Afghanistan

rjsterry

I think it's a bit late to be wringing our hands over whether the Taliban will distribute any aid in the way we want.

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

I think it's a bit late to be wringing our hands over whether the Taliban will distribute any aid in the way we want.

If the goal is stopping people from starving then distribution is required.

john80

Maybe it is time for the Taliban to look after their people as any other country has to do. If they want to refuse aid by keeping girls out of education and all the other mental stuff they believe then actions have consequences. Are people happy to support a regime that takes others money or goods then does not deliver for its people. Actions have consequences. They want money, we should be giving things that are hard to turn into money and people need if we are giving anything.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

Helping invade a country, waging a decade long plus war against insurgency, pulling out leaving a country so crippled it cannot feed half the population is not really a position to complain that there are no solutions.

There are definitely ways to get food into the country; clearly it is up to the local authorities to distribute, but it seems that there is a literal food shortage so getting food to the border would alleviate some of the issues.

kingstongraham

john80 said:

Maybe it is time for the Taliban to look after their people as any other country has to do. If they want to refuse aid by keeping girls out of education and all the other mental stuff they believe then actions have consequences. Are people happy to support a regime that takes others money or goods then does not deliver for its people. Actions have consequences. They want money, we should be giving things that are hard to turn into money and people need if we are giving anything.

They shjould vote them out.

shirley_basso

Let's allow half a million people poor people and children die of starvation and cold - that will surely teach them

DeVlaeminck

There are different arguments about whether the country has chosen the Taliban so let them live with that choice - set against that arguments as to how far the West are responsible so we have a duty to help sort out the consequences - but really it comes down to two things.

Should we be willing to let millions starve to death to prove a point?

Is it in the West's interests that millions starve - is that going to turn Afghanistan into a stable country that isn't a base for international terrorism.

Isn't the answer in both counts no.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

Unfreeze the funds and accept that the price of not letting a few hundred thousand people starve is a more established Taliban.

surrey_commuter

Over the last 20 years the Afghan economy and GDP per capita has tripled on the back of massive intl. spending. I think it only fair to help them transition back to a mainly subsistence rural economy. People will be a lot poorer but hopefully not starving and freezing

john80

shirley_basso said:

Let's allow half a million people poor people and children die of starvation and cold - that will surely teach them

By all means give them food but if you are just posting it to the border then how are you going to make sure it goes to the people and is not just sold to those that can afford to pay. Usually an aid agency sorts this out to stem corruption. If this is not an option then you certainly won't be getting a donation from me as we all know the level of corruption in this country. If you are asking others for a favour it is important to play by their rules. The west is no longer oppressing them and let's face it a lot of the population were not exactly supporters of the west when we were. I did not support the war but neither do I approve of giving aid to batshit countries.

davidof

surrey_commuter said:

Over the last 20 years the Afghan economy and GDP per capita has tripled on the back of massive intl. spending. I think it only fair to help them transition back to a mainly subsistence rural economy. People will be a lot poorer but hopefully not starving and freezing

How many people do you think Afghanistan will support as a rural subsistence economy? About half the population would have to leave or die off for that to work.

rjsterry

If you only want to give aid to stable democratic countries with no corruption then don't worry, your wallet can stay permanently closed.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

If you only want to give aid to stable democratic countries with no corruption then don't worry, your wallet can stay permanently closed.

It's already taken out of your wages before getting to your bank.
Cue up cancelling foreign aid.

surrey_commuter

davidof said:

surrey_commuter said:

Over the last 20 years the Afghan economy and GDP per capita has tripled on the back of massive intl. spending. I think it only fair to help them transition back to a mainly subsistence rural economy. People will be a lot poorer but hopefully not starving and freezing

How many people do you think Afghanistan will support as a rural subsistence economy? About half the population would have to leave or die off for that to work.

My hypothesis is that the Afghanistan economy is returning to where it was 20 years ago when it was supporting 20 million so yes that is what we have to transition towards. That will happen through lower life expectancy, ower births and people leaving.

