Absolutely, which is why I think Obama was cowardly in his approach (not saying he was a coward as it took balls to authorize the OBL raid in the heart of Pakistan) or, if not cowardly, too relaxed to let the generals dictate policy.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
Absolutely, which is why I think Obama was cowardly in his approach (not saying he was a coward as it took balls to authorize the OBL raid in the heart of Pakistan) or, if not cowardly, too relaxed to let the generals dictate policy.
As predicted, members of the UK parliament have attacked PM Johnson on supporting US military endeavors in the past and going forward
This is getting ugly real fast
This is getting ugly real fast
Just to correct myself here:
Been going back through Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban, and he writes that two of the Peshawar Seven were dominant around Kandahar - the Khalis faction of Hezb-i Islami (as distinct from Hekmatyar’s faction) and Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami. Mullah Omar fought with the former while his deputy Mullah Hassan fought with the latter. The area, however, was considered far less important than the areas to the East and north of Kabul, and so received far less ISI support during the jihad.
Been going back through Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban, and he writes that two of the Peshawar Seven were dominant around Kandahar - the Khalis faction of Hezb-i Islami (as distinct from Hekmatyar’s faction) and Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami. Mullah Omar fought with the former while his deputy Mullah Hassan fought with the latter. The area, however, was considered far less important than the areas to the East and north of Kabul, and so received far less ISI support during the jihad.
Do we know what the better approach was? Obama began the exit when he got OBL, reducing troop numbers from 100k to 10k, basically handing the country back to the Afghans, just seems like the Afghans never stepped up, or just the right people wern't in place?
Then is Biden the brave one? As he says, "The buck stops with me, I won't pass this problem on to another president", fair enough.
Well that's what happens when you put Pakistan's enemies in Afghanistan.
We burnt our bridges with the Taliban when we supported the Americans post 911. Pakistan even captured and handed over senior Taliban leadership.
What did we get in return? A hostile Afghan government who hosted Indian spies and worked with them to facilitate terrorism in Pakistan. Meanwhile NATO turned a blind eye. On top of it NATO failed to secure the Afghan border and bombed Pakistani territory.
If Pakistan can build a fence along the entire Afghan border - why couldn't NATO in 20 years and with 7 trillion dollars? The answer is because they didn't want to piss of the Afghans who don't recognise the border as legitimate.
So Pakistan did what Pakistan does best - play dirty.
This. It is so easy to point the blame on ISI when Pakistan suffered the most casualties, damage to economy in the region - whilst also giving millions of refugees from Afghanistan, a place to live.
The Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan literally butchered school children in Pakistan but there was no sympathy or cooperation from the Afghan government.
One sided picture and even absolving US of all the blame again shows that Pakistan has always been left alone to deal with the massive mess in the region.
Also, ISI would never had the money to train the mujahideen if not for the US - but sure let’s single out Pakistan.
Sorry, but the fingers of blame first and foremost should be pointed towards the US. They've messed up and it's about time you took the blame than point fingers at others. The "others" will take advantage of the US's incompetence.
Donald Trump called the decision to go into Afghanistan the "worst decision in the history of our country".
@2cents
Setting aside the debate about how direct CIA/ISI* support for the Taliban was, would it be right to say:
The US, through Pakistan, provided arms and money to fighters looking to free their land from godless foreign communists on religious grounds. Many of these fighters were trained in madrasas funded/operated by the ISI/Saudis.
My point being, the Talibani takeover is a direct outcome of US/Pakistani actions. Not in the sense of blowback (so, the Talibani takeover could be the result of Soviet invasion if you consider that angle), but in the sense that they were supporting warriors motivated by religion, including very fundamentalist strains of religion, to drive out the communists. And the ultimately victorious flavour was the Taliban rather than the others.
*and China, reliably the worst foreign policy of all time
Setting aside the debate about how direct CIA/ISI* support for the Taliban was, would it be right to say:
The US, through Pakistan, provided arms and money to fighters looking to free their land from godless foreign communists on religious grounds. Many of these fighters were trained in madrasas funded/operated by the ISI/Saudis.
My point being, the Talibani takeover is a direct outcome of US/Pakistani actions. Not in the sense of blowback (so, the Talibani takeover could be the result of Soviet invasion if you consider that angle), but in the sense that they were supporting warriors motivated by religion, including very fundamentalist strains of religion, to drive out the communists. And the ultimately victorious flavour was the Taliban rather than the others.
