Afghan women forced from banking jobs as Taliban take control(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Afghan women forced from banking jobs as Taliban take control
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/afghan-women-bankers-forced-roles-taliban-takes-control-2021-08-13/
241 comments
Most of my life, all of many Zoomers’ lives. Twenty years, surpassing even Vietnam.
All that money wasted, all those dead civilians, all those broken soldiers. All of it for absolutely nothing.
What an abhorrent clown world we live in.
All that money wasted, all those dead civilians, all those broken soldiers. All of it for absolutely nothing.
What an abhorrent clown world we live in.
It’s hard to imagine any politician being able to sell their voters on “we’ll stay there as long as we feasibly can”, because that’s what the US signed up for after 9/11. The scope of the project crept almost immediately from kill AQ, punish Taliban to Nation Building because there was no standing state to punish and most of the leaders involved just melted away. Now, the way the US is pulling out, makes it very likely that Afghanistan will once again become a hub for Islamic terrorists from all over the world.
The root of it is this idea that war could be a "tool of liberation", looking backwards with rose-colored glasses at WWII. It was a brilliant compromise between neo-liberals (to whom the idea was very comforting) and the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (who has made trillions of dollars off of this flawed notion).
With all the money and resources spent in that country promoting something most of the people there never wanted, we probably could have been carbon neutral 3 or 4 times over.
We gave up so many of our freedoms at home - went collectively insane for two decades out of some abstract fear of "terrorism". The number of Americans _alone_ who died (and probably will die in the future) as a result of this miscalculation is a huge scalar multiple of the life and property lost on 9/11.
The Pax Americana that the post-Cold-War era promised is shattered. Even the one "silver lining": That this one poor little country would be a place where women would be more free and have a little better life... And maybe something good would come out of that. Even that is gone now.
I agree, it's just hard to salvage any kind of positive outcome from this - especially considering the huge opportunity costs.
With all the money and resources spent in that country promoting something most of the people there never wanted, we probably could have been carbon neutral 3 or 4 times over.
We gave up so many of our freedoms at home - went collectively insane for two decades out of some abstract fear of "terrorism". The number of Americans _alone_ who died (and probably will die in the future) as a result of this miscalculation is a huge scalar multiple of the life and property lost on 9/11.
The Pax Americana that the post-Cold-War era promised is shattered. Even the one "silver lining": That this one poor little country would be a place where women would be more free and have a little better life... And maybe something good would come out of that. Even that is gone now.
I agree, it's just hard to salvage any kind of positive outcome from this - especially considering the huge opportunity costs.
> The root of it is this idea that war could be a "tool of liberation", looking backwards with rose-colored glasses at WWII.
You know, it's hard for war to be a "tool of liberation" if you do literally nothing to foster the basics of a free/liberal society in the places you went to war for. WWII is not a proper comparison at all; pre-WWII Europe did of course have a robust civil society, very much unlike Afghanistan. The thing about places like Afghanistan is that politicized religion is the closest they get to something even loosely comparable to what we'd call free/civil society in the West!
You know, it's hard for war to be a "tool of liberation" if you do literally nothing to foster the basics of a free/liberal society in the places you went to war for. WWII is not a proper comparison at all; pre-WWII Europe did of course have a robust civil society, very much unlike Afghanistan. The thing about places like Afghanistan is that politicized religion is the closest they get to something even loosely comparable to what we'd call free/civil society in the West!
>out of some abstract fear of "terrorism".
To be fair, it wasn't abstract, though one could argue that particular attack was a one-off that could never be successfully repeated. But there were other concerns of dirty bombs, anthrax, etc. at the time.
That said, it's truly a shame that the US abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Afghanistan seemed to have potential for nation-building had we not diverted and diluted our efforts with Iraq.
To be fair, it wasn't abstract, though one could argue that particular attack was a one-off that could never be successfully repeated. But there were other concerns of dirty bombs, anthrax, etc. at the time.
That said, it's truly a shame that the US abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Afghanistan seemed to have potential for nation-building had we not diverted and diluted our efforts with Iraq.
>All of it for absolutely nothing.
Well we did send a strong message about choosing one's house guests wisely. But that message was delivered a decade ago.
Well we did send a strong message about choosing one's house guests wisely. But that message was delivered a decade ago.
It's potentially possible that Bin Laden might have been extradited, if the US had provided evidence instead of bombs. Not sure how likely an extradition would have been though, even if strong evidence was provided.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm
Then titans fight, it is those who live under their feet who suffer most.
Should we have kept 10,000 US soldiers on the ground permanently to prevent this? Seems like a very small cost.
Perhaps the US could have purchased land from Afghanistan, which isn't so much of a unified country anyway. They could have established permanent bases from which they could aid the Afghanistan government and project power against other regional adversaries (ie. China, Iran, and "ally" Pakistan). The monetary injection would have helped too.
There's no way this pull out doesn't look bad for the Biden administration. This is going to be a major election year topic and we're going to hear how Democrats "hate women" and freedom. What a quagmire.
Perhaps the US could have purchased land from Afghanistan, which isn't so much of a unified country anyway. They could have established permanent bases from which they could aid the Afghanistan government and project power against other regional adversaries (ie. China, Iran, and "ally" Pakistan). The monetary injection would have helped too.
There's no way this pull out doesn't look bad for the Biden administration. This is going to be a major election year topic and we're going to hear how Democrats "hate women" and freedom. What a quagmire.
No, that is the worst idea and the root of the problem.
Those "10,000 soldiers" are 18-year-old kids. With guns. In a place where they are scared, angry, bored and have no frame of reference understand the culture. What happens in that situation is about what you'd expect to happen, even when they are the "best trained in the world". The longer you keep them there, the more angry the locals are going to be.
Those "10,000 soldiers" are 18-year-old kids. With guns. In a place where they are scared, angry, bored and have no frame of reference understand the culture. What happens in that situation is about what you'd expect to happen, even when they are the "best trained in the world". The longer you keep them there, the more angry the locals are going to be.
Taliban aren't the locals. Nor do the locals like the Taliban. More so this argument makes no sense when the Taliban had been suicide bombing Afghan civilians for decades and causing many times more civilian casualties.
Lets assume you are American and please humour me.
Your Midwestern state government collapses and loses the ability to defend its territory and the Feds cannot help you for whatever reason.
Two rival factions move in
- a Canadian warlord and his men: They terrorize the locals but otherwise spend time drinking light beer, listening to Steppenwolf and driving around in Pontiac Trans Ams hooting and waving guns around. They promise guts and glory to young men kicking dust in town.
- a division of the Pakistani military: they are generally professional, minus friction with the occupied population. They think fast cars, beer and stadium rock are impediments to a moral society, so they suppress these things and try to impose their values on the local population.
Do you imagine the local population would be happy with having either faction around? Do you think that they would all gravitate towards the more professional legitimate faction vs the Canadian warband?
Your Midwestern state government collapses and loses the ability to defend its territory and the Feds cannot help you for whatever reason.
Two rival factions move in
- a Canadian warlord and his men: They terrorize the locals but otherwise spend time drinking light beer, listening to Steppenwolf and driving around in Pontiac Trans Ams hooting and waving guns around. They promise guts and glory to young men kicking dust in town.
- a division of the Pakistani military: they are generally professional, minus friction with the occupied population. They think fast cars, beer and stadium rock are impediments to a moral society, so they suppress these things and try to impose their values on the local population.
Do you imagine the local population would be happy with having either faction around? Do you think that they would all gravitate towards the more professional legitimate faction vs the Canadian warband?
You're missing the part where you have a 50/50 chance of being considered cattle without rights and a sex prize for one of the faction's soldier.
You’re missing my point.
The Taliban are hardline, repressive and familiar. There is most definitely an overlap between the worldview of the Taliban and the local population, including how they view the role of women. They are just more extreme and militarily organized.
The US are foreign and have very little in common with (or knowledge of) how the Pashtuns live. Maybe they have a small amount in common with urban, secular Afghan society.
If the Taliban were grossly unpopular across the entire society, how are they able to make the gains they are?
The Taliban are hardline, repressive and familiar. There is most definitely an overlap between the worldview of the Taliban and the local population, including how they view the role of women. They are just more extreme and militarily organized.
The US are foreign and have very little in common with (or knowledge of) how the Pashtuns live. Maybe they have a small amount in common with urban, secular Afghan society.
If the Taliban were grossly unpopular across the entire society, how are they able to make the gains they are?
