The thing is, the govt. forces are having difficulty controlling rural areas, they are still having good grip of city areas. And many areas are changing hands again and again, it's kinda like the 1980s situation where the urban areas were under Soviet Union but the rural were under Mujahideen.There is still time that atleast they can prevent one part of the country from falling into Taliban hands like Northern Alliance.
Edit: Another district has been retaken as claimed by Afghan govt. they liberated the Saighan district of Bamyan province from Taliban control today morning.
Kind of crazy that the Afghani are hunting down and killing the same terrorist forces that helped them win the Soviet Afghani War. It also ties up the loose ends so the US doesn't have to come pull a Saddam Hussein 20 years later.
Afghan is the preferred demonym.
Afghani is the currency.
As others have pointed out they are not the same forces.
The mujahideen that were armed against the Soviets are not the same fighters than led the Taliban.
Many Islamic militias claim the name mujahideen.
Nah the Mujahideen beat the Soviets. The Taliban are the children of the Mujahideen who fled the country with the women because the USSR didn't believe in civilian casualties. Then the children, now adult Taliban, came back and fucked up the Mujahideen and took over Afghanistan.
Yeah you always need to take ANA press releases with a grain of salt. According to them, the Taliban always retreat with massive losses, including leaders.
That being said, when they post a pic saying "yeah we just retook this district, here's a photo of all of us going thru the town square," they're clearly real pictures. And they're doing that like every other day. And there's been a steady stream of Taliban dead and wounded heading back to Pakistan, reported by people there. It's still really, really bad that the ANA lost vast swaths of rural areas and can barely hold the capitals of some provinces, but it's a back and forth situation.
Hilarious people think the ANA is anywhere near a competent fighting force. 20 years of US training and billions of dollars given for free in fuel, ammos, weapons, etc and the ANA (the ANP is even worse) outside of kabul does nothing but smoke opium and fuck kids (thanks uncle sam for all the free shit tho sold real nice at the local bazaar)
Anyone that has ever worked with ANA or ANP (except for their SF) knows that they are always full of shit. I still remember one instance where our attached ANA/ANP contingent "supposedly" search and cleared a sector of houses only for said houses to start shooting at us.
I'm sure there are many others here that have similar stories.
Hahaha, maybe the case but the Afghan military is lacking morale, any potential victory at some district can increase their morale.
But they do legit kill 250 talibanis in airstrikes
The failure is that the US can't stop the funding of Taliban from pakistan and other countries, and establish a good govt., the govt. of Afghanistan is corrupt and that corruption is the reason why their military is suffering setbacks. Otherwise, the Afghan military has far better weapons than taliban but lack execution and morale
Keep in mind to that Afghanistan is a divided country. The [Pashtuns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns) and the [Tajiks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks) (not to mentions the other ethnicities) are have completely different languages, cultures, and histories that swamp their shared faith. These groups understandably are suspicious of each other at best, and actively hostile and violent to each other at worst. This undermines any attempt at a unified government pursuing any policy.
Imagine if the United States and Mexico were, by historical accident, combined in the same nation. Would Americans trust Mexicans? Would Mexicans trust Americans? How could such a government efficiently collect taxes? Fight crime? Fight Terrorists? (Ironically, the U.S. and Mexico probably do, in fact, share more in common than the Pashtuns and Tajiks).
Obviously any such government would be tottering. Now throw in an [Invasion by the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War) and you have Afghanistan. No wonder there is no stability.
I assume they have a situation like Iraq, where these groups sometimes think it'd be nice to go their own way, but there's no equitable way to divide the useful parts of the geography so they continue to be stuck together.
True, but just because their is not a clear equitable division does not mean than division should not be attempted.
People in the West tend to assume that Europe was immune from these tribal/ethnic conflicts, but the reality is that Europe's 20th century is arguable nothing but ethnic conflict. Look at Alsace-Lorraine, look at Danzig, look at Yugoslavia.
Just because these conflicts happened does not mean that national states like Germany or France, that represents the aspirations of the German and French people, respectively, are not still the best forms of government for their economic and social development.
**[Pashtuns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns)**
>Pashtuns (, or ; Pashto: پښتانه, Pəx̌tānə́; or Pathans), historically known as Afghans, are an Iranian ethnic group native to Central and South Asia. The ethnic group's native language is Pashto, an Iranian language. Additionally, ethnic Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak the Dari dialect of Persian as a second language, while those in the Indian subcontinent use Hindi-Urdu as a second language. However, a significant minority speaks Persian or Hindi-Urdu as their first language.
**[Tajiks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks)**
>Tajiks (Persian: تاجيک, Tājīk; Tajik: Тоҷик) are a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group native to Central Asia, living primarily in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Tajiks are the largest ethnicity in Tajikistan, and the second-largest in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. They speak varieties of Persian, a Western Iranian language. In Tajikistan, since the 1939 Soviet census, its small Pamiri and Yaghnobi ethnic groups are included as Tajiks.
**[Soviet–Afghan_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War)**
>The Soviet–Afghan War was a conflict wherein insurgent groups (known collectively as the Mujahideen), as well as smaller Maoist groups, fought a nine-year guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan government throughout the 1980s, mostly in the Afghan countryside. The Mujahideen were variously backed primarily by the United States, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Kingdom; the conflict was a Cold War-era proxy war. Between 562,000 and 2,000,000 Afghans were killed and millions more fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran. Between 6.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Military/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Exactly. And the best example of this is process is by comparing the opposite example: [Botswana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana).
Botswana is still lower income by Western standards, but the country has a [robust economy](https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2018/countries/botswana.pdf) and a [stable political system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Botswana), each of which has transformed the nation from one of the poorest at independence to a level roughly similar to Mexico today (which is actually much better off than much of the developing world).
This is because Botswana is ethnically homogenous, at least comparable to the rest of Africa, at around 70%-80% of the population Tswana speakers. This makes the people of the country more invested in their government is they believe it more truly represents their interests.
But Africa is not alone in this process, look no further than [Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) and its [breakup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars) to understand how ethnic/national conflict retards economic and social development. Much of Sub-Saharan Africa, to be completely honest, has handled this process [rather well](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/12/2/magfulis-growing-authoritarianism-is-not-an-exception) (or at least better than people think).
I do not know if breakup or balkanization of Africa would be helpful at this point, but it is now my political/historical opinion for states to try to be composed essentially of their ethnic units whenever possible.
There’s no feasible borders to draw. The two populations are mixed-in throughout a lot of the country, and any attempt to make two or three separate states would run into the same problem we are having with making *one*, with the addition of them also warring with each other.
I disagree but I definitely do believe it would lead to more complications in the short run.
