• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oct 25, 2017
15,110
The thread makes it sound like only the US was active in Afghanistan when it was 50(!) countries as part of ISAF and other operations. Been reading about Germany's involvement and they alone sent 160,000 soldiers over the years. Not to mention all of the civilian staff. What a waste.
 

Gaia Lanzer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,669
Uh that's Saudi-Arabia
Yeah, but the United States is still buddy-buddy with them because .... OIL! Don't matter how many people die, as long as the rich get richer. That's the "American Way", "fuck the poor, fuck those that suffer, it's so much easier to sleep on atrocities with finest bed and sheets money can buy"!
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,326
This is a good moment to remind everyone that the entire reason the Taliban rose to prominence in the first place was because the US backed them up against the Soviets.

Yes and no. The Mujahadeen fighters split into two groups after the Soviets were driven out. There was the Northern Alliace which was far more Western friendly and moderate and the Taliban who were the warlords bankrolled by poppy production. The Northern Alliance's leadership was assassinated by Bin Laden in exchange for protection by the Taliban, which was a large factor of the ANI never really taking hold.
 

GasProblem

Prophet of Truth
Member
Nov 18, 2017
3,148
I feel for the women and LGBTQIA+ people in Afghanistan. For anyone that doesn't fit in the Talibans picture of society. Life will be (even more) of an hell.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,081
Arkansas, USA
I mean...Afganistan's women and girls will face that violence.

For upperclass women in urban areas life will undoubtedly be much worse, but things won't change that much for the majority of Afghani women unfortunately.

This article from the Brookings Institution gives some good background information:

www.brookings.edu

The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan | Brookings

John R. Allen and Vanda Felbab-Brown write that as peace negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban commence, uncertainty hangs over the fate of Afghan women and their rights.


Yet these gains for women have been distributed highly unequally, with the increases far greater for women in urban areas. For many rural women, particularly in Pashtun areas but also among other rural minority ethnic groups, actual life has not changed much from the Taliban era, formal legal empowerment notwithstanding. They are still fully dependent on men in their families for permission to access health care, attend school, and work. Many Afghan men remain deeply conservative. Typically, families allow their girls to have a primary or secondary education—usually up to puberty—and then will proceed with arranged marriages. Even if a young woman is granted permission to attend a university by her male guardian, her father or future husband may not permit her to work after graduation. Without any prodding from the Taliban, most Afghan women in rural areas are fully covered with the burqa.

Instead of economic, social, and political empowerment, Afghan women in rural areas—where an estimated 76 percent of the country's women live—experience the devastation of bloody and intensifying fighting between the Taliban and government forces and local militias. Loss of husbands, brothers, and fathers to the fighting generates not only psychological trauma for them, but also fundamentally jeopardizes their economic survival and ability to go about everyday life. Widows and their children are thus highly vulnerable to a panoply of debilitating disruptions due to the loss of family men.

Not surprisingly, the position of Afghan women toward peace varies greatly. Educated urban women reject the possibility of another Taliban emirate. They dream of a peace deal in which the Taliban are a weak actor in the negotiations and is given some political and perhaps government representation, but not the ability to shape the rewrite of the Afghan constitution and the country's basic political dispensation. Rather than yielding to the Taliban, some urban women may prefer for fighting to go on, particularly as urban areas are much less affected by the warfare than are rural areas, and their male relatives, particularly of elite families, rarely bear the battlefield fighting risks. For them, the continuation and augmentation of war has been far less costly than for many rural women.

By contrast, as interviews with Afghan women conducted by one of us in the fall of 2019 and the summer of 2020 showed, peace is an absolute priority for some rural women, even a peace deal very much on the Taliban terms.[SUP]9[/SUP] This finding was confirmed in a recent International Crisis Group report. The Taliban already frequently rule or influence the areas where they live anyway. While rejecting a 1990s-like lockdown of women in their homes that the Taliban imposed, many rural women point out that in that period the Taliban also reduced sexual predation and robberies that debilitated their lives.
 

chaobreaker

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,541
My understanding from what I've read is that the Taliban are more like a franchise of semi-autonomous armed groups throughout the country rather than a centralised force.

Even now they're not exactly going to have an iron grip on the entire country, and I'm assuming different parts of the organisation are going to have different goals. They certainly seem to have been very shrewd in doing deals in places and avoiding fighting where they could.