They were able to make the gains they could because the of the low national unity and moral of the ANA. The government that the US built was made up of tribal leaders who were corrupt and self interested with little real unity.
Just compare the incentives. If the Taliban win, Taliban fighters get to plunder cities, forcibly take wives, and get power. If the ANA forces win, they keep a nation which they don't identify strongly with free. Now add in that the ANA is completely demoralized from loss of all US support and which do you think is more willing to fight and risk their lives? It's little surprise how things are turning out.
Just compare the incentives. If the Taliban win, Taliban fighters get to plunder cities, forcibly take wives, and get power. If the ANA forces win, they keep a nation which they don't identify strongly with free. Now add in that the ANA is completely demoralized from loss of all US support and which do you think is more willing to fight and risk their lives? It's little surprise how things are turning out.
> Should we have kept 10,000 US soldiers on the ground permanently to prevent this? Seems like a very small cost.
Is this sarcasm?
> There's no way this pull out doesn't look bad for the Biden administration. This is going to be a major election year topic and we're going to hear how Democrats "hate women" and freedom. What a quagmire.
I think it looks pretty good for him. A president that finally stopped wasting US taxpayer money for people US taxpayers do not prioritize.
Is this sarcasm?
> There's no way this pull out doesn't look bad for the Biden administration. This is going to be a major election year topic and we're going to hear how Democrats "hate women" and freedom. What a quagmire.
I think it looks pretty good for him. A president that finally stopped wasting US taxpayer money for people US taxpayers do not prioritize.
We've had much more troops in Japan, Korea, Germany for many more decades. The Taliban wasn't able to push into any major populated area with just 2,500 US troops.
Those troops are under essentially no threat with the exception of Korea and that is tiny. Having troops do more than occupy space is massively expensive and dangerous for them.
Keeping troops in developed, desirable countries is probably far cheaper than Afghanistan. Regardless, the point is what is the long term goal of keeping 2,500 troops, or even 1 troop in Afghanistan? There are lots of places in the world mired in conflict and poverty.
[deleted]
What's with the hyperbole?
That's still 20 years of attempted infrastructure and education. I knew at least one person in graduate school that would not have been there. Just because this is a tragedy doesn't mean everything is dead.
That's still 20 years of attempted infrastructure and education. I knew at least one person in graduate school that would not have been there. Just because this is a tragedy doesn't mean everything is dead.
The original ending of the movie Rambo 3 ended with the following:
"This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan."
https://youtu.be/Cx4ey-EmLm4?t=553
"This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan."
https://youtu.be/Cx4ey-EmLm4?t=553
For those who don’t watch the video, this was actually an internet hoax. The end credits never said this.
No. I clearly remember seeing that in the end credits, when I first watched Rambo 3 on TV, in the late 90s. Rambo 3 was a great movie and I liked it more than the first one, because I was a kid back then.
I remember it clearly because that was the first movie I saw exploding arrows. I don’t know if the explosive arrows were made famous in Rambo 3 or in Predator. In any case I watched quite a few reruns of Rambo 3 on TV, and they clearly had that dedicated to mujahideen fighters message in the end credits.
I remember it clearly because that was the first movie I saw exploding arrows. I don’t know if the explosive arrows were made famous in Rambo 3 or in Predator. In any case I watched quite a few reruns of Rambo 3 on TV, and they clearly had that dedicated to mujahideen fighters message in the end credits.
[deleted]
My apologies! Thank you for pointing this out.
Not a hoax. This was on the VHS release of Rambo. "The dedication on the VHS release of the film said "to the brave Mujahideen fighters". It was later changed to "to the gallant people of Afghanistan"." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_III
[deleted]
The video you linked claims it's a hoax.
[deleted]
You might be interested to do a deep dive on the on again off again relationship between Uighur militias and the Taliban. The WSJ and antiwar.com both have some coverage. Really complicated but fascinating stuff.
Apparently the Bush era neo-cons we funneling money to Uighur militias with plans to activate them against the CCP at a later date. However they later joined up with the Taliban against NATO, and briefly with DAESH in Syria. While at the same time elements of the Taliban were fighting alongside US forces in Syria agains DAESH, Asad, and those same Uighurs.
The US war machine will truly do business with ANYBODY.
[EDIT] I'd be interested to hear why anyone takes exception to this. The remarks about US support of Uighur militants should be noted as a pre 9/11 policy. Post 9/11 the Bush administration designated them terrorists to gain Chinese support against the Taliban. And the funneling money claim is I think indirectly supported, but I'm open to counter claims.
[EDIT 2] It's a bit odd that people keep downvoting this but have nothing to say about it. It's unambiguously true that we (meaning our government in the US) fund militias for proxy wars then often fight against them and realign with them across time and geography. We aren't very discerning and we're more focused on the broader geopolitics of the proxy wars. It's dumb and bad.
Apparently the Bush era neo-cons we funneling money to Uighur militias with plans to activate them against the CCP at a later date. However they later joined up with the Taliban against NATO, and briefly with DAESH in Syria. While at the same time elements of the Taliban were fighting alongside US forces in Syria agains DAESH, Asad, and those same Uighurs.
The US war machine will truly do business with ANYBODY.
[EDIT] I'd be interested to hear why anyone takes exception to this. The remarks about US support of Uighur militants should be noted as a pre 9/11 policy. Post 9/11 the Bush administration designated them terrorists to gain Chinese support against the Taliban. And the funneling money claim is I think indirectly supported, but I'm open to counter claims.
[EDIT 2] It's a bit odd that people keep downvoting this but have nothing to say about it. It's unambiguously true that we (meaning our government in the US) fund militias for proxy wars then often fight against them and realign with them across time and geography. We aren't very discerning and we're more focused on the broader geopolitics of the proxy wars. It's dumb and bad.
A US company wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan in the 90s. Since the Taliban was in control of the area, the US tried to work with them to build the pipeline, but the Taliban didn't didn't agree with having a pipeline through their territory.
So, the US went to war for the pipeline, and now, in the past couple of years, the pipeline is being built under the Taliban.
So, the US went to war for the pipeline, and now, in the past couple of years, the pipeline is being built under the Taliban.
Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Pipeline #History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan%E2%80%93Afghanist...
Afghanistan Oil Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_Over_Me
Keystone XL Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Issues #Issues, #Protest and opposition, Total Carbon, Aquifer valuation, Total Long Term Costs and Benefits
Afghanistan Oil Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_Over_Me
Keystone XL Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Issues #Issues, #Protest and opposition, Total Carbon, Aquifer valuation, Total Long Term Costs and Benefits
> So, the US went to war for the pipeline
While a tempting thought, no single pipeline is economically viable with $800B in expenses
While a tempting thought, no single pipeline is economically viable with $800B in expenses
Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first I heard of this. Do you have any sources that back up this assertion?
I think they mean the TAPI pipeline [1]. I do recall reading something about Taliban representatives being flown to Washington about it before the negotiations broke down due to the embassy bombings.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakis...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakis...
He probably doesn't. It's just a mumbo jumbo of something he read on a message board, convoluted after a few years of posting the same thing on multiple boards.
Once again, my fellow Americans, if you are ever confused about how the Taliban won the hearts and minds of various groups within their country so quickly — while being such utterly backwards, terrible people — remember that we collaborated with pedophiles to “manage” Afghanistan, to the disgust of our own troops:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-to...
I’ll never stop reminding people of this, because 1) it’s INSANE; 2) any sane person would say “yeah if you’re on the non-pedophile side I’d probably choose you over the other guys.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-to...
I’ll never stop reminding people of this, because 1) it’s INSANE; 2) any sane person would say “yeah if you’re on the non-pedophile side I’d probably choose you over the other guys.”
> if you are ever confused about how the Taliban won the hearts and minds of various groups within their country so quickly
How is it America's fault that Afghan police officers are child molesters? I'm sure if Americans had punished them, the Taliban could have PR spun that too to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans. Sounds to me that Afghanistan has big problems with its own citizens they need to figure out for themselves, and no amount of hand-holding by a powerful nation will help them out of the quagmire they are in.
Afghanistan wasn't like South Korea. The Afghans were not super eager for our help, didn't ask for it, and didn't seem super eager to fight along side us to purge an oppressive regime (unlike the South Koreans).
How is it America's fault that Afghan police officers are child molesters? I'm sure if Americans had punished them, the Taliban could have PR spun that too to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans. Sounds to me that Afghanistan has big problems with its own citizens they need to figure out for themselves, and no amount of hand-holding by a powerful nation will help them out of the quagmire they are in.
