I find Al-Jazeera English to be largely dependable if it reports on matter other than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Somethings may be reported more than others, but I don't see them outright report bad/false information (mostly), and their reports seems to be more or less consistent with what other media is reporting. This does not extend to the opinion piece and analysis however, and definitely not to the other branch of Al-Jazeera..
Afghanistan War
- Thread starter gree0232
- Start date
What is a “moderate” Muslim? The term is loosely applied together with “non moderate” but could mean various things; depending on who you ask. If a Muslim agrees that Sharia should be implemented and that it’s the duty of Muslim government’s to impose sharia without clamping down on the rights of non Muslims; does that mean they are not “moderate”? If a Pashtun farmer is convinced that Afghanistan should live under Taliban rule ;Sharia imposed, no alcohol and woman having to cover up) but that non Muslims should not be harmed; does this make him a “non moderate”?
Personally I don’t agree with what Taliban ideology preaches but I’m of the opinion that they are far less extreme than ISK whose ideology is mostly based on the Arab Wahhabi school of Islam.
Last edited:
Arji,
Not only that but most of us here - although we aren’t experts - can make out which sites to depend on for news and which sites spin out false or unreliable news. Naturally we all have our personal opinions and preferences; personally when it comes to Afghanistan; I avoid the likes of CNN and Fox News with a barge pole.
Not only that but most of us here - although we aren’t experts - can make out which sites to depend on for news and which sites spin out false or unreliable news. Naturally we all have our personal opinions and preferences; personally when it comes to Afghanistan; I avoid the likes of CNN and Fox News with a barge pole.
@OPSSG I don't have a problem with the English version of Al Jazeera and haven't the whole time that I have accessed it. I treat it the same as any other media source and that includes the BBC, Strait Times, Washington Times, New York Times etc. I used to read the SCMP but since the PRC crackdown on HK I no longer bother because as far as I am concerned it's comprised.
Al Jazeera is one of two Arab media publications that I frequent because I find both informative. They give a different storyline to the dominant western one that at present is strongly influenced by American politics and prejudices along with Rupert Murdoch's media empire ranting and raving.
Al Jazeera is one of two Arab media publications that I frequent because I find both informative. They give a different storyline to the dominant western one that at present is strongly influenced by American politics and prejudices along with Rupert Murdoch's media empire ranting and raving.
Part 2 of 3: Discussion on weaponised mis-information
Q1: Did the Americans engage in a war of aggression by an “invasion of Afghanistan”?
— NATO invoked article 5, because they felt the US was attacked and their retaliation is justified. The issue is wasting 20 years after bombing the crap out of the Taliban (who said OBL was under their protection, based on their culture) — and let me remind all reading that he was successfully hidden in the AfPak area until Obama sent in SEALS.
— Likewise, China’s wolf warriors, are weaponising mis-information and framing a war of necessity (to address a threat), as an “invasion,” when it was Al qaeda that launched attacks on American cities and then claimed sanctuary in Afghanistan — that the Taliban agreed to provide in 2001.
Q2: Are all ISAF troop contributors including NATO members, and other friendly countries, like Australia, UAE, Jordan, NZ and Malaysia, invaders?
— The PRT team members who died, were not invaders. In fact, they brought medical aid and development to the regions they worked in.
Q1: Did the Americans engage in a war of aggression by an “invasion of Afghanistan”?
— NATO invoked article 5, because they felt the US was attacked and their retaliation is justified. The issue is wasting 20 years after bombing the crap out of the Taliban (who said OBL was under their protection, based on their culture) — and let me remind all reading that he was successfully hidden in the AfPak area until Obama sent in SEALS.
— Likewise, China’s wolf warriors, are weaponising mis-information and framing a war of necessity (to address a threat), as an “invasion,” when it was Al qaeda that launched attacks on American cities and then claimed sanctuary in Afghanistan — that the Taliban agreed to provide in 2001.
Q2: Are all ISAF troop contributors including NATO members, and other friendly countries, like Australia, UAE, Jordan, NZ and Malaysia, invaders?
— The PRT team members who died, were not invaders. In fact, they brought medical aid and development to the regions they worked in.
