Who Is Arming The Taliban .

[The Joker]

3 hours ago, crookesey said:

The time will come when the Taliban needs to conduct business, this will be very interesting.

I suppose the British and American governments would be willing to conduct business with any regime if it's in their national interest to do so.

 

And if they don't, then I'm sure the Russians and Chinese certainly will.

 

[Box11]

The Afghanistan war was and always will be an un winnable  war just like Vietnam....

 

The establishment use these wars to make as much money as possible period !!!!...

 

All those Soldiers from various countries and civilians maimed and killed all for the greed of the establishment !!!!.....

 

So now the Taliban are in charge then Al Qaeda and Islamic State will raise up and go to war with the Taliban !!!!....

 

Then the West will back and fund the Taliban to defeat those mentioned above...

 

Its absolutely crazy how those powerful men behind the scenes think in fact it’s disgusting and a total disgrace to the men and women that serve their countries in combat !!!!....

Edited August 16, 2021 by Box11

[crookesey]

10 hours ago, The Joker said:

I suppose the British and American governments would be willing to conduct business with any regime if it's in their national interest to do so.

 

And if they don't, then I'm sure the Russians and Chinese certainly will.

 

 

10 hours ago, The Joker said:

I suppose the British and American governments would be willing to conduct business with any regime if it's in their national interest to do so.

 

And if they don't, then I'm sure the Russians and Chinese certainly will.

 

Correct, but business is business, the first time that they seriously mess up they will find out that they don’t mess with the mestas. There’s nothing like the feeling of wealth that turns a patriot into a businessman, no matter what language their new mentors speak.

[Carbuncle]

2 hours ago, crookesey said:

Correct, but business is business, the first time that they seriously mess up they will find out that they don’t mess with the mestas. There’s nothing like the feeling of wealth that turns a patriot into a businessman, no matter what language their new mentors speak.

The US is very good at holding a grudge. Examples would be the long term sanctions imposed on Vietnam, Cuba and Iran. The US is also powerful enough that it can put a  lot of pressure on its allies to support its sanctions so that they have real bite. The regimes in Vietnam, Cuba and Iran have all been remarkably durable.

 

The Taliban look to be some real tough hombres with no great taste for luxury. Perhaps their regime will collapse from within but I would not be at all surprised if a long term economic squeeze from the West has little effect on them even if it keeps Afghanistan from developing economically.

[tinfoilhat]

14 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Let's get real:

 

1. Despite the US advantage in wealth and weaponry, they (and we) were defeated;

2. Despite almost twenty years on site working and with vast resources, the US (and we) were never able to understand the problem, stabilise the situation or come up with any kind of lasting solution;

3. Indeed so poor was the US understanding of matters on the ground that they did not realise that their Afghan military allies, who they (and we) had been training for almost twenty years would collapse within days.

 

Afghanistan is a hard problem. The US establishment has a very short attention span, a notion of other cultures built on caricature and a fundamentalist belief in its own wisdom, Afghanistan was always going to be particularly difficult for them.

 

9/11 was a massive triumph for fundamentalist Islam not because of the atrocities on 11th September, 2001 but because the US's various responses driven as it was by unthinking anger recruited so many to the Fundamentalists' cause.

Worth mentioning that the rules of engagement was very very strict. Alright having fancy whizbang weapons if they are only allowed in to be used specifically. The Taliban cottoned on to that. 

 

If three and a bit presidents can't solve Afghanistan in 20 years, could it be done in 30? I don't think it can in a way that's palatable to the west. And at some point, doesn't the Afghan army need to carry the can a bit? Or do a significant number of afghans not really care if the Taliban get in? Women will naturally be terrified. Men? Not sure on that one.

[geared]

Considering there was near 20 years spent training and arming the ANA it was expected they could stand on their own two feet for more than a couple of days.

Clearly not, as said previously they were nothing more than a bunch of useless rifle-droppers.

 

44 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

The US is very good at holding a grudge. Examples would be the long term sanctions imposed on Vietnam, Cuba and Iran. The US is also powerful enough that it can put a  lot of pressure on its allies to support its sanctions so that they have real bite. The regimes in Vietnam, Cuba and Iran have all been remarkably durable.

 

The Taliban look to be some real tough hombres with no great taste for luxury. Perhaps their regime will collapse from within but I would not be at all surprised if a long term economic squeeze from the West has little effect on them even if it keeps Afghanistan from developing economically.

 

Only Vietnam have really flourished tho, and that probably mostly due to support and trade from China.  So while the sanctions might not have effected regime change the immediate threat from those countries was nipped in the bud.

 

Iran continues to try and rock the boat, but it's more of a regional agitator.  Cuba has essentially rotted away, there's no threat coming from them anymore.  Not like the kind of problems they posed in the 60's.

 

[nightrider]

15 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Let's get real:

 

1. Despite the US advantage in wealth and weaponry, they (and we) were defeated;

2. Despite almost twenty years on site working and with vast resources, the US (and we) were never able to understand the problem, stabilise the situation or come up with any kind of lasting solution;

3. Indeed so poor was the US understanding of matters on the ground that they did not realise that their Afghan military allies, who they (and we) had been training for almost twenty years would collapse within days.

 

Afghanistan is a hard problem. The US establishment has a very short attention span, a notion of other cultures built on caricature and a fundamentalist belief in its own wisdom, Afghanistan was always going to be particularly difficult for them.

 

9/11 was a massive triumph for fundamentalist Islam not because of the atrocities on 11th September, 2001 but because the US's various responses driven as it was by unthinking anger recruited so many to the Fundamentalists' cause.

Read Rory Stewart's book about walking across Afghanistan. From that it is clear no-one in the west has any clue about how things work there.

[Carbuncle]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

If three and a bit presidents can't solve Afghanistan in 20 years, could it be done in 30? I don't think it can in a way that's palatable to the west. And at some point, doesn't the Afghan army need to carry the can a bit? Or do a significant number of afghans not really care if the Taliban get in? Women will naturally be terrified. Men? Not sure on that one.

I think the really hard problem is not a military one. Given a sufficiently large military effort you ought to be able to stabilise the situation but then you need a durable civil society to develop. American mythology has it that the US founding fathers developed theirs in a flash of inspiration on or around July 4th, 1776 (I am caricaturing for effect here). That leads American administrations to adopt the following playbook: invade, remove the existing regime, get a constitution written, hold some elections and everything should be hunky dory. That is just hopelessly naive.

 

In order to make real progress in a reasonable period of time you need to understand the situation on the ground: things like who is powerful, what loyalties exist, who hates who, how do people interact, how do relationships develop, what is acceptable behaviour, and so on and so forth. That is already really, really hard and that is just understanding the problem. Rory Stewart, former Tory MP, was a deputy regional governor in Iraq and wrote a book on his experiences there which is somewhat illuminating. The impression given is one of bewilderment with good intentions but no real sense of how to proceed. He is honest enough to let this all show through.

 

 

[hauxwell]

9 hours ago, Box11 said:

The Afghanistan war was and always will be an un winnable  war just like Vietnam....

 

The establishment use these wars to make as much money as possible period !!!!...

 

All those Soldiers from various countries and civilians maimed and killed all for the greed of the establishment !!!!.....

 

So now the Taliban are in charge then Al Qaeda and Islamic State will raise up and go to war with the Taliban !!!!....

 

Then the West will back and fund the Taliban to defeat those mentioned above...

 

Its absolutely crazy how those powerful men behind the scenes think in fact it’s disgusting and a total disgrace to the men and women that serve their countries in combat !!!!....

I agree with you.  

[Carbuncle]

17 minutes ago, geared said:

Considering there was near 20 years spent training and arming the ANA it was expected they could stand on their own two feet for more than a couple of days.

Clearly not, as said previously they were nothing more than a bunch of useless rifle-droppers.

They weren't the first military force to 'drop rifles' in Afghanistan. 'Rifle dropping' has a tendency to be contagious, once you see the US 'drop rifles' and then the  UK 'drop rifles' it begins to look like you might not be going to win the fight and if you 'know' you are going to lose better to 'drop your rifle' sooner rather than later.