[Juin]

Three Provincial Capitals in one day! Talk about a good day's work. Kunduz, Taloqan, Sar-e-pol. Interestingly enough, these are not even cities in traditional Taliban heartlands in Pashtun land in the south. These are all in the north, in Uzbek and Tajik heartlands. The Taliban blitz continues.

But is it really a blitz? Are the Afghan government forces even putting up a fight? The increasingly inescapable impression is that Senile Joe's men on the ground are just evaporating at the approach of the Taliban. Senile Joe did release B52s and drones, but so far they don't appear to have impressed the Taliban in anyway. But these are the same B52s that in the hands of the departed Donald Rumsfeld back in 2001 sent droves of mangled Taliban to Mahomet's Paradise in devastating bombardments. I recall that well. It caused a crisis in Mahomet's Paradise. There was a serious shortage of virgins. Virgins had to be rationed out. Priority went to those mangled by millions dollars missiles. Those were first in line. AK 47 casualties had to take promissory notes, to wait until virgin stables were replenished.

Should we rename Senile Joe as Cut n Run Joe?

Anyways, at the rate things are going, the humourless, bearded, turbaned Talibaniks should be having tea in Kabul well before Senile Joe's 9/11 cut off date.

Why don't these Talibaniks ever keep to the script? Senile Joe selected 9/11 as Departure Day for a reason. It was to be a celebratory day; where Senile Joe can pat himself on the back for a job well done; as well as thank the troops for its sacrifices in the wilds of Afghanistan. In keeping with this script the Taliban black beards should have, maybe just played at war, you know, for the media, to look good.... postponing any heavy hitting till after 9/11.

But the way things are going Senile Joe's 9/11 may turn out to instead be Cut n Run Day.

[Gardener]

Havn't we been here before ?

Didn't the Taliban conquer and rule Afghanisan back in the 1990's ? America got involved and helped the 'government' forces to push them out. But... once the American's effectively gave up, the Taliban rolled back in ?

Sorry folks, but I get the imrpession that Taliban rule is the natural state of affairs for Afghanistan. If they want THAT badly to live in the middle-ages (actually, BEFORE the middle ages), then perhaps we should let them get on with it ?

I mean.. not even the feminists, LBQXRSWTDIPS lobbyists, and the militant atheists in the USA object to it, so lets leave them to their theological rule and women-bashing/gay bashing. (and in Afghanistan too :P )

[JohnRawls]

Havn't we been here before ?

Didn't the Taliban conquer and rule Afghanisan back in the 1990's ? America got involved and helped the 'government' forces to push them out. But... once the American's effectively gave up, the Taliban rolled back in ?

Sorry folks, but I get the imrpession that Taliban rule is the natural state of affairs for Afghanistan. If they want THAT badly to live in the middle-ages (actually, BEFORE the middle ages), then perhaps we should let them get on with it ?

I mean.. not even the feminists, LBQXRSWTDIPS lobbyists, and the militant atheists in the USA object to it, so lets leave them to their theological rule and women-bashing/gay bashing. (and in Afghanistan too :P )

I mean, the US did what the Soviets did. They just paid off the tribes to fall in line, as soon as the Soviets and US left and stopped paying the tribes then nobody really cares about the central government. Taliban is a very loose confederation of some tribes while many others just don't care about the Taliban and the central government as long as both don't cause problems for them. So Taliban rolling in is basically nobody fighting them since they are not really the enemy for a lot of tribes nor a friend. And those tribes have a similar opinion of the central government but it is a bit worse for them since both Soviet and US central governments try to introduce some "Western" ideas which are foreign to those tribes. Without those payments they literally have no need nor the will to support the central government.

[Igor Antunov]

What the soviets did appears to have been substantially more effective since even with no soviet support and with US pumping $600 million a year into the mujahadeen, the socialist government in Kabul held out for over 3 years...this...this is instant collapse, or should I say, prolapse.

[Gardener]

What the soviets did appears to have been substantially more effective since even with no soviet support and with US pumping $600 million a year into the mujahadeen, the socialist government in Kabul held out for over 3 years...this...this is instant collapse, or should I say, prolapse.

Hmmm.. and yet.. the Soviet's required the user of an entire army group, along with supporting elements. That's about 100,000 soldiers, along with large amounts of aircraft.

The US invasion, on the other hand, was mostly with special forces types, working with Afghans. They where Brigade-sized at best ? (500-1000 soldiers).

The soviets lost more troops killed than the entire number of US troops involved in Afghanistan.

[JohnRawls]

What the soviets did appears to have been substantially more effective since even with no soviet support and with US pumping $600 million a year into the mujahadeen, the socialist government in Kabul held out for over 3 years...this...this is instant collapse, or should I say, prolapse.

