Afghanistan

Kasper said:
:lol: 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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Raoul said:
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.
Click to expand...

Weird way of describing it.

1280px-Taliban_government_%28early_2001%29.png
 
Dante said:
Invade, kill 10s of thousands of civilians, re-arm the Taliban with brand new weaponry, leave.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Firestarter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Raoul said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

Raoul said:
Have you been there recently to compare it to the Taliban days ? Its a completely different place. The amount of construction taking place in Kabul and other big cities is night and day compared with what things looked like pre-9/11. Girls can go to school, there is a growing civil society community, and the country just held internationally recognized democratic elections; the first time in its history that power has been democratically transferred between two political actors. I was there in 2002/03 and again from 2012/14, and can safely say the doom and gloom reports are grossly exaggerated (usually for political purposes). There's still a lot of work to do in terms of security, so lets see how things pan out after a few years with a proper technocratic President.
Click to expand...
 
Raoul said:
The goal of going into Afghanistan (expelling AQ and getting Bin Ladin) was accomplished 19 and 10 years ago respectively
Click to expand...

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."

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/20/...an-biden/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
 
Kasper said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think its an issue of winning or losing. The goal of going into Afghanistan (expelling AQ and getting Bin Ladin) was accomplished 19 and 10 years ago respectively, so there was nothing else to accomplish other than transitioning into an advise and assist NATO mission, which is what its been for the past decade. If after 20 years, the Afghan government isn't able to deal with corruption, pay its troops a livable wage so that they fight for the nation when needed, create national unity to get all Afghans around a political process, then that is not a loss of foreign forces supporting them. The US could've easily stayed in Afghanistan for another 20 years with a few thousand troops on the ground, but ultimately if the will to fight among Afghans isn't there, then it was time to leave.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Balljy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Firestarter said:
They don't decide the policy, but of course they serve advisory role when it comes to military matters.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Foxbatt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or maybe there was no safe way to get out within the deadline?
 
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.
 
Ferguson’s Hairdryer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FireballXL5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

United States soldiers stationed at the airport at Kabul Hamid Karzai International Airport are distributing pork-containing food packages to Afghans desperately waiting for a chance to flee the country.

An Afghan woman, who is stuck at the airport with her daughter and husband, shared a picture of the package on her Instagram account.

"Feeding us pork, which religiously is not allowed, and 95% of people here dont (sic) know how to read or speak English," she wrote as she posted a photo of the package containing "pork sausage patty, maple flavored."

"They're not handing it to us, they are throwing these packets to us from a distance," she added.
Click to expand...

https://www.dailysabah.com/world/as...ribute-pork-to-afghans-stuck-at-kabul-airport
 
pauldyson1uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


The Corinthian said:
US soldiers distribute pork to Afghans stuck at Kabul airport
https://www.dailysabah.com/world/as...ribute-pork-to-afghans-stuck-at-kabul-airport
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ferguson’s Hairdryer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only briefly. They allowed opium cultivation again soon after cause it was just too profitable for the farmers and for them.
 
Ferguson’s Hairdryer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not likely. Its always been a giant cash cow for them, which then allowed them to use the funds to run their faux government.
 
Raoul said:
Not likely. Its always been a giant cash cow for them, which then allowed them to use the funds to run their faux government.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ferguson’s Hairdryer said:
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.
Click to expand...
You what now?! I think some people may want to talk to you after this revelation...
 
FireballXL5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cheimoon said:
You what now?! I think some people may want to talk to you after this revelation...
Click to expand...
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 :D
 
shamans said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
shamans said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
FireballXL5 said:
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
Click to expand...

“…..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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.