Do you tweet? I'd definitely follow you on twitter. You seem to know so much about history.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Do you tweet? I'd definitely follow you on twitter. You seem to know so much about history.
They most definitely have, but they weren't the only ones doing it, nor was that the only source of support for the Taliban. Loads of Taliban had govt jobs.
From LinkedIn posting here verbatim, because the site is a pain to navigate for most:
Is Afghanistan worth all this trouble to the United States? Here's the view from an Asian sage who was both wise and neutral.
A dozen years ago, journalist Charlie Rose asked Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew about the role of the United States in the Middle East. Lee made these points:
1. The United States can’t create an artificial country in Afghanistan. Lee said, “Trying to make a country out of Afghanistan is a distraction. There was no country for the last 30 or 40 years. They have just been fighting each other since the last King was chased out. How on earth are you going to put these little bits together? It’s not possible.”
2. Just because the US helped overthrow the Taliban, it didn't mean that the US had to govern Afghanistan. Lee said, “I’m not an expert. But in my simple mind, it strikes me that you won in Iraq and you won in Afghanistan not because you fought the Taliban, but because you got the Northern Alliance to fight them. You provided the Northern Alliance with intelligence and capabilities to bomb them.”
3. Rose then pointed out that the US had to stay on in Afghanistan, because the Afghans had problems governing themselves. Lee said, “That’s all right. That’s their problem. Why do you want to make it your problem?”
4. Afghanistan isn’t important, in the grand scheme of things. Lee said, “I see the imbroglio in Iraq and Afghanistan as distractions. It’s not going to change the world, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
5. So what is important? Lee said, “The main changes are taking place in China and India. It’s a watershed. The world order we knew was dominated by the Caucasian peoples. The 20th century was the American century. The first half of the 21st century will be the American. But I believe in the second half, they will have to share top places with China and India.”
Lee was interviewed while in the US. He was there because Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and others wanted to consult him. Many people wanted to hear from Lee because he was seen as an unbiased elder statesman. He would just tell it like it is, and never take sides with any superpower.
Lee’s non-partisan analysis was straightforward: the Afghanistan situation distracted the US from focusing on the real issue, which was the rise of China and India.
Lee said that the US was a “benign stabilizing force” in the world. But he also reminded them, “You can’t solve all the problems in the world.”
He reminded the US, "The 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific. That’s where the growth will be. If you cannot hold your ground in the Pacific, you cannot be a world leader."
Today, in the midst of the US pullout from Afghanistan, it’s sobering to reflect on Lee's thoughts. To Lee, this always had to happen: the US would have to leave, and allow Afghanistan to solve its own problems. There are more important issues to focus on.
Is Afghanistan worth all this trouble to the United States? Here's the view from an Asian sage who was both wise and neutral.
A dozen years ago, journalist Charlie Rose asked Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew about the role of the United States in the Middle East. Lee made these points:
1. The United States can’t create an artificial country in Afghanistan. Lee said, “Trying to make a country out of Afghanistan is a distraction. There was no country for the last 30 or 40 years. They have just been fighting each other since the last King was chased out. How on earth are you going to put these little bits together? It’s not possible.”
2. Just because the US helped overthrow the Taliban, it didn't mean that the US had to govern Afghanistan. Lee said, “I’m not an expert. But in my simple mind, it strikes me that you won in Iraq and you won in Afghanistan not because you fought the Taliban, but because you got the Northern Alliance to fight them. You provided the Northern Alliance with intelligence and capabilities to bomb them.”
3. Rose then pointed out that the US had to stay on in Afghanistan, because the Afghans had problems governing themselves. Lee said, “That’s all right. That’s their problem. Why do you want to make it your problem?”
4. Afghanistan isn’t important, in the grand scheme of things. Lee said, “I see the imbroglio in Iraq and Afghanistan as distractions. It’s not going to change the world, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
5. So what is important? Lee said, “The main changes are taking place in China and India. It’s a watershed. The world order we knew was dominated by the Caucasian peoples. The 20th century was the American century. The first half of the 21st century will be the American. But I believe in the second half, they will have to share top places with China and India.”
