LoLion on 7/10/2013 at 19:31
Quote Posted by catbarf
You really can't lump the mujahideen militia in with the Taliban leadership that controls organized crime, weapons, bribes, and terrorism, though.
The thing is the leadership would mean nothing without the actual fighting force (see the “Syrian National Coalition”), which the US provided to it through wide repression of people who were perfectly willing to return to their farms if given a chance.
First time around, Taliban (which as you may know means “students”) was originally formed by the Afghan refugees in Pakistan who were sick of what was happening to their country (which was being ravaged by foreign warbands that fought for power after the post-communist regime of president Najibulah collapsed, took young boys as sex slaves etc). The Taliban leaders were originally working at the religious schools (thus their followers called themselves the students) and preached against what was happening. Back then the Taliban ran on what was basically a law & order platform and managed to recruit enough people to beat all the foreigners, who were arguably more experienced and better armed.
The second time around it was quite similar and this time it was the US that played the role of the enemy that the Taliban leadership could mobilise against - unnecessarily as I said in the previous post. If the US handled the early stage of the war better the Taliban leaders would now be powerless old men that few would take seriously.
Quote Posted by catbarf
The political elements that made the Taliban an enemy in the first place have never simply dried up because the enemy left. When the Soviets finally left Afghanistan most of the fighters simply went home, but the core bloc that had driven the conflict in the first place didn't go anywhere, and that's what we're dealing with today.
In political terms, Taliban was not the enemy of the US until the US made it so. When in power, Taliban government was preoccupied with building a kind of religious utopia in the country and could not care less about the world outside. US even negotiated with them about a possibility of running some sort of pipeline through Afghanistan and Taliban itself was often compared to early Saudis (crazy Muslims that mutilate and kill people for crazy reasons, but can be generally reasoned with) in those days. There is even a ridiculous video of Taliban ambassador getting into argument with some feminist activist during a visit to the US somewhere on the web. They were not hostile to US by any means when they ran the country.
When bin Laden decided to move out of Sudan he was welcomed in Afghanistan as a war hero, but Taliban never really cared about Al-Qaeda´s plans to attack the west - they just treated them as guests and that was it. Then when 9/11 happened the US asked Taliban to hand over bin Laden, which they refused on religious basis (apparently when a Muslim accepts a guest he is responsible for his safety (this is likely why bin Laden decided to come to Afghanistan in the first place - knowing that Taliban will take these things seriously). Arguably, if the US tried harder they might have gotten bin Laden in one way or another without having to invade the country at all, but the main problem was that they behaved as if Taliban = Al-Qaeda, thus turning significant part of the Afghan population against them.
Quote Posted by catbarf
We definitely could have done better but the Taliban as a functional entity are not better off now than before the invasion, which was my point.
Depends. It is true they are no longer the officially recognised government (even though they have more real power than the Karzai regime and IRRC they now even have an officially recognised office in Saudi Arabia, which is indirectly negotiating with the US), but on the other hand their international prestige increased considerably - they are now the guys who managed to defeat US (history books are definitely not going to interpret the war as US victory) and Taliban as a brand now easily rivals that of Al-Qaeda on the Islamist scene.
It is also widely recognised now that the Taliban will have to be negotiated with in order to end the war and they will definitely be major players in Afghanistan after the western armies leave. In fact there can be little doubt that once the western armies leave Taliban will be the strongest force in the country and likely will return to power in some way. In fact you could probably argue that in the long run Taliban suffered less damage in the war than US did.
CCCToad on 8/10/2013 at 02:39
Sorry, thought I'd put that in before I wrote the paragraph.
Link, "Senior Leader's lack of integrity harms Afghan War Effort". The article is focused primarily on the divergence between what U.S. military leadership describes and the reality on the ground. It's description is largely accurate to what I witnessed as a member of an SFAT (Security Force Advisor Team...basically trying to shoe-horn regular Army guys into an SF style mission) in the Kandahar province. There are isolated exceptions but those are entirely dependent on the presence of a single strong leader in the local ANA/ANP organization
(
http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf)
robthom on 10/10/2013 at 09:21
"World Craziness - Kenya, Pakistan, Syria, etc "
^^
America should be in there somewhere IMO.
SubJeff on 10/10/2013 at 09:31
Really? Are there groups there regularly planning and executing terrorist activities on civilian targets?
DDL on 10/10/2013 at 11:06
In all honesty, probably YES.
Crazy isn't geographically constrained. Should just change the thread title to "muthafuckas all be crazy, what is with that?"
june gloom on 10/10/2013 at 11:57
The thing is, our anti-terrorist efforts's effectiveness is as such that over ten years passed between 9/11 and the Boston Marathon. More to the point, we're a much more stable and advanced nation (for now) and our poverty level is such that it's generally easier to sit there, collect welfare, and blame Obama for our problems than it is to blow something up. That's the fundamental difference between us and, say, some shithole in the Middle East, where poverty is much more crushing and religious fundamentalism is much more fervent.
Where the real terrorism in America is taking place is at the hands of the tea party and those who've bought into the propaganda. The tea party as it stands are an anarcho-capitalist group with roots to the Koch brothers and big tobacco, with a strong preference towards maintaining the white Christian male establishment. The shutdown is exactly what they wanted. It has been their stated goal since the beginning.
DDL on 10/10/2013 at 12:08
I am incredibly impressed with how they've managed to spin the whole thing out to look like Obama's fault, too. I realise only fuckwits would buy that story, but "fuckwits" is basically their entire demographic, so they've played the whole thing masterfully.
Politics is increasingly less about doing stuff that works, and more about SHOUTING LOUDLY while having NICE HAIR, which tends to play more towards the crazy extremes. And since the extreme left is like...hippies with terrible hair, it's mostly the extreme right. :(
june gloom on 10/10/2013 at 18:18
The extreme left is also not in politics. They work for libraries and head shops. There is no extreme left in any political office. That's what drives me crazy -- the GOP have successfully convinced the public that Obama is THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY when Obama is, like 99% of his party, just slightly right of center. If Obama was really as lefty as the GOP claim, we'd be out of Afghanistan years ago.
I am more than ready to ban my parents from ever using the word "socialist" ever again too.
SubJeff on 10/10/2013 at 23:16
Obama is just slightly right of centre?
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Then I'm Karl Marx and so is David Cameron.