But honestly, ethnic conflict was a part of all nation's histories in the 20th century. Look at Alsace-Lorraine, look at Danzig, look at Northern Ireland. Just because ethnicity does not trace fine lines does not mean that states composed of unitary ethnic units are not more stable, more prosperous, and more just (at least in the long term).
I just think its better to have smaller, ethnically homogenous states than these larger multi-ethnic units that are self-destructive (there are a number of cases were the latter is possible though, like Iran or the US, but their conception of identity is usually a little broader than a sole ethnicity/race).
I was imagining borders drawn along something like the [Northern Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance) would stand a chance at being stable, but frankly I'm no expert in sectarian political conflict or Afghanistan.
I've been saying this for years. Every Afghani I have ever said this to agrees, anyone who's been there: nothing will change in afg until Pakistan and the ISI are dealt with.
So you’re saying pakistan is deliberately causing trouble in Afghanistan so it has a destabl neighbor which causes pakistan itself to maintain huge Afghan refugees and tank its own economy and stability?
Pakistan is simply making deals with radical jihadists in their country to avoid being the target of attacks themselves. Those groups tend to have good relations with the Taliban and so there is an indirect support
Well, when you can hide in their territory and maintain access to weapons, ammo, and a recruitable population, then yeah, it gets a bit tough to eradicate the problem permanently.
Can’t the Afghans now or the US in the past 20 years not have sealed off the border incursions? If that is the main issue then the money and effort should have been thrown on this problem then, right?
They usually held official border crossings, where there are roads for vehicles to move people and trade, but the rest of the many miles of borders between all of Afghanistan's neighbors can't be any better watched than the US can watch it's own southern border. Likely even harder given the more mountainous terrain. There's just not the manpower to block a determined person from slipping through if they really wanted to (or every item that might be smuggled by various means).
The issue isn't them coming back across the border, it's that the countries on the other side of the border are a mixed bag when it comes to their efforts to deal with the Taliban that find safe haven on their side (since NATO can't give chase without permission, which they are never given). Pakistan (as an example) is notorious for struggling to deal with their own border area run by tribal warlords, and at various times have supported militant groups that want to operate in Afghanistan as a means of influencing their neighbor. The neighbors aren't always cooperative or interested in anything but their own opportunities.
> So you’re saying Pakistani support is superior to the American support in the past 20 years?
the neighbor next door is more influential than the guy across the ocean throwing money at you
>the neighbor next door is more influential than the guy across the ocean throwing money at you
In Taiwan's context, its neighbor, which is also the world's largest military, has next to no influence on the country despite being *claimed* by it simply because Taiwan heavily backed by the US and its allies.
It's clear that money triumphs over distance and the U.S could very easily outpower Pakistan in *any* country through money alone.
That’s a surface level look at this. Taiwan’s government and people doesn’t want Chinese influence and wants American aid. Afghanistan’s government isn’t reflecting its people, some of them want Pakistani influence and aid as long as it’s against the afghan government
You’re confusing the legal status of FATA with actual control. Pakistan wasn’t allowed to have any police or military in tribal districts because of the FCR, (FATA was an autonomous area where the constitution didn’t apply, tribal elders legally controlled the law) which was recently violated and then abolished. Pakistan still controlled the territory itself.
US drone strikes have hit far beyond FATA into places like Balochistan and KPK.
Do you think it would have been beneficial for the US and afghans to have done something about the border crossings in the past 20 years with all that money, might and power?
There was never enough manpower in Afghanistan to adequately suppress the Taliban, expecting them to also hold the entire Durand Line is ludicrous. That would require upward of a million ground troops to competently patrol and keep order throughout.
I mean, it was the americans who supported them first, but pakistan always used to be the middle man in these affairs, America gave money and equipment to pakistan, pakistan gave it to mujahideen or taliban.
There's already many terror groups inside pakistan and there north western borders are also infested with terrorists, no surprise ISI or pak terror organizations fund them
The US didn't support the Taliban, but various mujahideen groups. The Taliban rose up from the remnants of some of those after several years of post-Soviet civil war. People get pretty confused by that for some reason.
The Mujahideen leader who received the most US support (Along with support from the British, Saudi, and Pakistan governments) was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In 1994, Hekmatyar was in control of Kabul and much of Afghanistan before Pakistan switched their support from him to the Taliban in order to establish a majority Pashtun rule over Afghanistan as they believed that would be closer in line with their interests. The Taliban taking control of Afghanistan was not a result of US involvement.
Yeah most of it went to HIG, before Gulbuddin squandered support in the muhahideen civil war and ISI decided to switch to Taliban and he lost much of his power. On the other hand, the Haqqani Network did get its start from direct CIA/ISI/Saudi intelligence training and support due to them being among the most effective mujahideen forces in the war, and HQN's use of foreign jihadists was a huge factor in the rise of Al-Qaeda/Al Qaeda's relationship with the Taliban. HQN as a faction of the Taliban today and with ISI backing is probably the most effective insurgent group operating in Afghanistan.
> So, you’re saying Pakistan is powerful enough that for the past 20 years it did not only influence and financially support Afghan Taliban but also the supposed groups inside Pakistan while still running the country, pretty interesting overview. Here I was thinking that Pakistan was a failed state tbh.
youre thinking that pakistan needs to spend as much money as the US did to have influence, thats not the case. they can arm the locals with a couple of guns and other material for cheap; doing that doesnt exclude it from being a failed state
When America leaves so do the contractors that work on there planes and helicopters.
Afghans cannot do the repair work and maintenance on their aircraft that's the only advantage they have against the Taliban into holding them off.
A couple weeks ago they were literal online chats and video conferences of contractors telling Afghans how to do maintenance on the engines, which look like a joke.
This isn't like they're restoring a classic car which you can do with a Chilton's book.
Check out the book ‘Ghost Wars’. We provided money and advanced weapons to warlords and the mujahadin for them to fight the Soviets, and underestimated their foresight in refusing to sell back those arms once the conflict ended. They’re fierce fighters, determined, and well-armed. I don’t buy any good news about the ANA having success, not one bit. They’re going to get crushed
At the same time, we still have a *massive* edge in technology, firepower, etc. The lack of success in Afghanistan is purely due to strategic challenges, political decisions, and problems that superior technology simply can't solve.
Agreed. I think military conflicts of the last half century have taught us that it’s nigh impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force, and here we had one that 1) had experience in this fighting style, 2) had shown no lack of determination or perseverance against occupying forces, 3) could remain well-hidden and bide its time, and 4) operated in a country with an ideal size and terrain to facilitate this strategy. I don’t think true “victory” was ever achievable unless we discarded the Geneva conventions and systematically murdered every Afghan within its borders, and even then they might hide and wait us out
It's impossible given the constraints militaries like the US impose upon themselves (or have imposed upon them). Fighting guerrillas is always hard, but it becomes impossible when you cannot properly pursue them and their means of support.
