Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: logtroll Afghanistan - 08/13/21 12:48 PM
Did Biden make the right call, or did he make a big mistake?

Not being a junkie for such international affairs, my first reaction is to think that Afghanistan has long been an open sore, and nobody seems to have found a cure (it’s not clear me that anyone’s objective has ever been a “cure”).

I can imagine that there are bigger picture strategies that benefit from containment of the Taliban, but I know nothing about them.

Just read an opinion piece by Peter Bergen who says that whatever disaster unfolds there will be Biden’s fault - no doubt that will be the political fallout, but it seems like a petty and naive claim from a distinguished expert. I think Bergen has a major bias, but no cure to offer.

Any opinions?
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/13/21 02:34 PM
Does anyone remember the main reason the 13 tribe Northern Alliance were fighting the Taliban in the first place? Each tribe is fiercely independent, wanting to be ruled over by their own tribal elders and religious folks. Not by someone from an outside tribe. The Taliban were trying to rule over all the tribes of Afghanistan, rule by one tribe, one man.

Sure, we were after UBL and AQ as the reason we went in and became involved. We fought a very smart war to begin with. With a few SF and paramilitary folks on the ground letting the Afghani do the ground fighting, using our air power, we drove the Taliban, AQ, UBL into the mountains on the Pakistani Border.

Then we began this thing called Nation Building. Guess what? We decided to force a form of government on the Afghans that they didn't want. All the tribes of the Northern Alliance wanted was to return to their tribal homeland, be ruled over by their own tribal elders and religious folks. Not to be ruled over by another tribe or a leader from another tribe.

The short story is we didn't let the Afghani decide what form of government they wanted, we decided for them. This caused many of the original 13 tribes of the Northern Alliance who were once our staunch allies to desert us and begin to fight us and the government we set up. Not the Afghan's, but we.

there's a heck of a lot more in this story. More than a book's worth. Have no doubt that once the Taliban is back in control, AQ and ISIS will return to their original training ground.

Did Biden make a mistake, someone had to decide to end this affair even though I'm positive it will mean we return in different ways to take on AQ and ISIS again along with the Taliban. AQ and ISIS will give us plenty of reasons to return.

The mistake was nation building, we deciding that Democracy would be the Afghans form of government. Not letting the Afghani decide what form of government on their own. Could Biden take a huge hit on the withdrawal. Certainly, especially when AQ and ISIS return and begin launching terrorist attacks. Biden will be blamed. The blame should rest on those who decided to force a type of government on the Afghani's that they didn't want and were willing to fight against. And yes, to join the Taliban to get rid of this unwanted type of government.

After the smart war, without nation building there was a simple way to ensure the Taliban, ISIS and AQ didn't return without a hundred thousand troops on the ground.. That's another story for another day.
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/13/21 04:51 PM
Quote
Did Biden make the right call, or did he make a big mistake?

I don't think ending a war is ever a bad thing. Especially a decades-long failed occupation.

Any nation-building that gets done needs to be done by Afghanis. Chances are the Taliban will take over, there will be armed rebellions and the Tribes will split again. Folks are gonna suffer either way, but at least they will be suffering at the hands of their own countryman instead of Americans.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Afghanistan - 08/13/21 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Quote
Did Biden make the right call, or did he make a big mistake?

I don't think ending a war is ever a bad thing. Especially a decades-long failed occupation.

Any nation-building that gets done needs to be done by Afghanis. Chances are the Taliban will take over, there will be armed rebellions and the Tribes will split again. Folks are gonna suffer either way, but at least they will be suffering at the hands of their own countryman instead of Americans.

In the end the Taliban still need to do business.
Their ability to do business will always be impacted to some degree by what kind of people they are.
Even if they shut out the entire free world, eventually they will need to buy stuff and make stuff.
Let's suppose they tie their fortunes to China, even the most jaded Chinese tycoon is going to likely be taken aback at the thought of what the Taliban's extremism may do to his fortunes.

The herd all gather at a common watering hole, and if a couple of herd members keep giving the rest of the herd the stinkeye, they will eventually become less welcome. You can't bring a Kimodo Dragon to the watering hole and expect the rest of the herd to see you as anything but an enemy.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/13/21 08:10 PM
Which brings up an interesting question Greger. Do you think the Afghans suffered more under the Americans or have or will suffer more under the Taliban?

In a way that question is irrelevant, mainly because the Taliban will become the rulers and have their way with the people of Afghanistan. Which makes 20 years of so called nation building a total waste. Nonetheless, I think the people of Afghanistan suffered a heck of a lot less while we were there than what awaits them in the future or even today.

what will happen, will happen. But the bottom line might be that their future, the future of Afghanistan is to be decided by the Afghani. Perhaps we just gave the people there a 20 year reprieve. It all depends on how one looks at it.

The Taliban is out for blood and they'll have it much like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Killing or having caused the death of 2-3 million Cambodians out of a country of originally 7 million after the war was over.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/14/21 10:52 PM
What very few people in the West know, is that the principle occupation in Afghanistan is farm labor. Usually, they grow enough food to feed their people, and even export a bit. If you are doing farm labor, what difference does it make if the guys walking around with machine guns are American or Taliban. Doesn't get the wheat crop harvested. Or fruit dried. Or carpets woven.

All the economic activity will continue. The Taliban can't improve it. All they can do is to make things worse. For example, they can take over the copper mines, but they don't know crap about copper mining. So good luck to them. Afghanistan is where empires go to die. It's a tar baby!

Maybe Iran will try to take over when the Taliban fail. smile
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/15/21 12:44 AM
Very few in the West much give a rat's ass what happens in Afghanistan one way or the other.

Biden botched the exodus. They shoulda been flying civilians out of there for months before they moved any military personnel.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/15/21 01:04 PM
The state department is always like that. They want to remain until the very end, perhaps as a sign of support for the government, but who knows. If you pulled them out earlier, it would be viewed as a sign of non-support for the government we installed. We always think the evacuation will take place in a nice, orderly, efficient manner.

