[Torus34]

The country of Afghanistan has moved in the last few days from a democracy to a single party state. This dichotomy finds Russia and Saudi Arabia in the single party state category and Hungary, at present, as a democracy.* That should change how we, the United States of America, interact with the new Afghan government.

The Taliban leadership is well aware of the amount of support the US, has provided the government just past in goods, services and plain old money. Chances are that they would like to have some of that continue. That, in turn, provides us [the US] with a lever, though its strength is as yet unknown. Whether we use it or not will depend upon how the party in control of the White House views its use, either as a political plus or minus.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* Yes, Gotcha! Gang. I know the United States of America is a Republic.

[B0ycey]

The only thing America should learn now is to not try and turn the world into the West. If this stops more illegal wars, then I think we at least take that from Afghanistan. In other words, America should continue to deal with any nation whatever their system or national policy and without interference in their politics - that is to say all partners should be trade partners and no more.

[Torus34]

The only thing America should learn now is to not try and turn the world into the West. If this stops more illegal wars, then I think we at least take that from Afghanistan. In other words, America should continue to deal with any nation whatever their system or national policy and without interference in their politics - that is to say all partners should be trade partners and no more.

Hi, B0ycey!

There are groups within the US electorate who want to continue US attempts to change the political nature of other countries. Some also want toe US to continue to support single party states for a number of reasons. These groups are catered to by politicians seeking election/re-election. Sometimes, it can result in actual US foreign policy decisions.

As to the powers that be in Washington having learned a lesson from supporting governments in South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, to note recent examples, it is doubtful. Our legislators have, to a remarkable degree, isolated themselves from the pressure of their voters through gerrymandering. They can pursue whatever policy will work well in a primary election.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[B0ycey]

There are groups within the US electorate who want to continue US attempts to change the political nature of other countries. Some also want toe US to continue to support single party states for a number of reasons. These groups are catered to by politicians seeking election/re-election. Sometimes, it can result in actual US foreign policy decisions.

Sure there are a group of electorate who want to interfere in other nations. They are called Republicans.

But on a serious note, I have not known a successful war where the objective was to topple and reconstruct. Topple yes, reconstruct no. Which means the idea we can improve the world to our image is ignoring history now. And really that is where we went wrong. When the Taliban were hiding in the mountains we tried to convert a group of people to a vision they clearly didn't share. So anyone who thinks America is able to change the world should now see this is not possible. We have to accept that although we treasure our freedom and democracy, others are not willing to fight for theirs and that is their choice and we should not interfere. And the next time we even consider entering another hostile nation and change their culture, I will be the first to explain that is not possible and the best we can do is watch and let the people work it out together. The military should only be used in self defence and I support Biden in what he said when he said that. America needs to take a backseat and leave the world alone to sort out their own shit.

As to the powers that be in Washington having learned a lesson from supporting governments in South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, to note recent examples, it is doubtful. Our legislators have, to a remarkable degree, isolated themselves from the pressure of their voters through gerrymandering. They can pursue whatever policy will work well in a primary election.

I think the problem was we were successful in the first Gulf War. That is to say we had an objective and returned Iraq to Saddam after that. Those kind of wars are achievable. Then we had Yugoslavia and from a back seat we were successful there given the fight was civil. At the start of Afghanistan we were successful, but rather than go home we stayed and tried to rebuild which was a mistake. And Iraq we did likewise. Thankfully we learnt with Syria and Libya and didn't try and build a state to our image with them. I guess what I am saying is America is learning. I doubt voter opinion matters. Nobody wanted a Saigon moment and that is what we got from one of the shittest nations on Earth. If America cannot topple the Taliban without air defence and a fraction of the people it is evidence enough that you cannot break the will of people and ultimately it is will and desire not bombs that will wars.

[Torus34]

Sure there are a group of electorate who want to interfere in other nations. They are called Republicans.

