On the defensive-side: Weakness invites aggression. Prepare for war so you don't have to. MAD is that and has prevented untold world wars and potentially billions of deaths for 70 years by making large-scale war too costly.
On the other hand: Over-preparing, over-extending, and over-spending on unnecessary wars is evidence of MIC corruption.
The unrelenting Taliban aggression into Afghanistan, the ancestral heartland of the United States which Americans have inhabited for millennia, is outrageous.
You realize that the Afghan people by and large do not want Taliban rule, right? Very few want to be ruled by a violent, oppressive theocracy. Personally I would like the US to leave Afghanistan as well, but I have sympathy for the people who may have to suffer Taliban rule. Ideally the international or at least regional community would step in.
Why not? Americans haven't been engaged in ground combat operations for years now outside of special forces. They were just providing the weapons, logistics, training, and air power to contain the Taliban.
That seems reasonably sustainable. Make it into South Korea with airstrikes.
Afghanistan is about the same size as Texas, permanent occupation is technically manageable. However, it would bring hate upon the US. It’s also a proxy-war with Russia, who might be funding the opposite side, so the costs to colonization are not just occupation, but hedging the spendings of all other countries who don’t want USA to occupy the zone.
So, impossible if we don’t get others on board, among Arab countries in general, perhaps China or Russia too.
Many already (and will always) hate the US, and the US has the GDP to outlast declining Russia. If anything, this is a test bed for remote force projection.
If Afghans want US protection that doesn’t require boots on the ground, that seems reasonable considering capabilities already available. “Peace through superior firepower.”
I particularly look forward to Russia’s declining influence as the world transitions away from oil. As much as people like to criticize US leadership and government, the Kremlin is on a whole different level (and I’m glad that this isn’t such a controversial sentiment among liberals since 2016).
Counterpoint: Global warming can make most of Russian inhabitable, enable farming on vast regions, and the Northern Route of merchandise through the poles can make them a central actor in international commerce.
Meanwhile “every country has a reason to hate US”, hating the US is often the easy game to play in local politics, and maybe all of them are joining the tipping jar to pay those who can make us decline. Loss of trust towards media and institutions, judges ruling that monopolies can keep rolling or judges “not acting” when clearly facing criminal activity, loss of trust towards police, activism groups which I’d wonder how they remain out of prison, that requires funding and bribes; if I were the Talibans, China, Russia, or any country of the middle east really, I would fund them until the US collapses or loses its dominant position. It’s all hypothesis but it’s easy to implement.
It’s not a given that USA doesn’t decline in front of other, less hated superpowers.
If that's the case, it's a recent development in the last several years. Possibly since the Ukraine incident. Russia and the Taliban have been enemies for decades before.
Take a look at the territory controlled by the Taliban vs time while we were at this level. They were not contained. We just were keeping them out of a few urban areas.
I skimming your link, it seems the Taliban didn’t take significant territory until the US pulled out altogether. In the time during which the US was not actively fighting on the ground but was providing logistic support and air strikes and so on, the Taliban were effectively kept at bay.
You need to look a bit more carefully, and ideally at more than just at the one link. The US and gov controlled the country entirely at one point. By 2017 The large swaths of the country are contested.
I’m an American, so my taxes have footed the bill for Afghanistan’s security and liberty for the last twenty years. I don’t like that this is the cost (and I’m sympathetic to people who are frustrated at the expense), but seeing how quickly the Taliban have swept in, I would rather maintain a minimal force for another two decades, especially if the burden could be shared by the International community and perhaps specifically the regional community who have the most to gain from a free Afghanistan. It’s probably not reasonable to expect a country to effectively adopt democracy in just a few years’ time, so maybe we should anticipate longer time horizons.
Occupying Afghanistan is just throwing money and blood down a hole for what exactly? For people who don't want us there? Because we're too embarrassed to admit there are problems we can't solve with M16s and Coca-Cola? It's the graveyard of empires for a reason. Even if you snapped your fingers and right now political violence was forever ended in Afghanistan it still wouldn't have been worth the cost. A foreign occupying force isn't "fixing" Afghanistan any more than an orderly is fixing a violent mental patient by sitting on his chest.