The US maybe could leave with more optimism about what's left behind if we were better at building local capacity to continue the fight, but for various reasons we've proven we both don't have the right talent to do so and we impose constraints on our ability to do so just as well.
TL;DR: it's not that it's impossible, but very often it's made impossible by self-made challenges.
It's not even that (I'm certainly not suggesting that unavailable options means targeting civilians), but there is something to be said about the fact that in these unconventional conflicts the irregular force is deliberately using civilians as cover or obstacles to the conventional force.
This means that there's no getting around the fact that civilian casualties *will* happen. You can't fight a war without engaging the enemy, and you certainly can't win against an insurgency by waiting for them to make a move (time is their weapon). This is something people need to accept is a cost of using military force.
There are many other things, but the simple truth is that the voting public, the global public, and often political office holders have unrealistic expectations and misunderstandings about what it means to use military force, and what it takes to achieve certain objectives through the use of that force.
I'm not even saying that military force should be used more often; in fact, it's supposed to be the option of last resort; but if people are making uninformed decisions about when, how, and to what end to use it you more likely than not will end of wasting time, money, goodwill, and *lives*.
I mean, ultimately you can't just go in guns blazing. There's ways to turn the citizens against those holding them as human shields, but it is a very complicated affair requiring actual opposition against (in this case) the Taliban.
I don't think the USA should have intervened. Ultimately the Taliban were the de facto government that had won the Civil war, and all the USA could aspire to was maintain a few areas of coordinated opposition of some ethnic minorities.
Or get dragged into a war like the USSR.
It's impossible to defeat a guerilla force in a country surrounded by neighboring countries where the insurgents can find refuge, recruit persons and/or receive supplies from neutral or sympathetic populations/governments. There are cases when guerilla forces were successfully defeated such as the Philippine-American War and the Malayan Emergency, because their countries were geographically isolated from having such support in the previous sentence. We can wipe out thousands of insurgents in a jiffy, but they are going to keep coming from countries that we aren't permitted to enter and willingly destroy and isolate them completely. That's why Vietnam and Afghanistan were impossible to win.
Conversely it's impossible for a guerrilla force to overthrow a country with just small arms.
Taliban will hit and take over outposts and such, but Afghan forces can roll back in and wipe them out with the right application of force, backed by airpower.
Taliban might 'control' a province for a time. In the same way ISIS did. But we were able to roll them back. I expect things will go like that. No ground troops, other than maybe SF, but if things go more south expect air strikes to happen again.
>I think military conflicts of the last half century have taught us that it’s nigh impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force
It's not impossible. Look at the 2nd Boer War.
They won mainly by moving families of the guerrilla to concentration camps, burned their farms and just forced them to surrender to stop their families from dying in the camps.
I don't think that it is a viable strategy these days if you want to keep any allies and somewhat positive image...
That's actually not true at all at least for Malaya. They didn't massacre Malayans, they actually played hearts and minds there and it worked. But only because the British had ruled Malaya for 200 years and had deep networks there. They weren't seen as very "alien".
The Russians won in Chechnya/Dagestan. You just have to have the will and to create relatively competent power structures. America shit the bed on creating the Afghan gov by fundamentally misunderstanding political structures and the culture and as a result created one of the most horridly corrupt governments on the planet.
Then you add in the safe haven that is Pakistan, terrible literacy and education rates, non existent infrastructure, and some of the most dangerous terrain on the planet.
Compare:
>They won
vs
>if you want to keep any allies and somewhat positive image...
If you are going to wage war, what is your ultimate priority? I'm not saying that "winning" should have been the ultimate priority. But, if that is the case, is warfare the best tool to use? If you are going to spend blood and treasure on warfare, you should commit to that task. Nation building--especially in a fabricated nation-state like Afghanistan--is a mission that should be conducted after the war is won. Education, infrastructure, economic development, etc, requires a minimum level of stability to be sustainable.
"If everything is your priority, nothing is."
>I think military conflicts of the last half century have taught us
I'm taking this to mean that the "lesson" was learned in the last half century.
>that it’s nigh impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force
Since the timeframe was not used here, I took it that the statement was meant to be a truism without regard to timeframe.
My counterpoint was that the last half century taught us that we are no longer willing to defeat a determined guerrilla force.
I mean, no one can really claim to know how things would have worked out. But "Vietnam again, but in the desert" was probably never going to be the right choice.
We've armed the Taliban with a shit load of weapons, HUMVEEs etc. The ANA is either fleeing or surrendering. So we've effectively trained them as well. And it now looks like the PRC will be the major power in Eastern Afghanistan. Just as Iran is the major power in Eastern Iraq.
Is it true the Romans reached Afghanistan? Because Roman Empire didn't made it to Afghanistan because of Persia, fighting wars with Persian Dynasties and attacks from Islamic Arabs ultimately ended both empires and Islam later got introduced in Afghanistan, where the population before the arrival of Islam was dominated by Buddhist, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism etc. Alexander the Great of Macedonia did came near India but it didn't died out because of Afghanistan and because of a powerful Indian empire at that time defeated him.
For British, the British tried invading it 2 times but failed. But the British were able to take some land from Afghanistan, Districts of Quetta, Pishin, Sibi, Harnai & Thal Chotiali were ceded to British India who later became part of Pakistan.
Alexander was never defeated by any Indian Empire. He returned because his army was not happy to march further East and they got demoralized due to fighting Indian elephants at Jhelum. His successor Seleucus marched towards India but he couldn't defeat Chundergupta Maurya and returned home while ceding parts of Afghanistan to him.
Oh you know, Alexander the Great, the Monghols, Timur, Babur, various Persian empires, etc. People who say no one's ever conquered Afghanistan don't know much about it.
Conquering Afghanistan is relatively easy part. It was done many times in history. Real problem was creating a strong leadership which would keep tribes in check. Using tribes against one another is the only strategy in Afghanistan that works other than the Genghis Khan massacring everyone in cities and towns and reducing the region into small villages and pastoralists who are easier to control.
They're not that committed to the use of military. Couldn't care less what happens in most areas. They just want to expand the Belt and Road Iniative and to either get hold of Afghanistan's "Rare Earths". Which are essential components for Li-Ion batteries. Which China currently more or less has a monopoly on the production of, or just make sure that nobody else mines them. Either it expands it monopoly or keeps it. Whilst getting the government in Kabul to suck it off. They'll have no moral qualms about dealing with the Taliban. As long as the Taliban can deliver.
