Afghanistan - Covid-19
- Thread starter mathman
- Start date
I am confident that the Taliban leadership know that running an insurgency is vastly different to running a nation, or if they don't they certainly will...
so... the short answer to your question is they aren't handling much at all at the moment... is my guess.
Also, I read an article somewhere that discusses how the nations "money - as in Billions" is secured by their Reserve Bank and is unable to be accessed by the Taliban. I guess this means, if true, that funding any government activity is on hold at the moment and that would include any health services. (vaccines, hospital services etc)
The value of the local currency (Afghani) is dubious at best and the Taliban will need to become a functioning "government" quickly to avoid total chaos.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Lech Walesa once said that it was easier being a gadfly than running a government.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
As with any other country, people get what they deserve. No one seems to want the Taliban and yet no one fought against them so the Taliban is what they get.
It's not for the U.S. to worry too much about Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Ultimately people get what they want. The U.S. was involved in Afghanistan for about 18 years too long IMO.
It's not for the U.S. to worry too much about Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Ultimately people get what they want. The U.S. was involved in Afghanistan for about 18 years too long IMO.
I guess it's for them to worry about those places in proportion to how much they are worried that they will breed anti-US terrorist organisations. The US withdrawal and take-over by the Taliban move might also embolden terrorist organisations in other countries. And ultimately it may all come back to kick the US in the butt at some point in the future. And if so, I guess that will be what the US deserve as well, right? For not fighting against them?
Just want to be sure that the argument applies equally?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I guess it's for them to worry about those places in proportion to how much they are worried that they will breed anti-US terrorist organisations. The US withdrawal and take-over by the Taliban move might also embolden terrorist organisations in other countries. And ultimately it may all come back to kick the US in the butt at some point in the future. And if so, I guess that will be what the US deserve as well, right? For not fighting against them?
Just want to be sure that the argument applies equally?
It applies equally. Most people here didn't want to be there in the first place nor did most people support the Iraq invasion.
IMO, you can't invade and try to nation build indefinitely in any country where they don't like the U.S. If Afghanistan supports terrorist bases that plot attacks against the U.S. we can go in and take them out.
We don't have to stay there and try to create a country where there is none. We spent billions in Afghanistan and 20 years and lost more U.S. lives than occurred in the attack on 9/11. The Afghan military is larger than the Taliban and yet the Taliban just walked right in and took over without firing a shot.
It's just not sustainable, IMO.
Imperialism and nation building in a hostile region can indeed succeed, but only when the conqueror is prepared to carry out any atrocities necessary against the insurgent population, which is why countries like China and Russia have a different experience than the US and Europe when they try it. The Taliban could be permanently defeated but you'd have to cut off or poison their basic supplies of food, water and other essentials, like Russia does in Chechnya and Syria, you might also have to enter into conflict with Pakistan and do something similar there.
This is why I advocate for harsh economic sanctions against all regimes that work to stifle democracy, regardless of whether it leads those regimes to steal more from their own people to pass the burden on to them (they can already steal as much as they want anyhow), harsh sanctions on any regime serving as a middleman for other sanctioned regimes, and only going to war if you're prepared to go Columbus on your enemies, confiscate their resources and permanently depopulate, annex and settle their territories.
This is why I advocate for harsh economic sanctions against all regimes that work to stifle democracy, regardless of whether it leads those regimes to steal more from their own people to pass the burden on to them (they can already steal as much as they want anyhow), harsh sanctions on any regime serving as a middleman for other sanctioned regimes, and only going to war if you're prepared to go Columbus on your enemies, confiscate their resources and permanently depopulate, annex and settle their territories.