Lee was interviewed while in the US. He was there because Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and others wanted to consult him. Many people wanted to hear from Lee because he was seen as an unbiased elder statesman. He would just tell it like it is, and never take sides with any superpower.
Lee’s non-partisan analysis was straightforward: the Afghanistan situation distracted the US from focusing on the real issue, which was the rise of China and India.
Lee said that the US was a “benign stabilizing force” in the world. But he also reminded them, “You can’t solve all the problems in the world.”
He reminded the US, "The 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific. That’s where the growth will be. If you cannot hold your ground in the Pacific, you cannot be a world leader."
Today, in the midst of the US pullout from Afghanistan, it’s sobering to reflect on Lee's thoughts. To Lee, this always had to happen: the US would have to leave, and allow Afghanistan to solve its own problems. There are more important issues to focus on.
Yes you’re right. The Taliban emerged in the south around Kandahar in the early 90s after the Soviets had left and the communist government had fallen. One of their guiding impulses was reaction to the indiscriminate corruption and violence of the major mujahidin commanders who went to war with each other in 1992. The Taliban imposed a very harsh interpretation of the law, but it was at least applied relatively consistently/fairly, in contrast to the chaos of the civil war period.
I've watched all Charlie Rose interviews with Lee Kuan Yew. Lee is one of the most interesting people I've ever listened to and I remember those Afghanistan-related bits indeed.
How was the Taliban formed?
The group was formed in the early 1990s by Afghan mujahideen, or Islamic guerilla fighters, who had resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979–89) with the covert backing of the CIA and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI). They were joined by younger Pashtun tribesmen who studied in Pakistani madrassas, or seminaries; taliban is Pashto for “students.” Pashtuns comprise a plurality in Afghanistan and are the predominant ethnic group in much of the country’s south and east. They are also a major ethnic group in Pakistan’s north and west.
Full article: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
why, would it be a form of wrongthink?
What resources, in the sense that the US could realistically deny Chinese objectives in china’s backyard? elements in China will see this as a retreat, or weakness and I think that gives them even more confidence the US wouldn’t engage / could be dissuaded in the event they chose to take Taiwan. There’s reportedly an influential element in China that thought that even before the Afghan abandonment and I think this strengthens their hand. Not saying they are right, only growing in influence.
Last edited:
Resources in the sense that I'm expecting the US to put more ships into the Pacific and focus on containing Chinese expansion and possibly working together with India in that regard.
The Chinese are under no illusion here. They recognize America's military strength and I assume they would have preferred the Americans to remain bogged down in Afghanistan. I don't think the withdrawal made Chinese think less of America at all. Quite the contrary, I think they're sensing that the rivalry with America will now enter a more intense phase of competition now that the Americans are out of Afghanistan.
Simplistic point. A botched withdrawal is not indicative of offensive capability, which has been demonstrated multiple times.
As soon as the news cycle moves on, things will get much worse in Kabul. Something we've witnessed is that the Taliban can be patient.
Meant to quote this one, sorry.
Last edited:
This dude is simping way beyond his peanut sized brain can carry a thought process. The US fought and tried to forge an ally out of disjointed tribesmen, invested heavily into them and finally left ground when it realized they are fighting an ally's war instead of with them. If that isn't commitment to a cause, I don't know what else could be.
Now the US has freed up all its resources from the Central Asia/Middle East wars and it can redeploy to assist allies in Japan, Korea and even Philippines. If the US had one eye on China until now, its going to get its full attention soon. They'll be a lot more wary than they'd be encouraged at any perceived incompetence.
Talking about "learning from mistakes" etc. Not even one month out of Afghanistan they're already talking about "China"
And people complain why the US never learn from history.
Last edited:
Thread
The harvest reaped was the creation of Al-Qaeda, ISI which in turn created people who caused 9/11 and other terrorist atrocities around the world. This then created a mass upswing in right-wingers and hawks around the world.