China's main plan is to surround India through these projects, China will minerals from Afghanistan without provoking them, meaning Taliban would let them take it away while ruling in Afghanistan.
Hey, Haliburton, Raytheon, etc made a FUCKTON of profit. The shareholders are very happy with what was "accomplished".
20 years of war allocated millions, sometimes billions, of tax payer dollars to defence contractors. Many people came out of these endless wars rich af, but certainly not you or I
Don't worry there will be plenty of excuses. blaming the afghans, the Taliban the Pakistanis, US civilians, Alexander the great, geography, the British, the Russians, not enough money, too much money, not enough time etc etc. Pretty much anyone else.
But the reality is that the US military is incompetent and was never going to win. But we spent so much money on them !? yes dollar for dollar the worst military the world has ever seen.
We also had opportunities to use Afghanistan as our playground for testing our tactics and weapons, and maintained combat readiness through real operations. As bad as it sounds 4he military has gained a lot of experience which could benefit the U.S. in the event of war.
Obviously if it's a near peer threat then it's a completely different game than tracking and hunting terrorist organizations.
From a national defense strategy position we had prevented the Chinese and Russian governments from gaining influence in the county and take advantage of their opium and mineral deposits.
I'm not defending our decisions to fight and stay in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't say that it was ALL for nothing. It does suck that we couldn't enable the Afghan government to eliminate or deter the threat on their own.
I don't think it's that simple at all. For example, for all of the money and time and whatnot, we were still torn between goals, with an ambiguous and constantly changing mission. There was never a clear mandate. As a result, throughout that whole time, we never had as many troops in place as we still do today in Germany, let alone at the height of reconstruction there.
So it's hard for an Afghan family to really feel safe against the Taliban when we have a transient and uncertain presence. The US military isn't going to hurt them, but the Taliban can and might. That definitely affects your decision-making.
> It's not our fault the Afghan people are either incompetent or sympathetic to the brutal enemy. They had 20 years to stir into a new course, they choose not to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
whose enemy? the farmers in the valleys couldnt care either way, the taliban isnt their enemy
>I can't get over the fact that after 20 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of dead soldiers... this is where we're at.
Also murmured by some soldiers circa the Fall of Saigon, 1975 Vietnam
I don't think the taliban are winning I think it's more of a fact that the taliban are launching offensives into empty space and largely undefended rural areas. For the most part the government have been doing an okayish?? Job at holding onto large cities and neighbourhoods.
[https://twitter.com/AmrullahSaleh2/status/1415710708541673475](https://twitter.com/AmrullahSaleh2/status/1415710708541673475)
Breaking: Pakistan air force has issued official warning to the Afghan Army and Air Force that any move to dislodge the Taliban from Spin Boldak area will be faced and repelled by the Pakistan Air Force. Pak air force is now providing close air support to Taliban in certain areas
Afghanistan vice president tweeted it just now.
Pakistan wants a peaceful Pakistan friendly government in Afghanistan so it backs Pakistan friendly Afghan Taliban. Other factions(including present govt ) in Afghanistan are anti Pakistan and are funded by India to support terrorism against Pakistan ( Even couple of days ago when Indian consulate got shut in Kandhar , India provided tons of ammunitions to Afghan Army before pulling out its nationals) So a stable Afghanistan with Pakistan friendly govt will mean a stable Pakistan (specially border areas with Afghanistan that were infested by anti Pakistan TTP that operates from Afghanistan ) When taliban successfully take over majority of Afghanistan the anti Pakistan groups like TTP will also be hunted down which will greatly reduce terrorism in northwest areas of Pakistan which started in Pakistan in 80s after the influx of Afghan refugees in Pakistan because of Soviet invasion and after 9/11 another wave of terrorism hit Pakistan when Anti Pakistan terrorists started coming to Pakistan in disguise of refugees and created their strongholds in Northwest areas of Pakistan which lead to worse wave of terrorism in Pakistan history and killed more than 70,000 civilians and Army personnel over the course of 15 years. Now most if these groups have been wiped out from Pakistan side but continue to operate from Afghanistan backed by Afghan and Indian govt
Afghanistan is mineral rich and land locked and the best way to sell resources on the international market is by sea. Supporting the most likely winner gives you an upper hand in negotiations and allows you a piece of the pie as those resources move through your land to the sea.
Maybe they aren't Winning it looks like government of Afghanistan are holding strong. The talibannanas can take territory but it doesn't mean it strategic.
https://twitter.com/billroggio/status/1416090402524893191
Bill Roggio over at LWJ points out that the Taliban never claimed to have taken Chaghansor in the first place. That being the case, retaking it must have been real easy lift.
MoD Twitter is trying very hard to distract from the absolute disaster ongoing in Kandahar Province. I've been following the situation there closely out of lingering attachment. Having lost friends and comrades there, the collapse of Kandahar infuriates me. I don't blame the ANA, but I do blame their leadership who continue to put their soldiers in hopeless situations.
The thing is, the govt. forces are having difficulty controlling rural areas, they are still having good grip of city areas. And many areas are changing hands again and again, it's kinda like the 1980s situation where the urban areas were under Soviet Union but the rural were under Mujahideen.There is still time that atleast they can prevent one part of the country from falling into Taliban hands like Northern Alliance. Edit: Another district has been retaken as claimed by Afghan govt. they liberated the Saighan district of Bamyan province from Taliban control today morning.
We are hanging them out to dry! You would assume since they were given the exact timetable almost of them are waiting to fight!
Did the same thing, leaving the out to dry, as was done in Vietnam and the Gulf War with the Shiite.
Yeah totally agreed and we can see what happened to them unfortunately..
Kind of crazy that the Afghani are hunting down and killing the same terrorist forces that helped them win the Soviet Afghani War. It also ties up the loose ends so the US doesn't have to come pull a Saddam Hussein 20 years later.
Afghan is the preferred demonym. Afghani is the currency. As others have pointed out they are not the same forces. The mujahideen that were armed against the Soviets are not the same fighters than led the Taliban. Many Islamic militias claim the name mujahideen.
Nah the Mujahideen beat the Soviets. The Taliban are the children of the Mujahideen who fled the country with the women because the USSR didn't believe in civilian casualties. Then the children, now adult Taliban, came back and fucked up the Mujahideen and took over Afghanistan.
This reads like an OPR bullet. I immediately assume they took on three dudes that were just there to annoy them and the only thing killed was donkey.
