It's the reason cited that's worth noting. If allies are losing confidence, it stands to reason adversaries are gaining it.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Its also echo chamber drivel given that the market itself has grown significantly over the past 20 years. Rising tides lift all boats and all that.
Didn't realise it was actually this few, 4k is literally nothing for a force that is supposed to 'occupy' a country so large. Looking at the figures, Obama seemingly withdrew the US between 2012 and 2014. Less than 10,000 there since 2015. I'm now wondering what took the Taliban so long.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...f-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-since-2001/
The US only needs a couple of thousand troops in country to keep it a largely frozen conflict due to the technology they have at their disposal. It took the Taliban "this long" because they knew they couldn't win while the US was still actively fighting them in country. Once Biden declared he wanted troops out by 9/11, both the Taliban and Afghan Army took that as a bat signal to behave accordingly.
Last edited:
If anything the reason cited would lean towards America losing confidence in Korea's battle preparedness. The politician there seems to want to seize control while citing Afghanistan security forces as an example, the same force that when left to its own vices showed no spine to fight when called to action.
If Biden tomorrow called up the South Korean president and said we're pulling out of the Korean Peninsula, that would be a bigger cause for worry for them.
Deploying ships costs money. I assume that full departure from Afghanistan means more budget to use for activities near China.
This is probably going to be a problem going forward since the Taliban don't have a strong centralized chain of command who are in control of all their forces, which means they are probably going to be more well behaved in and around Kabul, but far less so in other cities with less of a media presence.
That map is incorrect. There are no foreign bases in Norway. The current government is trying to get around that stated policy, but certainly by 2015 it was not the case.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.
Yikes “showed no spine” - that’s… a super bad take by itself, Mr keyboard warrior, given how many have died, let alone the bit about how Starmer forces aren’t battle ready yet after 70 years of being under US leadership.
Major factor [in rise of Omar/Taliban] was that he was Ishaqzai Durrani, and that he had connection to HIG former commanders as well as HIK and Bin Laden funding. Second major factor was he petitioned ISI leadership to be in position once they ditched Hekmatyar. Durrani tribes had been forever annoyed, leadership was fragmented, and there had been no Durrani in play. (For the first time since the 18th century)
What are the 'clear links and lines' between "those groups" (Not even sure if you mean the P7 or the internal resistance, because ya know, it matters) and their relationship with the US? Can you quantify in any way how US funding assisted their rise, either pre 1990 when the soviets were there, pre 94, when the ISI supported Hekmatyar, or post 94, when US funding was more direct?
There's little to no evidence that the US policy ever funded them or alligned groups.
What are you on about? South Korea is a stable democracy that has rebuilt itself to be a higher order economy since the Korean War. If they have to take command of their forces tomorrow, they have adequate income to support themselves and a coherent political as well as military leadership to coordinate a response in the face of attack. More importantly, their threats are external and not a civil war.
Well done for a lack of basic comprehension. Let me make it crystal clear for you.
There is a clear link & line between the Mujahideen & Taliban, seeing as many former Mujahids were part of the Taliban, as well as, 'ya know', Mullah Omar.
US funded (via the ISI), the Mujahideen.
That's not a link. No causation whatsoever. It's like saying there's a link between Madrasah's and the Taliban, as many former Madrasah students were part of the Taliban, as well as 'ya know' Mullah Omar.
Not really. The vast majority of their funding went to specific factions (aka Hekmatyar) as I covered before. Again, zero causation.
It's not my fault that you don't understand late 20th century Afghan history, and there's no need to attempt to be condescending.
There's little to no link between the rise of the Taliban and the US funding of Mujuhadin, no matter how many times you wish it.
No, you're wrong here. Many/some of the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets in the late 80s were part of the Taliban in the early 90s. There's a clear link between the two groups by, 'ya know' the people actually in the group. And, 'ya know', it matters that Mullah Omar was a former Mujahid too.
