Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Collapse in Afghanistan

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by 667medic View Post
    2) Money
    This is more problematic in the short run. In the long run, the mineral wealth will be exploited and compensated by the Chinese.
    You actually think the local warlord/governor is going to share the wealth with other provinces and Kabul? And is it anywhere close to the $10bil the US has provided (and lost)?

    Leave a comment:


  • 667medic
    replied
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/10...stan-arsonist/


    Pakistan Is an Arsonist That Wants You to Think It’s a Firefighter

    Washington has an endless appetite for Islamabad’s con games.

    By C. Christine Fair, a professor at Georgetown University’s security studies program within the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

    SEPTEMBER 10, 2021, 1:37 PM
    On Aug. 27, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted, “Any sustainable solution in Afghanistan must include Pakistan,” while also expressing his appreciation for the “efforts of the Pakistani government to assist with the evacuation of U.S. citizens, our allies, and other nations.” His comments reflect a familiar play: Pakistan has spent decades setting fires in South Asia—and then expected praise and renumeration for offering to put them out.

    It’s astonishing that U.S. officials continue to peddle Pakistan’s own fictions—alongside such media outlets as the BBC, as I discovered recently when I was cut off in the middle of an interview for speaking about it. But with the Afghanistan debacle on policymakers’ minds, it’s a good time to think critically about Washington’s perpetual vulnerability to Pakistan’s rent-seeking ruses. Both political parties have long been responsible for coddling Pakistan in hopes that there is some mystical U.S. policy that could reform its supposed wayward ally. Even though Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan goes back some seven decades, the Washington elite continues to fall for Pakistan’s efforts to sell itself as the solution to the very problems it created.

    Pakistani officials tell a heart-wrenching story. Pakistan was minding its business when, in 1979, the United States persuaded Pakistan to shoulder the burden of the struggle against communism in Soviet-controlled Afghanistan. Pakistani officials contend that they were a victim of American perfidy when the latter forgot Pakistan existed in the 1990s, leaving Islamabad to contend with the mess—while Washington had the effrontery to impose sanctions on a bamboozled ally because of its well-known efforts to secure a nuclear weapon.

    Leave a comment:


  • 667medic
    replied
    Taliban tortures, kills ex-VP Amrullah Saleh's brother in Panjshir: Report

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/taliban-to...153715596.html

    10 Sep 2021: Taliban tortures, kills ex-VP Amrullah Saleh's brother in Panjshir: Report

    Afghanistan's former Vice President Amrullah Saleh's elder brother Rohullah Saleh was reportedly killed while he was leaving Panjshir for Kabul. Rohullah was reportedly tortured to death by the Taliban after his identity was disclosed. The news comes amid reports that clashes between the Taliban and resistance forces are continuing in Panjshir Valley, even though the former had claimed victory in the region days ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    ‘Imminent Threat’ or Aid Worker: Did a U.S. Drone Strike in Afghanistan Kill the Wrong Person? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Leave a comment:


  • 667medic
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I'm laughing right now. Afghanistan is now a complete money pit and headache for Pakistan. China committed $31mil of food. That can't even feed a city, let alone the country. I don't give a damn if the TB are religious zealots. If you're starving, you go where the food is. Guess where? The Pakistani Embassy is now the unofficial government of Afghanistan, meaning they're stuck with the bureacracy of running the country. And whose tax dollars does the Pakistani Embassy has to run the Afghan bureaucracy? Hint: it ain't Afghani. At best, they have a Mexico/Bangladesh. More likely, they have Chechnya/Kosovo - a mafia brothel with an illegal narcotic industry with Pakistan as the main receiver while receiving Pakistani aid monies.

    The old adage of be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.
    Sir lets break it down to the basics

    1) Administration
    As you rightly mentioned the Pak embassy will guide the administration. At least Kabul is firmly in their bag as it is run by the Haqqanis.

    2) Money
    This is more problematic in the short run. In the long run, the mineral wealth will be exploited and compensated by the Chinese. Of course for that to happen, we need peace. I also think that Middleeast politics will come into play here. The Qataris have an outsized influence here although there is competition between the Haqqanis and Qatari group. I assume that the rest of the gulf states, especially UAE will want to poke their nose which means more petrol money flowing here.
    The Paks meanwhile will play ball to get them off the Grey list and receive other monies. After all don't they need to be economically strong in order to exert their "influence" to contain ISIS-K.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by 667medic View Post
    I keep reading articles about how the winner in Afghanistan is Pakistan but I fail to understand the logic.

