by yalogin on 8/15/21, 9:28 AM
What a failure of the US armed forces here. 20 damn years staying in the country with the only 2 goal - to help Afghans build an army and help defend themselves and to eradicate the Taliban. They failed miserably in both. Trillions spent and many lost lives. Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Of course, the cycle keeps repeating itself and we keep growing the military.
by fuoqi on 8/15/21, 9:39 AM
It's interesting to note that DRA (the pro-Soviet Afghanistan government) has fought for 3 whole years after the Soviets have left Afghanistan. And it was with the almost complete lack of military support from the USSR (you know, the Union collapse and all) and with Taliban being actively funded by the US and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the current government probably will fall even before the US will finish its humiliating retreat and it does not look like Russia or China have substantially supported Taliban, at the very least it most certainly was not on the US scale of 30 years ago.
by vishnugupta on 8/15/21, 9:42 AM
Worth quoting this passage from an insightful article[1]
People fought in Afghanistan, and people died, but not always in the obvious way. They had been fighting for so long, twenty-three years then, that by the time the Americans arrived the Afghans had developed an elaborate set of rules designed to spare as many fighters as they could. So the war could go on forever. Men fought, men switched sides, men lined up and fought again. War in Afghanistan often seemed like a game of pickup basketball, a contest among friends, a tournament where you never knew which team you’d be on when the next game got under way. Shirts today, skins tomorrow. On Tuesday, you might be part of a fearsome Taliban regiment, running into a minefield. And on Wednesday you might be manning a checkpoint for some gang of the Northern Alliance. By Thursday you could be back with the Talibs again, holding up your Kalashnikov and promising to wage jihad forever. War was serious in Afghanistan, but not that serious. It was part of everyday life. It was a job. Only the civilians seemed to lose.
Battles were often decided this way, not by actual fighting, but by flipping gangs of soldiers. One day, the Taliban might have four thousand soldiers, and the next, only half that, with the warlords of the Northern Alliance suddenly larger by a similar amount. The fighting began when the bargaining stopped, and the bargaining went right up until the end. The losers were the ones who were too stubborn, too stupid or too fanatical to make a deal. Suddenly, they would find themselves outnumbered, and then they would die. It was a kind of natural selection.
[1]
https://scholars-stage.org/fighting-like-taliban/by Clewza313 on 8/15/21, 8:52 AM
Fall of Saigon v2. Although I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support.
by pjmlp on 8/15/21, 9:09 AM
I remember having seen a similar scene in a couple of times by now.
I guess we will be getting an Hollywood version of the facts in 10 years timeframe.
My heart goes to those that died for nothing, and those that will now face the revenge of Talibans.
by belter on 8/15/21, 9:51 AM
Wars are won by men willing to die for their cause. The US, Canadian and many other soldiers who helped liberate Europe in the 2nd World War were willing to die for freedom. And the Taliban are willing to die for theirs.
I wish a safe return to the very professional troops from more than 20 countries still on the ground. Once again they are victims of incompetent politicians.
But it 20 years, was it not always obvious, that a young Afghani, that just got in the Army because it was only available well paid job would not be willing to die for some very local nebulous cause? To defeat a group that embodies the cultural heritage that prevailed in the country for the last few centuries?
by THINkttwICE on 8/15/21, 11:42 AM
Afghanistan's situation is obviously as complex as it can get but at the level of day to day experience of majority of locals (not only elite city-dwellers) Taliban are hated/feared but consistent, and they generally practice what they preach.
In my brief personal encounters, and observations of what locals face: the corrupt government, its police and its army is like the "Zahhak the Snake Shoulder" (an evil figure in Persian mythology); an insatiable unstable monster better avoided at all cost. I suspect this is one of the main reasons nobody really put up a fight this time around.
Afghanistan's tragic contemporary conflicts has many winners and losers that switch places every so often but there's been one constant loser: its civilians.
by a3n on 8/15/21, 8:45 AM
by sorokod on 8/15/21, 9:49 AM
To state the obvious, the Afghans in aggregate, were not willing to build an army and were not willing to defend themselves against the Taliban.
