Page 8 of 92

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:30 am
by jhu72
Farfromgeneva wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:08 am
jhu72 wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:51 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:42 pm Despite the PR blitz axios is reporting that they’re already tearing ish up there.

Taliban respond to rare protest with violent crackdown
Ivana Saric
Ivana Saric
Taliban members are seen near Hamid Karzai International Airport
Taliban members are seen near Hamid Karzai International Airport as thousands of Afghans rush to flee the Afghan capital of Kabul on Aug. 16. Photo: Haroon Sabawoon/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
The Taliban violently dispersed dozens of protesters in the city of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing at least one person after the demonstrators removed the Taliban flag and replaced it with the national flag, AP reports.

Why it matters: The violence stands in stark contrast to the more benevolent image the Taliban have sought to cast since taking power, claiming they'd grant "amnesty" to supporters of the Afghan government and honor women's rights within their "cultural frameworks."

It also renews fears that the group will return to the brutal grip it ruled with in the 1990s, when women's and other rights were severely restricted.
The big picture: Taliban fighters in Jalalabad fired into the crowd and beat demonstrators with batons, per AP.

Hundreds of protesters also demonstrated in the city of Khost and were violently attacked by the Taliban, the New York Times reports.
Protesters also took to the streets in Asadabad, per the Wall Street Journal.
Despite assuring the U.S. they would allow safe passage of civilians to the airport in Kabul, the Taliban have instituted checkpoints outside its perimeter and have been violently pushing back those seeking entry, per the Journal.

The Taliban unleashed rounds of gunfire into the air and beat families seeking entry, the Journal reports.
The chaos and violence succeeded in thinning out the crowds of Afghans trying to enter the airport, CNN reports.
What they're saying: “The situation is very bad at the gate,” Lida Ahmadi, who applied for a special immigrant visa, told the Journal. “I slept on the road last night. Now, after two nights and two days at the gate, we’ve finally got the chance to come in."

“The crowd pushed us from the back and she fell down. Her knee was badly hurt by a rock, and she can’t really walk now,” Esrar Ahmad, a former interpreter for U.S. troops who entered the airport Wednesday, told the Journal about how his wife was injured in the crowd at the airport gate.
Go deeper: Evacuating Afghanistan
... even if the Taliban brass intend to govern differently from last time, which does make some sense, the rank and file is unlikely to have gotten the word, or agree with it if they have. They are not monolithic. A western reporter close to the Taliban claims the Taliban themselves are surprised how quickly they were able to move through the country and how little resistance they encountered. The speed of the collapse surprised even them.
I guess I mean no group is monolithic. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a hierarchy and power/authority structure.
... absolutely. There is a hierarchy and power structure, its just that no command and control is perfect. No ours, not the enemy's. The intent of those at the top is not transmitted, clearly and immediately to the troops, neither ours nor theirs. There is always the human tendency to see the opposition as giants at times like this and your own forces as incompetent, neither is true. The Taliban are as surprised as we are.

It will be a little while before anyone can really understand the intent of the Taliban. The impression is they are starting at a bad place, doesn't mean they will end there. If they do, they will be overthrown again. Afghanistan and its population is not in the same place as 20 years ago.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:34 am
by Farfromgeneva
jhu72 wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:30 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:08 am
jhu72 wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:51 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:42 pm Despite the PR blitz axios is reporting that they’re already tearing ish up there.

Taliban respond to rare protest with violent crackdown
Ivana Saric
Ivana Saric
Taliban members are seen near Hamid Karzai International Airport
Taliban members are seen near Hamid Karzai International Airport as thousands of Afghans rush to flee the Afghan capital of Kabul on Aug. 16. Photo: Haroon Sabawoon/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
The Taliban violently dispersed dozens of protesters in the city of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing at least one person after the demonstrators removed the Taliban flag and replaced it with the national flag, AP reports.

Why it matters: The violence stands in stark contrast to the more benevolent image the Taliban have sought to cast since taking power, claiming they'd grant "amnesty" to supporters of the Afghan government and honor women's rights within their "cultural frameworks."

It also renews fears that the group will return to the brutal grip it ruled with in the 1990s, when women's and other rights were severely restricted.
The big picture: Taliban fighters in Jalalabad fired into the crowd and beat demonstrators with batons, per AP.

Hundreds of protesters also demonstrated in the city of Khost and were violently attacked by the Taliban, the New York Times reports.
Protesters also took to the streets in Asadabad, per the Wall Street Journal.
Despite assuring the U.S. they would allow safe passage of civilians to the airport in Kabul, the Taliban have instituted checkpoints outside its perimeter and have been violently pushing back those seeking entry, per the Journal.

