What in God's Green Goodness Are We Up To In Afghanistan?

And to answer your question, the US never really got out of South Korea or Japan, did it?

people just don't give a fuck anymore about basic competence in public life, so far as i can tell. in a rational society there would be some mechanism for dealing with this shit. we are governed by total fantasists.

Surrounding locales = pretty much all of South Asia

Nato's top commander, General James Jones, has urged member countries to provide reinforcements to the mission in southern Afghanistan.

He admitted the military alliance had been taken aback by the extent of violence in the region.

But he predicted that the coming weeks would be decisive in the fight against Islamist Taleban guerrillas.

Of course, of course...

xpost

As for their troops being there, it is a NATO thing - giving mutual aid when a NATO country is attacked and all that. The Taliban more or less officially sided with bin Laden after 9/11, making them fair game for retribution. NATO signed on for doing part of that job.

Because the Iraq war so stupidly and needlessly drained off resources from doing the job in Afghanistan, that war, too, is not even close to finished and thus the continuing presence of NATO troops. As it happens, the Afghan war is a lot more legitimate than the Iraq war ever was or could hope to be. But, of course, having a legitimate causus belli doesn't mean that a war will be fought effectively or intelligently - and this one has not been either since roughly January 2002.

Aside from stupid Iraq draining resources and Americans repeated blowing up Canadian troops - I'm not sure I have any bright ideas on what could be done better. I don't think withdrawing is the answer either; to paraphrase a good friend who served 8 months over there: "If we leave now, these people are fucked".
Pretty well sums things up imho!

The ‘Good War’ Isn’t Worth Fighting

By RORY STEWART

London

AFGHANISTAN does not matter as much as Barack Obama thinks.

Terrorism is not the key strategic threat facing the United States. America, Britain and our allies have not created a positive stable environment in the Middle East. We have no clear strategy for dealing with China. The financial crisis is a more immediate threat to United States power and to other states; environmental catastrophe is more dangerous for the world. And even from the perspective of terrorism, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are more lethal.

President-elect Obama’s emphasis on Afghanistan and his desire to send more troops and money there is misguided. Overestimating its importance distracts us from higher priorities, creates an unhealthy dynamic with the government of Afghanistan and endangers the one thing it needs — the stability that might come from a patient, limited, long-term relationship with the international community.

We invaded intending to attack Al Qaeda and provide development assistance. We succeeded. By 2004, Afghanistan had a stable currency, millions more children in school, a better health system, an elected Parliament, no Al Qaeda and almost no Taliban. All this was achieved with only 20,000 troops and a relatively small international aid budget.

When the decision was made to increase troops in 2005, there was no insurgency. But as NATO became increasingly obsessed with transforming the country and brought in more money and troops to deal with corruption and the judiciary, warlords and criminals, insecurity in rural areas and narcotics, it failed. In fact, things got worse. These new NATO troops encountered a fresh problem — local Taliban resistance — which has drawn them into a counterinsurgency campaign.

More troops have brought military victories but they have not been able to eliminate the Taliban. They have also had a negative political impact in the conservative and nationalistic communities of the Pashtun south and allowed Taliban propaganda to portray us as a foreign military occupation. In Helmand Province, troop numbers have increased to nearly 10,000 today from just 2,000 in 2004. But no inhabitant of Helmand would say things have improved in the last four years. Mr. Obama believes that sending even more troops and money will now bring “victory” in Afghanistan. Some of this may be politically driven: a pretense of future benefits appears better than admitting a loss; and because lives are involved, no one wants to write off sunk costs.

Nevertheless, these increases are not just wasteful, they are counterproductive. The more costly we make this campaign, the more likely we are to withdraw when another crisis emerges or our attention wanders. Grand investment precipitating a sudden withdrawal repeats the “Charlie Wilson’s War” effect of 1990, when Afghanistan fell in a moment from spoiled godson to orphan, leaving bankruptcy and chaos behind.

Further, the more we give, the less influence we have over the Afghan government, which believes we need it more than it needs us. What incentive do Afghan leaders have to reform if their country is allowed to produce 92 percent of the world’s heroin and still receive $20 billion of international aid? Are they wrong to think that if they became more stable and law-abiding and wiped out the Taliban we would give them less support? That this is a protection racket where the amount of money one receives is directly proportional to one’s ability to threaten trouble?

This is certainly the experience of the more stable provinces in central Afghanistan, where leaders talk about the need to set off bombs to receive the assistance given to their wealthier but more dangerous neighbors. A more detached strategic perspective and less aid would give us more leverage.

A sudden surge of foreign troops and cash will be unhelpful and unsustainable. It would take 20 successful years to match Pakistan’s economy, educational levels, government or judiciary — and Pakistan is still not stable. Nor, for that matter, are northeastern or northwestern India, despite that nation’s great economic and political successes.

We will not be able to eliminate the Taliban from the rural areas of Afghanistan’s south, so we will have to work with Afghans to contain the insurgency instead. All this is unpleasant for Western politicians who dream of solving the fundamental problems and getting out. They will soon be tempted to give up.

It is in our interests for Afghanistan to be more stable in part because it contributes to the stability of the region, and in particular Pakistan. Well-focused, long-term assistance in which we appear a genuine partner, not a frustrated colonial master, could help Afghans achieve this goal. We will be able to create, afford and sustain such a relationship only if we put it in a broader strategic context and limit its scope.

Rory Stewart, a former British Foreign Service officer, is the author of “The Places in Between” and “The Prince of the Marshes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/washington/18web-troops.html

i feel u dogg

i saw this a few weeks ago late at nite on bbc four, it's amazing -

Afghantsi (1988)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343351/

lots of up-close footage of afghanistan and the soviet soldiers there who were on the butt-end of an obviously doomed venture - the interviews are harrowing and heartfelt, these guys were just like whattt the fuuuuck are we doing

sequel potential high

1988 soviet army more open to investigative journalism than 2009 american one :/

More s.o.p. AWESOMENESS from the Administration:

February 22, 2009

U.S. Concedes Afghan Attack Mainly Killed Civilians

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
NY Times

KABUL, Afghanistan — An airstrike by the United States-led military coalition killed 13 civilians and 3 militants last Tuesday in western Afghanistan, not “up to 15 militants” as was initially claimed by American forces, military officials here said Saturday.

The civilians killed included three children, six women and four men in the Gozara district of Herat Province, in addition to three people suspected of being Taliban fighters, according to an aide to the provincial governor.

American and NATO forces have come under increasing criticism from Afghans and political leaders in Kabul for the soaring number of civilians killed by airstrikes and fighting between Taliban and American-led forces.

The United Nations says civilian deaths rose nearly 40 percent last year to 2,118, the most in any year since the 2001 invasion that drove the Taliban from power. Most of the casualties last year were caused by the Taliban and other insurgents, the United Nations found, but 828 deaths were attributed to American, NATO and Afghan forces, mostly from airstrikes and village raids. Afghan officials fear the numbers will rise as more American troops deploy to the country.

Only five days before the deadly episode in Herat, Afghan and American commanders had hailed a new agreement that called for Afghan officials to have more input into the “planning and execution of counterterrorism missions” in hopes of minimizing civilian casualties.

But Naqib Arween, an aide to the Herat provincial governor, said there was no coordination with Afghan security officials in the province about the operation on Tuesday. He said the bombardment struck nomads in tents in a mountainous region of the province, which borders Iran.

Initially, American forces described the bombardment as a “precision strike” that hit an insurgent hide-out, killing as many as 15 militants. But the attack drew immediate protests from local Afghan officials who said that most of the people killed were innocent, and a military delegation was sent to investigate.

The statement issued by the military on Saturday did not explain why so many civilians had been killed. It did say that weapons and ammunition were found at the site, and that the investigation shows “how seriously we take our responsibility in conducting operations against militant targets and the occurrence of noncombatant casualties.”

In a separate episode, three “coalition service members” on patrol in Oruzgan Province in central Afghanistan were killed by a roadside bomb on Friday. Their names and nationalities were not released.

So far, 26 American service members and 13 from other countries in the coalition have been killed in Afghanistan this year, almost twice as many as the first two months of 2008, according to iCasualties.org, which tracks such fatalities.

Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting.

Yeah, it does feel like Afghanistan is going to be a nasty slough without any real upside to the sort of meager victories that the US/NATO forces are likely to achieve. The Afghans don't want us there and they are particularly good at expelling foreign bodies from their midst. We need to accept that the best we can hope for is preventing the Taliban from taking over the entire country, however anarchic the alternatives look.

Obviously, the other shoe to drop is Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and a government so near to failure that they brush shoulders whenever they leave the room.

I sure as hell hope Mr. Holbrook can harvest some good ideas from the people he talks to who know the region well and he can get our policy back on a marginally effective track. Looks to me like the seeds of disaster that were planted long ago are getting close to maturity now.

The Afghans don't want us there

i'm not sure about this tbh. i think there's alot of Afghanis who are worried about what might happen if the taliban regained control. for alot of people there NATO is the lesser of two evils.

RECORD BOMBS DROPPED IN AFGHANISTAN IN APRIL

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_april_airstrike_050409w/

SO DEEPLY SORRY, AGAIN

The U.S. military acknowledged Saturday that airstrikes in western Afghanistan in the past week had killed civilians.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he had received an official update putting the number of innocent casualties from the strikes in Farah province as high as 130.

If that toll is confirmed, it would be the deadliest incident affecting Afghan civilians since U.S.-led forces started battling the Taliban in 2001. In a statement with the Afghan government, U.S. forces said that noncombatants died but that the number was unknown because the victims had been buried.

-- Reuters

I watched an episode of The Daily Show where the author of How To Win a Cosmic War had some intelligible insight on how Bush's battle to establish democracy in Iraq actually distracted pro-war-anywhere-now Muslims from dwelling on such inclinations when left alone.

tbh all the recent afghanistan stuff - hillary's apology etc - makes me feel unavoidably morbsish. having an anti-war president seemed to augur having someone appalled by the idea of people getting blown to shit. i don't know how idealistic i am being and how inevitable it is but ... uhh. collateral damage classic or dud.

The notion that civilians being killed is somehow on a different moral plane than the typical conduct of war is odd to me. I guess the rational is that we should minimize the amount of cruelty and destruction needed to accomplish our goals. However, I find it perplexing that it takes the death of 100+ civilians in one incident for people to say, "wait, this war is too violent!" As if the conduct of war isn't inherently violent and destructive, even when the killing is on a smaller scale. It's like there is some kind of threshold of destruction for morality to kick in.

I wish people, especially our leaders, would be a little more intellectually honest and once in a while acknowledge that war is immoral and unjust. Maybe it's necessary at times, but it's fucking horrible and our leaders should say so.

So yeah, collateral damage is dud, and "primary" damage is dud, and distinguishing between the two is dud. It's all "damage," and that's kind of all that matters.

i think all my views on this come down to soldiers dying versus civilians dying, with the idea that as damage both are lamentable but viewed as something to avoid or strategise around, civilian death is worse. this is endlessly complicated by conscription and a million other things, but i think everything that happens in the typical conduct of wars, ie between armies, per the instruction of governments, is separate from what happens when it spills over into homes, schools, hospitals etc.

But war always "spills over into homes." Doesn't the family of a slain soldier mourn? Is the death of a 20 year old combatant not tragic?

I'm not calling you out, and my point is probably hopelessly idealistic, but I'm increasingly skeptical of moral hedging when it comes to war. The notion of acceptable and unacceptable war seems like a kind of moral relativism that misses the real point: killing human beings is wrong and killing is fundamental to war.

good piece imo

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_8938

American troop levels and war costs in Afghanistan will soar in the coming year, and party leaders, including Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, have warned that Democrats will most likely give the administration just one more year to get a handle on the military situation there before they start losing patience.

Mr. Obey said he would give the White House a year to demonstrate progress, just as he gave the Nixon administration a year to show progress in the Vietnam War inherited from the Johnson administration.

“With respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am extremely dubious that the administration will be able to accomplish what it wants to accomplish,” Mr. Obey said last week. “The problem is not the administration’s policy or its goals. The problem is that I doubt that we have the tools there that we need to implement virtually any policy in that region.”

Mr. Obey, who entered Congress in 1969, added: “At the end of the year, Nixon had not moved the policy, and so I began to oppose the war. I am following that same approach here.”

The House spending bill requires that the Obama administration deliver a report early next year on progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though it does not set any benchmarks for American military performance....

nice!!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/09/200992111035319236.html

The most senior US and Nato commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban "will likely result in failure" if more troops are not sent and a new strategy developed.

General Stanley McChrystal said in a leaked report obtained by the Washington Post that, despite some progress, "many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating".

Inability to provide adequate resources "also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support" he said, according to the Post report published on Monday.

"Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

2 wars > 1 war

this is just a general agitating for thousands more troops, right? and not very subtly.

Hypothetically, what happens if Obama does the sensible thing and haul's ass?

in that case any stubbed american toe that can even theoretically be linked to the actions of an arab person will become the basis for the vilification of the democratic party for the next thirty years

i don't know about that Tracer. i have this vague intuition that nobody in america, outside the political class, wants anything to do with afghanistan.

So politically, Obama only loses support from the left by fighting an unwinnable non-war? Can he not articulately reframe the whole scenario: ("The Taleban, while diametrically opposed to our own values, is not the same as Al Qaeda. Afghanistan has to be responsible for its own future and have the will to resist extremism and keep its people safe. We will provide support where and how we can but we cannot commit to a generation's military occupation of a country thousands of miles from our borders.") in that candid and convincing manner of his?

goole the political class seems to be doing a pretty good job of having things its way these days!

i mean, a majority of americans supports a public health care option. a majority of americans supported letting bank shareholders be wiped out. none of that apparently matters!

i think democrats would be happy to get out of the war in afghanistan because it's a war in afghanistan. i think republicans would be happy to get out because it's obama's war and/or they can complain about it later.

win win!

afghanistan was never tied up with the heavy 'saving civilization' crap that iraq was saddled with, it was basically forgotten by the bush meme machine, as well as practically (remember when john kerry used that against him? lol good times). as a consequence, there's really not any easy idea-hook to pin anything on one way or another. if you want to talk about afghanistan you kind of have to talk about it seriously! there's hardly any domestic politics left to wring out of it (pretty amazing when you think about it). maybe i am completely misreading the entire situation, i dunno...

well we never got osama. i dunno i just feel like we pull out and that first video he makes where he's all like "nanny nanny boo boo, i'm gonna getcha" and the republicans will be like "obama and the democrats don't have the stomach to stay the course against the terrorists who masterminded 9/11"

i mean have you forgotten the way they play these things??

Well, that's Obama's problem.

I'm not going to worry about what David Broder and Newt Gingrich tell Cokie at the Sunday brunch.

that way of thinking is the trap they've set for the democrats of course. if the war on terror is indefinite, and actually infinite, then anything less than maximum bristling hostility can be connected with any perceived success of terrorist tactics, from now until forever. the only way out is to replace that framework. but it will take hard work and discipline among democrats and their kin and frankly on the basis of the last few months - no, the last few decades - i'm not sure they have it in them.

i mean, it's so much more pleasing to talk about "birthers" 24/7 isn't it??

Hey guys remember how well Tom DeLay and the rest of the Republican Congress supported Bill Clinton in Kosovo?

It is, after all, His War now, and since He Owns It, you watch the criticism start to mount through 2010.

yeah i think we're on a short countdown to hearing about supporting afghan civil society and gov't as a fuzzy-headed liberal nation building adventure (which might even be true)

I don't think so - Republicans are gung ho for this war, domestic support for it is almost entirely on the Republican side.

Also the War on Terror meme is dead. That particular propagandistic blight was owned by the Bush admin, and you'll note that Obama has foregone the phrase entirely.

Catching Osama and the upper Al Qaeda leadership is the only practical goal in sight here, and is probably foremost on Obama's mind (a little nation-building in Afghanistan is a prerequisite for accomplishing this though, and you can't do that unless the country is secured militarily... so he's kind of between a rock and a hard place. An open ended military commitment in Afghanistan is doomed, just as it was with the Russians, so that's not really a feasible strategy).

Republican support for the war in Afghanistan is at like 70% or something, are you guys not aware of this

i don't want to say you're not right Tracer -- the current media/political environment means that any action by the president necessitates a not-equal but furiously opposite reaction -- i just don't think afghanistan is a hill anyone wants to die on. where's the real constituency for it?

xps 70% really? you always have to correct for the GOP's atrophied share. ONLY 70% of the people still willing to call themselves republicans? feh, you couldn't go to war on that. can you stay at war on that?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/afghan.war.poll/index.html

The poll suggests that 23 percent of Democrats support the war. That number rises to 39 percent for independents and 62 percent for Republicans.

Support will drop the longer Obama's president.

probably, but I think we're talking years not weeks there

Kosovo's a bad analogy - there were not terrorists who killed American civilians on American soil hiding out in Kosovo, it was an easy war for Republicans to oppose. To support withdrawing from Afghanistan, Republicans have to willingly and publicly admit that catching Bin Laden isn't worth it.

also they won't be able to say that Obama's made less of an effort there than Bush, because that simply isn't possible

so Karzai promised "change" in his re-inaugural address; sounds hauntingly familiar.

and hooray for David Obey:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9126805

so how do we get rid of this warmongering fuck in 3 years?

self-therapy:

http://pol.moveon.org/afghan_timeline/?id=18131-1293854-VAebEWx&t=4

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/?utm_source=credopetition

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/what-congress-should-ask-mcchrystal/

(in addition to What in God's Green Goodness ...)

so how do we get rid of this warmongering fuck in 3 years?

Palin/Beck '12!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU0DxJVWhGw

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nb7vv8.jpg

hisssssssssssssssssssssss!!

huh

I dunno how much to trust polling in such a country but still

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8464763.stm

Militants attack Afghan capital Kabul

is there a better afghanistan thread? anyway greenwald has been really enlightening lately imo - http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan/index.html

damn cold

that is the all-purpose reaction to any greenwald piece

my brother's being shipped out there next month :-/

dude. i am sorry to hear that.

How to End the War in Afghanistan
By David Miliband
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23870

New information not good:

U.S. Admits Role in February Killing of Afghan Women

KABUL, Afghanistan — After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.
...
Three women also died that night at the same home: One was a pregnant mother of 10 and another was a pregnant mother of six. NATO military officials had suggested that the women were actually stabbed to death — or had died by some other means — hours before the raid, an explanation that implied that family members or others at the home might have killed them.

Survivors of the raid called that explanation a cover-up and insisted that American forces killed the women. Relatives and family friends said the bloody raid followed a party in honor of the birth of a grandson of the owner of the house.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05afghan.html

There's also that crazy video that leaked today (via gov't enemy Wikileaks) about US forces gunning down civilians in Iraq, including some Reuters journalists...

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/5766554.cms

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/world/asia/07convoys.html?ref=global-home

For months, reports have abounded here that the Afghan mercenaries who escort American and other NATO convoys through the badlands have been bribing Taliban insurgents to let them pass.

Then came a series of events last month that suggested all-out collusion with the insurgents.

...

“We’re funding both sides of the war,” a NATO official in Kabul said. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was incomplete, said he believed millions of dollars were making their way to the Taliban.

Dammit, when we buy people, we expect them to stay bought!

that was just posted a few minutes ago i think, there was a related terrifying story i read in print this morning, lemme find it

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/world/asia/06warlords.html?ref=todayspaper

by golly we're gonna fix that place just you wait and see

i feel like there should be a different thread to put this in, but as this story unravels it's becoming one of the more heartbreaking things i've read this year. these people are honest to god heroes in every sense of the word

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/world/asia/10aidworkers.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

(has this been brought up elsewhere?)

Information is delivered as PowerPoint slides in e-mail at the flow rate of a fire hose. Standard operating procedure is to send everything that you have. Volume is considered the equivalent of quality.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/27/afghan_powerpoint_rangers/

Nine Afghan Boys Collecting Firewood Killed by NATO Helicopters

gruesome, horrifying, heartbreaking story. hearts and minds, we're winnin' em

I'M
SO
SORRY

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/u-s-defense-chief-gates-meets-afghans-amid-protests-over-civilian-deaths.html

analysis of taliban chant music

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a934337516&fulltext=713240928

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football [soccer], and cricket. Take the Rocket-Propelled Grenade launcher [RPG] on your shoulders. Oh youth, quit volleyball, football [soccer], and cricket. Take the Rocket-Propelled Grenade launcher [RPG] on your shoulders. Play with human heads instead of playing with balls. Play with human heads instead of playing with balls.

* Quit kids' games; take the RPG on your shoulders. Quit kids' games; take the rocket on your shoulders.

* Oh youth, quit playing volleyball, football, and cricket. Take the RPG on your shoulders. Take the RPG on your shoulders.

* You look good with the weapon and Moswak [herbal toothbrush] but not chewing gum and chocolate. Oh youth, Take the RPG on your shoulders.

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football, and cricket. Take the RPG on your shoulders.

* Purchase every worthless human for free (Kill the enemies.) Purchase every worthless human for free (Kill the enemies.) Take the RPG for on your shoulders.

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football, and cricket. Take the RPG on your shoulders. You will soon defeat the enemies. You will soon defeat the enemies. You only need to put some more efforts defeating them. Take the RPG on your shoulders.

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football, and cricket. Take the RPG on your shoulders.

* Behead by using the sword those people who open the country gate to the strangers. Behead by using the sword, those people who open the gate to strangers.

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football, and cricket. Take the RPG on your shoulders. Walk beside Ayubi [poet]. Don't be even late for a minute! Take the RPG on your shoulders. Don't be even late for a minute! Take the RPG on your shoulders.

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football (soccer), and cricket. Oh youth, take the RPG on your shoulders. Oh youth, take the RPG on your shoulders.

* The enemies have come in the shape of friends. They look like human beings but they are wild animals. The act of disuniting people stays in their blood and their messages are look like flowers but they are full of poison. They have come under the banner of the friends but they are murderers.

* The enemies have come in the shape of friends. They look like human beings but they are wild animals. I have always made the destiny of this country. I have brought happiness and beauty to my country. They have come under the name of sympathy but they are muggers. They have come under the name of sympathy but they are muggers.

* The enemies have come in a shape of friend. They look like human beings but they are wild animals. They are Jewish but half of them are idolaters. They are fire worshippers who came from East and West.

Thanks!

so this oughta be wrapped up pretty soon eh

Ask the Taliban

* Oh youth, quit volleyball, football, and cricket. Take the RPG on your shoulders. You will soon defeat the enemies. You will soon defeat the enemies. You only need to put some more efforts defeating them. Take the RPG on your shoulders.

tangential, but the words without borders afghan literature issue is out this month - link offers an overview. words without borders is pretty rad imo

Afghan authorities said on Sunday NATO had killed 52 people, mostly civilians, in air strikes against fighters, as violence picked up in recent weeks with the start of the fighting season.

Separately, the governor of Nuristan on Sunday said that 18 civilians and 20 police were killed by "friendly fire" during recent US-led air strikes against al-Qaeda-linked fighters in his troubled northeastern province.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/2011529102045125188.html

"the start of the fighting season"

Yeah, really!