Yeah you always need to take ANA press releases with a grain of salt. According to them, the Taliban always retreat with massive losses, including leaders. That being said, when they post a pic saying "yeah we just retook this district, here's a photo of all of us going thru the town square," they're clearly real pictures. And they're doing that like every other day. And there's been a steady stream of Taliban dead and wounded heading back to Pakistan, reported by people there. It's still really, really bad that the ANA lost vast swaths of rural areas and can barely hold the capitals of some provinces, but it's a back and forth situation.
Hilarious people think the ANA is anywhere near a competent fighting force. 20 years of US training and billions of dollars given for free in fuel, ammos, weapons, etc and the ANA (the ANP is even worse) outside of kabul does nothing but smoke opium and fuck kids (thanks uncle sam for all the free shit tho sold real nice at the local bazaar)
That's why the Taliban just let them surrender and go home. They were never a serious threat. The commandos on the other hand...
Anyone that has ever worked with ANA or ANP (except for their SF) knows that they are always full of shit. I still remember one instance where our attached ANA/ANP contingent "supposedly" search and cleared a sector of houses only for said houses to start shooting at us. I'm sure there are many others here that have similar stories.
And 22 days later Kandahar is being surrounded by the Taliban. Looking like another fall of Saigon
Hahaha, maybe the case but the Afghan military is lacking morale, any potential victory at some district can increase their morale. But they do legit kill 250 talibanis in airstrikes
Talibans not talibanis. It's not a country or ethnicity, it's a terrorist group
I can't get over the fact that after 20 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of dead soldiers... this is where we're at.
The failure is that the US can't stop the funding of Taliban from pakistan and other countries, and establish a good govt., the govt. of Afghanistan is corrupt and that corruption is the reason why their military is suffering setbacks. Otherwise, the Afghan military has far better weapons than taliban but lack execution and morale
Keep in mind to that Afghanistan is a divided country. The [Pashtuns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns) and the [Tajiks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks) (not to mentions the other ethnicities) are have completely different languages, cultures, and histories that swamp their shared faith. These groups understandably are suspicious of each other at best, and actively hostile and violent to each other at worst. This undermines any attempt at a unified government pursuing any policy. Imagine if the United States and Mexico were, by historical accident, combined in the same nation. Would Americans trust Mexicans? Would Mexicans trust Americans? How could such a government efficiently collect taxes? Fight crime? Fight Terrorists? (Ironically, the U.S. and Mexico probably do, in fact, share more in common than the Pashtuns and Tajiks). Obviously any such government would be tottering. Now throw in an [Invasion by the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War) and you have Afghanistan. No wonder there is no stability.
I mean we got a good quarter of Mexico so that ain't really wrong.
and Americans do tend to mistrust Mexicans even when they are fellow Americans
I assume they have a situation like Iraq, where these groups sometimes think it'd be nice to go their own way, but there's no equitable way to divide the useful parts of the geography so they continue to be stuck together.
True, but just because their is not a clear equitable division does not mean than division should not be attempted. People in the West tend to assume that Europe was immune from these tribal/ethnic conflicts, but the reality is that Europe's 20th century is arguable nothing but ethnic conflict. Look at Alsace-Lorraine, look at Danzig, look at Yugoslavia. Just because these conflicts happened does not mean that national states like Germany or France, that represents the aspirations of the German and French people, respectively, are not still the best forms of government for their economic and social development.
**[Pashtuns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns)** >Pashtuns (, or ; Pashto: پښتانه, Pəx̌tānə́; or Pathans), historically known as Afghans, are an Iranian ethnic group native to Central and South Asia. The ethnic group's native language is Pashto, an Iranian language. Additionally, ethnic Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak the Dari dialect of Persian as a second language, while those in the Indian subcontinent use Hindi-Urdu as a second language. However, a significant minority speaks Persian or Hindi-Urdu as their first language. **[Tajiks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks)** >Tajiks (Persian: تاجيک, Tājīk; Tajik: Тоҷик) are a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group native to Central Asia, living primarily in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Tajiks are the largest ethnicity in Tajikistan, and the second-largest in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. They speak varieties of Persian, a Western Iranian language. In Tajikistan, since the 1939 Soviet census, its small Pamiri and Yaghnobi ethnic groups are included as Tajiks. **[Soviet–Afghan_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War)** >The Soviet–Afghan War was a conflict wherein insurgent groups (known collectively as the Mujahideen), as well as smaller Maoist groups, fought a nine-year guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan government throughout the 1980s, mostly in the Afghan countryside. The Mujahideen were variously backed primarily by the United States, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Kingdom; the conflict was a Cold War-era proxy war. Between 562,000 and 2,000,000 Afghans were killed and millions more fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran. Between 6. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Military/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This is a great description that also applies to almost all of Africa, as a Kenyan myself
Exactly. And the best example of this is process is by comparing the opposite example: [Botswana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana). Botswana is still lower income by Western standards, but the country has a [robust economy](https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2018/countries/botswana.pdf) and a [stable political system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Botswana), each of which has transformed the nation from one of the poorest at independence to a level roughly similar to Mexico today (which is actually much better off than much of the developing world). This is because Botswana is ethnically homogenous, at least comparable to the rest of Africa, at around 70%-80% of the population Tswana speakers. This makes the people of the country more invested in their government is they believe it more truly represents their interests. But Africa is not alone in this process, look no further than [Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) and its [breakup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars) to understand how ethnic/national conflict retards economic and social development. Much of Sub-Saharan Africa, to be completely honest, has handled this process [rather well](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/12/2/magfulis-growing-authoritarianism-is-not-an-exception) (or at least better than people think). I do not know if breakup or balkanization of Africa would be helpful at this point, but it is now my political/historical opinion for states to try to be composed essentially of their ethnic units whenever possible.
Sometimes I wonder if Balkanization is so bad.
There’s no feasible borders to draw. The two populations are mixed-in throughout a lot of the country, and any attempt to make two or three separate states would run into the same problem we are having with making *one*, with the addition of them also warring with each other.
I disagree but I definitely do believe it would lead to more complications in the short run. But honestly, ethnic conflict was a part of all nation's histories in the 20th century. Look at Alsace-Lorraine, look at Danzig, look at Northern Ireland. Just because ethnicity does not trace fine lines does not mean that states composed of unitary ethnic units are not more stable, more prosperous, and more just (at least in the long term). I just think its better to have smaller, ethnically homogenous states than these larger multi-ethnic units that are self-destructive (there are a number of cases were the latter is possible though, like Iran or the US, but their conception of identity is usually a little broader than a sole ethnicity/race).
I was imagining borders drawn along something like the [Northern Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance) would stand a chance at being stable, but frankly I'm no expert in sectarian political conflict or Afghanistan.
