Afghanistan

[theprestige]

So the US has been in control of Afghanistan for twenty years, but the corruption, lack of infrastructure and upcoming famine is the responsibility of the taliban who only took responsibility when the US pulled out at the end of August?

Probably the best option for Afghanistan would have been if the US had not overthrown the communist government that promoted women's rights etc. The US funded the fighters that led to the first Taliban government. The US was responsible for the first Taliban government coming to power. Most of those who were in the first Taliban government are gone, there are new people in power now, they may or may not do things differently.

Above there was a link to a BBC news item. I was struck by the resignation of the Minister for Health. He was the minister from the pre Taliban government. He had remained in Kabul doing his job until the Taliban replaced him, then he resigned. The Taliban left him doing his job. He stayed dong his job, he did not run away and abandon his people. He was not arrested or shot. The Taliban allowed him to run his department for a month. Then he resigned as a new minister was appointed. He wished his successor well.

I don't think it's fair to say the US was in control of Afghanistan. The US and its coalition partners did a good job of making space for themselves to pursue their goals, which were roughly:

Persecute the Taliban

Give Afghanis a chance to (re)build their country.

The Afghanis had all the control they needed to do the right thing. Instead, they did what they did. This might have been avoided if the US actually had been in control, the way it was in control of the American South after the Civil War, or the way it was in control of Imperial Japan after World War 2. But nobody wanted the US to be in control that way. Congress didn't want it. Bush didn't want it. Obama didn't want it. The joint chiefs didn't want it. The UN didn't want it. The Afghanis didn't want it. Hell, I know for damn sure you didn't want it.

And for their part, the Taliban also had some control, enough to do the right thing if they wanted. They certainly could have chosen to be partners for peace with their fellow Afghans, and contributed mightily towards the rebuilding of their country. Instead, they chose the other thing.

As did a lot of Afghanis generally. So don't come crying now like it's the US's fault they didn't do the right thing. They had every opportunity. Billions of dollars of foreign aid. The full expertise of the entire brain trust of western civilization. The backing of the most powerful military coalition in history.

What else was the US supposed to do? Impose martial law? Install James Mattis as governor-general? Establish Afghanistan as a perpetual satrapy since the Afghans didn't seem capable of responsible self-rule?

 

[Ziggurat]

Being a citizen of the world isn't something that's printed on my identity card, it's more a certain state of mind, which should probably be shared more widely.

This is a concept which may also be understood more literally, as meaning: "I am a citizen, and I live on planet Earth. So, anything that happens on this planet does affect me, whether I want to contribute or not".

The problem is not that you care about the world. The problem is that you don't seem to understand what citizenship even means.

And I didn't post that clip because it represents my views, I posted it because it's funny.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

So the US has been in control of Afghanistan for twenty years, but the corruption, lack of infrastructure and upcoming famine is the responsibility of the taliban who only took responsibility when the US pulled out at the end of August?

The claim that the US has 'been in charge' of Afghanistan is dubious. Yes, they were fighting the Taliban, but I believe the Afghan government was in charge, at least in the areas under its control. There were, of course, always parts of the country that were under Taliban control, or the control of other groups/warlords.
Can you detail exactly what the US was in control of?
Then we have the infamous Rule of So.
I re-read my post about the corruption and lack of infrastructure, and it does not say the Taliban was responsible for that. In fact, I was agreeing with you: perhaps you are so unused to this that you didn't recognise this?
I did say that the Taliban might be responsible for a coming famine, if they repeated their destruction of irrigation channels, and also refused to provide aid to the people. I fail to see how this could be controversial.
What I do find controversial is holding the US responsible for a potential famine when there wasn't one before, during the US presence there, and which would only develop after the US left. How would the US be responsible for that, and how would the Taliban not be responsible for that?

Probably the best option for Afghanistan would have been if the US had not overthrown the communist government that promoted women's rights etc.

Except that didn't actually happen. The Afghans overthrew it.

The US funded the fighters that led to the first Taliban government.

No, they didn't. That was Pakistan.

The US was responsible for the first Taliban government coming to power.

No, it wasn't. That was Pakistan again, and the Afghans themselves.

Most of those who were in the first Taliban government are gone, there are new people in power now, they may or may not do things differently.

Absolute nonsense.
https://apnews.com/article/middle-e...ts-islamabad-d50b1b490d27d32eb20cc11b77c12c87

The bulk of the main posts are filled with old guard Taliban members, including members of the previous Taliban government. On what do you base your claim here?