Afghanistan wasn't like South Korea. The Afghans were not super eager for our help, didn't ask for it, and didn't seem super eager to fight along side us to purge an oppressive regime (unlike the South Koreans).
> How is it America's fault that Afghan police officers are child molesters?
It's not just some police officers. Sexual abuse of young boys is a deeply ingrained feature of Afghan cultures, and the Taliban's revulsion at it was and remains a major motivation to fight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
I'm not saying this justified the war, and I generally agree with your comment, but we ought to be realistic about the depth of depravity we're dealing with over there.
It's not just some police officers. Sexual abuse of young boys is a deeply ingrained feature of Afghan cultures, and the Taliban's revulsion at it was and remains a major motivation to fight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
I'm not saying this justified the war, and I generally agree with your comment, but we ought to be realistic about the depth of depravity we're dealing with over there.
It was common as early as Classical Greece, which went on to influence the whole Hellenic world (including what's today Afghanistan) and Ancient Rome as well. In fact, this kind of practice is even thought to be the underlying factor behind Paul of Tarsus' unreserved condemnation of Graeco-Roman sexual customs in the Christian New Testament.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Remind me again, why did the US deployed military in Afghanistan in the first place?
I read so much about it and I still have no clue.
I read so much about it and I still have no clue.
Punishment for unwise choice of house guests and unwillingness to turn over said house guests.
I think it had something to do with this guy on CNN.[0]
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orawG7vt68o
Well, a lot of people seems to think it was to protect human rights.
I guess this is when it gets confusing when the military leaders ignore the human rights of those kids raped in the US bases...
We funded the child rapists. Gave child rapists guns. We had non child rapists around, but we gave arms and vehicles to child rapists which enabled them to take children and rape them. Then we ignored the fact that they were raping children.
Go try looking up a sex offender in your area and doing the same sort of stuff. You will be held accountable, trust me.
Go try looking up a sex offender in your area and doing the same sort of stuff. You will be held accountable, trust me.
This is 100% spin. Bacha Bazi existed before, during, and after the Taliban's reign. Not only that, there were plenty of circumstances where the victims were charged with homosexuality crimes during the Taliban's reign instead of the perpetrators. It's deeply entrenched in Pashtun culture and has been a thing for centuries. I'm not suggesting this makes it an acceptable practice, but it does explain why it remains prevalent to date and is not a determinant factor in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people.
Afghanistan is an extremely fractured nation where the central government does not have absolute control or ability to govern many of the provinces. Pashtuns are tribal and a lot of conflicts stem from Pashtunwali, essentially a code of conduct, which one of its core pillars is revenge. This creates never ending conflicts between tribes that have wronged each other. They're simply not united. Even during the Taliban's reign, they did not have complete control over the country. The Northern Alliance still controlled the Northern part of the country (which is the vector from which we begun operations with Special Forces assisting the Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban).
This, along with the racial tensions where the affluent in Afghanistan tend to be Tajiks and have wielded a lot of political power despite being a vast minority in the state are probably bigger contributors. All the Taliban need to do is convince the warlord of a given area and they will effective control that area.
Afghanistan is an extremely fractured nation where the central government does not have absolute control or ability to govern many of the provinces. Pashtuns are tribal and a lot of conflicts stem from Pashtunwali, essentially a code of conduct, which one of its core pillars is revenge. This creates never ending conflicts between tribes that have wronged each other. They're simply not united. Even during the Taliban's reign, they did not have complete control over the country. The Northern Alliance still controlled the Northern part of the country (which is the vector from which we begun operations with Special Forces assisting the Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban).
This, along with the racial tensions where the affluent in Afghanistan tend to be Tajiks and have wielded a lot of political power despite being a vast minority in the state are probably bigger contributors. All the Taliban need to do is convince the warlord of a given area and they will effective control that area.
Really, one hundred percent? Not just ninety-five? :)
> [Bacha Bazi] is not a determinant factor in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people.
This rather famous report written by the US military disagrees:
By some accounts, the first incident that brought Mullah Omar and the Taliban to prominence in the eyes of the Pashtun people actually involved a dispute between two warlords over a particularly attractive halekon. This dispute took the pedophilia of the warlords to such an extreme that the locals themselves were repulsed and happy to embrace a force of reform.
and:
Even where the halekon tradition is not "celebrated "per se, it appears to underlie a number of Pashtun social structures, most notably the recruitment of very young "soldiers" by commanders of paramilitary groups. (This is so much true even today, that current law prohibits "beardless boys" living in Afghan military and police stations.) This in turn fits under the traditional warrior ethos which defines the role of men within Pashtun culture. This dynamic played a major role in the functioning of the warlord culture that preceded the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
From https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf - "Pashtun Sexuality"
> [Bacha Bazi] is not a determinant factor in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people.
This rather famous report written by the US military disagrees:
By some accounts, the first incident that brought Mullah Omar and the Taliban to prominence in the eyes of the Pashtun people actually involved a dispute between two warlords over a particularly attractive halekon. This dispute took the pedophilia of the warlords to such an extreme that the locals themselves were repulsed and happy to embrace a force of reform.
and:
Even where the halekon tradition is not "celebrated "per se, it appears to underlie a number of Pashtun social structures, most notably the recruitment of very young "soldiers" by commanders of paramilitary groups. (This is so much true even today, that current law prohibits "beardless boys" living in Afghan military and police stations.) This in turn fits under the traditional warrior ethos which defines the role of men within Pashtun culture. This dynamic played a major role in the functioning of the warlord culture that preceded the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
From https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf - "Pashtun Sexuality"
This report doesn't actually disagree with my assessment and in fact largely reinforces it. Cherry-picking one line that is contemplating on the motives behind Afghans celebrating the Taliban's intervention is not an argument against the premise that bacha bazi is deeply entrenched in Pashtun culture and thus would not be a determinant factor in gaining widespread support of a nation comprised mostly of Pashtuns.
Well... you might be right. This report does also highlight the widespread recognition that the Taliban are hypocrites who "hid their halekon in their madrasas".
You're also right that the line I quoted pertains only to the early days of the Taliban's rise, and not necessarily to the rest of the conflict.
You're also right that the line I quoted pertains only to the early days of the Taliban's rise, and not necessarily to the rest of the conflict.
Simple questions for you: you seem to have a very detailed opinion of the way the Afghan people think and behave. How many are within your group of friends with whom you communicate on a regular basis? How many have provided an opinion or insight on your analysis of their situation? Have you spent any time anywhere near the region?
I’ve witnessed this first hand and the comment you are replying to is accurately representing the history here.
>yeah if you’re on the non-pedophile side
You're assuming there's a non-pedophile side?
You're assuming there's a non-pedophile side?
Yes, that's the Taliban. From https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/bacha-bazi-an-afghan-tr...:
"The Taliban had a deep aversion towards bacha bazi, outlawing the practice when they instituted strict nationwide sharia law. According to some accounts, including the hallmark Times of London article “Kandahar Comes out of the Closet” in 2002, one of the original provocations for the Taliban’s rise to power in the early 1990s was their outrage over pedophilia. Once they came to power, bacha bazi became taboo, and the men who still engaged in the practice did so in secret."
"The Taliban had a deep aversion towards bacha bazi, outlawing the practice when they instituted strict nationwide sharia law. According to some accounts, including the hallmark Times of London article “Kandahar Comes out of the Closet” in 2002, one of the original provocations for the Taliban’s rise to power in the early 1990s was their outrage over pedophilia. Once they came to power, bacha bazi became taboo, and the men who still engaged in the practice did so in secret."
If the Taliban is so opposed to pedophilia, why are there so many reported stories of girls as young as 12 being forced to "marry" men more than twice their age?
No, you're right, my response wasn't actually very relevant to your point. The Taliban are in fact not at all opposed to pedophilia as long as it's their preferred kind.
The Taliban profess to be opposed to the institutionalized child sex abuse we know as Bacha Bazi, and that appeared to be a significant factor in their early rise to power. But you're right, there is no "non-pedophile side" in any meaningful moral sense.
The Taliban profess to be opposed to the institutionalized child sex abuse we know as Bacha Bazi, and that appeared to be a significant factor in their early rise to power. But you're right, there is no "non-pedophile side" in any meaningful moral sense.