10. It’s not just Al Jazeera that engages in mis-information. Other members of the press are also guilty. I was very specific to that quote and Al Jazeera is masterful in putting in an objectionable line or two, in a whole article —that is what the quote exactly says — Al Jazeera’s quote reproduced below:
“If there was one thing on which everyone could agree, it was that nobody wanted the invaders to remain. Indeed, they did not want them in the first place”.
Last edited:
Q1 : Depends on who you ask and during which period. In the 2001-2003 period many Afghans didn’t see it as a war of aggression; instead seeing it as a chance to finally end all the years of strife. As the years went by attitudes changed; many Afghans - especially those who experienced personal tragedy and who were disillusioned with their government; saw the war very differently.
Q2 : Again it depends. By an large a lot of Afghans saw most foreign troops as “invaders” who were there for their own agendas and who were propping up an unpopular government. This is a question I’ve actually asked various Afghans (all Pashtun) over the years. Most of them were not Taliban supporters but were against the continued presence of foreign troops. They did point out however that Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara attitudes would be different.
I had a chance to speak to a number of Malaysian troops who were there. The mission wasn’t a combat one but a humanitarian one; health/dental services and providing various essential services to local communities but the threat was taken very seriously; there was always a protection detail. A soldier recounted an incident when a Taliban delegation dropped in at night; the message was that the Malaysians (who were based alongside the Kiwis) would not be attacked but things would change if they started getting involved in non humanitarian work.
The tribal code is Pashtunwali. It covers stuff from vendettas, giving refuge to strangers, to handling disputes. If memory serves me OBL left Afghanistan in the 2004-2005 period. Interestingly in the late 1990’s the Taliban did offer to hand him over to a visiting Saudi delegation to Kandahar but the Saudis declined.
Last edited by a moderator:
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Taliban quite disappointed that Afghan military equipment at Kabul airport rendered inoperable by withdrawing US forces.
I do find it slightly amusing that she keeps identifying it as "US" equipment. Even after stating that the Taliban considered it "national assets" of Afghanistan that belongs to Afghanistan, and them as the "government". And everything clearly has Afghan military markings.
And as she thumps the nose of a Mi-17. You know, obvious "US" equipment
I do find it slightly amusing that she keeps identifying it as "US" equipment. Even after stating that the Taliban considered it "national assets" of Afghanistan that belongs to Afghanistan, and them as the "government". And everything clearly has Afghan military markings.
And as she thumps the nose of a Mi-17. You know, obvious "US" equipment
Whether the gear was paid for by the U.S. taxpayer or the Afghan state; they were Afghan national assets. The Talibs who were disappointed that the gear was made inoperable by the Americans are naive; full stop/period. Why on earth would the departing Americans do them any favours?
More importantly is the direction the country is headed to. Some assume the Taliban haven’t changed and will go back to their old ways; some (including me) will give then the benefit of doubt and some are hoping the Taliban will fail. For me; the Talibs have said all the right things (they don’t have to); I genuinely believe that they too are tired of war and really want to change things; with the full realisation that accommodation has to be reached with the various minority ethnic groups. As the cliche goes : only time will tell.
Personally I feel that most of us have been viewing things largely from a U.S. or Western lens. The standard narrative is the U.S. poured trillions dollars into Afghanistan; doesn’t it share a large part of the blame for things going ratshit? Is it a coincidence that U.S. policy failed not only in Aghniatan but also Syria and Iraq (lets not mention Libya)?
We hear about the foreign troops who were killed. What about the thousands of ordinary Afghans killed as “collateral damage” (a military euphemism)? Easy to detached as outsiders when it’s not our kin being killed. We can name every single foreign soldier killed, can anyone name a single Afghan killed?
We often hear about the Taliban and its extreme ideology but what about the locals who support them but not necessarily the ideology? What about the locals who support Sharia and want women to cover up but are not Taliban supporters?
We hear about Pakistan and how it has long supported the Taliban but how many of us remember that Pakistan has also paid a heavy price over the past few decades? As a disclaimer I’ve long detested Pakistan for its meddling (my interest in Afghanistan started in the late 1980’s) but I fully understand that right or wrong Pakistan like all countries has its interests to safeguard.
