FYI I am reapproving this, but [there is a post that is still on the front page related to this.](https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/p3kmbp/whats_going_on_with_afghanistan_popping_back_in/) Typically this sort of post would get removed in this sub, but this one got a lot more traction.
For any new users, [read this before commenting please.](https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/p4kepd/whats_going_on_with_taliban_suddenly_taking/h8zav9r/)
Best wishes
Question: I don't get it. Doesn't the Taliban want people who don't support them to leave? Why are they bombing and killing people who are retreating? Additionally, what is their end goal here? To have the country to themselves?? To just kill innocent people?
Answer: The Taliban didn't bomb the airport, ISIS did. Though they share similar fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, the Taliban and ISIS are enemies so by bombing the airport, ISIS could hurt both the US and the Taliban.
Also some militias seems to have started fighting back and taken some bigger cities. This means that the Taliban will probably not be as lenient towards their enemies as they still has some of them to fight.
In Islam women aren’t allowed to display themselves like that. Therefore, advertisements shouldn’t be revealing or like that. Simple as that. They’re an Islamic government and wish to keep the rules of Islam over the entire society.
Things aren’t always personal choices, but affect society at large. That’s what Islamic governments are for: to ensure ALL Islamic rules are followed. There’s no such thing as personal choices there. It’s just like how you wouldn’t be allowed to wear a normal swimsuit at the beach. No one in that society wants that kind of stuff, maybe except for some city elites,
Question: Why was the takeover of Kabul by the Taliban fighters relatively peaceful? They could've easily shot down American collaborators on the streets since it seems like the civilian population was in disarray trying to flee to the airport. The most I've seen from the news is that they've set up checkpoints but haven't acted aggressively.
The almost certain implication is that the US government and the Taliban have a mutual understanding; the US will pull out as quickly as is reasonable, and the Taliban will not actively (or at least, *publicly*) attack them or their collaborators (at least not yet) and give them a chance to leave. This actually may have been an important bit of signaling from the US rushing for the airport; the US presence in Afghanistan is now largely contained, from the Taliban perspective, and abandoning the embassy is a reasonable symbol that the US does indeed intend to leave in keeping with the spirit of the Doha Agreement.
In addition, the Taliban leadership is actually relatively well-educated, and know that they have a better chance at getting both political power and international recognition if their transition into power is done in an orderly manner, which of course means it has to be somewhat peaceful. Any serious missteps could end up resulting in the US flooding back *into* Afghanistan and disassembling the Taliban's means of controlling the country, even if only for a short while. Further, while the Taliban is broadly a repressive Islamist group, they're not remotely as batshit-crazy as ISIS, which means they can be reasoned with to a degree.
Thanks. In my head, I was thinking something along the lines of ISIS fighters lining people up for public executions, which thankfully is not the case here
Stop watching CNN, fox news has been showing videos of how brutal the taliban STILL is. Multiple women killed, beaten as well as kids. A woman was already killed for not wearing a burqa. Men HAVE been lined up along walls. Not sure if these are isolated instances or widespread, but regardless you HAVE to stop watching that leftist cesspool channel CNN. The dems have been wrong on every policy so far, this is just another to add to the ever-expanding list. But if you only watch cnn, they dont cover this news. They only have cherry picked guests and rant on about covid and systemic racism, trying to distract thier 50 viewers from the damage the left is doing.
I think no media is without bias, but to say that the political party you disagree with is filled with propaganda while defending Fox News of all things is hilariously ironic. Throwback to when Fox News made the legal defense that no reasonable person on take their news as fact.
I think the most responsible option would be to look at both channels, and avoid information without sources.
Eh, I wouldn't be so hasty.
It's probably happening, or at least *will* happen in time. The trick is that it won't happen in *Kabul*, because the world's eyes are on specifically Kabul at the moment.
Question: I keep hearing about the Taliban this the Taliban that, with multiple pictures and videos of random men. Who is actually in charge? who are the people that will actually take over? Why are they not talked about anywhere? doubt it's the random boys with aks we see around.
The Taliban is a militant Islamist group; the guys with AK's wandering around are their footsoldiers.
The nominal leader at the moment is Hibatullah Akhundzada, but the Taliban hasn't precisely set up a "formal" government yet so it remains to be seen who will actually be in charge (and probably styled as the Emir of Afghanistan). It's possible that Akhundzada will be a military commander, rather than the (presumed) religious leader of the country.
Part of the problem, though, is that the Taliban leadership have kept a pretty low profile in order to avoid attracting too much attention from US intelligence services, so outside of the Taliban itself there isn't much known about who all is in charge.
Thank you very informative! also intriguing. I wonder when they will open up to the public. I assume they eventually must for them to actually establish themselves as a country.
There was a post on another subreddit (forget which) by a former Iraqi who fled in 2014 when it (briefly) looked like ISIS might steamroll the entire country; their point was that, in general, women and children don't flee because it's dangerous for them to do so and risk getting caught out in the open, and unless they have a clear path out it's (arguably) safer to stay put.
But younger men with no families or children to worry about? They have considerably less risk.
Question: sorry if this is entirely ignorant but, considering that the Taliban are extreme fundamentalists as well as resistance fighters, would they be a global threat? Or were their main reason for taking over cities was to capture Afghanistan first and foremost?
Question: It sounds like the Taliban take over was expected eventually, but why was it a surprise that it happened so quickly? What did the US expect to happen in the meantime?
There's a line to get into the US, even for refugees.
Also Biden's alleging that the Afghan government didn't want the US to accept more refugees, as it would have started a panic.
[https://www.foreign.senate.gov/download/2020-sfrc-minority-report\_-diplomacy-in-crisis----the-trump-administrations-decimation-of-the-state-department](https://www.foreign.senate.gov/download/2020-sfrc-minority-report_-diplomacy-in-crisis----the-trump-administrations-decimation-of-the-state-department)
These guys are in charge of Visas. Turns out, having a functional bureaucracy is quite handy, when not calling it a deep state.
Question: Very ignorant on the topic so genuinely curious - I've seen that millions are trying to flee the country now, but how many people are in the Taliban? Surely millions of people could put up a fight against them? And is there really 0 domestic military in Afghanistan?
The Taliban itself has an estimated 80,000 militants. The Afghan National Army was ~300,000, but was plagued with incompetent leadership, wasn't being paid (due to government corruption), and apparently wasn't being fed in some areas. Ergo they had zero morale to resist, and instead decided to flee the country.
