Afghanistan - What should have been done, what should be don

[Kubra]

well the US caused their own doom in Afghanistan before they even arrived.


they funded the Taliban in the 80's during the Soviet invasion, and gave them all the materials they needed to be perfect in the terrain and much more. causing the extreme difficulty NATO soldiers had to go through.

The Taliban did not exist in the 80s.

Operation Cyclone had been over for five years when the Taliban were founded. And the Taliban fought against the Mujahideen that the US did back in the 1980s.

Well look at the who's who of the current taliban top brass
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... fghanistan
All of them were former mujahideen, replaced former mujahideen, or had familial connections to, well, you know.

[Dekster]

Let them be, I say.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

The Taliban did not exist in the 80s.

Operation Cyclone had been over for five years when the Taliban were founded. And the Taliban fought against the Mujahideen that the US did back in the 1980s.

Well look at the who's who of the current taliban top brass
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... fghanistan
All of them were former mujahideen, replaced former mujahideen, or had familial connections to, well, you know.

It is still erroneous to say that the US funded an organisation that did not exist at the time.

It also misleadingly suggests that the CIA was distributing the money directly to the Mujahideen when they were sending both it and the weapons to Pakistan's ISI, and it was the ISI who decided who received the funding.

The Mujahideen were a politically and ideologically diverse group, and collectively made up the bulk of anti-Soviet resistance. It shouldn't surprise anyone that new militant groups founded in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war were founded by former fighters in the other groups.

But if it can be said that the US funded the Taliban because it sent money to the ISI which selected which groups got the funding, then the descendants of those Mujahideen groups themselves, including the former Afghan government that the Taliban just overthrew, are if anything more responsible for having those members in the first place.

[Kubra]

Well look at the who's who of the current taliban top brass
https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... fghanistan
All of them were former mujahideen, replaced former mujahideen, or had familial connections to, well, you know.

It is still erroneous to say that the US funded an organisation that did not exist at the time.

It also misleadingly suggests that the CIA was distributing the money directly to the Mujahideen when they were sending both it and the weapons to Pakistan's ISI, and it was the ISI who decided who received the funding.

The Mujahideen were a politically and ideologically diverse group, and collectively made up the bulk of anti-Soviet resistance. It shouldn't surprise anyone that new militant groups founded in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war were founded by former fighters in the other groups.
But if it can be said that the US funded the Taliban because it sent money to the ISI which selected which groups got the funding, then the descendants of those Mujahideen groups themselves, including the former Afghan government that the Taliban just overthrew, are if anything more responsible for having those members in the first place.

When folks say they "funded the taliban", they usually do not mean in the literal sense, but of course in the very practical sense.
You say they were "politically and ideologically diverse", but I mean we all know what the name means. I mean communists are a diverse lot, queue the peoples front of judea jokes, but remain communists all the same.
As stupid as the US can be, chances are they weren't missing who the pakistani's were funnelling the money to. I mean, cmon man.

[Page]

It is still erroneous to say that the US funded an organisation that did not exist at the time.

It also misleadingly suggests that the CIA was distributing the money directly to the Mujahideen when they were sending both it and the weapons to Pakistan's ISI, and it was the ISI who decided who received the funding.

The Mujahideen were a politically and ideologically diverse group, and collectively made up the bulk of anti-Soviet resistance. It shouldn't surprise anyone that new militant groups founded in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war were founded by former fighters in the other groups.
But if it can be said that the US funded the Taliban because it sent money to the ISI which selected which groups got the funding, then the descendants of those Mujahideen groups themselves, including the former Afghan government that the Taliban just overthrew, are if anything more responsible for having those members in the first place.

When folks say they "funded the taliban", they usually do not mean in the literal sense, but of course in the very practical sense.
You say they were "politically and ideologically diverse", but I mean we all know what the name means. I mean communists are a diverse lot, queue the peoples front of judea jokes, but remain communists all the same.
As stupid as the US can be, chances are they weren't missing who the pakistani's were funnelling the money to. I mean, cmon man.

The US funded Islamists to prevent a pro-Soviet socialist government from taking power. Better? The Mujahideen and Taliban are not identical but the fact is that America did back people motivated by a desire to wage holy war against a godless empire.

[Kubra]

When folks say they "funded the taliban", they usually do not mean in the literal sense, but of course in the very practical sense.
You say they were "politically and ideologically diverse", but I mean we all know what the name means. I mean communists are a diverse lot, queue the peoples front of judea jokes, but remain communists all the same.
As stupid as the US can be, chances are they weren't missing who the pakistani's were funnelling the money to. I mean, cmon man.