It’s my firm belief that whatever personal preferences, prejudices or pre conceived notions; we have to look at things in totality and also from the side of the hill so to speak; in other to gain a better understanding of things.
More importantly is the direction the country is headed to. Some assume the Taliban haven’t changed and will go back to their old ways; some (including me) will give then the benefit of doubt and some are hoping the Taliban will fail. For me; the Talibs have said all the right things (they don’t have to); I genuinely believe that they too are tired of war and really want to change things; with the full realisation that accommodation has to be reached with the various minority ethnic groups. As the cliche goes : only time will tell.
Personally I feel that most of us have been viewing things largely from a U.S. or Western lens. The standard narrative is the U.S. poured trillions dollars into Afghanistan; doesn’t it share a large part of the blame for things going ratshit? Is it a coincidence that U.S. policy failed not only in Aghniatan but also Syria and Iraq (lets not mention Libya)?
We hear about the foreign troops who were killed. What about the thousands of ordinary Afghans killed as “collateral damage” (a military euphemism)? Easy to detached as outsiders when it’s not our kin being killed. We can name every single foreign soldier killed, can anyone name a single Afghan killed?
We often hear about the Taliban and its extreme ideology but what about the locals who support them but not necessarily the ideology? What about the locals who support Sharia and want women to cover up but are not Taliban supporters?
We hear about Pakistan and how it has long supported the Taliban but how many of us remember that Pakistan has also paid a heavy price over the past few decades? As a disclaimer I’ve long detested Pakistan for its meddling (my interest in Afghanistan started in the late 1980’s) but I fully understand that right or wrong Pakistan like all countries has its interests to safeguard.
It’s my firm belief that whatever personal preferences, prejudices or pre conceived notions; we have to look at things in totality and also from the side of the hill so to speak; in other to gain a better understanding of things.
What is wrong with that quote? They are reporting it as it is was said. Is it. We cannot censor what they say about the situation because we may be offended by it. It is not propaganda, but a statement of fact. I watched the Charlotte Bellis interview.
Part 3 of 3: Discussion on weaponised mis-information
11. Often times the press tries to quote both sides. If A says it is raining and B says it is sunny, the reporter’s job is not to quote both sides but look out of the window to report that one of the two is telling a lie. Reality on the ground is complex. We cannot just blindly believe in Western propaganda nor can we take the Taliban’s words at face value without verification. In addition, let me share 3 more points for your consideration:
Therefore, it is absolutely untrue that “nobody wanted the invaders to remain. Indeed, they did not want them in the first place”.
11. Often times the press tries to quote both sides. If A says it is raining and B says it is sunny, the reporter’s job is not to quote both sides but look out of the window to report that one of the two is telling a lie. Reality on the ground is complex. We cannot just blindly believe in Western propaganda nor can we take the Taliban’s words at face value without verification. In addition, let me share 3 more points for your consideration:
One, in Sep 2021, thousands of Afghan people are stampeding and dying to get away from Taliban rule, especially Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities who fear a genocide. By end-Aug, over 122,000 people were airlifted abroad in the American led exodus — the scale should tell you the lack of Afghan trust for the Taliban. Up to 1.5 million people could flee Afghanistan westward in search of safety and jobs in 2021, according to the International Organization for Migration. If the Kabul airport re-opens, the vast majority are going to buy one-way tickets to leave Afghanistan, and that's the whole point of Qatar’s technical help on assisting in the proposed re-opening of the airport.
Two, the Taliban are the invaders, with guns — that is why the Taliban are fighting to enter Panjshir Valley, with resistance forces keeping them out. The resistance is fighting for a power sharing arrangement and it provides India with leverage, which is why the Taliban are talking to India.
The final point is, for most women in Kabul and Herat, they are unhappy. Some are brave or silly enough to be protesting before the Taliban and had clearly wanted the Americans to stay, if given a choice — whether you choose to call the Americans invaders or liberators. After 20 years, these women had some basic rights (like being able to hold a job or walk to the market alone, which is being taken away) and it’s normal for a human not to be treated as man’s property or the become a sex slave to a Taliban fighter.
Therefore, it is absolutely untrue that “nobody wanted the invaders to remain. Indeed, they did not want them in the first place”.