    By winning, do you mean that Afghanistan is the bargaining chip to funnel funds to Pak and in return "control" terrorism emanating from Afghanistan?
    I'm laughing right now. Afghanistan is now a complete money pit and headache for Pakistan. China committed $31mil of food. That can't even feed a city, let alone the country. I don't give a damn if the TB are religious zealots. If you're starving, you go where the food is. Guess where? The Pakistani Embassy is now the unofficial government of Afghanistan, meaning they're stuck with the bureacracy of running the country. And whose tax dollars does the Pakistani Embassy has to run the Afghan bureaucracy? Hint: it ain't Afghani. At best, they have a Mexico/Bangladesh. More likely, they have Chechnya/Kosovo - a mafia brothel with an illegal narcotic industry with Pakistan as the main receiver while receiving Pakistani aid monies.

    The old adage of be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 10 Sep 21,, 20:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by 667medic View Post
    I keep reading articles about how the winner in Afghanistan is Pakistan but I fail to understand the logic.

    By winning, do you mean that Afghanistan is the bargaining chip to funnel funds to Pak and in return "control" terrorism emanating from Afghanistan?
    Keep in mind that the Taliban was birthed by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military...they are not totally under the ISI's control but they do wield a big influence. And a Pak victory in Astan redounds to their positive.

    And for some who asked why the US didn't play hardball with the Paks.....it's simple. Our lines of communications ran through Pakistan...literally all our food, fuel & ammo rolled through Pakistan in convoys. You cannot maintain a supply by airbridge for those items.

    Leave a comment:


  • nvishal
    replied
    667,
    The pak strategy in afg has been to isolate Indian access. Had gilgit still been a part of India, it would have given a land route. The afghans understand well that they are a hostage to the pak blackmail. The Paks understand that the afghans will ally with India the first change they get but the lack of GB makes it unviable.

    Understand that the Paks are a nuclear power and this one facet alone changes americas entire fundamental position wrt approaching Pakistan. It limits their ability to maneuver, to the point where they even refuse to acknowledge that they got played (See ISI agents involvement in 911 and osama being found in abbotabad). There's very little the Americans can do (holding the tiger by the tail situation).

    Pre-1947, the christian british understood well that they were also foreigners who couldn't ally with Hindu India. So they allied with the other foreigners(Muslims) to rule India. The muslims were getting raided by the Marathas and tribal militias and they were reduced to pockets of old Delhi and hyd. In this situation, this alliance of two foreigners was a natural consequence and it eventually ended in 1857. Some people get confused and think that democracies are natural allies. Remember that two civilizations cannot exist without conflict.

    The paks were originally befriended by the Americans to counter the soviets. In the 50s, the paks managed to get the Americans to promise an intervention in case India threatened the survival of the nation state. After the collapse of the soviet union, the paks took on the role of a counterbalance against India with US blessings.

    The rise of China and global jihad has changed the dynamic. After 911, the Paks understood that they could flex their muscles against the Americans by pledging strategic allegiance to the Chinese. Shia iran and others too understood that nuclearisation(like pak) offers an effective and ideal deterrence against the west and it can change their fortunes.

    Due to the cascading effect, India has abandoned its policy of NAM and embraced multi-allignment, relying particularly on russia and other veto powers that have shown ability to withstand american pressure.

    The American power is on a continuous decline globally. They have already lost the trade war because of their inability and refusal to undervalue the US dollar. The global trading currency should have been replaced to yuan by now but hasn't because of american political pressure.

    In afganistan, the pashtuns privately acknowledge that they cannot entirely counter pak blackmail and have instead chose to agree to paks strategic demands. After spending more than a decade closely working alongside the ISI, the pashtuns have learned a few things along the way. One in particular, they have learned diplomacy(the art of telling lies).
    Last edited by nvishal; 10 Sep 21,, 16:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • 667medic
    replied
    I keep reading articles about how the winner in Afghanistan is Pakistan but I fail to understand the logic.