Nonetheless, thanks for posting that 7 year old article. I've followed Afghanistan news on and off and I was not aware of how widespread that practice is. It's almost certainly a factor in the Taliban's resurgence.
How in the world do you say "forced", truly hearsay. I'm a Muslim, I have a bunch of Afghani/Arab friends, and things aren't "forced", except in a few cases.
As far as age: did you know the legal age of marriage was 13 in the United States (NH), up until 2019. Thirteen.
As far as age: did you know the legal age of marriage was 13 in the United States (NH), up until 2019. Thirteen.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow I was unaware of that.
Its been a very long time since reading or watching something has made my blood boil like it is right now.
Its been a very long time since reading or watching something has made my blood boil like it is right now.
The idea that their opposition to bacha bazi played a significant role in the Taliban's appeal is exactly the kind of myopic American cultural reasoning that has led to this disaster in Afghanistan.
Jesus Christ, so sad to see. I can't help but imagine what a wonderful place Afghanistan could have been had the Soviet backed 1978 coup been a failure. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan
Interestingly, there was talk after the American invasion of re-instating the (then-still living) former king of Afghanistan who ruled the country from 1933 to 1973 when he was overthrown in favor of a democracy. It's impossible to say if such a counterfactual could have possibly courted more legitimacy for the current government (thus bleeding Taliban support from the population), but it does make you wonder.
The women of Afghanistan yearn to be ruled by a hereditary king. Think of how much legitimacy he has.
same as how Iran could be without US backed coup. All superpowers are bad for this world. But still, the world is still suffering from the mess last empire made.
I don't know what to think for Afghanistan, a government without ability to maintain stability is not useful, and Taliban is a bit backward, and I don't know if we can expect them to change when they take full control of the country. With modern weapons, something like a revolution would be impossible to happen in any country, AND a government not through revolution really does not last.
I don't know what to think for Afghanistan, a government without ability to maintain stability is not useful, and Taliban is a bit backward, and I don't know if we can expect them to change when they take full control of the country. With modern weapons, something like a revolution would be impossible to happen in any country, AND a government not through revolution really does not last.
This may be pedantic but there are success stories for installed govts. Although Japan is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
True. Japan was a successful western country before anyway. It was a united country, adapted western political system, even had a few colonies, it was a modern country. After the war, it kept its king, and Eisenhower really took the interests of Japan to his heart, the government was essentially the same with a different agenda. Normally the installed governments would work towards the interests of its patrons, not working for its people, that's when it starts to fail. I don't think Taliban would work for Afghanistan for the same reason, if they work for the benefit of their religion, not the benefit of their people, they will not succeed.
The installed governments of aggressors who lost. Germany certainly didn't do too badly.
Interesting that the article linked talks about “Pakistani-funded mujahideen rebels” who became the Taliban. Turns out there were some other countries involved in that funding… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
> I can't help but imagine what a wonderful place Afghanistan could have been had the Soviet backed 1978 coup been a failure.
Or if it had been an instant success, instead of the US pouring cash and arms in to keep the conflict going as long and destructively as possible. The Soviets didn't have a choice but to participate in a conflict on their border.
Or if it had been an instant success, instead of the US pouring cash and arms in to keep the conflict going as long and destructively as possible. The Soviets didn't have a choice but to participate in a conflict on their border.
well, the united states didn't have to fight the cold war. the idea that, because a leftwing revolution happens somewhere, the united states has to pour money and arms into a counter revolution is insane. even if it was a soviet vacked revolution: we did not have to be at war with the soviet union.
Baghdad, centuries ago, had better medical policies than the United States does in 2021.
Unfortunately, the mongols came and burnt everything to the ground/left the city a literal pool of blood.
Makes for good reading in the 21st century I guess.
Unfortunately, the mongols came and burnt everything to the ground/left the city a literal pool of blood.
Makes for good reading in the 21st century I guess.
Nobody's talking or doing anything about the Pakistani support for the Taliban. The T wouldn't be anywhere without it and for years the U.S. and ROW have chosen to ignore it.
When I was there that's where many would go.
I was on a screen-line with 2nd LAR mere miles from the border with Pakistan but we were not allowed to go any closer. It was explained that we have to leave a buffer so that Pakistan can be certain that the US is respecting their territory. One morning some British commandos rolled up, said hello, and left in the direction of the border. I guess they don't have the same buffer rules that we did because I heard gunfire not long after they parted.
We would spend all day searching vehicles and find nothing. The Afghans who submitted to search were very friendly but every so often, for whatever reason, groups of vehicles would turn around rather than be searched. It was open desert down there so I assume they just go wide around the screen-line and on to their destination.
I was on a screen-line with 2nd LAR mere miles from the border with Pakistan but we were not allowed to go any closer. It was explained that we have to leave a buffer so that Pakistan can be certain that the US is respecting their territory. One morning some British commandos rolled up, said hello, and left in the direction of the border. I guess they don't have the same buffer rules that we did because I heard gunfire not long after they parted.
We would spend all day searching vehicles and find nothing. The Afghans who submitted to search were very friendly but every so often, for whatever reason, groups of vehicles would turn around rather than be searched. It was open desert down there so I assume they just go wide around the screen-line and on to their destination.
The US couldn't do much about it from what I understand. But yeah, Pakistan's support for the Taliban was as much a factor as anything in how badly the US failed here, or at least that seems to be the opinion of many of the ranking related military personel.
Or, supposedly, Saudi support.
Imran Khan's response to the Pak money allegation is to ask where did the 1T$ of USA money go? He does have a point, but still not sure why they want to support Taliban.
Imran Khan's response to the Pak money allegation is to ask where did the 1T$ of USA money go? He does have a point, but still not sure why they want to support Taliban.
> He does have a point, but still not sure why they want to support Taliban.
If they don't support Taliban, the Afghan government will...
Whaaat? — I already hear it, but yes. This is this much fucked up.
Please google this.
If they don't support Taliban, the Afghan government will...
Whaaat? — I already hear it, but yes. This is this much fucked up.
Please google this.
More context: Afghan government also has Taliban backers internally.
These desire more for Taliban to attack Pakistan instead, and they indeed fund, and facilitate them to do so.
These desire more for Taliban to attack Pakistan instead, and they indeed fund, and facilitate them to do so.
Pakistan is also burning itself with these crazies.
[deleted]
Hot take:
The immense security theater and waste of time created due to creation of the TSA following 9/11 and our increased interest in fixing the Middle East is just insult to injury.
All that and now we’re leaving with basically no results? SMH. If we’re leaving can we get rid of the TSA at least and restore some sanity to airplane travel?
The immense security theater and waste of time created due to creation of the TSA following 9/11 and our increased interest in fixing the Middle East is just insult to injury.
All that and now we’re leaving with basically no results? SMH. If we’re leaving can we get rid of the TSA at least and restore some sanity to airplane travel?
I genuinely think this is status quo opinion in 2021. At least amongst the HN/reddit demo.
The Middle East cannot be fixed by using force. Only if you have a clear target such as taking out Saddam Hussein, it can work if you get out immediately afterwards.
I hope lessons are learned.
I hope lessons are learned.
Yeah, I mean sure, if you want to create a power vacuum that leads to the creation and rise of ISIS…
I'm sure you realize who has filled that vacuum, that regional powerhouse next door that shares its largest border? Maybe by giving them such an enormous gift we're frenemies, after all?
The real lesson is to install a dictator puppet who guarantees terrorism won't be exported.
Woman children being raped and slaved? That's the dictator's fault, not US. We can't intervene another country!
You see? Win-win
Woman children being raped and slaved? That's the dictator's fault, not US. We can't intervene another country!
You see? Win-win
Who's audacious enough to claim that they want to "fix" the "Middle East" (a colonialist term by the way). Do people ever stop to think why it's in its current state to begin with? Who split it up divide and conquer style? It's those same people who want to "fix" it.
We can’t even show our faces in airports anymore. The TSA is not going away and neither is the disease testing industrial complex. The same type of people who are absolutely certain about the necessity of our current disease containment measures were the types who were ok with the TSA.
This is extremely sad to me. I served in Afghanistan from 2009-2010. One of the things that made me feel like it was worthwhile was watching girls be able to attend school. War sucks, and doesn't really work. We should do a better job avoiding them in the future.
What a monumental waste of money. Could have left after Osama was killed 10 years ago and nothing would be different.
Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
Also, we could have gotten out 20 years ago if Dubya hadn't been so arrogant. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
Also, we could have gotten out 20 years ago if Dubya hadn't been so arrogant. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
And life, how many people died for nothing?
