Afghanistan War

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Well, it's all over. The only question now is whether the Taliban allow foreigners to leave or think there could be value in taking them hostage even temporarily.

To be honest, I think that anyone who was living/working there who wasn't a key member of an embassy should have got out much sooner. Even if the Taliban's advance had been slower, aid workers shouldn't have stayed when it became clear they were making real advances. Employers should have told people to throw everything into a suitcase and just leave.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The bulk will probably be media people and NGOs. Even now there are media people and NGOs working in Taliban controlled areas.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Even now there are media people and NGOs working in Taliban controlled areas.
In that case they don't need to be evacuated because they've already decided they're content to live under Taliban rule.

As for those living in what were government controlled areas, as I said they should have got out long ago.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Indeed they don’t but then they have accepted the fact that they have no choice but to work in areas controlled by the Taliban; as you alluded to. Unfortunately for others events may have moved too fast for them and they’ll have to make their own way out as best they can. There were a number of consulates at Mazar; no idea if they all got out in time.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree, events moved so quickly that many likely didn’t have time to plan an exit. That being said, given the corrupt nature of the Kabul government and the advance notice of the US withdrawal, exits should have started in June.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member

”First, the group had to opt for a reasonable response to the surprise announcement by US President Joe Biden of a complete, unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11. At the time, the Taliban viewed this as a breach of the February 2020 Doha Agreement between the group and the US”

The speed of the Taliban’s advance and the lack of resistance faced so far have come as a surprise to all sides including the Taliban leaders themselves. But this should not blind anyone to the fact that throughout modern history, no single political, religious or ethnic group, regardless of its size, has been able to enjoy full hegemony and legitimacy across a piece of land without reaching a political settlement with all other groups.

The Taliban has made electrifying advances precisely because it has realised that it cannot hold and maintain control based on an exclusive narrative of Pashtun nationalism. Rather, local alliances are being made in the north with local Uzbek, Tajik, and other communities. Military force was never a solution in Afghanistan and cannot bring peace and prosperity to the country today


The President has left/fled to Tajikistan; leaving Abdullah Abdullah (a former confidant to Massoud, Foreign Minister and Presidential candidate) to head the government negotiating team. For now the Taliban appear to still be interested in talks for a transition but have announced that fighters have been forced to enter several Kabul suburbs which have been abandoned by the ANA.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Don’t normally post stuff from CNN but I decided to share this. Fareed Zakaria on past a deal between the U.S. and Taliban and how the signs were clear that things were worsening over the past few years. The figures he cites are from a new book.


CNN's Fareed Zakaria says a deal made by the US government with the Taliban made it appear to the public as if American troops were maintaining peace in Afghanistan when it was not the case and says the US was masking the reality that the Taliban were gaining ground in Afghanistan for years”’
 

Hone C

Active Member
Well, it's all over. The only question now is whether the Taliban allow foreigners to leave or think there could be value in taking them hostage even temporarily.
The Taliban are about to get everything they want. They don't have any logical reason to stop them leaving really.


Taliban have effectively taken Kabul, having entered the city and occupied the presidential palace, police and other government buildings after senior Afghan government figures fled. It will likely take them awhile to establish full control of the city, given the size and population.
Kabul airport is being used by NATO to withdraw remaining personnel, with US and UK forces establishing a perimeter and US forces taking over operation of the control tower.

Panjshir is reportedly now the only area remaining outside Taliban control.
 
Last edited:

Shanesworld

Well-Known Member
Well, congruent to what you say, Ismail Khan has switched sides and joined Taliban. Not that he had any other options, at least for now. The Taliban seem to have breached and taken over 207 Zafar corps. In fact, they were reportedly welcomed in as guests, had tea and all - except that they will now be hosts. They have, by default, taken custody of couple of Mi-35 gunships there as well.
Those hinds were on the edge of being unserviceable as i understand. Awaiting parts and 3 needing massive inspection. Parts were on there way from belarus but had not arrived.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
It’s not all over, The Afghan National government is over absolutely. But the Taliban are not a unified force either. The clock has been reset to 1996. The Taliban have dejour control of the capitals but so did the US and ANG so did the Socialists. Basically what you have made the same mistake that the US did that everyone else has. Afghanistan isn’t a nation it’s a region of tribes and klans. Each with there own allegiances, grudges and affiliations. The Taliban can take major cities but if the locals don’t like that they will band together their own forces and push them out. The problem with the ANA is it had no real loyalties. The problem with the ANG was the politicians put in charge were more interested in themselves than the ANG. They would more likely fight each other than unify. In side the next 6 months the Taliban will start fighting each other. Inside the next six months major regions will turn not to a national government but back to tribes.
Basically pre9-11 Afghanistan was a Mad max world. Post 9-11 and for 20 year it was the postman. Where a power came in and tried to thread a nation on a lie. Now it’s about to go thunder dome again.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Panjshir is reportedly now the only area remaining outside Taliban control.
Indeed. Like it was post 1996 and pre 11th September 2001.