But on a serious note, I have not known a successful war where the objective was to topple and reconstruct. Topple yes, reconstruct no. Which means the idea we can improve the world to our image is ignoring history now. And really that is where we went wrong. When the Taliban were hiding in the mountains we tried to convert a group of people to a vision they clearly didn't share. So anyone who thinks America is able to change the world should now see this is not possible. We have to accept that although we treasure our freedom and democracy, others are not willing to fight for theirs and that is their choice and we should not interfere. And the next time we even consider entering another hostile nation and change their culture, I will be the first to explain that is not possible and the best we can do is watch and let the people work it out together. The military should only be used in self defence and I support Biden in what he said when he said that. America needs to take a backseat and leave the world alone to sort out their own shit.



I think the problem was we were successful in the first Gulf War. That is to say we had an objective and returned Iraq to Saddam after that. Those kind of wars are achievable. Then we had Yugoslavia and from a back seat we were successful there given the fight was civil. At the start of Afghanistan we were successful, but rather than go home we stayed and tried to rebuild which was a mistake. And Iraq we did likewise. Thankfully we learnt with Syria and Libya and didn't try and build a state to our image with them. I guess what I am saying is America is learning. I doubt voter opinion matters. Nobody wanted a Saigon moment and that is what we got from one of the shittest nations on Earth. If America cannot topple the Taliban without air defence and a fraction of the people it is evidence enough that you cannot break the will of people and ultimately it is will and desire not bombs that will wars.

Hi again, B0ycey!

Thank you for posting an extended commentary. It will be interesting to see how this situation [Afghanistan changing hands,] evolves with time.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Rancid]

Basically yes to everything @B0ycey said.

Basically, let shitholes be shitholes.

[Skynet]

The Taliban 2.0 are real machiavellists. Therefore they are succesfull.

They want to ban the drug trade, this is economical suiccide.

[ckaihatsu]

The only thing America should learn now is to not try and turn the world into the West. If this stops more illegal wars, then I think we at least take that from Afghanistan. In other words, America should continue to deal with any nation whatever their system or national policy and without interference in their politics - that is to say all partners should be trade partners and no more.

'Legal' wars -- ?

The U.S. has a clear history of contravening UN resolutions, particularly so as to side with Israel. Here's the latest:

UNITED NATIONS — The United States opposes a draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in the conflict between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers. The U.S. says it could interfere with the Biden administration’s efforts to end the hostilities.

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east- ... 91667a21f0

And:


A history of the US blocking UN resolutions against Israel

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/1 ... nst-israel


Also, regarding trade:

History provides ample evidence that trade problems have heightened tensions among nations. Such fights lead to economic crises, and trigger political and social crises and, finally, trigger wars.

A full-blown trade war often features the combination of a tariff war and currency war. In practice, exporting countries will, in response to imposed tariffs, resort to currency manipulation, moving to cheapen their money to offset the impact of the tariffs.

But a competitive devaluation among trade partners makes a currency war meaningless. Once countries realise that currency wars do not work, they resort to all the tools available to set up barriers to block trade. This seems evident amid the escalating US-China trade feud. The slump in the renminbi in past few months is stoking fears in markets that China’s policymakers are deliberately pushing the currency’s depreciation in an effort to offset the US tariff hikes.

Before the first world war, most countries accepted the classical gold standard of pegging their currencies to gold as an effort to anchor smooth trade. However, from 1913, countries began to suspend or abandon the system as they devalued their currencies to compete for export markets in the ongoing tariff war.

Trade wars stoke nationalism and hatred among people and finally trigger wars, as evidenced by the breakout of the second world war: the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, and the whole of China in 1937; the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, then the rest of Europe; and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-op ... shows-will

---

Currency war in the Great Depression

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, most countries abandoned the gold standard. With widespread high unemployment, devaluations became common, a policy that has frequently been described as "beggar thy neighbour",[28] in which countries purportedly compete to export unemployment. However, because the effects of a devaluation would soon be offset by a corresponding devaluation and in many cases retaliatory tariffs or other barriers by trading partners, few nations would gain an enduring advantage.

