Afghan Conflict: “We Will Conquer Iran Soon” -Taliban

[Hukhalia]

america presides over what to do with other countries' money episode 3242

Tfw you low-key support the Taliban to own the Americans.

"Tfw you low-key support America to own the Taliban" is probably a more damning statement here. America is responsible for far more human suffering and bondage than the Taliban ever will be.

I don't support the Taliban, I just feel like keeping country's assets frozen, even if the people there are starving, because you dislike the government in charge is just stupid.

[Fahran]

"Tfw you low-key support America to own the Taliban" is probably a more damning statement here. America is responsible for far more human suffering and bondage than the Taliban ever will be.

I don't support the Taliban, I just feel like keeping country's assets frozen, even if the people there are starving, because you dislike the government in charge is just stupid.

The proposal was to release those assets to NGOs that could address and ameliorate the looming humanitarian crisis. Your response was to complain about the Americans freezing assets that would have otherwise gone to a regime that has literally carried out genocidal acts in living memory in the first place. I would posit, given the enmity between the Taliban and the United States, which exists for very legitimate reasons, and the humanitarian nightmare that the Taliban have created in many places, that this response is pretty copy-paste.

[Hukhalia]

"Tfw you low-key support America to own the Taliban" is probably a more damning statement here. America is responsible for far more human suffering and bondage than the Taliban ever will be.

I don't support the Taliban, I just feel like keeping country's assets frozen, even if the people there are starving, because you dislike the government in charge is just stupid.

The proposal was to release those assets to NGOs that could exist the looming humanitarian crisis. Your response was to complain about the Americans freezing assets that would have otherwise gone to a regime that has literally carried out genocidal acts in living memory.

It's about how, on principle, America has assigned itself as some moral bastion and custodian of freedom and liberty - despite things such as MKULTRA, Vietnam, the "WMDs" in Iraq, and the general neoimperialist system propped up by the United States through which their abundance of consumer goods exists entirely due to the exploitation of the third world, etc - and thus decides by a kraterocratic "might makes right" global system that it is the nation which is permitted to hold sway over the finances of smaller nations it does not deem amenable to its interests.

It is this facet of the international system which deeply annoys me. The fact that America is allowed to decide who to give another country's money to. They were perfectly happy when a corrupt, ineffectual, and paedophile/warlord-ridden client state ran the place according to their interests. "Give it to NGOs" doesn't really solve this whole issue, and in fact exacerbates it.

[Fahran]

It's about how, on principle, America has assigned itself as some moral bastion and custodian of freedom and liberty - despite things such as MKULTRA, Vietnam, the "WMDs" in Iraq, and the general neoimperialist system propped up by the United States through which their abundance of consumer goods exists entirely due to the exploitation of the third world, etc - and thus decides by a kraterocratic "might makes right" global system that it is the nation which is permitted to hold sway over the finances of smaller nations it does not deem amenable to its interests.

It is this facet of the international system which deeply annoys me. The fact that America is allowed to decide who to give another country's money to. They were perfectly happy when a corrupt, ineffectual, and paedophile/warlord-ridden client state ran the place according to their interests. "Give it to NGOs" doesn't really solve this whole issue, and in fact exacerbates it.

So I was right about you low-key supporting the Taliban to own the Americans then?

Because I didn't comment on anything else yet.

I'll elaborate here in a bit. Since my intention here wasn't just to annoy or trap you. I do get the impression that a lot of critics of American foreign policy assume a very reductive stance though. Or else see the United States and fade to red.

Mind you, I do think there's often a very good reason to critique American neo-imperialism and neoliberalism as a hegemonic global order, but the approach you've taken here feels a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face given we're talking about a regime that was supporting neo-imperialists of a different kind quite recently (leading to the deaths of Americans and others) and that has plenty of human rights abuses to its name. The difference is really one of scale.

[Insaanistan]

NRF Confirm the Taliban Killed 8 of Their Fighters, Say Commander Abdul-Qadir Rasulzadeh (Jashmid Kohestani) Among the Dead)

[Nociav]

NRF Confirm the Taliban Killed 8 of Their Fighters, Say Commander Abdul-Qadir Rasulzadeh (Jashmid Kohestani) Among the Dead)

First confirmed clash in what? Several months?

