A thread to share and discuss the latest developments in this, the escalating AFPAK theater of war. News report on the UN Guest House attack in Kabul. And the car bomb in Peshawar. A White House response, Two articles that emit a bad smell. A article on complicit US involvement in anti Taliban activity in Pakistan. In Afghanistan there seems to be an upward trend in overt violence around the upcoming re-election, the Taliban seem to have identified Karzai as a CIA stooge, (surprise) and this sentiment has most likely trickled down amongst the general populace, and of course becomes a negative issue for preferred regime status. As I have said all along, the correlation between increased US involvement in anti Taliban activity in Pakistan and an upsurge in violence and attacks are evident. Troubling, is that Hilary Clinton was a mere stones throw from the brazen attack in Peshawar. What would happen if a senior US Diplomat was injured or G-d forbid killed in this theater?
Hey, Karzai's probably a crap leader and statesman, and he could well be on the American payroll. At least he won't cut your tongue out if he catches you drinking (or singing)- would you rather live under the Taliban with that kind of oppression, in a society where 99% of its citizens are uncorrupted because there's pretty much no money at all, period? Mind you, the Taliban are reputed to be rather rapacious, but in more traditional societies I guess being raped by someone isn't considered a form of corruption or abuse of authority, because it's not sanctioned by the west. Honestly, surely you don't find something wrong with supporting those Afghans and Pakistanis who wish to resist the Taliban, do you? Maybe Karzai's not the right guy for the job, but you really think just abandoning them to medieval despots is a better solution?
How many people did the medieval despots kill and maim, compared to the modern progressives? What are the statistics on Afghanistan's casualties and refugees from the last seven years of war?
Probably. We have been assured that the vast majority of Afghanis despise the Taliban, and this vast majority is well armed, familiar with the country, has received more than seven years of training and example, and can receive all the support the richest and most advanced military in the world can deliver, supply lines and satellites already in place, drones available from nearby Pakistan and air support from a dozen ports. So why not withdraw the US forces, eliminate one major source of conflict while allowing the regular Afghanis to take over their own country?
Good point. By now if the Afghans truly wanted their freedom, they'd be good and ready to stand up to the Taliban. But what if Pakistan refuses to play ball and goes back to the old habits of letting its militants cross the border unchallenged? Its citizens in the Swat valley apparently think the current offensive is just for show and will die out once the Americans turn their attention elsewhere. That's how the Taliban took over in the first place, Pakistan's ISI wanted an ally to help wage terrorism on India.
The average Afghan can't stand up to Taliban, especially now that the militias are gone or rendered less volatile. Not to mention the Taliban are well funded, have a safe heaven and are not worried about state-making -- all of which makes it difficult to extinguish them, "despite the fact that the vast majority of Afghanis despise the Taliban, and this vast majority is well armed, familiar with the country, has received more than seven years of training and example, and can receive all the support the richest and most advanced military in the world can deliver, supply lines and satellites already in place, drones available from nearby Pakistan and air support from a dozen ports."
Whats the evidence for this? The ratio of Afghan and NATO troops to Taliban is already 12:1. Are they so inept or do the majority of Afghans simply look the other way?
Among average Afghans, the Taliban have become (once again) the leading brand of resistance. What it will mean to be Taliban after the US withdrawal is a separate matter from their present resurgence. It will be more difficult for the Taliban to consolidate power again as they did in the wake of the eviction of the Soviets, because their reputation in governance is not nearly so great as their reputation in assymetrical warfare.
Post something that even remotely makes this case. And furthermore, as you note, we already have a case study of how they actually behave in power. Extreme repression, violence toward the populace and the exportation of terror and violence to the region and the world. And yet, you and your ilk want to give them another shot?
That mystery again. It isn't that ilk who are "giving them another shot". And the question is not whether the Taliban desirable. The question is a choice between alternatives of US involvement.
It's not a mystery to anyone who has studied the situation and understands asymmetric warfare. But you don't even have to view it in those terms. If a well-funded, well-armed gang with few scruples showed up in your neighborhood and you did not have functioning police or army you would do what the Afghans do, which is give them what they want, live in fear and get pushed around. Yes, it is. Or at least you and your ilk are completely missing the essence of what is at stake. If the US leave, the Taliban will grow stronger and fill the void left behind, just as they did after the US withdrew support in the mid 1990s. We know what happens when they run things, so by advocating withdrawal, you are essentially advocating giving them another shot. That's crazy.
The absence of a better-funded, better-armed, more numerous, neighborhood supported gang on the other side is what remains mysterious. The superior funding is there, the superior arms are there, the superior political support and huge numerical advantage is there, far superior training and logistical resources are there, it's been eight years of that - and no gang. So if the US stays, we would be involving ourselves in a permanent occupation and state of war in this country, killing Afghanis and dispossessing Afghanis and wrecking the country of Afghanistan, to defend a void.
countezero: "Post something that even remotely makes [the] case [that the Taliban have become the leading brand of Afghan resistance]." Gilles Dorronsoro: The Taliban's Winning Strategy in Afghanistan
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're arguing that a indigenous movement should have arisen to counter the Taliban, there were such movements in the past (the militias). The reason those do not exist today, in similar number and strength, is that the US has tried to establish a "state," in which the state has the monopoly on violence. This means the Afghan Army and Police, along with US troops are the "gang" that counters the Taliban. That's your argument, not mine. And I do not agree with it. I will read the link, which looks good. Back on topic, I am willing to accept that the Taliban are the leading -- or strongest -- movement in Afghanistan. What I do not concede, or rather what I was originally objecting to, is the "average Afghan" part of your original statement. That is, average Afghans do not like the Taliban. I'm not sure it's correct to frame them as "resistance" either. They are fighting to reclaim their lost territory.
An important issue, one of how the US and its actions are perceived in Pakistan, and the perceived and real, increase in instability it has caused. Which I have pointed out on numerous occasions.
Nothing about the Pakistani attitude is surprising. Assessing its accuracy, however, is an entirely different matter.
The Afghan Army and Police are not capable of countering the Taliban. Everyone agrees - US withdrawal leaves not an army and a police, but a "void". Why is that?