The exact starting date of the 1930s currency war is open to debate.[21] The three principal parties were Britain, France, and the United States. For most of the 1920s the three generally had coinciding interests; both the US and France supported Britain's efforts to raise Sterling's value against market forces. Collaboration was aided by strong personal friendships among the nations' central bankers, especially between Britain's Montagu Norman and America's Benjamin Strong until the latter's early death in 1928. Soon after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, France lost faith in Sterling as a source of value and begun selling it heavily on the markets. From Britain's perspective both France and the US were no longer playing by the rules of the gold standard. Instead of allowing gold inflows to increase their money supplies (which would have expanded those economies but reduced their trade surpluses) France and the US began sterilising the inflows, building up hoards of gold. These factors contributed to the Sterling crises of 1931; in September of that year Britain substantially devalued and took the pound off the gold standard. For several years after this global trade was disrupted by competitive devaluation and by retaliatory tariffs. The currency war of the 1930s is generally considered to have ended with the Tripartite monetary agreement of 1936.[21][29][30][31][32][33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_ ... Depression

Currency war in 2015

A €60bn per month quantitative easing programme was launched in January 2015 by the European Central Bank. While lowering the value of the Euro was not part of the programme's official objectives, there was much speculation that the new Q.E. represents an escalation of currency war, especially from analysts working in the FX markets. David Woo for example, a managing director at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, stated there was a "growing consensus" among market participants that states are indeed engaging in a stealthy currency war. A Financial Times editorial however claimed that rhetoric about currency war was once again misguided.[95] [96]

In August 2015, China devalued the yuan by just under 3%, partially due to a weakening export figures of −8.3% in the previous month.[97] The drop in export is caused by the loss of competitiveness against other major export countries including Japan and Germany, where the currency had been drastically devalued during the previous quantitative easing operations. It sparked a new round of devaluation among Asian currencies, including the Vietnam dong and the Kazakhstan tenge.[98]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_ ... ar_in_2015

---

I think the problem was we were successful in the first Gulf War. That is to say we had an objective and returned Iraq to Saddam after that. Those kind of wars are achievable. Then we had Yugoslavia and from a back seat we were successful there given the fight was civil. At the start of Afghanistan we were successful, but rather than go home we stayed and tried to rebuild which was a mistake. And Iraq we did likewise. Thankfully we learnt with Syria and Libya and didn't try and build a state to our image with them. I guess what I am saying is America is learning. I doubt voter opinion matters. Nobody wanted a Saigon moment and that is what we got from one of the shittest nations on Earth. If America cannot topple the Taliban without air defence and a fraction of the people it is evidence enough that you cannot break the will of people and ultimately it is will and desire not bombs that will wars.

So does this mean that the 'War on Terrorism' policy paradigm is now over?

Criticism of the war on terror focused on its morality, efficiency, and cost; some, including later president Barack Obama,[45][46][47][48] objected to the phrase itself as a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy/military objectives,[49] reduce civil liberties,[50] and infringe upon human rights. Critics also assert that the term "war" is not appropriate in this context (much like the term "War on Drugs") since terror is not an identifiable enemy and it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.[51]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror

---


Regarding Yugoslavia, why did the U.S. support the KLA?

The United States (and NATO) directly supported the KLA.[81] The CIA funded, trained and supplied the KLA (as they had earlier the Bosnian Army).[82] As disclosed to The Sunday Times by CIA sources, "American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia".[83][84][85] In 1999, a retired Colonel told that KLA forces had been trained in Albania by former U.S. military working for MPRI.[83]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Li ... gn_support

The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA; Albanian: Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës [uʃˈtɾija t͡ʃliɾimˈtaɾɛ ɛ ˈkɔsɔvəs], UÇK) was an ethnic Albanian separatist militia that sought the separation of Kosovo from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Serbia during the 1990s and the eventual creation of Greater Albania due to the presence of a vast ethnic majority of Albanians in the region,[b] stressing Albanian culture, ethnicity and nation.[2][3][4] It was considered a terrorist group until the breakup of Yugoslavia.[14]

NATO supported the KLA and intervened on its behalf in March 1999.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army

---


Regarding the Gulf War, why did the U.S. become a mercenary for Kuwait?