Now the West just needs to work out the appropriate transition period. Going backwards is far more painful than growing so I would think longer than 20 years.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

john80 said:

Maybe it is time for the Taliban to look after their people as any other country has to do. If they want to refuse aid by keeping girls out of education and all the other mental stuff they believe then actions have consequences. Are people happy to support a regime that takes others money or goods then does not deliver for its people. Actions have consequences. They want money, we should be giving things that are hard to turn into money and people need if we are giving anything.

They shjould vote them out.

Nah, we send troops in and force them out. Oh....

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

Unfreeze the funds and accept that the price of not letting a few hundred thousand people starve is a more established Taliban.

This feels a bit like the biblical tale of feeding five thousand with a few fish.

Certainly give food, but how does giving the Taliban some money really help?

DeVlaeminck

I don't think we can assume that financial aid will just go towards another shipment of AK47s or the Swiss bank accounts of Taliban leaders - though of course some of it may do.

Presumably the Taliban do not want their population to starve. They want to be seen as less corrupt than the previous bunch and capable of running Afghanistan. Presumably a million children starving to death would not help their popularity. We must have intelligence as to how effective financial aid would be in alleviating the crisis and perhaps it would be a waste but I wouldn't be assuming that is the case.

TheBigBean

North Korea is a template for how to provide aid.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

Unfreeze the funds and accept that the price of not letting a few hundred thousand people starve is a more established Taliban.

This feels a bit like the biblical tale of feeding five thousand with a few fish.

Certainly give food, but how does giving the Taliban some money really help?

They can then pay people for the work they are doing and those people can buy food. Part the reason the Taliban were able to take over so easily is that the army along with most government employees hadn't been paid for months. Then the funds were frozen to make good and sure that nobody had any money.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

Unfreeze the funds and accept that the price of not letting a few hundred thousand people starve is a more established Taliban.

This feels a bit like the biblical tale of feeding five thousand with a few fish.

Certainly give food, but how does giving the Taliban some money really help?

They can then pay people for the work they are doing and those people can buy food. Part the reason the Taliban were able to take over so easily is that the army along with most government employees hadn't been paid for months. Then the funds were frozen to make good and sure that nobody had any money.

I read the opposite actually that a lot of the warlords were bought by the Taliban.

davidof

America was spending $300 million per day in Afghanistan, every day, for 20 years. That's $50,000 for every one of the country's 40 million residents. The population has quadrupled since 1990 so it would have been $200,000 for each resident back then.

It was like a country on a sugar rush.

Of course the USA, and to a lesser extent, their allies, never learn from any of this. Everytime the USA funds an army it collapses in pretty short order when US soldiers pull out.

It reminds me when a uncle was in the far east in WW2. They were getting the locals to do their washing for five shillings a time. The US turned up and decided to pay five dollars - when it came to washing time again there was no one. The British liason officer explained that they would come back when they were short of cash, which would be weeks as they didn't have the American mentality of accumulating wealth but of subsistence living.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Not just ignoring it would be a start. Unfreezing the country's money would be something to consider.

Unfreezing Taliban funds or starting to donate funds again?

There's clearly a case for delivering food to the border in the way that is done for North Korea, but otherwise I don't think there is an obvious solution.

I don't think shrugging that it is all too difficult is good enough. Equally I don't think starving the country of money and thereby significantly contributing to the situation is acceptable.

So what is your solution or suggestion?

Unfreeze the funds and accept that the price of not letting a few hundred thousand people starve is a more established Taliban.

This feels a bit like the biblical tale of feeding five thousand with a few fish.

Certainly give food, but how does giving the Taliban some money really help?

They can then pay people for the work they are doing and those people can buy food. Part the reason the Taliban were able to take over so easily is that the army along with most government employees hadn't been paid for months. Then the funds were frozen to make good and sure that nobody had any money.

I read the opposite actually that a lot of the warlords were bought by the Taliban.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive at all. Anyway the point is almost nobody has any money. The economic collapse is the reason everyone is starving.

rick_chasey

Hmm

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1546737280857133056?s=21&t=uGjhUSs0Wa9F2pXfXH5IWQ