I agree, my brother! The idea that these Muslims could govern themselves leaves me in tears of laughter and what they really need to sort them out is an American colonial presence. This failed 20 year US strategy can only work out great in the long term for the people of Afghanistan!
... and without the dripping sarcasm, in all seriousness, the US has been destabilising the Middle East for decades and will happily overthrow any government, people's choice or otherwise. The only justice in this situation is eventually it might bankrupt the American taxpayer as payback for their inability to get the militant lunatics out of government.
Ah, The Asia Foundation, a very reliable source of authentic Afghan opinions.
"The Asia Foundation (TAF), a Central Intelligence Agency proprietary, was established in 1954 to undertake cultural and educational activities on behalf of the United States Government in ways not open to official U.S. agencies."[17]
The Asia Foundation is an outgrowth of the Committee for a Free Asia, which was founded by the U.S. government in 1951.[18] CIA funding and support of the Committee for a Free Asia and the Asia Foundation were assigned the CIA code name "Project DTPILLAR".[19]
In 1954, the Committee for a Free Asia was renamed the Asia Foundation (TAF) and incorporated in California[20] as a private, nominally non-governmental organization devoted to promoting democracy, rule of law, and market-based development in post-war Asia.
In the 1950s, the Asia Foundation “clandestinely supported anti-Communist motion picture industry personnel, ranging from producers, directors, and technicians to critics, writers, and general intellectuals in many parts of Asia.”[21]
Among the original founding officers of the board, there were several presidents/chairmen of large companies including T.S. Peterson, CEO of Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Brayton Wilbur, president of Wilbur-Ellis Co., and J.D. Zellerbach, chairman of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation; four university presidents including Grayson Kirk from Columbia, J.E. Wallace Sterling of Stanford, and Raymond Allen from UCLA; prominent attorneys including Turner McBaine and A. Crawford Greene; Pulitzer Prize-winning writer James Michener; Paul Hoffman, the first administrator of the Marshall Plan in Europe; and several major figures in foreign affairs.
In 1966, Ramparts revealed that the CIA was covertly funding a number of organizations, including the Asia Foundation.[17] A commission authorized by President Johnson and led by Secretary of State Rusk determined that the Asia Foundation should be preserved and overtly funded by the US government. Following this change, The Asia Foundation was classified as a private, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization under the section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.[22] The Foundation began to restructure its programming, shifting away from its earlier goals of "building democratic institutions and encouraging the development of democratic leadership" toward an emphasis on Asian development as a whole (CRS 1983).”
> Overall, confidence in governmental and nongovernmental
organizations has increased, with the exception of the Independent Election Commission, which has
seen confidence drop from 43.3% in 2018 to 42.3% in 2019. As in previous years, Afghans have the
most confidence in religious leaders (71.2%). Compared to 2018, confidence in MPs has gone up by
10.2 percentage points, from 42.3% in 2018 to 52.6% in 2019, the highest level so far. Confidence
in the following organizations has improved since last year: government ministers (up 6.1 percentage
points, to 44.4%), national NGOs (up 4.0 percentage points, to 53.3%), provincial councils (up 4.7
percentage points, to 55.6%) and international NGOs (up 4.9 percentage points, to 47.3%)
So religious leaders (presumably non-Taliban) have much stronger support than the government or NGOs.
Yes, very possibly. The Afghan government is definitely a US-installed chimera. There very likely is a better representation of Afghan people, it just it doesn’t seem to be the Taliban.
where do new taliban come from? It's been 20 years since the original invasion and the Taliban from back then are probably either all dead or too old to fight.
If wikipedia is to be believed, there are something like 60K Taliban. Out of a country of over 30 million. It's pretty easy to recruit that small of a force from that large of a population. What seems more noteworthy is that the Afghan military can't seem to defend effectively against them even with 3x the personnel.
Or it could be that the Taliban just pays fighters better [0] compared to the central government in Kabul. Their annual revenue from drug trafficking, extortion, and donations exceeds $1.5B USD [1]. Private citizens from Pakistan and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Taliban each year [2]. Taliban fighters are also funded and trained directly by the Pakistani government [3]. Little wonder that they're able to take whole towns and cities without fighting, especially when the central government's fighters are underpaid when they're paid at all [4].
Going off 2009 numbers, the US spent $5.8 billion in foreign aid on the Afghan Security Forces Fund, and about a billion more on various counternarcotics programs [0]. This funding went up to around $10 billion in 2011, and slowly declined to around $3.6 billion in 2019. This also doesn't include the air support, troop advisors, special forces, etc. that we provided to supplement Afghanistan's government, or the international aid provided by other coalition partners. So they clearly have a massive financial advantage over the Taliban, as this doesn't even include tax revenue and other standard military funding sources.
Also, your [4] link is specifically talking about the police being underpaid and undertrained, not the army. My guess is that it primarily comes down to a huge motivation gap. The Afghani soldiers and police are in it for a paycheck, not to get shot, while the Taliban are fighting for an ideological cause they perceive to be just.
That funding must flow through the massively corrupt Afghan bureaucracy before soldiers or police ever see it. Much of it gets skimmed, wasted, and embezzled. Many nice houses in the D.C. area have been built with that money, not including the palatial mansions and homes of American defense contractors.
>The Afghani soldiers and police are in it for a paycheck
I think you meant, "Afghan soldiers and police." Afghani is (fittingly) the Afghan unit of currency.
>...while the Taliban are fighting for an ideological cause they perceive to be just.
It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid.
> That funding must flow through the massively corrupt Afghan bureaucracy before soldiers or police ever see it. Much of it gets skimmed, wasted, and embezzled.
This isn't exactly a compelling argument for our continued support of Afghanistan's government... We've been funding them to the tune of $3-10 billion a year in defense funding, and the corruption is so extreme that they are failing against the Taliban, with estimated total funding of $300 million to $1.6 billion [0]? That's an obscene level of graft. If 20 years on we still haven't reduced corruption to a manageable level, is it realistically even achievable?
> It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid.
I saw the 13.4% statistic that you cited elsewhere, but I'm inclined to think that's either a low estimate or there are an awful lot of people who are ambivalent as long as basic government services continue. If the Taliban were truly culturally incompatible with the average citizen, surely there would be more organized resistance? From the news reports I've seen, the Taliban typically move into a new area, the local government rolls over, basic services continue, and the average person shrugs and moves on with their life.
Large external funding tends to build corrupt governments due to bad incentives. It's possible that the Afghan government was effectively built to simply appease American advisors and convince them to request more money rather than actually servicing the needs of Afghans.
You don't get a renewed 10 billion dollars in defense grants by showing well maintained equipment and a well disciplined army.
Some new fighters might come from the families and friends of people the US and allies have killed.
Edit: Also, I recall hearing that many fighters are foreign. I imagine there's a greater than zero amount of people willing to go to Afghanistan and fight the US.
No, he doesn't realize that. And no, the international community should not step in. They already did. This administration gave up on that friendship. Many will die because of that.
This isn't true. There are many many stories of rural Afghans supporting the Taliban because they, unlike the corrupt US-backed government, actually fight and punish crime and thus make life a bit more bearable for people who have been without a stable government for decades.
When you live in the West your view of oppression is "They make you dress some way. They kill you for adultery, etc." But the vast majority of people have problems like "These are my cattle and he is saying they are his and no one will accept my proof that they are mine" or "People brazenly steal from us because no one will stop them and we can't feed our families". Bodily autonomy is not on the list of things 90% of the world cares about. Only elites who live in big cities care about these things.
Motivation alone is insufficient for ordinary citizens to assemble into an effective fighting force. You need competent leadership, training, and experience. The Taliban has those qualities and by all appearances the Afghan military does not.