Again, you're wrong. Look up Operation Cyclone. It's the US's efforts to sustain the fight for the Mujahideen against the Soviets. This was done through ISI.
Again, you're totally missing the point, and misrepresenting what I said.
The rise of the Taliban is due different factors. Saying that it was comprised of Mujahids does not mean that the US 'funded' or gave rise to it. Again, that's something I haven't said.
There's a clear link between the two groups, just as I'd say there's a clear link between the Mujahideen and other groups between 1992-1996.
Interesting media development in today's cable news reporting, none of the channels are talking about the 15,000 Americans in Afghanistan.
Rather almost all the discussion on the news is about the up to 100,000 Afghans that worked with American forces/contractors and their families. Both groups of people are worth worrying about, but it's odd that there's nearly nothing about stranded Americans. CNN even had (D) Rep. Panetta of Monterey CA on for an interview, this morning. I expected he would mention the Americans stuck there, but nope. He's sticking to the script. But I'm sure the Americans stuck in this mess will be comforted in that congressman Rep Panetta plans on having hearings on the massive failure of the Biden Admin to keep their people safe.
Rather almost all the discussion on the news is about the up to 100,000 Afghans that worked with American forces/contractors and their families. Both groups of people are worth worrying about, but it's odd that there's nearly nothing about stranded Americans. CNN even had (D) Rep. Panetta of Monterey CA on for an interview, this morning. I expected he would mention the Americans stuck there, but nope. He's sticking to the script. But I'm sure the Americans stuck in this mess will be comforted in that congressman Rep Panetta plans on having hearings on the massive failure of the Biden Admin to keep their people safe.
As more and more reporting comes out, it feels like the Afghan military was no more than Ghani’s Ponzi scheme of enriching himself off of US dollars. Apparently he was implored to pull forces to the capital and prepare for a seize on Kabul and yet he declined. It makes sense if in reality there were no more than 30k at best instead of the 300k Biden kept claiming.
The US decided to handover the country to the Taliban in Feb - they didn't even involve the Afghan govt in the decision. And you think this was about "spine"? They've taken 66,000 deaths fighting against the Taliban. The Afghan army did the only sensible thing anyone would do, and not continue to fight the people the US handed them over to.
Last edited:
Why/how did this work in the past?
At least on the face of it, nothing would stop the Taliban to go there with a big Toyota convoy and take the valley? The terrain doesn't seem that special compared to other areas of Afghanistan. It also doesn't border any neighboring country. What am I missing?
Stock value aside there is much truth in the war racket. A former US general officer (and Medal of Honor recipient) wrote a book about it - in 1935.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
You're the one who said, "If anything the reason cited would lean towards America losing confidence in Korea's battle preparedness." If America really didn't have confidence in forces it'd led for 70 years (!), that would be another terrible indictment of American leadership - what on earth have they been doing for 7 decades? Which I don't believe - much more likely elements in SK are nervous, as the article implies, about putting their armies in the hands of what looks (to them) like an unreliable commander.
Last edited:
So, I just got off the phone with one of my DC journalist colleagues who at the age 19 had been a US Marine caught up in the uprising and takeover of Iran. For the first time he explained his whole experience in great detail. He was one of the lucky ones that got airlifted out several months after the shift of power. He explained to me that if you weren't with the group that got out during the one day airlift, you were stuck. Besides the 52 American hostages, there were thousands that got stranded.
At what point will the US or international media start drawing parallels with the current situation in Afghanistan with what happened in Iran which began Nov 4, 1979 - Ironically just as Senator Joe Biden became (D) Minority Leader of the Foreign Relations Committee. I keep stressing this point about Biden, only because it would seem with his experience, he should have known better than to underestimate the Taliban
At what point will the US or international media start drawing parallels with the current situation in Afghanistan with what happened in Iran which began Nov 4, 1979 - Ironically just as Senator Joe Biden became (D) Minority Leader of the Foreign Relations Committee. I keep stressing this point about Biden, only because it would seem with his experience, he should have known better than to underestimate the Taliban
And this in from Taiwan:
"Afghanistan’s return to Taliban rule following the withdrawal of US forces shows that Taiwan needs to be “stronger and more united” in ensuring its own defense, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said yesterday.