This Is What Winning Looks Like (2013?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI
by hintymad on 8/15/21, 11:34 PM
Clausewitz famously said in his book On War that "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Following this logic, I don't see any reason that Afghanistan government wouldn't collapse. I mean, for what will their troops fight, and for whom will their troops fight? Most of the people there do support Sharia law per Pew Research. Afghanistan people are famous for being independent and for fighting foreign occupation to death. So, the troops were not fighting for their ideals, neither for their people. Besides, they knew they would lose. The US intelligence said the government would fall in 90 days. Then why would the troops fight their own people for a losing war, especially given that Taliban will exact bloody reprisal on those who didn't surrender?
by jacksonkmarley on 8/15/21, 10:07 AM
Seems like the Taliban are holding back to allow foreign personnel to evacuate. I wonder if that is part of an explicit agreement, or just them not wanting to create problems for themselves when they've already clearly won.
by rootsudo on 8/15/21, 12:49 PM
“We are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power,” Taliban spokesman Suhail Saheen told the BBC.
When did terrorist groups get spokespeople, geez.
by _moof on 8/15/21, 3:06 PM
Maybe next time we protest against starting a war, listen to us.
by croes on 8/15/21, 9:53 AM
So will the Taliban stop the opium production again?
by naruvimama on 8/15/21, 11:55 AM
It is just the new US administration falling into the Pakistani-Chinese trap.
by t0rt01se on 8/15/21, 10:56 AM
Very mixed feeling about this. The implications for minorities, women and progress are now obviously dire. Though I can't help feel somewhat pleased to see Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfo's legacy ground to dust and all their supporters/apologists with pie on their face. I couldn't believe Dubya prancing around like an elder statesman while Trump was in office. There's an element of their m.o. that has overflown from the military to other branches of US life as the military got less stretched in recent years. The mistakes made haven't been as educational as they should've been.
by singularity2001 on 8/15/21, 11:56 AM
One hopeful prospect is that the radical Taliban will alienate neighboring Iranians into moderation.
by ramesh31 on 8/15/21, 9:39 AM
Saigon 2: Sharia Boogaloo
by mikaeluman on 8/15/21, 9:54 AM
The Biden administration doing this so haphazardly is irresponsible and with little to no reward - political or anything else.
Moving away from US centric debates on the economic value of this war and attempt at governance; I fear Afghanistan will again become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism atrocities and also put increased pressure on Europe in terms of migration.
To the latter point, Europe is already on the breaking point here and further stress will probably - judging from recent experience - lead to further success of conservative and anti-immigration political parties.
by AniseAbyss on 8/15/21, 8:53 AM
I'd say Saigon but let's be honest the South Vietnamese army did fight pretty hard and clinged on for longer.
by throwawaysea on 8/15/21, 9:36 AM
The Taliban has already entered the capital (
https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghanistans-taliban-seize-jala...). This is an utter disaster for Biden and America. We should instead have performed a slower withdrawal and also continued to maintain a military presence permanently at Bagram field. Instead it appears China and Pakistan will welcome a new Taliban government and build new economic ties while America loses influence in the region. This withdrawal was so poorly handled that just two days ago the administration claimed Kabul would fall in 90 days when it seems it may fall today. Meanwhile the Taliban, who harbored 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda, is literally taking over American weapon stores that were left behind in this hasty evacuation (
https://news.yahoo.com/weapon-seizures-massive-boon-taliban-...). What an utter and complete failure of leadership, military intelligence, foreign policy, and “nation building” (or rather lack thereof).
EDIT (in response to reply, since I got the dreaded rate limiting message):
Trump didn’t initiate a departure. He set up a deal that included numerous conditions and phases contingent on commitments and actions from both the Taliban and Afghanistan government (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-sign-historic-deal-taliba...). But it really doesn’t matter. Biden is either the President or he isn’t. The withdrawal timeline he set and executed is his to own. Anything less than full ownership means he isn’t fit to be President.