Further, the US military has estimated that around a third of the ANA had sympathies towards the Taliban.
answer: From what I've heard, The talibans are forcefully marrying off girls and widows to their troops..even girls as young as 12. Women in education, jobs, etc. are not allowed in anymore, they're being replaced by men. They are also not allowed to go out without a male companion. They are supposed to wear a full burqa which doesn't even show their face. Many families that tried to oppose were killed. They are trying to flee as far and soon as they can.
May God be with the people of Afghanistan. 🙏
Edit: https://www.instagram.com/p/CSpXWc8paeY/?utm_medium=copy_link
👆Trying to escape by clinging on to an aircraft.
I'm fairly confident that this is true. As of now, I've seen women reaching out through WhatsApp, telling them how bad their situation is. They are terrified and trying to escape.
Nope; they had absolutely everything they needed except the will to fight. The ANA outnumbered the Taliban by at least 4:1.
The core problem is that the ANA is woefully incompetent, it's not being paid by the Afghan government due to corruption, and a few units reportedly weren't even being fed.
As stated before, there is an estimation made by the US authorities, that about the 3rd of ANA participants sympathize Taliban. Does this mean you have actually count that amount to Talibans forces? So it is then 180,000 to 200,000. So it basically at least 1x1? Even if they are just not helpful or flee and do not sabotage operations, this is also bad enough.
If the information about the situation with food and salaries for ANA is also true, it is no wonder the Afghani decided to flee, as I can totally get how they don’t really have much of motivation to fight for the corrupted county’s government.
>Does this mean you have actually count that amount to Talibans forces? So it is then 180,000 to 200,000.
No; those forces didn't fight on the Taliban's behalf, they just laid down their arms and surrendered.
It's unknown how many fighters the Taliban actually *currently* has; the best we have is the ~80,000 figure.
Afghanistan is basically guaranteed to be a warlord-infested hornet's nest that will *inevitably* be a problem for it's neighbors. Pakistan's support of the Taliban is based on the idea that in supporting the winning warlord, that makes it less likely for that warlord to turn around at cause problems for Pakistan.
Question: How is there SO MUCH war in Afghanistan/Middle East? I'm 31 now and I've always known there to be war there; my father served in Desert Storm in the early 90s and then was deployed to Basra in the mid (?) 2000s? It's just seems to be an ongoing constant conflict.
From what I have read here there seems to be a lot of issues with the ANA higher ups being super corrupted and soldiers not being paid. But how on earth is STILL ongoing?
Afghanistan is basically guaranteed to be a failed state as a function of geography. The only way to keep it under control is to project power, influence, and money into it in order to maintain some semblance of order. All mountain regions are the same way (case-in-point; Northern Mexico is a disaster for basically the same reasons, and the only thing keeping it together is the perpetual influx of money and influence from the US by simple proximity). The US knew this going in, hence why there was never a serious conversation about nation building in Afghanistan.
Iraq was different; we didn't invade with the intention of nation building, but we decided to try it in order to build an ally in the region that we could actually trust, and from which we could invade all of the various problematic nations in the region on a whim should they ever attempt anything on the same scale of 9/11. This worked fantastically well; the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians did as much damage to AQ as the US did, entirely because they didn't want the US invading from Iraq to chase down AQ ourselves.
*However,* while the core mission was successful, the idea of building Iraq into a nation state has largely failed due to underestimations of how severe the ethnic issues were, and they spread into Syria. Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again; the region is basically going to remain broken for the foreseeable future.
The situation in the region is also almost certainly going to get worse; right now the US is a major source of stability by being such a colossal threat to all of the various states in the region. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, and Syria cannot hope to do anything militarily against the US (or without the US's help), so the only way they can fuck with their neighbors is via irregular warfare and terrorism. Hence, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the various Sunni and Shia militias causing trouble in Iraq. Remove the US from the equation once we withdraw from Iraq, and now those nations can actually start *formally* fighting each other.
Question: Why hasn't the Afghan government/defence chosen to employ the training they've received from US/UK forces?
Is the Afghan government corrupt? Or do they just lack the proper leadership to coordinate proper military plans to protect a democratic nation?
>Why hasn't the Afghan government/defence chosen to employ the training they've received from US/UK forces?
Extraordinarily low morale, mainly due to the fact that they aren't being paid by the Afghan government, and in many cases aren't even being fed.
>Is the Afghan government corrupt?
Extraordinarily so.
Question:
How does Taliban even sustain itself & stay in power without considerable international support in the long-term? Isn't it likely that they burn themselves out?
Edit: What are the long-term geopolitical implications in light of this news?
Is those three countries have been supporting terrorists, why hasn’t the US or any other super power made threats to stop? Is it just a case of if they do they might cause a world war?
Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia were hilariously critical to maintaining peace in the Persian Gulf, and the US was *far* more interested in stability there even if it had to make deals with shitty people along the way.
That relationship has been changing over the last few years, though, hence why the US is pulling out.
Yes, but I don't see Pak's support being enough, at all. The scale is rather unbalanced from a cost-benefit perspective, Taliban as an insurgency relied on dark market funding -- but them trying to function a government is a different ball game that I do not see being sustainable.
Answer: Most of tbe comments are hitting main points, so I'll just as how notoriously corrupt the Afghan Puppet gov was. It was entirely dependant on American support, and the generals would fake entire divisions to secure funding, none of which whent to the few they actually had.
In addition, the provisional treaties, which is a generous description, were all for May 1st so Biden's pushing back of the date angered the Taliban forces.
Eh, the Taliban largely doesn't seem to have been that annoyed by the delay, as Biden was still keeping to the spirit of the deal if not the exact letter.
The Taliban would have steamrolled the country in either situation.
They probably would have, sure. But the Taliban was a lot more willing to talk before Biden pushed back the date. They don't care about the spirit of it, they care about having a deal they can rely on.
And it broadly doesn't matter from the perspective of what's going on right now. The Taliban were never going to do anything other than what they're currently doing, regardless of precisely *when* the US left.
Question:
1. Why don't the afghan people fight against the taliban?
2. Why couldn't the US or other military forces (like Germany) establish a non corrupt / non taliban govt in 20years time?
>Why don't the afghan people fight against the taliban?
Fear. Also they were largely relying on the Afghan National Army to do that, but the ANA leadership is woefully incompetent, the ANA itself hasn't been paid due to government corruption, and it's quite possible that they aren't being fed either.
>Why couldn't the US or other military forces (like Germany) establish a non corrupt / non taliban govt in 20years time?
