I don’t know exactly why the outgoing regime’s soldiers weren’t paid.
I do know why the Taliban’s soldiers were paid. They were, and are, indirectly paid by foreign heroin users, the biggest market being the United States.
As explained here, more than half of Afghanistan’s export revenue comes from opium sales:
Only the Taliban could tax that — the elected government was forbidden to do it by their western allies.
I believe that the more corrupt government lost. But funding coming from western heroin users was decisive.
I don’t see how those two propositions are incompatible with one another. Unfortunately, it seems that Afghanistan did decide its own fate. From a certain point of view. Not necessarily one representative of the wishes of the majority of the population, but among those who held onto and were looking to keep holding onto the reigns of power beneath the national government in Kabul—whoever that happened to be.
No not really. Unless you’re aware of any American Indian tribes who have no contact with the U.S. government and who shoot arrows at any approaching outsiders. Are you familiar with any American Indian tribes who do that?
Anyway, my suspicion is you’re simply annoyed someone mentioned your country. Here we actually get to have opinions and express thoughts on other countries even if residents of those countries would prefer we did not. Since I don’t think this line of discussion furthers anything in regards to the discussion about Afghanistan I do not intend to continue participating in it. I would advise not wasting further effort asking me if x random American thing is like something in India, I shan’t be responding.
Are you familiar with any Afghanistan tribes who shoot bow and arrows at people ?
Since - now you are swinging to the other end of tribal presence - are you saying Brazil is like Afghanistan because it has bows and arrows tribes in the rain forest ? BTW - don’t the tribes in Canada / US club seals to death ? How is that not primitive ?
I think, you simply lumped India into your tribal profile of Afghanistan, because they are both brown, maybe ? I still don’t understand how the Tribal populations of India are like Afghanistan but the Tribal populations of USA / Canada are not ?
I perfectly respect and support your decision to not respond further.
This evergreen Silicon Valley clip exemplifies how decision makers can be caught off guard by the situation on the ground not going according to predictions:
Michael Waltz has raised the point that our abandoning of Afghanistan will undermine our ability to find allies in future conflicts. I actually think the point he is making is undermined by precisely the examples he points to–Cuba and Taiwan. If the Cuban people through mass popular revolt end the Communist regime on that island, we should embrace them with open arms. But we should not attempt to involve ourselves in the internal affairs of Cuba, particularly if the actual percentage of anti-regime people is relatively small. With Taiwan, the only conflict Taiwan is likely to be in is one with China, and it’ll be a conflict for their survival. The idea that somehow they “wouldn’t want to ally with us” is fanciful since the only remote chance they would have to remain independent in such a conflict would be with U.S. support.
The reality is we shouldn’t want allies like we had in Afghanistan. The failure in Afghanistan is we were attempting to create a vision for a country that most of the people in that country didn’t buy into, our “allies” were a bunch of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who just misspent much of the money we gave them (assuming they didn’t pocket much of it, who knows.)
We should be looking to limit our military activities to things that directly affect the material well being of America or our close allies. Those alliances should be naturally mutually beneficial, when they are not, we should reassess participating in the conflict. Examples of some successful relationships like this would be our second round of Iraq in the 21st century–when we worked with local militias and the Iraqi military to push ISIS out of Mosul and other areas of Iraq. That was an alliance built on mutual benefit and in which we made sure that we were supporting something that had broad support on the ground, we were not trying to impose an American desire onto a bunch of people who didn’t hold it–the vast majority of Iraqis wanted ISIS the fuck out.
That’s not what your link says. They never offered to hand him over. They offered to conduct their own trial of his crimes, in accordance with Sharia Law. The US needed to hand over their “evidence” (military intelligence) linking Osama to 9-11, and the Taliban would try him in their own court. They never offered to hand him over.
Once the bombing started, the Taliban stated they would “discuss” handing over Bin Laden if the US stopped bombing. “Discuss” handing him over to a “3rd Party”. That’s quite different than actually attempting to hand him over to the US. “Stop bombing us and we will talk about it” is different than “Here he is! Stop bombing us and he’s yours!”. And it’s very different than, “You said you would start bombing unless we turned him over? Here he is! All yours!”
I don’t always agree with Frum, but here is what he said today on The Atlantic website.
It is a long article, so I quite the ending as an excerpt.
“Maybe the most important lesson to take from the outcome in Afghanistan is the steep strategic cost of America’s fierce partisan polarization. Decisions in Afghanistan by Republicans and Democrats alike were driven much more by domestic political competition than by realities inside Afghanistan.
George W. Bush couldn’t afford to quit Afghanistan when he should have, early in 2002. John Kerry and Barack Obama were compelled to overpromise about Afghanistan despite their own misgivings. Donald Trump backdated a debacle because he wanted a seemingly cheap win for 2020.
Through the Cold War, the U.S. found methods to manage foreign policy that rose above party. Since 1990, the U.S. has succeeded less well at this essential nonpartisan task, and in the 21st century, even worse than that.
We are surely headed to another vicious round of foreign-policy partisanship after the fall of Kabul. For five years, pro-Trump voices have championed protectionism, isolationism, and the betrayal of allies such as Estonia, Montenegro, and the Syrian Kurds. Trump himself envisioned U.S. foreign policy as more or less a protection racket, with payments due from aspiring U.S. partners both to the United States Treasury and to his own enterprises. Now those advocates of a predatory “America Alone” will try to retcon themselves as defenders of U.S. strength and leadership.
Over the next weeks, pro-Trump critics of Biden will astonish the world with their shamelessness, as they convert from attacks on endless wars to laments for the last helicopter out of Saigon. That shamelessness will prove more effective than it deserves to—but less effective than it needs to.
