Has the U.S. orchestrated a 'decent interval' in Afghanistan?

[Donald_Rump]

@adaher

If they were going to change, they would have done it.

If the US stops fighting to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, they might have slightly less beef with us than while our troops are stationed in their country shooting at them.

Al Qaeda are their allies. If they are allies by necessity because they need the fighters, then they aren’t going to turn on them when they get power back. If they are allies out of mutual respect and common goals, then of course we’re right back to pre-2001.

There’s a rather large excluded middle here. They can be partners with al-Qaeda in some capacity without the Taliban totally acquiescing in al-Qaeda doing whatever the hell they want. The last time they tried that policy, it brought down their regime and nearly killed the organization altogether.

In Sep 2001 when we demanded they hand Al Qaeda members over to us, they refused, either because they didn’t have the power or because they didn’t want to. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Agreed, the Taliban is unlikely to become a friendly government with a full-fledged extradition treaty with the United States any time soon. That’s a good reason to get mired in some backwater for 15 years+? My bar for justifying military engagement is a little higher I guess.

Not zero, but yes, that trick has been done. It won’t happen again, mainly because passengers aren’t going to cooperate anymore, not because TSA is particularly effective.

Agreed. That, and the fact that cockpit doors are locked.

The main risk now is shootings and bombings, and of course the biggest mass casualty risk is chemical, biological, or dirty bomb. It seems to me that the risk is high enough though that our return to Afghanistan is pretty likely.

Shootings: a risk this country is demonstrably willing to live with. I don’t see why Muslim fundamentalist shootings are any worse than pimple-faced misfit shootings, and the latter are a far more pervasive phenomenon.

Bombings and WMD attacks: I agree these are major security concerns. Effective policing and intelligence work seem to be more effective means of reducing such risks than regime change/nation-building. It’s also unclear to me how a Taliban/al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan per se makes such attacks on the US any more likely. Domestic lone wolf attacks using household items based on internet instructions? Sure. But some al-Qaeda dude learning the tricks of the trade in the hills of Afghanistan, hopping on a plane for JFK and launching mayhem in the middle of Times Square? Improbable.

Best to just prevent the Taliban from coming back.

Yes, that is best. Kind of like how IMO private jet is by far the best way to travel. Unfortunately, reality intrudes. We’re just going to prolong the dysfunction of Afghanistan as long as we refuse to allow local forces to reach some sort of equilibrium. The Taliban cannot be rooted out like some kind of tumor without inviting something even worse to spring up in its place.

Besides, if Al Qaeda and the Taliban returned to power, Al Qaeda’s recruiting would boom. Nothing recruits like victory.

Actually, something does: a target-rich environment provided by foreign troops on Muslim soil. Invisible drones raining death on wedding parties and hospitals help, too.

I agree about punitive raids, but the nature of punitive raids is that they have to do more damage to the enemy and the enemy’s interests than they are willing to accept. I’m not sure what we can do to al qaeda that dissuades them from attacking us.

That’s probably true of al-Qaeda, which is why I favor intelligence and policing over some ill-conceived attempt to just kill all the terrorists. Al-Qaeda is a multi-headed hydra. But the Taliban has no reason to piss us off as royally as they did on 9/11/01, ever again. And, not to be circular, but I also refer back to the question of capability: what is it that we’re actually afraid of these people doing to us?

Obviously we can’t build a nation out of Afghanistan, but we can keep the Taliban out of power. And at this point our casualties are really low due to our small footprint. If what we have there is enough to keep the Taliban out, and it seems to be, then there’s no reason to not keep them there for the next 100 years. The military brass could even make that deployment volunteer only for really gung ho types or those who want to accelerate their career.

If 5,000 guys a) succeed in keeping the Taliban out, without keeping Afghanistan condemned to a state of eternal dysfunction and b) don’t die or cost a lot of money to keep alive, sure, keep them there. But I’ll believe it when I see it.

[adaher]

@Donald_Rump

If the US stops fighting to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, they might have slightly less beef with us than while our troops are stationed in their country shooting at them.

What was their beef before, and why would they have less beef with us after our invasion than pre-9/11? And what about a total victory over the US would motivate them to break ties with their allies?

There’s a rather large excluded middle here. They can be partners with al-Qaeda in some capacity without the Taliban totally acquiescing in al-Qaeda doing whatever the hell they want. The last time they tried that policy, it brought down their regime and nearly killed the organization altogether.

The Taliban can’t restrain Al Qaeda. Heck, Pakistan can’t restrain Al Qaeda and Pakistan has a hundred times the military power.

Agreed, the Taliban is unlikely to become a friendly government with a full-fledged extradition treaty with the United States any time soon. That’s a good reason to get mired in some backwater for 15 years+? My bar for justifying military engagement is a little higher I guess.

