Forum menu
They wouldn't have left that much, maybe some vehicles. If you watched the documentary on pulling out of camp Bastion one of the Afghan commanders made the comment along the lines of 'they would have taken the concrete walls if it wasn't so heavy'
Afghanistan was never invaded to ‘help’ them. It was invaded as revenge for 9/11.
No, the perpetrators of 9/11, embassy bombings and many other atrocities were being given safe haven by the Taliban and were hellbent on committing more of the same. The initial invasion was motivated, at least in part by the need to stop that. Huge mistakes were later made of course, but as the primary reason for attacking the Taliban regime it had far more justification than the Iraq war. In that one very limited measure of success, it largely worked. The AQ leadership were evicted and never recovered their former capacity and effectiveness. As ever, scant regard was given to 'what now' after the invasion and it became a predicable cluster****.
I'm not trying to justify the whole debacle, impossible of course. But try to remember how the world felt just after 9/11. People were avoiding London thinking it might be next. Saying it was just revenge seems trite to me.
As someone said above above, I think the big problem was the invasion of Iraq.
The rest of the world was broadly supportive of the US after September 11, and to a lesser extent the action NATO took in response (the only time article 5 has ever been triggered I belive. Who expected that to be for the defence of America?)
There was no surprise that the collation won the war, the Taliban had no chance against such military prowess.
However, what should have happened then is a massive effort of nation building, think of what happened in Germany after the war (is there also an analogy there about overturning an ideology which the leadership and some of the people had held, nazis/taliban?)
However Bush and Blair saw the ease with which they had won the war and decided to do it all over again way before they had won the peace, divide the international community and stir up another hornets nest. They thought winning the war was the end, not the beginning.
The fact that we have made such a pigs breakfast of both Afghanistan and Iraq now means that we are unlikely to ever have any international support should the need arise to do something similar again, and probably more importantly, no locals are ever going to welcome us if that is likely to be the outcome for their country.
Its a lesson that should have been learnt by now
1) you cannot enforce a peace on a country from outside
2) You cannot create a functioning government without the consent of the people
Saying it was just revenge seems trite to me.
I think seeing to be taking revenge was very important to the Bush administration they couldn't be seen to be doing nothing. Making someone pay th eprice is taking revenge:
Edit to add:
revenge
/rɪˈvɛn(d)ʒ/
Apprenez à prononcer
noun
noun: revengethe action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.
"other spurned wives have taken public revenge on their husbands"
h
Synonymes :
vengeanceretribution
retaliation
reprisal
requital
recrimination
tit for tat
measure for measure
getting even
redress
satisfaction
repayment
payback
lex talionis
ultionthe desire to repay an injury or wrong.
"it was difficult not to be overwhelmed with feelings of hate and revenge"
h
Synonymes :
vengefulnessvindictiveness
vitriol
virulence
spite
spitefulness
malice
maliciousness
malevolence
malignancy
ill will
animosity
antipathy
enmity
hostility
acrimony
venom
poison
hate
hatred
rancour
bitterness
revengefulnessmaleficence
(in sporting contexts) the defeat of a person or team by whom one was beaten in a previous encounter.
"Zimbabwe snatched the game 18–16, but the Spanish had their revenge later"verbliterary
verb: revenge; 3rd person present: revenges; past tense: revenged; past participle: revenged; gerund or present participle: revenginginflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to oneself.
"I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you"
h
Synonymes :
take revenge onexact/wreak revenge on
get one's revenge on
avenge oneself on
take vengeance on
get even with
settle a/the score with
get
pay back
pay out
retaliate on/against
take reprisals against
exact retribution on
let someone see how it feels
give as good as one gets
give/return like for like
give tit for tat
give someone their comeuppance
get one's own back on
recriminateinflict revenge on behalf of (someone else).
"it's a pity he chose that way to revenge his sister"
inflict retribution for (a wrong or injury done to oneself or another).
"her brother was slain, and she revenged his death"
h
Synonymes :
avengetake/exact revenge for
make retaliation for
retaliate for
exact retribution for
take reprisals for
get redress for
get satisfaction forrequite
Expressions
revenge is a dish best served cold — vengeance is often more satisfying if it is not exacted immediately.
Origine
late Middle English: from Old French revencher, from late Latin revindicare, from re- (expressing intensive force) + vindicare ‘claim, avenge’.
Traduire "revenge" en
noun1. vengeance
2. revancheverb
1. venger
Usage de "revenge" au fil du temps
Définitions proposées par les Oxford Languages
Not quite sure what happened with the more voluminous than intended copy/paste there but it's fitting.
The ****stani intelligence services see the Taliban as their ally.