Most of the coalition's military forces were from the US, with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt as leading contributors, in that order. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid around US$32 billion of the US$60 billion cost.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

---


Where were the 'weapons of mass destruction'?

After the Persian Gulf War (1990–1991), the United Nations (with the Government of Iraq) located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials; Iraq ceased its chemical, biological and nuclear programs.[2]

In the early 2000s, the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003,[3] under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Hussein give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4] The United States asserted that Hussein's frequent lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War instead. A year later, the United States Senate officially released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq which concluded that many of the Bush Administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were misleading and not supported by the underlying intelligence. United States–led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling; the war was called by many, including 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a "mistake".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_ ... estruction

---


Why was the U.S. supplying Islamists with weapons?

Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by some Arab intelligence services, including Saudi intelligence. Launched in 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. According to US officials, the program was run by the CIA's Special Activities Division[6] and has trained thousands of rebels.[7] President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013.[8] The program became public knowledge in mid-2016.

One consequence of the program has been a flood of US weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades into the Middle East's black market. Critics saw it as ineffective and expensive, and raised concerns about diversion of weapons to jihadist groups and about Timber Sycamore-backed rebels fighting alongside the al-Nusra Front.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

After the Turkish military intervention in Syria in 2016, and as other countries began to scale back their involvement, the FSA became more dependent on Turkish help.[30] For the FSA, Turkey was a sanctuary and a source of supplies. From late August 2016, the Turkish government assembled a new coalition of Syrian rebel groups, including many that were in the FSA. The core of this new coalition was the Hawar Kilis Operations Room.

2013 – Rise of Islamists

In April 2013, the US announced it would transfer $123 million in nonlethal aid to Syrian rebels through the Supreme Military Council led by defected general Salim Idris, the then Chief of Staff of FSA.[288]

In April–May 2013, FSA was losing fighters to Salafist jihadist organisation Al-Nusra Front which was emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated anti-Assad force, concluded The Guardian after interviewing FSA commanders across Syria.[289] FSA commander Basha said that in the last few months 3,000 FSA fighters had gone over to al-Nusra, mainly because FSA lacks weapons and ammunition. Another FSA commander said that also the Islamic doctrine of al-Nusra attracts FSA fighters. A Western diplomat played down suggestions that Nusra would be cleaner, better and stronger: "fighters are moving from one group to another", but you can't say that Nusra has in general more momentum than others, he maintained.[289]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

[Juin]

Basically yes to everything @B0ycey said.

Basically, let shitholes be shitholes.

Rancid, I am forced to observe that, beauty being in the eye of the beholder: to each his own shithole The Taliban clearly considers the western lifestyle a total shithole. Maybe it is unfair to impose upon him what he considers a shithole. Heck, I say that be downright unjust. To grab a man, and against his will, kickin n screamin, squeeze him into a shithole; that be unjust. And that may explain why the Taliban has kept fightin for two decades. And will keep fightin until he recovers his original shithole. Do the right thing, says I, give Johnny Taliban his shithole back.

[Rancid]

Rancid, I am forced to observe that, beauty being in the eye of the beholder: to each his own shithole The Taliban clearly considers the western lifestyle a total shithole. Maybe it is unfair to impose upon him what he considers a shithole. Heck, I say that be downright unjust. To grab a man, and against his will, kickin n screamin, squeeze him into a shithole; that be unjust. And that may explain why the Taliban has kept fightin for two decades. And will keep fightin until he recovers his original shithole. Do the right thing, says I, give Johnny Taliban his shithole back.