[Nociav]

So I was right about you low-key supporting the Taliban to own the Americans then?

I don't think wanting the Taliban to have well-functioning public institutions is pro-Taliban. It's the only humanitarian choice to ween off the country from aid.

[Insaanistan]

NRF Confirm the Taliban Killed 8 of Their Fighters, Say Commander Abdul-Qadir Rasulzadeh (Jashmid Kohestani) Among the Dead)

First confirmed clash in what? Several months?

Weeks-to Months. The clashes the NRF claims happens are usually met with the Taliban just not commenting on it or claiming that it wasn’t as bad as the NRF claims it was.

[Nociav]

First confirmed clash in what? Several months?

Weeks-to Months. The clashes the NRF claims happens are usually met with the Taliban just not commenting on it or claiming that it wasn’t as bad as the NRF claims it was.

Lack of independent neutral confirmation is what discounts most of the NRF's claims. But if the Taliban and NRF both confirm, I guess it did happen.

[Insaanistan]

Massoud & Rabbani to Travel to Moscow, Taliban Claim Mullah Baradar Already There

However, Russia Denies Reports There is a Taliban Delegation in Moscow

[Insaanistan]

NRF Calls on Afghans in Norway to Join Norwegian Protests Against Taliban

[Nociav]

Massoud & Rabbani to Travel to Moscow, Taliban Claim Mullah Baradar Already There

The Taliban weren't the ones claiming this.

This is what happens when you trust Russian news.

[Kalaron]

It's about how, on principle, America has assigned itself as some moral bastion and custodian of freedom and liberty - despite things such as MKULTRA, Vietnam, the "WMDs" in Iraq, and the general neoimperialist system propped up by the United States through which their abundance of consumer goods exists entirely due to the exploitation of the third world, etc - and thus decides by a kraterocratic "might makes right" global system that it is the nation which is permitted to hold sway over the finances of smaller nations it does not deem amenable to its interests.

It is this facet of the international system which deeply annoys me. The fact that America is allowed to decide who to give another country's money to. They were perfectly happy when a corrupt, ineffectual, and paedophile/warlord-ridden client state ran the place according to their interests. "Give it to NGOs" doesn't really solve this whole issue, and in fact exacerbates it.

So I was right about you low-key supporting the Taliban to own the Americans then?

Because I didn't comment on anything else yet.

I'll elaborate here in a bit. Since my intention here wasn't just to annoy or trap you. I do get the impression that a lot of critics of American foreign policy assume a very reductive stance though. Or else see the United States and fade to red.

Mind you, I do think there's often a very good reason to critique American neo-imperialism and neoliberalism as a hegemonic global order, but the approach you've taken here feels a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face given we're talking about a regime that was supporting neo-imperialists of a different kind quite recently (leading to the deaths of Americans and others) and that has plenty of human rights abuses to its name. The difference is really one of scale.

Honestly, I think the strangest critic of the US I've ever met was a Scottish Nationalist (insofar as he wanted the English to leave his country) who often baselessly supported Russia (he refused to acknowledge the Syrian gas attacks as anything but a US false fla, "if it even happened" and even after refused US intervention was even remotely acceptable), who was somehow both a Socialist and fully supported Assad (or rather, wanted us to "let Assad's citizens fight him off without our intervention")

[Fahran]

I don't think wanting the Taliban to have well-functioning public institutions is pro-Taliban. It's the only humanitarian choice to ween off the country from aid.

I think we should probably draw a distinction between the Taliban having access to these monies - which largely originated from foreign coffers anyway, the Taliban having well-functioning public institutions, and Afghanistan having well-functioning public institutions that actually have net benefits. The Taliban does seem to encourage strength in institutions that hold sway among many Afghans, in particular religious institutions and communal legal institutions, but these have often not done much to improve material conditions or social prospects for the majority of Afghans. In many cases, pursuit of conventions promoted and supported by these institutions has made many Afghans worse off in real terms. I see why liberals and socialists wouldn't want to give the money to NGOs who they can rely upon to address hunger more directly. And who probably haven't been murdering women's rights activists and Hazaras at the local level.