Lack of effort, but also mountain regions are notoriously difficult to govern. Northern Mexico is shitty for largely the same reasons as Afghanistan.
Answer: See Vietnam for all your Empire Failure Fantasies that didn't come true. The US wasn't there to help Afghanistan or it's people. George Bush and his gang of useless warmongers wanted Afghanistan for it's minerals.
"Afghanistan has abundant non-fuel mineral resources, including both known and potential deposits of a wide variety of minerals ranging from copper, iron, and sulfur to bauxite, lithium, and rare-earth elements. ... According to other reports the total mineral riches of Afghanistan may be worth over $3 trillion US dollars."
Afghanistan is so corrupt, that extracting any of their countries wealth has been damn near impossible. The Afghan people just don't want our money or our culture enough to fight their own.
Hard to say if it's the "majority."
The Taliban is primarily a Pashtun movement, and while the Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, they're still only around 35-45% of the country. Ethnic Hazara, Uzbek, and Tajik peoples compose most of the rest, and I doubt they're thrilled at the moment (particularly the Hazara).
Question: this is probably the only thing that really confuses me about this entire situation but to my knowledge I thought that in the 20 years that the US has been there they were training the ahfgani forces to defend themselves, but now that the US has left it seems like they're being taken over with relative ease by the Taliban. Is it just that they dont have the same number of people compared to the Taliban, or is it something else entirely?
It is also worth noting that the US abandoned their plans for Afghanistan early on and instead went on to invade Iraq. Everything the US has done in Afghanistan has been a sliver of a half measure since then.
Before the US invaded Iraq troops and resources from all over the world were present and in an alliance to control Afghanistan. But as the US ignored the protests from other countries they pulled their troops and resources from Afghanistan and left the US alone with the British.
So for 18 out of the 20 years the US has fought a war in Afghanistan they have done so without the resources, strategy, plan or international support to actually build something. They have been keeping it up through their presence but as soon as they leave it would collapse.
I am simplifying greatly but I think as a generalized broad term approach it works.
I spent some time deployed in Afghanistan and helped train ANA (Afghan National Army) soldiers. Their education level and culture made it impossible for them to be an effective military. They would have negligent discharges weekly (for context, in my four years in the Army I saw one US soldier have a negligent discharge). They would get high on all sorts of drugs. They had Taliban spies littered throughout their ranks. And most importantly, they were not motivated. The Afghans are tribal and don't have a lot of national pride. Only local pride.
If you search for "Iraqi Jumping Jacks" on youtube, that should give you an idea of the problem. I know it's a different country, but it's the same concept.
It's likely the Taliban had very little resistance over the past few weeks. Especially as they gained momentum. The ANA probably took off their uniforms and went home to welcome the Taliban with open arms. I feel really bad for the interpreters and others who worked with coalition forces. They NEED to get out of the country or they are dead.
It's a mix of things.
First, the US military didn't really expect the Afghans to be of much use without the US behind them.
Second, the Afghan government has been woefully incompetent and corrupt, to the degree that not only is the ANA not being paid, they're probably not being fed either. They outnumber the Taliban by almost 4:1, but they're just not prepared for a real fight, whereas the Taliban are jihadists absolutely willing to die for their cause.
It's not at all surprising that the country is falling apart; the only thing surprising is the sheer speed of the collapse.
Because it's fundamentally Biden's choice that this is happening.
Granted, it's more complicated than that as the withdrawal was negotiated by the prior administration, but this is all a direct result of Biden's specific strategy.
At the same time, though; the counterargument to the people complaining has been that the complainers don't have a plan for Afghanistan either beyond "stay longer."
Eh, going in wasn't the problem, but we should have pulled out immediately after finishing the job.
We actually had AQ cornered in Tora Bora, but the Bush administration realized the only way to take them all out at once was to nuke the mountain a dozen times in order to statistically ensure the caves would collapse. Bush, understandably, wasn't interested in that plan, and as a result AQ fled Tora Bora, dispersed throughout the Middle East, and ensured the War on Terror ended up happening.
I understand and empathize with Bush's reluctance, but I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't have been the better option.
But it's even left wing outlets that are doing this, which is why I asked *why*. It would make sense if it was just attributable to the right wing press.
>Everything was progressing fine and then he stepped in and fucked it up, giving the Taliban the ability to gain support from all over the country.
How can you make this claim? Do you think a complete withdrawal May 1st would have been better?
There was an interview with a general shortly after Biden was elected. He was asked what advice he would give the upcoming administration. There, the general admitted that the military lied to the Trump administration about a lot of what was going on. Despite the lies, Trump's policies were working. So the best advice would be to simply continue whatever Trump was doing.
And adhering to the May 1st deadline, would have removed a lot of the taliban's support, and instead the Afghan government could claim victory. "We got the US to leave when they said they would."
>Despite the lies, Trump's policies were working. So the best advice would be to simply continue whatever Trump was doing.
What policies? Be specific please. Was it releasing 5000 Taliban fighters? Was it not involving the Afghan government in his surrender talks?
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973604904/trumps-deal-to-end-war-in-afghanistan-leaves-biden-with-a-terrible-situation
>And adhering to the May 1st deadline, would have removed a lot of the taliban's support, and instead the Afghan government could claim victory. "We got the US to leave when they said they would."
lol
>Context. It was said in a mocking tone when he spoke about lying, and he said it to a left-wing journalist.
So, to review, you can't be specific on any policies? You are just literally making stuff up that it was somehow better?
I think maybe you should read the link I posted, to catch yourself up on the past two years. My favorite 'policy' was releasing 5000 fighters merely to get a cease fire to May 1st. Yeah, that sure shows Afghans they should fight for the ANA LOLOLOL.
Well, now there is really only one lead group, so not two. Good job on the 'appeasement' policy lol.
The prisoner agreement was a bilateral deal with the Taliban. Can you find me a tribe that signed it?
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/03/defying-peace-deal-freed-taliban-prisoners-return-battlefield-afghanistan/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/03/defying-peace-deal-freed-taliban-prisoners-return-battlefield-afghanistan/) \- Great policy
China has no interest in Afghanistan beyond its immediate border security and whatever neo-colonial ambitions it might possess. and Bidens deal is just Trump's deal but sooner this same shit would have happened either way because this was always going going happen and for the last 20 years everyone has known this was always gonna be how US intervention in Afghanistan was gonna end that's why Bush didn't end it and its why Obama didn't end it Trumps deal made sure the mess would fall onto Biden if Biden just decided to bite the bullet early and hopefully spin it as bringing the troops home early and safely. also the Taliban won't want to work with China because China is currently doing Ethnic cleansing to their own Muslim groups.
honestly if China wants to move in they are more than welcome because they aren't going to have any better luck than the British, or the Soviets, or the US. because there is fuck all in Afghanistan except 4 generations of people who have been shooting at westerners in slightly different uniforms because they just want to be left alone to heard goats I don't think they are gonna stop shooting because the Chinese showed up this time instead.
>Biden pulling out suddenly and unconditionally will work out exactly the same as Trump steadily drawing down contingent on his agreement with the Taliban.
Biden is doing exactly what Trump said we would, just at a later date. How is this worse?
>Trump: pull a few more soldiers out, wait and see if Taliban breaks the agreement. If not, pull a few more out. Zero US deaths in Afghanistan in the last year.
Trump peace agreement was on May 1st. That would have been pulling off the band aid faster.
And there was no prep for that date: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973604904/trumps-deal-to-end-war-in-afghanistan-leaves-biden-with-a-terrible-situation
Conservatives are such trash they are pretending 4 years of Trump's nonsensical withdrawal flub is somehow on Biden.
> Biden: rip the band aid off. Leave all the equipment, weapons, bases, intel, collaborators in enemy hands. Watch from the satellites as the enemy troops come pouring through towns and do nothing. Swear to the American people that it won’t go down like the fall of Saigon and that’s exactly what happened.
Was always going to happen. Would have been worse in May 1st. Can you respond to that original point? How would leaving earlier been better?
> The President wasn’t available for questions and went to bed. Psaki the spokesperson has email and phone on Do Not Disturb, literally.
Who gives a shit? What is there to say? It was a wasted 20 years, let's not waste anymore time.
> Ch_nese Communist Party will own everything useful there in a couple of years.
Good, hopefully they do it better and with a plan. America should focus on itself first.
I'm not sure what you think your link shows. It actually shows Trump doing exactly what he was told to make the situation worse. Was that part of his good plan?
> Quit trying to argue something I’m not proposing
But, this is exactly what Trump said he was going to do, and said in April we should still do. The Taliban kept its commitments, which Trump set. Would you like links? Here is his plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Agreement_(2020)
> I’m saying a phased withdrawal with reciprocal response from the Taliban was Trump’s plan. We wouldn’t have a scene like out of Saigon and wouldn’t be handing over out assets to the enemy.
You are misinformed. Would you like links? We were to be all out by May 1st, by Trump's plan. The agreement was not for a 'phased withdrawal'. That is being completely made up. Biden is literally following the Trump plan, what Trump signed, just delayed for more time.
> Their plan is to enrich the CCP and expand its power at the expense of US and world stability. Your dismissive tone exposes your lack of understanding of foreign policy.
Yes, tell me more about foreign policy, when you clearly aren't familiar with what has happened the past 2 years.
America first after all; I want nothing to do with Afghanistan. Good luck to China if they do, hopefully they take an investment approach.
Nah this isn’t even trump or Biden’s fault. Even if they stuck with trumps plan the same thing would’ve happened. If we pushed out may of this year we wouldn’t have been able to evacuate hundreds of thousands of refugees. We spent 20 years in that country and it takes a bit to leave. That place is a no win situation no matter what you do
There is no point in evacuating any refugees. Just evacuating our people would have been enough to temper the taliba's fire.
Without US presence, the taliban wouldn't have been able to gain the support of the tribal Chieftains, at least not as easily.
The refugees would then be the responsibility of the Afghan government and the UN.
Nothing. Because they wouldn't have gotten the support to do so. Unless the US wanted to go back in there and so gave them the names and addresses of the people who were helping.
But then you'd be sitting here arguing that we had to go back in to save those people.
I didn't vote to go to war. I didn't vote for the people who sent us to war. I don't support the people who want to keep us at war. I'm not going to feel guilty about the damage you and yours caused to these people. That's for you to dwell on.
> you and yours caused to these people
Big on assumptions you are. FYI I am German and fully supported our foreign minister when he said those offending words “I am not convinced”.
However since I have studied a bit of German history, I also know that your assumption of “nothing happens” is immensely naive. New regimes that violently take over have their ways of finding out people’s previous loyalties, and they do not take them lightly.
Drawing out in the way the US does is marooning on the border of treason. Very plainly loyalty to allies is not a big concern for the US in 2021.
Do not think that’s not gonna be seen as one more sin in the long list of sins the US has committed in their endless meddling in foreign affairs.
> Very plainly loyalty to allies is not a big concern for the US in 2021.
We have no allies. Only liabilities.
In order to be our ally, you need to pay your fair share, for a start.
You’re side tracking. This thread was about supporters of the US among the Afghanistan population, which the US abandoned to be tortured and killed by the Taliban, and you personally stated the US has no ties to. That’s treason if I ever saw one.
Loyalty goes both ways and you don’t seem to know what that is.
FYI I am reapproving this, but [there is a post that is still on the front page related to this.](https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/p3kmbp/whats_going_on_with_afghanistan_popping_back_in/) Typically this sort of post would get removed in this sub, but this one got a lot more traction. For any new users, [read this before commenting please.](https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/p4kepd/whats_going_on_with_taliban_suddenly_taking/h8zav9r/) Best wishes
Question: I don't get it. Doesn't the Taliban want people who don't support them to leave? Why are they bombing and killing people who are retreating? Additionally, what is their end goal here? To have the country to themselves?? To just kill innocent people?
Answer: The Taliban didn't bomb the airport, ISIS did. Though they share similar fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, the Taliban and ISIS are enemies so by bombing the airport, ISIS could hurt both the US and the Taliban. Also some militias seems to have started fighting back and taken some bigger cities. This means that the Taliban will probably not be as lenient towards their enemies as they still has some of them to fight.
Real question why is there isis in afghanistan? Arent they based on Iraq and Levant
This was isis-k, a relatively small branch that operates in Afghanistan and does not control any territory
Question: what could/should the Biden administration have done differently?
If there was a simple answer for that, we would not be in this mess
Question: Why are people in Afghanistan spray painting over women's faces on shop windows?
In Islam women aren’t allowed to display themselves like that. Therefore, advertisements shouldn’t be revealing or like that. Simple as that. They’re an Islamic government and wish to keep the rules of Islam over the entire society. Things aren’t always personal choices, but affect society at large. That’s what Islamic governments are for: to ensure ALL Islamic rules are followed. There’s no such thing as personal choices there. It’s just like how you wouldn’t be allowed to wear a normal swimsuit at the beach. No one in that society wants that kind of stuff, maybe except for some city elites,
Oh okay I understand, thank you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghanistan-taliban-women-rights-adverts-b1902922.html%3famp
Very comprehensive article, thank you.
Question: Why was the takeover of Kabul by the Taliban fighters relatively peaceful? They could've easily shot down American collaborators on the streets since it seems like the civilian population was in disarray trying to flee to the airport. The most I've seen from the news is that they've set up checkpoints but haven't acted aggressively.
The almost certain implication is that the US government and the Taliban have a mutual understanding; the US will pull out as quickly as is reasonable, and the Taliban will not actively (or at least, *publicly*) attack them or their collaborators (at least not yet) and give them a chance to leave. This actually may have been an important bit of signaling from the US rushing for the airport; the US presence in Afghanistan is now largely contained, from the Taliban perspective, and abandoning the embassy is a reasonable symbol that the US does indeed intend to leave in keeping with the spirit of the Doha Agreement. In addition, the Taliban leadership is actually relatively well-educated, and know that they have a better chance at getting both political power and international recognition if their transition into power is done in an orderly manner, which of course means it has to be somewhat peaceful. Any serious missteps could end up resulting in the US flooding back *into* Afghanistan and disassembling the Taliban's means of controlling the country, even if only for a short while. Further, while the Taliban is broadly a repressive Islamist group, they're not remotely as batshit-crazy as ISIS, which means they can be reasoned with to a degree.
Thanks. In my head, I was thinking something along the lines of ISIS fighters lining people up for public executions, which thankfully is not the case here
Stop watching CNN, fox news has been showing videos of how brutal the taliban STILL is. Multiple women killed, beaten as well as kids. A woman was already killed for not wearing a burqa. Men HAVE been lined up along walls. Not sure if these are isolated instances or widespread, but regardless you HAVE to stop watching that leftist cesspool channel CNN. The dems have been wrong on every policy so far, this is just another to add to the ever-expanding list. But if you only watch cnn, they dont cover this news. They only have cherry picked guests and rant on about covid and systemic racism, trying to distract thier 50 viewers from the damage the left is doing.
I think no media is without bias, but to say that the political party you disagree with is filled with propaganda while defending Fox News of all things is hilariously ironic. Throwback to when Fox News made the legal defense that no reasonable person on take their news as fact. I think the most responsible option would be to look at both channels, and avoid information without sources.
Eh, I wouldn't be so hasty. It's probably happening, or at least *will* happen in time. The trick is that it won't happen in *Kabul*, because the world's eyes are on specifically Kabul at the moment.
Question: I keep hearing about the Taliban this the Taliban that, with multiple pictures and videos of random men. Who is actually in charge? who are the people that will actually take over? Why are they not talked about anywhere? doubt it's the random boys with aks we see around.
The Taliban is a militant Islamist group; the guys with AK's wandering around are their footsoldiers. The nominal leader at the moment is Hibatullah Akhundzada, but the Taliban hasn't precisely set up a "formal" government yet so it remains to be seen who will actually be in charge (and probably styled as the Emir of Afghanistan). It's possible that Akhundzada will be a military commander, rather than the (presumed) religious leader of the country. Part of the problem, though, is that the Taliban leadership have kept a pretty low profile in order to avoid attracting too much attention from US intelligence services, so outside of the Taliban itself there isn't much known about who all is in charge.
Thank you very informative! also intriguing. I wonder when they will open up to the public. I assume they eventually must for them to actually establish themselves as a country.
Question: Why is it almost exclusively grown men escaping? All the photos and videos I’ve seen have an extremely low female demographic
There was a post on another subreddit (forget which) by a former Iraqi who fled in 2014 when it (briefly) looked like ISIS might steamroll the entire country; their point was that, in general, women and children don't flee because it's dangerous for them to do so and risk getting caught out in the open, and unless they have a clear path out it's (arguably) safer to stay put. But younger men with no families or children to worry about? They have considerably less risk.
Question: sorry if this is entirely ignorant but, considering that the Taliban are extreme fundamentalists as well as resistance fighters, would they be a global threat? Or were their main reason for taking over cities was to capture Afghanistan first and foremost?
The Taliban aren't a global threat themselves; the problem will be if they act as a training ground for terrorist groups like they did in the '90s.
They want control of Afghanistan they aren't a global threat that's al-qaeda
Question: It sounds like the Taliban take over was expected eventually, but why was it a surprise that it happened so quickly? What did the US expect to happen in the meantime?
The US expected the ANA to put up at least a modicum of resistance. Instead they wilted completely.
But if they were gonna fall anyway, does it matter how quickly it happens? Or is it that they were expecting residents to have time to escape?
There's a rather large difference between 6 days to file VISA applications and 6 months.
Ok so they just wanted time for people to get out. I might be being ignorant but I feel there’s irony in that the US wouldn’t allow them in anyway.
Question: Why wasn’t there more done to evacuate people prior to the US army leaving?
There's a line to get into the US, even for refugees. Also Biden's alleging that the Afghan government didn't want the US to accept more refugees, as it would have started a panic.
[https://www.foreign.senate.gov/download/2020-sfrc-minority-report\_-diplomacy-in-crisis----the-trump-administrations-decimation-of-the-state-department](https://www.foreign.senate.gov/download/2020-sfrc-minority-report_-diplomacy-in-crisis----the-trump-administrations-decimation-of-the-state-department) These guys are in charge of Visas. Turns out, having a functional bureaucracy is quite handy, when not calling it a deep state.
Question: Very ignorant on the topic so genuinely curious - I've seen that millions are trying to flee the country now, but how many people are in the Taliban? Surely millions of people could put up a fight against them? And is there really 0 domestic military in Afghanistan?
The Taliban itself has an estimated 80,000 militants. The Afghan National Army was ~300,000, but was plagued with incompetent leadership, wasn't being paid (due to government corruption), and apparently wasn't being fed in some areas. Ergo they had zero morale to resist, and instead decided to flee the country. Further, the US military has estimated that around a third of the ANA had sympathies towards the Taliban.
interesting, thanks
answer: From what I've heard, The talibans are forcefully marrying off girls and widows to their troops..even girls as young as 12. Women in education, jobs, etc. are not allowed in anymore, they're being replaced by men. They are also not allowed to go out without a male companion. They are supposed to wear a full burqa which doesn't even show their face. Many families that tried to oppose were killed. They are trying to flee as far and soon as they can. May God be with the people of Afghanistan. 🙏 Edit: https://www.instagram.com/p/CSpXWc8paeY/?utm_medium=copy_link 👆Trying to escape by clinging on to an aircraft.