*and China, reliably the worst foreign policy of all time
Yes I’d pretty much agree. The US played a part in creating the conditions in Afghanistan which ultimately produced the Taliban. This went beyond mere funding for unsavory mujahidin and facilitation of/support for their propaganda and recruitment drives - see this for example (the whole thread is excellent btw):
I do think it would be troublesome to find an argument to propose that America's Afghan policy has been a success. On the contrary, analysts have described it as a 'page of shame'. Two decades of 'invasion', the longest war in America's history. 2300 American soldiers, killed, 20.000+ wounded and more then 2.26 trillion spent. On the Afghan side 80-100k+ civilian causalities, millions of refugees and political/economical destabilization.
As Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said:
“This is an intelligence failure of the highest order,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Monday, adding that it’s the “biggest intelligence failure” since the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, a campaign of devastating surprise attacks on the U.S. and its allies in 1968. ''
Dr Latif Pedram, Leader of the National Congress Party (NCP) of Afghanistan said:
"The faces of American imperialism, and postmodern-colonialism, hidden beneath American democracy and human rights, were revealed. People's frustration with what is called American democracy and human rights is another part of American legacy in Afghanistan."
Its a reasonable question to propose, what exactly has been gained in the pretext of the 'war on terror? rather, then a failed policy.
As Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said:
“This is an intelligence failure of the highest order,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Monday, adding that it’s the “biggest intelligence failure” since the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, a campaign of devastating surprise attacks on the U.S. and its allies in 1968. ''
Dr Latif Pedram, Leader of the National Congress Party (NCP) of Afghanistan said:
"The faces of American imperialism, and postmodern-colonialism, hidden beneath American democracy and human rights, were revealed. People's frustration with what is called American democracy and human rights is another part of American legacy in Afghanistan."
Its a reasonable question to propose, what exactly has been gained in the pretext of the 'war on terror? rather, then a failed policy.
Trump is probably the worst person to quote, much less get behind, if you’re seeking to gain credibility in any debate.
Pakistan supported The Taliban initially. Yes then later with the US bombings they turned against Pakistan. It's a very difficult situation for them as the Americans threatened Pakistan very strongly. They suffered a lot due to this. They should have never got involved with Afghanistan when the soviets came in.
LIC for Afghanistan under the Reagan doctrine specifically stated that it wasn't concerned with values/character - It wanted the best guerillas. (Unlike in say Angola where it tried its hand at nation building)
That thread is hard to be credible when the first post I see says :
"@aaolomi
After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union the various factions of the mujahideen turned on one another, even go so far as shelling Kabul."
Edit: though i think we generally disagree on causation anyway.
tks!
I wonder if Bhutto had not been ousted in a coup and executed by Zia, the situation in Afghanistan would be still the same as today?
How much of the Afghan population is actually aware of all the ins & outs of the war? Some people didn't know what 9/11 was and some thought the Americans were the Soviets again who had returned.
Really makes you wonder if the foot soldiers even know what an embassy is.
Really makes you wonder if the foot soldiers even know what an embassy is.
He was the POTUS right up to a few months back and was voted in democratically. If he is or was so bad this reflects badly on the majority of American voters for voting him in office. He would also have had knowledge of the situation to have ordered a pull-out prior to his exit as POTUS. President Biden also considered this adventure mistake and pulled out.
I'm not sure why people are embarrassed to accept responsibility for the failures of our voted representatives.
Last edited:
If Pakistan supported the Taliban or the Mujahideen it had to be by the orders of the US. If you don't abide by their orders it's sanctions, aid cuts and more. Let's accept the US are our superiors at this moment in time and most of the world has to carry out their mandate more so the poorer nations.
pretty sure he got less votes than clinton... FPTP strikes again (in 2016 there was 55.8% turnout and 46.1% of votes went to trump so 25.68% of Americans (above the voting age) voted for him .... lets say 1 in 4 so not really a majority)
Last edited:
US policy had been a right mess but please stop giving Pakistan such an easy pass on this. I will also categorically say that if India has meddled, that should be strongly condemned. Every idiot is culpable in this mess. (I have added the india caveat because I don't want people to think I'm criticizing Pakistan because I'm Indian by birth)
No need to concede any point vis a vis India. There is no credible evidence that India promoted "terrorism" against Pak interests in AFG. It's all fake news and propaganda spread by ISI and lapped up by their madrassa-educated populace. All of the South Asian terrorism in actuality emanates from Pakistan and one of the major outcomes from this war is that most of the world now recognizes this, further cementing Pakistan's status as a pariah bordering on failed state.
I find it strange you take issue with this, it’s pretty much a statement of fact.
E.g. the following summary of the 89-96 period from David B Edwards’ Before Taliban:
Yes I think we do.
If thats whats Arnbab told you, and it helps you sleep at night - then thats fine.
Meanwhile in the real world, here is a video of the Indian national security advisor taking about like for like bombing in Pakistan and providing funds to terrorists.
This man has been in the Indian intelligence services and has served as the Indian security advisor since 2014.