For that matter, on what are you basing all of these claims? With all due respect, you don't seem to know a great deal about this subject.

 

[Planigale]

More trouble in paradise: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/23/how-deep-are-divisions-among-the-taliban

Not surprising and I fear true.

The Taliban as a political / ideological entity do not have good control over the fighters. Many of the fighters will be dangerous, they will feel they have a right to the spoils of war and will want pay back for the deaths of friends and family. The Taliban are a moderating influence. The Taliban need support to maintain control as best as they can, because the alternatives are likely worse.

TheTaliban will do what they believe is right (we may argue with what is right), rather than for personal power or wealth. The disenfranchised young men who have been fighting will want a degree of power and wealth, but there are not jobs to go back to. Like post WW2, one option is that those women who have been in the labour force have to move out so that the fighters can be demobilised into civilian jobs.

 

[Planigale]

The claim that the US has 'been in charge' of Afghanistan is dubious. Yes, they were fighting the Taliban, but I believe the Afghan government was in charge, at least in the areas under its control. There were, of course, always parts of the country that were under Taliban control, or the control of other groups/warlords.
Can you detail exactly what the US was in control of?
Then we have the infamous Rule of So.
I re-read my post about the corruption and lack of infrastructure, and it does not say the Taliban was responsible for that. In fact, I was agreeing with you: perhaps you are so unused to this that you didn't recognise this?
I did say that the Taliban might be responsible for a coming famine, if they repeated their destruction of irrigation channels, and also refused to provide aid to the people. I fail to see how this could be controversial.
What I do find controversial is holding the US responsible for a potential famine when there wasn't one before, during the US presence there, and which would only develop after the US left. How would the US be responsible for that, and how would the Taliban not be responsible for that?



Except that didn't actually happen. The Afghans overthrew it.



No, they didn't. That was Pakistan.



No, it wasn't. That was Pakistan again, and the Afghans themselves.



Absolute nonsense.
https://apnews.com/article/middle-e...ts-islamabad-d50b1b490d27d32eb20cc11b77c12c87

The bulk of the main posts are filled with old guard Taliban members, including members of the previous Taliban government. On what do you base your claim here?

For that matter, on what are you basing all of these claims? With all due respect, you don't seem to know a great deal about this subject.

Thank you.

I think it is on the weight we put on various elements. I do not disagree with the facts you present.

E.g. did the US fund fighters that fought to overthrow the Soviet imposed communist government or was it Pakistan? You deny that the US had any involvement in the Jihadist movement in Afghanistan. I failed to mention that yes Pakistani elements are hugely influential. You say Pakistan, I say the US the truth is a combination.

Short posts are not good for nuance in a complex situation. There is a tendency to put just one side.

Whilst the Afghanis are ultimately responsible for Afghanistan, it appears that the Afghani government post withdrawal of the Soviets was more effective than the Afghani government post withdrawal of the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

 

[Arcade22]

The Taliban will resume executions and the amputation of hands for criminals they convict, in a return to their harsh version of Islamic justice.

According to a senior official – a veteran leader of the hardline Islamist group who was in charge of justice during its previous period in power – executions would not necessarily take place in public as they did before.

The Taliban’s first period ruling Afghanistan during the 1990s, before they were toppled by a US-led invasion in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, was marked by the grisly excesses of its perfunctory justice system, which included public executions in the football stadium in Kabul.

In an interview with Associated Press, Mullah Nooruddin Turabi – who was justice minister and head of the so-called ministry of propagation of virtue and prevention of vice during the Taliban’s previous rule – dismissed outrage over the Taliban’s executions in the past, which sometimes took place in front of crowds at a stadium, and warned the world against interfering with Afghanistan’s new rulers.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...taliban-enforcer-says-amputations-will-resume

The new cosmopolitan, tolerant and humane Taliban.

 

[Arcade22]

The Taliban are a moderating influence. The Taliban need support to maintain control as best as they can, because the alternatives are likely worse.

Did you read the article? The problem is not that they can't control their soldiers, it's that the nice people in Qatar who promised an inclusive tolerant government (shockingly) don't accurately represent the Taliban. They have no control over the military leadership, who ultimately are the ones with the most to say.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Not surprising and I fear true.