The sudden departure of US troops from Kabul has sparked discussion in Taiwan as to whether Washington can be relied upon to come to Taipei’s defense.
“Recent changes in the situation in Afghanistan have led to much discussion in Taiwan,” Tsai wrote on Facebook. “I want to tell everyone that Taiwan’s only option is to make ourselves stronger, more united and more resolute in our determination to protect ourselves.”
“It’s not an option for us to do nothing ... and just to rely on other people’s protection,” she wrote.
...
Max Baucus, a former US ambassador to Beijing, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) might be emboldened to test the US over Taiwan.
“The development in Afghanistan is going to cause Xi Jinping to probe a little bit,” Baucus said. “He’s going to test to see the degree to which we are going to stand up for Taiwan.”
"Afghanistan’s return to Taliban rule following the withdrawal of US forces shows that Taiwan needs to be “stronger and more united” in ensuring its own defense, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said yesterday.
The sudden departure of US troops from Kabul has sparked discussion in Taiwan as to whether Washington can be relied upon to come to Taipei’s defense.
“Recent changes in the situation in Afghanistan have led to much discussion in Taiwan,” Tsai wrote on Facebook. “I want to tell everyone that Taiwan’s only option is to make ourselves stronger, more united and more resolute in our determination to protect ourselves.”
“It’s not an option for us to do nothing ... and just to rely on other people’s protection,” she wrote.
...
Max Baucus, a former US ambassador to Beijing, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) might be emboldened to test the US over Taiwan.
“The development in Afghanistan is going to cause Xi Jinping to probe a little bit,” Baucus said. “He’s going to test to see the degree to which we are going to stand up for Taiwan.”
I think @Owlo’s point was that the bulk of US funding went (via the ISI) to Hekmatyar’s outfit. There were six other Peshawar based groups also eligible for this funding, but Hekmatyar was Pakistan’s favorite.
I’m not aware of any evidence that any original Taliban founders fought with any of the Peshawar Seven, although certainly open to correction on that. My impression has always been that they were insignificant fighters with a very localized area of operation around Kandahar. Whether or not US funding reached them in some way there is probably impossible to prove one way or the other. As far as I know very little is known for sure about Mullah Omar’s life before the Taliban emerged. I’d imagine much of the gap in our knowledge has been filled by Taliban hagiography, which by its nature is unreliable. Again though, open to correction on this since it’s a long time since I went over this stuff and perhaps more information has emerged in recent years?
Topography. It’s not that easy to get there unless you’re flying.
Update: At around 2pm EDT CNN have begun talking about the stranded US citizens left behind in Afghanistan. They're saying 325 of the up to 15,000 Americans that have gotten onto the 18 planes that left Kabul since yesterday.
The Pentagon to have a press conference on the evacuation, soon
The Pentagon to have a press conference on the evacuation, soon
[As I see it]
Yep, the ISI mission was essentially to install HIG as dictators/puppet. They were extremely angry in 92 when it didn't happen. Already by 1990 many Pashtun tribes were getting angry, and there was a lot of anger about a lack of Durrani leadership in the P7. Meanwhile military commanders like Massoud (who you can call the 'internal resistance' were largely marginalized up to that point as he was represented by Rabbani in the P7, but on the ground was largely autonomous.) The fragmentation in the 90s was along normal lines (though an idea of Afghan national unity still existed, just in infancy) - Once Hekmatyar was sidelined, there was an even bigger vacuum of political leadership, and it needed to come from one of the dominant Durrani tribes. In 1990 I believe Massoud had been identified by the US etc, but deemed 'too young' along with a host of other ethnic stuff. In 94 when they kicked Hekmatyar to the curb, Omar ticked the right boxes for the ISI. The right tribe, the right family, links to the Bin Ladens, and a former association with HIS and HIG which he could draw 'mentors'/support from and easily 'legitimately' take over their networks.