12. Allow me to add context. ISAF’s mission was only expanded after UNSCR 1510 (2003) was passed to increase ISAF’s mandate to the entirety of Afghanistan. ISAF was charged with assisting the Afghan government in establishing a safe and stable environment in urban centers and areas beyond Kabul after 2003 — ISAF was also made responsible for supporting reconstruction and development projects designed to help the Afghan government; but ISAF support of the rule of law had no chance of success. The timeline below clearly shows that ISAF did not have the mandate till after 2003 and lacked the manpower to expand control till 2006. The bulk of forces only came during the surge with GEN McChrystal and Obama.
| Year | Key Operational Events | Developments |
| Oct 2001 to Dec 2003 | • Northern Alliance with US Support fight to get the Taliban ousted and Hamid Karzai becomes President of Afghanistan on 5 Dec 2001 • Islamic Republic of Afghanistan established after Taliban forces surrendered their final grasp of control in the city of Kandahar on 7 Dec 2001, marking the official collapse of the Taliban regime • NATO assumes ISAF leadership • ISAF’s mandate expanded beyond Kabul | (a) In March 2001, the Taliban demolished two massive Buddha statues from the 5th century that lined the Bamiyan Valley after declaring them to be a form of idolatry. The incident ignited global outcry and highlighted the struggle between the regime and persecuted minorities who lived in Afghanistan, such as the Shiite Muslims residing in Bamiyan. (b) For the duration of the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team’s work in Bamyan Province, they were there to support the elected Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, who was over thrown by force of arms by the Taliban on 16 Aug 2021 (c) In Feb 2021, it was announced that NZ will withdraw its last remaining troops from Afghanistan by May 2021, concluding a 20-year deployment that was the country’s longest-running one. |
| Jan 2004 to May 2006 | • ISAF expands into Northern Afghanistan • ISAF expands to Western Afghanistan • ISAF expands to Southern Afghanistan • ISAF expands to Eastern Afghanistan | (a) With the U.S. busy in Iraq from 2003, Taliban forces grew stronger and gained momentum with a deadly wave of suicide attacks on NATO troops. (b) The Taliban began reclaiming territory in parts of the South. |
| 3 Jun 2008 to 14 Jun 2009 | GEN David McKiernan assumes ISAF leadership and U.S. forces increased by 4,500 as the start of the ramp up of forces. | The then President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General John Craddock and the Commander of the Joint Forces Command (JFC) Brunssum, General Egon Ramms, attended the event. |
| 2009 | • U.S. forces increased by 17,000 • U.S. forces increased by 4,000 • GEN Stanley McChrystal assumes ISAF command • U.S. forces increased by 30,000 | (a) Dissatisfied with the leadership of GEN David McKiernan and recognizing a decline in overall security in Afghanistan occurring since 2006, Pres. Barack Obama named GEN Stanley McChrystal the new commander of US and coalition forces in Afghanistan on 15 June 2009. (b) GEN McChrystal was immediately tasked to conduct a 60-day initial assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and to recommend a new strategy that would stop the growth of the insurgency and assist the US-backed Afghan government in stabilizing the war-torn nation. (c) GEN McChrystal also realized that the assessment should be one effort for both the United States and NATO so he told NATO, “You ought to task me to do this—that way I’ll do one product for both groups.” Thus, both CENTCOM and NATO provided written guidance to do the strategic assessment. |
| 2010 | NATO launches Operation Moshtarek in Helmand | This involved a combined total of 15,000 Afghan, American, British, Canadian, Danish, and Estonian troops, constituting the largest joint operation of the War in Afghanistan up to that point. The purpose of the operation was to remove the Taliban from Marja, thus eliminating the last Taliban stronghold in central Helmand Province. |
| 8 Dec 2014 | U.S., NATO Formally Ends Combat Mission | |
| Jan 2015 to Aug 2021 | •Taliban attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces increased to almost daily, as an Islamic State affiliate began to emerge. As tensions escalated, President Obama nixed his plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by the end of his time in office. •In contrast, the Trump Administration bet on a withdrawal at any price — which was scheduled for May 2021 — to force the issue on the next administration, he drew down to 2,500 troops. •President Biden followed through on the incoherence of badly structured Trump surrender plans and withdrew in Aug 2021. | (a) Against a backdrop of global terrorism – including several attacks on American soil – Americans also became less confident in the ability of their government to handle threats. In 2015, following major attacks in Paris (Nov 2015) and San Bernardino, California (2 Dec 2015), the American public’s concerns about terrorism surged. (b) President Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad to negotiate with the Taliban as terrorist activity spiked in the region. The Taliban refused to negotiate with Kabul and more attacks continued to escalate. (c) The Trump Administration brokered a deal with the Taliban in early 2020 to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, in exchange for a promise from the Taliban to not use Afghanistan as a terrorist base. Troops would gradually withdraw over the course of 14 months under the agreement. (d) Kabul Falls to Taliban for a 2nd Time on 16 Aug 2021. |
Last edited:
1. I am simply providing additional context, to a framing issue — to assist in providing information to an article that can be misinterpreted easily. It’s an opinion (to paraphrase — everyone/Afghan wants invaders out) that is being quoted, not a fact — that is what I am pointing out. Why do you and another person have to act as if this is an attempt at censorship?