I was working for JUSMAGTHAI in April of 1975 when Operation Eagle Pull, the evacuation of Phnom Penh was done. It went like clock work. but we pulled everyone out 2 weeks ahead of time before the fall of Phnom Penh.

Still in Thailand when Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of Saigon was done. It was a screwed up mess. They waited until the last minute to even start it, it was chaos from start to finish. Evacuating folks on the last day, the last hour. The North Vietnamese could have stopped it in its tracks if they wanted to and took all the Embassy folks and other contract civilians captive. But the North Vietnamese let the evacuation continue basically unhindered. That was one heck of a mess. A total screw up. Only the mercy of the North Vietnamese stopped us from losing thousands of Americans. I think the North Vietnamese let the evacuation continue mainly because they didn't want American civilian captives. The NVA had captured Ton Son Nhut Airfield, so helicopter from the embassy was the only option left thank to piss poor prior planning or should I say waiting too long.

Now Afghanistan, we'll never learn. Operation Eagle Pull, the evacuation of Phnom Penh proved it could be done properly with little fuss and very efficiently. If we do it before the last minuet or even the last second.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Afghanistan - 08/15/21 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
The state department is always like that. They want to remain until the very end, perhaps as a sign of support for the government, but who knows.

You don't think individual hubris and pride play a role in the delays and the incompetence?
I don't think anyone ever wants to be the last one to shut off the lights and lock the doors.
Thus, the job falls to no one and no one does the job.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/15/21 05:45 PM
I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but Ford let the Ambassadors make the call in both Phnom Penh and Saigon as to when to evacuate. It was Ambassador Dean in Cambodia who made the call for an early evacuation. Martin who was Ambassador to South Vietnam put off the evacuation until the last minute. The writing was on the wall for both, one went a bit early, the other I'd say almost too late.

But the decision was left strictly to the Ambassadors as to when to evacuate. They were the highest ranking official on the ground. The advancement of the Taliban was much more rapid than that of the Khmer Rouge or the NVA. The Khmer Rouge had Phnom Penh surrounded ever since August of 1973. The NVA started their advancement in Dec/Jan 1974/75. Phnom Penh fell 17 Apr and Saigon on 30 Apr 1975.

A week ago, no one ever thought the Taliban would be threatening Kabul this fast. One can say that was totally unexpected. But I don't know if the Ambassador was the one to make the evacuation call or if it was someone higher up for Afghanistan.

I'm no longer in or work for the military, so I get my news like everyone else with no insider information on it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/15/21 09:25 PM
Here's a good article that explains a lot of what happened and is happening in Afghanistan.

Taliban Sweep in Afghanistan Follows Years of U.S. Miscalculations

https://www.yahoo.com/news/taliban-sweep-afghanistan-follows-years-150314729.html
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 08/16/21 02:02 PM
That is an informative article, nothing like some context to put things into better perspective.

I'm getting the sense that in spite of the chaos of the transition out of Afghanistan, in spite of the horrors at a personal level by those involved, and in spite of how the Reeps will spin this as a major blunder by Biden... I think that the vast majority of Americans will not be long affected by the details, and will be generally feeling relieved that the U.S. is finally out of that pointless, endless, expensive clusterfook.

Take Vietnam, for example - what's the premier historical memory of that? Is it the panicked evacuation and loss of the "conflict"? Or is it that we never should have been there in the first place?

Taking a page from pero's Big Book of Political Analysis, how will this affect the next election? I'd guess that before the end of the year, Biden Ended the War will be the story, completely overshadowing the footnote of Biden's Boof.
Posted By: jgw Re: Afghanistan - 08/16/21 03:08 PM
I have been whining about the Afghanistan thing for years! It all starts with Bush planting an oil guy as president of the country and it just get better through 20 years of incredible corruption. ALL of this stuff has been reported over the years. I remember when it was important to report that all top government officials were buying places to goto, now, I guess, they get to go there. During our visit every military officer,, colonel or higher, kept a LOT of cash on hand to bribe people, for instance (that's always amused). We have been bribing the Taliban to let our supplies come into Afghanistan is a good example of how we invade in conquer. All in all its a terrible thing that's going to happen but its really on Afghans. There are a lot more that are not Taliban that are yet the Taliban rules. The women are going to be savaged, kids too. Its going to be a bad thing that we actually kinda are responsible for. They thought they could live on us forever and now education starts. WE put one of the most corrupt governments into power then kept them there. Anybody with half a brain knew what was going on, even in our own government. Its interesting, they are now reporting corruption but it was bought and paid for by the United States to the tune of 2 freaking TRILLION dollars!

It will remain a mystery forever. Why would we do what we did? Why would we deny what we did? How could this have happened? I suspect neither party wants to examine this one as they both are culpable. In the current thing we have known we would be leaving for at least 6 months but actually started doing something about it only a couple of weeks ago. The people who were supposed to be doing the paper work just didn't function. I have been whining about getting somebody to examine our bureaucracy and maybe this might wake up somebody but I doubt it;. We have a mess that both parties have supported!

Nothing about Afghanistan makes any sense. Except at the very beginning there was no goal and, after 20 years, there was REALLY no goal. They are saying we lost but nobody hs actually said what that might be except for the money. Its REALLY time to overhaul and fix ourselves!
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/16/21 08:32 PM
Hmm, interesting.

Allies round on US over Afghanistan 'debacle'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/allies-round-us-over-afghanistan-160022595.html

From the article - Germany -"The troop withdrawal sparked a domino effect" that culminated in the Taliban's return, said Merkel, whose country provided the second-biggest contingent of troops after the US.

The leader of her party had harsher words, calling the entire Afghanistan operation NATO's worst disaster.

"It is the biggest debacle that NATO has suffered since its founding," said Armin Laschet, who is the conservative candidate to succeed Merkel as chancellor in September's elections.

and Britain - - 'Failure' -

Britain has also slammed the American decision to leave Afghanistan, with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace warning on Friday that the Taliban's resurgence would create a breeding ground for extremists that threatened the world.