America's withdrawal is, in my view, an inevitable conclusion and the best out of many bad options. However, let's not pretend that the Taliban represent many or most Afghans. Their return to power is a tragedy. The atrocities they have committed before and are sure to commit again do not deserve applause.
>But in 2019, a response to the same survey found that only 13.4 percent of Afghans had sympathy for the Taliban [PDF]. As intra-Afghan peace talks stalled in early 2021, an overwhelming majority surveyed said it was important to protect [PDF] women’s rights, freedom of speech, and the current constitution. Around 44 percent of Afghans surveyed said they believed that Afghanistan could achieve peace in the next two years.
And they'll remain until the State Department gets scared and leaves. BTW I spent almost two years in Kabul and was friends with the Marines at the embassy there at the time.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The article describes the Afghan Air Force as struggling. But they literally don’t have anything close to a B-52 in their fleet, in fact they have no bombers at all.
From many other articles I’ve read, “struggling” refers to an inability to manage even rudimentary maintenance of their existing fleet or deploy what they have effectively. Note that the Taliban don’t have an air force at all.
AFAIK the Afghan commanders stole their soldiers pay so the soldiers sold their weapons to the Taliban. The Taliban taking it back over seems like a natural consequence.
I think a lot of that wage theft was actually from soldiers that didn't exist: upwards of 100,000 on the roles that can't be accounted for. As for the Afghan equipment that has ended up in Taliban hands, that appears to be the result of the Taliban capturing it. That is happening sometimes even without a fight as Afghan soldiers believe they're being abandoned by the US to an impossible fight.
Either way, a significant amount of Taliban weaponry was provided by Russia.
The Taliban regime is going to be hostile to women. It'll be a return to violence, executions, and feudalism. Yet I see a lot of liberals that have no problem with a Taliban takeover and would rather see a US withdrawal.
I'm a liberal person, but I think Taliban takeover is a horrific outcome. What's the argument / angle here?
Furthermore, it seems to open the geopolitical sphere for China to step into the vacuum. It gives them more people to sell to, and a broader Belt and Road. It's strategic for their exports, too. That seems to not be in the interest of the United States.
Also, US troops in Afghanistan are positioned close to the Chinese border, which seems like a thing the US would want in order to apply pressure.
What's going on? I don't understand the withdrawal at all.
I think they should just do a South Korea type plan with airstrikes, which has basically been the last 5 years. There are 30,000 soldiers in SK. Is posting 10,000 in Afghanistan for logistical, medical, training, and airstrike purposes really that crazy?
You can keep letting the Afghan soldiers do the fighting as that is what is politically necessary, but give them a pile of support on the rear end.
The US has given significantly more military aid to Afghanistan than most other countries in the region spend and had many thousands of soldiers there for years.
Undoubtedly the general Afghan populace does not look forward to Taliban rule, but a big part of the problem is the Afghan government receiving all of this aid seems both corrupt & incompetent, unable to make the best use of the enormous resources put at their disposal.
In my eyes the withdrawal is an admission that 20 years of US occupation have not been able to resolve these issues, and trying to fight a war on behalf of a country whose government takes little interest in the welfare of its own people is close to impossible.
I think that about the best we can hope for is that going it alone with the prospect of losing the fruits of their corruption to the Taliban will encourage Afghan leadership to act. At least those leaders that won't be able to flee the country with their wealth intact.
>The Taliban regime is going to be hostile to women. It'll be a return to violence, executions, and feudalism. Yet I see a lot of liberals that have no problem with a Taliban takeover and would rather see a US withdrawal.
There are hundreds of countries where women are treated like shit, of which Afghanistan is but one.
Perhaps the people who want to see a withdrawal realize that America-as-World-Police isn't sustainable, and serves only to kill scores of American service members, to say nothing of countless Afghan civilians, while lining the pockets of executives at Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, and General Dynamics.
Perhaps a better solution would be curbing domestic racism and xenophobia in the United States and inviting these women to immigrate.