It is kind of mind-boggling to realize there are 130,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. That's like a decent-sized American city.

Greenwald on those damn ingrates:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/31/afghanistan/index.html

Actually, the quote is "If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied."

http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern08082011.html

http://october2011.org/welcome

It's a big new expensive prison for Bagram, to hold prisoners sans habeas corpus rights:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/19/bagram/index.html

LBJ -- I mean BHO -- picked a good night to trot out the dazzling Al Green act.

American and other coalition forces here are being killed in increasing numbers by the very Afghan soldiers they fight alongside and train, in attacks motivated by deep-seated animosity between the supposedly allied forces, according to American and Afghan officers and a classified coalition report.

A decade into the war in Afghanistan, the report makes clear that these killings have become the most visible symptom of a far deeper ailment plaguing the war effort: the contempt each side holds for the other, never mind the Taliban. The ill will and mistrust run deep among civilians and militaries on both sides, raising questions about what future role the United States and its allies can expect to play in Afghanistan....

“Lethal altercations are clearly not rare or isolated; they reflect a rapidly growing systemic homicide threat (a magnitude of which may be unprecedented between ‘allies’ in modern military history)” (said the report) .... Official NATO pronouncements to the contrary “seem disingenuous, if not profoundly intellectually dishonest,” said the report, and it played down the role of Taliban infiltrators in the killings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/world/asia/afghan-soldiers-step-up-killings-of-allied-forces.html

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf

“Afghans protest when something is shocking and surprising,” said Joshua Foust, a fellow at the American Security project, a nonprofit, bi-partisan public policy and research institute based in Washington, DC. “But this is something that they are used to and expect. They consider all civilian deaths criminal. This is just more of the same.”

It may seem counterintuitive that Afghans will take to the streets, kill or injure themselves and damage their own property, to protest an insult to their religion, but maintain relative calm when their loved ones are killed.

Last week’s protests against the Quran burnings were not unique; in 2005, a story in Newsweek magazine that US soldiers had flushed Qurans down the toilet set off a storm of anger that left 17 people dead.

When a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that Muslims found insulting, embassies in Kabul were stormed, thousands rioted and several people were killed.

There have never been similar outpourings of violence against the deaths of civilians. For those, sorrow far outpaces anger, as Afghans resign themselves to the horrors of war.

The issue of civilian casualties has long plagued U.S.-Afghan relations. Karzai has railed against night raids that violate homes and sometimes target innocent individuals, airstrikes that sometimes go astray and cause numerous deaths, and operations that do not take adequate precautions to protect the civilian population.

The United States, while often expressing regret at the loss of civilian lives, considers such collateral damage to be the price of war.

“Afghans are not making the moral distinction we are,” Foust said. “[These shootings are] not a game changer, it is just another aspect of the same game.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/just_another_civilian_massacre/singleton/

so, business as usual through 2024...?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/0502/Obama-s-agreement-with-Karzai-in-Afghanistan-short-on-specifics-video

Yesterday was listening to a report on NPR about what the recent US-Afghan pact means to the future of the war there. After a bunch of scrupulous parroting of the official US goverment line, straight out of the briefing room, wherein the reporter blandly explained that the 25,000 troops who would be staying indefinitely would be responsible for training the afghani army, he THEN explained that the goal was to get all the afgahn troops "up to a first grade level and the officers up to a third grade level" because some of the current officers "even had trouble counting".

He backed it up with a story of US army soldiers drawing a big rectangle in the dirt, so an Afghan army commander could figure out if his unit had the correct number of men. The commander was instructed to have all his men stand in the rectangle and see if they all fit, or if there was any room left over.

At a stroke he destroyed all the carefully constructed propaganda he had just dutifully shoveled out to the listeners.

let's just outsource the Pentagon black budget to those guys.

what would be the propaganda purpose of that? it just makes the whole thing sound more like a fools' errand.

what are we outsourcing education to blackwater now too? wtf.

charming Af/Pak weekend developments while we were at the beach:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/the_authoritarian_mind_2/singleton/

via Greenwald

"The U.S. military has detained more than 200 Afghan teenagers who were captured in the war for about a year at a time at a military prison next to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, the United States has told the United Nations . . . .

"If the average age is 16, 'This means it is highly likely that some children were as young as 14 or 13 years old when they were detained by U.S. forces,' Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's human rights program, said Friday.

"'I've represented children as young as 11 or 12 who have been at Bagram,' said Tina M. Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, which represents adult and juvenile Bagram detainees."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_AFGHANISTAN_TEENS_DETAINED

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/24/world/asia/afghanistan-us-special-forces/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The Afghan government says a group of armed people who may be U.S. special forces is carrying out acts of torture and murder.
The U.S. military says it is investigating.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force must stop all special force operations out of Wardak province, where such horrors have been taking place, and all U.S. special forces must be gone from the province within two weeks, Afghanistan's National Security Council demanded.
At a meeting of the council, chaired by President Hamid Karzai, "it became clear that armed individuals named as U.S. special force stationed in Wardak province engage in harassing, annoying, torturing and even murdering innocent people," Karzai's office said in a statement. It did not indicate who "named" the group a U.S. special force.

Nine people "disappeared in an operation by this suspicious force," the statement said. And in another incident, a student was taken from his home at night, and his "tortured body with throat cut was found two days later under a bridge," the statement said.

It added that the United States rejects any suggestion that its special forces carried out any such operation.

NYT subhead:

President Obama, frustrated in his dealings with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, is considering speeding up troop withdrawals and perhaps leaving none there after next year.

bleeve it when ya see it

coulda sworn the radio said out at the end of THIS year. Well, he's not a miracle worker.

"Got us out of Anghanistan" is how Obamadrones will sound even more like Nixonloons.

u don't give nixon credit for getting us out of vietnam?

fuck the Pentagon
fuck Afghanistan
fuck Obama
fuck America

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bombing-hospital-doctors-without-borders-kunduz.html

At least 19 people were killed when a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz was badly damaged early Saturday after being hit by what appears to have been an American airstrike, sparking international outrage.

The United States military, in a statement, confirmed an airstrike at 2:15 a.m., saying that it had been targeting individuals “who were threatening the force” and that “there may have been collateral damage to a nearby medical facility....

President Ashraf Ghani’s office released a statement Saturday evening saying that Gen. John F. Campbell, commander of American forces in Afghanistan, had apologized for the strike. However, General Campbell said in a statement that he was “aware of an incident that occurred at a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz” but stopped short of taking responsibility, saying that the airstrike “was conducted against insurgents who were directly firing upon U.S. service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces.”

He said the military would investigate the circumstances, echoing a statement by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter....

The hospital treated the wounded from all sides of the conflict, a policy that has long irked Afghan security forces....

Doctors Without Borders, which released the casualty numbers, said 37 people were wounded, of whom 19 were hospital staff and 18 were patients or their caregivers, which means mostly family members. The organization described the facility as “very badly damaged.”

"In a statement, the aid group, which is also known by its French initials MSF, accused the American military of continuing the bombing for 30 minutes after receiving phone calls telling military contacts that the hospital was being bombed."

x0==

It's good they had the number.

been awhile since one Nobel Peace Prize laureate bombed another

Doctors w/o Borders
‏@MSF_USA
@NBCNews, @ajam also retract unfounded @AP claim that weapons were seen in #MSF #Kunduz hospital before bombing

http://nbcnews.to/1MaXOuy

so the military admits it was their decision to bomb the hospital

i'm sure they think that this admission will suffice

the idea that anyone in the US military might be held accountable in international court is unthinkable

our bombs are always sweet and freedom-loving

they mean well, at least

They have given so many different stories, I can't keep track of what they are claiming.

Is the "mistake" meant to be bombing a hospital at the request of the Afghans without the Americans on the ground and in the air paying enough attention to realise it was a hospital or are they claiming it was hit accidentally as part of an attempt to bomb something else?

i can't glean a rational cover story from the several put forth.

‏@ggreenwald 5 hours ago
It was an accident & they're investigating & will tell you what happened when they're ready. Be content. #Accident

@ggreenwald
Those who claim to know Kunduz hospital attack was an "accident" have to ignore all this

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/07/why-is-u-s-refusing-an-independent-investigation-if-its-so-clear-its-hospital-airstrike-was-an-accident/

The IHFFC is now awaiting the agreement of the United States and Afghanistan governments to proceed.

"We have received apologies and condolences, but this is not enough," said Dr. Joanne Liu, MSF International President. "We are still in the dark about why a well-known hospital full of patients and medical staff was repeatedly bombarded for more than an hour. We need to understand what happened and why."

MSF cannot rely only on the ongoing internal investigations by parties to the conflict and remains firm in its call for an independent and impartial investigation by the IHFFC.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/kunduz-us-afghan-consent-needed-ihffc-investigation-commence

why a well-known hospital full of patients and medical staff was repeatedly bombarded for more than an hour.

because the army fucks up on the regular? mystery solved.

it hasn't been established that this wasn't an intentional targeting, and hence not a 'fuckup'

I can't really fathom what military goal the army would think they were accomplishing by blowing up a hospital. Is the implication supposed to be that the army just hates MSF and thus bombed them out of spite? I mean, I suppose that's possible and not entirely surprising but... well what do you do with that information even if it could be proved (which it won't be)

the Afghan army we are 'training' apparently feels that way about MSF, at least the leaders

Ah, yeah that makes sense

all these middle east adventures just turn me into an isolationist - we gain nothing by being involved, withdraw troops/funding and let them all kill each other if that's what they want imo

otm

I cut my education budget to the bone and all I got was this crappy stream of foreign interventions tshirt

I recall an Afghan army we trained in the 80s, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on them, wonder what ever happened to those nice chaps...

all these middle east adventures just turn me into an isolationist - we gain nothing by being involved, withdraw troops/funding and let them all kill each other if that's what they want imo

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:37 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

killing each other with guns we provided

this whole MSF thing makes me so bad, not least because of the empty rhetoric of "accepting responsibility" coming from the US military. what does that phrase mean, if the military isn't going to subject their actions to outside scrutiny and allow their officers to be subject to international law? the answer is, it means nothing. absolutely nothing. hillary clinton is "good" at this too; "i accept responsibility" intoned as though it makes everything better when it has absolutely no ramifications for her.

makes me so *MAD

yeah it's just an empty apology

i see that thing filter down (?) to my students, who will "accept responsibility" for something like plagiarizing an assignment, but get indignant if that actually means they fail the class.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frandomactsofreading.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F07%2Fim-sorry-mercer-mayer.jpg%253Fw%253D600&f=1

honestly in many contexts i just don't care to hear an apology at all. just know what you did, accept the consequences, and go away.

Sucks that the number one candidate for the left is a career arms dealer.

Just imagine what we would think if other countries were randomly blowing up hospitals and going "Oops." The tepid/de-sensitized response is chilling. At least the GOP goes overboard with the language, turning war boring is a dangerous thing.

other countries were randomly blowing up hospitals and going "Oops."

this is a p common thing where bombs are getting dropped tbh

the only way to stop a good guy w a gun is take the gun away

The Kunduz attack underscored an ugly reality: After nearly a decade and a half of war, more than 2,300 American lives lost, and an estimated 26,000 Afghan civilians killed, the nature of combat in Afghanistan is entering a new, potentially bloodier, phase. In August, the United Nations reported that civilian casualties in Afghanistan “are projected to equal or exceed the record high numbers documented last year.” While most civilian casualties in the first half of 2015 were attributed to “anti-government” forces, 27 deaths and 22 injuries were attributed to airstrikes “by international military forces,” a 23 percent increase over last year, most of them, unlike the air raid in Kunduz, carried out by drones.