2. My prior discussion on weaponised mis-information over 3 posts can easily apply to NZDF, when it is used properly by China and Pakistan’s ISI to justify a robust response to any policy they don’t like. You can be sure that such attempts will be made in future, whenever New Zealand deploys troops. The New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team was assigned Bamyan Province in 2003 and exited in April 2013. Without context the 2nd quote below is very misleading. Let me quote, your press that says:
“But the thing about this investigation is that it shows not just good things happened in Bamyan. We are responsible for the deaths and injuries of 17 civilians. And our military has known about this for some time.”
3. The lie is in the 1st quote said “nobody wanted the invaders to remain. Indeed, they did not want them in the first place.” Context matters; whereas the press in New Zealand have a supremely naive world view when reality in Afghanistan is a mess of flexible beliefs, personal interests transformed into true beliefs, and acceptable in-group exaggeration, tactical white lies to convince others and everything in-between, except the truth. If you agree with these 2 quotes (without context), then does it follow that:
Q1: Are the 10 NZDF troops killed in Afghanistan were acting as agents of an American invader — and the Taliban were justified in attacking and killing them?
Q2: What was NZDF’s legal justification to station troops in Afghanistan from Dec 2014 to May 2021?
Q3: Are your armed forces immoral for allowing or directly causing the foreseeable deaths and injuries of 17 civilians?
4. I don’t know the answers better than you. You should be better placed to answer these questions for yourself and others. I understand your view point and leave the thread in your good hands to update and moderate — others here have superior knowledge on this area and I choose to let them state their point of view by providing context.
Last edited:
An extremely interesting discussion with two well qualified speakers. Lots of issues/topics raised including Russia and China (it sees huge opportunities but also great risks), Pakistan, problems the Taliban faces controlling the whole country, IS, the Panjshir Valley, the economy, etc.
One of the speakers points out that in contrast with 1996; this time around the Taliban started gaining ground in the north (non Pashtun areas) across ethnic lines because people like Dostum, Khan and Atta has become to involved with the government and had lost touch with the locals; a situation made worse by the corruption of the government.
Interestingly he also suggests that unlike the case prior to 11th September 2001 certain neighbouring countries might not provide material support to anti Taliban forces in the Panjshir but might help by insisting that the Taliban seek some kind of political agreement with the Panjshiris in return for diplomatic ties. The other speaker mentions a video by Atta who speaks of continued resistance unless there is a power sharing government.
Meanwhile there’s confirmation that Masaoud, Attra and Dostum are in talks with the Taliban. For the Taliban; a settlement (a major if) with its former foes will be a big PR boost (will show that it’s sincere in its calls for an inclusive government) and will also enable it to better focus on the IS threat.
www.aljazeera.com
One of the speakers points out that in contrast with 1996; this time around the Taliban started gaining ground in the north (non Pashtun areas) across ethnic lines because people like Dostum, Khan and Atta has become to involved with the government and had lost touch with the locals; a situation made worse by the corruption of the government.
