Afghanistan

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The best hope in the medium term is that without direct external intervention on the scale they had with the Soviets 79-96 and the West 01-21 they will go back to internal squabbling and the unpopularity of a repressive Taliban regine will see it replaced with something less worse.

I can't see the Taliban suddenly becoming moderate - I suppose it's possible that they have learned a lesson that becoming a centre for global jihad risks upsetting Russia, China and the West and so they will settle for inflicting their particular brand of Shariah Law internally .
Probably whilst receiving some support from other countries for keeping a lid on any attempts by Isis, Al Qaida et al to use the area as an HQ.

Worth noting that IS and the Taliban were fighting against each other.

are you on some PR campaign for the Taliban?

Why do you treat everything like a football fan?

I don’t understand where you’re coming from when your posts on the taliban seem to take the view that they’re not that bad?

I'm trying to provide insight (to the extent of my knowledge) on the politics of the region. This is because other people might find it interesting or useful. So, no I'm not PR for the Taliban, but on the question of whether they will become IS, it is surely worth noting that they fought each other about this very question.

You seem to pick a team and then shout loudly against everything else ignoring any nuance.

I think that's unfair.

I think that parroting the Taliban saying to the international community in a moment of victory that they will be more committed to "inclusivity" whilst they are re-enacting laws about stonings for adulterers and other medieval punishments, murdering political opponents announcing that various high profile women are targets for them and withdrawing swathes of rights for women is hardly being "nuanced" or indeed providing any insight.

I think the Taliban's history is such that we don't need to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like that.

as I understand it the nuance is that the alternatives aren't much better and we don't invade (or majorly disapprove of) other countries for medieval punishments and murdering politcal opponents. I get that this does not make it right but are you not siding with the metropolitan elite and the other 38 million inhabitants either don't know or don't care that the Taliban are now in charge.

We invaded because of their active support for Al Qaeeda so if they say they are not going down that route then they will probably avoid serious repercussions from the international community

State building was part of the mission for a good 12 years. It's wilful myopia on part of Biden (or Trump) to say otherwise. It was regularly cited as the long term mission, because the alternative was a return to taliban rule.

It is a total failure of the invaders that the entire mission, either removing the taliban from power (and thus killing off alqaeeda).

Once you are there you have a responsibility and NATO have quite clearly failed on their responsibility.

I don't know why anyone thinks the Taliban are to be trusted they won't support extremism against the west. They won - why should they not just pick up where they left off? What's gonna happen, another invasion?

pblakeney

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

In my mind they were ultimately successful in the Balkans/ Kosovo but TBH I don't actaully know.

webboo

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

In my mind they were ultimately successful in the Balkans/ Kosovo but TBH I don't actaully know.

They appear not to have managed to prevent some horrendous war crimes being committed.

rick_chasey

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

In my mind they were ultimately successful in the Balkans/ Kosovo but TBH I don't actaully know.

They appear not to have managed to prevent some horrendous war crimes being committed.

Yeah - that was the on the Dutch forces - I remember that being a huge deal at the time.

ugo.santalucia

I'm following the press conference.
Compared to the Trump administration, they seem very reasonable people, these Talibans

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

In my mind they were ultimately successful in the Balkans/ Kosovo but TBH I don't actaully know.

They may have succeeded elsewhere but I remember Yugoslavia as being a bit of a disaster.

TheBigBean

At the Taliban press conference a women asks if she will be able to continue to work as a journalist. The Taliban spokesperson answers that they don't know and it depends on the government and the laws that are created.

One thing that has come across repeatedly is that they don't want to alienate the youth of Kabul (I think 2/3 are under 30).

For the avoidance of doubt, quoting this doesn't mean I agree with the quotes or that I think they are truthful.

elbowloh

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

They ultimately outlasted the Soviet Union and probably prevented further countries falling under the Iron Curtain?

elbowloh

Was the Balkans / Kosovo a UN mission rather than NATO?

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

I thought it's central idea was mutual defence of all members, as far as I am aware this has been successful

morstar

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The Guardian is reporting that the Taliban is trying to agree a more inclusive government.

Yes, we can take their word on that. Honourable people, the Taliban.