The Taliban unleashed rounds of gunfire into the air and beat families seeking entry, the Journal reports.
The chaos and violence succeeded in thinning out the crowds of Afghans trying to enter the airport, CNN reports.
What they're saying: “The situation is very bad at the gate,” Lida Ahmadi, who applied for a special immigrant visa, told the Journal. “I slept on the road last night. Now, after two nights and two days at the gate, we’ve finally got the chance to come in."

“The crowd pushed us from the back and she fell down. Her knee was badly hurt by a rock, and she can’t really walk now,” Esrar Ahmad, a former interpreter for U.S. troops who entered the airport Wednesday, told the Journal about how his wife was injured in the crowd at the airport gate.
Go deeper: Evacuating Afghanistan
... even if the Taliban brass intend to govern differently from last time, which does make some sense, the rank and file is unlikely to have gotten the word, or agree with it if they have. They are not monolithic. A western reporter close to the Taliban claims the Taliban themselves are surprised how quickly they were able to move through the country and how little resistance they encountered. The speed of the collapse surprised even them.
I guess I mean no group is monolithic. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a hierarchy and power/authority structure.
... absolutely. There is a hierarchy and power structure, its just that no command and control is perfect. No ours, not the enemy's. The intent of those at the top is not transmitted, clearly and immediately to the troops, neither ours nor theirs. There is always the human tendency to see the opposition as giants at times like this and your own forces as incompetent, neither is true. The Taliban are as surprised as we are.
Oh I have no doubt we could stomp the taliban out if we wanted to. And frankly a lot of the last 20yrs felt like kabuki theatre. I’d prefer if we were going to do this we go in guns blazing and tear it down like taking a bazooka to a whiffle ball game. I’ve read plenty about local support and hiding in the mountains but we could’ve just dropped a deuce on their heads from day one I still believe. It’s kind of like people who think there are rules in fighting. No there aren’t. If you’re in a fight the object is to put the other person down. If god forbid I’m in a fight with someone bigger and stronger then I’m biting balls or whatever it takes. Would prefer to avoid the fight but if it happens then it’s whatever it takes to finish it.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:42 am
by old salt
QFP : CNN BREAKING NEWS banners of latest video clips from yesterday's ABC interview with Pres Biden :

[BIDEN : I WOULD'VE WITHDRAWN TROOPS WITHOUT TRUMP TALIBAN DEAL]

[BIDEN DENIES MILITARY ADVISERS TOLD HIM TO KEEP TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN]

CNN reporting ASF commandos are enforcing airport security perimeter alongside US troops.
I hope that means the ASF commandos & their families are at KHIA & on a departure manifest.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:54 am
by old salt
Kismet wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 7:33 am https://www.justsecurity.org/77801/cias ... uch-worse/

CIA’s Former Counterterrorism Chief for the Region: Afghanistan, Not An Intelligence Failure — Something Much Worse

"While it’s certainly convenient to depict the shock and miscalculation U.S. officials claim over Afghanistan’s tragic, rapid fall to the Taliban as an intelligence failure, the reality is far worse. It’s a convenient deflection of responsibility for decisions taken owing to political and ideological considerations and provides a scapegoat for a policy decision that’s otherwise unable to offer a persuasive defense."

It's not the "deep state" nor is it the first time the pols deflect responsibility from their own policy decisions/failures. Former DOPUS turned it into an olympic sport but Biden is also doing it in his own way to cover his own bad decisions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/08/ ... term=third

To paraphrase the French statesman Talleyrand, “It was worse than fate, it was a mistake.”

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:04 am
by dislaxxic
I have to agree with most of the National Review article posted by Swampy...it was most certainly a failure of military and foreign policy elites of both political stripes...

..

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:32 am
by jhu72
The administration now claims there are 65,000 Afghans they would like to get out. No commitment and no obvious plan for getting them out, but if some number of ASF are climbing back on the bus, they could be your mechanism for retrieving these folks. Depends on Taliban goodwill, or understanding that future goodwill among the western democracies is dependent on current Taliban goodwill.

I was initially skeptical about the ability of our diplomats to assert much control, but that assessment may prove to be very wrong.

PS: Not surprising but confirmed, some Afghan "warlords" are objecting to a central Taliban control. The Taliban will face internal pushback from a number of these "warlords" which will complicate their consolidation of power and their recognition externally.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:48 am
by old salt
jhu72 wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:32 am but if some number of ASF are climbing back on the bus, they could be your mechanism for retrieving these folks.
Disguise the ASF commandos by putting them in US uniforms & mixing them in with US troops, patrolling to bring back evacuees from prearranged pick up points, like the Brit paras are apparently doing.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:52 am
by jhu72
old salt wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:48 am
jhu72 wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:32 am but if some number of ASF are climbing back on the bus, they could be your mechanism for retrieving these folks.
Disguise the ASF commandos by putting them in US uniforms & mixing them in with US troops, patrolling to bring back evacuees from prearranged pick up points, like the Brit paras are apparently doing.
... something like that works. Biden is now saying we will stay until the last American is evacuated. Can get a lot of Afghans out under that rule.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:11 am
by Brooklyn
Image
https://image.politicalcartoons.com/254 ... morial.png



While so many right wing delusionals are having a field day blaming Biden, not one puts the blame where it really belongs: on the corrupt puppet regime.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:13 am
by CU88
August 18, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
Aug 19

It is still early days, and the picture of what is happening in Afghanistan now that the Taliban has regained control of the country continues to develop.

Central to affairs there is money. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, with about half its population requiring humanitarian aid this year and about 90% of its people living below the poverty line of making $2 a day.

The country depends on foreign aid. Under the U.S.-supported Afghan government, the United States and other nations funded about 80% of Afghanistan’s budget. In 2020, foreign aid made up about 43% of Afghanistan’s GDP (the GDP, or gross domestic product, is the monetary value of all the goods and services produced in a country), down from 100% of it in 2009.

This is a huge problem for the Taliban, because their takeover of the country means that the money the country so desperately needs has dried up. The U.S. has frozen billions of dollars of Afghan government money held here in the U.S. The European Union and Germany have also suspended their financial support for the country, and today the International Monetary Fund blocked Afghanistan’s access to $460 million in currency reserves.

Adam M. Smith, who served on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, told Jeff Stein of the Washington Post that the financial squeeze is potentially “cataclysmic for Afghanistan.” It threatens to spark a humanitarian crisis that, in turn, will create a refugee crisis in central Asia. Already, the fighting in the last eight months has displaced more than half a million Afghans.

People fleeing from the Taliban threaten to destabilize the region more generally. While Russia was happy to support the Taliban in a war against the U.S., now that its fighters are in charge of the country, Russia needs to keep the Taliban’s extremism from spreading to other countries in the area. So it is tentatively saying supportive things about the Taliban, but it is also stepping up its protection of neighboring countries’ borders with Afghanistan. Other countries are also leery of refugees in the region: large numbers of refugees have, in the past, led countries to turn against immigrants, giving a leg up to right-wing governments.

Canada and Britain are each taking an additional 20,000 Afghan women leaders, reporters, LGBTQ people, and human rights workers on top of those they have already volunteered to take, but Turkey—which is governed by strongman president Recep Tayyip Erdogan—is building a wall to block refugees, and French President Emmanuel Macron asked officials in Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to prevent migrants reaching their countries from traveling any further. The European Union has asked its member states to take more Afghan refugees.

In the U.S., the question of Afghan refugees is splitting the Republican Party, with about 30% of it following the hard anti-immigrant line of former president Donald Trump. Others, though, especially those whose districts include military installations, are saying they welcome our Afghan allies.

The people fleeing the country also present a problem for those now in control of Afghanistan. The idea that people are terrified of their rule is a foreign relations nightmare, at the same time that those leaving are the ones most likely to have the skills necessary to help govern the country. But leaders can’t really stop the outward flow—at least immediately—because they do not want to antagonize the international community so thoroughly that it continues to withhold the financial aid the country so badly needs. So, while on the streets, Taliban fighters are harassing Afghans who are trying to get away, Taliban leaders are saying they will permit people to evacuate, that they will offer blanket amnesty to those who opposed them, and also that they will defend some rights for women and girls.

The Biden administration is sending more personnel to help evacuate those who want to leave. The president has promised to evacuate all Americans in the country—as many as 15,000 people—but said only that we would evacuate as many of the estimated 65,000 Afghans who want to leave as possible. The Taliban has put up checkpoints on the roads to the airport and are not permitting everyone to pass. U.S. military leaders say they will be able to evacuate between 5000 and 9000 people a day.