    By winning, do you mean that Afghanistan is the bargaining chip to funnel funds to Pak and in return "control" terrorism emanating from Afghanistan?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    OoE, going "mongol" on Afghanistan would be the worst idea ever which would fail to achieve anything while committing a genocide in the process. The Taliban would just hide in Waziristan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa like they did anyway till you finished making the mountain of skulls and then move back in once you leave.
    No, it would not. For two reasons.

    1) You destroyed the TB's support base. With nobody around to give them food and water, never mind intelligence and ammunition, nature becomes the enemy, not the Mongols.

    2) For the people in Waziristan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, they have two and only two choices. Collect TB skulls to give to the Mongols or have their own skulls be collected by the Mongols. Be the head hunter or the head hunted. And failure to collect skulls only means your skull would be collected instead.

    Either way, logistical support for the TB disappears real fast.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 09 Sep 21,, 23:11.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firestorm
    replied
    OoE, going "mongol" on Afghanistan would be the worst idea ever which would fail to achieve anything while committing a genocide in the process. The Taliban would just hide in Waziristan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa like they did anyway till you finished making the mountain of skulls and then move back in once you leave.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 09 Sep 21,, 17:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    a miscalculation that helped lead to a chaotic U.S. military airlift of U.S. citizens and vulnerable Afghans.
    Chaotic? The plans were always to have ANA provide security and US would run airlift.

    Despite early issues, those were rapidly overcome and 130,000 people were airlifted out.

    That is a prodigious effort that was actually a great success.

    Anyone with a REACH call sign deserves the Distinguished Flying Cross and the squadrons a Presidential Unit Citation. The ground unit personnel deserve the same or more.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Who to blame for Taliban takeover? Former Afghan envoy points finger at Kabul

    WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's first female ambassador to the United States who left her post in July, is clearly horrified by the Taliban takeover of her country. But she is not surprised.

    In an interview, Rahmani accused the former U.S.-backed government in Kabul of a failure to lead the country and of widespread corruption that ultimately paved the way for the Taliban's victory last month.

    She also warned the United States, still smarting from its defeat, that the rise of the Taliban would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

    "I, as an Afghan, was not surprised by the fact that the Taliban took over Afghanistan the way they did and how quickly they did, partly because of the lack of leadership by the Afghan government that was in place at the time," Rahmani said.

    President Joe Biden acknowledged he and other officials were aware of the risk that the Afghan government could collapse following the U.S. military withdrawal.

    But they say they were caught off-guard by the speed of the Taliban victory, a miscalculation that helped lead to a chaotic U.S. military airlift of U.S. citizens and vulnerable Afghans. Thirteen U.S. troops and scores of Afghans were killed in a suicide bombing during the operation.

    Biden, in a speech last month, accused Afghan troops of lacking "the will to fight" for their country's future.

    Rahmani saw things differently.

    "It was not the Afghan forces, that they were not willing to fight for their freedom and for protection of their people. It was the leadership that was corrupt. And they handed over, basically, the country to the Taliban," she said, without providing specific allegations.

    In particular, Ashraf Ghani's decision to abandon the presidency and leave Afghanistan on Aug. 15 was "extremely disappointing and embarrassing," she said.

    Ghani said on Wednesday he left because he wanted to avoid bloodshed. He denied allegations he stole millions of dollars on his way out.

    "Leaving Kabul was the most difficult decision of my life," Ghani said.

    Rahmani, who is 43, left the job as ambassador to the United States after nearly three years in the role. During her posting she wrestled with what she believed was a politically-motivated case over an embassy construction project.

    She denied any wrongdoing and an anti-corruption court found flaws in the case, sending it back even before the Afghan government crumbled.

    "I invite any investigative body to look at all the documents," she said.

    But Rahmani's accusations of broad corruption and mismanagement in Kabul carry echoes of warnings by current and former U.S. officials for years. Experts say corruption was steadily eroding ordinary Afghans' faith in the U.S.-backed government and even turning some of them to the Taliban.

    Rahmani described being cut out of discussions between Washington and Kabul, including during the Trump administration. Neither capital appeared to be fully preparing for consequences of the U.S. withdrawal, she said.

    She warned of geopolitical shifts that will impact the United States and its allies.

    Pakistan - a prickly U.S. ally that is close to the Taliban - will have gained leverage in its dealings with the Washington, she said.