At this exact moment in time, there are probably many decent people involved in what they see as a righteous returning of the country to own rule.

If the west have propped up a corrupt government, that is not an unreasonable position.

Once power is consolidated. That is when the corruption and more extreme ideologies will become the dominant force.

I'm all for playing devil's advocate morstar. Before we continue, can I ask, are you female? If so shut the hell up your views are irrelevant.

Hope that helps.

I’m not defending the fact they want an outdated and restrictive society.

The point is, at this moment in time, many decent people will be involved on a shared enemy basis and see removal of western interference as a legitimate aim.

You can’t just look at it through the prism of what the taliban did 20-30 years ago to understand what they have just done in 2021.

I don’t doubt for one second they will take the country backwards and will get more oppressive with time. I’d be very worried if I had any connections to the region. But I can also see why many less extreme members may have seen the Taliban as a vehicle out of their current situation.

joe2019

ugo.santalucia said:

I'm following the press conference.
Compared to the Trump administration, they seem very reasonable people, these Talibans

Have you and Ms Ugo been scouting property in Kabul on RightMove?

DeVlaeminck

No doubt there has been an element of anti American/Western feeling.

I read that 20 years ago the narrative of a Western war on Islam wasn't something that your average Afghan bought into. Now, this article argued, through the actions of Western forces, the corruption of the Afghan govt and the spread of technology - that narrative is one that has gained a lot of traction.

I really don't know what can be done now beyond taking in those at direct risk of reprisals such as the interpreters, journalists, activists, politicians etc.

Out of interest who thinks we (I suppose largely the US) shouldn't have pulled out and who thinks we should now go back in ? If we shouldn't have pulled out what should the long term game plan have been?

TheBigBean

Before 1998, the Taliban used to accept tourists, so Peshawar in Pakistan contained various adventurous travellers trying to grow their beards. The missiles launched at Bin Laden (in Afghanistan) that year changed things a bit, so they became less welcoming (welcoming guests is a big part of the culture in central Asia).

joe2019

TheBigBean said:

Before 1998, the Taliban used to accept tourists, so Peshawar in Pakistan contained various adventurous travellers trying to grow their beards. The missiles launched at Bin Laden (in Afghanistan) that year changed things a bit, so they became less welcoming (welcoming guests is a big part of the culture in central Asia).

Wasn't Bin Laden a character made up by the US administration?

pblakeney

elbowloh said:

Was the Balkans / Kosovo a UN mission rather than NATO?

That is a very fair question. I actually meant the UN.
Oops!

TheBigBean

joe2019 said:

TheBigBean said:

Before 1998, the Taliban used to accept tourists, so Peshawar in Pakistan contained various adventurous travellers trying to grow their beards. The missiles launched at Bin Laden (in Afghanistan) that year changed things a bit, so they became less welcoming (welcoming guests is a big part of the culture in central Asia).

Wasn't Bin Laden a character made up by the US administration?

Well, if he was, the character had missiles launched at him in 1998, so it doesn't really matter.

mrb123

joe2019 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

I'm following the press conference.
Compared to the Trump administration, they seem very reasonable people, these Talibans

Have you and Ms Ugo been scouting property in Kabul on RightMove?

If the Taliban will extend the stamp duty holiday they will guarantee themselves a booming housing market...

Jezyboy

DeVlaeminck said:

No doubt there has been an element of anti American/Western feeling.

I read that 20 years ago the narrative of a Western war on Islam wasn't something that your average Afghan bought into. Now, this article argued, through the actions of Western forces, the corruption of the Afghan govt and the spread of technology - that narrative is one that has gained a lot of traction.

I really don't know what can be done now beyond taking in those at direct risk of reprisals such as the interpreters, journalists, activists, politicians etc.

Out of interest who thinks we (I suppose largely the US) shouldn't have pulled out and who thinks we should now go back in ? If we shouldn't have pulled out what should the long term game plan have been?

With the benefit of hindsight pulling out looks to have been a mistake. Even without that benefit, it sounded like the Taliban weren't going to be kept out of Kabul.

So I would argue that if our desire is for the taliban to not be in control of the country, pulling out was always going to be a mistake at this point.

As for a long term solution, I couldn't say.