Today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark A. Milley tried to explain the frantic rush to evacuate people from Afghanistan to reporters by saying: “There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days.” Maybe. But military analyst Jason Dempsey condemned the whole U.S. military project in Afghanistan when he told NPR's Don Gonyea that the collapse of the Afghan government showed that the U.S. had fundamentally misunderstood the people of Afghanistan and had tried to impose a military system that simply made no sense for a society based in patronage networks and family relationships.

Even with Dempsey’s likely accurate assessment, the statement that U.S. military intelligence missed that a 300,000 person army was going to melt away still seems to me astonishing. Still, foreign policy and national security policy analyst Dr. John Gans of the University of Pennsylvania speculated on Twitter that such a lapse might be more “normal”—his word and quotation marks—than it seems, reflecting the slips possible in government bureaucracy. He points out that the Department of Defense has largely controlled Afghanistan and the way the U.S. involvement there was handled in Washington. But with the end of the military mission, the Defense Department was eager to hand off responsibility to the State Department, which was badly weakened under the previous administration and has not yet rebuilt fully enough to handle what was clearly a complicated handoff. “There have not been many transitions between an American war & an American diplomatic relationship with a sovereign, friendly country,” Gans wrote. “Fewer still when the friendly regime disintegrates so quickly.” When things started to go wrong, they snowballed.

And yet, the media portrayal of our withdrawal as a catastrophe also seems to me surprising. To date, at least as far as I have seen, there have been no reports of such atrocities as the top American diplomat in Syria reported in the chaos when the U.S. pulled out of northern Syria in 2019. Violence against our Kurdish allies there was widely expected and it indeed occurred. In a memo made public in November of that year, Ambassador William V. Roebuck wrote that “Islamist groups” paid by Turkey were deliberately engaged in ethnic cleansing of Kurds, and were committing “widely publicized, fear-inducing atrocities” even while “our military forces and diplomats were on the ground.” The memo continued: “The Turkey operation damaged our regional and international credibility and has significantly destabilized northeastern Syria.”

Reports of that ethnic cleansing in the wake of our withdrawal seemed to get very little media attention in 2019, perhaps because the former president’s first impeachment inquiry took up all the oxygen. But it strikes me that the sensibility of Roebuck’s memo is now being read onto our withdrawal from Afghanistan although conditions there are not—yet—like that.

For now, it seems, the drive to keep the door open for foreign money is reining in Taliban extremism. That caution seems unlikely to last forever, but it might hold for long enough to complete an evacuation.

Much is still unclear and the situation is changing rapidly, but my guess is that keeping an eye on the money will be crucial for understanding how this plays out.

Meanwhile, the former president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, has surfaced in the United Arab Emirates. He denies early reports that he fled the country with suitcases full of cash.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:08 pm
by Brooklyn
The Taliban captured a female Afghan governor who recruited militants to fight the Taliban, report says

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... d=msedgntp


The Taliban detained Salima Mazari, one of the few female Afghan governors, The Times of India reported.
The report didn't indicate where Mazari was or when Taliban forces captured her.
As the governor of the Charkint district, she recruited and trained militants to fight the Taliban.


Salima Mazari, one of the few female governors in Afghanistan, has been detained by the Taliban, The Times of India reported on Wednesday, citing local reports.

Nadia Momand, a TV journalist in Afghanistan, tweeted on Wednesday that the Taliban had reportedly captured Mazari. Momand called for her release. The Times of India report didn't indicate where Mazari was or when the Taliban captured her.


Mazari, 40, is the governor of Charkint district in northern Afghanistan, which has a population of more than 30,000 people. She has been recruiting and training militants to fight against Taliban insurgents since 2019, The Guardian reported last week.

Mazari was born in Iran in 1980. Her family had fled the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and Mazari returned to the country decades later, The Guardian said. She was appointed governor in 2018, making her one of the few women in male-dominated Afghan politics, NPR reported.

She has been a force in the fight against the Taliban. "Sometimes I'm in the office in Charkint, and other times I have to pick up a gun and join the battle," she told The Guardian.




History shows that some women who collaborated with Nazis were killed by Christian partisans because of their treason. Nobody in the West objected. If the Taliban does the same then we have no complaint as they are only following the same example set by Christians. However, if they let her go then we can honor them for their mercy. We shall see what happens next.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:44 am
by old salt
Brit reporter on CNN asked a good question :

before last week, when was the last time you thought about Afghanistan ?

