Afghanistan - 20 years on

Tuppy_Glossop said:
IMO, the best way to achieve results would have been to not send troops, but to pay top dollar for the farmers' opiate supplies. Poppies are the highest value crop they can grow, and if the farmers are making money, the whole community is happier, healthier, better educated, richer, and they don't need to rely on the Taleban. Indeed, given the Taleban are anti-Poppy Farming, the farmers would fight back. The West could use the poppies medically, give free heroin to addicts to avoid 'fix money' crimes, or simply destroy them.

EDIT: plus you cut the criminal gangs and traffickers out of the equation!
Click to expand...

Are they anti-poppy, I thought that was where most of their funding came from?
 
If only Afghanistan actually had the source of terrorists that attacked America. The Taliban are terrible, but it was not the source.

Why Afghanistan? Oil pipelines. That's it. No other reason. Securing this for the western world, instead of Russia securing it. Basically it's a pseudo war.
 
In a few years at most (6 months realistically) the Taliban will have fully taken over and "ISIS V2.0" will probably start using Afghanistan as a base of Operations against for attacks against places like India etc and, no matter what various US Generals say, the guys on the ground have been telling them this is exactly what will happen and that the inevitable collapse will be far quicker than anyone "in power" is willing to admit.

So far in what we've seen, whenever a regular ANA unit without US/NATO support has faced the Taliban it's been a carbon copy of the collapse of the Iraqi Army in 2013 with dropped equipment and deserters everywhere. The only units to really try hard are the Afghan SF who've been abandoned and left to die by the ANA/ANP etc.

Unlike Iraq however, this time I don't think that the US will step back in with mass airstrikes and floods of SF troops to prevent the local government losing like they did with Iraq.
 
deuse said:
Biden could have reversed the order. Just like he did for the Mexico boarder.
Click to expand...

Yawn. And if he had reversed the order what then? There is no end game for US personal in Afghanistan where they win. They can't simply remain forever. Be it now or in 10 years the result would be the same. My only criticism of Biden is that he isn't preparing the public for what is to come there. But then he'd just be called defeatist.

I feel fairly safe in saying Biden wouldn't have thrown the Kurds under the bus like Trump did though.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
IMO, the best way to achieve results would have been to not send troops, but to pay top dollar for the farmers' opiate supplies. Poppies are the highest value crop they can grow, and if the farmers are making money, the whole community is happier, healthier, better educated, richer, and they don't need to rely on the Taleban. Indeed, given the Taleban are anti-Poppy Farming, the farmers would fight back. The West could use the poppies medically, give free heroin to addicts to avoid 'fix money' crimes, or simply destroy them.

EDIT: plus you cut the criminal gangs and traffickers out of the equation!
Click to expand...
But surely all the Taliban need are guns and a willingness to use them, and then whatever you give to the "people" will end up in the hand of the Taliban anyway. I don't think they're averse to taking things at gunpoint. And your average civilian/farmer isn't really that capable of defending themselves.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Yawn. And if he had reversed the order what then? There is no end game for US personal in Afghanistan where they win. They can't simply remain forever. Be it now or in 10 years the result would be the same. My only criticism of Biden is that he isn't preparing the public for what is to come there. But then he'd just be called defeatist.

I feel fairly safe in saying Biden wouldn't have thrown the Kurds under the bus like Trump did though.
Click to expand...

Biden is following Trump's withdrawal plan, which is all he can do. When (not if) the Taliban gain control, there is going to be a lot of soul searching about the cost of the occupation.

To be fair, Biden is now throwing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of "collaborators" and their families under the bus in Afghanistan.

Regardless of political affiliation, the occupation had poorly understood goals, and even those were largely unachievable.
 
The West have essentially spent trillions on training the Taliban, that's what I have taken from it in terms of foreign policy as obviously the military contractors will be happy regardless of how embarrassing it is. China doesn't care about who runs the government in Afghanistan, so this is a win for them as well as they have already begun making gestures regarding investment.

With the Taliban now being a very experienced, battle-hardened force... I think it would be naive to think they would waste it by not exporting it.
 
Last edited:
potatolord said:
Biden is following Trump's withdrawal plan, which is all he can do. When (not if) the Taliban gain control, there is going to be a lot of soul searching about the cost of the occupation.

To be fair, Biden is now throwing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of "collaborators" and their families under the bus in Afghanistan.

Regardless of political affiliation, the occupation had poorly understood goals, and even those were largely unachievable.
Click to expand...

I agree, the fact that Afghanis that helped the US and her allies are being left to fend for themselves is wrong. However if he invited several hundred if not thousands of Afghanis in the uproar on the right wing anti-immigration of anyone but white Christian would be deafening. He clearly thinks he has to spend his political capital elsewhere. Its a **** situation and something I would hope both sides could sit down and sort out. Fat chance.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
However if he invited several hundred if not thousands of Afghanis in the uproar on the right wing anti-immigration of anyone but white Christian would be deafening
Click to expand...

I think that in some cases that is the opposite of what would actually happen, but only for certain sections of the Afghanis who are being left behind.

I think that, as the vast majority of the "right wing anti-immigration" types also tend to be very pro-military and, as some of these Afghani's were interpreters and SF guys etc who were embedded directly in with the US military, their emigration would be accepted by the "right wing" very easily, just like the vast majority of the UK would be happy to accept them.

However I agree with you regarding the more generic non-embedded ANA/ANP forces as I don't see them being allowed by the US to emigrate to start with, nor do I think the same "right wingers" from above would be happy to see those guys move either.

My concern would be that, in the rush to leave, those who truly did deserve a chance at leaving (the aforementioned SF and interpreters etc) after their service will be left behind without a second thought by an administration looking to get out ASAP and forget the whole thing happened (no matter who won the election that would be the same).
 
Should never have bothered. We should have taken out the key threats and left it at that. We can't change the middle east. The only thing which has changed there in 1000s of years is they got hold of modern(ish) weapons from more advanced civilizations, the mentality is unchanged.
 
Nasher said:
Should never have bothered. We should have taken out the key threats and left it at that. We can't change the middle east. The only thing which has changed there in 1000s of years is they got hold of modern(ish) weapons from more advanced civilizations, the mentality is unchanged.
Click to expand...

Literally our cradle of civilisation, which also had two decent periods during the time of the Caliphates and Ottoman empires which everyone has benefited from, but sure.

Probably didn't help when imperialist European powers kept intruding to ensure control over resources or strategic assets which has so far continued without much interruption, though to be fair the invasions into Europe incentivised that, but I think blaming them like it's purely their own fault is a bit much.
 
StriderX said:
Literally our cradle of civilisation, which also had two decent periods during the time of the Caliphates and Ottoman empires which everyone has benefited from, but sure.

Probably didn't help when imperialist European powers kept intruding to ensure control over resources or strategic assets which has so far continued without much interruption, though to be fair the invasions into Europe incentivised that, but I think blaming them like it's purely their own fault is a bit much.
Click to expand...

But they never moved on from that era, in fact they kinda went backwards.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
AQ trained in many countries. Saudi money and fighters had been there since the Soviet invasion. The only reason the US went to Afghanistan was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden, something their culture forbid them from doing. That and they needed to attack somewhere and they weren't marching in to SA. You can't blame 911 on Afghanistan though.
Click to expand...

It was wealthy Jordanians, Iraqis and Qataris as well. not just wealthy Saudis. So funding came from many sources.

But the main training camps for Al-Qaida were in Afghanistan, chosen by Bin Laden. Afghanistan was the main training camp for the 9/11 bombers as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom