The Bunker Group
Yes, the distraction of Iraq is the main reason for the Afghanistan failure (and a bunch of other stuff in the ME) but you must not leave out Pakistan which has greatly contributed to this failure along with Saudi money.
If fracking for oil was fully developed in the US back in the 1980s, the need to suck-hole up to the Saudis and Pakistanis back then would not have necessary. These two mutt nations are the cause for much of the grief in the world today but mis-steps by the US are a big factor too, US smart people in the know were ignored for oil security IMO.Various British people (politicians, diplomats, etc.) have publicly said that from the 1980s they, & British intelligence & military personnel, were warning the US people involved in Pakistan that they were being played by Pakistani military intelligence & its Pashtun friends from Afghanistan. They report that that message was unwelcome, & anyone who said it too insistently would find that the Americans would no longer co-operate with, or even talk to, them.
I'm sure there were Americans who understood perfectly well what was going on, but AFAIK it was decreed from on high that such talk was unacceptable, & was a way to get a black mark on your record & a transfer into a dead-end post.
That was exactly the case : the Pakistanis received carte blanche to distribute arms and supplies they way the saw fit and the short sighted and gullible Americans went along with this arrangement despite clear indications of what the Pakistanis were doing. The result is that groups that were not combat effective but were Pakistani complaint [such as Hetmeyter's group] received a lot but Ahmad Shah Massoud received little [e.g. he only received a handful of Stingers].so relied on the Pakistanis & became rather too dependent on them, to the point where (reasonable) distrust of the ISI's (Inter-Services Intelligence) agenda & suspicion that it was too friendly with Islamic extremists was treated as disloyalty.
The Mask Is Off: Trump Is Seeking War with IranUS foreign policy is littered with absurd, tragic, and hugely destructive foreign wars that served no real purpose except the pursuit of some misguided strand of official propaganda. How else, in the end, to explain America’s useless and hugely costly entanglements in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and many other conflicts?
Well the U.S. pulled the plug before and see what happened. Trump would also be wise to consider U.S. policy towards Syria and realise that the current policy is gaga land thinking that will not achieve anything.He may eventually "pull the plug" there as there's nothing to be gained & a lot more to loose by staying!
That would a set precedent for other places be divided up. Also who gives outsiders the right to decide which countries can be allowed to be divided up and which countries can't? As it is, we have places that have endured decades of turmoil thanks to artificial borders created by outsiders for their own selfish interests without any regard for the people who actually live in those places.I said a while ago that the country should be divided up among its neighbors & stand by this statement.
Tadjikistan is a secular oligarchy backed by Russia. Would they want the territory in question? I'm not so sure. Especially with the experience they've had with Taliban incursions in the 90s.If ''partition, separation, border realignment'' happens it has to be agreed upon by the locals, not decided for or forced upon them by meddling outsiders. Also, ''partition, separation, border realignment'' may in the short term seem like the answer, in the longer term however it will create another set of problems. With regards to Afghanistan, if ''partition, separation, border realignment'' happens and the Pashtuns get their own territory, what happens to the Pashtuns on the Pakistani side of the border who might want to be part of this new territory and what happens to groups like the Hazaras? And who is to say that Tajikistan or Ubzekistan will want parts of what was formerly Afghanistan to be incorporated into their countries?
The point I was trying to makes is that Pakistan is not likely to agree to such a move is it? Agreeing to cede parts of Pakistani territory to a future ''Pashtunstan'' is something they would never agree to. And what happens to the Pashtuns who might not agree to such a move and the Baluchs of Pakistan demand the same?That's what I mean, a state comprising areas inhabited mostly by Pashtuns on both sides of the border.
Ironic isn't it, given that a lot of the killings or slaughter of Armenians was performed by Kurds troops/auxiliaries serving the Turks.The Kurds won't stop fighting the Turks- they know what happened to Armenians
In the 1960's small teams of Israelis - including future IDF Chief of Staff Raful Eitan - were in Iraq aiding the Kurds.TBTW, Iran also has Kurds, etc- here too some outside powers may seek to exploit them to weaken & destabilize Iran.