Forum menu
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan both successfully invaded, subdued and held the area which is now Afghanistan
You really need to check the history back to more than 3,000 years ago. (you can check from the time Roman empire established until the moment Roman empire collapsed)
Alexander the Great, Ghegis Khan and China (even before Alexander & Ghegis) only managed to subdue that region temporarily for a period of time due to the impossible landscape that made it hard for all conquerors to maintain stability there.
It is a strategic location that all superpowers want but nobody is giving in and whoever wants to control that region, the opposing force would intervene to cause chaos.
The region is an important part of Silk Road and as China is reviving that with Belt and Road initiative it is in the interest that Western powers is out of that region. Originally the corridor is the southern path of the Silk Road (Silk Road has 3 parts - North, Mid and South) and it took a while for all conquering power to control them. They all managed to control that region for a short period of time of 100 to 200 years. Therefore, what is 20 years by comparison.
For nearly or more that 3,000 years China wants to control that corridor and succeeded for a period of time only. With the Belt and Road initiative it is only in the interest of China to maintain good relationship with ****stan/Taliban to avoid the corridor being hassled (sabotage etc).
Considering that China is the "big bro" to ****stan/Iran etc, it is in the interest for China to be an ally to them rather than the West. If Western powers remain in Afghanistan they would only act as a torn to China and China doesn't want that. Therefore, China's support for ****stan is implicitly giving confidence to the Taliban (they know that as they can simply switch sides to the West). Hence, it is very difficult to defeat the Taliban (Taliban is not really Afghans only).
Remember when Soviet Union wanted to control Afghanistan who added the warlords/Taliban in those days? Well, who else ... the USA/West.
You might ask if China will continue to subdue Xinjiang or the Uyghur people and the answer is yes. Historically, for thousands of years, the population of that region came from other central Asia and middle east region for trade and settled there when China encouraged them to settle with incentive (protection of traders and low tax etc). If you ask if Xinjiang can become a torn to China on religious ground, the answer is a bit but nothing serious because it is not in the interest of ****stan/Afghanistan etc.
In my opinion the decision to pull out from Afghanistan by western power is two folds:
1. Afghanistan become the breeding ground and hideout for those that opposing western powers, which everyone knows as they can't be touched.
2. No western powers to keep check of that region and China can expand at will good or bad (they can control all the water)
Finally, if you think you can have peace in future then think again.
The decision to pull out is a bad decision if you want peace. Yes, lives can be lost if western powers stay but that is the price for peace and at least you can have some peace at home.
As they say " ... they come from the mountain and consume everything in their path ..."
When one of the primary earners for the locals is heroin you are really up against it.
The taliban are probably happy to export tons of it intp the west. Let it disrupt our way of life from within
Uk troops and government could not support growing and distribution network knowing it was heading west
The locals rely on the income, its a good cash crop
So what dp you do? Get the poppy growers on side by buying then destroying the drugs, not a long term solution
Ask them to grow another crop, and underwrite the sale price, again not a long term solution
Such a waste. A brigade of uk troops with air and armour could probably stopped most of the taliban assults
From the c4 news feeds its a dozen guys on knackered mopeds and a few Toyota pick ups with the obligatory gpmg mounted on the back.
Having watched Once upon a time in Iraq its hard to see any good thimgs happening in the near future for anyone unless you are in the taliban command structure
I'm amazed that folk blame other countries for what Afghanistan is. You think this instant reversion would have happened in a country where the majority did not want it to?.
The folk siphoning off the dollars for the past 20yrs will now negotiate buying a comfy life with the loonies.
The average people will just try and survive as best as possible. They certainly won't try and stop it happening.
Initially i was pretty shocked at how quickly this has gone pear shaped, at the beginning of the week the media was reporting 90 days until full Taliban control, by midweek that had slippewd to 30 days, and now it's all but happened. With hindsight though it was inevitable, if everyone is predicting that the Taliban will ultimately gain control again where is the incentive for the Afghan army to keep fighting? perhaps die fighting for nothing, better to surrender or switch allegiance.
It's worth noting that a lot of the Taliban fighters are not as fundamentalist as many would believe, many are simply working for a days pay if reports from a few years back are accurate, it's a win win for many poorer families, sons get a wage that isn't stolen or 'taxed' by superiors and the families opium farm is left alone.
One of the biggest failures of western intervention is to overcome the rampant corruption that existed within the government structures put in place. For many Afghans the harsh but ultimately fair rule of the Taliban is preferable to the corrupt rule that we forced upon them.
Either way, sad and hard times ahead for many ordinary Afghans.