The brave lives lost in Afghanistan, the money squandered there: those will haunt American society for a long time. But the new possibilities opened for the United States, the freedom of action recovered, the future waste now prevented—those will be realities too.
The material, economic, financial, and moral assets that make America strong—the United States still possesses all of those. The domestic political dysfunction that leads to politics-instead-of-policy—that, and not the iconography of helicopters out of Kabul—that’s the weakness now to overcome.”
Also, in the case of his specific example of Cuba, it was made pretty clear that the US was not going to intervene to overthrow the communists directly… since April of 1961. And more in general, the notion that if the USA says the ruler of your country must fall and you rise against them , we won’t leave you hanging, was knocked down again after Gulf War 1.
Some people don’t seem to have been paying attention.
Or along those lines–Trump made some grandiose claims about the Venezuelan opposition to Maduro, but ultimately showed he wasn’t willing to deliver material support. (Trump mostly made these claims to curry votes in Florida from the Venezuelan population there.)
Trump deserves a large share of the blame as well. His abandonment of the Kurds in Syria was shameful, and he set the stage for the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden’s contribution was to screw up the withdrawal, stick to the plan when he saw it was likely to fail hard, and lie to the Americsn people about the likely consequences
Plenty of blame to go around. For the left, they got stuck in Afghanistsn when they insisted it was the ‘good war’ that was being short-changed by the focus on Iraq, as a means to attack the Iraq war. Then when they had the Presidency they had written themselves into a rhetorical box. Then the Republicans did the same damned thing to the Democrats.
Frum is right. Domestic partisan politics led to this mess, and both sides are at fault. But Biden is presiding over the terribly managed end game.
The world is watching this, and America is going to pay a very high price. Watch as countries on the fence move away from America’s sphere of influence.
I frankly disagree, I don’t think we will pay a significant price–beyond the very large one we already paid by wasting 20 years and vast resources in Afghanistan. I’d be interested to see what “on the fence” countries would materially alter their plans vis-a-vis the United States over this.
Yeah, I think Waltz is simultaneously a bit on, but also mostly off, with his Taiwan example. The situation in Afghanistan is day-and-night different than Taiwan’s.
But - the withdrawal does show that Biden is “putting America first.” Which is, ironically, what Trump ran his campaign on but didn’t actually do. The less and less intervening in Taiwan is in America’s interests, the more nervous Taiwan should be - and it is indeed becoming less and less in America’s interests.
What do you bet not a single U.S. general will lose his job for this military fiasco? You guys will fire a general for sleeping with a woman other than his wife, but for providing ludicrously optimistic intelligence estimates and being completely unprepared for the country’s collapse? Eh, it happens.
Naah, they’ll dig up enough reports that did say otherwise but were shoved to the back of the drawer, to provide enough cover. [sarcasm] Because for sure, our TRUE Magnificent Thankyouforyourservice Heroes, THEY were telling the truth all along and knew what needed to be done… if only higher-ups and chattering civilians had not tied their hands… [/s]
It’s somewhat hard to fire the Generals for it since I suspect they were actually taking orders from the Pentagon’s civilian leadership. We do know that retired General McCaffery who did one of the blunt and honest assessments of Afghanistan during the Bush Administration, his report was widely available to the upper brass, and the political leadership. It was simply dismissed out of hand. That isn’t to say there are not high ranking military leaders who, for various reasons, were willing participants in the deception. I just think it most likely that civilian leadership had a hand in perpetuating it across three administrations. Because the civilian leadership doesn’t want people asking too many questions or digging too deeply into why we kept giving inaccurate military briefings for 20 years, I suspect the Generals are safe in their jobs. Fired Generals write books and go on TV shows, and can say things that might hurt the career of political officials involved.
Apologies if this has been covered, but why didn’t any other group fill the vacuum while the Taliban was the main American target? I am not a bit surprised that a western style government didn’t take hold, but I am surprised another militant group didn’t step into the gap. Surely handing the country to a terrible, backwards thug who would play ball with the US is better than terrible, backwards thugs who hate the US.
It’s kind of two fold. On the Mujahadeen side it’s the same reason the Taliban became “the” pre-eminent Pashtun Mujahadeen group to begin with–they had outside help and specifically money. They have most likely continued to get funding from Pakistan the whole time. I don’t believe this is proven, as Pakistan’s official position is they stopped funding the Taliban after 9/11, but it’s one of those “secrets” like the Israeli nuclear program, most people who are in the know seem to widely believe the Taliban has continued to be Pakistan funded the whole time. The Taliban has also always controlled at least some rural areas of Afghanistan, and while it may seem like those rural areas don’t produce much of value, one thing they do produce is fuck tons of opium. The Taliban I think is the world’s largest dealer of raw opium poppies and reap a huge amount of money from that trade. What this means is that the Taliban basically can offer you a stable paycheck and such, if you’re a youth who is prone to joining a Mujahadeen group.
Now the other aspect is during the 2000s, a number of tribal warlords, some of whom had significant power of their own, were gradually defanged. One of the core issues with he Afghan National Government is the leaders it has had (Karzai and Ghani) have ties to some domestic Afghan skullduggery and always have. They actually used their control of the government to undermine and neuter these warlords. The argument was that a stable democracy can’t really function with tribal warlords in its borders, but there is more to it than that, the reality is many of these powerful warlords came from non-pashtun ethnic groups, so were basically seen as enemies by Karzai and Ghani. Karzai in particular used his 14 years at the helm largely to go after non-Taliban tribal enemies. Karzai himself is actually the tribal leader of the Popalzai Durrani tribe of Kandahar, so he was pretty deeply involved in these tribal and ethnic issues.