Well, the direct attack on the US should have easily met that bar, and I’m not sure why there would be an expiration date.

Shootings: a risk this country is demonstrably willing to live with. I don’t see why Muslim fundamentalist shootings are any worse than pimple-faced misfit shootings, and the latter are a far more pervasive phenomenon.

Depends on their effectiveness and frequency, as well as who is targeted. Sure, if they attack a school, lots of crying and handwringing, but the nation moves on. If they attack the Congressional baseball game, then there will be calls for invasions of ten nations.

Bombings and WMD attacks: I agree these are major security concerns. Effective policing and intelligence work seem to be more effective means of reducing such risks than regime change/nation-building. It’s also unclear to me how a Taliban/al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan per se makes such attacks on the US any more likely. Domestic lone wolf attacks using household items based on internet instructions? Sure. But some al-Qaeda dude learning the tricks of the trade in the hills of Afghanistan, hopping on a plane for JFK and launching mayhem in the middle of Times Square? Improbable.

Right now Al Qaeda’s best people are concentrated on fighting an actual shooting war. Once that shooting war stops, then their best people come to the West. If the 19 hijackers hadn’t had an opening because our airport security was better, then they probably would have been planning something else. 19 smart, educated people working together can kill a lot of people. Not 3000, but certainly a few hundred, as in Mumbai. Just replace Mumbai with “the Watergate” and you have a spectacular, high casualty attack.

[QUOTE\Yes, that is best. Kind of like how IMO private jet is by far the best way to travel. Unfortunately, reality intrudes. We’re just going to prolong the dysfunction of Afghanistan as long as we refuse to allow local forces to reach some sort of equilibrium. The Taliban cannot be rooted out like some kind of tumor without inviting something even worse to spring up in its place.[/QUOTE]

What’s there now isn’t worse at all, it’s probably the best government Afghanistan has had in modern history. It’s good enough to be worth defending. And as we’ve seen, we can actually keep the Taliban out of power with few casualties. The 5000 we have there is enough to do at least that. No reason they can’t stay for 100 years.

Actually, something does: a target-rich environment provided by foreign troops on Muslim soil. Invisible drones raining death on wedding parties and hospitals help, too.

Those are great recruitment tools. But less good than victory. Martyrdom is attractive to a lot of fanatics. Victory is attractive to nearly any young man even if they aren’t a fundie. There’s also the small matter of our allies being willing to trust us.

If 5,000 guys a) succeed in keeping the Taliban out, without keeping Afghanistan condemned to a state of eternal dysfunction and b) don’t die or cost a lot of money to keep alive, sure, keep them there. But I’ll believe it when I see it.

We aren’t contributing to the dysfunction, we’re keeping it from falling back into the kind of dysfunction they had under the Taliban. The Taliban can’t even control all of Afghanistan anyway. They didn’t before, they won’t now even if we leave. But they can control enough to let Al Qaeda recruit and work towards attacks on the West again. Nothing in that regard has changed. If the Taliban want us off their backs, they can turn over their al qaeda allies or stab them in the back themselves. We’ve been willing to talk to them for awhile now and some talks have taken place. They simply are not willing to sunder their alliance with al qaeda.

[Ryan_Liam]

Welp, looks like I’m right.

Washington Post
The two-day meeting brings key Afghan power brokers together with the insurgents to discuss ending the war that began with the ouster of the Taliban from power in late 2001 and follows up on an earlier such meeting in Moscow in November. Ghani’s government was invited to participate but declined to do so this time because the meeting did not provide for direct talks with the Taliban, and the attendance of Ghani’s rivals would put them on an equal footing with the government, officials said.

Afghan government frozen out of Moscow peace talks with the Taliban

It sucks, what happens when we leave?

[XT]

@Ryan_Liam

Welp, looks like I’m right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afghan-government-frozen-out-of-moscow-peace-talks-with-the-taliban/2019/02/04/b9670c46-286a-11e9-8eef-0d74f4bf0295_story.html

It sucks, what happens when we leave?

What were you right about??

As to the question, if we leave without a stable peace settlement and as things stand then my WAG is the whole house of cards comes down and the civil war continues with renewed vigor. My further WAG is that, after years of bloodshed, the Taliban regains some measure of power throughout the country, but that they aren’t able to completely consolidate and the bloodshed and slaughter continue on for another decade or so…kind of like what happened after the Soviets left Afghanistan, but probably with less foreign fighters coming in to ‘help’ this time. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t no win situation with no good options except maybe a brokered peace and power share deal…which doesn’t look like it’s got a very good chance of happening or working.

[WillFarnaby]

Adaher why do you refuse to acknowledge that AQ can set up in plenty of other places. Places that are more conducive to attacking US targets. 9/11 was planned and carried out all over the place. AQ has shown no ability to attack in a meaningful way that justifies US occupation.