As much as folks give warranted criticisms of the previous government for its corruption and abusive social conventions like bacha bazi, the Taliban aren't really much of an improvement, especially without the foreign aid that sustained Afghanistan previously. Their previous rule witnessed a plethora depraved sexual crimes, largely aimed at women and girls from minority backgrounds, and multiple instances of genocide. They presided over a nation that was tantamount to a narco-state, even furnishing seeds and equipment for poppy farmers, before they imposed a ban on poppy-farming. Some have even speculated that the ban was a ploy to drive up prices. I think it was sincere, but I'm inclined to think they'd have eventually reversed it out of necessity.

With regard to Afghanistan weening itself off of foreign aid, that strikes me as hopelessly optimistic given that upwards of forty percent of its GDP was sustained through payments from foreign governments and organizations - much of it being embezzled and the rest giving Afghanistan serious improvements in educational access. The Taliban have already effectively cut the workforce in half in many regions, diminishing the ability of poorer families as well as widows and orphans to provide for themselves. This includes minimizing the role of female professionals who had unique and much-needed skillsets, most notably in medicine. Realistically, I imagine they're going to kick up production of poppies again or work to get Chinese companies interested in mineral extraction.

And this is before we get into the fact that the Taliban is an active enemy of most of the West.

Really though, I think Afghanistan lost the one opportunity to prosper when the United States, in our infinite wisdom, blocked the proposal to raise Mohammed Zahir Shah to the throne and coordinate an alliance of Parsiwans and Pashtuns to rule the country at the local level. Mind you, it remains possible that Mohammed Zahir Shah would have wound up like Ashraf Ghani - initially popular before losing support due to perceptions that he was a corrupt, incompetent stooge of the Americans. It's happened to stronger people.

[Punished UMN]

It's about how, on principle, America has assigned itself as some moral bastion and custodian of freedom and liberty - despite things such as MKULTRA, Vietnam, the "WMDs" in Iraq, and the general neoimperialist system propped up by the United States through which their abundance of consumer goods exists entirely due to the exploitation of the third world, etc - and thus decides by a kraterocratic "might makes right" global system that it is the nation which is permitted to hold sway over the finances of smaller nations it does not deem amenable to its interests.

It is this facet of the international system which deeply annoys me. The fact that America is allowed to decide who to give another country's money to. They were perfectly happy when a corrupt, ineffectual, and paedophile/warlord-ridden client state ran the place according to their interests. "Give it to NGOs" doesn't really solve this whole issue, and in fact exacerbates it.

So I was right about you low-key supporting the Taliban to own the Americans then?

Because I didn't comment on anything else yet.

I'll elaborate here in a bit. Since my intention here wasn't just to annoy or trap you. I do get the impression that a lot of critics of American foreign policy assume a very reductive stance though. Or else see the United States and fade to red.

Mind you, I do think there's often a very good reason to critique American neo-imperialism and neoliberalism as a hegemonic global order, but the approach you've taken here feels a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face given we're talking about a regime that was supporting neo-imperialists of a different kind quite recently (leading to the deaths of Americans and others) and that has plenty of human rights abuses to its name. The difference is really one of scale.

It has nothing to do with disliking the United States, it's that allowing the United States to do this implicitly is giving the United States control over the sovereignty of another country.

[Fahran]

It has nothing to do with disliking the United States, it's that allowing the United States to do this implicitly is giving the United States control over the sovereignty of another country.

The United States and most of Europe have yet to acknowledge the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and, in any case, war is pretty much predicated, at least on some level, on not respecting the sovereignty of the countries on the other side. In fact, this war commenced because the Taliban supported organizations that had minimal respect for national sovereignty in the abstract. Beyond that, I'm not certain our colleague necessarily cares about sovereignty in the abstract either - especially if his signature isn't a joke.

And, to be honest, I don't really support national sovereignty 100% of the time either. I still think it was hilarious and based that Mossad snuck Eichmann out of Argentina over the protests of the Nazi collaborators. Mind you, I do think national sovereignty needs to be nominally respect much of the time if we're to have international peace on any level, but it's not something that's an immutable principle to me. It really can't be given how nations interact under the present global system. If we shift away from it... maybe?