Pross

There seems to be a large crossover between the people who are saying how dreadful it is that the US and its allies have abandoned the Afghan people and those who have spent the last 20 years saying how it bad it is that the US and its allies were occupying Afghanistan and should withdraw as soon as possible, leaving them to Govern themselves.

darkhairedlord

The disaster for Afghanistan is that the well equipped Afghan army were unwilling to defend Afghanistan; That's not on the US or the UK.
Oh, and the interpreters weren't helping the UK forces, the UK forces were helping them.
Something like that.

kingstongraham

Jezyboy said:

DeVlaeminck said:

No doubt there has been an element of anti American/Western feeling.

I read that 20 years ago the narrative of a Western war on Islam wasn't something that your average Afghan bought into. Now, this article argued, through the actions of Western forces, the corruption of the Afghan govt and the spread of technology - that narrative is one that has gained a lot of traction.

I really don't know what can be done now beyond taking in those at direct risk of reprisals such as the interpreters, journalists, activists, politicians etc.

Out of interest who thinks we (I suppose largely the US) shouldn't have pulled out and who thinks we should now go back in ? If we shouldn't have pulled out what should the long term game plan have been?

With the benefit of hindsight pulling out looks to have been a mistake. Even without that benefit, it sounded like the Taliban weren't going to be kept out of Kabul.

So I would argue that if our desire is for the taliban to not be in control of the country, pulling out was always going to be a mistake at this point.

As for a long term solution, I couldn't say.

How many would you have sent to fight the taliban?

kingstongraham

Maybe we could bomb them to democracy with drones. Just a few more years and it might work.

john80

Give it a couple of years and the 2/3rds of the Kabul population under thirty will look back fondly on their occupation.

kingstongraham

john80 said:

Give it a couple of years and the 2/3rds of the Kabul population under thirty will look back fondly on their occupation.

I think they already do. Have you not watched the news?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

The Guardian is reporting that the Taliban is trying to agree a more inclusive government.

Yes, we can take their word on that. Honourable people, the Taliban.

At this exact moment in time, there are probably many decent people involved in what they see as a righteous returning of the country to own rule.

If the west have propped up a corrupt government, that is not an unreasonable position.

Once power is consolidated. That is when the corruption and more extreme ideologies will become the dominant force.

The Taliban are the extremists.

Here's a thread explaining some of the ideology and why it has proved so resistant to Western secular ideas.

https://twitter.com/DrJavadTHashmi/status/1427277284390711301?s=19

This overlooks the massive role that culture plays. For example, Iran may be a country with fairly extreme religious rules, but a significant portion of its population is quite cosmopolitan and liberal which is why the conservative rules are constantly being chipped away. In contrast, Pakistan is relatively more liberal in terms of its laws, buy way way more conservative in its culture. I'm not convinced which religious text is being followed makes that much difference.

For example, all over Pakistan there is segregation. I don't think this is a legal requirement, it's just a way of life, but then even somewhere like southern India, you wouldn't sit next to someone of the opposite sex on the bus.

To clarify, I'm not disputing that the Taliban are extreme.

I'm not sure it does. Surely religious belief is inherently a part of a culture, not an independent thing. You also said yourself that the Taliban were fighting the Wahabist ISIS and Al Qaeda.

rjsterry

A report on Newsnight saying that the 300,000 quoted for the ANA was in reality 50,000 mobilised troops. So actually smaller than the figure quoted for the Taliban.

wallace_and_gromit

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?

In my mind they were ultimately successful in the Balkans/ Kosovo but TBH I don't actaully know.

They appear not to have managed to prevent some horrendous war crimes being committed.

It's usually the UN rather than NATO that fails in this respect e.g. Srebrenica as it's the UN that gets charged with "peace-keeping". NATO's objective is to see of military threats to its members, which it does fairly effectively.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

There seems to be a large crossover between the people who are saying how dreadful it is that the US and its allies have abandoned the Afghan people and those who have spent the last 20 years saying how it bad it is that the US and its allies were occupying Afghanistan and should withdraw as soon as possible, leaving them to Govern themselves.

This is probably fair.

The nuance is “don’t go invading countries and enacting regime change but if you do, make sure you do it properly”

This feels like the worst of both worlds