That's what I thought. The idea that they can maintain power over the long-term and not see violent resistance sounds doubtful though.
 

FliX

Master of the Reality Stone
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
9,868
Metro Detroit
The thread makes it sound like only the US was active in Afghanistan when it was 50(!) countries as part of ISAF and other operations. Been reading about Germany's involvement and they alone sent 160,000 soldiers over the years. Not to mention all of the civilian staff. What a waste.
While technically true we all know the international coalition was there because the US wanted it there. It wasn't Germany or Australia that initiated all of this.
that said the entire western coalition has to take full responsibility for this shit show and should offer every single person asylum that wants to leave the country.
 

PhaZe 5

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,444
Wtf? So basically it was a full out surrender. It doesn't seem as though they truly attempted to defend against the advance at all.

If it was going to be like that, the US military should have destroyed all equipment at the airbase at least.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,293
Well this is all unfortunate. But honestly, as soon as Bin Laden was taken out, the US probably should have started drawing down. I mean the whole point of going into Afghanistan in the first place was to take out Al-Qaeda and those responsible for 9/11. The Taliban providing safe harbor for Al Qaeda just meant they were going to get taken out too.

With so many of these middle eastern/ rural/ geographically disparate countries, it just seems like its difficult to foster any kind of western values/reforms without some kind of stronger autocratic power. But its also a function of these radical Islamic fundamentalist groups just being more motivated to rule than any other group. You can toss as much hardware and money at some military or government as you want but if they aren't going to stand and fight, they're just doomed to fail from the start.

Its just a shitty situation for everyone there, especially the women now under Taliban control.
 
OP
OP
vestan

vestan

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP
Member
Dec 28, 2017
24,612
Seems the armed forces outside of the city have started to make their way in now that police have left to "maintain order". This is pretty much a done deal now.

 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,394
Phoenix
Additionally, many didn't have any ammunition or even food.
www.nytimes.com

The Afghan Military Was Built Over 20 Years. How Did It Collapse So Quickly? (Published 2021)

The Taliban’s rapid advance has made clear that U.S. efforts to turn Afghanistan’s military into a robust, independent fighting force have failed, with its soldiers feeling abandoned by inept leaders.

Meanwhile, the POTUS goes live telling everyone how these "300.000 well equipped" forces will be fine.
It appears to be one of the greatest cons in recent memory. 20 years of just funneling tax payer money through the military to make the wealthy more money. It doesn't even seem like they tried to build or make that country sustainable in the long term. It also doesn't appear they did all that much training or left the people there a means to defend themselves. It was a near instant takeover because the whole thing was a facade and the Taliban knew it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,293
I hope everyone gets used to the idea of United States President Ron DeSantis.
Well, yeah, this outcome would have happened regardless of whatever President was in office when this happened.

But the optics of this look terrible and I can already forsee the attack ads on Biden for being a weak, feable old man with a defeatist foreign policy that let the TALIBAN walk all over America. Again, I don't know think this outcome would have been different under Trump or anyone else if America decided it was done, but the rapidity of the Taliban's steamrolling combined with the Vietnam/Evacuation of Saigon callbacks aren't a good look.
 

twinturbo2

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,629
Jupiter, FL
Well, yeah, this outcome would have happened regardless of whatever President was in office when this happened.

But the optics of this look terrible and I can already forsee the attack ads on Biden for being a weak, feable old man with a defeatist foreign policy that let the TALIBAN walk all over America. Again, I don't know think this outcome would have been different under Trump or anyone else if America decided it was done, but the rapidity of the Taliban's steamrolling combined with the Vietnam/Evacuation of Saigon callbacks aren't a good look.
If the Republicans get ahold of the messaging, we're done, game over.
 

Temascos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,505
It's a sad situation all round, there's a part of me that thinks that if the funds spent on Iraq was instead put towards social, environmental and economic development in Afghanistan (Directly going to the communities and so on) things might have been different. But when so many parties are looking to line their own pockets over literal generations at this point it was a paper tiger held up by foreign military support, and now that it's ended the whole thing has just collapsed.

Best case at the moment is for everyone under threat to get to a safer country for them to rebuild their lives, but that's no comfort to those trapped by the Taliban now.
 