Despite the rise in civilian casualties and the well-documented failure of drone strikes to achieve the military’s broader objectives, there is every indication that unmanned airstrikes will play an increasing role in U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan, as they have in war zones across the world. Less than two weeks after the U.N. issued its report, Foreign Policy revealed that JSOC has drastically reduced the number of night raids it conducts in Afghanistan, while dramatically increasing its reliance on airstrikes, and is currently “on pace to double the rate at which it kills ‘high-value individuals’ using kinetic strikes, compared to how many it was killing that way five years ago.”

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/manhunting-in-the-hindu-kush/

It wouldn't surprise me if some US military commander had it in for MSF, even if it doesn't go all the way to the top. Who knows why -- they're a lefty organization, maybe they reported abuses or were going to, maybe they were seen as "interfering" or "providing comfort to the enemy" etc.

they treat the enemy (on all sides)

American special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on an Afghan hospital days before it was destroyed by a U.S. military attack because they believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity, The Associated Press has learned.

No evidence has surfaced publicly suggesting a Pakistani died in the attack, and Doctors without Borders, the international organization that ran the hospital, says none of its staff was Pakistani.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5e20fcd92aee49e699149aef93595e49/apnewsbreak-us-spec-ops-knew-afghan-site-was-hospital#

None of the damage appears due to guided bombs (which even in the smallest operational sizes would leave craters and blow out walls), but it is consistent with a SOCOM AC-130 orbiting overhead, peppering the building with 105 mm rounds (ea. w/ ~5 lb HE).

Depending on the fabric dyes used, the 9 ft Red Cross flag affixed to the the roof may not have been visible in the passive IR typically used for nighttime targeting (there's a few reports on problems with this). The aircrew may not have known it was a hospital, so responsibility would fall to the ground personnel familiar with the area and calling in the strike.

‏@ggreenwald 3h3 hours ago
Kunduz: US military refused independent investigation, "investigates" itself, finds it was just a mistake, leaks it

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_AFGHAN_HOSPITAL_ATTACK

MSF reacts: "more questions than answers"

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/msf-initial-reaction-us-military-investigation-kunduz-attack

haha wait what how did we fuck Afghanistan in the 80s, by not fighting WWIII w/the USSR after they invaded?

We trained the motherfuckin' mujahadeen and fought a proxy war against the Soviets, Shakey, you ignorant person. Might wanna read Charlie Wilson's War (skip the crap Mike Nichols movie).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the

I've come to think the significance of the US in Afghanistan in the 80s has become greatly exaggerated. Bin Laden and his little Abraham Lincoln brigade-like band of foreign fighters didn't make much of a difference in the Afghan war against the Russians. The US did not create the taliban.

yep

I mean, otm

I'd figure miscalculating the US backing of the Shah was a bigger foreign policy blunder in the long run than any misadventures in proxy war in Afghanistan. Fall of the Shah in some ways was the first domino that perhaps led to the USSR taking the step to invade Afghanistan and then later the Iraq/Iran war.

Recent documents showed that Carter basically gave the go ahead to depose the Shah so it's not like the US even stood much in the way of the revolution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160

Sheesh, that was only a month and a half away from the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace accords.

I've come to think the significance of the US in Afghanistan in the 80s has become greatly exaggerated. Bin Laden and his little Abraham Lincoln brigade-like band of foreign fighters didn't make much of a difference in the Afghan war against the Russians. The US did not create the taliban.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, June 13, 2016 11:16 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

$630 million buys a lot of "misadventures"

There's a lot of blame to go around in Afghanistan. The Soviets first and foremost, probably, but the British as well. The last anglo-afghan war was in 1919. Oh, and Pakistan! Btw, Afghanistan was also ruled by a Shah, who was also deposed in a coup. (thanks, wiki!) I can't figure out who backed him, and who did not, though. The middle-east is complex, as is central asia.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Afghanistan-called-the-Graveyard-of-Empires

Obligatory Adam Curtis documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRbq63r7rys

For the lack of anything positive about the Current Situation, here's a picture of a record store in Kabul in the 50s. Maybe some day...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/1950s_Afghanistan_-_Records_store.jpg

You still get records shops there...

http://gdb.voanews.com/FAEBBC66-0AAE-437E-9749-4F8AF6ADB452_w640_r1_s.jpg

... not very popular with certain of their compatriots though.

The fact that the US played a role/was involved in some conflict does not always mean that the US is the driving or sole force shaping the conflict. Geopolitics are messier than that.

holy shit there's a lot of denial going on here. in this case the islamic reactionaries were going to lose, and the u.s. armed and funded and trained and supported them and then they didn't lose.

i have no idea what "blame to go around" or "messy geopolitics" have to do with that. the cause and effect is obvious and immediate.

Should the US have known what these rebels were planning next and what their goals would be, beyond pushing out the Russians? Should the US have foreseen that Pakistan would serve as a base of operations for what became the Taliban?

It wasn't only US support either, it was also Saudi and Pakistani support.

we'll get this whole funding and arming of freedom fighters thing right one of these years

And the war was against a foreign invasion. It's not as if the US funded right wing reactionaries to take down a popularly elected leader (that time...)

i'm not an expert, but it has always seemed to me a very classic case of the US decision-makers genuinely not caring what particular kind of thugs they were supporting, or what their particular dreams for the future might be, because they were useful for the immediate cold-war goal. 'should the US have known?' - i think they probably did, at least some of it, and didn't think it was a big deal. i mean it's not like that would be some kind of crazy outlier case.

And the war was against a foreign invasion. It's not as if the US funded right wing reactionaries to take down a popularly elected leader (that time...)

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:11 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the reactionaries were fighting back before the soviets entered afghanistan to bolster the extant PDPA government.

It wasn't only US support either, it was also Saudi and Pakistani support.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:06 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i.e. it wasn't only direct US support, it was also support from the US as brokered by allies and client states

Should the US have known what these rebels were planning next and what their goals would be, beyond pushing out the Russians? Should the US have foreseen that Pakistan would serve as a base of operations for what became the Taliban?

― curmudgeon, Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:01 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well it was obvious at the time what the rebels were doing then -- which was shooting people who taught girls how to read so idk maybe that was bad

Saudi Arabia had its own motivations, the "client state" explanation is reductive.

so the u.s. partnered with other bad actors to do a bad thing. good job "complicating" the story.

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

Saudi Arabia definitely has its own regional ambitions. Since 1973 their relationship with the USA is one of mutual convenience, not one of client and patron.

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:55 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when it means bringing the Taliban to power?

It was US neglect after the Soviets left that assisted the Taliban coming to power, not any kind of active support. The active support came from Pakistan.

can someone summarize for me how the soviets supporting with resources and advisors, eventually getting into a drawn-out war in Afghanistan is any different than the US's intervention in Vietnam

is it just soviet troops in-country that are bad, or is any foreign army coming into a country bad, and if so, how does it differ morally from supporting dissident groups under the table

it's okay if the ends are good

<3 u NV

Lol i missed morbz totally ahistorical thread revive potshot at me. Sorry morbz! But u are wrong, the u.s. did not royally fuck up afghanistan in the 80s, our impact there was p minimal.

Many xp

:D

there is no continent u cannot misunderstand, PelosiFan

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:55 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how was the u.s. in vietnam any worse than the people the u.s. killed in vietnam good question makes u think real hard

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Henry_Kissinger.jpg/220px-Henry_Kissinger.jpg

Saudi Arabia definitely has its own regional ambitions. Since 1973 their relationship with the USA is one of mutual convenience, not one of client and patron.

can someone summarize for me how the soviets supporting with resources and advisors, eventually getting into a drawn-out war in Afghanistan is any different than the US's intervention in Vietnam

Considering that the USSR actively supported the North Vietnamese government with weapons and training, the parallels are very obvious. The only clear difference is which national interests backed which side. But it is generally accepted that nations will pursue their perceived interests and most nations will always seek greater power when it appears possible to acquire it.

Morality is often invoked as a justification for power-seeking, but it is always a side-car that is easily attached to the main power train.

tbh the soviet influence hedged afghanistan against pakistan's influence and..

.. ok, I hang out with my indian coworkers a lot and the "wtf is the deal with pakistan" conversation comes up way too often so perhaps I am a little quick to point blame in that direction

But it is generally accepted that nations will pursue their perceived interests and most nations will always seek greater power when it appears possible to acquire it.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:01 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wow pride and prejudice reads a lot more mercenary than i remember it

there is no continent u cannot misunderstand, PelosiFan

as usual yr political convictions have zero bearing on reality

shakey the idea that the u.s. had a minimal impact on Afghanistan in the 80s is very wrong.

I have no idea what s.clover is arguing about at this point... If anyone is in doubt, uhm, I agree that the US invasion of Vietnam was a bad thing...

impacts are relative - US wasn't shaping events so much as trying to exploit them. country was a wartorn mess prior to U.S. engagement, and it remained so afterward. the original point I was disputing (in some other thread) was the argument that the U.S.'s involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s was so ruinous for the country that it directly resulted in Muslims hating America, 9-11, etc. Which is just ridiculous. Yes OBL was personally bitter about the US abandoning his little "Abraham Lincoln brigade" (lol) but for the larger Muslim world America's participation in Aghanistan 80s shenanigans was not really a big recruiting tool for Islamic extremists.

xp

im being quite literal, as in the u.s. funding quite possibly swung the war for the mujahideen (this is not a particularly controversial view).

this party was garbage before I even got here! *shits on birthday cake*

I have no idea what s.clover is arguing about at this point... If anyone is in doubt, uhm, I agree that the US invasion of Vietnam was a bad thing...

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:22 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

How is it a bad thing to defeat a soviet invasion?

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:55 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so uh in vietnam i guess the problem was they lost?

Wait, what? What on earth are you talking about?

im being quite literal, as in the u.s. funding quite possibly swung the war for the mujahideen (this is not a particularly controversial view).

right, but I don't think that constitutes the US "fucking Afghanistan", exactly. In a scenario where both potential victors were inherently bad actors, I'm not inclined to view one's victory over the other as anything but a wash.

yeah tbf the USSR and the Taliban have been equal forces for evil over the last 20 years

The U.S., solely interested in winning the battle against the Soviet Union, funded the Mujahideen to the tune of $3 billion; Saudi Arabia provided as much and likely more. Neither country appreciated the ramifications of such a decision—especially the effects it would have on women’s rights. When asked about support for Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a misogynist figure who became notoriously known for throwing acid on the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, and whose group, Hezb-e-Islami received as much as 50 percent of U.S. aid , a CIA official in Pakistan responded: “fanatics fight better.”

https://this.org/2012/02/17/how-the-west-uses-womens-rights-as-an-excuse-for-military-intervention/

ftr, we're viewing both wars purely through the lens of the cold war being fought by proxy. the locals undoubtedly have very different ideas about the course of their respective wars, their outcomes and their eventual meaning. Apart from their being occupied (or, in Afghanistan's case, semi-occupied) and manipulated by European colonial forces and used as proxy battlefields by the USA and USSR, it would be hard to think of two more different countries than Vietnam and Afghanistan.

most of the hostility toward the soviet-allied, urban, political base in afghanistan was from people who felt their modernizations were too much of a westernization/secularization of culture? the united states (well, the cia) pitched it as empowering anti-soviet fighters, but they were empowering groups that were angry people were being what they perceived as secular and anti-traditional culture

the vietnam analogy is relevant inasmuch as the u.s. deliberately tried to provoke the soviets into invading afghanistan in the hope of giving them "their own" vietnam war.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention...