The US funded Islamists to prevent a pro-Soviet socialist government from taking power. Better? The Mujahideen and Taliban are not identical but the fact is that America did back people motivated by a desire to wage holy war against a godless empire.

I mean it's like "oh no if only the salafi's got the state instead of the deobandi's"
like cmon, y'know?

[Postauthoritarian America]

America has:

$6.4 trillion spent or to be spent on a pointless 20-year-long war in Afghanistan, $100k for every family of four
Serious challenges to its continued global influence
The blood of 2500 US troops and hundreds of thousands of Afghans on its hands
Obligation to provide for Afghan veterans' dependents until 2200 and beyond
Tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2017
Record low spending on infrastructure
Zero miles of passenger-carrying high-speed rail

China has:

5.5% of GDP spent on improving infrastructure
Efficient commerce, shrinking carbon footprint, reduced rural poverty, increased global influence
16,000 miles of passenger-carrying high-speed rail

The US Congress is squabbling over less than $5 trillion in infrastructure investment
China invested over $29 trillion in infrastructure from 2000 to 2014, financing over $26 trillion with debt

https://www.dcreport.org/2021/08/17/why ... ce-things/

[Neanderthaland]

Let them be, I say.

I am so tempted to make an Aliens reference right now.

But that would be crude. Also, I think Post is onto something.

[Vikanias]

When folks say they "funded the taliban", they usually do not mean in the literal sense, but of course in the very practical sense.
You say they were "politically and ideologically diverse", but I mean we all know what the name means. I mean communists are a diverse lot, queue the peoples front of judea jokes, but remain communists all the same.
As stupid as the US can be, chances are they weren't missing who the pakistani's were funnelling the money to. I mean, cmon man.

The US funded Islamists to prevent a pro-Soviet socialist government from taking power. Better? The Mujahideen and Taliban are not identical but the fact is that America did back people motivated by a desire to wage holy war against a godless empire.

This guy gets what I meant, instead of mr. 2016 here.

[Old Tyrannia]

When folks say they "funded the taliban", they usually do not mean in the literal sense, but of course in the very practical sense.
You say they were "politically and ideologically diverse", but I mean we all know what the name means. I mean communists are a diverse lot, queue the peoples front of judea jokes, but remain communists all the same.
As stupid as the US can be, chances are they weren't missing who the pakistani's were funnelling the money to. I mean, cmon man.

The US funded Islamists to prevent a pro-Soviet socialist government from taking power. Better? The Mujahideen and Taliban are not identical but the fact is that America did back people motivated by a desire to wage holy war against a godless empire.

Sure, but as I've already explained at length, it was Pakistan that largely controlled where the US funding went and who decided to fund the Islamists over more secular groups, and funding from foreign states never made up more than about 25% of the mujahideen's funding anyway. And whilst the Taliban was founded largely by former mujahideen fighters, that's also true of their main opponents. So it's a great stretch to say that the US either "funded the Taliban" or contributed to its existence in any major way. The question is, what do all of you crusaders against America actually think would or should have happened, if the US had never involved itself in Afghanistan? Do you somehow think that the DRA could have survived long term (I've already explained why it almost certainly wouldn't have)? Or do you assume that in the absence of US funding, a more secular group would somehow have taken control of Afghanistan instead of the mujahideen? Neither scenario seems likely to me. And those who are shilling for the DRA and the Soviets ought to own up to the fact that they're in favour of a repressive dictatorship backed up by a foreign imperial power guilty of committing extensive war crimes against the people of Afghanistan.

[Chan Island]

America has:

$6.4 trillion spent or to be spent on a pointless 20-year-long war in Afghanistan, $100k for every family of four
Serious challenges to its continued global influence
The blood of 2500 US troops and hundreds of thousands of Afghans on its hands
Obligation to provide for Afghan veterans' dependents until 2200 and beyond
Tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2017
Record low spending on infrastructure
Zero miles of passenger-carrying high-speed rail

China has:

5.5% of GDP spent on improving infrastructure
Efficient commerce, shrinking carbon footprint, reduced rural poverty, increased global influence
16,000 miles of passenger-carrying high-speed rail

The US Congress is squabbling over less than $5 trillion in infrastructure investment
China invested over $29 trillion in infrastructure from 2000 to 2014, financing over $26 trillion with debt

https://www.dcreport.org/2021/08/17/why ... ce-things/

Not to mention the Belt & Road initiative, which sees them expand a powerful global commerce empire by the simple act of ... helping people abroad build things. Like roads or ports which boost not only that country's, but also China's own economy in a win-win.