America got crushed by a handful of 70 IQ inbred religious nutters after spending over $2 trillion. The alternative to withdrawal is permanent occupation, but the US might be the most incompetent colonial master of all time, so it doesn't really make any sense.
Hey, a concert instead of bombs might promote goodwill and healing in a war town land. Though I'm not sure how well an Islamist group would take to 'Love Shack', it might actually further sour relations.
Many interpretations of Islamic teachings prohibit listening to music. If the goal is to win hearts and minds, I don’t think imposing religiously forbidden entertainment would be helpful.
Is it possible the country has become so heavily dependent on western money that insurgence happens to bring back the flow of cash from returning western military presence there?
Is it possible that it’s just a proxy war? I imagine for 1 rouble invested by Russia arming the Talibans, it costs $10 to the West if we want to do something?
I wouldn't. Russia has enough of a problem with Islamists. Afghanistan isn't far away. They have many migrant workers from the central Asian countries. If more refugees flood into the nearby countries it could become even more serious.
The only reason I can see for Russia to support the Taliban is pure spite or profit from selling arms. But the new-Taliban is mainly equipped with captured or bought ANA weaponry.
Too bad we couldn't at least have done some sabotage of equipment left behind. Hell, just slashing tires on the humvees for starters, would make a pretty big dent in their immediate usefulness. But there are probably other low-effort ways to make them difficult to repair.
Our government put more effort into stopping poor people from having affordable vehicles than preventing the Taliban from getting military vehicles[1]. See engine disablement section, basically just replace oil with salt water.
What surprises me the most about the US withdrawing is that Biden didn't remember what happened when the US left Iraq when he was VP. Military commentators were almost universally saying withdrawing was a bad idea, especially with how few US resources were in Afghanistan.
89 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadWar is not the only path to peace.
Failure of war is not always anarchism and more war.
These are all possible outcomes, and some may be more likely than others, but rarely is the outcome a thing that can be described simply as “success”.
On the defensive-side: Weakness invites aggression. Prepare for war so you don't have to. MAD is that and has prevented untold world wars and potentially billions of deaths for 70 years by making large-scale war too costly.
On the other hand: Over-preparing, over-extending, and over-spending on unnecessary wars is evidence of MIC corruption.
They should go back to their own country, IMO.
That seems reasonably sustainable. Make it into South Korea with airstrikes.
So, impossible if we don’t get others on board, among Arab countries in general, perhaps China or Russia too.
If Afghans want US protection that doesn’t require boots on the ground, that seems reasonable considering capabilities already available. “Peace through superior firepower.”
I particularly look forward to Russia’s declining influence as the world transitions away from oil. As much as people like to criticize US leadership and government, the Kremlin is on a whole different level (and I’m glad that this isn’t such a controversial sentiment among liberals since 2016).
Meanwhile “every country has a reason to hate US”, hating the US is often the easy game to play in local politics, and maybe all of them are joining the tipping jar to pay those who can make us decline. Loss of trust towards media and institutions, judges ruling that monopolies can keep rolling or judges “not acting” when clearly facing criminal activity, loss of trust towards police, activism groups which I’d wonder how they remain out of prison, that requires funding and bribes; if I were the Talibans, China, Russia, or any country of the middle east really, I would fund them until the US collapses or loses its dominant position. It’s all hypothesis but it’s easy to implement.
It’s not a given that USA doesn’t decline in front of other, less hated superpowers.
If that's the case, it's a recent development in the last several years. Possibly since the Ukraine incident. Russia and the Taliban have been enemies for decades before.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57933979
How is that not containment if they can’t take major areas?
61% by 2018. The writing was on the wall.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/08/world/asia/us...
... and without the dripping sarcasm, in all seriousness, the US has been destabilising the Middle East for decades and will happily overthrow any government, people's choice or otherwise. The only justice in this situation is eventually it might bankrupt the American taxpayer as payback for their inability to get the militant lunatics out of government.