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them. However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview

What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

can we reevaluate this one in another thirty years

no surprise that Brzezinski considered getting the soviets out of central Europe to be of the highest importance.

the original point I was disputing (in some other thread) was the argument that the U.S.'s involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s was so ruinous for the country that it directly resulted in Muslims hating America, 9-11, etc. Which is just ridiculous. Yes OBL was personally bitter about the US abandoning his little "Abraham Lincoln brigade" (lol) but for the larger Muslim world America's participation in Aghanistan 80s shenanigans was not really a big recruiting tool for Islamic extremists.

Wait, what? No-one in that thread, even the quoted GWB, said anything like "Muslims hate America". "The larger Muslim world" wasn't responsible for 9/11, the specific group lead by OBL was - hence the connection with Afghanistan that you seem happy to agree with, once you can claim that it wasn't what you were disagreeing with?

I mean, I get that's your thing, you're never wrong, but the tap-dancing there has taken you to a very odd abyss..

Of course not. We've been caught in a self-perpetuating cycle of revenge ever since we invaded Afghanistan. They believe we are waging a war on them because of their way of life and vice versa. Not that hard to understand.

― flappy bird, Monday, June 13, 2016 2:11 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that particular statement of Bush's* stands out because of its position at the start of what a lot of people know about the conflict - rather than provide any shading of hey maybe we shouldn't have fucked over Afghanistan quite so hard in the 80s, it sets out the whole thing in Manichean terms - not only are we the good guys, but they hate us for our goodness, nothing else we can do about that. It's of a piece with unironically declaring it a War on Terror.

*I'm assuming it's from Cheney / Rove / Rumsfeld, just because it's so good at what it does.

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, June 13, 2016 2:46 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

context of these comments was the general framing of the "clash of civilization" POV and whether islam sees itself as at war with the west and vice versa, nowhere did you say you were referring specifically to OBL's little band of Egyptians and Saudis, who certainly had way more grievances with the US than the general state of Afghanistan as a country.

be better at making yr points

Even in terms of OBL and his mujahedeen, while they *personally* were fucked over by the withdrawal of US support, that doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on the state of Afghanistan as a whole. Obviously Afghanistan under the Taliban worked out just fine as a base of operations for Al Qaeda, OBL wasn't exactly upset about them coming out on top.

also I'm wrong all the time about stuff - man alive and Alfred just turned my head on the gun control thread yesterday for ex.

(and fwiw yes I know flappy bird's initial post there doesn't even make any sense since obviously the cycle of revenge - at least as far as radical Islamists are concerned - started *before* we invaded Afghanistan)

Even in terms of OBL and his mujahedeen, while they *personally* were fucked over by the withdrawal of US support, that doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on the state of Afghanistan as a whole. Obviously Afghanistan under the Taliban worked out just fine as a base of operations for Al Qaeda, OBL wasn't exactly upset about them coming out on top.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:24 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Right. what fucked over afghanistan as a whole wasn't the withdrawal of u.s. "support" (for fucks sake) but the provision of huge amounts of arms and aid to crazy woman-hating nutball reactionaries to depose a government in the first place.

(and there was no cycle of "revenge" between the u.s. and islam for the duration of the cold war -- that's the point. they supported religious forces and allied with them all over the place as part of their moves against the ussr. e.g. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/02/05/washingtons-secret-history-muslim-brotherhood/ )

The provision of arms was precisely what OBL wanted! We are arguing at cross-purposes here.

Sorta doubt muslims as a whole were upset about how u.s. support of mujahedeen messed up afghanistan.

no cycle of "revenge" between the u.s. and islam for the duration of the cold war

I would hazard that the cycle of revenge started in between the cold war and the invasion of afghanistan - ie gulf war I. Thats where the real grievances have their roots.

you mean the second invasion of Afghanistan, right?

context of these comments was the general framing of the "clash of civilization" POV and whether islam sees itself as at war with the west and vice versa, nowhere did you say you were referring specifically to OBL's little band of Egyptians and Saudis, who certainly had way more grievances with the US than the general state of Afghanistan as a country.

Specifically the context of the comments was the question of whether "They hate us for our freedoms" is a thing that GWB got (mostly) right - I'm not saying "No this is The Reason instead", but rather that any other "Hey this might have been a factor as well" was swept away by his statement. Afghanistan is just the one that has the clearest through-line. Not that I'm excusing Al Qaeda for anything of course.

xp getting invaded is kind of Afghanistan's thing (as well as killing all the invaders) - might be worth putting dates on it.

I don't remember the conversation being about whether Islam sees itself as war with the US - as in I think we were all agreeing that it isn't - this fella has the main of it:

There clearly is a "clash of civilizations" aspect to this (clumsily and inexpertly elucidated by Dubya) but it's not Dubya's shitty way with words that is the problem. Radical Islamists genuinely do hate the West and modernism and all that entails. And we hate them right back. But they do not represent all of Islam, and apart from Trump no one in the US federal gov't has ever openly argued that Islam *as a religion* is the problem or the "enemy". Which is not the case with radical Islamists, who explicitly *do* call out the West as the literal enemy. These two sets of rhetoric are not equivalent.

xp

― Οὖτις, Monday, 13 June 2016 22:18 (4 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also I'm wrong all the time about stuff - man alive and Alfred just turned my head on the gun control thread yesterday for ex.

Okay, that's cool, I shall try to emulate them more when arguing with you. I hadn't seen that, partly because I marked that thread as "Don't read, no-one ever changes their mind" :)

Have there been any notable articles about the China-Afghanistan relationship in the last decade? The most substantial summary of a study I've found is here: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/china_role_afghanistan.pdf

China as a whole has a lot of the seculization and legal protections that groups in Afghanistan have opposed, but tends to be more explicitly hands-off when it comes to addressing those issues with trading partners. Given the location and relatively untapped mineral/resource rights, there's no way China won't be a major player in the region in the next few decades.

There's the ongoing need to "protect American interests" in a region, meaning the protection of American-owned corporate interests, along with resource access. China's diversified enough for the time being, between ventures in-country, in Africa, and increasingly in neighboring countries that the latter might not be an issue. And as for the former, the majority of external business is fully- or majority-owned by the Chinese government, so unilateral withdrawal from a region lacks the complication of corporate interests

tl;dr version -- the long-term foreign interest and influence in Afghanistan is probably going to be China-focused

from the 2012 article posted above from a self-proclaimed "progressive politics" website

Prior to the ascendance of the Mujahideen, Afghanistan’s constitution, written in 1964, guaranteed women basic rights such as universal suffrage and equal pay. Women comprised half of university students, held government jobs and could travel and leave the house without a male escort. Moreover, “women made up 40 percent of Afghanistan’s doctors, 70 percent of its teachers and 30 percent of its civil servants. A small number of women even held important political posts as members of Parliament and judges, and most women did not wear the burqa.”

...In addition, according to Rachel Reid, a Human Rights Watch researcher, since the fall of the Taliban, the percentage of girls who finish school has risen from zero percent to just four percent—a very minor improvement, especially when considering statistics from the pre-Mujahideen era, when girls and women made up half of university students in Kabul. Girls’ access to secondary education, which is by far the most vital for women’s emancipation, is still very low as well. Only 11 percent of secondary school age girls are enrolled in grades 7-9 and a dismal 4 percent in grades 10-12.

Furthermore, today, for the first time in Afghan history, women must simultaneously face all the enemies of women’s rights. On the one hand, Mujahideen fundamentalists now comprise the Northern Alliance and are in positions of power, firmly supported by NATO forces; on the other, they must face anti-government insurgents: al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

again, that is not the kind of "fucking up" that radicalized Muslims or convinced them there was a war between Islam and the west

are there any post-soviet republics where secularization was forced and gender equality pushed where that completely reverted post-soviet breakup?

Not completely (to pre-1930s position) though everyone from Poland to Tajikistan has rolled back the rights of women. Takijistan has become much more conservative post-independence but women are still a high proportion of the workforce, universally educated, etc.

again, that is not the kind of "fucking up" that radicalized Muslims or convinced them there was a war between Islam and the west

― Οὖτις, Friday, June 17, 2016 11:51 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

here's what i've been trying to get at. there _was_ a conservative anti-progress wing developing throughout the region for a long time. the point is, it was in a tiny minority. it was watered, supported, fed, encouraged, armed, trained by the U.S. as part of the cold war. so... that is certainly a reason for why it became more prominent.

that's not the same as what convinced 'them' that "there was a war between Islam and the west". What did sort of maybe fuel that was the u.s. just like keeping invading and occupying countries throughout the region?

again, that is not the kind of "fucking up" that radicalized Muslims or convinced them there was a war between Islam and the west

I have read that American troops' presence on the Saudi peninsula was a major casus belli in the oughts. Exacerbated (it is said) by those troops including women who were permitted to drive and whose hair was uncovered, etc. Dunno about the last bits.

"Some agitated Moslems"

hand-wavin' Zbig Turgidson

What did sort of maybe fuel that was the u.s. just like keeping invading and occupying countries throughout the region?

right - see my note about Gulf War I

I have read that American troops' presence on the Saudi peninsula was a major casus belli in the oughts.

this is absolutely true, OBL and AAZ both referenced it repeatedly

stayin' forever just like Richard Dreyfuss Cheney said in W.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/750715418524917761

The memos reveal that Mr Blair and Mr Bush were openly discussing toppling Saddam Hussein as early as December 2001, when the UK and US had just launched military action in Afghanistan.
"How we finish in Afghanistan is important to phase 2. If we leave it a better country, having supplied humanitarian aid and having given new hope to the people, we will not just have won militarily but morally; and the coalition will back us to do more elsewhere," says Mr Blair in the memo.
"We shall give regime change a good name which will help in our arguments over Iraq."

2016 update: Phase 1 still not going so well

where does this end, exactly?

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Wednesday, July 5, 2006 5:11 AM (eleven years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-mineral-deposits.html

I actually drafted this earlier and lacked a place to put it:
1998: classmates in high school approach me with petition for the US to have a stance against the Taliban, citing murder of gay people and oppression of women under fundamentalist regime, which I sign
2001: Catastrophe. I worry about what is going to happen, but hold out optimism that the Taliban might at least fall
2017: Taliban at highest level of activity since mid-2000s. Headlines referring to US weapons having fallen into the wrong hands, and Russian arms possibly going to Taliban

everything is shit

More or less

Muddling Through

For the political science article, see Charles E. Lindblom.

Still the single greatest blog post ever, and unfortunately still completely timely: https://t.co/9ycCVZVwZX

— vastleft (@vastleft) August 22, 2017

Highest recommendations for Anand Gopal's No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes (2014).

The time to "win" in Afghanistan would have been 2002, when the Taliban was nowhere to be seen and Peshtun civilians were glad to be free of their yoke. But then to prove to higher-ups that they were doing something, US SOF started abducting political challengers named by local warlords like Agha Sherzai and Ahmed Wali Karzai (opium kingpin, brother to Hamid), offering bounties, and torturing (sometimes to death) the captured, sending many off to Gitmo without any evidence. By now, the U.S. has killed or arrested family or friends of nearly every Peshtun, so there's zero likelihood of peace before the US leaves.

a thread

The @NSArchive just released a huge amount (900+ pages) of memos from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I’m going through them now and picking out ones I find interesting. /threadhttps://t.co/FDFPwNaiI7

— Paul Szoldra (@PaulSzoldra) January 24, 2018

why stop now?

https://splinternews.com/u-s-commander-calls-for-end-to-war-in-afghanistan-1828776497

“It is time for this war in Afghanistan to end,” Nicholson said, simply

For some unknown reason the Taliban would rather win the war outright, so they can get down to the serious business of killing everyone who disagrees with them, well, killing them faster, at least. We can't seem to persuade them this is not a worthy use of their time and energy.

so if we're staying eternally, let's do statehood!