You can't really compare the two since it was the Cold War and now it is just not. While there is an argument to be made that the Soviet Central government fell after 3 years while US one is falling apart right now but then there is the question how brutal the Soviets were and how much men they lost before that and so on. But in general, it is a pretty bad comparison.

What is comparable though is why both the SU and US did what they did and wasted so much money on Afghanistan of all places. Why couldn't it be in and out shake it all about kind of operation.

[Gardener]

You can't really compare the two since it was the Cold War and now it is just not. While there is an argument to be made that the Soviet Central government fell after 3 years while US one is falling apart right now but then there is the question how brutal the Soviets were and how much men they lost before that and so on. But in general, it is a pretty bad comparison.

What is comparable though is why both the SU and US did what they did and wasted so much money on Afghanistan of all places. Why couldn't it be in and out shake it all about kind of operation.

I suspect that both Organisations underestimated the sheer bloody-minded Islamic Intractability of the average Afghan ?

[Pants-of-dog]

I suspect that both Organisations underestimated the sheer bloody-minded Islamic Intractability of the average Afghan ?

Not really.

The SU lost control over Afghanistan because the USA kept funding the mujahideen (and later the Taliban) insurgency against the SU. I believe Reagan spent several billion on them. This is how Islamism got its start as a significant political force in Afghanistan. Before that it was just a small movement.

So it would be more correct to say that the SU lost to a nationalist insurgency supported by a hostile superpower, while the US was defeated by a nationalist insurgency unified under an extremist religious ideology that the US basically created.

[JohnRawls]

Not really.

The SU lost control over Afghanistan because the USA kept funding the mujahideen (and later the Taliban) insurgency against the SU. I believe Reagan spent several billion on them. This is how Islamism got its start as a significant political force in Afghanistan. Before that it was just a small movement.

So it would be more correct to say that the SU lost to a nationalist insurgency supported by a hostile superpower, while the US was defeated by a nationalist insurgency unified under an extremist religious ideology that the US basically created.

Potato potato, insurgencies don't win on foreign aid, they win on moral and local support. The radicals managed to fund the fight against US pretty okay themselves. Was it as large as US support during the Soviet times, probably not but it definitely wasn't 10% etc Instead of winning, I would say the Taliban just outlasted the SU and US in a sense that both realised that this is a pointless waste of money and manpower.

[Pants-of-dog]

Potato potato, insurgencies don't win on foreign aid, they win on moral and local support. The radicals managed to fund the fight against US pretty okay themselves. Was it as large as US support during the Soviet times, probably not but it definitely wasn't 10% etc Instead of winning, I would say the Taliban just outlasted the SU and US in a sense that both realised that this is a pointless waste of money and manpower.

In the sense that both insurgencies gained victory by outlasting their vastly better armed opponents, yes. Both countries left because it was a drain on their resources rather than a clear military loss or other reason. This is generally true for insurgencies in my (admittedly limited) knowledge of history.

From what I know, this was actually the rationale for funding the mujahideen instead of a military conflict.

My point was that Islamism came about as a deliberate reaction to Soviet occupation, while it was a constant issue during the US occupation.

@Gardener made the point that both occupying forces underestimated Islamism. History seems to show that it was not a significant threat before the SU got involved, so there was nothing to underestimate, and the situation changed dramatically after that because of the funding infusion. On the other hand, the USA knew very well how significant Islamism is in Afghanistan.

[Potemkin]

Potato potato, insurgencies don't win on foreign aid, they win on moral and local support. The radicals managed to fund the fight against US pretty okay themselves. Was it as large as US support during the Soviet times, probably not but it definitely wasn't 10% etc Instead of winning, I would say the Taliban just outlasted the SU and US in a sense that both realised that this is a pointless waste of money and manpower.

That’s what “winning” is, @JohnRawls.

[annatar1914]

That’s what “winning” is, @JohnRawls.

@Potemkin

So many people have no idea what winning is, because they no longer understand the object of war. And why is this? War has become a kind of display of power without it's essence, those in formal command are weak,seduced by ''Hyperreality'' in context of Baudrillaud.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

So many people have no idea what winning is, because they no longer understand the object of war. And why is this? War has become a kind of display of power without it's essence, those in formal command are weak,seduced by ''Hyperreality'' in context of Baudrillaud.

Exactly. Throughout history, wars have been won and empires toppled by inducing the enemy to simply give up. Not even the Mongols won by exterminating their enemies, which is usually impossible and almost always undesirable. The Taliban have induced the USA to give up on Afghanistan, which means they have won. You can declare victory if you wish, but you’d be deluding yourself.

[annatar1914]

Exactly. Throughout history, wars have been won and empires toppled by inducing the enemy to simply give up. Not even the Mongols won by exterminating their enemies, which is usually impossible and almost always undesirable. The Taliban have induced the USA to give up on Afghanistan, which means they have won. You can declare victory if you wish, but you’d be deluding yourself.