"Of course Al-Qaeda will probably come back," he said, warning that would lead to "a security threat to us and our interests".
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Afghanistan - 08/16/21 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
Nothing about Afghanistan makes any sense. Except at the very beginning there was no goal and, after 20 years, there was REALLY no goal.

But we did have a valid reason, at least AT FIRST...and then suddenly we heard "I don't really know where Osama bin Laden is, don't much care".
As long as we were focused on getting OBL I was firmly in support of Af-Pak.
I think that IS the point at which our mission just began to turn into a fuster-cluck. Suddenly we're guarding poppy fields with US troops, because if we crush the opium trade we're harming farmers, but if we guard them, then we witness the scourge of what that product represents.
I can't think of any set of choices that sound good.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/17/21 12:30 AM
Yes Jeffrey, a very valid reason. To get UBL and AQ. Payback for 9-11. We did fight a very smart war in the beginning by helping the 13 tribe Northern Alliance defeat the Taliban. With just a few SF and paramilitary on the ground, letting the Northern Alliance do the ground fighting along with our air power we were able to drive UBL and AQ into the mountains along the Pakistani border. But we failed to capture UBL. We didn't trust the Northern Alliance to go after him, so we began to send in the troops, troops that went into those mountains to hunt UBL and AQ operatives down. More troops begat more troops. Then the original failure of this thing called nation building. Which in my opinion should have never happened.

What the members of the 13 tribe Northern Alliance wanted was to go back to their homelands, their little portion of Afghanistan to be ruled over by their tribal elders and religious leaders. But we knew better, we decided they'd have democracy when they didn't want democracy as their form of government. After all, that was the main reason for fighting the Taliban, The Taliban wanted one man, one tribe to rule over all the tribes. The form of democracy we forced on them, was in essence of one man, one tribe ruling over all the tribes. This caused some of the 13 tribes, once our staunch allies to desert us, to become our enemies, to go over to the Taliban.

If we had let the Afghans, particular the 13 tribe Northern Alliance choose their own form of government, go home to their own area of Afghanistan, we'd have been far better off. We could have left 4-5 SF and or paramilitary folks with each tribe for when the Taliban returned. Once again the Afghans could do the ground fighting, we could call in air support via the SF and paramilitary left with them. This would have been a ongoing thing, but in my opinion, much better than nation building and forcing a form of government on a people that wanted nothing to do with democracy.

It's all history now. We're one arrogant nation. We have no respect for long held traditions and customs of other countries, especially those of Asia and Africa. Although Afghanistan is/was a country on the map. It was never a country in the normal sense of what we realize a country to be. It was a country of 18 tribes, each ruling their own little portion of Afghanistan with shifting alliances depending on the danger to the tribe or tribes from other tribes. To include the USSR and now the USA. We tried to make a country where none really had existed before, not in our sense of what a country is. Then we forced a form of government on them, they didn't want. Will we ever learn?
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/17/21 01:26 AM
I expect it will take a few years, but Afghanistan will turn into Vietnam, post withdrawal. Running an insurgency is very different from running a country. It takes entirely different skills. People will rise in the Taliban ranks as they demonstrate their ability to administer their districts. Leadership will rise as the leaders demonstrate their ability to oversee the whole country. It can't all be mindless sharia, and nothing else. Just look at Iran: Sure they have their religious leaders, but they also have military and a political class, too. They also have decent relations with other countries and a lot invested in a free-trade economy.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/17/21 02:03 AM
Perhaps Pondering. I doubt it though. Vietnam and Iran have a long history of being a country. Not a patch work of 18 tribes, each ruling their own little area. I suppose one could equate Afghanistan to middle age kingdoms.It seems the Taliban has succeeded in uniting the kingdoms under one king or has it? I don't think one can think of Afghanistan as a country, but more as a lot of individual kingdoms that has been conquered.

But there will be rebellions, one or two tribes unite or as in the past, pre-USA involvement, 13 smaller tribes uniting to form the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban. Pre-USA, most Afghans and tribes didn't know Kabul existed. Heck, they didn't even know Afghanistan was classified as a country. Although we may have sown the seeds for Afghanistan to become a normal country with the Taliban in charge.

You may be correct, but I have a feeling the Taliban will once again welcome AQ, ISIS, other terrorist groups that are anti-western and provide them safe haven and a safe training ground.

You may be way too optimistic, I may be too pessimistic. Come to think of it, perhaps this is why democracy failed. Most Afghans didn't know the concert of being a country, only being a tribe or what one may best describe them, kingdoms. The Afghans didn't lose their tribal affiliations, they looked on themselves as Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch, Pashai, Nuristani, Gujjar, Arab, Brahui, Qizilbash, Pamiri, Kyrgyz, Sadat etc. Not as Afghans. That is a concept we tried to install, having them look on themselves as being Afghans instead of their tribal affiliation.

Who knows, the Taliban may be successful where we weren't. Time will tell.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/17/21 09:41 PM
Nobody else has ever been successful in Afghanistan.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/17/21 11:26 PM
Interesting reporting from Afghanistan:

Reporting Now in Afghanistan (from a female reporter!)
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 01:20 PM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
Interesting reporting from Afghanistan[/url]
We humans do have a strong inclination to generalize large assumptions from small bits of information, and we are titillated and captivated by extremes.

Persuasive propagandists know and use this psychological trait with great success, growing bits of truth into dominant realities. Was it always the backbone of politics?
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 03:56 PM
Quote
Persuasive propagandists know and use this psychological trait with great success, growing bits of truth into dominant realities. Was it always the backbone of politics?

Yes. But they've gotten better at it over time.