I have a hunch that if the US pulled out not only would Kabul fall very quickly, but shortly thereafter the Taliban be involved with fierce fighting with ISIS and maybe several independent warlords on the side. There are no good answers in any direction, but propping up the Kabul government will never lead anywhere better than the situation at present. Violent death, rampant corruption, and social instability are already baked into the next decade or more, with the only question being the exact distribution of these evils across the general population. And whether our military gets to share in that dubious bounty.

this sucks

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/timothy-bolyard-afghanistan-attack.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-peace.html

The driver of a car that was stopped in the middle of the road, blocking traffic, was shocked when a passing motorist rolled down the window and shouted at him, “Dirty donkey.”

He was even more surprised when he looked up to see that the insult came from a woman. A woman driving a car. A woman driving a car without wearing the obligatory hijab.

That was Laila Haidari, who runs a popular cafe in Kabul that allows men and women to dine together, whether married or not, with or without a head scarf, and uses the profits to fund a rehabilitation clinic for drug addicts.

Nearly everyone addresses Ms. Haidari, 39, as “Nana,” or “Mom,” and her supporters describe her as the “mother of a thousand children,” after the number of Afghan addicts she has reportedly saved....

“Guys, the Taliban are coming back,” she said one day recently to a mixed group of diners at her restaurant, Taj Begum, which has been subjected to virulent attacks in the local media that have all but compared it to a brothel.

“We have to organize,” she told her customers. “I hope to find 50 other women who will stand up and say, ‘We don’t want peace.’ If the Taliban comes back, you will not have a friend like me, and there will be no restaurant like Taj Begum.”

The U.S. war in Afghanistan has been going on for so long that the newest troops weren't alive when it started. Meet Marine Pvt. Juan Tellez, born Nov. 6, 2001.https://t.co/wD5fiWOLSB pic.twitter.com/RyCXNd8zTR

— Capital Journal (@WSJPolitics) February 25, 2019

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

The documents were generated by a federal project examining the root failures of the longest armed conflict in U.S. history. They include more than 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials.

The U.S. government tried to shield the identities of the vast majority of those interviewed for the project and conceal nearly all of their remarks. The Post won release of the documents under the Freedom of Information Act after a three-year legal battle.

In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of warfare.

With a bluntness rarely expressed in public, the interviews lay bare pent-up complaints, frustrations and confessions, along with second-guessing and backbiting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents

where does this end, exactly?

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Wednesday, July 5, 2006 2:11 AM (thirteen years ago

Not before issuing its own version of the Pentagon Papers, apparently.

Really. who could've seen this coming, except everyone outside the bubble?

amazing how fast these Papers got swept away, huh? OTM fills the gap. (scroll down)

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media

me reading about the war in Afghanistan pic.twitter.com/d5GclhAVUh

— Shon 🏳️‍🌈 (@gayblackvet) June 10, 2021

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/world/asia/afghanistan-bagram-us-withdrawal.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

But we still have about 600 troops guarding the embassy. And we'll still be able to carry out airstrikes against Qaeda, ISIS, and to a lesser extent the Taliban!

Imagine showing this headline to someone in 2002 https://t.co/0fYTYKapRq

— Liam Stack (@liamstack) August 12, 2021

imagine showing that headline to some western liberal wanker politician in the 19th century - it would probably be quite reassuring to them

That up-thread photo of the Saigon evacuation is looking more germane than ever. Twenty years, countless lives, billions of dollars.. and for what?

I remember seeing some photos in late 2001 showing the bearded Special Forces guys on horseback, and thinking: "wow, maybe they're doing it right this time.. a small, surgical, limited action using local help.. this might work." Man was I wrong.

I can only imagine, once the Taliban has taken control of the entire country tonight or tomorrow or next week, that it's just a matter of time before something happens that draws international intervention again.

History has proven time and time again that the transition from bearded mountain fighters to capable, competent statesmen is a rocky one.. but I think Pakistan has secretly (or not so secretly) wanted them back in power for some time; not sure why.

" capable, competent statesmen "

I wouldn't be using this horrible bullshit phrase if I was from the US or even the UK because you can't equate power and wealth with competence.

Competence is measured by one's ability to form and reach difficult goals. The Taliban is extremely competent, but the difficult goals they aspire to are generally abhorrent to the standards of western liberals. Their competence at attaining their goals doesn't make those goals more palatable to anyone who believes, for example, that women should have a large measure of independence over their over lives, but the competence of the Taliban operating within the limits and strictures of their own society is obviously FAR beyond the competence of NATO nations operating within that same society.

Re: competence.

don’t know how to say this without sounding blackpilled or pro-Taliban, but one of the things that was true in 2009 was they took administrative competence 1000x more seriously than the Karzai government did, especially at the district level. Sounds like it hasn’t changed https://t.co/VQ09pFi94Z

— Nate (@inthesedeserts) August 13, 2021

You absolutely “gotta hand it to ‘em”

There’s basically no way to stop the Taliban from governing the country, as far as I can see, it’s just a question of whether it’s part of a national unity government or not.

reading all the posts before the time skip is pretty wild

bearded mountain fighters

wtf?

US should have never put down that big a footprint in Afghanistan in the first place, should have never invaded Iraq and a whole lot of other bullshit that has been tied to US Military industrial complex using Uncle Sam's credit cards for fun and profit across the world. Only saving grace of Trump's reign of error is that he did not accidentally stumble into starting the big one in Iran or North Korea - but knowing this stupid f'ing country, hey there is always next election cycle.

Were the Taliban ever not just going to retake the country the second we/anyone left, however they left?

They were already retaking the country and in doing so were inevitably going to force us/anyone else to leave, short of our committing insane amounts of resources to just hanging on to Kabul and a few other cities.

Al Arabiya is reporting that Ghani has stepped down and an interim government led by the Taliban is now running the country.

Hmm

Taliban spox speaking with BBC world rn. Says Afghanistan will be open for business with US and the US companies can keep on working on their public sector contracts

— M.S 🪁🌲🌳🌴🚴🚉🏙 (@ShaykShack) August 15, 2021

Probably casting a glance at Saudi Arabia and thinking, hey, if those assholes can rake in the big bucks, why stone ourselves in the foot when we can cash in first?

they do have guns in afghanistan

Blinken’s response to Tapper’s question on Taliban recognition:

“A future Afghan government that upholds the basic rights of its people and that doesn’t harbor terrorists is a government that we can work with and recognize.”

Says no aid/sanctions relief if they fail to do that.

— Arif Rafiq (@ArifCRafiq) August 15, 2021

Interesting to see how this will go down domestically.

Haven’t listened to NPR since about January 2017 and just turned it back on and nooooped the fuck out after about 3 minutes

tf do the NatSec assholes really think is going to happen when they push for this shit on the front end? Or on the back end of 20 YEARS of occupation? honestly hard to believe anyone takes these people seriously any more

“The Taliban is not the… North Vietnamese army… There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy… of the United States from Afghanistan" - President Joe Biden, July 8, 2021

Saigon, 1975 Kabul, 2021 pic.twitter.com/MKBymjduOM

— Nick Turse (@nickturse) August 15, 2021

was gonna say, 2nd post 15 years ago otm

President Ghani has fled the country.

this would be funny if it weren’t so unfunny

.

but I think Pakistan has secretly (or not so secretly) wanted them back in power for some time; not sure why.

― Andy the Grasshopper, Thursday, August 12, 2021 7:23 PM (three days ago) bookmarkflaglink

It is not a secret, Pakistan feared India would gain a massive foothold in Afghanistan and did a lot to prevent a complete disparition of Talibans, and is a sizeable part of why this whole thing is a failure. Once Russia and Iran started fuel and arm the Talibans it was too late for the US, even if it had the best intentions and a near perfect understanding of the region (it obviously had neither), success was impossible. Transforming a country on that scale is not something you can without neighbourhood nations being active positive stakeholders.

The whole withdrawal thing is a massive red herring if you care about interventionism anyway, I believe we are going to be drone bombing on a scale that we have never seen yet.

good lens to view the lasts 10 years of US policy in Afghanistan isn’t the intelligence/military failures, bad planning, or imperial hubris — but that it essentially became a huge defense spending and private contractor grift there was almost zero incentive to pul the plug on

— BO H (@bo_austin_) August 15, 2021

^^^^

the gravy train will continue via drone, I'm sure

Urgent!!!!

US army is blocking arrival commercial flights to Kabul airport. Many Afghan women were booked in flights to Delhi and Dubai and now they are stuck because US personnel and US citizens are more important than Afghan women who are the main and direct target. #cnn

— AAWA (@aawa_us) August 15, 2021

Watching the parade of retired generals and national security types repeat the crap of the last 20 years reminds me of that quote about the Bourbons: they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The only reason Old Man Biden didn't fall for the drivel (again) this time is his being in the same room when the generals snookered Obama and being in the Senate when the same generals snookered him and Bush.

xpost seeing images of the tarmac at the Kabul airport, it’s a good thing no commercial planes are allowed landing.

fuck off

Foreign Office blocks Afghan students from UK scholarships https://t.co/5jjQlQPlWJ

— Guardian Universities (@GdnUniversities) August 15, 2021

Go ahead Left, land a commercial plane on a tarmac full of people in a city that is under fire.

It’s the american military responsibility to get as many Afghans to safety, not Air India.

um I think it's up to Air India to make that call tbh

or do you still think the US runs the country?

very much in character for the US to do a last "fuck you" to the actual people of Afghanistan"

great fucking job they’re doing if that’s the case, which anyone can tell it never has been xps

It’s the american military responsibility to get [..] Afghans Americans to safety, not fuck Air India and the Afghans who bought tickets.

FTFY

(I do realize they are also evacuating translators fwiw, that seems legit)

or do you still think the US runs the country?

― sleeve, Sunday, August 15, 2021 5:12 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

They are, right now, in control of the airport on the military side and the airport itself is under fire.

And no, Air India can not take unilateral decisions of the kind in situations like these, and I have my doubts they will: it would be too big a risk for the pilots and more importantly for people on the ground.

is there no instance of US imperialism you won't defend to your dying breath?

(serious question)

I don’t see US imperialism in seeing a massive security risk, and I don’t see why that risk ought to be taken by civilians at the possible expense of civilians and I’m clear it is up to the US military to clean up that mess.

your version of the US military does not exist. the real one is coordinating with the taliban right now

Clearest indication the British Government will recognise the new goverment led by Taliban, and work with it. This was all planned sometime ago and that is why the Taliban controlled the country within 10 days. US-UK governments purposely allowed this to happen #afghanistan https://t.co/1ly10vGSEC

— مهيار (@Mehiyar) August 15, 2021

xxp I honestly have no idea what that sentence means

mind you, they've been doing it all along, if all those stories about multiple advance surrender negotiations and deals are true. The fearsome peasant warriors mainly talked their way to power.

— jamie k (@jkbloodtreasure) August 15, 2021

go ahead left

Land that plane

dream about me

NEW: Biden admin has curtailed the number of flights to the US for Afghans who worked alongside the US as it prioritizes the evacuation of American personnel from the country, three sources familiar with the situation told CNN.

— Jennifer Hansler (@jmhansler) August 15, 2021

Sorry if someone already posted

https://laurajedeed.medium.com/afghanistan-meant-nothing-9e3f099b00e5

xpost to Raymond: great article, thanks

yeah very good. sad, bitter.