@Potemkin , this is most true, as far as a universally valid understanding of war as a triumph over enemies is in play.

What is most worrisome to me is that these ''people'' have become quite alien, and their ''war'' has less meaning than the Aztec ''flower wars'' did, where the object was the procurement of captives for a steady supply of human hearts,eaten by the Sun in order to keep the Sun alive and in the skies.

So of course, let's not fool ourselves; my friend, it's about the Money. These people are the Liberal Bourgeoisie, and their thoughts on Money and Capitalism have re-created ''war'' as a concept that only has meaning in relation to profit or loss margins.

Afghanistan's occupation (comparable to similar operations in Syria, the Ukraine, and Iraq) was a business venture which wasn't working, so resources (troops and materials) will be allocated elsewhere where money can be better spent. Locals in areas targeted for military operations had been hired-way cheaper than more costly military from corporate headquarters-to do most of the work, and sub-contractors got in on the action as well. Most of the ''fighting'' was pretty remote, with an occasional raid against more bothersome enemies (unwilling to negotiate) by the specially trained corporate trouble-shooters on stand by. Now, the Chinese have begun moving into operations in their turn and with their business model.

In the West, the State has basically ceased to exist in anything but the formal nominal sense, a managerial screen behind which tribes and clans of different people operate, alliances formed and broken,etc.... Ironically not much different in some ways than Afghanistan itself.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin , this is most true, as far as a universally valid understanding of war as a triumph over enemies is in play.

What is most worrisome to me is that these ''people'' have become quite alien, and their ''war'' has less meaning than the Aztec ''flower wars'' did, where the object was the procurement of captives for a steady supply of human hearts,eaten by the Sun in order to keep the Sun alive and in the skies.

So of course, let's not fool ourselves; my friend, it's about the Money. These people are the Liberal Bourgeoisie, and their thoughts on Money and Capitalism have re-created ''war'' as a concept that only has meaning in relation to profit or loss margins.

Afghanistan's occupation (comparable to similar operations in Syria, the Ukraine, and Iraq) was a business venture which wasn't working, so resources (troops and materials) will be allocated elsewhere where money can be better spent. Locals in areas targeted for military operations had been hired-way cheaper than more costly military from corporate headquarters-to do most of the work, and sub-contractors got in on the action as well. Most of the ''fighting'' was pretty remote, with an occasional raid against more bothersome enemies (unwilling to negotiate) by the specially trained corporate trouble-shooters on stand by. Now, the Chinese have begun moving into operations in their turn and with their business model.

In the West, the State has basically ceased to exist in anything but the formal nominal sense, a managerial screen behind which tribes and clans of different people operate, alliances formed and broken,etc.... Ironically not much different in some ways than Afghanistan itself.

In other words, the neoliberals have taken over - the kind of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. In Star Trek terms, the Taliban are the Klingons and the Americans are the Ferengi. Ultimately, the Klingons will win, because at some point it will become more profitable for the Ferengi to simply stop fighting than to continue the struggle. Which is what has just happened in Afghanistan.

[JohnRawls]

That’s what “winning” is, @JohnRawls.

And i called it so. The only one who didn't really have trouble with insurgencies is Stalin but his methods shouldn't be used in the first place. There is something wrong if you are fighting an active insurgency and probably should not be there in the first place.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://eurasianet.org/taliban-vows-to- ... s-pipeline

I think the Taliban are smart enough to know Afghanistan’s history, which seems to be a long story of being invaded by basically everyone because Afghanistan is on the way to pretty much everywhere in the Old World.

So they basically signed a deal with the sole superpower. The USA gets to transport fossil fuels, and the Taliban get to rule the country.

[annatar1914]

https://eurasianet.org/taliban-vows-to-guarantee-safety-of-trans-afghanistan-gas-pipeline

I think the Taliban are smart enough to know Afghanistan’s history, which seems to be a long story of being invaded by basically everyone because Afghanistan is on the way to pretty much everywhere in the Old World.

So they basically signed a deal with the sole superpower. The USA gets to transport fossil fuels, and the Taliban get to rule the country.

@Pants-of-dog ;

This was what was offered to them in 2000 AD. What a waste. And then there's the matter of the Opium production which the Taliban had demolished.

[annatar1914]

In other words, the neoliberals have taken over - the kind of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. In Star Trek terms, the Taliban are the Klingons and the Americans are the Ferengi. Ultimately, the Klingons will win, because at some point it will become more profitable for the Ferengi to simply stop fighting than to continue the struggle. Which is what has just happened in Afghanistan.

@Potemkin , Indeed, I think so. I find it interesting though that when the West was more ''Klingon'', it took only one brief but complete massacre to persuade the West to leave Afghanistan alone.

[Istanbuller]

Taliban developed incredible survival skills thanks to multiple occupations. Mountain fighters beat the state guards.