There was no vaccum created since there was nothing there before the US arrived beyond a fractured country with the Taliban (with the help of Al-Qaeda) running the southern and eastern parts, and the Northern Alliance controlling the rest. Once the Taliban were expelled within days, the ISAF and later NATO troops did the right thing and attempted to get an Afghan government set up so that Afghans could have a democratic process. That process has now after 20 years apparently failed.mentality of interventionism without a plan summed up right there.
I'm not even in the "Buhuh, bad yanks just wanting war to enrich themselves" boat but surely you realize how stupid it is to blame the Afghan society after walzing in, creating a vacuum and then have no idea how to proceed except for "let's build a couple of buildings".
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.
Invade, kill 10s of thousands of civilians, re-arm the Taliban with brand new weaponry, leave.
The weaponry bit is a myth. They left them a-29s , old blackhawks, couple of drones. But according to some media, it looks like they got brand new f-35s.
The other pieces are humvees and some artillery. The overwhelming rest is small arms which they didn't have any shortage of anyway.
They've used Afghan Army equipment after they abandoned their bases. Also, as of 2014 it was estimated that 43% of weapons given to the ANDSF ended up in the hands of anti-government militants.
Your definition of no vacuum creation is obviously rubbish but at least you're not putting the blame on the Afghans this time when admitting failure.
Btw. "apparently failed?" Isn't that a bit doom & gloom?
Biden's claim that al Qaeda is "gone" from Afghanistan is false -- as his own administration acknowledged soon afterward. Following Biden's remarks, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters, "We know that al Qaeda is a presence, as well as ISIS, in Afghanistan, and we've talked about that for quite some time."Raoul said:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/20/...an-biden/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
No vaccum would be correct given that the country was at war, on top of which it was also "hosting" the world's most sought after terrorist organization.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Vijay Kumar on Twitter has been reporting that ISIS groups in Kabul are interfering with evacuation efforts.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure of his reporting, but seemed worth mentioning.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure of his reporting, but seemed worth mentioning.
20 years is nowhere near enough time to get that amount of change into a culture. It would take generations as the people currently in charge will have learned directly from the people in power when they were working under them. No-one would expect a wholesale culture change through one generation and you'd need to wait at least until the people 15 or under now were getting into power whos ideas will be partly based on what they've always experienced.
Having said that, it's debatable whether that should be the way to bring in change as it's basing forcing a foreign idealism on another country.
Their advice should be on how to withdraw. They don't decide the policy.
They don't decide the policy, but of course they serve advisory role when it comes to military matters.
It would definitely take longer than 20 years and even after 40, there would still be no guarantees. Biden has never really been for keeping troops there (he was trying to get them out during the Obama years), so its not entirely surprising that he's doing it now.
So what will happen on the 31st, if the US/UK troops dont leave ?
Do they become a legitimate target ?
I doubt the Taliban have the ability to attack and take the airport by force, but they can cause death and destruction.
Do they become a legitimate target ?
I doubt the Taliban have the ability to attack and take the airport by force, but they can cause death and destruction.
They need US and other foreign troops to leave soon so that they can fully crack down on dissent before a resistance movement can take shape. Having American troops lingering about obviously makes this more difficult. The US has already moved about 18k people out of country with another 13k waiting, so its unclear whether they will get them out before that date.
They won't do much because even if one US soldier dies by their hand, all US networks will switch to ITS KILLING TIME captions and Biden will start doing Michael Corleone impressions.
That's why I said that though they advised to wait they don't decide whether to stay or get out.
They only can advise how to get out. I am sure no POTUS ( well apart from Trump) would tell the military how to conduct their operations. So Biden say we need to get out it's up to them to decide the best way to get out. They messed up. Or it's not as bad as some people make it out to be.
Or maybe there was no safe way to get out within the deadline?
I hope they don't find it among the talib
I hope they don't find it among the talib
Distracted by the match on tv, wrong threadDeleted
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/23/...h-threat-afghan-translator-letters/index.html
The removal (or lack) of interpreters and their families as well as those who set up girls schools and secular organisations is going to leave a lot of blood on bidens hands
The removal (or lack) of interpreters and their families as well as those who set up girls schools and secular organisations is going to leave a lot of blood on bidens hands
My take.
1) The Taliban have been attacking the prev Afghan National army for a few years, with little to no retaliation from the USA.
2) The Taliban have not been attacking USA troops during this time.
Is it possible that the USA decided to let the Taliban fight and not intervene if they took over, on the understanding that the Taliban would not attack US troops?
Benefits I can think of for the USA is in the drug war, since invading Afghanistan heroine has ravaged parts of the USA. The old Afghan regime were pretty corrupt and the Taliban are known for being very anti drugs.