BFIB

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,645
I'm angry, hurt, sad, terrified for the people all at the same time. What a collassal fuckup.
 

Tuppen

Member
Nov 28, 2017
2,053


Don't have a lot of faith in foreign run US prisons.

The notion that the US would extradite former soldiers to Afghanistan is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe that tweet to be serious. Not that I doubt that the US have done a lot of awful stuff in that prison since there are multiple accounts of American atrocities.
 

UltimateHigh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,500
If the Republicans get ahold of the messaging, we're done, game over.

what a load. I guarantee if you polled the majority, they would be in favor with the decision to get out of the middle east, to "bring the soldiers home". it's also a two way street when it comes to messaging.

no one I know is against getting out of there. fucking someone had to do it.

republicans are also full of shit. They'd mostly be sucking trumps dick if he pulled the same exact move.
 

Lastbroadcast

Member
Jul 6, 2018
1,938
Sydney, Australia
How's women's rights under Taliban vs the current government? My guess is it goes from terrible to absolutely fucking even more terrible?

The Taliban are truly the most awful thing that could ever happen to women. In their last year, only 6pc of girls went to school. It'll probably go back to being that way.

One caveat: even under the best year out of the US Occupation, only 39pc of girls went to school. So once again, we can't really say that the 20 year long US occupation was a smashing success in this regard.
 
Apr 25, 2020
3,418
You have to feel sorry for the people of Afghanistan. They've been chewed up and spat out by so many superpowers over the journey for nothing but greed and political games.
 

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,458
Foreign policy has such a minimal impact in American elections I don't know why we're even discussing it. Not to mention that whether the Republicans can lambast the Democrats or not should be irrelevant to whether the US should have stayed in Afghanistan in the first place.
 

Atolm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,826
This is more humiliating than the fall of Saigon. For 20 years the US has been the undisputed force in the region and let's not forget that officially, they're still there until the 31th!
 

Johnny956

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,928
Definitely a bad mark for this administration. Utterly collapse of their entire government in weeks.

the political bias is definitely strong here too as Trump would be completely torn apart for this (which he should along with Biden).
 

UltimateHigh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,500
Definitely a bad mark for this administration. Utterly collapse of their entire government in weeks.

the political bias is definitely strong here too as Trump would be completely torn apart for this (which he should along with Biden).

nope. we needed to get out and we are, it's about time the band aid was pulled off. only different trump wanted to do it much, much sooner, and he wouldve all refugees to fuck off.

the Taliban being able to take over so quickly with no resistance is proof positive how pointless being over there was.

the biggest mark against Biden would be not getting as.many people out as possible, which trump wouldn't have botherrd with at all.
 

TojoT

Member
Oct 30, 2017
314
The thread makes it sound like only the US was active in Afghanistan when it was 50(!) countries as part of ISAF and other operations. Been reading about Germany's involvement and they alone sent 160,000 soldiers over the years. Not to mention all of the civilian staff. What a waste.

The US invoked NATO's article 5 before the invasion of Afghanistan, meaning that all members were obligated to take part (https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm). USA was definitely not alone in Afghanistan, but the number of nations would be lower if article 5 wasn't triggered (though certain NATO members and other close allies would have joined regardless).

I'm not sure if NATO members were ever released from this obligation, but it looks like it lasted until May 2021 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_183146.htm).
 

Nigel Tufnel

Member
Mar 5, 2019
3,146
what a load. I guarantee if you polled the majority, they would be in favor with the decision to get out of the middle east, to "bring the soldiers home". it's also a two way street when it comes to messaging.

no one I know is against getting out of there.
Yeah, I tend to think this is more likely. Recent polling pretty clearly favors withdrawal. Vietnam for a new generation

So where is opinion today? In an April 2021 Fox News poll, 37% of registered voters said the US should remove all troops, while 50% said some should remain for counterterrorism purposes. When the question is asked as a straight stay or go, Americans want to leave. Fifty-eight percent in an online April Economist/YouGov poll approved of the withdrawal plan, and 25% disapproved. Majorities of Democrats and independents support withdrawal, while Republicans are divided. A May Quinnipiac poll of adults produced similar results: 62% approved of President Biden's decision to withdraw all US troops, while 29% were opposed. In the Economist/YouGov poll, people split evenly, 36% to 35%, about whether fighting the war there had been a mistake, while 29% said they didn't know.

www.forbes.com

The War In Afghanistan: A Polling Post-Mortem

In an April 2021 Fox News poll, 37% of registered voters said the US should remove all troops from Afghanistan, while 50% said some should remain for counterterrorism purposes. When the question is asked as a straight stay or go, Americans want to leave.
 

