Afghanistan

[MrMarcello]

initiating a withdrawal after 20 years is and was sensible.....the way it was handled, the manner in which they withdrew and left everything behind including american citizens, afghan interpreters etc.....that falls completely on that racist houseplant of a president we have now

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Ah yes, Liz, another blonde right-wing nutjob. Meanwhile, the truth comes to light. Even Ted "I sucked Trump's taint" Cruz corrected himself later.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/worl...o-was-fixing-flag-report-101630455213770.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/31/...n-helicopter-hanging-cruz-crenshaw/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-hang-helicopter-idUSL1N2Q22W0

 

[Raoul]

Those aren't opposing ideologies.
60% of Democrats supported the Iraq war, not even including the Afghan war here. 3 of their next 4 presidential candidates, put in position by the party base, voted for the war.

These numbers are obviously skewed due to the post 9/11 bloodlust for revenge. I'm sure you'll find them significantly less during the intervening years between then and now. Bush Sr., for instance had an approval rating of 91% as he went into Iraq in the 90s. Dubya had an 89% approval following 9/11. Americans (at least back then) overwhelmingly got behind their country, President and military during times of conflict.

 

[MrMarcello]

A civil war would mean that a considerable proportion of the Afghan public loose enough fear of Taliban to oppose them. That would be a bigger hit to their morale and confidence. Without that fear factor, a fighting force of 70,000 cannot exert control over a country of ~ 40 million.

ولورین!

 

[Zlatattack]

True and they chased America out with rusty Toyota hiluxes and decades old ak47s ... do they really don't need this new gear to stone collaborators to death ... looks good for them on insta though

I suspect they'll shoot collaborators, it's much more efficient.

 

[Zlatattack]

This question will sound daft maybe but why did the Americans leave in such a hurry and left so many equipment?

It's been mismanaged. They had a year to arrange for this date.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Most people in DC are libs.

I cashed in my lib card when I got fired from my DC radio producer job in 2016, not that I had been overly kind to liberal politicians during my time there. In addition to doing production work, I ran all of the station's social media platforms. The owner of the station shut me down because he had been getting tremendous heat from notorious liberals such a Neera Tanden and others for my reporting on the #DCLeaks. I was unrelenting in exposing the corruption of everyone involved at the DNC

I can take Sport's criticism of being a part of the media blob with my recent comments. While I usually can't take what's being said on cable news, including on CNN, CNN has done a fairly decent job with it's reporting on the Afghanistan exit. I'm sure I'll be returning to premium cable movie repeats soon enough.

As far as the accusation of being overly nat sec minded... I disagree, all Nat Sec Advisors are completely full of shit. My nat sec contacts are a short list of 4 or 5 whistleblowers that I helped get their voices heard first through small media outlets which usually led to bigger platforms. Lots of others are retired nat sec folks that I met through general life situations, most of whom vastly disagreed with policies within their branches or with government as a whole in the US.


Here's something that relates to this conversation and Afghanistan:

So, I was down in the DC this summer doing a job for about 6 weeks. I stayed with one of my closest friends who works at Homeland Security.
We had several discussions about the Jan. 6th insurrection of the US Capitol Building. We both have harsh feelings about how anyone that went inside the building should be lined up and shot on the National Mall. Just before I returned home back to the mountains, the Afghanistan situation began to unfold. I said to my friend, 'With all the betrayal of the military that surrounds the US involvement of our military service members in Afghanistan, it's no wonder there were so many members of the military involved in wanting to overthrow the government. This close friend and I have had a cooling off period after the 2016 election because this person partly blames me for smearing Hillary


Now, it's time to watch 'Independence Day' for the 100th time on HBO

 

[Zlatattack]

A civil war would mean that a considerable proportion of the Afghan public loose enough fear of Taliban to oppose them. That would be a bigger hit to their morale and confidence. Without that fear factor, a fighting force of 70,000 cannot exert control over a country of ~ 40 million.

Could it be possible that the Afghans actually support the Taliban? 70,000 men took over the country unchallenged. You don't do that without support.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Could it be possible that the Afghans actually support the Taliban? 70,000 men took over the country unchallenged. You don't do that without support.

I think they made the calculation that the enhanced infrastructure and relatively liberal lifestyle wasn’t worth the endemic corruption. It might be the lesser evil in their judgment.

 

[Zlatattack]

I think they made the calculation that the enhanced infrastructure and relatively liberal lifestyle wasn’t worth the endemic corruption. It might be the lesser evil in their judgment.

I suspect most just wanted an end to war. Realistically what say do non combatants ever really have? What choice did the Germans and Japanese have post WW2? What choice would have the people in allied nations had if it went the other way?

You just made do I suppose.