Most importantly is that they are able to reach massive audiences instantly.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 05:14 PM
Here's the latest poll on Afghanistan. You can make of it as you will. But it does break things down into all, Republican, Democratic, independents categories.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/polling/lbvgnnggapq/Afghanistan_Snap_Topline.pdf
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 05:56 PM
"The Taliban, good fighters I will tell, you, good fighters. You have to give them credit for that. They've been fighting for a thousand years; what they do is they fight," Trump said on Fox News "The Sean Hannity Show" on August 17.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1427806170060836868?s=21

"The Taliban has circled the airport, and who knows if they're going to treat us right? All of a sudden, they'll say - well, frankly, if they were smart, they'd really - and they are smart, they are smart. They should let the Americans out," Trump said to Hannity.

Further praise of Taliban - BI South Africa

Does anyone remember when Bill Maher lost his ABC show "Politically Correct" for daring to say

Quote
“We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”

Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 06:50 PM
Slate has a headline that no country wants to be the first to recognize the Taliban. But that's kind of silly: I think when Donald Trump signed a peace treaty with them, America "recognized" them.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 09:28 PM
I think you're right in a way Actually it goes back further than that to Reagan aiding the Taliban and other tribes when they were fighting the USSR. But neither Reagan nor Trump recognized them as the government of Afghanistan. It was more recognition as one of the 18 tribes of Afghanistan with the Taliban being the largest tribe and most influential.

Now if the Taliban take over the government, becomes the government, it seems rather silly to me to not recognize them as such. It will be fact. I'm of an opinion that it would be better to set up diplomatic relations with them, work for some cooperation between the U.S. and the new Taliban government in hopes the Taliban doesn't resort to their old ways when they were in charge before becoming a safe haven and training ground to terrorist groups like AQ, ISIS and others.

Simply ignoring them, not recognizing them, would push them back into their old habits much faster than if we did recognize them as the proper government of Afghanistan along with having relations with them. My two cents anyway.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 10:33 PM
Here's an interesting article from Gallup which have polled the Afghans for years.

Taliban Takeover Likely No Surprise to Afghans

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gal...nt=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

even the Afghan's expected the Taliban to return and take over.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/18/21 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
If you are doing farm labor, what difference does it make if the guys walking around with machine guns are American or Taliban.

A lot of difference, if you’re a woman in Afghanistan. The Taliban swears “It will be different this time, baby, I promise” - - but it’s a hollow promise, and if we’re a woman in Afghanistan I’d whatever I could to run for my life.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 06:33 AM
We have already been working with them for a long time. They want to be a little less "Death To America" and a little more like a real big-boy country, with relations and trade deals. Places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are already Muslim countries, and we get along with them fine. But I agree with Mellowicious: If I was a female Afghani, I would move. They can all see how they like living the gay lifestyle without women, if they are going to crap on them continuously. But there are certainly a lot of other countries that don't treat woman well. And countries (like China) that treat Muslims horribly.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 11:15 AM
Pondering, it’s true that life stinks in many places, but that doesn’t make the situation for women in Afghanistan any less dire. You’re right; there’re are a lot of other countries that don’t treat women well. There are, I think, very few that will inflicrt a public beating or, possibly, hanging, for learning to read and teaching others the same.

You’ve just used the “All Lives Matter”argument, which is, I’m afraid, not up to the job.
Posted By: NW Ponderer Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 02:48 PM
I have very strong, mixed feelings about this situation. The rapidity of the collapse of the Afghan government was not anticipated, although it maybe should have been. I think Biden was perhaps putting a brave face on it to buck up the Afghan government. It didn't work, and his language has blown up in his face.

One one hand, I think leaving Afghanistan to its people is a good idea. We spent 20 years protecting the nascent government, and all that happened is that corruption and incompetence reigned. A generation of Afghans have lived in relative peace and freedom that they had not enjoyed before. They have gotten used to it. The Taliban have a different view of it. Those views will conflict.

The Taliban are also very corrupt and incompetent. Afghanistan is still a very tribal society. That is reflected in the makeup of the Taliban. They think they have a unifying purpose, but that is ephemeral. Each subcommander has a different interpretation of their mission and is likely to control their territory differently. They are primarily Pashtun ("Taliban" is actually a Pashtun word for "student"), and closely allied with Pakistan's military, a nation with which it shares its largest border to the south and east (Islamabad and Kabul are only 460 miles apart, albeit over treacherous mountains). Iran borders it to the west, and the north is bordered by other "'stans" - Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

On the other hand, the fall of Afghanistan is a major blow to the US presence in the region, and international prestige. Our mere presence provided stability Afghanistan has not had in modern memory, and our departure is seen as chaotic and incompetent. Our "mission" can be seen as a failure in some circles, as the Afghan government was essentially our creation (as the Soviets had done in the 1980s), and hundreds of thousands of Afghans are fleeing to neighbors. We no longer have troops on Iran's eastern flank (although there are still some 2500 on the western flank in Iraq). Over the last two years there have been no US casualties (although plenty of Afghans, military and civilian). All of those conditions are now gone. The region is less stable. But, that stability had come at a tremendous cost in US lives and treasure (dwarfing the infrastructure plans of the Biden administration). Unlike South Korea (where we still have substantial troops), Afghanistan had not developed much of an economy or a stable government infrastructure. Would another 20 years have changed that?
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 04:03 PM
Pondered, I have serious questions about this as well. I want the Taliban out but I don’t want theUS to have to keep them out.

I heard a Republican Congresscritter from, I think, Ohio, say that 20 years of us occupying Afghanistan has prevented more attacks like 9/11 (his words, not mine.) My gut feeling is that he’s full of processed oats, but I’m willing to hear a contradiction. As the comedian said, “I could be wrong, I’ve seen me do it.”
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 06:57 PM
Time will tell.. If the Taliban fall back into their old habits of pre-9-11 of giving safe haven and training grounds to terrorist groups like AQ, ISIS, others, then you'll know..If not, then those republican congress critters were wrong.