    "I believe that the United States will be facing a new Pakistan," she said, while cautioning the Taliban's takeover will have ripple effects on India, China, Turkey and beyond.

    LAUDS AFGHAN WOMEN PROTESTERS

    The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, girls could not attend school and women were banned from work and education. Religious police would flog anyone breaking the rules and public executions were carried out.

    The Taliban have urged Afghans to be patient and vowed to be more tolerant this time.

    But Rahmani says the Taliban's decision to exclude women from all of the top government positions announced on Tuesday was proof that dark times may be ahead for women.

    On Tuesday, a group of Afghan women in a Kabul street had to take cover after Taliban gunmen fired into the air to disperse hundreds of protesters.

    "I salute all the brave women of Afghanistan. It is quite risky to do what they are doing," Rahmani said. "And it's also an indication to the rest of the world that they have everything to lose at this point."
    _______

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    If doing a Mongol isn't an option then you do next best.

    Isolate the battle field. No ? so then next best.

    Deny the enemy space. Couldn't do that either.

    So now we're at fourth best. Garrison fighting.


    yes, you went on patrols but did you hold the space or did TB just return after you left. The results don't back up what you said does it.

    You could not push the TB out and keep them out, they kept returning because you could not isolate the battle space. They had safe sanctuary and you did not go after it.

    The one time you did was at the Salala crossing in 2012 and then the Paks cut off your supplies for the next six months. No chance of hot pursuit. Not many insurgents try their tricks when you follow them back to their hideouts and blow them up.

    An exceedingly difficult predicament



    The point i'm trying to make is drive 20 miles out of any Afghan city and you're in Taliban country. This was the case for well over a decade.

    So they had a presence and only had a few miles to go to capture any city.

    When AIM visited in 2019 he found the only thing these TB were interested in was collecting road taxes. So either pay or fight. For those that could not fight, they paid.
    What the hell are you talking about? The battle space ceases to exist once the battle is over. I'm not going to keep an entire brigade on a warfooting for 2 guys playing mall store cops. The TB NEVER controlled the battle space. They never controlled the LOCs. Else, the cities, garrisons, and platoon houses would have been starved into submission. Trade and supplies was still going through WITHOUT TB TOLLS.

    If you are going to use these terms, learn them properly. Good God, lay off the Pakistani sanctuaries. They were contained just as they were during the Soviet times. Yeah, life was miserable for the border troops but the ragheads were not marching to Kabul from Pakistan through NATO/Soviet lines.

    And if you can't do the Mongols, you buy off the Mongols and let them do the dirty work for you.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 09 Sep 21,, 15:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Tronic View Post
    Remnants of the Afghan Defence Forces, alongside the Panjshiri militia have put up a valiant fight against the Taliban. They are simply being outmanned and outgunned by the Taliban and the list of their dead has started mounting since last night. Next time Biden or his supporters say the Afghans did not put up a fight against the Taliban, remind them of Panjshir. They fought and died till the bitter end..
    Afghan defense casualties are 66k odd and civil casualties amount to 46k over the last twenty years. They paid in blood that's clear.

    I don't know what the status of Panjshir is right now but its become a symbol of resistance for other areas to emulate in the future.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    Panjshir never had a chance of holding out beyond a point. They are heavily outnumbered and surrounded with no link to the Tajikistan border and no way for them to be resupplied. And they have no Russian support this time around. The Russians seem to be toeing the Chinese line about supporting the Taliban now.
    That's the key limiting factor. The Tajiks could resupply them but not without the green light from Moscow.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    There is a famous video of Hamid Gul the former ISI Director General (1987-89), wherein he brags that Pakistan defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan using American money. The interesting part is what he says after -- Pakistan will now defeat America in Afghanistan using American money. They were straight up telling you guys what they were going to do and your leaders sat back and watched it happen. Incompetence and stupidity are both very mild words to describe this. Even in that final phone call between Ghani and Biden which has now become famous, Ghani makes it a point to mention that they are facing a Pakistani supported invasion which Biden of course does not even acknowledge.
    The part that gets me is no penalty from the US for killing US troops. That is why he can blatantly talk like that.

    Well, no penalty from the Americans up to this point

    Obama thought it more important to spar with Putin over Georgia & Ukraine that putting the lives of his own troops first in Afghanistan.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Sep 21,, 00:11.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X