My ex wife asked me about what was up with Kabul earlier tonight while we were waiting to pick up takeout dinner. She didn’t understand the whole thing.

I summarized in a rush, ultimately feeling empty and defeated.

Yeah, that article was a gut punch.

Got into an argument I totally regret with H over this, her taking the line that we should have stayed to protect women’s rights, leaving me in the always horrible position of arguing no we shouldn’t because it’s hopeless and our military isn’t even designed to do that. But it’s still the cynical asshole argument in the moment even if right in the long run. There’s no good position to take. That medium article has it right and I was team taliban.

There are roughly 3.5 billion women on earth. They all deserve good lives. I'm not sure that a nearly unlimited supply of military munitions are the correct means to secure that outcome.

So how do you solve a problem like the Talibans then? Not talking about an US perspective there, but like, how do you secure good lives for the 16 millions women when you face an armed fascist threat.

you are profoundly unqualified to answer that question, that's all I know

OTM

who among us feels qualified to state how to change Afghan society in order to make it accept western liberal ideology? if no one feels qualified, then calling VHS unqualified as all the rest of us isn't exactly a sick burn.

I don’t think it’s a sick burn so much as the point. Even asking the question of what is to be done assumes being in a position of opining on or deciding what is to be done, which I would venture to guess none of us are in or even have the right to be in.

Sometimes the world would be better off if Americans would just say “we aren’t the ones who should answer this question.”

I specified not talking from an US perspective.

then who is the "you" in that question? how is anyone supposed to answer that

are you asking for instructions on how you yourself can carry out a personal delta force mission in kabul

Promoting and facilitating increased immigration from Afghanistan to the US is a thing we could and absolutely will not do.

guys am i understanding correctly that the “security” situation in afghanistan is “deteriorating”

Old Lunch otm. Every person in Afghanistan who wants to come to the US — who dreads living under a newly empowered Taliban — should be allowed to do so.

As cynical as we all were about the prospects of “nation building” there, on the ground in afghanistan were people who thought their country could be better, who remembered secular regimes of past decades. The US didn’t help them build that country even as we said we would. There is a debt.

I don’t know how this could be done logistically but still — it’s stomach churning to think of what will happen to Afghans who worked with the US.

I suspect that decades of arming rogue elements then invading in order to defeat those rogue elements and displacing millions of people and destroying infrastructure and enabling warlord feudalism and then arming rogue elements etc is not the best way to help the people of Afghanistan.

Everyone knows the roots of Afghanistan's problems are in becoming a proxy site of the long cold war. Remove adventurism and provide redress through a transformed refugee and resettlement program that includes closing the vast UNHCR camps that people live in intergenerationally across the global South and provide amnesty for all millions of victims of ongoing legacies of colonialism welcoming instead of demonising all the people who have been made to flee from the violence that we have brought to their homelands.

I agree this sounds pretty far-fetched but compared to trying to change the political culture of another country on the other side of the globe using the tactic of sending people in with advanced weaponry, I would suggest this is the less far fetched.

In any case the immediate statements and actions by the UK home office show quite clearly how little change this is likely to make to the clueless mendacity of the ghouls that run this show.

Anyone serious about helping the people of Afghanistan now should be involved in putting extreme pressure on their governments to provide corridors for refugees and liberalise the asylum process. Everything else is bullshit and there's twenty (plus) years of history to prove it.

yes.

this is the level, step it up ppl

As cynical as we all were about the prospects of “nation building” there, on the ground in afghanistan were people who thought their country could be better, who remembered secular regimes of past decades.

Not saying these people don't exist, and fully behind the thing you're arguing for, but would like to say that anecdotally the only guy from Afghanistan I know, a friend of my parent's who v much remembered those secular regimes and desperatley wanted to go back, was never under any illusion that the US coming in would lead to his country getting better. Whether or not ppl buy the West's propaganda shouldn't be the standard for whether we have a moral responsibility to help them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12024253

worst timeline ever starting from 1838 here

who among us feels qualified to state how to change Afghan society in order to make it accept western liberal ideology? if no one feels qualified, then calling VHS unqualified as all the rest of us isn't exactly a sick burn.

― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Monday, 16 August 2021 bookmarkflaglink

Libs be defending each other now their project is in ruins is quite a sight to watch.

politely telling a the bullshit merchant Betamax to stfu is enough, no "sick burn" is required imo.

keep coming across tankies on Twitter celebrating this like it's some sort of great victory for anti-imperialism. cunts.

Yes but to have army racists saying 'nothing' to that question in the headline would be good.

I can think of a few good answers but what I will say is that this energy is going nowhere good, and it certainly isn’t going to either generate a better understanding of what happened and why, or the appropriate lessons to draw. pic.twitter.com/QAM2YRgbHQ

— Flying_Rodent (@flying_rodent) August 15, 2021

the last Tony Blair comment on Afghanistan was to an armed forces magazine 5 days ago, he's gone remarkably quiet on the subject since.

president of turkmenistan won't get off his phone probably

keep coming across tankies on Twitter celebrating this like it's some sort of great victory for anti-imperialism. cunts.

― A viking of frowns, (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Monday, 16 August 2021 bookmarkflaglink

What I'm seeing is that the West should not be directly involved and keep going with the withdrawal and other left wing people are calling on the UK to offer refugees a place here. Now I'm sure there are corners that are almost pro-taliban as much as tweets calling for the UK soldiers to get invade again (I saw one yesterday, it was mocked to shit and deleted in 20 mins) but its not huge numbers on either side.

it's hard to judge numbers, as always on Twitter, but I keep coming across them, the comments on this post have loads for example

This is heart-breaking. Back in 2019, these beautiful Afghan women from Afghanistan's first and only female-only orchestra were full of hope.

As the Taliban have invaded Afghanistan, women like them will be banned from singing. They'll be confined to their homes. pic.twitter.com/OenYV0DcgE

— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) August 15, 2021

meanwhile here's something we can all agree on

When BHL was dressed as a mujahideen pic.twitter.com/jcKex7jihc

— Daniel Zamora Vargas (@DanielZamoraV) August 16, 2021

It must be a feature of who you follow or something but I am seeing no such replies. Lots of weird bad takes of all sorts however.

Almost as though 280 characters is insufficient to say anything intelligible on this

The Kabul Airport. pic.twitter.com/FEjWsAkZal

— Tong Bingxue 仝冰雪 (@tongbingxue) August 16, 2021

jfc

"Our brave translators", says the Daily Mail. If my eyes rolled any further they'd roll out of my sockets and down my cheeks.

Sorry, my damn eyes, of course.

"it's hard to judge numbers, as always on Twitter, but I keep coming across them, the comments on this post have loads for example"

Some are saying the US is the invader but that by itself isn't anything. Mostly it's despair at the Afghans who were trained by the US or just sadness at the future for women by n the country.

replying to that that "the US is the invader" is not nothing

It's not a 'tankie' position by itself.

Germany brought back 22,500 litres of beer, wine and champagne from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile people were only given permission if they worked directly for the Bundeswehr in the last two years. No subcontractors, or older translators pic.twitter.com/jE51NmrrEe

— James Jackson (@derJamesJackson) August 16, 2021

The USA took 130,000 Vietnamese refugees in April 1975, so taking 170,000 Afghan refugees SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING@JoeBiden @SecBlinken https://t.co/hCDL0bR47j

— Viet Thanh Nguyen (@viet_t_nguyen) August 16, 2021

pic.twitter.com/2uEvobBijC

— Eli Clifton (@EliClifton) August 16, 2021

🤦‍♀️

Here are liberals, caring about women.

#BREAKING Macron vows EU initiative to protect against migrant flows from Afghanistan pic.twitter.com/qstcbkmAyI

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) August 16, 2021

well all they're going to do is move to poor neighbourhoods and FLAUNT their HEADSCARVES in everyone's FACES and refuse to learn French so i mean come on am i right people n'est-ce pas??

it's fucking disgusting

this piece of shit needs to die now

not the only one either, death to europe

maybe shouldn't have posted that, not because it's not true or anything

just jokes, but couldn't resist:

when they knock on Left's front door
how are they gonna come
with their hand on their keyboard
or the trigger of their gun

it's fucking disgusting

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 August 2021 bookmarkflaglink

It's the future.

well, one future. it's the one Sanpaku's been prophesying for some time.

guardian explains it all

The Guardian explaining Taliban to the zoomers. Strong distopia vibes. pic.twitter.com/IFiVGKwpi1

— Tadej Štrok (@tadejstrok) August 16, 2021

^ All very factual, but I'd quibble with the statement that 'in August, as western troops began to leave the Taliban started taking over territories'. They already controlled about 90% of the territory of Afghanistan when the summer started. They were simply mopping up the last remaining military resistance, which was nearly non-existent once foreign troops left.

started assembling a list of all the people I blame for the situation in Afghanistan. started off small with Reagan, both George Bushes, Brezhnev, Andropov, the CIA, the KGB, ISI, the Pakistani Army, Dostum, Hekmatyar, all of the Haqqanis, Osama bin Laden, Tony Blair,

— donna respirator (@AliceAvizandum) August 16, 2021

Didn’t the Carter Admin start arming the mujahedeen?

the british army was instigating coups there as far back as the 19th century iirc. it’s been an almost unbroken chain of war and meddling. (that’s not to de-emphasize the responsibility this current crop of meddlers have.)

What a vermin

We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on September 11, 2001—and make sure al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.

We did that—a decade ago.

Our mission was never supposed to be nation building.

— President Biden (@POTUS) August 16, 2021

was listening to some ghoul on the bbc earlier talking about how bad this is in terms of reputational damage to the Biden administration/US prestige _(´ཀ`」 ∠)_

The Russian Czarist government was also meddling in Afghanistan in the 19th century. The British called the imperialist struggle between them and Russians over control of central Asia "The Great Game".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcmDTX1JwQ

This is from the now former head of the Afghan central bank

3/There were multiple rumors that directions to not fight were somehow coming from above.

This has been repeated by Atta Noor and Ismael Khan.

Seems difficult to believe, but there remains a suspicion as to why ANSF left posts so quickly. There is something left unexplained https://t.co/1VnNl7QpRI

— Ajmal Ahmady (@aahmady) August 16, 2021

The terrorists keep posting Ws!

they have automatic rifles https://t.co/b82sAbP06x

— Owl-Avenger (@lionel_trolling) August 16, 2021

I don't think the Biden speech was bad? It's rare for a president to acknowledge failure and piss off the Beltway national security establishment. It was more than Ild have gotten from Obama, who believed the generals.

In the 19th century Afghanistan was seen as a potential soft underbelly for a Russian incursion into British India and that was a bigger curse for a poor agrarian country in that region back then than having shitloads of oil/mineral wealth in the 20th century.

It's rare for a president to acknowledge failure

But in the tweet he is considering it a success.

It was implicit in the tweet that not recognizing the completion of the mission "a decade ago" was a failure.

I thought the Biden speech was decent, if a little ineloquent. But maybe it's just refreshing to hear the 'buck stops here' stuff again after the trump debacle

It was implicit in the tweet that not recognizing the completion of the mission "a decade ago" was a failure.

― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Monday, August 16, 2021 3:22 PM (twenty-seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes, when he was vice president

Worth noting that while American media has coughed up every hack general and NSA spook decrying what's happened, the American public hasn't budged. Opposition to Middle East policy and perhaps foreign adventures generally is the last remaining bipartisan point of solidarity.

yes, when he was vice president

hence Alfred saying it's rare for a president to acknowledge failure

Since he didn't send in a MEF, I'll cut Sleepy Joe some slack.

