of the international community.

I am worried about long term consequences for us. Taliban victory means that China extends its arms around Central Asia. Pakistan military are Chinese vassals. Not Pakistani people, please don’t get offended! I am concerned that so called Islamic Emirate will become another asset of China who is responsible for brutalities against Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

Why would the Taliban attack any other country though? They haven't been interested in anything other than Afghanistan in the past. What's the rationale of those analysts?

 

[2mufc0]

Given that there were 40 nations who participated in Afghanistan, one would hope that no one posting from a western nation would consider their home a terrorist state.

This is a dumb statement on so many levels. Your posting has reached parody level in this thread.

 

[Raoul]

This is a dumb statement on so many levels. Your posting has reached parody level in this thread.

Feel free to refute it if you can.

 

[Zlatattack]

Somehow I remember you calling yourself a Kashmiri.

The two are one and the same. My parents are from IOK which is where we can trace our ancestory back hundreds of years. We escaped the RSS led genocide of the Muslims of Jammu in 1947 and settled in AJK.

 

[Raoul]

Why would the Taliban attack any other country though? They haven't been interested in anything other than Afghanistan in the past. What's the rationale of those analysts?

They wouldn't. They know they are on a very short leash with anything they outside Afghanistan.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

Why would the Taliban attack any other country though? They haven't been interested in anything other than Afghanistan in the past. What's the rationale of those analysts?

There is a long history of military incursions from Afghan territory into Tajikistan. Russia still keeps troops on Tajik border.
Radical groups infiltrated into Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan numerous times back in 1990s.
Those pundits and people who mindlessly repeat what the former happen to say always base their forecasts on the past.
Just a mass psychology phenomena, I believe. Look at the number of people at Cafe who say United is shit because we were not up to our own for several years.

 

[The Corinthian]

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.

I haven't said the mujahideen were Al-Qaeda though. Specifically, Operation Cyclone was a CIA effort to sustain the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Many of the members involved in the Mujahideen were the early members of the Taliban. Mullah Omar himself was a former member of the Mujahideen.

Although this is now slightly tangential, the idea that the US had no influence (albeit via ISI) in that period is wide of the mark.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I am worried about long term consequences for us. Taliban victory means that China extends its arms around Central Asia. Pakistan military are Chinese vassals. Not Pakistani people, please don’t get offended! I am concerned that so called Islamic Emirate will become another asset of China who is responsible for brutalities against Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

If it makes you feel any better, from what ive read china are also worried that this victory could stir up the muslims in their own nation, so it doesn't sound like they are exactly buddy buddies..

 

[shamans]

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.

I respect you vast knowledge on middle eastern affairs but I really can't help but think this is splitting hairs at this point. Academically, it might sound like these organizations are well defined boundaries but it doesn't always work like that in practicality.

For instance, maybe the name Al Qaeeda was slapped in 1988 but the ideology and birth of it was running from the mid 80's. Like I said, and as you would know, these organizations are constantly evolving, fragmenting and consolidating over thousands of moving parts.

In general, I don't think anyone is "wrong" to see the funding in the 80s was what gave rise to Taliban.

 

[shamans]

Afghanistan is a big worry for us, Central Asian neighbors. Analysts predict that Taliban will march into Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. They claim that Central Asian armies are no match to Taliban equipped with high tech US weapons.
I don’t believe that Talibs will invade their northern neighbors. They want to be legitimate in the eyes of the international community.

I am worried about long term consequences for us. Taliban victory means that China extends its arms around Central Asia. Pakistan military are Chinese vassals. Not Pakistani people, please don’t get offended! I am concerned that so called Islamic Emirate will become another asset of China who is responsible for brutalities against Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

I think China brutalizing muslims in XinJiang will happen regardless of any government and changing regime.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

If it makes you feel any better, from what ive read china are also worried that this victory could stir up the muslims in their own nation, so it doesn't sound like they are exactly buddy buddies..

No country is a “buddy buddy” to another. Everyone, even closest allies, has their own interests and secrets.

China invested a lot of money into Central Asia including Afghanistan.

I am worried that without US presence in the region China will buy our countries one by one. Corrupt and uneducated elites (former Communists, BTW) in all 5 Central Asian are already selling our lands for peanuts.

Pakistan is China’s ally. This is a much more serious argument than what you read about China probably being thousand miles away from the region.

 

[2cents]

I haven't said the mujahideen were Al-Qaeda though.

If you read back, the post I was disputing specifically referred to al Qaeda, not the mujahidin. You and that poster then jumped in to note US funding of the mujahidin in response.