"The Asia Foundation (TAF), a Central Intelligence Agency proprietary, was established in 1954 to undertake cultural and educational activities on behalf of the United States Government in ways not open to official U.S. agencies."[17]
The Asia Foundation is an outgrowth of the Committee for a Free Asia, which was founded by the U.S. government in 1951.[18] CIA funding and support of the Committee for a Free Asia and the Asia Foundation were assigned the CIA code name "Project DTPILLAR".[19]
In 1954, the Committee for a Free Asia was renamed the Asia Foundation (TAF) and incorporated in California[20] as a private, nominally non-governmental organization devoted to promoting democracy, rule of law, and market-based development in post-war Asia.
In the 1950s, the Asia Foundation “clandestinely supported anti-Communist motion picture industry personnel, ranging from producers, directors, and technicians to critics, writers, and general intellectuals in many parts of Asia.”[21]
Among the original founding officers of the board, there were several presidents/chairmen of large companies including T.S. Peterson, CEO of Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Brayton Wilbur, president of Wilbur-Ellis Co., and J.D. Zellerbach, chairman of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation; four university presidents including Grayson Kirk from Columbia, J.E. Wallace Sterling of Stanford, and Raymond Allen from UCLA; prominent attorneys including Turner McBaine and A. Crawford Greene; Pulitzer Prize-winning writer James Michener; Paul Hoffman, the first administrator of the Marshall Plan in Europe; and several major figures in foreign affairs.
In 1966, Ramparts revealed that the CIA was covertly funding a number of organizations, including the Asia Foundation.[17] A commission authorized by President Johnson and led by Secretary of State Rusk determined that the Asia Foundation should be preserved and overtly funded by the US government. Following this change, The Asia Foundation was classified as a private, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization under the section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.[22] The Foundation began to restructure its programming, shifting away from its earlier goals of "building democratic institutions and encouraging the development of democratic leadership" toward an emphasis on Asian development as a whole (CRS 1983).”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asia_Foundation
> Overall, confidence in governmental and nongovernmental organizations has increased, with the exception of the Independent Election Commission, which has seen confidence drop from 43.3% in 2018 to 42.3% in 2019. As in previous years, Afghans have the most confidence in religious leaders (71.2%). Compared to 2018, confidence in MPs has gone up by 10.2 percentage points, from 42.3% in 2018 to 52.6% in 2019, the highest level so far. Confidence in the following organizations has improved since last year: government ministers (up 6.1 percentage points, to 44.4%), national NGOs (up 4.0 percentage points, to 53.3%), provincial councils (up 4.7 percentage points, to 55.6%) and international NGOs (up 4.9 percentage points, to 47.3%)
So religious leaders (presumably non-Taliban) have much stronger support than the government or NGOs.
So it must be a popular ideology for some.
[0] https://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/taliban-pay-vs-...
[1] https://theconversation.com/the-taliban-are-megarich-heres-w...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46554097
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/10302946
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-security-idUS...
Also, your [4] link is specifically talking about the police being underpaid and undertrained, not the army. My guess is that it primarily comes down to a huge motivation gap. The Afghani soldiers and police are in it for a paycheck, not to get shot, while the Taliban are fighting for an ideological cause they perceive to be just.
[0] - https://foreignassistance.gov/cd/AFG?measure=Obligations&fis...
>The Afghani soldiers and police are in it for a paycheck
I think you meant, "Afghan soldiers and police." Afghani is (fittingly) the Afghan unit of currency.
>...while the Taliban are fighting for an ideological cause they perceive to be just.
It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid.
This isn't exactly a compelling argument for our continued support of Afghanistan's government... We've been funding them to the tune of $3-10 billion a year in defense funding, and the corruption is so extreme that they are failing against the Taliban, with estimated total funding of $300 million to $1.6 billion [0]? That's an obscene level of graft. If 20 years on we still haven't reduced corruption to a manageable level, is it realistically even achievable?
> It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid.
I saw the 13.4% statistic that you cited elsewhere, but I'm inclined to think that's either a low estimate or there are an awful lot of people who are ambivalent as long as basic government services continue. If the Taliban were truly culturally incompatible with the average citizen, surely there would be more organized resistance? From the news reports I've seen, the Taliban typically move into a new area, the local government rolls over, basic services continue, and the average person shrugs and moves on with their life.