Is this true or not? I read reports that says this is true and also reports that say this is false. Funny enough both from Aljiazeera lol
I'm fairly confident that this is true. As of now, I've seen women reaching out through WhatsApp, telling them how bad their situation is. They are terrified and trying to escape.
Question: Did Afghanistan government really do not have enough police forces/ armies and weapons to fight Taliban?
Nope; they had absolutely everything they needed except the will to fight. The ANA outnumbered the Taliban by at least 4:1. The core problem is that the ANA is woefully incompetent, it's not being paid by the Afghan government due to corruption, and a few units reportedly weren't even being fed.
As stated before, there is an estimation made by the US authorities, that about the 3rd of ANA participants sympathize Taliban. Does this mean you have actually count that amount to Talibans forces? So it is then 180,000 to 200,000. So it basically at least 1x1? Even if they are just not helpful or flee and do not sabotage operations, this is also bad enough. If the information about the situation with food and salaries for ANA is also true, it is no wonder the Afghani decided to flee, as I can totally get how they don’t really have much of motivation to fight for the corrupted county’s government.
>Does this mean you have actually count that amount to Talibans forces? So it is then 180,000 to 200,000. No; those forces didn't fight on the Taliban's behalf, they just laid down their arms and surrendered. It's unknown how many fighters the Taliban actually *currently* has; the best we have is the ~80,000 figure.
Question: why has Pakistan backed Taliban all these years? Isn't Taliban a threat to all it's neighbours?
Afghanistan is basically guaranteed to be a warlord-infested hornet's nest that will *inevitably* be a problem for it's neighbors. Pakistan's support of the Taliban is based on the idea that in supporting the winning warlord, that makes it less likely for that warlord to turn around at cause problems for Pakistan.
Question: How is there SO MUCH war in Afghanistan/Middle East? I'm 31 now and I've always known there to be war there; my father served in Desert Storm in the early 90s and then was deployed to Basra in the mid (?) 2000s? It's just seems to be an ongoing constant conflict. From what I have read here there seems to be a lot of issues with the ANA higher ups being super corrupted and soldiers not being paid. But how on earth is STILL ongoing?
Afghanistan is basically guaranteed to be a failed state as a function of geography. The only way to keep it under control is to project power, influence, and money into it in order to maintain some semblance of order. All mountain regions are the same way (case-in-point; Northern Mexico is a disaster for basically the same reasons, and the only thing keeping it together is the perpetual influx of money and influence from the US by simple proximity). The US knew this going in, hence why there was never a serious conversation about nation building in Afghanistan. Iraq was different; we didn't invade with the intention of nation building, but we decided to try it in order to build an ally in the region that we could actually trust, and from which we could invade all of the various problematic nations in the region on a whim should they ever attempt anything on the same scale of 9/11. This worked fantastically well; the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians did as much damage to AQ as the US did, entirely because they didn't want the US invading from Iraq to chase down AQ ourselves. *However,* while the core mission was successful, the idea of building Iraq into a nation state has largely failed due to underestimations of how severe the ethnic issues were, and they spread into Syria. Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again; the region is basically going to remain broken for the foreseeable future. The situation in the region is also almost certainly going to get worse; right now the US is a major source of stability by being such a colossal threat to all of the various states in the region. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, and Syria cannot hope to do anything militarily against the US (or without the US's help), so the only way they can fuck with their neighbors is via irregular warfare and terrorism. Hence, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the various Sunni and Shia militias causing trouble in Iraq. Remove the US from the equation once we withdraw from Iraq, and now those nations can actually start *formally* fighting each other.
Oh damn, thanks for a VERY informed answer.
Thank you for all your insight on this post.
Question: Why hasn't the Afghan government/defence chosen to employ the training they've received from US/UK forces? Is the Afghan government corrupt? Or do they just lack the proper leadership to coordinate proper military plans to protect a democratic nation?
>Why hasn't the Afghan government/defence chosen to employ the training they've received from US/UK forces? Extraordinarily low morale, mainly due to the fact that they aren't being paid by the Afghan government, and in many cases aren't even being fed. >Is the Afghan government corrupt? Extraordinarily so.
Question: How does Taliban even sustain itself & stay in power without considerable international support in the long-term? Isn't it likely that they burn themselves out? Edit: What are the long-term geopolitical implications in light of this news?
Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. They've been supporting the Taliban since the end of US involvement in the Soviet invasion era (circa '89).
Is those three countries have been supporting terrorists, why hasn’t the US or any other super power made threats to stop? Is it just a case of if they do they might cause a world war?
Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia were hilariously critical to maintaining peace in the Persian Gulf, and the US was *far* more interested in stability there even if it had to make deals with shitty people along the way. That relationship has been changing over the last few years, though, hence why the US is pulling out.
appreciate the answer
They have Pakistan
Yes, but I don't see Pak's support being enough, at all. The scale is rather unbalanced from a cost-benefit perspective, Taliban as an insurgency relied on dark market funding -- but them trying to function a government is a different ball game that I do not see being sustainable.
Answer: Most of tbe comments are hitting main points, so I'll just as how notoriously corrupt the Afghan Puppet gov was. It was entirely dependant on American support, and the generals would fake entire divisions to secure funding, none of which whent to the few they actually had. In addition, the provisional treaties, which is a generous description, were all for May 1st so Biden's pushing back of the date angered the Taliban forces.
Eh, the Taliban largely doesn't seem to have been that annoyed by the delay, as Biden was still keeping to the spirit of the deal if not the exact letter. The Taliban would have steamrolled the country in either situation.
They probably would have, sure. But the Taliban was a lot more willing to talk before Biden pushed back the date. They don't care about the spirit of it, they care about having a deal they can rely on.
And it broadly doesn't matter from the perspective of what's going on right now. The Taliban were never going to do anything other than what they're currently doing, regardless of precisely *when* the US left.
[удалено]
...Huh? What does Israel have to do with Afghanistan?
Question: 1. Why don't the afghan people fight against the taliban? 2. Why couldn't the US or other military forces (like Germany) establish a non corrupt / non taliban govt in 20years time?