I was never a fan of this nor any other war, but 20 years is a long time, and despite all the bloodshed and suffering that has happened while the Americans (and soldiers from my own country) were there, that is 20 years where, amongst other things, many girls received an education that they would not otherwise have.
Things have been bad in Afghanistan since the 70's, but there were bright moments during the occupation, or what you want to call this period that is now coming to an end.
I have some personal ties to the region, and I sincerely hope things clear up somehow. Afghanistan deserves none of this.
Things have been bad in Afghanistan since the 70's, but there were bright moments during the occupation, or what you want to call this period that is now coming to an end.
I have some personal ties to the region, and I sincerely hope things clear up somehow. Afghanistan deserves none of this.
> I was never a fan of this nor any other war, but 20 years is a long time, and despite all the bloodshed and suffering that has happened while the Americans (and soldiers from my own country) were there, that is 20 years where, amongst other things, many girls received an education that they would not otherwise have.
True, but the US could have made a dent in that by simply not supporting and financing the Taliban. When they help exterminate all of the secular opposition to administrations they are friendly with, the inevitable results are theocracies that are armed to the teeth.
True, but the US could have made a dent in that by simply not supporting and financing the Taliban. When they help exterminate all of the secular opposition to administrations they are friendly with, the inevitable results are theocracies that are armed to the teeth.
I guess there is some positivity about it seen that way, the problem are the dark days ahead.
Could have left a week after we started, after the locals started killing anyone they suspected of being Al-Qaeda, and the remnants had fled to the Pakistan border and Pakistan itself.
It's all hindsight. Iraq was a colossal mistake but the world was in agreement about the Taliban and their war crimes. There was never a right time to bail out; the US and allies have invested hundreds of billions in infrastructure but it's a state of tribes more than a nation.
The US already did this exact thing in the 1980s, and they even made a popular movie about it (Charlie Wilson’s War) that came out in 2007 and spelled out consequences of not investing for the long, long term at the end of the movie.
Politically, invading Afghanistan to get Osama was impossible to avoid since something had to be done. But after Osama was killed, I do not understand what possible motivation the US had for staying there other than enriching players in the military industrial complex.
Politically, invading Afghanistan to get Osama was impossible to avoid since something had to be done. But after Osama was killed, I do not understand what possible motivation the US had for staying there other than enriching players in the military industrial complex.
If they left in 2012 the Taliban would have done then what they re doing now. There's no good leader that was willing to abandon people to that fate until the public exhausted of the war as it has.
> If they left in 2012 the Taliban would have done then what they re doing now.
Yes, that is my point. The options were Taliban (or other tribal groups) take over, or the US spends the next 100 years rebuilding Afghan society and waiting out for all the old people to die.
> There's no good leader that was willing to abandon people to that fate until the public exhausted of the war as it has.
The US public has been exhausted of spending on other nations since the 2008 recession.
Yes, that is my point. The options were Taliban (or other tribal groups) take over, or the US spends the next 100 years rebuilding Afghan society and waiting out for all the old people to die.
> There's no good leader that was willing to abandon people to that fate until the public exhausted of the war as it has.
The US public has been exhausted of spending on other nations since the 2008 recession.
> waiting out for all the old people to die.
The young people are more militant than the old people because of the invasion; so that wouldn't work. The only thing that would work (whatever working means in this context) was a program of mass extermination and colonization.
We invaded a country that was ruled by the Taliban. We installed a puppet government by force. Now that we're leaving, it's going the way of Vichy.
The young people are more militant than the old people because of the invasion; so that wouldn't work. The only thing that would work (whatever working means in this context) was a program of mass extermination and colonization.
We invaded a country that was ruled by the Taliban. We installed a puppet government by force. Now that we're leaving, it's going the way of Vichy.
True, I guess I meant installing a puppet government and then letting them do the deeds over a sufficient number of generations.
> the world was in agreement about the Taliban and their war crimes.
This is not true. Our only accusation was that they had allowed a group of Saudis to live there.
This is not true. Our only accusation was that they had allowed a group of Saudis to live there.
> There was never a right time to bail out; the US and allies have invested hundreds of billions in infrastructure
I will be very glad to see even 1km of straight road in that country.
These billions in infrastructure, and development aid are nowhere to be seen in Afghanistan.
I will be very glad to see even 1km of straight road in that country.
These billions in infrastructure, and development aid are nowhere to be seen in Afghanistan.
Or, gasp, never invading in the first place. Iraq had their own oil so the pillaging was justified with kindergarten level of blatant lies. Everyone knew what was going on. But why did the US gain by invading Afghanistan? Was it plain old lust for blood?
Could have not started the illegal war in the first place...
Could have invaded the actually bloody country responsible for 9/11 instead of a central Asian backwater.
Could have reigned in your massive military industrial complex which essentially demands wars for profits....
What am i kidding... 'MERICA!
Could have invaded the actually bloody country responsible for 9/11 instead of a central Asian backwater.
Could have reigned in your massive military industrial complex which essentially demands wars for profits....
What am i kidding... 'MERICA!
I think Afghanistan shows how a military/country is more than the sum of its parts. The US gave the Afghan military all the toys and training that they need to stomp the Taliban but there is a missing element- decent standards of living, opportunity, education, and national pride/identity.
It would take generations of investment and the US standing guard while Afghans attend school and prosper to slowly gain those elusive qualities.
Just my 2 cents.
It would take generations of investment and the US standing guard while Afghans attend school and prosper to slowly gain those elusive qualities.
Just my 2 cents.
And the most important missing element - a strong collective desire to be free from oppressive regimes. Best summed up by the old proverb "you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"
> The US gave the Afghan military all the toys and training that they need to stomp the Taliban but there is a missing element- decent standards of living, opportunity, education, and national pride/identity.
The thing they lack is loyalty to an occupation government set up and propped up by a foreign invading army. Belonging to the Afghan military means you get a salary in a destroyed country. It doesn't mean that you support an occupation government over your local pious theocrats.
The thing they lack is loyalty to an occupation government set up and propped up by a foreign invading army. Belonging to the Afghan military means you get a salary in a destroyed country. It doesn't mean that you support an occupation government over your local pious theocrats.
What are the origins of the Taliban and how did they come to power in the 90s?
>prosper to slowly gain those elusive qualities
isn't this just masked indoctrination?
isn't this just masked indoctrination?
Issue them visas and a path to citizenship in developed countries.
I think that UN countries should indeed do that, at the very least it'd send a strong signal. But they won't, because when the dust settles they'll be looking to do business with the Taliban or at least try and have some kind of diplomatic relations. They (we) have historically been completely okay with the oppression of women and minorities in other countries, and we still are.
That being said, it would just be a gesture. These women are not free to travel, or make any kind of life choices freely. And even if they were, social pressures are almost insurmountable.
That being said, it would just be a gesture. These women are not free to travel, or make any kind of life choices freely. And even if they were, social pressures are almost insurmountable.
Sadly, sometimes you have to fight your own battles and wars. Be they for independence, the right to vote, etc. (see Vietnam)
If the dissenters leave and don’t put up a fight, who is going to do the right thing?
Imagine if the resistance fighters of France or Benelux said instead, it’s fucking bad here, we gotta get out of town and let’s go to Argentina (or Angola, pick a place).
That would have left the baddies without resistance. That’s what would happen if no one were to put up a fight. Yes it’s deaths, but the future might be worth it. If Americans can go die over there to protect civil society surely locals can organize a fight.
Look at the VC of Vietnam, they could have said, shit, let’s just go to China or whatever and forget our homeland, but they didn’t. They fought tooth and nail with every breath, men women and children. I disagree with their choice of government but I admire their will for self determination and willingness to fight for what they thought was righteous.
If the dissenters leave and don’t put up a fight, who is going to do the right thing?
Imagine if the resistance fighters of France or Benelux said instead, it’s fucking bad here, we gotta get out of town and let’s go to Argentina (or Angola, pick a place).
That would have left the baddies without resistance. That’s what would happen if no one were to put up a fight. Yes it’s deaths, but the future might be worth it. If Americans can go die over there to protect civil society surely locals can organize a fight.
Look at the VC of Vietnam, they could have said, shit, let’s just go to China or whatever and forget our homeland, but they didn’t. They fought tooth and nail with every breath, men women and children. I disagree with their choice of government but I admire their will for self determination and willingness to fight for what they thought was righteous.