From the c4 news feeds its a dozen guys on knackered mopeds and a few Toyota pick ups with the obligatory gpmg mounted on the back.
Not once they've rolled over the Afghan army we kitted out.
It’s worth noting that a lot of the Taliban fighters are not as fundamentalist as many would believe, many are simply working for a days pay if reports from a few years back are accurate, it’s a win win for many poorer families, sons get a wage that isn’t stolen or ‘taxed’ by superiors and the families opium farm is left alone.
Most may not but their leaders are ...
I see Biden has committed 5000 troops to guide the rats safely off the sinking ship.
From the c4 news feeds its a dozen guys on knackered mopeds and a few Toyota pick ups with the obligatory gpmg mounted on the back.
There's quite a variation of technical models to choose from for today's insurgency.
I see Biden has committed 5000 troops to guide the rats safely off the sinking ship.
Will he be able to deploy them in time though?
I'd have thought the Taliban will be happy to sit back at the gates and wait a few days for the forriners to get the hell out. Why fight when you don't have to?
EDIT: Oh, they're already in. Better get a move on, lads.
One of the biggest failures of western intervention is to overcome the rampant corruption that existed within the government structures put in place. For many Afghans the harsh but ultimately fair rule of the Taliban is preferable to the corrupt rule that we forced upon them.
Troo dat. It never black and white really
If the taliban had no support in the country they would not have overrun it so quickly
When one of the primary earners for the locals is heroin you are really up against it.
We gotta keep fighting that war on drugs though. Stopping people getting high trumps, well, everything for some inexplicable reason.
Out of interest, where does the NHS for example source its morphine from? Assuming their medicine suppliers aren't meeting up with Afghan warlords.
One of my best friends is from Kashmir and is a devout Muslim. He absolutely hates the extreme Islam you see in Afghanistan etc. His view was this was a small extremist sect that would still be that if oil hadn’t been found in Saudi Arabia. They’ve spent billion exporting their ideology. The blame for 9/11 and 7/7 firmly lies at their door but the west won’t take them on and good Muslims around the world get tarred with the same brush.
Its hardly surprising a western puppet regime is overthrown by the regime that held the country prior to the invasion.
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan both successfully invaded, subdued and held the area which is now Afghanistan
For short periods of time.
They also employed some methods which are considered war crimes currently.
Its hardly surprising a western puppet regime is overthrown by the regime that held the country prior to the invasion.
Why puppet regime? Most of the regional powers have interest in that region.
That region has been fought over for nearly 3,000 years! It is a strategic location and has changed hands for thousands of years.
For short periods of time.
They also employed some methods which are considered war crimes currently.
All powers had only managed for a short time.
As for war crimes? That's a definition of entering war with one hand being tight behind the back. You already lose before entering war as they don't recoginse such concept of war crimes. Their definition of war is to eliminate their enemies at all cost.
I am not sure what many people expect. Look at it this way. A significant element of the population of the country are supporting the Taliban. This gives it an element of legitimacy. Another, probably larger, element are prepared to let it happen if only for an easy life. The country has been given a significant opportunity to westernise and has chosen not to. I do wonder if they should be left alone to do as they feel right. Should we attempt to impose our own standards on them? It smacks of colonialism to me in this respect.
We can't have it all ways. Asking/persuading ****stan to back off may help eventually but can ****stan afford to just ignore western pressure and thus do as it feels? If so then why would they back off.
Ultimately each country has the right to decide it's own internal life no matter how much we object to it.
Hard isn't it?
If the taliban had no support in the country they would not have overrun it so quickly
My conspiracy theory is that the West are complicit in what is happening ie Taliban genuinely want to rule the country, the west wants to get out, so the west pays them money so long as they keep it peaceful. Got to be cheaper than sending western troops there and getting them killed for another 20yrs
Ultimately each country has the right to decide it’s own internal life no matter how much we object to it.
Do they? To what extent? If the Third Reich had restricted their activities to within their borders, that would have been allowed under that definition.
The problem is, who gets to decide the rules / what is and isn't allowed? In a repeat of the Brexit, Covid scenarios, I and most on here find it utterly incomprehensible that anyone sees the women subjugating, flogging hand cutting public stoning regime as in any way legitimate and yet some - tens or hundreds of thousands do.
So we yell at them with our tanks and helicopters and demand they see our way as right. And you still don't win the argument, at massive cost.
My conspiracy theory is that the West are complicit in what is happening ie Taliban
Hardly a conspiracy and most likely the simplest explanation. This was planned IMO. It seems like the US has decided that the Afghan regime was not worth propping up any more and it didn’t have the support of the afghan population. This is no different to Vietnam, and in the end the withdrawal will probably be vindicated.