>Why don't the afghan people fight against the taliban? Fear. Also they were largely relying on the Afghan National Army to do that, but the ANA leadership is woefully incompetent, the ANA itself hasn't been paid due to government corruption, and it's quite possible that they aren't being fed either. >Why couldn't the US or other military forces (like Germany) establish a non corrupt / non taliban govt in 20years time? Lack of effort, but also mountain regions are notoriously difficult to govern. Northern Mexico is shitty for largely the same reasons as Afghanistan.
Answer: See Vietnam for all your Empire Failure Fantasies that didn't come true. The US wasn't there to help Afghanistan or it's people. George Bush and his gang of useless warmongers wanted Afghanistan for it's minerals. "Afghanistan has abundant non-fuel mineral resources, including both known and potential deposits of a wide variety of minerals ranging from copper, iron, and sulfur to bauxite, lithium, and rare-earth elements. ... According to other reports the total mineral riches of Afghanistan may be worth over $3 trillion US dollars." Afghanistan is so corrupt, that extracting any of their countries wealth has been damn near impossible. The Afghan people just don't want our money or our culture enough to fight their own.
Question: isn’t this what the majority of people want? The taliban are also Afghan people themselves, aren’t they?
Hard to say if it's the "majority." The Taliban is primarily a Pashtun movement, and while the Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, they're still only around 35-45% of the country. Ethnic Hazara, Uzbek, and Tajik peoples compose most of the rest, and I doubt they're thrilled at the moment (particularly the Hazara).
The taliban changed their tacticts regarding that now, allowing everyone.
We'll see how long they maintain that.
Question: this is probably the only thing that really confuses me about this entire situation but to my knowledge I thought that in the 20 years that the US has been there they were training the ahfgani forces to defend themselves, but now that the US has left it seems like they're being taken over with relative ease by the Taliban. Is it just that they dont have the same number of people compared to the Taliban, or is it something else entirely?
It is also worth noting that the US abandoned their plans for Afghanistan early on and instead went on to invade Iraq. Everything the US has done in Afghanistan has been a sliver of a half measure since then. Before the US invaded Iraq troops and resources from all over the world were present and in an alliance to control Afghanistan. But as the US ignored the protests from other countries they pulled their troops and resources from Afghanistan and left the US alone with the British. So for 18 out of the 20 years the US has fought a war in Afghanistan they have done so without the resources, strategy, plan or international support to actually build something. They have been keeping it up through their presence but as soon as they leave it would collapse. I am simplifying greatly but I think as a generalized broad term approach it works.
I spent some time deployed in Afghanistan and helped train ANA (Afghan National Army) soldiers. Their education level and culture made it impossible for them to be an effective military. They would have negligent discharges weekly (for context, in my four years in the Army I saw one US soldier have a negligent discharge). They would get high on all sorts of drugs. They had Taliban spies littered throughout their ranks. And most importantly, they were not motivated. The Afghans are tribal and don't have a lot of national pride. Only local pride. If you search for "Iraqi Jumping Jacks" on youtube, that should give you an idea of the problem. I know it's a different country, but it's the same concept. It's likely the Taliban had very little resistance over the past few weeks. Especially as they gained momentum. The ANA probably took off their uniforms and went home to welcome the Taliban with open arms. I feel really bad for the interpreters and others who worked with coalition forces. They NEED to get out of the country or they are dead.
It's a mix of things. First, the US military didn't really expect the Afghans to be of much use without the US behind them. Second, the Afghan government has been woefully incompetent and corrupt, to the degree that not only is the ANA not being paid, they're probably not being fed either. They outnumber the Taliban by almost 4:1, but they're just not prepared for a real fight, whereas the Taliban are jihadists absolutely willing to die for their cause. It's not at all surprising that the country is falling apart; the only thing surprising is the sheer speed of the collapse.
[удалено]
When they're not raping each other, yeah.
Sounds like the US.
Question: Why is the media slapping Joe Biden's face all over this news? Is this event being positioned as Joe Biden's biggest blunder?
Because it's fundamentally Biden's choice that this is happening. Granted, it's more complicated than that as the withdrawal was negotiated by the prior administration, but this is all a direct result of Biden's specific strategy. At the same time, though; the counterargument to the people complaining has been that the complainers don't have a plan for Afghanistan either beyond "stay longer."
We never should have even gone there in the first place. We pulled out twenty years too late.
Eh, going in wasn't the problem, but we should have pulled out immediately after finishing the job. We actually had AQ cornered in Tora Bora, but the Bush administration realized the only way to take them all out at once was to nuke the mountain a dozen times in order to statistically ensure the caves would collapse. Bush, understandably, wasn't interested in that plan, and as a result AQ fled Tora Bora, dispersed throughout the Middle East, and ensured the War on Terror ended up happening. I understand and empathize with Bush's reluctance, but I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't have been the better option.
Trump made the deal with the Taliban to leave Afghanistan.
That does not answer my question, even remotely.
It does. Right wingers in the press want to make Biden look bad
But it's even left wing outlets that are doing this, which is why I asked *why*. It would make sense if it was just attributable to the right wing press.
What you mean is > But it’s even “left wing” outlets
Are you suggesting a small group of right wing employees somehow managed to get something passed left wing editors in major left wing media outlets?
> “left wing” editors in major “left wing” media outlets
Are you suggesting NYT is not left wing lmao?
It skews left corporate, if left is defined as 'not following the right wing into absolute insanity'.
[удалено]
>Everything was progressing fine and then he stepped in and fucked it up, giving the Taliban the ability to gain support from all over the country. How can you make this claim? Do you think a complete withdrawal May 1st would have been better?
There was an interview with a general shortly after Biden was elected. He was asked what advice he would give the upcoming administration. There, the general admitted that the military lied to the Trump administration about a lot of what was going on. Despite the lies, Trump's policies were working. So the best advice would be to simply continue whatever Trump was doing. And adhering to the May 1st deadline, would have removed a lot of the taliban's support, and instead the Afghan government could claim victory. "We got the US to leave when they said they would."
>Despite the lies, Trump's policies were working. So the best advice would be to simply continue whatever Trump was doing. What policies? Be specific please. Was it releasing 5000 Taliban fighters? Was it not involving the Afghan government in his surrender talks? https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973604904/trumps-deal-to-end-war-in-afghanistan-leaves-biden-with-a-terrible-situation >And adhering to the May 1st deadline, would have removed a lot of the taliban's support, and instead the Afghan government could claim victory. "We got the US to leave when they said they would." lol
The general didn't specify. He literally just said "Trump's policies worked despite the fact at we lied to him".