Good piece on R4 yesterday pointing out that the ****stani military and military intelligence have had a constant policy of support, regardless of changes in ****stani government.
Taliban has income streams - "tax" (extorsion) in the areas they control, sale of coal and marble to the Chinese, truck companies in ****stan. This means they can pay their forces and but stuff without direct support from outsiders.
Iran is keeping on good terms with the Taliban groups on their border to keep it stable.
China is playing a similar game - as long as the border is maintained they have no interest in getting involved.
Russia - who knows? Certainly some schadenfreude.
Terrible situation, not sure what could be done after Trump announced wihdrawl date,
I'm sure I heard something on the news a few days ago saying that the Taliban could take control of Kabul in perhaps as little as 30 days. They got that a bit wrong.
I think as Edukator says, Bush had to be seen to be doing something after 9/11. Firing some cruise missiles into caves wouldn't have been enough, it had to be something far more forceful.
As others have said, the whole thing just seems like it's been a massive exercise in futility. All those lives lost, and for what? I fear that the Taliban will be emboldened by this and become even more extreme.
(is there also an analogy there about overturning an ideology which the leadership and some of the people had held, nazis/taliban?)
1) Germany was comprehensively defeated militarily and dismembered as a military force
2) there was a functioning state which German-speaking people regarded as legitimate and could be rebuilt
3) the Western allies accepted that "former" Nazis could continue in office/in post apart from at the top level
4) the Soviets installed puppets that had been held in reserve and were willing to occupy indefinitely
5) the allies stripped Germany's assets to pay for the invasion, and allowed the ethnic cleansing of Germans to avoid future cross-border "confusion"
None of those things was true in Afghanistan
The ****stani intelligence services see the Taliban as their ally.
Yes I get that but if I was them I wouldn't trust the Taliban. They already have a presence in ****stan and they will see that as an easy option for expansion in the region - then India really needs to start considering what will happen next.
@Edukator your cut and paste game is on point, well done. Of course revenge was an element in the mix, but my point is that to claim it was the only reason is wrong. The then Afghan regime were harbouring the perpetrators of the world's worst terrorist attack(s) and had more in the pipeline. The primary motivation was to stop that.
The then Afghan regime were harbouring the perpetrators of the world’s worst terrorist attack(s) and had more in the pipeline. The primary motivation was to stop that.
Errmmmm - Saudi Arabia was financing and supporting many of the "terrorist" organiastions why not invade them?
I roughly agree with your first four points politecameraaction but point 5 is well off. The Marshall plan and investment in Germany wasn't asset stripping and you need to explain what you mean by ethnic cleaning. Borders changed very little, people generally returned from whence they came when possible and some Jews left voluntarily for their promised land.
Perhaps a beter comparison is with what happened in countries occupied by the Nazis, France, Holland, Belgium, Scandinavia the Baltics... . Round here there are monuments to the resistants but the dead collabos are long forgotten and still dispised.
A few Saudis, TJ, or the whole Royal family? If it really was Saudi Arabia then ivading Afghanistan was a little off target as I alluded a page back. Fact is The Bush administration went on a Crusade, going as far as trying to persuade Jaques Chirac that it was all in the Bible and he was fulfilling Biblical prophecies. He missed the verse about turning the other cheek.
Borders changed very little,
that really is not true. Poland moved hundreds of miles west taking a good chunk of Germany and loosing a big chunk to Ukraine plus numerous other border adjustments and massive movements of people
But you are right - the marshall plan created the conditions for modern Germeny to arise and nothing similar was done for Afghanistan
there was assett stripping as well - the BSA bantam was a DKW stolen from Germany
There is so much in there that I agree with, it is hard to believe he is a tory, so little of it seems to align with current tory ideology.
I've very recently worked with him, he Tories pretty hard locally, don't worry.
It really didn't matter where the Poland - German border was, it was all occupied by the Soviets. My Polish father-in-law couldn't return after being de-mobbed in the UK and his father died after 5 years in a Soviet prison for having been in the Polish military. That part of Poland had swapped hands several times and had a partly German speaking population.
I think seeing to be taking revenge was very important to the Bush administration they couldn’t be seen to be doing nothing.
Definitely they had to be seen to retaliate against Al Qaeda. It wouldn't matter who was U.S. President, if a terrorist group did that, they have no political option but to respond very forcefully. The Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda. IIRC, the Bush administration gave them an ultimatum of handing over the AQ leaders or facing invasion. This had widespread international support - AQ and the Taliban deserved everything they got. So yes, revenge against AQ and the Taliban, but not against Afghanistan.