The Taliban as a political / ideological entity do not have good control over the fighters. Many of the fighters will be dangerous, they will feel they have a right to the spoils of war and will want pay back for the deaths of friends and family. The Taliban are a moderating influence. The Taliban need support to maintain control as best as they can, because the alternatives are likely worse.

No True Taliban? Seriously?

TheTaliban will do what they believe is right (we may argue with what is right), rather than for personal power or wealth. The disenfranchised young men who have been fighting will want a degree of power and wealth, but there are not jobs to go back to. Like post WW2, one option is that those women who have been in the labour force have to move out so that the fighters can be demobilised into civilian jobs.

You have said a great number of ridiculous things about Afghanistan, but this one is by far the most ridiculous.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

E.g. did the US fund fighters that fought to overthrow the Soviet imposed communist government or was it Pakistan? You deny that the US had any involvement in the Jihadist movement in Afghanistan. I failed to mention that yes Pakistani elements are hugely influential. You say Pakistan, I say the US the truth is a combination.

Please don't misquote me. You said the US funded the Taliban. They did not. The money came from the US, but the Pakistani ISI decided who got it. The madrassas where they studied were funded by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

You said the US overthrew the post-Russian invasion government. Do you now accept that was untrue?

You also said the US was responsible for the first Taliban government coming to power. This claim, too, goes against historical fact, and I think you should either provide some evidence for this, or admit your error.

Ditto your claim about the members of the new Taliban regime.

You have also failed to elaborate on how you think the US 'controlled' Afghanistan. It might be helpful if you did, rather than assigning blame without showing why.

 

[Planigale]

Please don't misquote me. You said the US funded the Taliban. They did not. The money came from the US, but the Pakistani ISI decided who got it. The madrassas where they studied were funded by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

You said the US overthrew the post-Russian invasion government. Do you now accept that was untrue?

You also said the US was responsible for the first Taliban government coming to power. This claim, too, goes against historical fact, and I think you should either provide some evidence for this, or admit your error.

Ditto your claim about the members of the new Taliban regime.

You have also failed to elaborate on how you think the US 'controlled' Afghanistan. It might be helpful if you did, rather than assigning blame without showing why.

I would be grateful if you did not misquote me. You claim I said

the US funded the Taliban

.

What I actually wrote (go back and check) was;

"The US funded the fighters that led to the first Taliban government."

This is subtly different. The fighters the US funded caused the Soviets to withdraw, and subsequently caused the fall of the communist government. This was the US policy, it was successful. This then led to the Taliban coming to power. This would appear to have been a consequence of the US policy and a failure in that the US did not have an effective government in exile with links to the fighters who could be placed in power. This is what I meant by saying;

"The US was responsible for the first Taliban government coming to power."

That by overthrowing the communist government (US intent), this led to the Taliban coming to power, it was a consequence of the US policy. (Not an intended one I accept.)

I think the US controlled Afghanistan mainly through financial dependency. Partly of course by having a military presence.

 

[theprestige]

E.g. did the US fund fighters that fought to overthrow the Soviet imposed communist government or was it Pakistan? You deny that the US had any involvement in the Jihadist movement in Afghanistan. I failed to mention that yes Pakistani elements are hugely influential. You say Pakistan, I say the US the truth is a combination.

Not really. The truth is that the US supported an insurgency against the Soviet occupation. Once the Soviets withdrew and US support trailed off, some insurgents (or their successors) turned to Pakistan for support. The emergence of the Taliban as an insurgent force in Afghanistan is entirely down to Pakistani sponsorship.

 

[theprestige]

This is subtly different. The fighters the US funded caused the Soviets to withdraw, and subsequently caused the fall of the communist government. This was the US policy, it was successful. This then led to the Taliban coming to power.

No. What led to the Taliban coming to power was Pakistan deciding to sponsor and indoctrinate out-of-work insurgents after the Soviets left. Your version of history is an appeal to the Butterfly Effect, with the unstated premise that the root cause is the US butterfly-industrial complex.

 

[The Atheist]

The Taliban as a political / ideological entity do not have good control over the fighters.

Or anything else, by the look of it.

It's a bizarre situation where the speed of their victory has left them totally unprepared for what to do next.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...taliban-enforcer-says-amputations-will-resume

The new cosmopolitan, tolerant and humane Taliban.

Ah, so it's a horrific crime when the Taliban do it, but AOK if it's our friend and ally Saudi Arabia doing it.

Gotcha.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, so it's a horrific crime when the Taliban do it, but AOK if it's our friend and ally Saudi Arabia doing it.

