nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

US and Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan...- threadbanned users in OP

Sandor Clegane

Incredible to think that after being in Afghanistan for 20 years that we are possibly on the verge of having the Taliban back in power, by all accounts the government is on the brink of collapse in a matter of months or even weeks...

How is it possible that after a 20 year occupation by Nato/US that the Afghan government/military was so ill equipped?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/04/afghanistan-americas-longest-war-ends-amid-accusations-of-betrayal

Threadbanned users
jmreire
Timberrrrrrrr

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

TheValeyard

suicide_circus wrote: »

Perhaps the Taliban are the right men to run Afghanistan

Has to be a better alternative.

Strict interpretation of Islam running the country is a pretty crappy situation to be in.

suicide_circus

Perhaps the Taliban are the right men to run Afghanistan

TheValeyard

spring lane jack wrote: »

Wonder what will happen to the Heroin trade and how long will it be till we see the effects on the ground here in Ireland. I'm sure Drew Harris's old crew will figure out someway to keep the cash flowing.

Pre 9/11. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html

It's interesting. Wonder will they ban it once in power again. They've made a fortune from it during the past decade.

spring lane jack

Wonder what will happen to the Heroin trade and how long will it be till we see the effects on the ground here in Ireland. I'm sure Drew Harris's old crew will figure out someway to keep the cash flowing.

Pre 9/11. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html

kildare lad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was worth it to the companies that supplied the military.

That's the price of " Freedom"

BluePlanet

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

In many ways, the last 20 years have been total folly.

The status quo has returned.

The Taliban are effectively in power and the Afghan government will disintegrate rapidly

Yes but this time they won't be hosting an Osama Bin Laden group and terrorist organization with a global reach.
I'll wager they learned a hard lesson on that score.

Jimbob1977

In many ways, the last 20 years have been total folly.

The status quo has returned.

The Taliban are effectively in power and the Afghan government will disintegrate rapidly

[Deleted User]

kildare lad wrote: »

Well worth a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives .

It was worth it to the companies that supplied the military.

kildare lad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dust.

Well worth a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives .

[Deleted User]

kildare lad wrote: »

What is there to win ?

Dust.

kildare lad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Afghanistan is one of those places where "win" is impossible to define.

What is there to win ?

kildare lad

BluePlanet wrote: »

It wasn't a resounding failure.
Al-Qaeda is basically a tiny shadow of what it once once and their aims totally neutralized.

Do you think they could have not achieved it at the start , but american SF forces were told to pull back . I think that the neocons wanted a total change of leaders in middle east , dubya thought that the iraq war would be over in a few months and they'd pay for it with Iraqi oil . How well did that work out .

[Deleted User]

Dr. Bre wrote: »

That’s why the Russians left - you can’t win in Afghan

Afghanistan is one of those places where "win" is impossible to define.

BluePlanet

Labaik wrote: »

You could use that same logic with the Soviets.

The Americans were defeated in both Afghanistan and Iraq, these are wars the west havent got the stomach to win as they will sustain massive casualties on the ground just like they did in Vietnam. Only a mad man would say the intervention in the middle east and the war on terror was a success, it was a resounding failure.

It wasn't a resounding failure.
Al-Qaeda is basically a tiny shadow of what it once once and their aims totally neutralized.

Labaik

Gatling wrote: »

They didn't defeat America , America just didn't have any real plan for the medium to longer terms .

You could use that same logic with the Soviets.

The Americans were defeated in both Afghanistan and Iraq, these are wars the west havent got the stomach to win as they will sustain massive casualties on the ground just like they did in Vietnam. Only a mad man would say the intervention in the middle east and the war on terror was a success, it was a resounding failure.

BluePlanet

kildare lad wrote: »

You've misread a reply I wrote to a previous post . I know the Taliban are heavily involved with Pakistan .

IMO the Taliban have been pretty good bang for the buck, for Pakistan.
They've managed to mostly control events on the ground in Afghanistan via the Taliban for years before the US and a few Nato friends arrived.
They were handy in keeping other regional players competing for influence in check too.

kildare lad

BluePlanet wrote: »

Why would the Pakistanis do that?
Neverminding the shear scale of the operation and logistical difficulty in manning border outposts throughout mountain ranges that are essentially no mans land and controlled by warlords.

You've misread a reply I wrote to a previous post . I know the Taliban are heavily involved with Pakistan .