Long story, short. This looks very much like supporting the Taliban to spite American power. That's not necessarily to imply the position is stupid, unreasonable, insane, or petty either. But it is cynical on some level and motivated by something a bit different from commitment to international norms and conventions.

[Fahran]

Honestly, I think the strangest critic of the US I've ever met was a Scottish Nationalist (insofar as he wanted the English to leave his country)

Modern Scottish nationalism has always struck me as extremely weird given the outsized role Scots played in expanding and maintaining the British Empire. As much as they strike gold with songs and poetry about Culloden, Scotland, on the whole, was far more of a colonizing than a colonized country.

who often baselessly supported Russia (he refused to acknowledge the Syrian gas attacks as anything but a US false fla, "if it even happened" and even after refused US intervention was even remotely acceptable),

US intervention didn't really accomplish too much, so I can't fault him exceedingly on the last point. The SAA absolutely employed weaponized gas against rebels though. We have adequate documentation of that. Russian airstrikes also killed a lot of people. And we know, or can make educated gueses, about why the war was prosecuted in this way.

who was somehow both a Socialist and fully supported Assad (or rather, wanted us to "let Assad's citizens fight him off without our intervention")

I can see why a socialist might support the Baathists over the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad managed to build a strong enough coalition to vanquish his numerous enemies. Though he was significantly weakened and might be too reliant on Russia now, judging by rumors coming from the IR pipeline.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

As a citizen of a minor power stuck as a pawn on the international chessboard, when people talk about necessity my immediate question is necessity for whom? It was necessary for the Americans to fund a military dictatorship for decades and encourage our Dear Leader to torture and quietly disappear people with leftist ideas, the political repercussions of which permeate to this day.

For “our own good”, of course; wouldn’t want us to be living under socialist governments.

I find it baffling how anyone with an even passing familiarity with 20th Century history can possibly imagine that anything good can come out of Americans (and the Soviets, etc.) trampling over the sovereignty of minor powers.

The Mossad extraction of Eichmann without the consent of the Argentinian government was an utter travesty and a gross miscarriage of justice. For the maintenance of a free society it is more important that things be done in the correct manner than it is that the correct things be done, and the extraction of Eichmann was no more legitimate than the kidnapping of that Belarusian journalist a few months ago.

The way I see it, the Taliban, much as they might wish otherwise, isn’t strong enough or influential enough (or geographically close enough for that matter) to threaten the free democratic regime in my country. The United States, on the other hand, has in the past demonstrated both the ability and the willingness to do exactly that. That makes it very clear in my mind where the greater evil lies.

[Nociav]

In many cases, pursuit of conventions promoted and supported by these institutions has made many Afghans worse off in real terms.

No it hasn't. The Taliban's ruthless drive for peace and order produced a very real net gain, peace and order. These matter substantially more than being able to drink beer or wear a skirt in Kabul.

As much as folks give warranted criticisms of the previous government for its corruption and abusive social conventions like bacha bazi, the Taliban aren't really much of an improvement, especially without the foreign aid that sustained Afghanistan previously. Their previous rule witnessed a plethora depraved sexual crimes, largely aimed at women and girls from minority backgrounds, and multiple instances of genocide. They presided over a nation that was tantamount to a narco-state, even furnishing seeds and equipment for poppy farmers, before they imposed a ban on poppy-farming. Some have even speculated that the ban was a ploy to drive up prices. I think it was sincere, but I'm inclined to think they'd have eventually reversed it out of necessity.

Stop throwing around the word genocide. Your devaluing it. The Holocaust was a genocide. There's no Holocaust in Afghanistan.

With regard to Afghanistan weening itself off of foreign aid, that strikes me as hopelessly optimistic given that upwards of forty percent of its GDP was sustained through payments from foreign governments and organizations - much of it being embezzled and the rest giving Afghanistan serious improvements in educational access. The Taliban have already effectively cut the workforce in half in many regions, diminishing the ability of poorer families as well as widows and orphans to provide for themselves. This includes minimizing the role of female professionals who had unique and much-needed skillsets, most notably in medicine. Realistically, I imagine they're going to kick up production of poppies again or work to get Chinese companies interested in mineral extraction.