Many of the members involved in the Mujahideen were the early members of the Taliban

I would say ‘some’ rather than ‘many’. None of the influential mujahidin joined the Taliban until Haqqani (late 90s), and Hekmatyar in a less formal sense after 9/11. Pretty much all of them fought the Taliban during the 90s. In any case, the Taliban were/are not al Qaeda either.

US involvement in funding the mujahidin certainly played a part in helping create the conditions for the emergence of both al Qaeda and the Taliban in later years. The US knowingly funded extremist guys like Haqqani and Hekmatyar who would later ally with both to a certain degree. And the US also facilitated the spread of Islamist-Jihadist propaganda during the Soviet War. Abdullah Azzam went on many speaking tours around the US during the 80s to attempt to increase volunteer recruitment for the jihad.

However, the specific claim I take issue with is that the US trained/funded/created al Qaeda and/or the Taliban, or some variant of it. For at least one reason I’ve already referred to, this kind of conflation can be extremely damaging.

 

[Sweet Square]

That’s par for the course in how the country’s people have been treated, Bethea said.

“If there’s any one thread throughout this whole venture, in my opinion, it is our limitless contempt for the Afghan people, who are some of the poorest and most victimized people on this entire planet,” Bethea said.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

I think China brutalizing muslims in XinJiang will happen regardless of any government and changing regime.

My point is that Chinais a major threat for Central Asian Muslim nations. Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang) is a part of broader Turkestan region which consist of 4 Central Asian nations. They will come after us one way or another.

If Taliban becomes another Chinese proxy in the region, China will vastly increase its influence in Central Asia.

FYI, China is already cutting our water supply building Dams on Irtysh and Ile rivers which millions of people rely on. They also aim to control Ladakh region with the same goal: control water.

 

[11101]

I'm willing to give them a chance to show they wish to be a proper government and recognised on the international stage, even if we don't agree with their beliefs. What's certain is that nobody else is in any way capable of ruling the country and after 20 years, thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars, we can't be trying again. Let's see if they are as good as their word. Plenty of other countries live by Sharia law reasonably peacefully. Its not ideal but I'm sure the people would take that over the shitshow they've had over the last two decades.

Plus, a militia simply does not sweep through a country as quickly and effectively as they have if the population is as dead set against them as the media is trying to tell us they are.

 

[ThatsGreat]

America should have withdrawn 10 years ago. Saved a lot of money for themselves.

 

[The Corinthian]

Taliban declares 'amnesty' in Afghanistan and urges women to join government

Enamullah Samangani, a member of the Taliban's cultural commission, said: "The Islamic Emirate doesn't want women to be victims.

"They should be in government structure according to Shariah law."

He added: "The structure of government is not fully clear, but based on experience, there should be a fully Islamic leadership and all sides should join."

https://news.sky.com/story/taliban-...n-and-urges-women-to-join-government-12383562

Taliban spokesman says U.S. will not be harmed from Afghan soil
"We don’t have any grudges," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a news conference in Kabul.

"I would like to assure the international community, including the U.S., that nobody will be harmed in Afghanistan," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a news conference in Kabul, according to an Al Jazeera translation. "You will not be harmed from our soil."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taliban-announces-amnesty-urges-women-join-government-n1276945

 

[shamans]

My point is that Chinais a major threat for Central Asian Muslim nations. Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang) is a part of broader Turkestan region which consist of 4 Central Asian nations. They will come after us one way or another.

If Taliban becomes another Chinese proxy in the region, China will vastly increase its influence in Central Asia.

FYI, China is already cutting our water supply building Dams on Irtysh and Ile rivers which millions of people rely on. They also aim to control Ladakh region with the same goal: control water.

But I don't think they need Afghanistan. Hoping for the best.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Taliban declares 'amnesty' in Afghanistan and urges women to join government


https://news.sky.com/story/taliban-...n-and-urges-women-to-join-government-12383562

Taliban spokesman says U.S. will not be harmed from Afghan soil
"We don’t have any grudges," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a news conference in Kabul.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taliban-announces-amnesty-urges-women-join-government-n1276945

Poor old Joe. Even the Taliban have better PR than him.

 

[entropy]

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

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.

I do remember that i described them as ' these mujahideen fighers ' and not Al Qaeda ? ( in that specific comment with the video). That post was directed to the posters who said that it was a 'myth' in regards to American support/fundings of a group of fighters during the Soviet Union threat as America called it.

Nonetheless, it's an an insightful comment you posted and i agree that its important to have more context discussing these type of geopolitical affairs and historical events.