But the Taliban are not a unified force either.
Actually it is ... In the past it may have had a loose command structure due to circumstances and various local commanders may have gone off script but it has been largely unified. This is after all a group which was all but defeated in 2001 but came back and adopted a right long term strategy which capitalised on its enemy’s mistakes and enabled it to survive all that was thrown at it.

The Taliban have dejour control of the capitals but so did the US and ANG so did the Socialists. Basically what you have made the same mistake that the US did that everyone else has.
The key difference is that the Taliban controls much of the country side and also has a large following there; unlike the case with the Soviets and others who largely didn’t control the country side but mainly urban areas.

All that money wasted on training Afghan soldiers and they forgot about leadership.
Leadership was one of a long list of factors why the ANA didn’t performed as expected and why most assessments about how things would pan out were wrong.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This collapse illustrates the folly of American and British attempts to democratise a country that isn’t either ready or willing for such a system after dealing with an insurgency. None that they have tried have succeeded. Malaya, Vietnam, Greece, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. In each of those cases they ignored the facts on the ground such as the ethnic and religious dynamics. In the case of India this has lead to war between Pakistan and India and continued friction over Kashmir. In Malaya it has lead to the domination of the Malay over an almost equal Chinese population numbers wise, the secession of Singapore as a separate nation, with tensions between Malaysia and Singapore, more often than not instituted by the Malaysian side.

In the cases of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan the US went in guns blazing. In Vietnam it never won the combat side of the war, despite the resources it threw at it. To many politicians playing at generals and to many generals playing at politicians. Also the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, inefficient, brutal, and thoroughly penetrated by VC (Viet Cong) and NVA (North Vietnamese Army) agents. Whenever the US cleared an area of VC and NVA, then handed it back to the South Vietnamese, the VC and NVA fully reinfilitrated it within days. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US won the war but have lost the peace. They planned resolutely and thoroughly for the war, but in neither case did they ever plan for the peace that comes afterwards. Compared to winning the peace winning the war is the easy bit. Its also the cheaper part of the job. No-one gave any thought to what they would do when the shooting stopped. If they had a plan formulated well before they went in, the long wars would not have occurred. The insurgents would not have had fertile breeding grounds of discontent with corrupt elites, sectarian and ethnic divisions. The US didn’t understand the ethnic, political, social, religious landscapes of the environments that it was going into and that ignorance has cost it and its partners thousands of lives and over US$2 trillion.

This is an utter and complete failure for the US. Biden isn’t the fall guy – he’s the POTUS in the hot seat when it happened. The responsibility lies squarely with the Bush White House of 2001 – 2008 when it failed to adequately plan ahead. In Afghanistan in 2003 they had the perfect opportunity to plan for the peace. They didn’t. They went into Iraq instead in a war of wanton aggression because that was what it was. There was no legal reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And the US has failed at that too, even more so than in Afghanistan, because it has given Iran far more influence and control in Iraq than it’s ever had before. Great strategy that.

In the future it would probably be better for US foreign policy and geostrategic considerations to desist from foreign adventures such as these, because clearly they are gross failures that are costing the US a fortune in treasure, blood, and prestige.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
This pic says it all. A group of Talibs at the former President’s desk with a palace official whose job was to “peacefully” hand over the place. One of the Talibs spoke of his satisfaction at being in the palace after 20 years of war. He also mentioned being in Guantanamo for 8 years. An expert would probably be able to tell a lot by looking at the various expressions and body language.
 

Attachments

STURM

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart,

We can also add to the list all the articulable countries and borders outside powers created for their own selfish interests and the expense of the locals.

A place the Americans got it right with regards to an insurgency was the Philippines. With a lot of American help and advise the Filipinos developed the right political/economic approach which led to the defeat of the Huks.

A recent interview with Ahmad Rashid.


