Afghan Conflict: Russian Political Leader Meets With Massoud

[Immortan Khan]

They recruit Muslims from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Walmart isn't having a sale, but your local Mosque is giving away grunts for free.

I know how they recruit, what I don't understand is how they can go 40 years using the same human wave and suicide bombing tactics and not run out of manpower. Even the Viet Cong ran out of soldiers to throw at us after the Tet Offensive. Yet all these terror groups seem to have an infinite supply of brainwashed soldiers. It makes no sense to me.

The Taliban doesn't use human wave tactics.

[Lady Victory]

1. What are they, Pakistani? I don’t recall the taliban invading Afghanistan and drone striking weddings.

Guess you forgot that time foreign Islamic militants invaded Afghanistan and the government had to call the Soviets for help.

Oh, my bad. They weren't "invaders" they were "liberators". Reagan and the CIA definitely agree with you on that.

2. That would be great if it were true - a socialist government in Afghanistan would fix a lot.

Understandably socialism went out of style when it's biggest benefactor went kaput. The old government naturally didn't see any reason to cling to an ideology that was no longer popular.

3. Yes, it does. You view this as an “American Patriot” not a human being. I’m not denying Taliban war crimes because if I had it my way religious extremism of any type would have the maximum punishment and Afghanistan would be modernized and put through social transformation so that extremism can never arise again. Stop shilling for powermongering psychopaths because "USA good”.

My guy, I'm not denying U.S. war crimes or the war crimes of the Afghan government or military. I was pointing out how a terror group was being stupendously hypocritical on a fundamental level.

But you saw I was American and so had to jump in with a "YANKEES BAD!!!!", pretending like you know the first thing about what I believe. You fucking don't, buckaroo. Quit while you're behind.

Also, imperialism is a very specific economic relationship.

Fucking lmao no.

This is such a bad take it's spoiled rotten.

Why be patriotic for a country that prefers the taliban to actually improving Afghan society?

Now you're just arguing in bad faith.

That, or you don't understand what patriotism actually is or what it means. Either way you've proven you're not worth the effort. Toodles.

[Lady Victory]

I know how they recruit, what I don't understand is how they can go 40 years using the same human wave and suicide bombing tactics and not run out of manpower. Even the Viet Cong ran out of soldiers to throw at us after the Tet Offensive. Yet all these terror groups seem to have an infinite supply of brainwashed soldiers. It makes no sense to me.

The Taliban doesn't use human wave tactics.

Not literally, no. I suppose I should have phrased that better.

I was more addressing their high casualty rate, which is common for all terror groups really.

[Immortan Khan]

It's also worth noting that most "foreign" Taliban fighters come from the tribal areas of Pakistan, especially the Pashtun regions. These areas are not seen as foreign by many Pashtuns and see it as an irrelevant and illegitimate divide that harkens back to the days of the Raj.

[Immortan Khan]

The Taliban doesn't use human wave tactics.

Not literally, no. I suppose I should have phrased that better.

I was more addressing their high casualty rate, which is common for all terror groups really.

Because they have a sizeable population to recruit from and they have actually inflicted more casualties on Afghan-Coalition forces than have been inflicted upon them.

[Orostan]

1. What are they, Pakistani? I don’t recall the taliban invading Afghanistan and drone striking weddings.

Guess you forgot that time foreign Islamic militants invaded Afghanistan and the government had to call the Soviets for help.

Oh, my bad. They weren't "invaders" they were "liberators". Reagan and the CIA definitely agree with you on that.

2. That would be great if it were true - a socialist government in Afghanistan would fix a lot.

Understandably socialism went out of style when it's biggest benefactor went kaput. The old government naturally didn't see any reason to cling to an ideology that was no longer popular.

3. Yes, it does. You view this as an “American Patriot” not a human being. I’m not denying Taliban war crimes because if I had it my way religious extremism of any type would have the maximum punishment and Afghanistan would be modernized and put through social transformation so that extremism can never arise again. Stop shilling for powermongering psychopaths because "USA good”.

My guy, I'm not denying U.S. war crimes or the war crimes of the Afghan government or military. I was pointing out how a terror group was being stupendously hypocritical on a fundamental level.

But you saw I was American and so had to jump in with a "YANKEES BAD!!!!", pretending like you know the first thing about what I believe. You fucking don't, buckaroo. Quit while you're behind.

Also, imperialism is a very specific economic relationship.

Fucking lmao no.

This is such a bad take it's spoiled rotten.

Why be patriotic for a country that prefers the taliban to actually improving Afghan society?

Now you're just arguing in bad faith.

That, or you don't understand what patriotism actually is or what it means. Either way you've proven you're not worth the effort. Toodles.

1. The taliban were mostly Afghans, characterizing them as completely foreign invaders is not correct. Reagan and the CIA wouldn't have been able to effectively use them if they were totally foreign.