1) Afghanistan was by no means always an unstable, conflict-stricken tribal society, nor was it always doomed to become one; that's just lazy racism assuming that the country's current state of affairs is a consequence entirely of the nature of its inhabitants rather than attempting to understand the complex mix of historic events and geopolitical factors that have led us to where we are now. Had either the 1973 coup against the monarchy or the 1978 coup by the communists failed or never occurred, it is perfectly plausible that Afghanistan would have remained a stable country up to the present.

I don't have much to say about your effort post (even though this isn't linked to the effort post but bear with), but I have to say this is appreciated.

Too many people just look at Afghanistan now and see an impoverished, tribal, unstable place with rampant violence and then assume that is what it must be. Or, worse, that it always has and will be. While this sad state of affairs is what the country is now, it is so important to remember that that is the result of political choices, both by their own and by people abroad, and that once upon a time Afghanistan was a modern, stable country with the potential for a bright future.

But of course, confronting that truth means confronting the fact that no matter where you are from- Russia, the US, Middle East, Pakistan, Europe- that your government has played a role through either malice, bigotry or ignorance to stunt that unfortunate country into what it is today.

[Kubra]

The US funded Islamists to prevent a pro-Soviet socialist government from taking power. Better? The Mujahideen and Taliban are not identical but the fact is that America did back people motivated by a desire to wage holy war against a godless empire.

Sure, but as I've already explained at length, it was Pakistan that largely controlled where the US funding went and who decided to fund the Islamists over more secular groups, and funding from foreign states never made up more than about 25% of the mujahideen's funding anyway. And whilst the Taliban was founded largely by former mujahideen fighters, that's also true of their main opponents. So it's a great stretch to say that the US either "funded the Taliban" or contributed to its existence in any major way. The question is, what do all of you crusaders against America actually think would or should have happened, if the US had never involved itself in Afghanistan? Do you somehow think that the DRA could have survived long term (I've already explained why it almost certainly wouldn't have)? Or do you assume that in the absence of US funding, a more secular group would somehow have taken control of Afghanistan instead of the mujahideen? Neither scenario seems likely to me. And those who are shilling for the DRA and the Soviets ought to own up to the fact that they're in favour of a repressive dictatorship backed up by a foreign imperial power guilty of committing extensive war crimes against the people of Afghanistan.

Again: the US may be stupid, but to suggest they weren't aware where the money was going when Pakistan sent it down is suggesting something rather worse. And in any case, imagine I were to say "the US did not fund the contra's between 1985 and 1986". I would be correct, but also willfully obtuse.
The funding on the mujahideen is one area among others that the US supported sunni radicals to the detriment of modernist movements within the greater MENA world. The end result is a total reduction in places where a fella can get a good pint. Perhaps one might blame their general eastern preference, but given some of the statements made in the WaPo papers, I'm inclined to think otherwise.
As for the matter of those pining for the DRA, it is a statement born of despair, akin to the pining for the monarchy but for left wingers. After a loved one befalls and accident, one might think about whether we could have done things arbitrarily differently, you know?

[Krasny-Volny]

When the secularists were forced out of power last week, they were in danger of death if they were apprehended, they were out of power, and they were in dire straits. They took to the airports and borders to ensure their safety. If the secularists really want to retake power, they need to look to the Taliban for the methods that work; running away is not one of them.

As to the first question, what we should do is the same thing as the Taliban supporters did for them. We should equip, on the sly, those forces that are willing to fight the Taliban in the same way as the Taliban fought them. Insurgency, terrorism, and guerilla warfare work well against an established government as we have seen. Let us see just how successful the Taliban are against their own tactics.

The Taliban are a highly motivated force who believe in what they're doing. They don't fight for the money. They don't fight for a job. They fight for their faith.

Those who served in the Afghan security forces loyal to the "secular" government mostly joined for economic reasons. Or familial reasons that have more to do with their relatives and nepotism than actually wanting to be good at their job. They don't have a cause they're willing to make sacrifices for, which is why they're surrendering en masse.

The will to resist the Taliban by members of the fallen Kabul government - even by means of a determined insurgency - is simply not there. If it was, Kabul would've never fallen in the first place.

[Fauzjhia]

Before even thinking about what we should do, we should think about how the Taliban came back to power in the first place ?

its simple really, they were helped, funded by Pakistan, Iran and China (who is american's business best friend)
so think about this, each time you buy something made in China, you are also funding the Talibans, since they are funded by the country you bought from.

We lose economic control to our corruption and China.

you can look at the situation in many way, but as long as the government is doing the business of big corporations, things are not going to be better. I guess that's where American isolationist goes.

Seriously, I doubt that America ever really fought for (freedom) and (liberty). that's just a powerful narratives.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Now it can be told

Pompeo launched the US-Taliban agreement to improve Trump's electoral chances in 2020.