Important to note also, around 10 other countries had been playing politics mostly to deliberately fragment and sow hostility within the various Afghan functions. This had furthered the crisis of legitimacy that any one faction may have had.
If I had to make a contention, I'd say as follows (and yes it's quite bold and controversial) : In 1994 neither the Mujuhadin nor US funding in the 90's (direct internal conflict) significantly contributed to the rise of the Taliban. Rather the politics with Pakistan and allowing others to dictate the play, as well as refusal to directly deal with internal resistance fragmented the field to the point that a new Durrani forged faction was inevitable.
I mentioned that Ahmad had reconstituted the UF along with Afghan special forces, South African mercenaries, and other interested parties a couple of days ago. I think I also said that the son is not the father. We shall see what comes of it.
That and that the Taliban are not exactly 'in control' of such regions. Nominally perhaps, but not effectively. They'd see them coming miles and miles off.
Huge respect for Matt Zeller of 'No One Left Behind
He's describing how he's heading a 'Digital Dunkirk' with veterans to get people out. Zeller is also saying that the Taliban are taking and destroying American citizen passports at checkpoints.
Matt Zeller is irate over how CNN has given the former Trump advisor Steven Miller airtime, calling it irresponsible.
He's describing how he's heading a 'Digital Dunkirk' with veterans to get people out. Zeller is also saying that the Taliban are taking and destroying American citizen passports at checkpoints.
Matt Zeller is irate over how CNN has given the former Trump advisor Steven Miller airtime, calling it irresponsible.
FFS, CNN might as well give Kayleigh McEnany and Jason "Cartman" Miller airtime at that rate.
Just heard this, not sure how much truth in it "In 1996 when the Taliban first took Kabul, they declared they are not looking for revenge, they offered amnesty for anyone working for the Goverment. They then behind the scences abducted the former president, castrated him, dragged his body through the streets then suspended his body from a lampost for all to see".
Would explain why today's former president is in UAE
General Mark Milley the US Joint Chiefs Chairman is likely to lose his job over all this situation in Afghanistan. In the press conference a few minutes ago he's claiming that the area around the Kabul airport is stable.
Everything being reported out of Kabul has been completely contrary to any concept of stability
Everything being reported out of Kabul has been completely contrary to any concept of stability
There's a difference between area around airport and Kabul as a whole. Obviously the rest of the city is in big trouble. Not an American problem anymore though, which is why nothing will happen to Milley.
The problem with the US in Afghanistan was always that Bush and his stupid neo con friends thought they could perform nation building in a geographic area that has not had stable, centralized governance arguably in all of recorded history. Those same clowns are now all over the news arguing that the US should have maintained an indefinite troop presence. Obama was cowardly in ceding control to his generals and should have left the country after OBL was eliminated.
I'm glad that people in this thread are rightfully pointing the blame of the Taliban's strength to ISI. The worst part of the US policy was treating Pakistan as an ally, when the latter had the opposite goal for AFGs future.
I think the dirty truth is that Biden knew that the Taliban would win and the country would go down the drain, he just thought in terms of weeks instead of days and thought he would have time to extricate the US before everything fell apart. Clearly he was wrong. Ultimately, in the long run there is no political will in the US to aid every Afghan citizen who wants to leave, unless the Taliban attack US forces or terrorist attacks occur, that would change this quickly.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin saying US troops will not be leaving the airport perimeter to do rescue missions to save anyone.
Taiwan is different as there's a lot more money involved in that situation (commerce in South China Sea). No way US cedes control there without making China pay a high military price. The only way AFG becomes as important is if terrorism exported from AFG can't be kept suppressed with drone strikes.
I agree, but I think that has been known since the Obama years at least.