Thank you for specifying this.

 

[The Corinthian]

If you read back, the post I was disputing specifically referred to al Qaeda, not the mujahidin. You and that poster then jumped in to note US funding of the mujahidin in response.

I would say ‘some’ rather than ‘many’. None of the influential mujahidin joined the Taliban until Haqqani (late 90s), and Hekmatyar in a less formal sense after 9/11. Pretty much all of them fought the Taliban during the 90s. In any case, the Taliban were/are not al Qaeda either.

US involvement in funding the mujahidin certainly played a part in helping create the conditions for the emergence of both al Qaeda and the Taliban in later years. The US knowingly funded extremist guys like Haqqani and Hekmatyar who would later ally with both to a certain degree. And the US also facilitated the spread of Islamist-Jihadist propaganda during the Soviet War. Abdullah Azzam went on many speaking tours around the US during the 80s to attempt to increase volunteer recruitment for the jihad.

However, the specific claim I take issue with is that the US trained/funded/created al Qaeda and/or the Taliban, or some variant of it. For at least one reason I’ve already referred to, this kind of conflation can be extremely damaging.

Let's be clear here - you wrote this:

There’s actually no evidence for it, and pretty much every serious scholar/journalist who has looked into it has rejected it.

Which insinuates there is no link at all, where a link between the US and the Mujahideen is undeniable.

You now concede in this post that US involvement with the Mujahideen played a part in the later formations of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which is my own understanding.

However, the specific claim I take issue with is that the US trained/funded/created al Qaeda and/or the Taliban, or some variant of it. For at least one reason I’ve already referred to, this kind of conflation can be extremely damaging.

Overall, I agree with what you're saying. The US funded the Mujahideen via the ISI, and I'd say it's pretty significant that Mullah Omar, the de facto creator/leader of the Taliban was a former Mujahid. And I know it's another minutiae to say 'some' as opposed to 'many' regarding how many of the Mujahid went onto form the Taliban, but the broader point to understand here is that there are clear links and lines between those groups specifically, and how the former has a relationship with the US.

 

[2cents]

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.

I didn’t say there was “no evidence” for the ‘Graveyard of Empires‘ cliche (I was referring to the other point). It’s not really a claim on historical truth, since as you concede it is easily refutable. Not only has Afghanistan been conquered by and successfully incorporated into many empires throughout the centuries, it has at times been the civilizational heart of these empires (esp. 15th century Timurid Empire with its capital in Herat)

The problem with the cliche is that it implies (by design or otherwise) that there is something unique about Afghanistan - its people and terrain - that make it especially hostile ground for imperial adventurism. As such, it contributes to the mystification of the country and clouds clear judgement. So, invading Afghanistan is not just wrong because, well, invading poor countries is generally wrong. But it is seen as wrong also because of the nature of Afghanistan itself, which is viewed as inherently tribal/xenophobic/fanatical, etc. and these images of the country then filter into our collective consciousness and ultimately help shape bad policies.

In fact there is no big mystery inherent to Afghanistan as to why the US and Soviets before them failed - they did so due to their own bad policies, which in turn were the product of imperial impulses inherent to each.

 

[edcunited1878]

America should have withdrawn 10 years ago. Saved a lot of money for themselves.

A handful of people/orgs wouldn't have made money and new careers....and Western (i.e. U.S.) media wouldn't have accepted a withdrawal so soon.

 

[VorZakone]

So...what's Pakistan's role now in all this? It seems they've been playing the US ? How else did the Taliban grow their power?

 

[Hamnat]

A handful of people/orgs wouldn't have made money and new careers....and Western (i.e. U.S.) media wouldn't have accepted a withdrawal so soon.

If accurate information on just how badly we were doing was presented that's all it would take to get public sentiment on board. But, obviously from the current events and how fast the Taliban took over it is crystal clear that the truth of how we were throwing money into a hole and there was never going to be "success" whether Biden passed it to yet another president or not.

The troubling scenes everyone is watching is sad and horrible to witness. But, this was a mistake decades in the making. And the Taliban were always going to get the country back from what we are seeing.

 

[MrMarcello]

A handful of people/orgs wouldn't have made money and new careers....and Western (i.e. U.S.) media wouldn't have accepted a withdrawal so soon.

They may have after OBL was eliminated.

 

[2cents]

Let's be clear here - you wrote this:

I’ll spell it out. @LazyRed-Ninja posted this:

Al-Qaeda were actually trained by American Intelligences during that Sovjet Union invasion

To which I responded:

There’s actually no evidence for it, and pretty much every serious scholar/journalist who has looked into it has rejected it.