There is no meaningful dissent under this system. Resistance fighters are also not going to happen in the near future, because these need broad population support, at least regionally. I would argue that the Taliban grabbing control of the country is the people of Afghanistan fighting their own wars, as revolting as it is.
I wonder though if what has been posted in another thread here had happened: if we either hadn't have gone in at all, or retreated immediately after. Maybe the passage of time would have softened up the Taliban government structure by now and there would be meaningful change brewing from within. In that sense, fighting their own wars could have helped the country. I've seen good cases being made for the theory that the people of Afghanistan would almost certainly be better off by now. As it stands today, they are reset to the very beginning of any possible road to democracy and human rights. Then again, there is no guarantee they'll ever choose that. I sort of see the point of those who argue that "we" need to be fine with that, too.
However, this piece of news is more immediate and the suggestion made here relates to immediate relief for people in trouble. And in such cases, I can't ethically be in favor of letting anyone fight their own wars.
I wonder though if what has been posted in another thread here had happened: if we either hadn't have gone in at all, or retreated immediately after. Maybe the passage of time would have softened up the Taliban government structure by now and there would be meaningful change brewing from within. In that sense, fighting their own wars could have helped the country. I've seen good cases being made for the theory that the people of Afghanistan would almost certainly be better off by now. As it stands today, they are reset to the very beginning of any possible road to democracy and human rights. Then again, there is no guarantee they'll ever choose that. I sort of see the point of those who argue that "we" need to be fine with that, too.
However, this piece of news is more immediate and the suggestion made here relates to immediate relief for people in trouble. And in such cases, I can't ethically be in favor of letting anyone fight their own wars.
Why is there a extremely pervasive belief in the HN crowd that there is The Right Way and every country must immediately adopt it (and if they do not, they are making a mistake)? It just seems like Afghanistanis are self-determining to support Taliban anywhere outside of Kabul.
> Why is there a extremely pervasive belief in the HN crowd that there is The Right Way and every country must immediately adopt it (and if they do not, they are making a mistake)?
I can't speak for the others, but for me it's because I'm a humanist and I strongly believe governments must be, as well. I'm arguing from a perspective of minimizing human suffering and (ideally) optimizing progress and development towards a future that is pleasant, prosperous, and scientifically literate.
On the more contentious side I would also argue the implementation of a state in such a society must be entirely secular, even if there is a majority religion, because the humanist goals laid out above are fundamentally incompatible with a state religion. But as I said, that particular bias is mostly my personal opinion and could be considered outdated (maybe a side effect of my age).
That is not to say there is a single ideal country I can point at and declare that they're currently fulfilling this ambition completely. But it's easy to identify a government, power structure, or ideology where the core agendas actively move society further away from it. I understand why these kinds of value judgements don't sit right with you, but I'm not arguing for the superiority of Western culture per se.
Edit: About your point of "immediately" adopting democracy, there is no moderate time span. Fundamentalist regimes with popular support, especially when they're religion-based, are usually incredibly stable because of the way consent is continually built and dissent is harshly squashed. If a country slides politically over time, it's usually not towards a secular democracy. Chances are the Taliban will rule Afghanistan for many generations.
> It just seems like Afghanistanis are self-determining to support Taliban anywhere outside of Kabul.
There is no question that the Taliban gobbling up the country is an expression of public will. I do think it's regrettable, and I strongly believe "we" should offer assistance to the few people who actually make it out. But other than that, there is really little to do but watch. It's been a long time coming.
I can't speak for the others, but for me it's because I'm a humanist and I strongly believe governments must be, as well. I'm arguing from a perspective of minimizing human suffering and (ideally) optimizing progress and development towards a future that is pleasant, prosperous, and scientifically literate.
On the more contentious side I would also argue the implementation of a state in such a society must be entirely secular, even if there is a majority religion, because the humanist goals laid out above are fundamentally incompatible with a state religion. But as I said, that particular bias is mostly my personal opinion and could be considered outdated (maybe a side effect of my age).
That is not to say there is a single ideal country I can point at and declare that they're currently fulfilling this ambition completely. But it's easy to identify a government, power structure, or ideology where the core agendas actively move society further away from it. I understand why these kinds of value judgements don't sit right with you, but I'm not arguing for the superiority of Western culture per se.
Edit: About your point of "immediately" adopting democracy, there is no moderate time span. Fundamentalist regimes with popular support, especially when they're religion-based, are usually incredibly stable because of the way consent is continually built and dissent is harshly squashed. If a country slides politically over time, it's usually not towards a secular democracy. Chances are the Taliban will rule Afghanistan for many generations.
> It just seems like Afghanistanis are self-determining to support Taliban anywhere outside of Kabul.
There is no question that the Taliban gobbling up the country is an expression of public will. I do think it's regrettable, and I strongly believe "we" should offer assistance to the few people who actually make it out. But other than that, there is really little to do but watch. It's been a long time coming.
To be terse, a population has to be ready to receive a system of government for it to work. It has to be organic and can take many decades to play out.
Russia is an example. After centuries Empire and communism, they were in no way ready for democracy. Democracy may still work out some day in Russia, but not now. Also not now in Afghanistan. They need to work that out themselves.
Russia is an example. After centuries Empire and communism, they were in no way ready for democracy. Democracy may still work out some day in Russia, but not now. Also not now in Afghanistan. They need to work that out themselves.
The Democracy also doesn't work in USA. Americans are too immature for the Democracy, so let's hand the country to Putin.
People following your line of logic are so arrogant, and coarse.
People following your line of logic are so arrogant, and coarse.
Sometimes a superpower comes in and enlists you in their war in your country, and then leaves and hangs you out to dry. This happened to the Hmong in Laos during the Vietnam war as the CIA used them in their secret war across the border. Eventually thousands of them did settle in the US [0].
[0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/25/how-a-former-cia-wo...
[0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/25/how-a-former-cia-wo...
[deleted]
US barely fought the Afghan war. The war was "Afghanised" very early on. The lion share of casualties in Afghanistan are the ANA troops.
This is disingenuous. Unless I somehow completely missed something, US military support was absolutely crucial in fighting back the Taliban.
Then why does the withdrawal of US troops result in collapse?
You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in.
You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in.
The US cut and ran, forced the Afghan gov to release thousands of Taliban fighters, and cut off intel and logistic support. It wasn't just a withdrawal, we tied a weight around the Afghan gov, threw them in the river and told them to swim. At least with Saigon we managed to evacuate thousands. This admin hasn't even done that.
After 20 odd-years, I don't call this a cut-and-run. This has been a simmering topic since Obama took over --but of course, once in the white house, he changed tack.
Air Support - with the US withdrawal, there's been a decrease in that especially given the Aug 31st deadline. And India's not immediately interested in providing immediate air support as well (in order to try and make inroads with the Taliban, like all other nations in the region are)
https://theprint.in/diplomacy/afghan-govt-wants-iaf-support-...
https://theprint.in/defence/will-pull-india-into-a-vortex-wh...
https://theprint.in/diplomacy/afghan-govt-wants-iaf-support-...
https://theprint.in/defence/will-pull-india-into-a-vortex-wh...
> Then why does the withdrawal of US troops result in collapse?
Because US troop withdrawal is also a simultaneous porkbarrel withdrawal.
This is something very obvious I am surprised nobody talks about.
US "war funds" to the most Afghan establishment were basically loyalty bribes.
Because US troop withdrawal is also a simultaneous porkbarrel withdrawal.
This is something very obvious I am surprised nobody talks about.
US "war funds" to the most Afghan establishment were basically loyalty bribes.
maybe not direct deaths but the Trillions of dollars that were thrown away in Afghanistan could have been spent improving and saving the lives of citizens in the United States
I'm not sure there's been a more wasteful government action in human history than the US government in the Middle East
I'm not sure there's been a more wasteful government action in human history than the US government in the Middle East
We (the US) offered interpreters who worked with our troops in the middle of the absolute shit a path to citizenship and then left them literally in the dust so that they and their families can be tortured and killed.
Maybe the Euro Countries (or even Canada?) could be nicer, but the USA (politicians making the decisions that go in affect) clearly don't give the slightest fuck and haven't for decades.
Maybe the Euro Countries (or even Canada?) could be nicer, but the USA (politicians making the decisions that go in affect) clearly don't give the slightest fuck and haven't for decades.