 

[berbatrick]

These numbers are obviously skewed due to the post 9/11 bloodlust for revenge. I'm sure you'll find them significantly less during the intervening years between then and now. Bush Sr., for instance had an approval rating of 91% as he went into Iraq in the 90s. Dubya had an 89% approval following 9/11. Americans (at least back then) overwhelmingly got behind their country, President and military during times of conflict.

Well, I chose the Iraq war and not Afghanistan for a reason - this was 2 years later, and IMO this wasn't a "time of war" (with Iraq).

Nevertheless, I don't need those numbers to make a very basic point that there is a large interventionist faction within the Democratic party, pre 9/11, which goes back to Truman, and goes all the way to the VP candidate who lost to Bush- Joe Lieberman is a standard neocon.

And I would guess that many of the people who live around DC, increasingly liberal and democratic, are part of this faction of the party.

 

[Raoul]

Well, I chose the Iraq war and not Afghanistan for a reason - this was 2 years later, and IMO this wasn't a "time of war" (with Iraq).

Nevertheless, I don't need those numbers to make a very basic point that there is a large interventionist faction within the Democratic party, pre 9/11, which goes back to Truman, and goes all the way to the VP candidate who lost to Bush- Joe Lieberman is a standard neocon.

And I would guess that many of the people who live around DC, increasingly liberal and democratic, are part of this faction of the party.

The post 9/11 sentiment about “doing something” was still very strong during the lead up to the Iraq invasion in early 2003.

If you think Dems are pro intervention, it may be because a majority of Americans in both parties tend to rally behind the troops during times of war. However, as wars linger on, Dems are more likely to question them as opposed to Rs, who are more likely to “stand with the troops” long after the bulk of the fighting winds down. Look at the disparity during Vietnam where most anti-war protesters were left wingers and the pro war types were conservative Rs. Similar constructs are in place today where many progressives (libs) are anti war. Terms like progressives and libs are interchangeable in the lexicon since the only difference being that one is the left version of characterizing themselves, while the other is a conservative pejorative to characterize the left.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Well, I chose the Iraq war and not Afghanistan for a reason - this was 2 years later, and IMO this wasn't a "time of war" (with Iraq).

Nevertheless, I don't need those numbers to make a very basic point that there is a large interventionist faction within the Democratic party, pre 9/11, which goes back to Truman, and goes all the way to the VP candidate who lost to Bush- Joe Lieberman is a standard neocon.

And I would guess that many of the people who live around DC, increasingly liberal and democratic, are part of this faction of the party.

Have you read the Matt Stoller book, 'Goliath'? It covers what you're talking about in great detail.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

The post 9/11 sentiment following about “doing something” was still very strong during the lead up to the Iraq invasion in early 2003.

If you think Dems are pro intervention, it may be because a majority of Americans in both parties tend to rally behind the troops during times of war. However, as wars linger on, Dems are more likely to question them as opposed to Rs, who are more likely to “stand with the troops” long after the bulk of the fighting winds down. Look at the disparity during Vietnam where most anti-war protesters were left wingers and the pro war types were conservative Rs. Similar constructs are in place today where many progressives (libs) are anti war. Terms like progressives and libs are interchangeable in the lexicon since the only difference being that one is the left version of characterizing themselves, while the other is a conservative pejorative to characterize the left.

I agree that the DC area had been mostly liberal

Just a couple things to add...
During the military base realignment of the Obama years, places like Maryland and Virginia had been flooded with conservative families that moved in from very red base districts. The demographics did change, maybe not significantly, but enough to make a noticeable difference while I was there.

In addition, there were always lots of Dems that I knew during the wars and after that were Dems that digested as little news as humanly possible. Many of them couldn't get with the R's but they still had fiscal conservative perspectives and a mixed bag of liberal and conservative (southern) social policy mindsets. It's a very complicated demographic

Very few people would voice an opinion on the Afghanistan war.

 

[barros]

Maybe because you subscribe to Maga feeds ?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Actually was from twitter and was from a Portuguese newspaper

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Just a reminder, there are still lots of foreigners stranded in Afghanistan.

And not just Americans that President Biden insists that wanted to stay

 

[Cheimoon]

Just a reminder, there are still lots of foreigners stranded in Afghanistan.

And not just Americans that President Biden insists that wanted to stay

Personally, I have to say I'm not that interested in those foreigners. I'd be much more interested in what the Taliban are doing now they have to run the government and what's happening with the millions of Afghanistan's regular inhabitants. But all this focus on a couple of westerners and their evacuation is completely overshadowing that.

 

[Raoul]

Personally, I have to say I'm not that interested in those foreigners. I'd be much more interested in what the Taliban are doing now they have to run the government and what's happening with the millions of Afghanistan's regular inhabitants. But all this focus on a couple of westerners and their evacuation is completely overshadowing that.