[0] - https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
You don't get a renewed 10 billion dollars in defense grants by showing well maintained equipment and a well disciplined army.
I haven't made such an argument. Just outlining the problems.
Edit: Also, I recall hearing that many fighters are foreign. I imagine there's a greater than zero amount of people willing to go to Afghanistan and fight the US.
To be clear, they aren’t fighting the US, they’re fighting the Afghani government.
You can say this about any abhorrent, oppressive belief system. This is insufficient grounds to subject the whole population to said oppression.
> So it must be a popular ideology for some.
hHow do you get from there to “thus it should be the law of the land for every Afghan”? If it’s so popular, why can’t it win in free elections?
When you live in the West your view of oppression is "They make you dress some way. They kill you for adultery, etc." But the vast majority of people have problems like "These are my cattle and he is saying they are his and no one will accept my proof that they are mine" or "People brazenly steal from us because no one will stop them and we can't feed our families". Bodily autonomy is not on the list of things 90% of the world cares about. Only elites who live in big cities care about these things.
>But in 2019, a response to the same survey found that only 13.4 percent of Afghans had sympathy for the Taliban [PDF]. As intra-Afghan peace talks stalled in early 2021, an overwhelming majority surveyed said it was important to protect [PDF] women’s rights, freedom of speech, and the current constitution. Around 44 percent of Afghans surveyed said they believed that Afghanistan could achieve peace in the next two years.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28099710
Either way, a significant amount of Taliban weaponry was provided by Russia.
I'm a liberal person, but I think Taliban takeover is a horrific outcome. What's the argument / angle here?
Furthermore, it seems to open the geopolitical sphere for China to step into the vacuum. It gives them more people to sell to, and a broader Belt and Road. It's strategic for their exports, too. That seems to not be in the interest of the United States.
Also, US troops in Afghanistan are positioned close to the Chinese border, which seems like a thing the US would want in order to apply pressure.
What's going on? I don't understand the withdrawal at all.
You can keep letting the Afghan soldiers do the fighting as that is what is politically necessary, but give them a pile of support on the rear end.
Undoubtedly the general Afghan populace does not look forward to Taliban rule, but a big part of the problem is the Afghan government receiving all of this aid seems both corrupt & incompetent, unable to make the best use of the enormous resources put at their disposal.
In my eyes the withdrawal is an admission that 20 years of US occupation have not been able to resolve these issues, and trying to fight a war on behalf of a country whose government takes little interest in the welfare of its own people is close to impossible.
I think that about the best we can hope for is that going it alone with the prospect of losing the fruits of their corruption to the Taliban will encourage Afghan leadership to act. At least those leaders that won't be able to flee the country with their wealth intact.
There are hundreds of countries where women are treated like shit, of which Afghanistan is but one.
Perhaps the people who want to see a withdrawal realize that America-as-World-Police isn't sustainable, and serves only to kill scores of American service members, to say nothing of countless Afghan civilians, while lining the pockets of executives at Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, and General Dynamics.
Perhaps a better solution would be curbing domestic racism and xenophobia in the United States and inviting these women to immigrate.
It’s really a question, I’m not knowledgeable.
The only reason I can see for Russia to support the Taliban is pure spite or profit from selling arms. But the new-Taliban is mainly equipped with captured or bought ANA weaponry.
https://www.theportal-center.com/2021/08/us-unleashes-b-52s-...
https://youtu.be/f37xrmiqmnU?t=132
There are videos of Taliban rolling through cities in American humvees:
https://t.co/cdHsZgjSv8
Its a matter of time before they take Kabul.
$2.2trillion gifted to the Military Industrial Complex.
Leave an unstable nation filled with weapons at the doorstep of China and Russia.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
Besides, DoD is already the biggest polluter on the planet. Anything that slows the war machine will be a net positive.
Everyone, including the US, assumes the Taliban will rule all of Afghanistan within months.