Magni

Member
After twenty years of "teaching" Western democratic values to the Afghans, mission accomplished: we're now witnessing a "peaceful" transfer of power.

What a shit show. I feel terrible for the Afghan people. Hope as many as possible manage to get out and that the new Taliban regime crumbles quickly enough without triggering a massive new conflict. Don't expect much though, sadly.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
Definitely a bad mark for this administration. Utterly collapse of their entire government in weeks.

the political bias is definitely strong here too as Trump would be completely torn apart for this (which he should along with Biden).

Biden didn't fast track the withdrawal, he extended the one that Trump put on him

The Trump initial deadline was not even that controversial, it was not something that many people opposed.


What do you propose Biden should have done instead

Keep warring on?
 

Deleted member 9207

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,841
I'm not excusing our actions, if that's what you think.
Sorry, I'm just having a lot of mixed feelings here, as if people believe the wrong decision was leaving, and not, you know, the 20 years of war that left the area the torn hell it is right now.

I wonder if the world will allow the US to wage war one more time, or if the next time we will actually put our big boy pants. I doubt it.
 

Lastbroadcast

Member
Jul 6, 2018
1,938
Sydney, Australia
If the Republicans get ahold of the messaging, we're done, game over.

Biden might get smacked around a bit, and it'll rev up the Republican base, but at the end of the day the alternative is starting another war and going back in there.

Good luck selling that one to the electorate, who I suspect are too tired for that shit any more.

Give it a few weeks and people will realise that Afghanistan has been a house of cards for 20 years, and every US government since then tried to cover it up.
 

Empyrean Cocytus

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,698
Upstate NY
Definitely a bad mark for this administration. Utterly collapse of their entire government in weeks.

the political bias is definitely strong here too as Trump would be completely torn apart for this (which he should along with Biden).

Not to mention it comes just weeks before the 20th anniversary of the event that led to the occupation in the first place.

If Democrats didn't want to give Republicans ammo, they just gave them a damn arsenal.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,293
what a load. I guarantee if you polled the majority, they would be in favor with the decision to get out of the middle east, to "bring the soldiers home". it's also a two way street when it comes to messaging.

no one I know is against getting out of there. fucking someone had to do it.

republicans are also full of shit. They'd mostly be sucking trumps dick if he pulled the same exact move.

That's all true- I don't think many people in the US want the military there nation building after 20 years. Getting out is the right move and one most people probably support.

Problem is that the whole "getting out" part looks like a chaotic clusterfuck right now that evokes the Fall of Saigon, which is not a great national memory for the US. Its kind of a hard slap in the face that the US wasted 20 years, tons of lives and tons of money on a country that folded like a house of cards. Oh and right before the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Not great timing.

The argument would be was there a better way for the US to pull out so it didn't end up with the Taliban just steamrolling through the country by force ? Was there a better diplomatic move to integrate them into the Afghan government before we got to this point? A picture is worth a 1000 words and all that and the pictures coming out of Afghanistan don't look great and for better or worse that'll fall on Biden and the democrats at this point. If it was Trump though, you can bet your ass that the Democrats would be having a shit fit over this too.
 

Xando

Member
Oct 28, 2017
27,292
Should we engage in forever war for political reasons back home? I get the concern and its valid, but am wondering what the action you'd prescribe is.
No one is denying it was time to leave but leaving like this and letting the country get overrun in 8 days with barely any support is a complete failure of strategy by the Biden admin and they will rightfully get dragged through the mud for it.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,915
Here's hoping the government's complete surrender will reduce the casualties of the takeover if nothing else.

As far as American domestic politics go, Afghanistan doesn't matter at all. In general no one in the US puts real stock into any foreign policy decisions and this situation is ridiculously muddy that there cannot be any coordinated or consistent angles to attack from. The usual people will take any opportunities they get to throw out some minor arguments but that's all it will amount to. No political actors will really get anything from it, it will just be yet another example of the steady decline in the public's trust of the government in general