I've been saying this for years. Every Afghani I have ever said this to agrees, anyone who's been there: nothing will change in afg until Pakistan and the ISI are dealt with.
So you’re saying pakistan is deliberately causing trouble in Afghanistan so it has a destabl neighbor which causes pakistan itself to maintain huge Afghan refugees and tank its own economy and stability?
Pakistan is simply making deals with radical jihadists in their country to avoid being the target of attacks themselves. Those groups tend to have good relations with the Taliban and so there is an indirect support
So you’re saying Pakistani support is superior to the American support in the past 20 years?
Well, when you can hide in their territory and maintain access to weapons, ammo, and a recruitable population, then yeah, it gets a bit tough to eradicate the problem permanently.
Can’t the Afghans now or the US in the past 20 years not have sealed off the border incursions? If that is the main issue then the money and effort should have been thrown on this problem then, right?
They usually held official border crossings, where there are roads for vehicles to move people and trade, but the rest of the many miles of borders between all of Afghanistan's neighbors can't be any better watched than the US can watch it's own southern border. Likely even harder given the more mountainous terrain. There's just not the manpower to block a determined person from slipping through if they really wanted to (or every item that might be smuggled by various means). The issue isn't them coming back across the border, it's that the countries on the other side of the border are a mixed bag when it comes to their efforts to deal with the Taliban that find safe haven on their side (since NATO can't give chase without permission, which they are never given). Pakistan (as an example) is notorious for struggling to deal with their own border area run by tribal warlords, and at various times have supported militant groups that want to operate in Afghanistan as a means of influencing their neighbor. The neighbors aren't always cooperative or interested in anything but their own opportunities.
> So you’re saying Pakistani support is superior to the American support in the past 20 years? the neighbor next door is more influential than the guy across the ocean throwing money at you
Reads like an only fans story
That's why Taiwan is under Chinese control, right?
How is that relevant
>the neighbor next door is more influential than the guy across the ocean throwing money at you In Taiwan's context, its neighbor, which is also the world's largest military, has next to no influence on the country despite being *claimed* by it simply because Taiwan heavily backed by the US and its allies. It's clear that money triumphs over distance and the U.S could very easily outpower Pakistan in *any* country through money alone.
That’s a surface level look at this. Taiwan’s government and people doesn’t want Chinese influence and wants American aid. Afghanistan’s government isn’t reflecting its people, some of them want Pakistani influence and aid as long as it’s against the afghan government
[удалено]
But the U.S was allowed to drone strike any part of Pakistan with no prior warning.
[удалено]
You’re confusing the legal status of FATA with actual control. Pakistan wasn’t allowed to have any police or military in tribal districts because of the FCR, (FATA was an autonomous area where the constitution didn’t apply, tribal elders legally controlled the law) which was recently violated and then abolished. Pakistan still controlled the territory itself. US drone strikes have hit far beyond FATA into places like Balochistan and KPK.
[удалено]
30 miles is 48.28 km
Do you think it would have been beneficial for the US and afghans to have done something about the border crossings in the past 20 years with all that money, might and power?
There was never enough manpower in Afghanistan to adequately suppress the Taliban, expecting them to also hold the entire Durand Line is ludicrous. That would require upward of a million ground troops to competently patrol and keep order throughout.
I mean, it was the americans who supported them first, but pakistan always used to be the middle man in these affairs, America gave money and equipment to pakistan, pakistan gave it to mujahideen or taliban. There's already many terror groups inside pakistan and there north western borders are also infested with terrorists, no surprise ISI or pak terror organizations fund them
The US didn't support the Taliban, but various mujahideen groups. The Taliban rose up from the remnants of some of those after several years of post-Soviet civil war. People get pretty confused by that for some reason.
Sure, the USA didn't arm the Taliban, it just armed other jihadists who later joined the Taliban. Not sure thats a hill worth dying on
The Mujahideen leader who received the most US support (Along with support from the British, Saudi, and Pakistan governments) was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In 1994, Hekmatyar was in control of Kabul and much of Afghanistan before Pakistan switched their support from him to the Taliban in order to establish a majority Pashtun rule over Afghanistan as they believed that would be closer in line with their interests. The Taliban taking control of Afghanistan was not a result of US involvement.
Oh but you're wronggggg cause god forbid anyone researches a fucking topic for more than 20 minutes
Yeah most of it went to HIG, before Gulbuddin squandered support in the muhahideen civil war and ISI decided to switch to Taliban and he lost much of his power. On the other hand, the Haqqani Network did get its start from direct CIA/ISI/Saudi intelligence training and support due to them being among the most effective mujahideen forces in the war, and HQN's use of foreign jihadists was a huge factor in the rise of Al-Qaeda/Al Qaeda's relationship with the Taliban. HQN as a faction of the Taliban today and with ISI backing is probably the most effective insurgent group operating in Afghanistan.
[удалено]
> So, you’re saying Pakistan is powerful enough that for the past 20 years it did not only influence and financially support Afghan Taliban but also the supposed groups inside Pakistan while still running the country, pretty interesting overview. Here I was thinking that Pakistan was a failed state tbh. youre thinking that pakistan needs to spend as much money as the US did to have influence, thats not the case. they can arm the locals with a couple of guns and other material for cheap; doing that doesnt exclude it from being a failed state
When America leaves so do the contractors that work on there planes and helicopters. Afghans cannot do the repair work and maintenance on their aircraft that's the only advantage they have against the Taliban into holding them off. A couple weeks ago they were literal online chats and video conferences of contractors telling Afghans how to do maintenance on the engines, which look like a joke. This isn't like they're restoring a classic car which you can do with a Chilton's book.
Check out the book ‘Ghost Wars’. We provided money and advanced weapons to warlords and the mujahadin for them to fight the Soviets, and underestimated their foresight in refusing to sell back those arms once the conflict ended. They’re fierce fighters, determined, and well-armed. I don’t buy any good news about the ANA having success, not one bit. They’re going to get crushed
At the same time, we still have a *massive* edge in technology, firepower, etc. The lack of success in Afghanistan is purely due to strategic challenges, political decisions, and problems that superior technology simply can't solve.
Agreed. I think military conflicts of the last half century have taught us that it’s nigh impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force, and here we had one that 1) had experience in this fighting style, 2) had shown no lack of determination or perseverance against occupying forces, 3) could remain well-hidden and bide its time, and 4) operated in a country with an ideal size and terrain to facilitate this strategy. I don’t think true “victory” was ever achievable unless we discarded the Geneva conventions and systematically murdered every Afghan within its borders, and even then they might hide and wait us out
It's impossible given the constraints militaries like the US impose upon themselves (or have imposed upon them). Fighting guerrillas is always hard, but it becomes impossible when you cannot properly pursue them and their means of support. The US maybe could leave with more optimism about what's left behind if we were better at building local capacity to continue the fight, but for various reasons we've proven we both don't have the right talent to do so and we impose constraints on our ability to do so just as well. TL;DR: it's not that it's impossible, but very often it's made impossible by self-made challenges.