It's possible that driving the Taliban and AQ operatives along with others into the mountains on the Pakistani border did prevent further terrorist attacks. There's no way of knowing for sure one way or the other. Hence it becomes political talking points, what if's if you will. If we hadn't stayed for 20 years more terrorist attacks would have occurred of if we hadn't gone in, no more terrorist attacks would have happened.

Like in most instances, the truth is probably somewhere in-between those points of view. How far to one or the other side, who knows? We only know that life will never be the same as it was pre-9-11.

Perhaps 20 years out of power, the Taliban may have learned the lesson of not sheltering terrorist group. Then again, maybe not. Only time will provide the answers. All we can do is speculate.
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 07:17 PM
I'm afraid it just wasn't within the power of the US Military to make Afghanistan safe and free for women.

We've got our own version of tribalism going on here right now that we need to fight and while I genuinely feel sorry for all Afghanis I just can't find it in me to worry much about a people doing what they have done for thousands upon thousands of years.

For the nonce, the Taliban is the defacto government of Afghanistan by virtue of winning the war. The losers can whine and pout about that all they want.

Best way forward is cooperation. It's up to the Taliban to rein in their fighters...to convince them that the enemy is gone and they can't just kill everyone that's left. Afghanistan is at a swords to plowshares event with the Western invaders vanquished. The best we can do for all Afghanis is to help the fledgling government out.

What we will most likely do is enact economic sanctions against them, since we couldn't just beat them into submission we will torture them slowly as we have done to many other nations...and never allow them to succeed.
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 08:12 PM
Quote
I want the Taliban out but I don’t want the US to have to keep them out.

Unfortunately, they make up a significant portion of the Afghani population. Like Republicans...like cockroaches...like alligators...you can't get rid of them.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
I'm afraid it just wasn't within the power of the US Military to make Afghanistan safe and free for women.

Or men.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 08:16 PM
Sorry. I should have added that Afghans were fine doing what they did for thousands of years - tribalism based on, I believe, 14 tribes. It was when other countries tried to eliminate the tribalism that the dookie hit the fan. It was external, not internal, destruction.
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 09:05 PM
If I was a nation builder in Afhanistan, I b'lieve I'd get the tribal elders/warlords/whatevers together and form a council of sorts...

Maybe if everyone left them the f*ck alone they'd think of it themselves.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 10:10 PM
I’ve done a bit more reading and would like to add some information. 90% of Afghan women have suffered violence - 90%. Most of it is NOT Taliban-related; it is inflicted by family members.

Afghanistan is known as the place where democracies go to die. It’s also known as the worst country in the world, bar none, for women to live.

45% of Afghan citizens have been at the receiving end of what can surely be called domestic terrorism. We spent 20 years in the country not doing much at all for half of the population.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/19/21 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Unfortunately, they make up a significant portion of the Afghani population. Like Republicans...like cockroaches...like alligators...you can't get rid of them.

I just did some checking. There are about 75,000 Taliban and about 38,000,000 Afghans. Blew my mind.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 02:08 PM
Taliban Seizes Billions in US-Supplied Weaponry

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/taliban-seizes-billions-us-supplied-230558799.html

As far as I'm concerned, it's an old story. The U.S. relies more on technology than the individual solider. By giving the Afghan military forces billions in equipment, supplies, up to date technology equipment and weapons, that it seems we deemed was enough to win against the Taliban.

What we forgot was the will of the solider to fight. The quality of the soldier, the loyalty of the soldier, the belief in what the soldier was fighting for. In the end, the Taliban had the will, the belief in their cause, willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Afghan government forces had very little of that. The government Afghan forces had everything they needed to keep the Taliban at bay and even defeat them if they had the will.

War at time boils down to the individual solider and not technology, equipment, supplies, weapons, etc. We forgot that. There was little support for the Afghan government we set up. It wasn't their government, it was ours. Our form of government we forced on the Afghans wasn't worth fighting for to them. Rather simple, really.
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 03:46 PM
But American soldiers are all "Heroes"

We should thank them for their service.

Our extremely expensive military seems to believe that technology is the only way to win wars.

Yet they have not "won" a war since WW2...fighting against the most primitive weapons imaginable.

This isn't about wars or winning...like everything else, it is a way to shove money into the pockets of the very wealthy.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 03:59 PM
I’d like throw out another possible explanation for what’s often described as a failure of the Afghan army: the Powers that Be in that country have flipped often enough that the Afghan people - military and other - have learned not to ally themselves too closely with anyone.

Maybe the Afghans’ unenthusiastic fighting was due to the fact that, when leadership changes so frequently, the biggest goal is to position yourselves as safely as possible somewhere between the next set of losers and winners. What is the best bet; who will be in charge when the Americans leave? Because whoever comes in will find out where you stood. And those in the military will need to be very, very fast on their feet when power changes.

This is, clearly, a theory, verging closely on the “wild hair” source of thought. Still, I think it holds some merit. Afghans don’t have time or the safety for the kind of goals we expected. I have a feeling their goals are different: not democracy, as we would prefer, but simply not Taliban.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 04:35 PM
A theory as good as any other. I do think we lost track that most Afghans owe their loyalty to their tribe, not some leader of another tribe. It also didn't help that the Afghan government was very corrupt. That a lot of the troops the government of Afghan said they had was only on paper although we were paying for those, what I call ghost troops.

Afghanistan has always been a tribal country. Not a country as we envision a country to be. Think back to the different tribes of the American Indian. They were never unified as one. The same for the 18 different tribes of Afghanistan.

If I remember right, the Taliban are from the Pashtun tribal area of Southern Afghanistan which the Pastuni tribes united under the name Taliban. They basically conquered the Mujahideen warlords who drove out the USSR and in the late 90's captured or controlled most of the land area of Afghanistan except the northern portion which fell under the 13 tribe Northern Alliance.