Ultimately each country has the right to decide it’s own internal life no matter how much we object to it.
Hard isn’t it?
Yes, only if they can keep to themselves but this is extremely unlikely coz they get bored like all powers in the world.
Also bear in mind that they consider themselves saviour of humanity and the right way, just like the way the West think but in their own version. They will purge those that oppose them with no compromise once power is in their hands. It is non-negotiable. Brutality is the trademark as they consider that their ways because compromising means eroding their ideology.
Give it few years their power will grow tremendously and the world will feel their effect. Then we shall have another round of war in that region but this time much larger in size and difficult to contain. The west can no longer get a foothold there and the terrain give them the advantage to gather and to grow their strength. When they strike fear into you, you either fight to the death or run as far as you can. Alternatively you accept their ideology let them dictate to you. Nothing in between.
The country has been given a significant opportunity to westernise and has chosen not to.
It really has not been given that choice. No marshall plan type plan for reconstruction
Errmmmm – Saudi Arabia was financing and supporting many of the “terrorist” organiastions why not invade them?
Once our transition away from oil is complete then Saudi will be getting a few buckets of 'instant sunshine'. 2030deadline for ICE cars.....
The country has been given a significant opportunity to westernise and has chosen not to.
It really has not been given that choice. No marshall plan type plan for reconstruction
Wrong on both count.
Why westernise?
Why not their own version of "democracy" so long as they don't bother the world?
If they wanted to be westernised they would have done so long time ago during the time of Catholic Rome. (took one of the minister 4 years to travel through that region trying to establish trade or whatever with China, but died in his 4th year just before entering China)
The country has been given a significant opportunity to westernise and has chosen not to
Fair enough thats their choice. Westernise is not utopia but certainly preferable to the alternative in my eyes.
To me the problem was always
1. No outside force has managed to control Aghanistan for hundreds of years
2. The easy solution to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda was to follow the money. The problem with that was it either went back to western powers or so called friends is Saudi Arabia, both of which was a bit inconvenient from a political point of view.
3. As in Iraq there was never a plan or a solution, it was lets bomb them and worry about the rest later, I suspect because in the USA at least, later means after my term in office is over so it wont be my problem.
Those talking about people keeping out of the way of the Taliban for an “easy life” do realise that just means trying to keep their families alive and unmutilated, yes?
1. No outside force has managed to control Aghanistan for hundreds of years
They did but not forever. Only managed to control for few hundred years. Normally, they lose control of Afghanistan after the death of their invading ruler(s) or from the death of neighbouring ruler(s) (the new ruler(s) than tried to control the region etc)
It is a strategic location that all superpowers want
There are only two superpowers: the US has just abandoned it and China does not want to occupy it. Of course China will pursue a trade and infrastructure based relationship and avoid questions around human rights: this will endear them to a Taleban government just ad the UK has endeared itself to the Saudi government.
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
Germany's few remaining industrial assets after the war were seized after the war and often disassembled and shipped east or west. Many of their top scientists served as prisoners of war for years after 1945.
Ethnic Germans were ethnically cleansed from Bohemia, Moravia and the Baltic states. There was huge mass migration after the war - not to mention the POWs and anti-Communist "allied" forces sent back to their doom in the Soviet Union against their will.
the Saudis were financing them and the UK and US had trained and armed them ( taliban and al queda)
This just isn't true. The Saudi state didn't finance Al Qaeda, and neither is it true to say the Saudi establishment financed Al Qaeda. It is true that a certain section of Saudis financed groups that they knew to be - or were indifferent to being - terrorist groups. (The same is true in the UK btw). In fact, Bin Laden's activity was hotly disputed because it was so unclear where the money was going to or from.
The UK and US did not arm and train Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and the Afghan Mujaheddin are not synonymous.
This just isn’t true. The Saudi state didn’t finance Al Qaeda, and neither is it true to say the Saudi establishment financed Al Qaeda. It is true that a certain section of Saudis financed groups that they knew to be – or were indifferent to being – terrorist groups. (The same is true in the UK btw). In fact, Bin Laden’s activity was hotly disputed because it was so unclear where the money was going to or from.
So where do Operation Cyclone and Jamal Khashoggi's role as the go between between Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Intelligence under Turki Bin Faisal fit into all of this?
Iran is so happy now.
Is it? The US has cut its losses, and Iran now has a hostile Taleban regime along its eastern border instead of a too-weak-to-threaten government that's propped up by the US at vast expense.