9/11 was a fluke due to poor security measures. Counterterrorism spending is through the roof in so many aspects since 9/11. The war in Afghanistan has been a cause for several terrorists since our invasion, including Ft Hood, Orlando nightclub, and Boston Marathon.

[Ryan_Liam]

@XT

What were you right about??

That the US have orchestrated a decent interval. It sucks, because we actually did try and install a legitimate government in Kabul, and it does have some measure of popularity despite all the negative press. The dysfunction it has I guess is too overwhelming for it ever to be effective against the Taliban.

[XT]

@Ryan_Liam

That the US have orchestrated a decent interval. It sucks, because we actually did try and install a legitimate government in Kabul, and it does have some measure of popularity despite all the negative press. The dysfunction it has I guess is too overwhelming for it ever to be effective against the Taliban.

I think this presumed that it was the US intention all along to cut and run, but I don’t buy it. I think, rather, we tried and seem to have failed…not that I expect anything we did would or could make a huge difference. The dysfunction is just too deep, and really if we wanted to ‘fix’ this, it might have been better to try when the Soviets withdrew, if even then we could have made a difference (:dubious:).

If you want to talk about dark strategies, I think a more plausible one for the US is that this was all about basically keeping the regional terrorist groups thinned out and focused on trying to bag their limit of Americans in their own neck of the woods, instead of coming here to wreak havoc. THAT might be plausible, though I don’t think that was the primary driver for the US to stay all this time…I think it was just part of the overall strategy.

[Martin_Hyde]

There’s no more evidence for your “Decent Interval” theory, which conflates American involvement in Afghanistan with our involvement in the Vietnam war, and which postulates a similar outcome, in 2019 than there was in 2015.

While it’s unfortunately rare we get such unvarnished reporting on Taliban activity–it remains a huge problem that the media produces maps and stories talking about terrorist group activity and conflates it with terrorist group “control” of territory–a 2018 BBC report showed that while the Taliban have indeed increased the number of districts in which they are active, in a worrying fashion since 2014 (which is when major combat troop withdrawals of the international coalition occurred), the Taliban only have “full control” of 4% of the territory of Afghanistan.

Going back to the false “Decent Interval” theory, to be akin to the Vietnam War, the Kabul government would have to be akin to the South Vietnamese government–i.e. wholly unsupported by the public, and wholly unable to defend itself. The Taliban would have to equate to the North Vietnamese–a well established, independent country with a strong military backed by a superpower (Soviet Union.) Then after the “Decent Interval” the Taliban will waltz mostly uncontested across the landscape, the Afghan capital will fall, all major cities will fall, and the international community will then accept the fait accompli that North and South Vietnam are no longer countries, and there is just a singular country–Vietnam.

I don’t expect almost any of that to happen, for reasons I laid out back in 2015. I do think the Kabul government continues to show weakness, and I’m worried for its future, but the Taliban is just one hyper-focused-on-by-Western-media group in what will be more of a “divvying up the pie” situation if the tenuous alliances that allow the Kabul government to exist fall apart. There are other major groups that are bigger and more armed than the Taliban that would emerge if the current alliance (which does have begrudging support from a rough majority of Pashtun Tribes and a rough majority of Tajik tribes) fell apart. The Taliban were able to win the post-Soviet Civil War largely due to massive support from Pakistan and complete lack of support from outside Afghanistan for any of its enemies.

[Martin_Hyde]

Even beyond all that, we have to posit a scenario in which, the U.S. sits on the sidelines if things do get really bad, which isn’t necessarily likely based on recent evidence. Barack Obama all but established his national political identity with early opposition to the Iraq War and interventionism in general. He championed a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq early in his first term. And by the end of his Presidency we had thousands of soldiers deployed to Iraq fighting in active combat operations against ISIS.

This basically happened because of the damaging political narrative of letting a country just be taken over by a terrorist group, once the situation on the ground made it un-equivocal that was what was happening, there was significant international and even domestic pressure on Obama to act, and he did. I don’t think he was ever enthusiastic about it.

While their narrative shifts based on who is in office, the reality is GOP-lead government is if anything more likely to go to war over excessive growth of Muslim terrorist groups than Democratic-lead government, so I would not be shocked to see the Trump Administration re-engaging in Afghanistan if the Taliban starts to win embarrassingly.

[Ryan_Liam]

I know he’s banned and it’s been nine years but boy how you were wrong Martin

[spifflog]

You resurrected a five-year-old zombie thread to poke a banned poster in the eye - who isn’t even going to see this - so you can say you were right?

[What_Exit]

This doesn’t need to be revived to reply to a Banned Troll.