Khalilzad "negotiated" (read: caved) the agreement with the Taliban because he was angling for Pompeo's job.

And this is all Biden's fault? Please.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Now it can be told

Pompeo launched the US-Taliban agreement to improve Trump's electoral chances in 2020.

Khalilzad "negotiated" (read: caved) the agreement with the Taliban because he was angling for Pompeo's job.

And this is all Biden's fault? Please.

Also there is a video of Pompeo ranting about Pelosi and next to the video is an image with him meeting with a Taliban leader in Doha.

[Autumn Wind]

Now it can be told

Pompeo launched the US-Taliban agreement to improve Trump's electoral chances in 2020.

Khalilzad "negotiated" (read: caved) the agreement with the Taliban because he was angling for Pompeo's job.

And this is all Biden's fault? Please.

Also there is a video of Pompeo ranting about Pelosi and next to the video is an image with him meeting with a Taliban leader in Doha.

Remember when Republicans had conniption fits over Obama releasing five Taliban guys to get that deserter guy back? Oddly, there was no similar outrage over Trump releasing 5,000 of them.

[Elwher]

While I am not a fan of how the Taliban rule, a case could be made that they are a more legitimate government than the one they replaced.

In 2001, the Taliban government was deposed by a foreign invasion, which created the secularist government and kept it in power by the use of foreign military forces to suppress its enemies. The Taliban returned to power by the efforts of native Afghans, assisted by some foreign volunteers and support on a non-interventionist level. Objectively, which makes for a more legitimate government?

[Just-An-Illusion]

Your wasting your time with this question, it would be probably be best if you asked a political expert. Strangers on the internet aren't very reliable sources including strangers from NS of all things.

[Duvniask]

Your wasting your time with this question, it would be probably be best if you asked a political expert. Strangers on the internet aren't very reliable sources including strangers from NS of all things.

You can say that about 75% of all threads on NSG.

Not that you would be wrong.

[Vikanias]

Your wasting your time with this question, it would be probably be best if you asked a political expert. Strangers on the internet aren't very reliable sources including strangers from NS of all things.

You can say that about 75% of all threads on NSG.

Not that you would be wrong.

"hmmmm yes Randomnation999999 is telling in thread about politics that the moon landing was faked and the government are aliens. although everybody in the scientific community has proven that the moon landing wasn't faked, but what do scientists know over the supreme intellect of Randomnation999999"

this is overexaggerated but kids don't believe what strangers say. especially on NS on all sites.

[Saiwania]

In 2001, the Taliban government was deposed by a foreign invasion, which created the secularist government and kept it in power by the use of foreign military forces to suppress its enemies. The Taliban returned to power by the efforts of native Afghans, assisted by some foreign volunteers and support on a non-interventionist level. Objectively, which makes for a more legitimate government?

Its more that most Afghans don't care about Afghanistan as a whole. The borders were drawn up by former empires or their neighbors. People in Afghanistan care more about their local tribe or province and at best the Taliban might get the most support in the south of the country and along the borders with Pakistan, but the non-Pastun areas of Afghanistan and some urban centers like Kabul very much aren't on board with backing the Taliban regime.

If a civil war is renewed, it should be foreign governments sending arms/assistence to the factions they back, but otherwise not intervening in terms of occupying territory. It should be modeled after how the ISIS war was conducted. Tilt the scale against the Taliban if their opposition is more favorable, but let the locals do all the actual ground campaigns and governing.

[South Olpen]

I'm ready to say I'm wrong, but I don't understand why we couldn't have pushed the Taliban back while others work with evacuating civilians. Once everyone who wants and can be saved is, we can retreat. I'm no general, but other than promises I don't see a reason it couldn't have been done.

[Punished UMN]

I'm ready to say I'm wrong, but I don't understand why we couldn't have pushed the Taliban back while others work with evacuating civilians. Once everyone who wants and can be saved is, we can retreat. I'm no general, but other than promises I don't see a reason it couldn't have been done.

Because it would have taken tens of thousands of troops and large amounts of munitions.

[Postauthoritarian America]

To respond to the OP: what should have been done is to send in the Marines when we had OBL cornered in Tora Bora, then pull out most US troops and support the Afghan government as much as possible. It still probably would have collapsed but it would not have pulled the US economy and thousands of US soldiers' lives along with it. Certainly not invade Iraq which posed no threat to the US and was uninvolved in 9/11. Certainly not get stuck in a quagmire which saw US troops employed providing security for nationwide electoral fraud.

What should be done is to get out with as little loss of life as possible and use what influence we can on the Taliban or whatever government emerges from the current fubar situation. Or pretty much what the Biden Administration is doing, all the time dodging brickbats from Republican insurrectionists and Democratic poltroons.