Al Qaeda and the Afghan Mujaheddin are not synonymous.
Bin laden was trained by the west as a "freedom fighter" We also trained many of the taliban
there is a big overlap between the two.
So where do Operation Cyclone and Jamal Khashoggi’s role as the go between between Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Intelligence under Turki Bin Faisal fit into all of this?
Operation Cyclone: the Afghan mujaheddin were not the same as Al Qaeda.
Khashoggi: he met Bin Laden and interviewed several times. LaRoucheist sources also say he tried to bring Bin Laden back to Saudi. If that is true (which seems unlikely considering the source), he was unsuccessful, and is not evidence of the Saudi state funding Bin Laden.
Bin laden was trained by the west as a “freedom fighter
No, he wasn't.
The mission in Afghanistan was to deprive AQ a safe haven and that was achieved within a year or so.
It was never about tackling the Talban, mission creep set in, probably because too much money was there to be made, for the military industrial complex, for all the military contracting companies (plenty of shareholders in the Republican party) and billions in cash constantly thrown around on the ground.
is not evidence of the Saudi state funding Bin Laden
Well according to the NY times, the CIA financed Bin Laden and the construction of his Tora Bora hideout...
And whether or not individual invoices are catalogued, given the wider remit of Operation Cyclone, it would be odd to suggest the Saudi state (along with many others, including CIA, MI6, ISI, Mossad etc) wasn't in some way involved in funding Bin Laden, during his years in the mujahideen, before the mujahideen branched off into Al Qaeda and the Taliban
The Saudis funded the spread of Wahhabism, the Taliban, AQ and ISIS are just the military arms of the doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_propagation_of_Salafism_and_Wahhabism
There are only two superpowers: the US has just abandoned it and China does not want to occupy it. Of course China will pursue a trade and infrastructure based relationship and avoid questions around human rights: this will endear them to a Taleban government just ad the UK has endeared itself to the Saudi government.
US may think that they made the right decision but it will come back to bite them in the long run. China's main objective is to trade with the West etc, which they can out compete against easily, or using trade to control the others. Historically, China would try to maintain peace with their neighbours so long as their interest is not disputed. The current situation is just fine for China as ****stan still have the ability to "control" the Taliban, so the mutual understanding and interest remain.
Al Qaeda and the Afghan Mujaheddin are not synonymous.
splitting hair there ... they can easily switch. I think the latter is more related to the warlords.
jivehoneyjive
Holy shit! How bizarre that this name should reappear right now - makes you think...
Well according to the NY times, the CIA financed Bin Laden and the construction of his Tora Bora hideout…
If you actually read what you posted, it doesn't say that the CIA financed Bin Laden. (It also doesn't say that the Saudi state financed Bin Laden). It does say that the CIA had financed the Tora Bora complex - 20 years before Bin Laden hid out there after 9/11.
I'm not talking about this further with jivehoneyjive, an Ickean conspiracy theorist who pulls stuff out of thin air and gish gallops like this:
it would be odd to suggest the Saudi state (along with many others, including CIA, MI6, ISI, Mossad etc) wasn’t in some way involved in funding Bin Laden,
It would be extremely odd to suggest that in 2021 because the question has been researched to death by real actual historians (not cranks with a Facebook account) for two decades and there's no credible evidence of it.
Bin Laden was bringing money from Saudi circles to distribute to the Arab Afghans: he was a bag carrier and operator of training camps for jihad-vacationing Saudi youth, not a fighter or military leader.
Iran has had 2 million Afghan refugees for years which puts the tabloid (and government)froth over a few hundred refugees crossing the English Channel very much into perspective.Turkey has similarly had to manage millions of refugees from Syria for years.
80 % of Afghanistan's economy is made up of foreign aid.
Can't see many will be willing to continue to contribute this to a Taliban led "government".A humanitarian disaster in waiting and not just because of the barbaric practices of the Taliban.
Saudi has been mentioned and let's face it their brutal regime is "Sharia" based and is not much different from the Taliban's.Nor Al Qaeda's for that matter who in their stated manifesto had free food and housing for all believers whereas the Saudis buy London property,jet fighters,racehorses and football clubs.
The financial cost of the 20 year campaign has been astronomical.We could have just given £300,000+ to each Afghani family.And the loss in life has been terrible not just for the alliance military and civilian workers but for a quarter of a million ordinary Afghani victims .
Holy shit! How bizarre that this name should reappear right now – makes you think…
How bizarre that once again it turns out to be Mossad's fault - makes you think...do your own research...I'm just asking questions...