You wouldn't receive much information about what the Taliban are doing in either case, since media will be bullied into not covering anything negative about them, or else risk getting shut down.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Personally, I have to say I'm not that interested in those foreigners. I'd be much more interested in what the Taliban are doing now they have to run the government and what's happening with the millions of Afghanistan's regular inhabitants. But all this focus on a couple of westerners and their evacuation is completely overshadowing that.

Afghanistan has been a horrific shit show for how many thousands of years?

I'm sure China and Russia will encourage the chaos for another couple decades, at least.

At the rate we're going with escalating climate issues and wacky politics throughout the world, I doubt anyone will be willing to step in to stabilize the situation there.

Sorry if my response is sorta bleak

 

[Penna]

I read a poignant article yesterday about a young Afghani woman who had just started a new job. She was turned away from her office and said there's "a man with a beard" sitting at her desk now. She burned her jeans and her brother went out to buy her a burkha.

The same article mentioned a young man who always went running in the mornings wearing a teeshirt and shorts. The Taliban stopped him and told him to go home and change into "Muslim clothes."

All these young people who have grown up with these small and not-so-small freedoms, now having those things snatched away from them.

 

[2cents]

Afghanistan has been a horrific shit show for how many thousands of years?

It hasn’t, these types of comments are unhelpful.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Afghanistan has been a horrific shit show for how many thousands of years?

I'm sure China and Russia will encourage the chaos for another couple decades, at least.

At the rate we're going with escalating climate issues and wacky politics throughout the world, I doubt anyone will be willing to step in to stabilize the situation there.

Sorry if my response is sorta bleak

China doesn’t want chaos there, they have investments in the belt and road initiative in and around Afghanistan that they’d want to preserve. If anything, the Afghans have to be careful they don’t leverage themselves neck deep in debt to the Chinese like so many other countries have and lose control of their trade and transportation corridors.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

It hasn’t, these types of comments are unhelpful.

Okay,

Then help me out here. When has Afghanistan had a stable society that didn't define itself with tribal and/or cross border conflicts?

Sorry for the harsh characterization

 

[The Firestarter]

You wouldn't receive much information about what the Taliban are doing in either case, since media will be bullied into not covering anything negative about them, or else risk getting shut down.

You mean Afghan media correct ?

 

[Raoul]

You mean Afghan media correct ?

Yes, specifically Afghan media operating inside Afghanistan.

 

[Raoul]

Heavy fighting in and near Panshir lately. The Taliban leadership must know they have to kill the kid before an insurgency forms.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Cheimoon]

Afghanistan has been a horrific shit show for how many thousands of years?

I'm sure China and Russia will encourage the chaos for another couple decades, at least.

At the rate we're going with escalating climate issues and wacky politics throughout the world, I doubt anyone will be willing to step in to stabilize the situation there.

Sorry if my response is sorta bleak

If you've been following @2cents's posts in this thread, you will have noticed that Afghanistan was not a 'difficult' area before the late 1970s - or at least, not more than any random other area in the world. So that's a gross mischaracterization I'm afraid, possibly based on the false 'graveyard of empires' myth.

Apart from that, how does that affect what I posted? Even if it were true, I would be more concerned about the fate of people living there than those couple of westerners that now got stuck there. In fact, if anything, your post makes it worse: 'the place is lost, so let's give up and only care for the couple of people we can get home safe'. An awful cop-out. Not that you or I decide on these things, but surely all of our countries could actually do a lot of useful work in terms of humanitarian aid, possibly with conditions about certain social circumstances that have to be guaranteed. (If that's not too neocolonialist.)

In any case, surely things can be tried.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

If you've been following @2cents's posts in this thread, you will have noticed that Afghanistan was not a 'difficult' area before the late 1970s - or at least, not more than any random other area in the world. So that's a gross mischaracterization I'm afraid, possibly based on the false 'graveyard of empires' myth.

Apart from that, how does that affect what I posted? Even if it were true, I would be more concerned about the fate of people living there than those couple of westerners that now got stuck there. In fact, if anything, your post makes it worse: 'the place is lost, so let's give up and only care for the couple of people we can get home safe'. An awful cop-out. Not that you or I decide on these things, but surely all of our countries could actually do a lot of useful work in terms of humanitarian aid, possibly with conditions about certain social circumstances that have to be guaranteed. (If that's not too neocolonialist.)

In any case, surely things can be tried.

On a positive note, with so many Afghan SIV people that left the country, maybe they will be able to help other nations to have a more positive view of the region.

 

[2cents]

When has Afghanistan had a stable society that didn't define itself with tribal and/or cross border conflicts?