Also in terrorism it was the Taliban and not the Afghan National army that stopped IS taking a stronghold in Afghanistan.
So maybe the the USA have just adapted. The previous issue with the Taliban was less about how they ran things and more about that they allowed AQ and OBL safe havens.
1) The Taliban have been attacking the prev Afghan National army for a few years, with little to no retaliation from the USA.
2) The Taliban have not been attacking USA troops during this time.
Is it possible that the USA decided to let the Taliban fight and not intervene if they took over, on the understanding that the Taliban would not attack US troops?
Benefits I can think of for the USA is in the drug war, since invading Afghanistan heroine has ravaged parts of the USA. The old Afghan regime were pretty corrupt and the Taliban are known for being very anti drugs.
Also in terrorism it was the Taliban and not the Afghan National army that stopped IS taking a stronghold in Afghanistan.
So maybe the the USA have just adapted. The previous issue with the Taliban was less about how they ran things and more about that they allowed AQ and OBL safe havens.
Opium: Afghanistan’s drug trade that helped fuel the Taliban
Taliban are involved in all facets, from poppy planting, opium extraction, trafficking to charging smugglers export fees.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2...s-illicit-drug-trade-that-helped-fuel-taliban
The Taliban are just like any other violent, religious, fundamentalist organisation...hypocritical maniacs.
Prior to that when they were in charge they quelled it when they could have profited from it. As insurgents they taxed those that they would have previously imprisoned but now they are back in charge it’s likely that they will clamp down on it again.
Something a lot of people don’t know is that in 1998 the Taliban were invited Texas to discuss a pipeline deal with Gasprom. At the time G W Bush was governor of Texas and a senior figure of Gasprom was Moe Karzai, future Afghan President after the USA invaded.
The Taliban went to Texas. Listened to the Texan (Bush) proposal but decided that an offer from an Argentinian company was in their national interest. This was all a time when OBL was already the number 1 most wanted man in the world and known to be in Afghanistan.
US soldiers distribute pork to Afghans stuck at Kabul airport
https://www.dailysabah.com/world/as...ribute-pork-to-afghans-stuck-at-kabul-airport
Probably a few potshots taken at them, or maybe a rocket or two randomly fired at the airport, knowing that will immediately halt the civilian evacuation and switch it to passport holders only. They won't do anything which will risk a response. The US still has 6,000 troops, jets and helicopter gunships there, plus whatever else is stationed within striking distance.
If that's all they've got to give them, that's all they've got to give them. It's chaos there and dietary requirements probably aren't top of the list.
Some MREs have pork in them since they are after all meant for US troops. They could’ve not eaten it or asked for another in the time it takes to make a fuss about war time food selections on IG.
Disgrace. They should have prepared vegan food too.
Only briefly. They allowed opium cultivation again soon after cause it was just too profitable for the farmers and for them.
Not likely. Its always been a giant cash cow for them, which then allowed them to use the funds to run their faux government.
I didn’t know that. I just read some stats about me increasing heroine addiction since the invasion. And remembering the news in the 90/00 it was widely reported that they clamped down on it when they took over, I reminded reading an article a few years back about heroine addiction in Afghanistan and also the USA being one of the unforeseen side effects of the war as the Northern Alliance were mostly warlords and drug traffickers etc, but at the time of backing then against the Taliban the long term consequence wasn’t really considered.
You what now?! I think some people may want to talk to you after this revelation...
This is muddling the waters. As a regime they were extremely anti heroin and production plummeted.
It was only as a last resort that they started taking advantage of it when facing defeat and that too most of it was taxing transport.
I'm no fan but facts are facts.
Always?
if they were to end up talking to someone else instead… I could buy United and pay off debts… hmmmm your name sounds very much like Chairman…. That’s something I’d be needing
I agree. Also It’s sad when you have to add “I’m no fan” simply for stating things you know to be true from facts or wondering if you’re remembering historic news wrong.
The narrative you’ve given actually matches the news at the time that I remember.
I remember it was reported as desperation not hypocrisy that they started taxing traffickers and was a sign that they were down and out. Now if they were also profiting from opium when in power it would not have been a big news
So it's ok and not hypocritical at all to say you're against drugs but then produce and sell drugs because you need the money?
Not really. They are balls deep in heroin and always have been. They are fecking hypocrites.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...to-ban-heroin-but-can-they-survive-without-it
“…..with production and exports centred in areas controlled by the Taliban, which has taxed the drugs heavily during their 20-year insurgency”
Pretty much how I remember things. They started taxing traffickers as insurgents. When they were in control they outlawed it and production was very very low.