Interestingly he also suggests that unlike the case prior to 11th September 2001 certain neighbouring countries might not provide material support to anti Taliban forces in the Panjshir but might help by insisting that the Taliban seek some kind of political agreement with the Panjshiris in return for diplomatic ties. The other speaker mentions a video by Atta who speaks of continued resistance unless there is a power sharing government.
Meanwhile there’s confirmation that Masaoud, Attra and Dostum are in talks with the Taliban. For the Taliban; a settlement (a major if) with its former foes will be a big PR boost (will show that it’s sincere in its calls for an inclusive government) and will also enable it to better focus on the IS threat.
Veteran Afghan commanders to negotiate with Taliban
It will be a challenge for any one force to rule Afghanistan for long without consensus among the many ethnic groups.
Last edited:
A lecture on the tribal and religious complexities of Afghanistan.
The speaker makes many interesting points.
- nobody can say with absolute certainty what the population is (when he was speaking the last census was in the early 1970’s).
- the Pashtuns being the largest tribe in the world but not a majority in Afghanistan.
- there being more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan - both of similar ethnicity similar but culturally different.
- the existence of Shia Pashtuns and Tajiks.
- in the former Yugoslavia political groupings were based on ethnicity but in Afghanistan this isn’t necessarily the case.
- despite strife and hostility no ethnic group has ever called for the partition of the country along ethnic lines.
- the stereotype view Central Asian states have (despite having co ethnics across the border) of Afghanistan; similar to how some Americans view Mexico.
- how Afghans traditionally practiced very tolerant side of Islam and how Sufism is so deep rooted - this presented many problems for the AQ wahhabis when they arrived.
The speaker makes many interesting points.
- nobody can say with absolute certainty what the population is (when he was speaking the last census was in the early 1970’s).
- the Pashtuns being the largest tribe in the world but not a majority in Afghanistan.
- there being more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan - both of similar ethnicity similar but culturally different.
- the existence of Shia Pashtuns and Tajiks.
- in the former Yugoslavia political groupings were based on ethnicity but in Afghanistan this isn’t necessarily the case.
- despite strife and hostility no ethnic group has ever called for the partition of the country along ethnic lines.
- the stereotype view Central Asian states have (despite having co ethnics across the border) of Afghanistan; similar to how some Americans view Mexico.
- how Afghans traditionally practiced very tolerant side of Islam and how Sufism is so deep rooted - this presented many problems for the AQ wahhabis when they arrived.
Last edited:
Why is there not more discussion about the more than 100,000 ANDSF who by my estimates have been killed in action (KIA)? Many of the ghost soldiers, in my view, are unacknowledged KIAs. The GIRoA for more than a decade understated actual KIAs to improve morale.
Why isn't there more discussion about the Pakistani Army invasion of Afghanistan? The Pakistani Army broke the ANDSF.
Why isn't there more discussion about the Pakistani Army invasion of Afghanistan? The Pakistani Army broke the ANDSF.
What Pakistani invasion? Do you have a reliable reputable source to support this allegation. We don't tolerate misinformation.
ngatimozart, have you ever met a soldier serving in the ANDSF, current or retired, who didn't believe that the Pakistani Army was at war with the ANDSF? Many 1, 2, 3 and four star generals in the ANA and AAF have said this in public, including the chief of the ANA joint chiefs. The GIRoA leaders have been screaming about this from the rooftops for some time. This year we saw by far the largest ever social media campaign by Afghans in history over this very issue . . . demanding immediate deep global sanctions on Pakistan. We also saw many hundreds of thousands of Afghans protest across Afghanistan in early August . . . supporting their beloved ANDSF and denouncing the Pakistani Army.
However, sadly Europeans, North Americans and Chinese often side with Pakistanis and Pakistani Army propoganda over Afghans. So I will only quote non Afghan sources:
The Pakistani Army probably sent something like 20,000 embedded advisors with the Taliban. (sometimes the ANDSF discussed their advisor as "red teams.") They focused on attacking and tying down the ANA 215th, 205th, 203rd, 201st ANA Corps. These were the four best Corps in the ANA and were in logistically intense combat while the North and the West fell. The Pakistani Army extensively used the Spin Boldek border crossing, and threatened to shoot down any AAF aircraft than neared it. The AAF complied--having so few operational combat aircraft to begin with.