I don’t think Afghan society has ever defined itself by conflict (brief outline of my understanding of Afghan history follows…)

Tribalism is an important element to consider, but it’s not as simple as dismissing the entire society as inherently fractious. For example, the Pashtuns of the east/south and Uzbeks of the north may both be described as “tribal”, but their structures/hierarchies of authority are of a different nature (the former being more egalitarian, the latter more authoritarian). The Tajiks are not really tribal in any significant way as far as I know (I’m not sure about the Hazaras).

In terms of cross-border conflicts, I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to. The modern Afghan state has its origins in the mid-18th century Durrani Empire, which was a lot bigger back then, encompassing parts of modern-day north-east Iran and Pakistan/India as well as Afghanistan (it was itself built on the ruins of the Safavid, Mughal, and Uzbek Empires which had divided modern-day Afghanistan between them previously). It shrunk due to the encroachments of others - the Qajars in the west, and the Sikhs and British in the east. The one remaining territorial claim that Afghanistan makes on its neighbors is to the Pashtun tribal areas of the old North-West Frontier Province, now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan. But the cross-border tensions there are the product of a border formalized and consolidated by the British in the late 19th century.

And it should also be noted that there have been no significant separatist movements in modern Afghanistan, despite the presence of shared ethnicities across borders. Up to this day, all tribes, ethnicities, and sects have remained committed to the endurance of Afghanistan.

In terms of civil unrest, there seems nothing especially uniquely troubling about Afghanistan. From the late-18th century until the first Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842), there were regular dynastic struggles for power among the Durrani elite, similar to the succession wars that plagued others such as the Ottomans and Mughals. But the general population were not involved. They only began to play a role in the politics of the state in response to the British interventions of 1839-1842 and 1878-1880 (second Anglo-Afghan War), and only then around Kabul and Kandahar. In this period, Afghanistan was de-centralized, with the capital (first Kandahar, then Kabul) barely able to exert authority over the other regional centres (Herat in the West, Kandahar in the south, Balkh/Mazar in the north, Jalalabad to the east).

After 1880 Abdur Rahman centralized the state for the first time, giving Kabul the means to directly intervene in provincial affairs and subjugate the population. But it was only when Kabul used these means to try to force social and economic changes on conservative tribal areas that limited civil strife resulted (most obviously in the brief civil war of 1929 which overthrew Amanullah).

From 1929 to 1978, Afghanistan was largely peaceful, two or three minor episodes aside (the coup of 1973 was bloodless). The rulers very cautiously began opening up the country to Soviet and American aid after WW2, and especially during the 60s. The result of this measured modernization program was to disrupt traditional structures of authority (in the household, in the tribe, across the country, etc.) and to empower groups previously excluded from politics. In Kabul University in the 60s and 70s, this process produced two broadly-defined groups seeking revolutionary change - the communists and Islamists. The former seized power in a coup in 1978, and (with Soviet backing) set about implementing an extremely far-reaching and repressive socialist program which immediately alienated most of the population and provoked the first country-wide uprising in response. The latter finally took Kabul in 1992 after taking advantage of Cold War and regional politics to dominate the uprising with American, Pakistani and Saudi aid. By then, the damage was done. But even in this, there is nothing unique - the destabilizing impact of a modernizing state seeking to bring a previously closed society into the twentieth century while navigating late 20th century geopolitics can also be observed in places like Ethiopia and the Yemens (off the top of my head).

So I think it’s fair to say that the conflicts plaguing Afghanistan today are the product of a number of forces, of which tribal and ethnic tensions are just two, and certainly insufficient to explain things.

 

[Raoul]

On a positive note, with so many Afghan SIV people that left the country, maybe they will be able to help other nations to have a more positive view of the region.

The misconception about SIVs that seems to have emerged recently is that they were all in Afghanistan waiting to leave. The reality is many of them previously came to the US over the past decade after their SIVs were approved.

 

[2cents]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[The Firestarter]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

What I wonder is, will the US provide covert support for that group...

 

[RedTiger]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I was just talking to my Afghan friend an hour earlier about this. He told me that Panjsher valley supplied 3 out of every 4 ANA soldier and that the area is called soldier country in Afghanistan. Hopefully Massoud's son and the ANA remnants can exert their indepdence from the Taliban regime.

 

[VorZakone]

Couldn't help but laugh a bit at this thread...

 

[MrMarcello]

I figure Constellis Group will be looking for work as well. Might could provide security and training to whomever, perhaps wage their own private war.

 

[Raoul]

Silvio Dante just landed in Kabul

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[2cents]

He’s got Paulie’s wings.

 

[Raoul]

He’s got Paulie’s wings.

You're right. Its like someone morphed both Silvio and Paulie's heads into one and shopped them into an ISI uniform.

 

[VorZakone]

Silvio Dante just landed in Kabul

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Bada bing bada boom.

 

[crappycraperson]

Head of spy agency leading delegation to discuss trade...

 

[2cents]