He does seem to speak some sense occasionally and is not embarrassed to accept the mistakes of his country.
Donald Trump called the decision to go into Afghanistan the "worst decision in the history of our country".
"We've destroyed the Middle East... it cost us trillions of dollars, millions of lives and it's no different than it was - it's much worse because you have to rebuild it, it's been blown to pieces," he said.
"To get stuck in there was like quicksand."
Courtesy of BBC
I think we're agreeing and getting our wires crossed. I never mentioned Al Qaeda, and my initial post was centred around the Muhahideen specifically, but you were talking about Al Qaeda.
Fully agree that distinctions need to be made, as you have a few yahoos in this thread who are just throwing around blanket terms, and failing to understand different groups.
Watching the parliament debate on this. It's weird the way they laugh and joke and try to wind each other up like they're in school while talking about something so serious.
Yes, this seems to be the way its going. 'clearing the decks' seems to be what the US is about, in time for its next round of 'interventions' to commence, and you are right Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines all look as if they could all be on the next US schedule, for one reason or another.
Unlike Empire builders elsewhere, e.g. in Europe (historically) the US tends not to try to take over countries, but just to 'fight fires' in them (or sometimes) to 'start fires' in them, then to 'nudge' things along a particular path they want the country to take. They have probably been the most successful at this when they don't have to land massed troops, anywhere, but can manipulate 'insurgencies' from a distance.
After WW2. whenever the US have had to, or tried to, 'send in the troops', whether it be in Cuba... Vietnam... Iraq... etc right through to Afghanistan, they have ultimately failed, sometimes this has been because of what was termed as 'mission creep' but the most likely consequence has been that the US has never entered these countries with the intention to conquer. Hence the people they are fighting know this and also know that if they can stick out long enough and give the 'yankee a bloody nose' etc. then sooner or later they will pack up and go home.
This is the lesson from history, the US seems unable to learn.
Last edited:
Why am I seeing clips of the Taliban riding dodgems and bouncing on trampolines? It's bizarre.
US is retooling to counter near peers, these regional conflicts direct interventions will reduce greatly.
@2cents I just came across this r/worldnews commentThe Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet-Afghan war did it? Sure, some of the fighters later joined the Taliban but that's different.
No.
@The Corinthian Blaming the US for the rise of the taliban is a big and unlikely stretch. Of course there was consequences for supporting Pakistan and funding the ISI, but the majority blame falls no further than Pakistan.
What are you on about? If you're going to tag me and make something up, you should at least quote the post where I've supposedly said it.
So - where have I said it's the US to blame for the rise of the Taliban?
After watching VICE News Monday evening and last night...
It's crystal clear that President Biden has been lying about the Afghan Military. As VICE reporter Ben Solomon described his experience in southern Afghanistan in Kandahar. He describes a sudden and overwhelming Taliban force outnumbering the Afghan military by more than two to one. Ben Solomon was with the Zero Three elite Afghan unit. "The Afghan military decided there would be a truce." before they were overrun
It's not as Biden described of a 'lack of will to fight' Ben says they it was a few hundred Afghan soldiers who were worn down due to being hungry and out gunned.
Joe Biden has an extensive history of being a liar. Yet, I'm shocked that he's being dishonest about the situation in Afghanistan, as estimated 15,000 American citizens are now stuck in this mess with little chance of making it to the airports as the Taliban have been turning everyone away
It's crystal clear that President Biden has been lying about the Afghan Military. As VICE reporter Ben Solomon described his experience in southern Afghanistan in Kandahar. He describes a sudden and overwhelming Taliban force outnumbering the Afghan military by more than two to one. Ben Solomon was with the Zero Three elite Afghan unit. "The Afghan military decided there would be a truce." before they were overrun
It's not as Biden described of a 'lack of will to fight' Ben says they it was a few hundred Afghan soldiers who were worn down due to being hungry and out gunned.
