The U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan lasted 20 years. During that time, the people had all the time in the world to change and modernize if they had so wished to do so. They had plenty of time to populate and train an effective military, one that could have defeated the Taliban.
The American withdrawal wasn’t even complete before Afghanistan went back to being the nation it was before the 20 year occupation, and that means they never stopped being who they were and who they want to continue to be. The longest U.S. war in history was a complete waste of time, lives and money.
We have to stop meddling into the affairs of sovereign nations and let them run their own affairs. We’re completely bought into the idea that we have to “helicopter parent” nations around the world.
The leaked diplomatic call between Biden and Afghan President Ghani reveals the outside forces that brought down the government.
Pakistan’s involvement has been known for a long time. This is the first time I’ve learned the full extent.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been publicly condemned. The planning that went into this take over is shocking. The Taliban was fully locked and loaded to take over when we left.
IMHO It would have taken at least 40,000 US troops to stop a well supplied invasion supported by Pakistan.
Bolding is mine.
Yeah, no, not buyin’ it (referring to Ghani, I mean).
First, how does he know there are 10-15000 “international terrorists, predominantly Pakistanis”?
Second, okay… so what? It’s neither all that much of a surprise that there would be some level of support from Pakistan, particularly given the fluidity of the border, nor is it an overwhelming force he’s claiming is involved, going by the numbers. To the point I’d happily concede the point, but then I’d want to know why his government can’t handle that level of opposition.
The US did terrible things in Afghanistan and the outcome of its occupation there will horrific for the people, particularly those in urban areas who may have bought into the ways of life we promoted, and now must face persecution by the Taliban for their reliance. I wish Afghanistan’s “leaders" now in exile would focus on that, the humanitarian aspects and the worthiness of the people they left behind of our sympathy and aid, rather than making hamfisted attempts to justify how their totally not corrupt government collapsed in days even though they tried really hard.
Agreed. I think we have to be careful of confusing Kabul with the rest of Afghanistan. Even in our own country, we recognize that the prevailing attitudes along the heavily crowded coastal corridors isn’t necessarily reflective of how much of the interior US feels. It’s the same with Afghanistan.
Yeah, sounds like Ghani just imploring for the US to re-intervene in force at once (including leaning heavy on Pakistan) to save his arse. Can’t blame him for trying but does not mean I’ll take his word for it.
You have to first make sure you point to it being someone else’s fault, so you can then demand that THEY must be the ones who fix things (and position yourself to be influential in the exile community).
Doesn’t help they will find plenty of eager sponsors to give them a platform for the sake of assigning blame to the politically convenient.
That’s when Americans not there working the Embassy or with the military needed to leave. It is not when we should have started evacuating Afghans who might qualify for SIVs. Those people are only being let in because they are in danger in Afghanistan. When we assumed the Ghani government was not going to collapse, not only was there no assumption they were in danger, it would have undermined said government to start “brain draining” many of its people out of the country.
Yeah I’m a little skeptical 15,000 soldiers sent in by Pakistan, or with Pakistani blessing, were involved. Now, the Taliban has long operated on both sides of the borders, but I don’t believe without a lot more evidence than Ghani’s word, that anything like an organized column of Pakistani-government backed insurgents was involved.
I do think Pakistan gave varying levels of support for the Taliban for the entirety of the 20 previous years (they claim they stopped after 9/11), remember this is the country that was harboring Osama bin Laden. FWIW I don’t think Pakistan is some evil mustache twirling villains, the relationship between the civil government in Pakistan and management of its tribal areas, and management of terrorist/insurgent groups who operate in those areas, is a complex matter. I think in many areas Pakistan’s interests simply do not align with ours, Afghanistan being one of them.
I’m not absolving Pakistan, I’m just saying they have reasons for doing what they do. But I do think it is somewhat good that we’ve recognized the close relationship (which has been scaled back tremendously over the past 6-7 years) between us and Pakistan likely wasn’t the smartest thing on our part. Particularly because it was always a barrier to us having greater relationship and ties with India–a much more natural ally in the region than Pakistan could ever be.
Remember that goes back to the 1960’s Cold War era when India was a leading member of the non-aligned movement. The U.S. government at the time took a somewhat dim view of a seemingly socialist-leaning group that included Cuba, Yugoslavia and Nasser’s Egypt. Cynical realpolitik at the time thought it was a great idea to supply Pakistan with U.S. combat aircraft while India was choosing to load up with Soviet/Russian models (as well as assorted French and British designs). Even more so when post-coup Afghanistan was in the USSR’s pocket and then called in Soviet troops. Hard to reverse decades of previous administration policy.
Full Disclosure : I am a person of Indian origin, and have perspective influenced by the Indian narrative.
This is very Ironic. The United States sponsored the “Islamization” of Pakistan and moved the country away from Democracy.
In 1977, the democratic government of Pakistan was overthrown by General Zia Ul Haq, in a coup, with alleged help from the US. He would enjoy US support for more than a decade while the US fought, through proxy, the USSR in Afghaniztan.
To keep Pakistan in line, Zia made Islam the core for politics, education, women’s rights, law, …
In many ways Zia’s rule was like the rule of the Taliban - and the US overthrew a democratic government in Pakistan to Install a Taliban like government, because it suited the US needs !!
I knew the modus operandi of the US has never been the betterment of people in foreign countries but getting allies, and if the way to do it has been to install a brutal tyrant, as long as the tyrant was friendly to US geopolitical, military and commercial interests, they would be more than happy to do so, not caring even a little bit what that meant to the population itself. Didn’t know it probably also applied to Pakistan.
Oh please, this is 2021. There are no allies - Relationship between countries are transactional.
The only reason US is interested in India, is to counteract China, and India having just fought off a Chinese invasion knows that. But India (and frankly the whole world) doesn’t quite understand the US/China dynamic. US let
Hong Kong slide under the rug
Uighurs slide under the rug
Tibet slide under the rug
Tiananmen slide under the rug
…
India knows it is screwed and will have to find the Islamic militants in Kashmir and Chinese adventures in the north-east. And as the reality sinks in, India will prepare reluctantly to do so. For the US to be an ally, the US has to have the ability, desire and willingness to engage in these conflicts; which frankly it doesn’t.
What, in your opinion, should the US have done, or should do, about China?
Why does “the whole world” look to the US to do something about everything? And why does “the whole world” expect the US to act in their interests at the expense of its own interests and costs?
While I understand the arguments in the linked articles and have at times agreed with those positions, I’ve become less convinced that the world wants this kind of intervention in its affairs. More importantly, the first article states in its first point that America must first “rebuild”. Seems to me that’s the general attitude and approach of the current administration and what Americans as a nation want to be the priority. If the world sees this as America stepping back then perhaps it’s time they stepped up and took some responsibility for managing their own affairs. America does not hold the trademark on democratic principles and freedoms. If India thinks something must be done about China, then India should find a way to do so, and not wait for the US to fight its battles. Similarly with other nations.
That was 80 years ago. The world is a different place now.