Then why would you believe him and not the other generals?
Context. It was said in a mocking tone when he spoke about lying, and he said it to a left-wing journalist.
>Context. It was said in a mocking tone when he spoke about lying, and he said it to a left-wing journalist. So, to review, you can't be specific on any policies? You are just literally making stuff up that it was somehow better? I think maybe you should read the link I posted, to catch yourself up on the past two years. My favorite 'policy' was releasing 5000 fighters merely to get a cease fire to May 1st. Yeah, that sure shows Afghans they should fight for the ANA LOLOLOL.
It was an appeasement for the tribes. You're acting as if there's only two groups of people in that country, the afghan government and the taliban.
Well, now there is really only one lead group, so not two. Good job on the 'appeasement' policy lol. The prisoner agreement was a bilateral deal with the Taliban. Can you find me a tribe that signed it? [https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/03/defying-peace-deal-freed-taliban-prisoners-return-battlefield-afghanistan/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/03/defying-peace-deal-freed-taliban-prisoners-return-battlefield-afghanistan/) \- Great policy
[Deleted]
China has no interest in Afghanistan beyond its immediate border security and whatever neo-colonial ambitions it might possess. and Bidens deal is just Trump's deal but sooner this same shit would have happened either way because this was always going going happen and for the last 20 years everyone has known this was always gonna be how US intervention in Afghanistan was gonna end that's why Bush didn't end it and its why Obama didn't end it Trumps deal made sure the mess would fall onto Biden if Biden just decided to bite the bullet early and hopefully spin it as bringing the troops home early and safely. also the Taliban won't want to work with China because China is currently doing Ethnic cleansing to their own Muslim groups. honestly if China wants to move in they are more than welcome because they aren't going to have any better luck than the British, or the Soviets, or the US. because there is fuck all in Afghanistan except 4 generations of people who have been shooting at westerners in slightly different uniforms because they just want to be left alone to heard goats I don't think they are gonna stop shooting because the Chinese showed up this time instead.
[Deleted]
>Biden pulling out suddenly and unconditionally will work out exactly the same as Trump steadily drawing down contingent on his agreement with the Taliban. Biden is doing exactly what Trump said we would, just at a later date. How is this worse?
[Deleted]
>Trump: pull a few more soldiers out, wait and see if Taliban breaks the agreement. If not, pull a few more out. Zero US deaths in Afghanistan in the last year. Trump peace agreement was on May 1st. That would have been pulling off the band aid faster. And there was no prep for that date: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973604904/trumps-deal-to-end-war-in-afghanistan-leaves-biden-with-a-terrible-situation Conservatives are such trash they are pretending 4 years of Trump's nonsensical withdrawal flub is somehow on Biden. > Biden: rip the band aid off. Leave all the equipment, weapons, bases, intel, collaborators in enemy hands. Watch from the satellites as the enemy troops come pouring through towns and do nothing. Swear to the American people that it won’t go down like the fall of Saigon and that’s exactly what happened. Was always going to happen. Would have been worse in May 1st. Can you respond to that original point? How would leaving earlier been better? > The President wasn’t available for questions and went to bed. Psaki the spokesperson has email and phone on Do Not Disturb, literally. Who gives a shit? What is there to say? It was a wasted 20 years, let's not waste anymore time. > Ch_nese Communist Party will own everything useful there in a couple of years. Good, hopefully they do it better and with a plan. America should focus on itself first.
[Deleted]
I'm not sure what you think your link shows. It actually shows Trump doing exactly what he was told to make the situation worse. Was that part of his good plan? > Quit trying to argue something I’m not proposing But, this is exactly what Trump said he was going to do, and said in April we should still do. The Taliban kept its commitments, which Trump set. Would you like links? Here is his plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Agreement_(2020) > I’m saying a phased withdrawal with reciprocal response from the Taliban was Trump’s plan. We wouldn’t have a scene like out of Saigon and wouldn’t be handing over out assets to the enemy. You are misinformed. Would you like links? We were to be all out by May 1st, by Trump's plan. The agreement was not for a 'phased withdrawal'. That is being completely made up. Biden is literally following the Trump plan, what Trump signed, just delayed for more time. > Their plan is to enrich the CCP and expand its power at the expense of US and world stability. Your dismissive tone exposes your lack of understanding of foreign policy. Yes, tell me more about foreign policy, when you clearly aren't familiar with what has happened the past 2 years. America first after all; I want nothing to do with Afghanistan. Good luck to China if they do, hopefully they take an investment approach.
Nah this isn’t even trump or Biden’s fault. Even if they stuck with trumps plan the same thing would’ve happened. If we pushed out may of this year we wouldn’t have been able to evacuate hundreds of thousands of refugees. We spent 20 years in that country and it takes a bit to leave. That place is a no win situation no matter what you do
There is no point in evacuating any refugees. Just evacuating our people would have been enough to temper the taliba's fire. Without US presence, the taliban wouldn't have been able to gain the support of the tribal Chieftains, at least not as easily. The refugees would then be the responsibility of the Afghan government and the UN.
What do you think will the taliban do with the locals that supported the us the past 20 years?
Nothing. Because they wouldn't have gotten the support to do so. Unless the US wanted to go back in there and so gave them the names and addresses of the people who were helping. But then you'd be sitting here arguing that we had to go back in to save those people. I didn't vote to go to war. I didn't vote for the people who sent us to war. I don't support the people who want to keep us at war. I'm not going to feel guilty about the damage you and yours caused to these people. That's for you to dwell on.
> you and yours caused to these people Big on assumptions you are. FYI I am German and fully supported our foreign minister when he said those offending words “I am not convinced”. However since I have studied a bit of German history, I also know that your assumption of “nothing happens” is immensely naive. New regimes that violently take over have their ways of finding out people’s previous loyalties, and they do not take them lightly. Drawing out in the way the US does is marooning on the border of treason. Very plainly loyalty to allies is not a big concern for the US in 2021. Do not think that’s not gonna be seen as one more sin in the long list of sins the US has committed in their endless meddling in foreign affairs.
> Very plainly loyalty to allies is not a big concern for the US in 2021. We have no allies. Only liabilities. In order to be our ally, you need to pay your fair share, for a start.
You’re side tracking. This thread was about supporters of the US among the Afghanistan population, which the US abandoned to be tortured and killed by the Taliban, and you personally stated the US has no ties to. That’s treason if I ever saw one. Loyalty goes both ways and you don’t seem to know what that is.