Fair enough

[Rugoz]

The Taliban clearly considers the western lifestyle a total shithole. Maybe it is unfair to impose upon him what he considers a shithole. Heck, I say that be downright unjust. To grab a man, and against his will, kickin n screamin, squeeze him into a shithole; that be unjust. And that may explain why the Taliban has kept fightin for two decades. And will keep fightin until he recovers his original shithole. Do the right thing, says I, give Johnny Taliban his shithole back.

As if the Taliban has a problem with forcefully squeezing others into his shithole .

It's not like we didn't do the Taliban a favour by dropping bombs on his head. After all that's his quickest way to heaven.

[ckaihatsu]

As if the Taliban has a problem with forcefully squeezing others into his shithole .

It's not like we didn't do the Taliban a favour by dropping bombs on his head.

This comment could arguably be called 'acceptable', if one keeps in mind that the Taliban / mujahideen were a creation of the United States, anyway, so that all subsequent geopolitics have been essentially / basically *internal* to the U.S.

After all that's his quickest way to heaven.

But this is just outright *racist*, based on religion, and isn't about geopolitics at all.

[late]

The country of Afghanistan has moved in the last few days from a democracy to a single party state. This dichotomy finds Russia and Saudi Arabia in the single party state category and Hungary, at present, as a democracy.* That should change how we, the United States of America, interact with the new Afghan government.

The Taliban leadership is well aware of the amount of support the US, has provided the government just past in goods, services and plain old money. Chances are that they would like to have some of that continue. That, in turn, provides us [the US] with a lever, though its strength is as yet unknown. Whether we use it or not will depend upon how the party in control of the White House views its use, either as a political plus or minus.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* Yes, Gotcha! Gang. I know the United States of America is a Republic.

You can bet that somebody is doing under the table negotiations with the Taliban. A leaked State dept memo said they were discussing aid, and prob other deal sweeteners to get cooperation with getting our people out.

It's complicated, as the Taliban foot soldiers don't like switching gears. Killing they understand, everything else, not so much.

Don't know what to make of the other posts, but you're bang on.

[Rugoz]

But this is just outright *racist*, based on religion, and isn't about geopolitics at all.

Apparently *you* don't *get* a *joke*. I mean *really*.

[late]

This comment could arguably be called 'acceptable', if one keeps in mind that the Taliban / mujahideen were a creation of the United States, anyway, so that all subsequent geopolitics have been essentially / basically *internal* to the U.S.

You're talking about Charlie Wilson's War, that's how we refer to it here. Or at least that's how I refer to it (the book, not the movie!)

The idiots that did that let Pakistan lead them around by the nose. The Taliban was the creation of the ISI, and it was no accident we found OBL in Pakistan. The ISI had the Taliban bury half the money and weapons for later (after the Russians left). They also let the NA burn themselves out fighting Russians.

Did we play a role in all this? Absafraggingluetely! But you're giving idiots way more credit them they deserve.

[Torus34]

You can bet that somebody is doing under the table negotiations with the Taliban. A leaked State dept memo said they were discussing aid, and prob other deal sweeteners to get cooperation with getting our people out.

It's complicated, as the Taliban foot soldiers don't like switching gears. Killing they understand, everything else, not so much.

Don't know what to make of the other posts, but you're bang on.

Hi, late.

Thanks for the response.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[ckaihatsu]

You're talking about Charlie Wilson's War, that's how we refer to it here. Or at least that's how I refer to it (the book, not the movie!)

The idiots that did that let Pakistan lead them around by the nose. The Taliban was the creation of the ISI, and it was no accident we found OBL in Pakistan. The ISI had the Taliban bury half the money and weapons for later (after the Russians left). They also let the NA burn themselves out fighting Russians.

Did we play a role in all this? Absafraggingluetely! But you're giving idiots way more credit them they deserve.