Also the former US defence Secratary admitted it - https://www.firstpost.com/world/ind...nced-problems-for-pak-chuck-hagel-640681.html
And the evidence provided by the Pakistani govt has been accepted by independent researchers and thinktanks
https://www.futuredirections.org.au...of-indian-sponsored-terrorism-does-it-matter/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48531103
There is no point arguing with Indians about Pakistan, you guys are completely blind to facts when it comes to Pakistan. I go into that India News thread and you're tearing apart Modi for being a scumbag, but I can guaruntee if a Pakistani origin member said it - you'd be defending him. It's a reflex you can't help.
Last edited:
If anyone had any doubt about Pakistan's complicity with the Taliban, you need to take a look at their leadership's response to the Taliban. From the PM downwards, they're all delighting in the rise of a terrorist organisation.
There should be no doubt, and this is why.
The Afghan Taliban spokesperson confirming there will be no room for groups like the TTP to operate in Afghanistan. These people are responsible for 70,000 Pakistani deaths. No other country paid that price.
This is going to be really interesting. The Taliban claim they won't be taking any interest based loans. If so - how could they get this sort of stuff out of the ground? Maybe a deal where mining companies get paid in a share of the minerals?
I suspect those minerals are going to sit in the ground for a long time yet.
I'm not sure I'd place this much trust in an outfit like them and definitely doesn't warrant the unbridled glee we're seeing from the leadership. I guess even a tenuous, perceived slight to India is a cause for celebration in Pakistan.
China.
My thoughts too
Great job turning another really interesting thread into India vs Pakistan.
There is a plethora of credible evidence (even an Indian soldier who has admitted to causing terror activities in Pakistan)
India has been orchestrating, promoting and carrying out attacks in Pakistan via Afghanistan since the last two decades and it really takes a naive, deluded, gullible Indian to never admit that.
Atleast Pakistanis admit to ISI playing double games and causing problems in the region. You lot present your intelligence agency as a saint cleaning after the mess, and reforming the region.
Because it's inscrutable and a half lie. The only notable faction shelling Kabul was Hetmatyar (And later Mazari who joined him), which was kinda inevitable after the ISI's plot to land him as successor failed. The ISI provided him both the rockets and the targeting. There was no 'various factions turning on each other' - most were attempting to find solutions (solutions that even included appearing Hekmatyar) . The other sides were essentially unified (I say essentially, though the term 'loosely' could be better used. Some skirmishes broke out with specific warlords looking to advance their own aims, but on the whole it was unified). It's a specific bad actor responsible.
For completion: It must be noted that Massoud and Dostum fired back at the rocket positions in the south of the city.
Timeline:
Mid April: HIG (Hekmatyar) starts to enter Kabul via south (Pashtun officials helping). NA (Dostum and Massoud) are negotiating via Peshawar for powersharing agreement post Najibullah resignation.
24th April: NA enter from North to prevent HIG taking Kabul
26th: agreement signed in Peshawar
27th: HIG mostly vanquished to the South of Kabul. However no security left and all minor factions now in Kabul and armed
May/June: HIG shell city from South. Shelling is indiscriminate and simply aimed at the city. NA fire back.
May/June: Ittihad and Wahdat conduct light arms fire in Kabul (basically skirmishing, trying to get rid of the other from specific areas of the city) - Shia/Sunni Iran/Saudi backed conflicts, looking for power in the new order. (Sometimes pulling others into skirmishes. West Kabul suffers. More terrorism than military but still...)
August: HIG get new weaponry from Pakistan, intensify bombardment on the city. Specifically targets civilians to increase pressure on NA
January 1993: Same again
February 1993: Wadhat (Remember Mazari from before) allies with HIG, shelling continues. Counteroffensive begins. 'Afshar offensive' - You can wiki this and there is conflicting information for sure; it could be argued that this constitutes a slaughter.
March 1993: Pause... ISI broker 'peace'
March 1993: HIG start artillery again.
Edit; Sorry @Foxbatt - I think I originally intended to reply to something you said then forgot!
Of course. Pakistan need to counter the idea of a Pashtunistan (which other Afghan governments along traditional cleavage would support) and to destabilise India. It was win win for them. Although I'm not sure if you can say "Pakistan" right now. Perhaps "ISI" is more accurate? Power structures there are opaque.
Reading this thread
Reading this thread
Absolutely. Maybe it's just another group discussion and research purposes though
Absolutely!
No country or group comes out smelling of roses. Afghans themselves who have been running the affairs of the country for 20 years are also culpable with their culture of greed and bribery.
Last edited:
I'm sure China increasingly calculates that there's a limited appetite among the US public to sink lives and money into a defence of Taiwan, and events like this just proves it. The question isn't how high a price china pays, it's how high a price an isolationist america would be willing to pay.