BluePlanet

kildare lad wrote: »

I mean with the Americans to control the Taliban moving between countries ,

Why would the Pakistanis do that?
Neverminding the shear scale of the operation and logistical difficulty in manning border outposts throughout mountain ranges that are essentially no mans land and controlled by warlords.

kildare lad

BluePlanet wrote: »

IF Pakistan got in on it?
The Taliban have been considered a proxy of the Pakistani ISI (intelligence service) since they came into existence.

They draw their support massively from refugee camps located inside Pakistan.

I mean get in on the Pakistanis helping the Americans to control the Taliban moving between countries ,

kildare lad

donaghs wrote: »

I don't think the US were looking to "convert" them their culture. They wanted something stable and friendly to their interests, so they could leave.

Afghanistan was relatively stable in the 1960s and 70s, up till the coup which preceded the Soviet invasion. Hippie types used to travel to Kabul overland via Turkey and Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie_trail

I think the question is, was it ever possible to put in place a resilient government which was a better alternative to the Taliban? It was the corruption and in-fighting of the post-Soviet governments which help usher in the Taliban.

Maybe in the city in kabul you could have a modern a stable government , but some places in Afghanistan is like the back of beyond . I watched a doc with the ANA going around with the royal marines . The marines were trying to get them to operate like an army so when the brits left they could police an area on their own . The ANA had no interest on doing much , they went into a compound and took the owners cannibis to smoke and on the way back they robbed 10 watermelons from a farmers crop. I'm sure thats the type of stuff you wouldn't get away with if the Taliban were in power.
Like it or not some people are just a little bit backwards . It doesn't matter what government you have in kabul to people who live hundreds of miles away in a mountain village , they're gonna live their life , the way it's always been lived

BluePlanet

kildare lad wrote: »

The Taliban are more than an army it's a way of life .I suppose if Pakistan got in on it , it would be a lot harder for them to operate but they'll hardly start now

IF Pakistan got in on it?
The Taliban have been considered a proxy of the Pakistani ISI (intelligence service) since they came into existence.

They draw their support massively from refugee camps located inside Pakistan.

BluePlanet

riffmongous wrote: »

Exactly, the role of Pakistan in all of this can't be ignored. Unless they are dealt with the Taliban will never be stopped. It's also worth bearing in mind that during the time when the Taliban were in charge they never actually controlled the entire country, the northern regions with their different ethnic mix and distance from Pakistan were controlled by different 'warlords' and managed to resistance the Taliban without much foreign support, at least up until shortly before 9/11

In fairness at one point they controlled 97% of the land area.
I'd say that's pretty comprehensive.
It's not black and white on alliances either.
You'd get warlords and factions that were part of the Northern Alliance at one point (albeit with their very own and different objectives), then they fall-in with the Taliban.
If we are looking at a sort of Northern Alliance as some sort of saviour or alternative to the Taliban, i'm afraid it will be short lived and much of a muchness.

donaghs

joseywhales wrote: »

Remind me, what was the last country to be invaded, successfully converted to the invader's culture and then thrived independently?

India maybe? Australia for sure but that was utter domination.

I don't think the US were looking to "convert" them their culture. They wanted something stable and friendly to their interests, so they could leave.

Afghanistan was relatively stable in the 1960s and 70s, up till the coup which preceded the Soviet invasion. Hippie types used to travel to Kabul overland via Turkey and Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie_trail

I think the question is, was it ever possible to put in place a resilient government which was a better alternative to the Taliban? It was the corruption and in-fighting of the post-Soviet governments which help usher in the Taliban.

kildare lad

Gatling wrote: »

Will the Taliban be able to manage heavy losses , every late spring into summer is fighting season fighters and supplies come across the border from Pakistan ,if the us and NATO keep up drone strikes and other air cover they could still do a lot of damage to the Taliban ,
But that's only if the will is there to do so ,

That's the thing , there's a lot of unknowns , but obama droned the hell out of Afghanistan and now the Taliban are strong as ever . They can play the long game . They don't live in a society the way we do . It's all about Islam with them , sure you can't even own a telly or a radio and kids can't kick a ball around or fly a kite. I was listening to a podcast with a navy seal and a reporter , the reporter discussed the problems with drone strikes . He said at the start you get the right guys as you've already got the Intel but as you keep doing it , it becomes less effective because you get no human intelligence because you've no boots on the ground capturing people and interrogating people , do you then just start bombing everyone who comes over the border in groups of 5 or 6 . The Taliban are more than an army it's a way of life .I suppose if Pakistan got in on it , it would be a lot harder for them to operate but they'll hardly start now