2. not an argument lol

3.

My guy, I'm not denying taliban war crimes or the war crimes of any government or military. I was pointing out how the US terrorist state was being stupendously hypocritical on a fundamental level.

But you saw I was a socialist and so had to jump in with a "YANKEES GOOD!!!!", pretending like you know the first thing about what I believe. You fucking don't, buckaroo. Quit while you're behind.

4. not an argument lol

5. I love how you, much like a pigeon playing chess, will shit all over the board, knock over the pieces, and go walking around like they won. Why are you unable to put up one single fact to defend your views?

[Lady Victory]

Not literally, no. I suppose I should have phrased that better.

I was more addressing their high casualty rate, which is common for all terror groups really.

Because they have a sizeable population to recruit from and they have actually inflicted more casualties on Afghan-Coalition forces than have been inflicted upon them.

Most of those are ANSF, though.

Even combined Coalition Forces casualties (the majority of which are American) don't come anywhere close to the Taliban's, which is only about 10,000 less than the ANSF's. Honestly seems like the ANSF is really bad at it's job. The Taliban, meanwhile, injures like 3-4 times more Coalition troops than they kill. That's... actually pretty good all things considered. Especially in regards to the massive ANSF casualty rate.

[Page]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

[Immortan Khan]

Because they have a sizeable population to recruit from and they have actually inflicted more casualties on Afghan-Coalition forces than have been inflicted upon them.

Most of those are ANSF, though.

That doesn't change a thing.

Even combined Coalition Forces casualties (the majority of which are American) don't come anywhere close to the Taliban's, which is only about 10,000 less than the ANSF's. Honestly seems like the ANSF is really bad at it's job. The Taliban, meanwhile, injures like 3-4 times more Coalition troops than they kill. That's... actually pretty good all things considered. Especially in regards to the massive ANSF casualty rate.

Wounded casualties are still casualties. More expensive and actually psychologically traumatic to the civilian pop imo.

[Muzehnaya]

Afghan govt. blames Taliban who deny responsibility and blame ISKP for series of sticky bomb blasts in Kabul (12 civilians killed & 13 wounded / casualties may rise)
Taliban seize weapons and ammo in ambush in Jowzjan province
Militia commander killed by Taliban infiltrator in Kandahar
Afghan security force member has been assassinated in Kabul by unknown gunmen
Taliban blamed for gun attack targeting police special unit contractors (1 killed & 2 wounded)

Taliban attack in Baghlan province that started earlier today has been repulsed for now (32 people killed & 28 injured)
Afghan forces killed Taliban unit leader in Patika province
NDS arrests Taliban member in Laghman
Taliban fighter killed in failed attempt to attack oil supplies in Baghlan province
Taliban fighter has been killed in Kunar province

Press releases and status on US withdrawl
Two videos of the Taliban fighting in Ghorian in Herat

[Muzehnaya]

With all this being said, I think it's worth noting that both of these accusations are likely bogus. As of now, there is no real evidence to support them. There are no articles on it, and no one related to these supposed victims (or anyone living in the same area for that matter) has yet come forward to say anything. From what I can see, only the Taliban has made a statement on this.

All that taken into consideration, it seems more likely that the Taliban are making this statement in order to draw attention away from the own civilian casualties they have recently caused in their mortar attacks. Two days ago their mortar fire accidentally hit a wedding in Kapisa and killed 7 civillians (which they tried to blame on the ANDSF), and yesterday they killed 4 more civilians with mortar fire in Kandar. Unless evidence from reliable sources surfaces, I find it far more likely that this is an attempt at damage control more than anything else.

Absolutely - but that doesn’t matter to the Afghans. They’re going to look at this and say “yeah that makes sense” rather than intensely question it.

Given that the Taliban have caused a fair few civilian casualties over the past few days themselves, I don't think the civilian populace are going to just buy into whatever they say.

[Archinstinct]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

It's simple. You can replace money lost, but you can't replace human lives. We stay, people will die, but if we leave more people will die than if we stayed. It's just that Americans are greedy assholes and don't care about people more than money.

[Andsed]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

It's simple. You can replace money lost, but you can't replace human lives. We stay, people will die, but if we leave more people will die than if we stayed. It's just that Americans are greedy assholes and don't care about people more than money.

The US can’t stay indefinitely. We have to leave at some point. We have failed to destroy the Taliban despite twenty years of this. Why should we continue to stay in a forever war that unless we take far more drastic actions is just going to prolong this?

[Aguaria Major]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

Because letting them do so would mean condemning the Afghan people to suffer under a far-right, totalitarian theocratic government which does not operate under the consent of the governed or with any of their interests at heart;

Surely you believe, as a socialist, that that is something worth fighting against? That the interests of the proletariat of the region are worth dying for? Workers' solidarity and all that?