I think the Pakistani Army played a major role in the attack on Kunduz--which broke the 217th ANA Corps. Because what other than the Pakistani Army could inflict catastrophic losses on the 217th ANA Corps? Which then leaves the question of how the Pakistani Army logistically supported it.
However based on reporting from the ANA and others on the ground, I don't know of evidence that they played a significant role in the attacks on 209th ANA Corps (North), Herat (207th), Farah (207th), Nimroz (215th), Bagdhis (207th), Ghor (207th).
Although I wonder how local Taliban were able to inflict catastrophic casualties on the 207th ANA Corps in Farah. One possibility is that 207th ANA Corps in Farah completely ran out of fuel, ammunition, supplies, spare parts, and were denied close air support. This is what appears to have happened in Herat--which allowed the Taliban to kill and wound vast numbers of 207th ANA Corps soldiers. The US airforce denied close air support to 207th ANA Corps on the final day of fighting in Herat (based on what a soldier fighting in Herat wrote--he was killed by the Taliban hours later.) Could something similar have happened in Farah?
It appears that Khamenei's forces took out the ANA in Nimruz and Helmand. Maybe Farah, Ghor, Baghdis too? Not sure.
However, sadly Europeans, North Americans and Chinese often side with Pakistanis and Pakistani Army propoganda over Afghans. So I will only quote non Afghan sources:
- Ending Pakistan’s Proxy War in Afghanistan: Paper by Chris Alexander
- Chris Alexander has extensively documented the Pakistani Army role. And not just in the PDF referenced here. Chris Alexander is a hero among Afghans.
- Lt Gen McMaster--former National Security Advisor under President Trump--has extensively written and spoken about this. Including in over a dozen public source videos released in the past month that you can google search. Some of them very long. I have seen most of them. But here is a short one where he might discuss this. (I have seen so many of McMaster's videos I don't remember for sure what he said in any one of them.):
- There was recently a one hour interview between Tucker Carlson and Lara Logan that discussed this.
The Pakistani Army probably sent something like 20,000 embedded advisors with the Taliban. (sometimes the ANDSF discussed their advisor as "red teams.") They focused on attacking and tying down the ANA 215th, 205th, 203rd, 201st ANA Corps. These were the four best Corps in the ANA and were in logistically intense combat while the North and the West fell. The Pakistani Army extensively used the Spin Boldek border crossing, and threatened to shoot down any AAF aircraft than neared it. The AAF complied--having so few operational combat aircraft to begin with.
I think the Pakistani Army played a major role in the attack on Kunduz--which broke the 217th ANA Corps. Because what other than the Pakistani Army could inflict catastrophic losses on the 217th ANA Corps? Which then leaves the question of how the Pakistani Army logistically supported it.
However based on reporting from the ANA and others on the ground, I don't know of evidence that they played a significant role in the attacks on 209th ANA Corps (North), Herat (207th), Farah (207th), Nimroz (215th), Bagdhis (207th), Ghor (207th).
Although I wonder how local Taliban were able to inflict catastrophic casualties on the 207th ANA Corps in Farah. One possibility is that 207th ANA Corps in Farah completely ran out of fuel, ammunition, supplies, spare parts, and were denied close air support. This is what appears to have happened in Herat--which allowed the Taliban to kill and wound vast numbers of 207th ANA Corps soldiers. The US airforce denied close air support to 207th ANA Corps on the final day of fighting in Herat (based on what a soldier fighting in Herat wrote--he was killed by the Taliban hours later.) Could something similar have happened in Farah?
It appears that Khamenei's forces took out the ANA in Nimruz and Helmand. Maybe Farah, Ghor, Baghdis too? Not sure.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Where do you get that number ? Friendly advise don't take the number from Indian sources. In fact don't put sources either from India or Pakistan on the matter of Afghanistan. The biasness of both sources are already reach the level that can be seen on CCP Media. Either from Taliban rapid advance actually done by Pakistan Army in Taliban Clothes (Indian Media) to India operating 50 consulates in Afghanistan to channel money and weapons to ANA (Pakistan Media).