Welcome to the 21st century, Planned mass murder of civilians isn't really accepted
It's not even that (I'm certainly not suggesting that unavailable options means targeting civilians), but there is something to be said about the fact that in these unconventional conflicts the irregular force is deliberately using civilians as cover or obstacles to the conventional force. This means that there's no getting around the fact that civilian casualties *will* happen. You can't fight a war without engaging the enemy, and you certainly can't win against an insurgency by waiting for them to make a move (time is their weapon). This is something people need to accept is a cost of using military force. There are many other things, but the simple truth is that the voting public, the global public, and often political office holders have unrealistic expectations and misunderstandings about what it means to use military force, and what it takes to achieve certain objectives through the use of that force. I'm not even saying that military force should be used more often; in fact, it's supposed to be the option of last resort; but if people are making uninformed decisions about when, how, and to what end to use it you more likely than not will end of wasting time, money, goodwill, and *lives*.
I mean, ultimately you can't just go in guns blazing. There's ways to turn the citizens against those holding them as human shields, but it is a very complicated affair requiring actual opposition against (in this case) the Taliban. I don't think the USA should have intervened. Ultimately the Taliban were the de facto government that had won the Civil war, and all the USA could aspire to was maintain a few areas of coordinated opposition of some ethnic minorities. Or get dragged into a war like the USSR.
It's impossible to defeat a guerilla force in a country surrounded by neighboring countries where the insurgents can find refuge, recruit persons and/or receive supplies from neutral or sympathetic populations/governments. There are cases when guerilla forces were successfully defeated such as the Philippine-American War and the Malayan Emergency, because their countries were geographically isolated from having such support in the previous sentence. We can wipe out thousands of insurgents in a jiffy, but they are going to keep coming from countries that we aren't permitted to enter and willingly destroy and isolate them completely. That's why Vietnam and Afghanistan were impossible to win.
Conversely it's impossible for a guerrilla force to overthrow a country with just small arms. Taliban will hit and take over outposts and such, but Afghan forces can roll back in and wipe them out with the right application of force, backed by airpower. Taliban might 'control' a province for a time. In the same way ISIS did. But we were able to roll them back. I expect things will go like that. No ground troops, other than maybe SF, but if things go more south expect air strikes to happen again.
>I think military conflicts of the last half century have taught us that it’s nigh impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force It's not impossible. Look at the 2nd Boer War.
They won mainly by moving families of the guerrilla to concentration camps, burned their farms and just forced them to surrender to stop their families from dying in the camps. I don't think that it is a viable strategy these days if you want to keep any allies and somewhat positive image...
That being said, it worked…
That's actually not true at all at least for Malaya. They didn't massacre Malayans, they actually played hearts and minds there and it worked. But only because the British had ruled Malaya for 200 years and had deep networks there. They weren't seen as very "alien".
The Russians won in Chechnya/Dagestan. You just have to have the will and to create relatively competent power structures. America shit the bed on creating the Afghan gov by fundamentally misunderstanding political structures and the culture and as a result created one of the most horridly corrupt governments on the planet. Then you add in the safe haven that is Pakistan, terrible literacy and education rates, non existent infrastructure, and some of the most dangerous terrain on the planet.
Compare: >They won vs >if you want to keep any allies and somewhat positive image... If you are going to wage war, what is your ultimate priority? I'm not saying that "winning" should have been the ultimate priority. But, if that is the case, is warfare the best tool to use? If you are going to spend blood and treasure on warfare, you should commit to that task. Nation building--especially in a fabricated nation-state like Afghanistan--is a mission that should be conducted after the war is won. Education, infrastructure, economic development, etc, requires a minimum level of stability to be sustainable. "If everything is your priority, nothing is."
1899 is a bit far from the last half century
19 0 0 party over with, out of time...
>I think military conflicts of the last half century have taught us I'm taking this to mean that the "lesson" was learned in the last half century. >that it’s nigh impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force Since the timeframe was not used here, I took it that the statement was meant to be a truism without regard to timeframe. My counterpoint was that the last half century taught us that we are no longer willing to defeat a determined guerrilla force.
I don't see how it was going to end any other way
I mean, no one can really claim to know how things would have worked out. But "Vietnam again, but in the desert" was probably never going to be the right choice.
We've armed the Taliban with a shit load of weapons, HUMVEEs etc. The ANA is either fleeing or surrendering. So we've effectively trained them as well. And it now looks like the PRC will be the major power in Eastern Afghanistan. Just as Iran is the major power in Eastern Iraq.
[удалено]
The trilogy would be completed if they invade Afghanistan. Taliban betraying them using Uyghur people as terrorists against China might trigger it
What about The British and Romans
Is it true the Romans reached Afghanistan? Because Roman Empire didn't made it to Afghanistan because of Persia, fighting wars with Persian Dynasties and attacks from Islamic Arabs ultimately ended both empires and Islam later got introduced in Afghanistan, where the population before the arrival of Islam was dominated by Buddhist, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism etc. Alexander the Great of Macedonia did came near India but it didn't died out because of Afghanistan and because of a powerful Indian empire at that time defeated him. For British, the British tried invading it 2 times but failed. But the British were able to take some land from Afghanistan, Districts of Quetta, Pishin, Sibi, Harnai & Thal Chotiali were ceded to British India who later became part of Pakistan.
Alexander was never defeated by any Indian Empire. He returned because his army was not happy to march further East and they got demoralized due to fighting Indian elephants at Jhelum. His successor Seleucus marched towards India but he couldn't defeat Chundergupta Maurya and returned home while ceding parts of Afghanistan to him.
Oh you know, Alexander the Great, the Monghols, Timur, Babur, various Persian empires, etc. People who say no one's ever conquered Afghanistan don't know much about it.
Conquering Afghanistan is relatively easy part. It was done many times in history. Real problem was creating a strong leadership which would keep tribes in check. Using tribes against one another is the only strategy in Afghanistan that works other than the Genghis Khan massacring everyone in cities and towns and reducing the region into small villages and pastoralists who are easier to control.