Weening off Afghanistan from aid is possible. Kick up aid to NGOs, steadily release frozen reserves and measure their effects. If things are improving, cut aid and release more. Here's the controversial part. Adjust sanctions to help revive public institutions and help these institutions to function.

Really though, I think Afghanistan lost the one opportunity to prosper when the United States, in our infinite wisdom, blocked the proposal to raise Mohammed Zahir Shah to the throne and coordinate an alliance of Parsiwans and Pashtuns to rule the country at the local level.

Decentralisation, the last stand of the warlords and ethno-nationalists. I'll have none of that, thank you very much. The ex-Government was, in practice, extremely decentralised. You can see how well that idea went.

[Insaanistan]

Decentralisation, the last stand of the warlords and ethno-nationalists. I'll have none of that, thank you very much. The ex-Government was, in practice, extremely decentralised. You can see how well that idea went.

Afghanistan is among the most highly centralized states in the world with an extremely strong presidency that has left little room for formal local structures to fill the vacuum

That was from last April.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/af ... y-taliban/

[Insaanistan]

At Least 4 Talibs & 1 NRF Fighter Killed in Fighting in Khost Wa Fereng

[Nociav]

Decentralisation, the last stand of the warlords and ethno-nationalists. I'll have none of that, thank you very much. The ex-Government was, in practice, extremely decentralised. You can see how well that idea went.

Afghanistan is among the most highly centralized states in the world with an extremely strong presidency that has left little room for formal local structures to fill the vacuum

That was from last April.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/af ... y-taliban/

I'm well aware of what the theoretical Government was supposed to be. Forget the theoretical Government. In practice, it was one of the most decentralised states on Earth.

[Fahran]

No it hasn't.

I've pointed out concrete ways in which it has damaged institutional access and harmed the prospects of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of vulnerable people already. I could even elaborate on a lot of the social dysfunctions the Islamist approach to policy has introduced or exacerbated in countries where it is embraced, including both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Taliban's ruthless drive for peace and order produced a very real net gain, peace and order.

There's an ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan. Hazaras and women's rights activists are being murdered by local Taliban. Taliban patrols are being ambushed and beheaded by IS-K. The NRF is still likely active in its heartlands around Panjshir, continuing resistance in the mountains. Given the Taliban contributed significantly to the absence of peace and order, I'm not sure we should give them credit for not waging a war against the government because they became the government. Feels a lot like praising the Nazis for bringing peace to the streets of Berlin or Munich.

These matter substantially more than being able to drink beer or wear a skirt in Kabul.

Do they matter more than having a right to be educated or receive adequate medical attention? What about access to food? And, if the Taliban reenacts what they did the last time around and what they promised to do as they assumed control of the country, we can expect sexual and ethnic violence to increase as well.

Stop throwing around the word genocide. Your devaluing it. The Holocaust was a genocide. There's no Holocaust in Afghanistan.

I feel like genocidal is the right adjective to describe a group that murdered 8,000 civilians based on their ethnic and religious background, that occasionally conducted killings and war rapes against civilians based on ethnic and religious background between 2013 and 2018, and that has been summarily executing unarmed men based on their ethnic and religious background since they assumed power. You don't have to be a Nazi to be engaged in genocidal policies or to be genocidal.

Weening off Afghanistan from aid is possible. Kick up aid to NGOs,

This is literally still aid.

steadily release frozen reserves and measure their effects.

Fair. But, again, this isn't a long-term economic solution.

If things are improving, cut aid and release more. Here's the controversial part. Adjust sanctions to help revive public institutions and help these institutions to function.

I'm not certain Afghanistan actually have strong centralized institutions at the national level anymore. Those have been effectively destroyed by firty years of off and on civil wars. That's part of why I tend to advocate for regional power bases under the moral guidance of a widely-respected leading figure as a means of eventually creating alliances and paving the road for institutions that are agreeable to as many Afghans as possible. At present, the only one everyone seems to agree on Islam - and the Islamists still fight each other all the time.

Decentralisation, the last stand of the warlords and ethno-nationalists. I'll have none of that, thank you very much. The ex-Government was, in practice, extremely decentralised. You can see how well that idea went.

I mean... in practice, the Taliban is often decentralized - at least if we're hospitable in how we characterize a lot of the purges that seem to have taken place in the last few months. I doubt Akhunzada or Baradar are directly ordering hits on women's rights activists or Hazaras. If they are, yeah, I don't want them to have more money.