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 6:00 am
by old salt
Had we remained in Bagram as our final outpost (or should we retake it), we'd be in a position to provide a refuge for ASF fotces & support the re-emerging Northern Alliance, lead by the now acting legitimate President of Adghanistan. That should have been our fallback plan.

https://www.opindia.com/2021/08/afghani ... s-to-join/

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:00 am
by youthathletics
Not cool. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... np1taskbar

US biometric devices are in the hands of the Taliban. They could be used to target Afghans who helped coalition forces.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:26 am
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:44 am Brit reporter on CNN asked a good question :

before last week, when was the last time you thought about Afghanistan ?
Definitely not every week.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:27 am
by seacoaster
old salt wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:44 am Brit reporter on CNN asked a good question :

before last week, when was the last time you thought about Afghanistan ?
Someone posted somewhere that the major networks, so-called, devoted less than an hour of air time, in the aggregate, to Afghanistan over the five years from 2015 to 2019.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:29 am
by seacoaster
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/opin ... liban.html

"As I watch events in Afghanistan unfold, I find myself trying to ignore all the commentary and longing instead to interview three people: President Lyndon Johnson, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Mohammed Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan.

President Johnson, what did you think of Joe Biden’s speech about quitting Afghanistan?

Johnson: I listened to it, and I have to say that I choked up. If only I had had the guts to give that speech on April 7, 1965, about America’s involvement in Vietnam — the war that I inherited and then expanded with that speech. Promise me one thing: You won’t link to that speech.

Friedman: Sorry, Mr. President, but I already did. Here are some highlights of what you said to justify sending more troops into Vietnam:

Why are we in South Vietnam? We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954, every American president has offered support to the people of South Vietnam. … We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. … We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance.

Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Vietnam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. … Thus it became necessary for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in what we believe that purpose requires. … We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Vietnam, who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties. … We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.

Johnson: Yes, Mr. Friedman, I wish I had said what Biden did — and what his predecessors never would: “How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?’’

Friedman: President Xi, what do you think of all the American commentators proclaiming China a winner from Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan?

Xi: Oh, my, these are what we call useful idiots. What planet are these people living on? We had a perfect situation going before Biden came along. America was hemorrhaging lives, money, energy and focus in Afghanistan — and their presence was making the country just safe enough for Chinese multinationals to exploit.

The Metallurgical Corporation of China and Jiangxi Copper had a contract to develop a copper mine in Mes Aynak, and the China National Petroleum Corporation was working on a field in the north of the country — and the Americans were funding the overall security. That is our idea of perfection! Alas, neither of these projects ever got off the ground because of the craziness in the Kabul government. But Afghanistan is hugely rich in minerals we need. Who will protect our investors after the Americans have stopped doing it for free? Not me.

Friedman: How about the Taliban?

Xi: The Taliban?! You think that we trust them? Have you noticed what their brothers in the Pakistani Taliban have been doing to our investments in Pakistan? Just read The Wall Street Journal from July 28:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A gunman opened fire on a car carrying two engineers in the southern port city of Karachi, the latest attack on Chinese nationals in close ally Pakistan. … Chinese nationals have been the victims of multiple recent attacks in Pakistan. Earlier this month, a bombing killed nine Chinese construction workers in a bus being taken to the site of a dam being built in northern Pakistan. Targets of other attacks in recent years include the Chinese Consulate in Karachi, the partly Chinese-owned stock exchange in Karachi and a hotel in the Chinese-run port of Gwadar.

Xi: Pakistan cannot even keep us safe from its own Taliban and Baloch separatists — in their own country — and we own Pakistan! And don’t even get me started on how the Taliban victory could inspire our Uyghur Muslims. … Joe, Joe, what did you do to us, Joe? You should have listened to your foreign policy experts and stayed in Afghanistan. The last thing we want is you refocusing all of America’s resources and energy on competing with us for the industries of the 21st century, instead of chasing the Taliban around the Hindu Kush.

Friedman: Mohammed Zahir Shah was the last king of Afghanistan, who ruled from 1933 until he was deposed by his brother-in-law in 1973, triggering nearly a half-century of coups, wars and invasions. He was the last of a 226-year dynasty of Pashtun monarchs to rule Afghanistan.

Your Highness, what do you think of Biden’s decision to just quit Afghanistan and of the Taliban takeover?

Zahir: Let me tell you a few things about my country. The first thing you have to know is that we are and always will be a mosaic of many different languages and cultures and ethnicities and approaches to Islam. There are 14 ethnic groups recognized in our national anthem — Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Balochis, Turkmens, Nooristanis, Pamiris, Arabs, Gujars, Brahuis, Qizilbash, Aimaq and Pashai. We have Sunni, Sufi and Shiite Muslims. The reason the country was relatively peaceful under my leadership, until my idiot cousin toppled me, was that people saw me as a unifying symbol to whom they could all relate.