So, do you have proof to support your statement that Pakistan invaded Afghanistan or not? You can certainly be of the opinion that Pakistan was involved, but that's not at all the same as being factually correct that Pakistan invaded Afghanistan.
Also, you stated the following;
Do you have any source to support the above claim? So far, what has been provided appear to be claims and personal beliefs, but no confirmation or statement from the US, Afghan, or the UN/other governments that Pakistan did indeed have troops in Afghanistan engaged in hostilities vs. the Afghan government. Without something like that, or other evidence like video or images of confirmed images of Pakistani military equipment being operated within Afghanistan, etc. then this resembles either propaganda or misinformation, neither or which is welcome on DT.
-Preceptor
These would be estimates from the ANDSF. Do you trust ANDSF sources? What sources would you trus
www.nytimes.com
www.npr.org
Preceptor, please read the writings and watch the videos of Lt. General H.R. McMaster, Lara Logan, Chris Alexander. If after viewing and reading this content, you still have questions; please ask.
Ananda, many of my sources are ANDSF and GIRoA. I am trying to persuade ANDSF generals and officers to conduct open source interviews. When they do, I will try to remember to let you know. But remember that the vast majority of the Afghan press and public believes that this is the case. So much so, that if you were to tell them that some non Afghans don't believe them . . . they would be stunned in disbelief.
Afghan MoD, their spokeman, 215th ANA Corps, Lt Gen Sami Sadat have provided a lot of public source evidence. Including in their own twitter accounts. If you don't trust Afghan MoD and the ANDSF, you have a right to your own perspectives.
Preceptor, the 20,000 estimate comes from ANDSF sources and my best estimates. Some might make the case that the actual number is closer to 15,000. Did you watch Gen McMaster? What do you consider the Miramshah Shura, Lashkar e Taiba, Lashkar e Jhanvi to be?
"no confirmation or statement from the US, Afghan, or the UN/other governments that Pakistan did indeed have troops in Afghanistan engaged in hostilities vs. the Afghan government." I am confused. There are many statements from GIRoA and Afghan MoD to this effect. Why don't you believe GIRoA or the ANDSF?
Then US Joint Chief of Staff General Mike Mullen said under oath before Congress that the Haqqani Network is a wing of the Pakistani Army Inter Services Intelligence Directorate. The Haqqani Network is also sometimes referred to as the Miramshah Shura. The Miramshah Shura is the militarily most capable of the three major Taliban military commands--the other two being the Quetta Shura Taliban and Peshawar Shura Taliban. There are many smaller Taliban military commands too.
Pakistan’s Spy Agency Is Tied to Attack on U.S. Embassy (Published 2011)
Pakistan’s intelligence agency aided insurgents who attacked the embassy in Kabul last week, said Adm. Mike Mullen, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mullen: Pakistan's Proxies Are Attacking Americans
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the Pakistani government "actively and passively" supports groups that have been behind attacks in Afghanistan.
www.npr.org
Preceptor, please read the writings and watch the videos of Lt. General H.R. McMaster, Lara Logan, Chris Alexander. If after viewing and reading this content, you still have questions; please ask.
Ananda, many of my sources are ANDSF and GIRoA. I am trying to persuade ANDSF generals and officers to conduct open source interviews. When they do, I will try to remember to let you know. But remember that the vast majority of the Afghan press and public believes that this is the case. So much so, that if you were to tell them that some non Afghans don't believe them . . . they would be stunned in disbelief.
Afghan MoD, their spokeman, 215th ANA Corps, Lt Gen Sami Sadat have provided a lot of public source evidence. Including in their own twitter accounts. If you don't trust Afghan MoD and the ANDSF, you have a right to your own perspectives.
Preceptor, the 20,000 estimate comes from ANDSF sources and my best estimates. Some might make the case that the actual number is closer to 15,000. Did you watch Gen McMaster? What do you consider the Miramshah Shura, Lashkar e Taiba, Lashkar e Jhanvi to be?
"no confirmation or statement from the US, Afghan, or the UN/other governments that Pakistan did indeed have troops in Afghanistan engaged in hostilities vs. the Afghan government." I am confused. There are many statements from GIRoA and Afghan MoD to this effect. Why don't you believe GIRoA or the ANDSF?