After defeating the Taliban, Nato couldn't just walk away and hand it back so they started pumping money in to rebuild. With hindsight, that never worked and all the rosy reports about how well everything was going were little more than wishful thinking. As soon as the Iraq invasion kicked off, Afghanistan was doomed to failure.
A few Saudis, TJ, or the whole Royal family?
by my understanding its the whole administration.
The Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda.
the Saudis were financing them and the UK and US had trained and armed them ( taliban and al queda)
Errmmmm – Saudi Arabia was financing and supporting many of the “terrorist” organiastions why not invade them?
I'm not a spokesperson for the Bush government. I'm not trying to justify the Afghanistan invasion, or saying I agreed with it just suggesting that perhaps the reasons for it were a little more complex than 'revenge', or any other one liners or over simplifications.
The Saudi regime are a malign influence in the world and US and UK connivance with them grieves me, but bringing it up in this context is whataboutery. Bin Laden and the AQ leadership were in Afghanistan not KSA.
Interesting use of quotation marks around the word terrorist. Do you question the use of that term in regard to Al Quaida?
The Saudi "administration" is a family founded by Ibn Saud who shagged his way around the penisular gaining blood allegience from the various tribes. He signed the 50/50 deal with the US and became big boss but the tribal and family rivalries remain. The "whole administration" isn't how I see the ruling class in Saudi.
Edit: I used doss on the floor of the Saudi Ambasadors son. 😉
BBC and others now reporting Taliban are in the outskirts of Kabul. Taliban say they have stopped their advance to negotiate a peaceful transfer of power. What a tragic waste of lives for political expediency in the U.S. and throughout the west.
Interesting use of quotation marks around the word terrorist. Do you question the use of that term in regard to Al Quaida?
Al Queda were " freedom fighters" when we were training and equiping them and as ever one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
I think the reason's for the invasion had far more to do with revenge than 'helping' Afghanistan, which is the point I was making initially.
If you want to argue that it was more to increase western security then that's more difficult to prove one way or the other.
However, I don't think it's controversial to say that nation building was never part of the original justification or plans for the invasion (beyond deciding which of their cronies would be awarded the juiciest 'rebuilding' contracts).
What we are seeing now is just how much of a total victory 9/11 was.
The “whole administration” isn’t how I see the ruling class in Saudi.
Fair enough. I thought you were trying to say it was a couple of rogue princes rather than being Saudi policy
Al Queda were ” freedom fighters” when we were training and equiping them and as ever one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
When did "we" train and equip Al Quaida?!! The US and UK did train and equip the forerunners of the Taliban in the form of the Mujahideen when it suited us in a proxy war against the Russians. Deluded and short sighted and definitely came back to bite us, but AQ are a totally different beast. I am not aware that the west trained and armed Al Quaida? You have some evidence for that TJ?
Osama bin Laden fought with the Muhahideen in Afghanistan. After that, he founded Al Qaeda.
There are more than a couple of rogue princes, TJ. There are about 4 000 princes but there's a hard core of 35 to squabble about official policy and then squabble with the Religious clerics. The West tries to deal with Saudi as if it were a western state, but it isn't. The various people making it up do what they can get away with and there are several agendas running concurrently.
https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1426801235966021634
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1426853120601169923
Osama bin Laden fought with the Muhahideen in Afghanistan. After that, he founded Al Qaeda.
Indeed he did, as did Muslims from all over the world, including the UK and US. See also Chechnya and Syria. But Al Quaida was formed well after that, and was primarily an arabic (principally Saudi and Egyptian), Wahabhi inspired organisation. The Mujahhideen were largely Pathan nationalists but their fight was seen as a rallying call to muslims everywhere as a fight (not unjustified perhaps) against imperialism (Russian in that instance).
TJ is claiming that the west armed and trained the terrorist organisation Al Quaida. That is wholly different assertion. I am not aware of any evidence that this is true.
When did “we” train and equip Al Quaida?!!
the people who went on to become al queda - a lot of them have been trained and supported to foment strife in countries we did not like. al Queda is not a single homogenous organisation.
We also created the conditions for it to arise with our wars and proxy wars in the middle east
al Queda is not a single homogenous organisation.
I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Or wasn't true at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan. AQ was a cohesive organisation with a well establish and rigidly enforced command structure, all operations were approved and financed by the leadership. With the demise of 'core AQ', the subsequent franchises such as AQAP in the Yemen, AQI in Iraq - which morphed into IS etc then yes, they were more amorphous and less rigidly organised.
Was totally predictable by anyone who ever looked at the history of the area ….