I think the bottom line is in reality there never has been a central government as we know it for Afghanistan. Just different tribes ruling over their own area of Afghanistan until we came in and began nation building. Much like the American Indian who never had a central government either, just tribal governments if government is the right word.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 04:56 PM
Interesting. I was reading a book recently that made exactly the same point about Vietnam that the “governmental unit” there was family and village first, then, I believe a regional leader (don’t quote me on that; I can look it up if you like.) The idea of a national government was both foreign and unimportant to the people.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 06:58 PM
Vietnam had an Emperor and a Mandarin style government prior to the French. The French pretty much left that in place while ruling over the Emperor and the Mandarin government. But yes, it was family and village for the most part. We came along after the French and decided to change their government into a democracy during a war. The reason was our leaders thought it much easier to sell defending a democracy to the American people than an Emperor/Mandarin type government. Very long story there.

The Montagnards in the highlands really didn't know a national government existed. Laos and Cambodia were pretty much the same way. In Laos you had the Royal government at Luang Prabang and the administrative government in Vientiane. But if you lived in the mountains, away from the Mekong River, most Laotians or Mountain tribes didn't even know the Royal Government existed. Cambodia was pretty much the same with the Royal Government in Phnom Penh.

The exception in Southeast Asia was Thailand, formerly known as Siam. They had a constitutional Monarchy. The Thais revered their king and to a certain extent still do today.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 11:06 PM
If we’re going to keep doing this nation building thing, it would be nice if we could get better at it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 08/20/21 11:25 PM
We were pretty good with nation building if that's the right word with Germany and Japan after WWII and South Korea after the Korean War. But those countries had been countries long before each war. The tribal aspect wasn't there. Germans viewed themselves as Germans, The Japanese as Japanese and Koreans as Koreans.All three of those countries faced an outside threat in the USSR first, then Red China second which also help unify those countries and make nation building a success.

The Vietnamese also viewed themselves as Vietnamese for the most part with the Montagnards being the exception, viewing themselves more tribal. But with the Vietnamese, it was a fight for independence from Colonial Masters, then the Japanese occupation and once again the French after WWII.

Iraq still is a problem. But we still have troops stationed there. So nation building in Iraq seems to have worked, at least so far. But a month ago, one probably could have said the same for Afghanistan.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/21/21 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by perotista
We were pretty good with nation building if that's the right word with Germany and Japan after WWII and South Korea after the Korean War. But those countries had been countries long before each war.

I use the word “nation building” because it gets used a lot; I have never understood all its nuances. One of the definitions I found on the web says “Nation building aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run.“

I have to differ where Korea is concerned. We still have active military personnel there some 60 years after the war; the country is still divided, and one-half of it is run by one of the worst despots in the world. It doesn’t fit the definition.


Quote
Iraq still is a problem. But we still have troops stationed there. So nation building in Iraq seems to have worked, at least so far.

Same problem. If we still have troops in danger in Iraq, if they are still necessary to maintain stability, then nation building hasn’t succeeded.

In fact I can’t think of an instance where nation building HAS succeeded (which certainly doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.) As you note, both Germany and Japan were individual - and powerful - nations prior to World War I; they don’t fit the definition.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 08/21/21 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
I’d like throw out another possible explanation for what’s often described as a failure of the Afghan army: the Powers that Be in that country have flipped often enough that the Afghan people - military and other - have learned not to ally themselves too closely with anyone. .
I vote for good-ol' fashion corruption as why the country collapsed so quickly. Hmm
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Afghanistan - 08/22/21 12:24 AM
A former Pence adviser said Trump had 4 years to help Afghan allies leave the country...but Stephen Miller's 'racist hysteria' blocked it from happening

Troye said she worked on the SIV issue but got "nowhere" because allies of President Donald Trump and Miller at the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and other security agencies "made an already cumbersome SIV process even more challenging." She said many people within the administration believed the matter was urgent but that many were afraid to oppose the president's allies, adding that there were "many closed door meetings" strategizing how to address the issue. "Trump had FOUR years-while putting this plan in place-to evacuate these Afghan allies who were the lifelines for many of us who spent time in Afghanistan," she said. "The process slowed to a trickle for reviews/other "priorities"-then came to a halt." An Afghanistan War veteran told CNN this week that Miller "should be held accountable for war crimes" for opposing the resettlement of endangered Afghans, and that he was "complicit" in their deaths.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 08/22/21 12:34 AM
All quite predictable since Trump signed a Peace Treaty with the Taliban and praised them. Everybody knew this was coming. Now a lot of people are panicked because it's here. But the administration is in contact with Taliban leadership, and has their promise to let the evacuation continue. There are some hassles at Taliban checkpoints, but I bet nothing a little bribe won't fix. It's actually going to be easier for the Taliban if everybody freaked out by their leadership leaves. I read the biggest impediment for Afghans who want to leave is the American documentation requirements. I suspect a lot of those people mobbing the airport just see this an opportunity to get to America without the very long immigration process.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/22/21 02:07 AM
I heard in an NPR piece today (I think) that one reason the processing is taking so long is that those doing the processing really, really don’t want to okay the wrong guy. Signing off to allow a major terrorist would be really bad for your career in State (or whatever department these workers are coming from.)
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Afghanistan - 08/22/21 02:55 AM
The biggest obstacle is the handiwork of Stephen Miller

When Troye was part of Pence's staff, she specialized in national security matters and favored SIVs or special immigrant visas for Afghan refugees; Miller was adamantly opposed to them.


Interesting Twitter thread by Olivia Troye that goes into more detail.

https://twitter.com/OliviaTroye/status/1428740865665679361
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 08/22/21 04:39 AM
Some people are saying the Stephen Miller should be prosecuted for what he did.

If George W Bush and DICK Cheney can escape being prosecuted for Iraq, then no politico will ever be prosecuted for anything bad. Hmm America has become the Land of the Lawless.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/30/21 09:41 PM
Well, it’s officially over. Our military forces I have left Afghanistan.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that on the very last day a US drone killed killed 10 civilians, 8 of them children or young people. (Sorry - Sunday.)