The Americans were completely devoid of any strategy. They did not pursue a clear military, economic or political plan. The war in Iraq [started in 2003; Editor's note] subsequently diminished the U.S. leadership role in Afghanistan, leaving all planning to the United Nations. But I think the West's mistakes go back further: they ignored the Taliban in the 1990s and did not see them as a threat. They did not seek any rapprochement at the time. By the time the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, the international community had completely turned its back on Afghanistan.”
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
This collapse illustrates the folly of American and British attempts to democratise a country that isn’t either ready or willing for such a system after dealing with an insurgency. None that they have tried have succeeded. Malaya, Vietnam, Greece, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. In each of those cases they ignored the facts on the ground such as the ethnic and religious dynamics. In the case of India this has lead to war between Pakistan and India and continued friction over Kashmir. In Malaya it has lead to the domination of the Malay over an almost equal Chinese population numbers wise, the secession of Singapore as a separate nation, with tensions between Malaysia and Singapore, more often than not instituted by the Malaysian side.

In the cases of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan the US went in guns blazing. In Vietnam it never won the combat side of the war, despite the resources it threw at it. To many politicians playing at generals and to many generals playing at politicians. Also the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, inefficient, brutal, and thoroughly penetrated by VC (Viet Cong) and NVA (North Vietnamese Army) agents. Whenever the US cleared an area of VC and NVA, then handed it back to the South Vietnamese, the VC and NVA fully reinfilitrated it within days. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US won the war but have lost the peace. They planned resolutely and thoroughly for the war, but in neither case did they ever plan for the peace that comes afterwards. Compared to winning the peace winning the war is the easy bit. Its also the cheaper part of the job. No-one gave any thought to what they would do when the shooting stopped. If they had a plan formulated well before they went in, the long wars would not have occurred. The insurgents would not have had fertile breeding grounds of discontent with corrupt elites, sectarian and ethnic divisions. The US didn’t understand the ethnic, political, social, religious landscapes of the environments that it was going into and that ignorance has cost it and its partners thousands of lives and over US$2 trillion.

This is an utter and complete failure for the US. Biden isn’t the fall guy – he’s the POTUS in the hot seat when it happened. The responsibility lies squarely with the Bush White House of 2001 – 2008 when it failed to adequately plan ahead. In Afghanistan in 2003 they had the perfect opportunity to plan for the peace. They didn’t. They went into Iraq instead in a war of wanton aggression because that was what it was. There was no legal reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And the US has failed at that too, even more so than in Afghanistan, because it has given Iran far more influence and control in Iraq than it’s ever had before. Great strategy that.

In the future it would probably be better for US foreign policy and geostrategic considerations to desist from foreign adventures such as these, because clearly they are gross failures that are costing the US a fortune in treasure, blood, and prestige.
The idea that the US won the war and lost the peace gets repeated over and over again but I don't buy it. Wars need to have tangible and achievable political objectives. The US didn't win the war, because the US didn't set those kinds of objectives for the war. The US won a lot of battles but ultimately lost the war, due to not having a clear idea of what its trying to accomplish, and the vague goals set out were patently unachievable (and I suspect many in the US establishment weren't even trying to achieve them, they were using the for narrower-scope partisan or even economic goals for themselves and their cronies).
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart,

We can also add to the list all the articulable countries and borders outside powers created for their own selfish interests and the expense of the locals.

A place the Americans got it right with regards to an insurgency was the Philippines. With a lot of American help and advise the Filipinos developed the right political/economic approach which led to the defeat of the Huks.

A recent interview with Ahmad Rashid.


The Americans were completely devoid of any strategy. They did not pursue a clear military, economic or political plan. The war in Iraq [started in 2003; Editor's note] subsequently diminished the U.S. leadership role in Afghanistan, leaving all planning to the United Nations. But I think the West's mistakes go back further: they ignored the Taliban in the 1990s and did not see them as a threat. They did not seek any rapprochement at the time. By the time the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, the international community had completely turned its back on Afghanistan.”
I disagree because all they did there was support the then dictatorship that didn't have the interests of the average Pinoy as its main motivation. It's prime motivation was self aggrandizement, concentration of power, and collecting of personal wealth by means that weren't necessarily legal.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The idea that the US won the war and lost the peace gets repeated over and over again but I don't buy it. Wars need to have tangible and achievable political objectives. The US didn't win the war, because the US didn't set those kinds of objectives for the war. The US won a lot of battles but ultimately lost the war, due to not having a clear idea of what its trying to accomplish, and the vague goals set out were patently unachievable (and I suspect many in the US establishment weren't even trying to achieve them, they were using the for narrower-scope partisan or even economic goals for themselves and their cronies).
Well they did didn't they by not setting the achievable political goal athe the start? Then not providing the wherewithal beyond the military option to achieve that goal?
 

King Wally

Active Member
If the last 20 years have highlighted anything to me it's the quality of overarching leadership that oversaw the first Gulf War back in 91. No doubt it was the lessons of Vietnam that helped guide them... it's concerning how quickly insight can be lost.
 
Top