Long before Russia had issues with the Mujahadine ( sp? ) and the US ( and allies ) had with the taliban , the Afghans ( and others in the area ) never liked outsiders telling them what to do … and just like in Vietnam and as said earlier in the thread they had all the time in the world to make continued foreign occupation ( in their eyes ) far too expensive ( not only in monetary terms ) for it to continue
Afghanistan was never invaded to ‘help’ them. It was invaded as revenge for 9/11.
Essentially, but then the western powers found themselves saddled with a responsibility to maintain some level of peace and stability.
Like many I was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I didn't believe there was any sort of plan or thought about what happened after, and I was sort of right.
Anyway the invasion and subsequent occupation happened, and once us enlightened westerners had committed ourselves to this course of action there was an inherent responsibility to see the whole thing through, even if it took many, many years.
I have to lay this current shit-show at Biden's feet. He's unilaterally decided on a rapid withdrawal, and the consequences are the worst possible...
I understand why he's done it it, the Afghan occupation was a lasting remnant of a knee jerk, vanity war declared by a simpleton (advised by bastards) that shouldn't have happened. The backlash and ramp up in anti-American sentiment will be significant, he has created new enemies and emboldened the old ones.
As unpalatable as remaining longer term, and paying the price in money and blood to build a functioning, robust democracy might be, that was the right thing to do now...
I know he's not Trump, but I really don't think he should be cut any slack for this, he has basically sacrificed another nation to try and placate voters in his own, that's no better than Bush who started the whole thing...
As above and what I’ve heard a few times recently, the Chinese may decide to enter stage left.
If they do they'll be bogged down like everyone else who has ever tried to have a go.
If they do they’ll be bogged down like everyone else who has ever tried to have a go.
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan both successfully invaded, subdued and held the area which is now Afghanistan
How did they overcome the IED's being used by the Taliban at the time?
I have to lay this current shit-show at Biden’s feet. He’s unilaterally decided on a rapid withdrawal, and the consequences are the worst possible…
No, it was set up by the Trump administration. Biden just continued with a plan that was already in motion. I think it's very fair to criticize Biden for not adjusting plans when things started going off the rails, but the Bush administration set up this debacle, Obama just tried to muddle through, Trump made things worst, and now Biden just wants to wash his hands of the catastrophe he inherited.
https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1426801235966021634?s=20
vs President Biden from the Whitehouse on 8th July 2021:
The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan.
These are the kinds of things that can haunt a Presidency.
Bidens fault is he believed all the folk that told him the afghan army and government would be strong enough
I feel incredibly sad for friends of mine who were in the army and fought in Helmand. As one summed it up, poor cants being sent by rich cants to kill other poor cants for the benefit of rich cants.
Bidens fault is he believed all the folk that told him the afghan army and government would be strong enough
Yep, on paper, they should have been. Problem is, when it started becoming obvious that they weren't, what should he have done?
Option 1 would have been to resurge U.S. troops to beat the Taliban back again. That would have required tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars. Having re-secured the country, they could never leave because the Afghan army will probably not be up to the job within our lifetimes.
Option 2 was to withdraw on the schedule that the Trump administration set.
Yes, they could have had a temporary surge for a few months to make the withdrawal a bit less chaotic, but the end result would have been the same. It's either an indefinite commitment of tens of thousands of troops or hand it back to the Taliban. There is pretty much zero political support for option 1 so option 2 is the only viable policy.
Think about what the Afghan army is. A few privileged King's College etc. educated generals heading up unemployed Afghans on a salery they wouldn't get elsewhere. I can't see the level of allegiance being very high. The pragmatic thing to do in the current situation is try and stay alive, and not do anything that might bring grief to your friends and family. Surrender and hope for for the best seems a better option than fighting to the death. There never will be an Afghan army that's capable of dealing with the Taliban unless it's made up of people equally fanatical.
Think about what the Afghan army is. A few privileged King’s College etc. educated generals heading up unemployed Afghans on a salery they wouldn’t get elsewhere.
I think it's actually far worse than that. It was a pipeline to siphon off aid money. Billions of dollars was supplied to set up an army. Contracts were awarded to build stuff and money for salaries was provided. Anyone in any position to hire contractors or soldiers just diverted money to their friends. On paper, the Afghan army had 300,000 troops. A lot of them just turned up to collect their salary and paid kickbacks to whatever official was in charge of recruitment. A whole bunch more didn't actually exist, they were just fake identities with bank accounts used to siphon off money. The entire system is like that, everyone's on the take and nobody is going to risk their life fighting for it because they know nobody will be there to back them up.
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan both successfully invaded, subdued and held the area which is now Afghanistan
It's true, we should have ditched 'hearts and minds' and 'nation-building' and used the Mongol tactic of killing all adult males in Helmand and putting their women into slavery. Far more effective.