Gotcha.

Everything in life is a tradeoff. Everything in geopolitics doubly so. We'd be a lot more tolerant of the Taliban's bad behavior if they bothered to offset it with something truly useful to us. (Plus, the Saudis also have oil.)

 

[Arcade22]

Ah, so it's a horrific crime when the Taliban do it, but AOK if it's our friend and ally Saudi Arabia doing it.

Gotcha.

Can you point out where i said something like that? I don't know if it crossed your mind, but there's no reason one cannot criticize and oppose both the Taliban and the Saudis brutal rule.

 

[Planigale]

Can you point out where i said something like that? I don't know if it crossed your mind, but there's no reason one cannot criticize and oppose both the Taliban and the Saudis brutal rule.

I agree with this.

Whilst in general I would not be in favour of most of the politics, I do agree with the sentiment 'Trust but Verify'.

I would like to trust the 'New' Taliban but I would certainly verify. However, the people of Afghanistan need food now, they need currency now. Real people, women and children, will die if the US does not ease sanctions on the Taliban.

The US should play the big man, take the first step, release funds, but warn that come spring things must move in a 'liberal' direction.

 

[theprestige]

I agree with this.

Whilst in general I would not be in favour of most of the politics, I do agree with the sentiment 'Trust but Verify'.

I would like to trust the 'New' Taliban but I would certainly verify. However, the people of Afghanistan need food now, they need currency now. Real people, women and children, will die if the US does not ease sanctions on the Taliban.

The US should play the big man, take the first step, release funds, but warn that come spring things must move in a 'liberal' direction.

The US, of course. Not the UK. Not France or Canada. Not Sweden. Not Japan or South Korea. Or South Africa. Not your beloved China. Not your blameless Pakistan. Not Monaco, which must surely have an immense concentration of idle wealth looking for a good deed.

Why isn't this a job for the UN? Why isn't this a job for any one of a number of UN affiliated NGOs? Why is this more about sticking it to America for you, than about actually helping the Afghanis?

 

[The Atheist]

Everything in life is a tradeoff. Everything in geopolitics doubly so. We'd be a lot more tolerant of the Taliban's bad behavior if they bothered to offset it with something truly useful to us. (Plus, the Saudis also have oil.)

I'm sure they'd swap a few tonnes of heroin for weapons.

Can you point out where i said something like that? I don't know if it crossed your mind, but there's no reason one cannot criticize and oppose both the Taliban and the Saudis brutal rule.

To save a bit of time just quote your posts critical of the Saudi regime and their misogyny and biblical punishments.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

"The US funded the fighters that led to the first Taliban government."

This is subtly different. The fighters the US funded caused the Soviets to withdraw, and subsequently caused the fall of the communist government. This was the US policy, it was successful. This then led to the Taliban coming to power. This would appear to have been a consequence of the US policy and a failure in that the US did not have an effective government in exile with links to the fighters who could be placed in power. This is what I meant by saying;

"The US was responsible for the first Taliban government coming to power."

That by overthrowing the communist government (US intent), this led to the Taliban coming to power, it was a consequence of the US policy. (Not an intended one I accept.)

There is something of a contradiction in your position here.
You claim the US funded the Taliban, and the Mujahideen generally. If that is the case, then the US funded the forces fighting the Taliban too. If the opposition to the Taliban had won the civil war, would you still be condemning America, and claiming it was US policy to facilitate (intentionally or not) the Taliban rise to power?
Also, you attack the US for not installing a government after the Russian withdrawal, and then attack them for supporting the government that formed after the civil war.
This makes no sense to me.

I think the US controlled Afghanistan mainly through financial dependency. Partly of course by having a military presence.

Once again, you appear to want to blame America for everything.
The US military presence was there to fight the Taliban. You appear to condemn this.
When the US withdrew, and the Taliban resurged, you condemn America for that, too.
Is there anything that the US can do that would meet with your approval?
Another:
You want the US to provide aid, yet don't want Afghanistan to be financially dependent on US aid. Once again, you need to resolve these contradictions and present a more coherent case.

None of that answers the question of how you think America is to blame for the corruption and incompetence of the former Afghan government. You said the US controlled it: you still have not detailed how.

 

[Arcade22]

To save a bit of time just quote your posts critical of the Saudi regime and their misogyny and biblical punishments.

Seriously? I don't have to prove anything to you. You are the one making the accusation.