The words I have for this are not permitted on the rant.

In related news, the Omaha paper is printing articles about a young Marine who was one of those killed last week.


The words I have for this are not permitted on the rant, either.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 08/30/21 10:17 PM
(For some reason General McKenzies sounded oddly like George W. Bush when he made his announcement today.)
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 09/03/21 02:24 AM
Here's an excellent article on about what I've been saying all along.

Former interpreter says 'vast majority of Afghans' view Taliban as 'lesser of two evils' compared to the US

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-afghan-interpreter-says-vast-170234181.html

It all boiled down to culture, tradition and the wants and wishes of the Afghan people which we totally ignored. We tried to force our culture, our traditions and our form of government on these people which they didn't want.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 09/03/21 08:27 PM
They are tribal Muslims. So are the Taliban, just not most people's tribe and a bit stricter in terms of their religious dogma. Very few (none?) of the Americans were either one. So it's not difficult to understand their preferences. I guess this really was a case of: "I'm from the US government, and I'm here to help you!"
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 09/03/21 09:44 PM
LOL, good one. Sadly Afghanistan wasn't the first place where we tried to change the culture and traditions against the will of the majority of the people we went in to help. It sure won't be the last.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/03/21 10:42 PM
Interesting that Afghanistan has already largely vacated the daily news cycle. That was faster than the Taliban takeover!
Posted By: perotista Re: Afghanistan - 09/04/21 12:06 AM
Not surprising. I agree that was pretty quick, quicker than I expected. But something I expected to happen in a few weeks. Seems just that quick, Afghanistan has become ancient history to use one of my favorite phrases.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/04/21 01:07 PM
This morning’s CNN front page references Afghanistan two times: an article about the tradition of Afghani girls who live as boys being threatened; and white supremacists praising the Taliban. A week ago it was all about Biden’s Big Bungle Burden.

There are no articles on Afghanistan at the USA Today site.

BBC has three on conditions in Afghanistan and a feature interview positioned way down the page with a UK officer talking about “a ‘chaotic’ Afghan evacuation”.

The Guardian has a second tier article about Biden trying “to turn the page” and another on China keeping their Kabul embassy open.

It’s such a blessing to have the durable spectacularness of Beyonce, and the intriguing hijinks of Peppa the Pig hounding Kanye (excuse me, “Ye”) West, back in the spotlight!
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/04/21 02:04 PM
Trump and Pompeo negotiated a poor deal and ol' Joe simply honored said poor deal because America honors its commitments and its word is its bond.

smile
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/04/21 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
Not surprising. I agree that was pretty quick, quicker than I expected. But something I expected to happen in a few weeks. Seems just that quick, Afghanistan has become ancient history to use one of my favorite phrases.
If after 20 years of US military training - you can't defend your own country against religious extremists - there is no hope for you. Hmm
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 12:03 AM
Quote
religious extremists

I noticed a quote from one Taliban fighter at the airport who said he'd just like a peaceful life without his wife and children having to worry about drone attacks. I think the main difference between Taliban versus other Afghans, is the Taliban soldiers believed in something bigger than themselves. Others believed they could make a buck serving in the Afghan Army. Taliban soldiers still believe, soldiers on the other side don't. That's why the collapse was so quick.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
Quote
religious extremists

I noticed a quote from one Taliban fighter at the airport who said he'd just like a peaceful life without his wife and children having to worry about drone attacks.

I’d bet that’s true of most soldiers, especially in battle. Make it stop; give me a life. And I’d also bet it’s the top brass - whoever the top Taliban are - who insist on making the shite roll downhill.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 08:12 PM
Quote
I’d also bet it’s the top brass - whoever the top Taliban are - who insist on making the shite roll downhill.

Isn't that the case in every conflict? Although ISIS fighters seem to take a lot of personal initiative when it comes to rape and murder of civilians.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 08:29 PM
They’re not alone in that one, either.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 10:12 PM
The average Taliban fighter is not educated - at all. THAT is why they are so easily manipulated. That nearly all women and girls in Kabul are way more educated than these religious idiots and they somehow think THEY'RE superior to these educated women?

LOL , ROTFMOL
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 11:04 PM
I’m looking further on this, Rick, and would be happy to see more info if you can guide me. So far I’m not finding anything to tell me anything about Taliban soldiers, their education, their recruitment, or anything other than Taliban as a single unit. I learned that “Taliban” is Pashto for “student,” but that’s just a label.


There is, of course, a ton of info on the education of Afghani women, or lack thereof - ironic, eh? SoI don’t need help finding that.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 11:32 PM
I've heard that the best knitted (crocheted?) TV watching blankets come from Afghanistan. They are such perfectionists that they have to intentionally incorporate a flaw, "because only Allah is perfect."
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/05/21 11:57 PM
Log, I think that may be an old wive’s tale. I heard the same thing - repeatedly - about Navaho rug weavers. I hav3 a feeling it’s a pretty story,but maybe not a lot more.

Disclaimer: see sig.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
Log, I think that may be an old wive’s tale.
As I hear frequently these days, there’s a lot to unpack there.

First, my interest was primarily on the humorous image of Talibani warriors knitting afghans.

Second, I have heard that ‘only Allah is perfect’ trope numerous times, too, and I understand it to be a bit of sardonic wit. I mean, they make a perfect thing and then imperfectitomize it out of respect for God? Nice combo of ego and disingenuous respect, if you ask me!

Third, I guess the third thing was part of the first thing - an afghan pun and macho Taliban men crocheting (surely the women wouldn’t be allowed to do anything relating to God).
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 02:41 AM
Originally Posted by logtroll
I've heard that the best knitted (crocheted?) TV watching blankets come from Afghanistan.

Might have to contradict you there as well. A subset of North American women usually called Mom or Grandma make afghans for the generations. Because they are made from anything but natural wool, they will outlast nuclear war and may be the basis of the post-war economy.

Most seem to be in a zigzag pattern, thought to be easy and fast.