Okay, this is what I have to chip-in:

New reforms

Main article: Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

The divided PDPA succeeded the Daoud regime with a new government under the leadership of Nur Muhammad Taraki of the Khalq faction. In Kabul, the initial cabinet appeared to be carefully constructed to alternate ranking positions between Khalqis and Parchamis. Taraki was Prime Minister, Babrak Karmal was senior Deputy Prime Minister, and Hafizullah Amin was foreign minister.[28][29]

Once in power, the PDP embarked upon a program of rapid modernization centered on separation of Mosque and State, eradication of illiteracy (which at the time stood at 90%), land reform, emancipation of women, and abolition of feudal practices. A Soviet-style national flag replaced the traditional black, red, and green.[30]

Traditional practices that were deemed feudal – such as usury, bride price and forced marriage – were banned, and the minimum age of marriage was raised.[31][32] The government stressed education for both women and men, and launched an ambitious literacy campaign.[33] Sharia Law was abolished, and men were encouraged to cut off their beards.

These new reforms were not well received by the majority of the Afghan population, particularly in rural areas; many Afghans saw them as un-Islamic and as a forced approach to Western culture in Afghan society.[32][33][34] Most of the government's new policies clashed directly with the traditional Afghan understanding of Islam, making religion one of the only forces capable of unifying the tribally and ethnically divided population against the unpopular new government, and ushering in the advent of Islamist participation in Afghan politics.

The first signs of a rebellion appeared on July 20, 1978 in the far eastern provinces of Nuristan and Kunar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27 ... ew_reforms

And:

[In] the 1980s, the ISI in Operation Cyclone systematically coordinated the distribution of arms and financial means provided by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to factions of the Afghan mujahideen such as the Hezb-e Islami (HeI) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the forces of Ahmad Shah Massoud whose forces would later be known as the Northern Alliance. After the Soviet retreat, the different Mujahideen factions turned on each other and were unable to come to a power sharing deal which resulted in a civil war. The United States, along with the ISI and the Pakistani government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto became the primary source of support for Hekmatyar in his 1992–1994 bombardment campaign against the Islamic State of Afghanistan and the capital Kabul.

It is widely agreed that after Hekmatyar failed to take over power in Afghanistan, the ISI helped to found the Afghan Taliban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Ser ... fghanistan

[late]

And:

Most of the money and guns went to the Taliban. After the warlords pushed the Russians out, they were burned out. Which is why, to this day, they are nothing more than paper tigers...

[ckaihatsu]

Once in power, the PDP embarked upon a program of rapid modernization centered on separation of Mosque and State, eradication of illiteracy (which at the time stood at 90%), land reform, emancipation of women, and abolition of feudal practices. A Soviet-style national flag replaced the traditional black, red, and green.[30]

Traditional practices that were deemed feudal – such as usury, bride price and forced marriage – were banned, and the minimum age of marriage was raised.[31][32] The government stressed education for both women and men, and launched an ambitious literacy campaign.[33] Sharia Law was abolished, and men were encouraged to cut off their beards.

I, for one, will be interested to see how world opinion (the 'second superpower') deals with Afghan / Taliban civil society -- should it be secular or Islamic?

[QatzelOk]

Basically, let shitholes be shitholes.

That's not what happened, or what was presented.

Afghanistan had a socialist revolution in the late 70s and found itself racing ahead with Cuban style medicine and education reforms.

The USA then started giving economic support to Redneck Muslim Gangs in order to destabilize the country on the USSR's doorstep.

“Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked … We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian films on a Friday … it all started to go wrong when the mujahedin started winning … these were the people the West supported.”

"The Great Game" meant that Afghanistan would be smashed by the West and its paid assassins, and there was a trillion dollars in mineral wealth that Western corporations could "easily" take as bounty from their bribe-addicted Mujahideen.

This "game" has meant that Afghanistan's human development has been set back 5 decades. And just so rich useless people can feel like they're playing a game.