Or have you just gone so far down the anti-American rabbit hole that anyone who opposes the USA must be inherently good in your eyes, regardless of how they measure up to what you actually believe in?

Let's see: who else do you know of who is guilty of that type of morally ambiguous, "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality on numerous occasions, context and consequences be damned? If my memory serves, I'm pretty sure it's a nation with a flag of stars and stripes... Malaysia? Liberia? I'm confident you know the answer.

Given that you do, please proceed to remind me how that type of thinking has worked out. The immoral defense of authoritarian regimes, perhaps? Like the Mujahideen, for instance?

US occupation, in this specific case has, as opposed to most of our other foreign interventions, produced a net good for the Afghan people - they have a functioning, stable government which allows moderate social freedoms and democratic participation, the capacity to enter into international relations, and collective access to the world economy. Y'know, as opposed to living under a self-declared caliphate like it's the 13th century?!

Condemning a people to suffer under a theocratic dictatorship without acknowledging that fact is the most ignorant, un-nuanced, ham-fisted take on this I can imagine.

If you want the US to pull its troops out, then offer a solution for how to keep the Taliban out of the nation once they're gone instead of unsocialistically shilling for them.

[Aguaria Major]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

But then again, what else should I expect from someone who quotes Noam Chomsky in their sig?

He is so detached from reality that he doesn't understand the basic elements of realist international political theory, which is still by far the best metric for analyzing and preventing wars and conflicts. And while he is a socialist, which means I agree with him in the most basic sense (i.e., that workers should have control over the economy and maintain it through democratic means), he is an international, while simultaneously being an anarchist, somehow. International socialism is both a fever-dream (there is a reason Stalin hated Tito - because Tito made his nation work a lot better than Stalin's while spitting in the face of Leninian internationalism) and completely paradoxical in a stateless society, while a stateless society is akin to a vacuum, in that nature abhors it. There's a reason true anarchism only works on small communes of like-minded individuals and not at the level of a nation-state.

He is also by far one of the biggest proliferarors of the "USA BAD" school of thought to the point where he sometimes comes within one step of being an apologist for other, equally genocidal, expansionist empires like the Russians or Chinese; for example, he claims that NATO's expansion to the East was somehow all down to American greed and a betrayal of the honest, caring Russians (who, according to him, had absolutely no intention of expanding into the Baltics, Balkans, Caucasus and North European plains nations despite centuries of history and now the actions of modern Russia saying otherwise) while completely leaving out the fact that nations like Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine and Poland, the lattermost being where my ancestors spent decades under the Russian boot, all voluntarily applied to join NATO the instant they escaped Soviet clutches due to the very real fear (which has now been confirmed by Putin) that Russia would try to subjugate them.

Every time the horrors of the Chinese government are brought up, he almost immediately dismisses them by saying, "the US is worse, and China doesn't *really* plan on expansion", in complete ignorance of Chinese history and its penchant for "Sinicization" of the lands surrounding the Han core of the country. Sounds pretty wumaoish to me.

He is also guilty of hypocrisy when he denounces "intellectuals" as a collective for ultimately being beholden to state authority and not truly thinking for themselves, because he is beholden to an echo-chamber of pseudo-leftist reactionaries who make no attempt to fix any of the current problems in a meaningful way while perpetually circle-jerking each other with thousands of variants of the completely un-nuanced praxis of, "USA bad, everything else good";

He has basically made a career out of being an annoying college hippie; he's a professional anarkiddy.

None of this has to do directly with the Afghanistan situation, so I am aware that may come across as a strawman. But I feel like you need to be reminded of why Chomsky doesn't have an actual career in politics, because it is obvious that he has shaped your views on them -while he does make several valid criticism of the US and its foreign policy, he takes hatred of the US to an unwarranted level, which often leads to him proposing insane solutions which are detached from the reality of international politics.

[Insaanistan]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

Here’s one:

People dying and suffering under a terrorist state is bad.

[Lady Victory]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

It's generally bad form to put money over human lives, Page.

[Muzehnaya]

Car bomb targets security convoy in Jalalabad (2 civilians dead & 10 wounded / ISKP may be responsible)
VBIED attack targeting ANDSF convoy in Khost city (4-5 civilians wounded)
Gunmen have killed a senior border police officer in Kabul

ANDSF & AAF are conducting operations in Helmand province (24 Taliban fighters dead & 23 wounded)
Commando forces conduct anti-Taliban operations in Balkh province (11 Taliban fighters killed & 13 wounded)
NDS claims to have assassinated a Taliban commander in Paktika province (may still be alive & may not be a Taliban commander)

Ongoing fighting in southern Wardak province
Ongoing fighting between ANDSF and Taliban in various districts in Nangarhar province
ISKP has taken credit for last night's bombings in Kabul

[Andsed]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

Here’s one:

People dying and suffering under a terrorist state is bad.