So at this point we’re talking specifically about al Qaeda. You then told me I am wrong because clearly the US supported the mujahidin. Which in turn led me to assume you had conflated al Qaeda and the mujahidin and prompted my long post distinguishing them.

You now concede in this post that US involvement with the Mujahideen played a part in the later formations of the Taliban and Al Qaeda

This is not something I’ve just now conceded, see here, here, and here (towards the end) for old posts on this forum.

Again, the point I was disputing was very specifically related to the founding of al Qaeda.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

I’ll spell it out. @LazyRed-Ninja posted this:



To which I responded:



So at this point we’re talking specifically about al Qaeda. You then told me I am wrong because clearly the US supported the mujahidin. Which in turn led me to assume you had conflated al Qaeda and the mujahidin and prompted my long post distinguishing them.



This is not something I’ve just now conceded, see here, here, and here (towards the end) for old posts on this forum.

Again, the point I was disputing was very specifically related to the founding of al Qaeda.

I dont think its difficult to say that i stand corrected in using the wrong term. Ill correct the word Al Qaeda with mujahideen. The essence of the argument still stand in regards to supporting/funding a certain group of people for protection of interests. With the terms now corrected, do you still believe it was a myth?

 

[2cents]

I dont think its difficult to say that i stand corrected in using the wrong term. Ill correct the word Al Qaeda with mujahideen. The essence of the argument still stand sin regards to supporting/funding a certain group of people for protection of interests. With the terms now corrected, do you still believe it was a myth?

Not at all. As above, it is undeniable the US supported the mujahidin.

I know it seems pedantic, I just think the distinctions between different movements are important to understand.

 

[VorZakone]

Not at all. As above, it is undeniable the US supported the mujahidin.

I know it seems pedantic, I just think the distinctions between different movements are important to understand.

Not at all. These conflicts are highly complex with multiple groups involved. In order to understand it you have to know who's who.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Not at all. As above, it is undeniable the US supported the mujahidin.

I know it seems pedantic, I just think the distinctions between different movements are important to understand.

I agree! They are important to understand and simplifications could derail any conversation. Ill make sure for myself that i keep this in mind in conversations, as should any reasonable, rational individual should do.

 

[shamans]

Not at all. As above, it is undeniable the US supported the mujahidin.

I know it seems pedantic, I just think the distinctions between different movements are important to understand.

Difference is fine but I don't want people to think the Taliban would exist if the Mujahidin did not. I think you'd agree.

 

[edcunited1878]

If accurate information on just how badly we were doing was presented that's all it would take to get public sentiment on board. But, obviously from the current events and how fast the Taliban took over it is crystal clear that the truth of how we were throwing money into a hole and there was never going to be "success" whether Biden passed it to yet another president or not.

The troubling scenes everyone is watching is sad and horrible to witness. But, this was a mistake decades in the making. And the Taliban were always going to get the country back from what we are seeing.

Public sentiment in the U.S. is skewed because the agenda setters are all culpable. As in the media and government don't allow it to become mainstream and it takes a lot of effort and resources to make it the top news every single week.

Afghanistan was always going to fall and fall quickly. There have been a lot of insightful and clear comments about why and how this is happening within this thread.

Time is never on the side of the West and Americans when it comes to Afghanistan. The country and rigid beliefs, cultures, etc have withstood time and countless. It wasn't pointless in the beginning post-9/11, but to have any sustained impact and completely turnover a society was never going to happen. This was known since the beginning, yet it was persisted due to a wide variety of government/business/ideology interests.

 

[nickm]

think there’s something in that and if so, it’s incredibly destabilising.

 

[pratyush_utd]

 

[SirAF]

Help them where they are, the heartless bitch. Bringing that old platitude out even when confronted with this specific case where it obviously isn't going to work to just "help them where they are".

Good news is that they are set to have a disastrous election.

 

[VorZakone]

think there’s something in that and if so, it’s incredibly destabilising.

I doubt it. The Chinese ain't stupid. They know the US is shifting its resources towards them.

 

[VorZakone]

@2cents I just came across this r/worldnews comment The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet-Afghan war did it? Sure, some of the fighters later joined the Taliban but that's different.

Well technically Pakistan, India and the US have all supported militant groups. Pakistan supported the Afghan taliban under the orders of the US to fight against Russia, this is why Afghanistan hates Pakistan. India and Paksitan have both been funding terrorist groups in a sort of proxy war. The situation is quite complicated and there is a lot of bias on the topic, especially on reddit. No side is innocent here.