Also legal citizenship/visas are a real crapshoot in the US due to the extreme (and by extreme I mean it sounds like hyperbole and would be hilarious if it weren't people's lives getting screwed around with) incompetence, slothfulness, and general unreliability of the USCIS.
Most people who live here have never dealt with them and have no idea just how bad it really is. I think their interview process might include an IQ test with an upper limit for acceptable candidates.
Most people who live here have never dealt with them and have no idea just how bad it really is. I think their interview process might include an IQ test with an upper limit for acceptable candidates.
"legal citizenship/visas are a real crapshoot in the US"
I know several developer that immigrated to US, and then because of what they had to deal with regularly. No personal experience though
I know several developer that immigrated to US, and then because of what they had to deal with regularly. No personal experience though
This absolutely accurate
https://youtu.be/QplQL5eAxlY
https://youtu.be/QplQL5eAxlY
Huh, look at that. I was somewhat right
https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/142632472646...
(Presuming it's actually followed through with)
https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/142632472646...
(Presuming it's actually followed through with)
[deleted]
Friends & Family might be a higher priority for them.
And spread the problem further? They were given many resources to improve their country and squandered it.
We know what happens when you have mass immigration from countries with low standards of living. We saw it with Gaddafi, it destabilizes regions and introduces problems with housing supply, welfare budgets and wage suppression.
We know what happens when you have mass immigration from countries with low standards of living. We saw it with Gaddafi, it destabilizes regions and introduces problems with housing supply, welfare budgets and wage suppression.
This will likely exacerbate the country’s situation, though it’s a pragmatic way to help the victims.
It drains the country of future conflict while supporting these victims. It brings the fight to developed countries on their terms and soil. You'll never win against the Taliban by fighting the war in Afghanistan, so you slowly transition through immigration policy the population base they subjugate.
If anyone is interested in getting an idea for how regular Afghans think about their country, policies, etc, this report from 2019 gives a pretty good view. The 2020 report isn't too great since the pandemic. But there is a report for every year going back to like 2005 or so, so you can see how attitudes changed over time:
https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019_A...
In essence, a vast majority of afghans polled believe in women's rights to vote and to work. The Taliban is not popular at all with a vast majority believing they deserve no sympathy. However, many do think peace is possible.
One of the biggest issues the Afghans appear to have is a vast majority believe their own armed forces are badly corrupt.
Afghanistan is by no means a liberal place and is extremely religiously conservative in many ways, but the general public has no taste for Taliban style rule.
This is a truly sad disaster unfolding and I only hope a peace deal is brokered somehow. But with so little resistance, you almost have to wonder if the Taliban would want that now? The only hope I can see is that 65% of the population is under 18 and want educational and career opportunities and I wonder if they'd be willing to rise up if the Taliban does in fact revert to their policies pre-9/11.
https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019_A...
In essence, a vast majority of afghans polled believe in women's rights to vote and to work. The Taliban is not popular at all with a vast majority believing they deserve no sympathy. However, many do think peace is possible.
One of the biggest issues the Afghans appear to have is a vast majority believe their own armed forces are badly corrupt.
Afghanistan is by no means a liberal place and is extremely religiously conservative in many ways, but the general public has no taste for Taliban style rule.
This is a truly sad disaster unfolding and I only hope a peace deal is brokered somehow. But with so little resistance, you almost have to wonder if the Taliban would want that now? The only hope I can see is that 65% of the population is under 18 and want educational and career opportunities and I wonder if they'd be willing to rise up if the Taliban does in fact revert to their policies pre-9/11.
> One of the biggest issues the Afghans appear to have is a vast majority believe their own armed forces are badly corrupt.
By all accounts this is true: bribes, pedophilia, killings of citizens, using heroin, defecting to Taliban, selling arms at markets, etc.
By all accounts this is true: bribes, pedophilia, killings of citizens, using heroin, defecting to Taliban, selling arms at markets, etc.
Terrible, but not surprising: misogyny, or, more properly, gynophobia, is the beating heart of the Islamist Death Cult
Also raping young boys, they seem to do that a lot too with impunity.
Raping young boys is tradition in Afghanistan but you can’t blame the Taliban for that — they are very much against it.
Isn't that part of the Catholic doctorine as well?
Officially ratified by Constantine himself at the Council of Nicea.
source?
So awful that religious extremists always seem to find women threatening.
I don't ever want to see any domestic #metoo comments someone who was OK with the US leaving Afghanistan. Any gender discrimination challenges in the west are an absolute joke compared to the dark ages we just condemned 20 million Afghan women and girls to. And it's being accepted without even a peep by the press and populace at large.
Lol it's hilarious. All the SJW types on instagram now are reposting "The latest on what's happening in Afghanistan! What you can do to help!" Someone said donating to some fund or something and reposting this or that... all selfish posturing.
Some people literally have no clue about the way reality unfolds. Sometimes its just the strong that create the new reality, and they eradicate the weak from existence. When you have strength and general justice on your side, you need to take the chance and destroy the evil.
Some people literally have no clue about the way reality unfolds. Sometimes its just the strong that create the new reality, and they eradicate the weak from existence. When you have strength and general justice on your side, you need to take the chance and destroy the evil.
The press has been complaining about it nonstop, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.
What's your solution then? Continue throwing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars at it to maintain an indefinite military presence there?
We had only a few thousand troops holding most of the populated centers free at very little cost. We could have done that indefinitely without any issue. US casualties in Afghanistan in the past few years have been minuscule and the actual dollar spending wasn't much to keep ten's of millions free from tyranny.
I was all for this withdrawal until I found out it was only 3000 soldiers that we had in Afghanistan. If 3000 soldiers can keep a whole country from going Taliban, then it seems worth it to keep them there.
I don't think it's worth it. Afghanistan is classic example of scope-creep. We went in because al-qaeda blew up two of our buildings. We dismanted al-qaeda leadership including killing its founder. But then instead of leaving we decided to stay because of scope creep and we are still there 20 years after initial deployment fighting against a totally different adversary (Taliban). So what, we pump more soldiers in and destroy Taliban leadership too? But then I'm sure the vacuum will be filled by the next religious-militia organization and we will be stuck like this forever.
I am in favor of helping countries that genuinely want freedom from an oppressive regime. South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom. But Afghanis were not like South Koreans. They didn't seem to care much that they were ruled by oppressive regimes. We had a lot of friendly fire problems where Afghani security forces would go rogue and start killing random personnel on base.
I am in favor of helping countries that genuinely want freedom from an oppressive regime. South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom. But Afghanis were not like South Koreans. They didn't seem to care much that they were ruled by oppressive regimes. We had a lot of friendly fire problems where Afghani security forces would go rogue and start killing random personnel on base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
> The Bodo League massacre (Korean: 보도연맹 학살사건; Hanja: 保導聯盟虐殺事件) was a massacre and war crime against communists and suspected sympathizers (many of whom were civilians who had no connection with communism or communists) that occurred in the summer of 1950 during the Korean War. Estimates of the death toll vary. Historians and experts on the Korean War estimate that the full total ranges from at least 60,000–110,000 (Kim Dong-choon) to 200,000 (Park Myung-lim). The massacre was wrongly blamed on the communists. The South Korean government made efforts to conceal this massacre for four decades. Survivors were forbidden by the government from revealing it, under suspicion of being communist sympathizers; public revelation carried with it the threat of torture and death.
> The Bodo League massacre (Korean: 보도연맹 학살사건; Hanja: 保導聯盟虐殺事件) was a massacre and war crime against communists and suspected sympathizers (many of whom were civilians who had no connection with communism or communists) that occurred in the summer of 1950 during the Korean War. Estimates of the death toll vary. Historians and experts on the Korean War estimate that the full total ranges from at least 60,000–110,000 (Kim Dong-choon) to 200,000 (Park Myung-lim). The massacre was wrongly blamed on the communists. The South Korean government made efforts to conceal this massacre for four decades. Survivors were forbidden by the government from revealing it, under suspicion of being communist sympathizers; public revelation carried with it the threat of torture and death.
I never said South Korea didn't commit any war crimes, just that they were highly motivated to prevent North Korea from taking over and ruling them. Unlike the Afghanis, who do not seem highly motivated to prevent the Taliban from ruling them.
"South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom"
The First Republic [of Korea] was characterized by Rhee's authoritarianism and corruption, limited economic development, strong anti-communism, and by the late 1950s growing political instability
And the second and third republics were dictatorships too.
The First Republic [of Korea] was characterized by Rhee's authoritarianism and corruption, limited economic development, strong anti-communism, and by the late 1950s growing political instability
And the second and third republics were dictatorships too.