Please RETWEET if you agree that America owes a debt of loyalty and honor to those Afghans who served as translators and aides to US forces in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, and that we must grant them visas and evacuate them from the country immediately to save their lives. pic.twitter.com/60HpASqWRy

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) August 14, 2021

I'm surprised this dumbass didn't make it a Minions meme

More terrorist videos.

pic.twitter.com/xFYRk2QLl8

— Yall hear that (@BloodsareCrips) August 16, 2021

In Afghanistan we are seeing the reality of what it means to flee. The world changes overnight. You grab what you can and run. If a smuggler says "I can get you to safety" you put your life in his hands and you pay what you can. There is no form to fill and no queue to join.

— Satbir Singh 🧡 (@SatbirLSingh) August 16, 2021

"I don't think the Biden speech was bad? It's rare for a president to acknowledge failure and piss off the Beltway national security establishment."

What about the thousands of Afghan civilians killed? Any thoughts on those?

Is that part of "The Great Game"?

the function of this speech isn't a maoist struggle session where 46 fesses up before his accusers to all the wrongs and cruelties of his predecessors and the policies of the war-machine he heads, it's to connect with and firm up the two thirds or so of the US voting public who wanted out, and to begin to shunt some small part of the kneejerk commentariat and the blob so-called in the direction of acknowledging this withdrawal as (i) a fait accompli and (ii) medium-term good not bad

in realpolitik terms the evident ugly downside of this is that even acknowledging let alone dwelling on continued humanitarian issues is instantly to offer up hostages to mission-creep back in, to garrison-think and recapture-and-protect: and we're already hearing these noises, because humanitarian rhetoric has been so deeply invaded and distorted in washington and elsewhere by the all-war-all-the-time factions (who are in some confusion currently but hardly diminished in presence or media access)

there's a case for team biden saying "this is a good speech" exactly (and only?) bcz clear positive audience response helps with this firming-up aspect -- turning the us public a little further away from global adventurism fingers x-ed (well, also i suppose bcz it burns the piss of various anti-isolationist uk melts and ghouls lol, tho i acknowledge this is a v trivial and parochial and shallow concern). basically the bit that's good is him saying something clearly adjacent to "we're bad at this shit and from now on we should cut it out"

The people who thought Joe Biden gave a great speech are the same people who thought American Beauty was a great movie.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 16, 2021

humanitarian rhetoric has been so deeply invaded and distorted in washington and elsewhere by the all-war-all-the-time factions (who are in some confusion currently but hardly diminished in presence or media access)

The most grotesque development of the last twenty years.

yeah, I have no answer to the current situation but samantha powering our way out of this is not my preferred route

To acknowledge the thousands of civilians killed and to talk of a plan in place to safeguard Afghans whose lives are in danger so that more aren't killed should be part of the speech or of that tweet instead of nonsense around Afghans not wanting to fight lol.

Notice anything about this picture of people escaping in a US plane? No women...odd...? https://t.co/VfgbSTHHKE

— Polly Toynbee (@pollytoynbee) August 17, 2021

Massively weird to lie about it.

today i saluted the afghanistan vet who lives on my floor and said "Suck My Dick Sir! Mission Failed" then went home and dead lifted 300lbs

— wint (@dril) August 17, 2021

nnt's brane moving along the same channel (possibly in the opposite direction):

The gym of the Presidential Palace in Kabul.
Not a single Taliban tried to deadlift. One of them pressed ~50 lbs. Tells you something about the strength of the other side. https://t.co/atIZVWBlMb

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) August 16, 2021

like you need to be ripped and be able to bench 90 with your dick to fire an automatic weapon!

I was watching Hearts and Minds the other night, lots of the conscripted US soldiers looked average build and not particularly ripped, it didn't prevent them from becoming genocidal killing machines.

Interesting thread on Sharia law

A thread about the Taliban & sharia law. Everyone knows the Taliban run a brutal and oppressive legal system. But there are different ways a legal system can be bad and understanding how the Taliban's is bad, and how it isn't, is crucial for understanding their enduring appeal 1/

— James E. Baldwin (@james_e_baldwin) August 16, 2021

Massively weird to lie about it.

🐦[Notice anything about this picture of people escaping in a US plane? No women...odd...? https://t.co/VfgbSTHHKE🕸
— Polly Toynbee (@pollytoynbee) August 17, 2021🕸]🐦

i think there's a fair chance the 2018 photo is the one she was was actually responding to and no one picked it up till too late (opinion writers aren't fact-checked particularly closely)

Biden’s speech was bad. It’s not the Afghans’ fault that the occupation was a giant grift for military contractors. It’s stupid to think we could help them build a competent administrative state while engaging in corrupt practices ourselves. Passing the blame unto them is not just hypocritical but evil.

Evil too is the impulse to demonize the refugees. The US needs to accept every Afghan who wants to come over. It is our fault that the Taliban is not only back in charge, but more powerful than ever.

Worth reading: especially note Fair’s point that 80-90% of US investment in Afghanistan ended up back in US economy, siphoned by contractors https://t.co/vt8ulq3wTU

— James Millward 米華健 (@JimMillward) August 17, 2021

gdi: https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-tech-conflict/afghans-scramble-to-delete-digital-history-evade-biometrics-idUSL8N2PO1FH

Evil too is the impulse to demonize the refugees. The US needs to accept every Afghan who wants to come over. It is our fault that the Taliban is not only back in charge, but more powerful than ever.

― treeship., Tuesday, August 17, 2021 11:22 AM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

US, Canada and Europe should welcome all refugees of course. But the Talibans are back because the Talibans are back, they had most of the country under their thumb before 9/11, they would be in power today if the US had never intervened, today they are hundreds of thousand of them, they regrouped, found weaponry and allies and have a much better understanding of Afghani culture than the Americans ever tried to have. It would be good to see some movements and their origins not as residual failures of American foreign policy but like as a real human active force that have their own reasons to oppose imperalism and impose their views of society and politics at home, they did pretty much the same to the Soviet Union.

those pesky talibans

[

real human active force

this alone is proof you have no idea what you're talking about

Well explain why then.

Heather Cox Richardson from today: "It strikes me that some of the same people currently expressing concern over the fate of Afghanistan’s women and girls work quite happily with Saudi Arabia, which has its own repressive government, and have voted against reauthorizing our own Violence Against Women Act. Some of the same people worrying about the slowness of our evacuation of our Afghan allies voted just last month against providing more visas for them, and others seemed to worry very little about our utter abandonment of our Kurdish allies when we withdrew from northern Syria in 2019. And those worrying about democracy in Afghanistan seem to be largely unconcerned about protecting voting rights here at home.
Most notably to me, some of the same people who are now focusing on keeping troops in Afghanistan to protect Americans seem uninterested in stopping the spread of a disease that has already killed more than 620,000 of us and that is, once again, raging."

<distantly, from the top of a huge mountain of skulls> ‘Well, perhaps now you see that inaction has consequences too.'

— Elvis Buñuelo (@Mr_Considerate) August 16, 2021

"real human active force"

Australian military in Afghanistan, 2007 pic.twitter.com/iUvhlOQvSV

— . (@ImReadinHere) August 17, 2021

“Nation building” in afghanistan was not only a mistake but a farce. There was so much corruption on the US side that we cannot possibly say we made a good faith effort to leave them with a competent military and government.

Still—there is a weird pleasure some seem to be getting from america’s humiliation that is grotesque to me. It is the afghans who suffered under the US occupation and it is the afghans who will now suffer under the taliban.

My outrage overall though is with Biden’s framing of the issue. “The afghans weren’t willing to fight.” Get the fuck out of here.

"there is a weird pleasure some seem to be getting from america’s humiliation that is grotesque to me"

it's called being the rest of the world, fule!

America can shrug this off though. Afghans can’t. Especially Afghan women and girls.

typical lib, can't even be honest that what you really care about is the decline of your rotten empire.

sorry, but why it is "grotesque" to you that people despise America?

You’re mixing me up with someone else.

"Still—there is a weird pleasure some seem to be getting from america’s humiliation that is grotesque to me."

I've not seen much knee jerk anti-US stuff around actually.

I listened to the most recent chapo and they seemed kinda giddy idk

yes but it is still possible to feel happy that American power seems to have taken a hit (even though it is probably quite an illusionary hit they have been quite willing to take) without coming out for the Taliban or not giving a flying fuck about summary executions etc

Sure.

It’s more the Biden position I hate though. The idea that this is the failure of Afghanistan, despite the US’s best intentions.

he's a near senile fuckwit, but what he said was quite clearly stated. It was addressed to his domestic audience more than the big world stage I think.

I'd say explaining to a domestic audience afraid of nuance that, in his mind, our policy for 20 years is almost as much to blame as Afghan perfidy counts as maturity.

Blaming the Afghans + terrible domestic advice is an example of maturity, in other words, and the Beltway press doesn't give a shit anyway.

He didn’t say that though

He said something like “we can’t fight for a country that is unwilling to fight for itself.”

"Afghan perfidy" covers his blinkered state of affairs.

I get the POTUS will never say 'we dropped the ball' and anyone who believes he would or even should is living in cloud cuckoo land. However, you can't occupy a nation already known for vast corruption, then enable even more corruption and blame the citizens or political leadership for being corrupted. Mentioning that he met the political leaders a month ago and asked them to clean up their mess is beyond the pale.

Very crucial point: USA didn't waste trillions in Afghanistan on nation building. It wasted trillions on money that mostly enriched American contractors. https://t.co/D0z7tVqd4t

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) August 17, 2021

The US did not merely enable corruption. Our presence there was a pretense for massive profiteering on the part of defense contractors.

We were not even seriously trying to set the Afghans up for success. It was a massive scam.

i think you have the US mistaken for one of those nice countries like NZ or Canada

New: Afghan ambassador in Tajikistan says President Ashraf Ghani escaped with $169m worth of cash in bags before Kabul fell to the Taliban, BBC reports.

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) August 18, 2021

how many bags do you think he'd need? enough to contain all the cash but not enough for people to notice

https://www.commoncentsmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/100-million.jpg

100-million.jpg

good morning!

Four cars full and too much to fit in a helicopter, so they had to leave a couple of million on the tarmac at the airport, if you believe the reports.

xp

"Anything to declare?"
"Just my two suitcases and these, uh, 40 bags of dry cat food. It's the only kind my cat will eat!"

Do we know for sure he wasn't just cosplaying as Mr. Monopoly?

Profiles in courage!

Grotesque spectacle of people mocking the democratic puppet ruler of Afghanistan

We should have stayed another 5 years in Afghanistan, given president moneybags some more time to build a coalition. Perhaps he was preparing to bring those bags around to the provinces to give them to the farmers

"real human active force"

“We’d make condolence payments of around $1,000 to $2,000... people thought, ‘Okay, this is fine, we paid them out’ — but you killed their fucking family. How could they not hate you forever?”

I talked to Afghan War vets.

Co-pub with @dailyposter https://t.co/cY41o1mlE6

— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) August 17, 2021

“I had to talk guys out of just shooting farmers because they thought it would be fun,” Kirell told me. “They literally didn’t care by that point.”

TIL that the largest dollarbill denom = $100 which scotches my own plan to run to the airport with $169m in notes >:(

guess i cd spend some of it on like 200 stout portage-minions

i thought we invented crypto so we didnt have to suffer the inconvenience of actual bags of actual money when doing illegal stuff

*image of former president of afghanistan near an ATM at the back of a pawn shop in Paterson, NJ, trying to convince owner to convert 42304.2312100 dogecoin to $500 million dollars*

I suppose the Talibans are neither humans, active, real or influential in the region.

Is there some reason you keep using a plural for Taliban? It's a plural noun: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Taliban