[Fahran]

A lot of your examples largely hinge on instances where disrespect for national sovereignty led to negative outcomes for vast portions of the populations involved and imposed more oppressive leadership on them in many cases. However, the opposite scenario, while less probable, remains plausible - and would, I think, challenge your argument quite a bit depending on your perspective and philosophy.

And I'm not a utilitarian either. I just don't really ascribe much moral significance to respecting the sovereignty of a political community in the abstract.

I've stated my position on Afghanistan before. I think the Taliban are an injudicious and brutish movement that often prioritize their fanatical ideology over the concrete and spiritual needs of their people. I also happen to believe that the United States should not have strived to impose a liberal paradigm across the country since this was intrinsically incompatible with the political culture of most Afghans. And, at this point, the Taliban will rule the country for a bit, with Pakistani backing.

But, yeah, I also get why we're not going to give these people money that belonged to the previous government.

The Mossad extraction of Eichmann without the consent of the Argentinian government was an utter travesty and a gross miscarriage of justice. For the maintenance of a free society it is more important that things be done in the correct manner than it is that the correct things be done, and the extraction of Eichmann was no more legitimate than the kidnapping of that Belarusian journalist a few months ago.

The trial of Eichmann, a mass murderer, was the only just outcome that could have occurred. Respecting Argentine national sovereignty would have been respecting the sovereignty of a population and of often questionable regimes that had sufficient sympathies with Nazism to make the country a popular destination for high-ranking Nazis who had presided over what can accurately be described as among the worst modern genocides. Respecting Argentine sovereignty would have meant allowing a fundamental miscarriage of justice because the government in charge at the time had minimal interest in justice.

And a journo isn't really comparable to a Nazi.

The way I see it, the Taliban, much as they might wish otherwise, isn’t strong enough or influential enough (or geographically close enough for that matter) to threaten the free democratic regime in my country. The United States, on the other hand, has in the past demonstrated both the ability and the willingness to do exactly that. That makes it very clear in my mind where the greater evil lies.

The Taliban was complicit in the murders of thousands of foreigners on American soil and does not appear to invariably value national sovereignty. I don't really see why we should hamstring ourselves while we're in contention against them and relations have yet to be normalized. Especially given their success seems to have emboldened their ilk else-where. And, again, foreign aid provided a lot of the assets that were frozen.

Again, this feels like supporting the Taliban to spite American hegemony - in this case because it constitutes the more dire threat. Never said it was pointless to do that. I'm just pointing out that this is, in fact, what a lot of people seem to be doing - some, with the intention, of substituting a novel hegemony in place of the soul-grinding neoliberalism we've had the past thirty years.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

The trial of Eichmann, a mass murderer, was the only just outcome that could have occurred. Respecting Argentine national sovereignty would have been respecting the sovereignty of a population and of often questionable regimes that had sufficient sympathies with Nazism to make the country a popular destination for high-ranking Nazis who had presided over what can accurately be described as among the worst modern genocides. Respecting Argentine sovereignty would have meant allowing a fundamental miscarriage of justice because the government in charge at the time had minimal interest in justice.

So if the stance of the United States is that it can do anything it wants, anywhere it wants, and the only justification it needs is that it is opposed to the ideology of the regimes governing the countries in whose internal affairs they are interfering, what makes you different from Eichmann?

From my perspective, both of you are a bunch of murderous foreigners who want to come in here and kill people like me.

A slight exaggeration, yes, but the point stands.

Again, this feels like supporting the Taliban to spite American hegemony - in this case because it constitutes the more dire threat. Never said it was pointless to do that. I'm just pointing out that this is, in fact, what a lot of people seem to be doing - some, with the intention, of substituting a novel hegemony in place of the soul-grinding neoliberalism we've had the past thirty years.

...fair enough point. I will accept that my opposition to American actions in Afghanistan has very little to do with my ideological affinity to the Taliban, because certainly no such affinity exists. It’s entirely to do with opposing US interests. I wouldn’t call it “spite”, though; there are very solid realpolitik reasons why I want the US busy and invested in somewhere that’s not here.