Gatling

kildare lad wrote: »

It looks like they're working their way there . I'm sure there'll be a lot more fighting as they get nearer . I'm sure there's plenty of people that don't wanna end up in the talibans hand . We'll probably see a mass migrantion again into Europe . Will the Americans help out the afghan government with drone and airstrikes if they do come near kabul ?? Whatever happens it look likes it'll be back to square one after tens of thousands of deaths and trillions down the drain. I think a few in the white house wanted bin laden to escape so the neocons could push the axis of evil crap in the middle east but iraq didn't turn out as easy as they thought. How George bush , Blair and Co have gotten away with the crap they've caused is beyond me

Will the Taliban be able to manage heavy losses , every late spring into summer is fighting season fighters and supplies come across the border from Pakistan ,if the us and NATO keep up drone strikes and other air cover they could still do a lot of damage to the Taliban ,
But that's only if the will is there to do so ,

kildare lad

riffmongous wrote: »

Exactly, the role of Pakistan in all of this can't be ignored. Unless they are dealt with the Taliban will never be stopped. It's also worth bearing in mind that during the time when the Taliban were in charge they never actually controlled the entire country, the northern regions with their different ethnic mix and distance from Pakistan were controlled by different 'warlords' and managed to resistance the Taliban without much foreign support, at least up until shortly before 9/11

From what I've read the Taliban don't want a global sharia caliphate like Isis do . I wouldn't be as worried about the Taliban commiting attacks in Europe as the likes of Isis would and do . They just want to rule their own area under sharia law and I think they don't wanna go down that road again of letting the likes of Al Queda who had camps and bases there . I don't know was that a way of thanks to bin laden for is help with money from Saudi during the Russian war. Your right though between warlords and tribal areas you can't really say that Afghanistan is a true country the way we see it . I'd hate to be living in kabul after having a little taste of freedom and now know the yanks are pulling out and the Taliban are on the loose .

Gatling

Labaik wrote: »

Defeats of the Soviet Union and The U.S with outdated weapons will only strengthen the resolve of the Afghans and the Taliban. A shambolic decision by the US to invade and it cost the lives blood of many of there servicemen for absolutely nothing.

If Russia stayed out if wouldn't have happened in the first place sure it wouldn't.

They didn't defeat America , America just didn't have any real plan for the medium to longer terms .

kildare lad

Hande hoche! wrote: »

It does raise an interesting question. In time for the twentieth anniversary of 9/11, will the Taliban be in control of the majority of the country or even at the outskirts of Kabul?

It looks like they're working their way there . I'm sure there'll be a lot more fighting as they get nearer . I'm sure there's plenty of people that don't wanna end up in the talibans hand . We'll probably see a mass migrantion again into Europe . Will the Americans help out the afghan government with drone and airstrikes if they do come near kabul ?? Whatever happens it look likes it'll be back to square one after tens of thousands of deaths and trillions down the drain. I think a few in the white house wanted bin laden to escape so the neocons could push the axis of evil crap in the middle east but iraq didn't turn out as easy as they thought. How George bush , Blair and Co have gotten away with the crap they've caused is beyond me

[Deleted User]

kildare lad wrote: »

Pakistan I'd say , it's kind of ironic that the yanks gave the mujahedeen stingers which played a big part in the defeat of the Russians , look how that came back to bite them .

Exactly, the role of Pakistan in all of this can't be ignored. Unless they are dealt with the Taliban will never be stopped. It's also worth bearing in mind that during the time when the Taliban were in charge they never actually controlled the entire country, the northern regions with their different ethnic mix and distance from Pakistan were controlled by different 'warlords' and managed to resistance the Taliban without much foreign support, at least up until shortly before 9/11

Hande hoche!

kildare lad wrote: »

I've seen twitter posts where scores of ANA soldiers are surrendering to the Taliban . I also seen another where the Taliban are in a warehouse full of American weapons . Sure a lot of arms Isis ended up with were American also .

It does raise an interesting question. In time for the twentieth anniversary of 9/11, will the Taliban be in control of the majority of the country or even at the outskirts of Kabul?