I have a small blue one I made in college, and, and a huge olive one my mother made. It covers me chin-to-toe, and I’m 5’8”.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “best,” but in the super-cold days we’ve had in the past few years, those things are lifesavers.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 02:47 AM
So you say…
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 09:10 AM
Taliban are typically "educated" in madrasas, where the total curriculum is memorizing the Koran. Not reading the Koran, or reading anything at all. Just memorizing the whole book in the oral tradition. So by their standards, they are educated perfectly. Sounds pretty much like Evangelicals, no?

I watched an episode of Young Sheldon the other day. Someone asked his mother if she ever read a book besides The Bible. She said:
"When God writes another book, I'll read it."
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 01:31 PM
I just found this transcript of a PBS “Nightline” episode. It says that Taliban madrassas teach first, reading, and second, the Koran.

If it’s true, and they can read, of course that doesn’t mean they do read.

Interestingly, the transcript also says that this type of extremist education is almost entirely underwritten by our good friends the Saudis.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

The reason I look this stuff up is that generalist statements, particularly about an enemy or someone treated as an enemy, raises some doubt in me, and an interest to know more.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
I’m looking further on this, Rick, and would be happy to see more info if you can guide me. .
I get most of my information from NPR's "All Things Considered" and also from Terry Gross' "Fresh Air."

.
smile
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by logtroll
I've heard that the best knitted (crocheted?) TV watching blankets come from Afghanistan. They are such perfectionists that they have to intentionally incorporate a flaw, "because only Allah is perfect."

I've heard the same about Native Americans - that they purposely put a flaw into their work because only their spiritual beings are perfect. Hmm
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 03:13 PM
I’m sorry; I seem to have muddled two threads maybe - one serious, the other less so. Here’s something that may help with the “intentional flaw” discussion.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/08/the-art-of-deliberate-imperfection.html?m=
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/06/21 03:29 PM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
...may be the basis of the post-war economy.
If anyone of you have ever been to Seattle and visited the "underground," you learned that modern Seattle is literally built over former burned-down Seattle. In downtown Seattle, the old buildings are still there, with modern Seattle right above them.

Back in the day, circa late 1880s, Seattle burned to the ground. The only people with money to rebuild Seattle were the Madams. Apparently, Seattle had a lot of Madams back in the day because it was a rugged lumber town and men needed relief.

Anywhoo...

If it were not for the Madams loaning money to get Seattle rebuilt, Seattle might not be Seattle today.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/16/21 01:21 PM
This is a link to a long clip from 5he Daily Show. Trevor Noah does a great job, in my view, of summarizing the Afghanistan situation. Forewarned: “long clip” = 9 minutes.

https://fb.watch/82-grukJqu/
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 09/18/21 11:35 PM
It's good the Pentagon has admitted they droned the wrong car, and just killed a bunch of civilians. I think some reparations would be a nice gesture.
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/19/21 12:29 AM
By now we probably owe reparations to most,if not all, of Afghanistan. But most definitely those who were simply in the way of a misdirected drone.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/19/21 12:29 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
It's good the Pentagon has admitted they droned the wrong car, and just killed a bunch of civilians. I think some reparations would be a nice gesture.
Agreed, and extremely unfortunate. cry
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/19/21 04:17 PM
Here’s a stunner for you: the Taliban has told all employed women to go home. This excludes only those women workers who can’t be replaced by men - toilet attendants, for example, and a few In engineering. Also, Afghan girls have been excluded from secondary schools.

Afghanistan’s women’s ministry has been replaced by the
Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

That didn’t take long, did it?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/19/21 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Mellowicious
That didn’t take long, did it?
Three weeks.

I was hoping for a New and Improved™️ Taliban. Hmm Then again, we are talking about religious nutters who really never change their mindset.

crazy
Posted By: Mellowicious Re: Afghanistan - 09/19/21 06:15 PM
Well, they had to move in the desks and the file cabinets, and get a list of the jobs that would have to be re-staffed. Frankly, I’m surprised they got this far in only three weeks.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/19/21 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by pdx rick
I was hoping for a New and Improved™️ Taliban. Hmm Then again, we are talking about religious nutters who really never change their mindset.
On the upside, at least they aren't evil atheists...
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/20/21 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by logtroll
Originally Posted by pdx rick
I was hoping for a New and Improved™️ Taliban. Hmm Then again, we are talking about religious nutters who really never change their mindset.
On the upside, at least they aren't evil atheists...
I know right? So evil not to play-along with that whole imaginary skye faerie thingy - it's almost to the point of mockery. coffee
Posted By: Greger Re: Afghanistan - 09/20/21 02:54 PM
Quote
Then again, we are talking about religious nutters who really never change their mindset.

We are talking about folks who have fought an invading force for their entire lifetimes. Who have watched friends and family bombed or disappeared by the invaders.

We are upset because they didn't embrace western culture while fighting the western invaders. They should have turned over a new leaf and become more like the ones who killed their friends and family.

We are obviously far superior to them in all our thoughts and actions.

Why can't they see that?
Posted By: logtroll Re: Afghanistan - 09/20/21 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Greger
Why can't they see that?
Too much smoke in their eyes?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/20/21 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by logtroll
Originally Posted by Greger
Why can't they see that?
Too much smoke in their eyes?
...too much MISSLE STRIKE smoke in their eyes... coffee
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/29/21 04:06 AM
So the Taliban said no women students or instructors at Kabul University.


It appears the Taliban have taken a page out of the GOP handbook and say they're not doing what they're actually doing.

Quote
It works for Republicans in America, we should try it.
coffee
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Afghanistan - 09/29/21 08:39 PM
The generals testifying to congress are saying we should have not left Afghanistan. Who would think generals would favor war?
Posted By: pdx rick Re: Afghanistan - 09/30/21 02:21 AM
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
The generals testifying to congress are saying we should have not left Afghanistan. Who would think generals would favor war?
Job security. smile
© ReaderRant