Joe Biden has an extensive history of being a liar. Yet, I'm shocked that he's being dishonest about the situation in Afghanistan, as estimated 15,000 American citizens are now stuck in this mess with little chance of making it to the airports as the Taliban have been turning everyone away
Last edited:
I took that as Ben pushing back against Biden's comment to show respect to the men he saw putting their lives on the line on a daily basis, who obviously had the will to fight. There obviously just wern't enough with that will.
When you're in the military and your commander says, 'Stand Down!' because they're vastly outnumbered - It's quite a different scenario of the suggestion that the men preferred going to chill at home. I think that's a better context of what Solomon had been describing
I'm trying to image what it might feel like to be an American stranded many miles from the Kabul airport. Then I'm thinking, who of the US allies in the future will think twice about hitching up to a country that runs such a shit show. I mean, the US media won't even entertain the thought of the consequences of the foreign relations nightmare that is unfolding before our eyes. Has the European press begun talking about how this makes the US look and how it will effect relationships going forward?
Just stop and imagine having been the been the US Democrat ranking minority/majority Senate Foreign Relations Committee leading member for 28 years and choosing to take on this insane foreign relations dumpster fire that will see repercussions for generations to come
I'm finding it difficult to admire Biden for taking this on by becoming President
Last edited:
And yet today we have a South Korean political leader saying the US needs to speed up handing over control of Korean armed forces because they increasingly doubt US commitments to its allies.
Last edited:
You mean all those ships currently anchored in Afghanistan? The US wasn't bogged down in Afghanistan, they had like 4k troops there last year.
Probably a trite observation, but it feels like every major foreign policy decision the UK makes is doomed to fail because the parties leading the debate are more concerned with defending their past actions and/or their general ideologies than addressing the issues at hand. The Labour establishment take on the current situation is basically a defence of the initial decision to get involved and of the ideology of liberal interventionism that characterised the last Labour government: "This proves we were right to be there and wrong to pull troops out". The Tory takes span from the above from one wing to extreme isolationist arguments: "Not our business, not our problem" on the other. Neither group has any interest in learning any lessons from the above, actually trying to work out what the best thing for Afghanis is, or engaging in anything that might approach critical self-reflection.
As seems to happen a lot in British politics, both are largely concerned with shutting out any prospect of accepting criticism from the left, whose arguments against intervention in the first place and for a greater focus on holistic aid/development to build a more robust state in the years since the invasion (as opposed to primarily military aid) now seem very common sense. But, frankly, the left are no closer to having a satisfying and/or workable solution to the current situation than anyone else (beyond accepting some responsibility, stepping up in terms of accepting refugees and learning from our mistakes). The calls to increase aid now are well-intentioned, but it remains to be seen whether the delivery of any aid, never mind the sort of targeted development aid that can make a long-term difference is possible under the Taliban (i.e - will they allow the delivery of aid which goes against their ideology, e.g - efforts to increase levels of education and societal inclusion amongst women? will they simply appropriate any resources intended to fund specific aid programmes?). But then, whilst it's not a perfect solution, surely it's better than leaving Afghanistan to rot, or going back in with troops?
As seems to happen a lot in British politics, both are largely concerned with shutting out any prospect of accepting criticism from the left, whose arguments against intervention in the first place and for a greater focus on holistic aid/development to build a more robust state in the years since the invasion (as opposed to primarily military aid) now seem very common sense. But, frankly, the left are no closer to having a satisfying and/or workable solution to the current situation than anyone else (beyond accepting some responsibility, stepping up in terms of accepting refugees and learning from our mistakes). The calls to increase aid now are well-intentioned, but it remains to be seen whether the delivery of any aid, never mind the sort of targeted development aid that can make a long-term difference is possible under the Taliban (i.e - will they allow the delivery of aid which goes against their ideology, e.g - efforts to increase levels of education and societal inclusion amongst women? will they simply appropriate any resources intended to fund specific aid programmes?). But then, whilst it's not a perfect solution, surely it's better than leaving Afghanistan to rot, or going back in with troops?
I am actually surprised that US still has direct control over the DMZ ROKA groups.
That feels like an elementary formality that should be done anyways, with or without Afghanistan.