The Taliban represent only one element in our mosaic — Pashtun Sunni Islamism. Since they were ousted by the Americans 20 years ago, all they have been thinking about is how to again own the Afghanistan they lost, not how to govern anew the Afghanistan that exists today.

Let me tell you, Mr. Friedman, more than 70 percent of Afghanistan’s population is under 25 years old. Most of them know nothing about the Taliban and have never heard of Mullah Omar — just like all those 20-somethings in Iran who have never heard of the shah and give Iran’s Islamic rulers grief every day. They have been raised in a different Afghanistan, in a different age, and they will not easily give up the freedoms they enjoyed these past 20 years, even if the country was a mess.

Tribes in this part of the world, Mr. Friedman, have a saying: Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the outsider.

Americans were the outsider, and the Taliban could always find plenty of passive and active cousins for their project of getting you out. But now they and their brothers will have to deal with all their cousins inside — from those 14 different ethnicities — and that will be a different story. The Taliban have no idea how to govern a modern country. Vietnam’s nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh spent his exile in Paris. These Taliban guys studied, at best, in madrasas in Pakistan, where they don’t even teach science.

And then there’s the money. The American occupation was to Afghanistan what oil is to Saudi Arabia. You were like an oil well that didn’t dry up. But now that you’re gone, so is all that income to run the government and pay salaries. How are the Taliban going to replace it? You can smuggle only so many drugs to Europe. Sure, the Chinese will throw them some crumbs to keep them away from the Uyghurs. But there are no more sucker superpowers out there that want to come in and run this place, because they all now know that all they’ll win is a bill.

Here is my prediction: The Taliban will either form a national unity government with all the major ethnic and tribal groups, under loose centralized control — and it will sort of hold the country together and be able to enlist foreign aid — or they won’t. If they do, President Biden’s bet on getting out will prove right — that America’s presence was actually preventing Afghans from compromising and coming together to govern themselves. Maybe they will even find one of my family’s descendants to be the symbolic unifier. I repeat: My reign corresponded with one of the most peaceful eras in Afghan history.

But if the Taliban try to keep power all by themselves, with no cousins, watch out. The country will eventually resist it, the Taliban will crack down harder, and Afghanistan will not implode — it will explode. It will break up into different regions and hemorrhage refugees and instability. It will be very ugly, and America and Biden will be blamed for the chaos. But America will also be gone. Afghanistan then will be a huge problem for its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran.

Friedman: Hmm. Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran? Maybe Biden had that in mind all along."

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:21 am
by old salt
seacoaster wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:27 am
old salt wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:44 am Brit reporter on CNN asked a good question :

before last week, when was the last time you thought about Afghanistan ?
Someone posted somewhere that the major networks, so-called, devoted less than an hour of air time, in the aggregate, to Afghanistan over the five years from 2015 to 2019.
This was few minutes of that air time that stuck with me. Turns out to have been prescient.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kabul-afgh ... 0-minutes/

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:39 am
by seacoaster
“Our secretary of state signed a surrender agreement with the Taliban,” Mr. Trump’s second national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said of Mr. Pompeo in a podcast interview on Wednesday. “This collapse goes back to the capitulation agreement of 2020. The Taliban didn’t defeat us. We defeated ourselves.”

Enough blame for a real banquet.

Re: Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:41 am
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:21 am
seacoaster wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:27 am
old salt wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:44 am Brit reporter on CNN asked a good question :

before last week, when was the last time you thought about Afghanistan ?
Someone posted somewhere that the major networks, so-called, devoted less than an hour of air time, in the aggregate, to Afghanistan over the five years from 2015 to 2019.
This was few minutes of that air time that stuck with me. Turns out to have been prescient.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kabul-afgh ... 0-minutes/
Yes, I recall that one. Great interviews.
And yes, brutally prescient...and it sums up why this effort was never going to actually work, given that there was no way the US would be there forever nor would we be willing to continue pay $4B + a year to simply maintain a tenuous foothold forever.

Nicholson was class ahead of me in high school.

John Nicholson: I believe it's because they thought they could win. Because they believed we had lost our will to win. Because since 2009 when we announced the surge, we also announced our exit date. And, so, why, if your enemy has announced when he's leaving, then why would you negotiate?