Scope creep is always a problem when wars are a jobs program.
characterizing the Korean War like that is a bit simplistic. the South Korean was another one of the many proxy governments the US supported in SE Asia during the Cold War that committed their own share of atrocities, political repression, and otherwise authoritarian behavior - which the US tolerated because they were "anti-Communist"
The thing is, they can't. Under those troop levels the Taliban was already taking more territory every year. The choice was between a US troop surge (for an indefinite period), a slow death, or a quick death.
They never could have moved in mass as the moment they would US and Afghan aviation. But not only did US pull intel support, air support, they pulled logistic support so the Afghan aviation is in complete disrepair.
> If 3000 soldiers can keep a whole country from going Taliban
Probably more like the expectation that in response to any substantial Taliban coup and thus danger to NATO soldiers, (tens of) thousands more soldiers with vehicles, tanks, aircrafts could be there in a matter of days.
Probably more like the expectation that in response to any substantial Taliban coup and thus danger to NATO soldiers, (tens of) thousands more soldiers with vehicles, tanks, aircrafts could be there in a matter of days.
And none were involved in active combat operations either. Just logistics and intelligence support.
comparing what's going on in Afghanistan to the Korean Peninsula and how the American forces helped South Korea become a prosperous country make me think the US has lost its core values about its role in the international scene.
Yeah and Vietnam is why. Really, America as the world police was a pretty short-lived experiment. We had to be dragged in to WWII. We mostly sat out the Maoist revolution even though we did have a presence in China at the time. Korea ended up being politically fraught and the public just didn't have their heart in it. No one wanted to help a backwater Asian country. It's hard to sell a 70-year investment to help them become a first-world democracy when the outcome isn't guaranteed. Vietnam really broke a lot of people's spirits to the point that we carefully avoided nation building in the 1991 Gulf War. Our biggest success since Korea was the Balkan Wars which just aren't prominent in the public consciousness for some reason.
Afghanistan and Korea are vastly different scenarios, perhaps the main difference is the situation the US put themselves in rather than a change of core values.
Definately 'statebuilding' has succeded before and totally failed in afganistan
But its not just about guns - the key difference is that south korea has recieved more financial aid than all of africa combined. Thats is probably thr key difference
But its not just about guns - the key difference is that south korea has recieved more financial aid than all of africa combined. Thats is probably thr key difference
They are quite possibly 100% different scenarios. Your oversimplification is ridic lol.
We need to realign to face the CCP and probably Russia and NK. Having stuff there is a waste.
In WW3, the Taliban will be nobodies and one or two minimal terrorist attacks in Europe will be the least of our worries.
In WW3, the Taliban will be nobodies and one or two minimal terrorist attacks in Europe will be the least of our worries.
That 3000 you're seeing reference to in the past day or so is about new troops being sent now to rescue the US Embassy staff as the Taliban approaches.[1]
We have not been this embarrassed or humiliated since Saigon. It's pathetic foreign policy, and a stupid military withdrawal -- capping off a monumental waste of lives, time, and money.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/afghanistan-us-urges-citizen...
We have not been this embarrassed or humiliated since Saigon. It's pathetic foreign policy, and a stupid military withdrawal -- capping off a monumental waste of lives, time, and money.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/afghanistan-us-urges-citizen...
Rumsfeld said we weren't going to do nation building. Mission accomplished. He did a heck of a job.
How is Biden continuing Trump's deal and pulling out pathetic?
We need to realign all resources to point towards the CCP and probably Russia.
Wasting time to have the resources available if Afghan war operations need it is a colossal waste.
We need to realign all resources to point towards the CCP and probably Russia.
Wasting time to have the resources available if Afghan war operations need it is a colossal waste.
Continued presence was at a minimal cost while keeping the freedom of ten's of millions. Instead we chose to create a horrible human catastrophe to save very little.
You realize that we had to keep soldiers and all of the logistical and air support assets on hand.
What benefit will the freedom of these people that mostly don't want it badly (or their 300k fully equipped soldiers would fight well) have for us in the future? Most likely we will have a global conflict with CCP, Russia, NK, Iran in about 5-10 years time. I highly doubt the Taliban will influence the outcome of that.
What benefit will the freedom of these people that mostly don't want it badly (or their 300k fully equipped soldiers would fight well) have for us in the future? Most likely we will have a global conflict with CCP, Russia, NK, Iran in about 5-10 years time. I highly doubt the Taliban will influence the outcome of that.
Last year we had just under 3,000 troops, which was all that was needed. Those 3,000 troops were not going to make a difference in fighting the CCP, Russia, NK, Iran. But a complete and total abandonment and defacto surrender to the Taliban will embolden America's enemies.
So good seeing U.S. giving up on its imperialistic foreign policy, so much hope for the world /s
2001 - 2020: "Bad US! Imperialism! Racism!"
...
2021: "Omg the Taliban are terrible! They are killing innocents and taking away womens rights! Somebody needs to do something!"
...
2021: "Omg the Taliban are terrible! They are killing innocents and taking away womens rights! Somebody needs to do something!"
It's like when you force someone to quit drugs for you, they don't learn how to quit for themselves.
Anyone find it funny how "The Handmaid's Tale" is present day reality in Afghanistan? Making that book about Christian Fundamentalists was such a stretch.
Please do not take HN threads into religious flamewar. We wish to avoid that version of hell here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
narrator(1)
It's pretty clearly a warning about fundamentalism. The Taliban is another warning. Don't let fundamentalism of any kind take hold.
Its not funny at all.
Sure but its politically ok to attack Christianity and not Islam for some reason. We live in a very strange time. Culture warriors have decided who can be slandered and who cant and there cudgel is wielded very effectively via social media. I say this as someone who has no religion at all.
"For some reason", for obvious reasons, given that in the years following 9/11 there was real backlash directed at muslims. I'm not saying it's fair but it's obvious what the difference is.
The author has said many times that the Iranian Revolution was part of the origin story of the book. The book is set in America, so what do you expect?
The Carter administration and CIA created and armed the rebel (or terrorist groups according to the Soviets) before the Soviet invasion in 1979 according to recently declassified documents:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/07/history-tr...
Wonder how Afghanistan would have been had Carter not armed those groups.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/07/history-tr...
Wonder how Afghanistan would have been had Carter not armed those groups.
The same, the British also ventured into Afghanistan a century before and also gave up.
NonContro(3)
warning26(2)
Didn't realise the Taliban were part of the Ferengi alliance.
And America is supposed to spend $1 trillion+ per year so that a thousand women can keep banking jobs? Many middle eastern countries are extremely conservative. We can't police Afghanistan nor the world. Should never have been there, should never have stayed, should have gotten out far faster.
The US did not spend $1 trillion per year. We spent $1 trillion over 20 years. The cost per year since 2012 was about $50B.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/figures/2...
> Since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.26 trillion on the war, which includes operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Note that this total does not include funds that the United States government is obligated to spend on lifetime care for American veterans of this war, nor does it include future interest payments on money borrowed to fund the war.
And even if it is $50B per year, I do not see why the US should spend it unless it we should also be spending $50B per year in Somalia and Congo and wherever else is needed.
> Since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.26 trillion on the war, which includes operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Note that this total does not include funds that the United States government is obligated to spend on lifetime care for American veterans of this war, nor does it include future interest payments on money borrowed to fund the war.
And even if it is $50B per year, I do not see why the US should spend it unless it we should also be spending $50B per year in Somalia and Congo and wherever else is needed.
The lead infographic explicitly includes interest payments.
Either way, this is tangental to what I said, which is that we are spending $50B per year now, which is accurate: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/09/12/the-an...
Either way, this is tangental to what I said, which is that we are spending $50B per year now, which is accurate: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/09/12/the-an...
The distinction is future interest payments.
By that definition, any federal spending at all has infinite cost, because the national debt is never going to get repaid — it just compounds forever.
Bush and his crew are mostly to blame. Although Obama could've done something after the momentum from Osama's demise. I've read Biden was anti-afghan war since 2009.
It really is a waste when you figure we are going to be in an all-out global conflict with the CCP, Russia, NK, Iran in about 5-10 years.
It really is a waste when you figure we are going to be in an all-out global conflict with the CCP, Russia, NK, Iran in about 5-10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%27s_rise_to_power
"Although no documentation has officially surfaced that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.[11] Osama bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Arab volunteers"