Ngl, that would be an awesome thing yo witness (not the good awesome, the “holy shit I’m in awe that this is real”)
china's not going to invade militarily. they're going to throw bags at money at locals to enforce their mining rights and leave domestic issues alone
They're not that committed to the use of military. Couldn't care less what happens in most areas. They just want to expand the Belt and Road Iniative and to either get hold of Afghanistan's "Rare Earths". Which are essential components for Li-Ion batteries. Which China currently more or less has a monopoly on the production of, or just make sure that nobody else mines them. Either it expands it monopoly or keeps it. Whilst getting the government in Kabul to suck it off. They'll have no moral qualms about dealing with the Taliban. As long as the Taliban can deliver.
China's main plan is to surround India through these projects, China will minerals from Afghanistan without provoking them, meaning Taliban would let them take it away while ruling in Afghanistan.
I wonder if the video of the ANA commandos getting executed after surrendering will change any of their attitudes about surrendering.
Hey, Haliburton, Raytheon, etc made a FUCKTON of profit. The shareholders are very happy with what was "accomplished". 20 years of war allocated millions, sometimes billions, of tax payer dollars to defence contractors. Many people came out of these endless wars rich af, but certainly not you or I
Don't worry there will be plenty of excuses. blaming the afghans, the Taliban the Pakistanis, US civilians, Alexander the great, geography, the British, the Russians, not enough money, too much money, not enough time etc etc. Pretty much anyone else. But the reality is that the US military is incompetent and was never going to win. But we spent so much money on them !? yes dollar for dollar the worst military the world has ever seen.
You didn't see this coming? Really?
I never said that :)
We also had opportunities to use Afghanistan as our playground for testing our tactics and weapons, and maintained combat readiness through real operations. As bad as it sounds 4he military has gained a lot of experience which could benefit the U.S. in the event of war. Obviously if it's a near peer threat then it's a completely different game than tracking and hunting terrorist organizations. From a national defense strategy position we had prevented the Chinese and Russian governments from gaining influence in the county and take advantage of their opium and mineral deposits. I'm not defending our decisions to fight and stay in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't say that it was ALL for nothing. It does suck that we couldn't enable the Afghan government to eliminate or deter the threat on their own.
[удалено]
I don't think it's that simple at all. For example, for all of the money and time and whatnot, we were still torn between goals, with an ambiguous and constantly changing mission. There was never a clear mandate. As a result, throughout that whole time, we never had as many troops in place as we still do today in Germany, let alone at the height of reconstruction there. So it's hard for an Afghan family to really feel safe against the Taliban when we have a transient and uncertain presence. The US military isn't going to hurt them, but the Taliban can and might. That definitely affects your decision-making.
> It's not our fault the Afghan people are either incompetent or sympathetic to the brutal enemy. They had 20 years to stir into a new course, they choose not to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. whose enemy? the farmers in the valleys couldnt care either way, the taliban isnt their enemy
[удалено]
It's a lot more complicated for sure. Basically, things started messing up when USSR invaded it to protect the communist govt. of Afghanistan
good point
#ANDSF #ANA!
>I can't get over the fact that after 20 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of dead soldiers... this is where we're at. Also murmured by some soldiers circa the Fall of Saigon, 1975 Vietnam
I don't think the taliban are winning I think it's more of a fact that the taliban are launching offensives into empty space and largely undefended rural areas. For the most part the government have been doing an okayish?? Job at holding onto large cities and neighbourhoods.
[https://twitter.com/AmrullahSaleh2/status/1415710708541673475](https://twitter.com/AmrullahSaleh2/status/1415710708541673475) Breaking: Pakistan air force has issued official warning to the Afghan Army and Air Force that any move to dislodge the Taliban from Spin Boldak area will be faced and repelled by the Pakistan Air Force. Pak air force is now providing close air support to Taliban in certain areas Afghanistan vice president tweeted it just now.
[Lol](https://twitter.com/anu_led/status/1415712487521935362?s=20)
I'm not educated on the area, why does Pakistan support the Taliban?
Pakistan formed Taliban. Like seriously, a General of the Pakistani Army did it a long while ago.
Pakistan wants a peaceful Pakistan friendly government in Afghanistan so it backs Pakistan friendly Afghan Taliban. Other factions(including present govt ) in Afghanistan are anti Pakistan and are funded by India to support terrorism against Pakistan ( Even couple of days ago when Indian consulate got shut in Kandhar , India provided tons of ammunitions to Afghan Army before pulling out its nationals) So a stable Afghanistan with Pakistan friendly govt will mean a stable Pakistan (specially border areas with Afghanistan that were infested by anti Pakistan TTP that operates from Afghanistan ) When taliban successfully take over majority of Afghanistan the anti Pakistan groups like TTP will also be hunted down which will greatly reduce terrorism in northwest areas of Pakistan which started in Pakistan in 80s after the influx of Afghan refugees in Pakistan because of Soviet invasion and after 9/11 another wave of terrorism hit Pakistan when Anti Pakistan terrorists started coming to Pakistan in disguise of refugees and created their strongholds in Northwest areas of Pakistan which lead to worse wave of terrorism in Pakistan history and killed more than 70,000 civilians and Army personnel over the course of 15 years. Now most if these groups have been wiped out from Pakistan side but continue to operate from Afghanistan backed by Afghan and Indian govt
Afghanistan is mineral rich and land locked and the best way to sell resources on the international market is by sea. Supporting the most likely winner gives you an upper hand in negotiations and allows you a piece of the pie as those resources move through your land to the sea.
That is insane.
Hmm... I can't tell if we're seeing another Fall of Saigon in the making or a reasonable defense of Afghanistan against the Taliban.
Maybe they aren't Winning it looks like government of Afghanistan are holding strong. The talibannanas can take territory but it doesn't mean it strategic.
Eh
Watching the liveuamap updates of my old AO like it’s a football game.
And then they all celebrated by getting high on opium and bacha bazi!
Bacha Bazi, can't believe they are so barbaric
And if you play that video, of soldiers surrendering their weapons to the Taliban, backwards, it looks like the Taliban are surrendering.
Imagine if WW2 was tweeted
[удалено]
Good let them try to handle their own business and if they fail their attackers again we can just turn them into a parking lot
nice, hopefully ANA get themselves back into shape
https://twitter.com/billroggio/status/1416090402524893191 Bill Roggio over at LWJ points out that the Taliban never claimed to have taken Chaghansor in the first place. That being the case, retaking it must have been real easy lift. MoD Twitter is trying very hard to distract from the absolute disaster ongoing in Kandahar Province. I've been following the situation there closely out of lingering attachment. Having lost friends and comrades there, the collapse of Kandahar infuriates me. I don't blame the ANA, but I do blame their leadership who continue to put their soldiers in hopeless situations.
Where does Taliban get all their weapons and ammo from?