Yeah, but would a continued US occupation really prevent that? It would in the short term, but what is the long term goal to a continued presence? An indefinite occupation? In 20 years we have not succeeded, unless something radically changes I don’t see the point in continuing doing the shit that has not worked.

[Vedan]

We need to leave unfortunately. There is simply not enough benefit to the united states to continue the occupation. We should definitely set up a system to allow loyal Afghan citizens to immigrate to America so that they wont be tortured or killed by the Taliban. We do at least owe them that much.

[Sungoldy-China]

I've heard lots of arguments that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over everything, which may or may not be valid, but I have not seen a single compelling argument on this forum or anywhere in the media for why preventing that is the worth trillions of dollars that the occupation costs.

Because letting them do so would mean condemning the Afghan people to suffer under a far-right, totalitarian theocratic government which does not operate under the consent of the governed or with any of their interests at heart;

Surely you believe, as a socialist, that that is something worth fighting against? That the interests of the proletariat of the region are worth dying for? Workers' solidarity and all that?

Or have you just gone so far down the anti-American rabbit hole that anyone who opposes the USA must be inherently good in your eyes, regardless of how they measure up to what you actually believe in?

Let's see: who else do you know of who is guilty of that type of morally ambiguous, "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality on numerous occasions, context and consequences be damned? If my memory serves, I'm pretty sure it's a nation with a flag of stars and stripes... Malaysia? Liberia? I'm confident you know the answer.

Given that you do, please proceed to remind me how that type of thinking has worked out. The immoral defense of authoritarian regimes, perhaps? Like the Mujahideen, for instance?

US occupation, in this specific case has, as opposed to most of our other foreign interventions, produced a net good for the Afghan people - they have a functioning, stable government which allows moderate social freedoms and democratic participation, the capacity to enter into international relations, and collective access to the world economy. Y'know, as opposed to living under a self-declared caliphate like it's the 13th century?!

Condemning a people to suffer under a theocratic dictatorship without acknowledging that fact is the most ignorant, un-nuanced, ham-fisted take on this I can imagine.

If you want the US to pull its troops out, then offer a solution for how to keep the Taliban out of the nation once they're gone instead of unsocialistically shilling for them.

The Afghanistan government established by the United States has never been a functioning, stable government，
Corruption and incompetence of the Afghanistan government are the best recruitment advertisements for the Taliban.
The weakness of the army trained by the Afghanistan government provided the Taliban with personnel and armaments.
In fact, if the Afghanistan government is operated by a group of greedy pigs, the Taliban will not achieve the current results.

[Sungoldy-China]

The best way for the United States is to support a local military strongman to conduct a military dictatorship in Afghanistan, just like the United States has practiced in Latin America.

[Major-Tom]

I used to be for this withdrawl but these attacks are opening me up to do a 180.

I don't know the answer. No matter what or when our timetable is, we run the risk of allowing these insurgents to come back in and fuck everything up for decent Afghani people.

If we'd done this five years ago, this would've happened, five years down the line, it could still happen. The only viable options are to commit to a full-scale war against the Taliban and similar insurgencies or to withdraw completely and supply both money and weaponry to the Afghani government. This limp-dicked, middle-of-the-road approach won't cut it since it prolongs the inevitable. Me personally, I'd rather have us withdraw forces and commit to helping Afghanistan financially to the best of our ability. Beats more conflict involving our own troops.

[Saiwania]

The US can’t stay indefinitely. We have to leave at some point. We have failed to destroy the Taliban despite twenty years of this. Why should we continue to stay in a forever war that unless we take far more drastic actions is just going to prolong this?

I'm in full agreement that the US has to leave if staying has resulted in no progress. But I still think that it is perhaps worthwhile to try supplying the most powerful Taliban opponents from behind the scenes. If a direct war doesn't work, a proxy war might. But if the Taliban wins out anyways, I'd say it is worthwhile to do just one more air to ground campaign to destroy most if not all of the good equipment that falls into the Taliban's hands.

The US should deny the Taliban an air force or any advanced weaponry.
Once the US is done in Afghanistan afterwards, the Taliban is free to try to get anything it wants from Pakistan or Iran.

[Muzehnaya]

A girl's school in Kabul has been bombed (30+ civilians dead & 50+ injured / Taliban condemns attack & blames ISKP)
A mine was attached to a minibus & detonated in Kabul (4 civilians killed & several injured)
Pro government religious leader has been assassinated in Herat province

Taliban capture two districts in Nangarhar province as Shinwari militia withdrew & surrendered
Taliban still in control of Ghorian in Herat province after their assault a few days ago