They did. That's why they stayed so long, there was no one willing to actually do the job and join the military. The taliban is not this massive group of overwhelming forces, it's simply their version of the Afghani UN, only, it actually works. See, it's mainly a group of militias joined with the same common ideology of no whores, no fags, no drugs, uber sharia, and death to outsiders. Almost every town and city is run by a different faction under their normal operating procedures, this will return once they have control and things settle down. You see, they hate other militias almost as much as they hate us. Which is why they always are going backwards in their technology and development. It's going to be a long, bloody slide downhill.
General Boobs is mostly correct. The US military's priorities in order look like:
Kill Bin Laden
Transition military command to Afghan forces
There was a Pashtun commander that basically warned us of the dangers of the Taliban winning the Civil War prior to the 9/11. He was the most capable general in the field, he was fighting for the Northern Alliance, and he was assassinated by the Taliban a few months before 9/11.
For years, the US has been struggling to make the National Kabul Government work. Normally by making it a city state capable of exuding power in the rest of the country.
The rest of the country is governed by Warlords who have their own issues with population, natural resources, and money. These Warlords are the ones who actually control real power and territory. They would typically ally with the Taliban or the US, playing us off one another to get what they want.
The military has been well aware that the ANA has been struggling for a long time to keep a strong NCO corps in the army. They get lots of 1 time enlistments, and they have generals and bureaucrats, but they don't have those kind of veteran NCO's capable of keeping up the middle.
Whatever policy objectives were needed to make that NCO corps work, clearly never got implemented; otherwise we'd see more fighting.
The evaporation of Afghanistan's ability to defend itself has gone far too quickly. I really feel like some decision was reached, likely with the Pakistanis, to basically let the whole thing go. This is not the first time that the Taliban have launched an offensive.
I seriously doubt the US was planning on staying forever. As much mineral wealth as the country has, you would have to colonize the damn place just to make a return on investment. You'd have to build all the school, the roads, bridges, mines, and whole economy from scratch, and it would take a long time to even begin teaching the Afghanis themselves how to extract the ore, so you'd be importing foreign workers to a country that's been isolated for thousands of years. It ain't worth it. Worse, the Fabian Socialists (who are the globalists) have no fucking clue how to build an economy. Only how to parasatize one. They thought that they could make it work, but they are too stupid to know how out of their element they were; and I think they finally just gave up.
Good luck, Russia & China!
They aren't going to be too happy about an Islamist state being so close when they still have to deal with their own Islamist threats.
And let me elaborate: the warlords of Afghanistan are the leaders of the mujahideen parties from the 1980s (plus the newcomer Dostum after defecting in 1992) who then fought each other 1993-1996, mostly over Kabul.
Not to be confused with local militia commanders and tribal leaders and drug lords and assorted bandits. These guys aren't called "warlords" in the context.
So it's Warlord Land and any attempt for central control was pointless.
I don't believe there's any logical or muh oil motive for America staying in Afghanistan.
It was mostly to not look retarded if some warlord immediately take over after western forces left. Which they did.
Russia and China would tolerate the Taliban government until Taliban affiliated terrorists show up in their territory. Which might take a while, as the Taliban would likely target America first.
What? The warlords got totally defeated by the T quickly effortlessly. Even after Dostum was named Defense Minister of the country, the very next day he was defeated and fled. Ismail Khan was captured and they made him tell everyone to stop fighting.
And no, the Americans and Kabul central government and its governors have destroyed the power of the warlords and disarmed then. In that they even killed Ismail Khan's son.
So you're saying they should've armed all the other warlords and hope the western-backed warlord alliance would crush the Taliban, instead of building an Afghan nation and national army?
What's the difference between Taliban and the others anyway. Do the Afghans generally prefer the Taliban, or was it a city warlord vs rural hick Taliban cultural divide, or was it just tribe vs tribe.
The warlords turned out to be the gov's last ditch backup options but it was just too late. They lacked modern weapons (unlike the T) and the enemy advances cut then from their manpower pools in the remaining enclaves so they failed to even mobilize and rearm before quitting like everyone else did.
The fear was that if they won't be disarmed (and the disarmament of militias was an early task during the first few years when the Taliban were only regrouping in Pakistan, where they spawned the Pakistani Taliban splinter group) "the country may return to the civil war". I guess that's averted!
We've never had proper control over the Warlords. Never. Disarming them is impossible.
The attacks on a French patrol that freaked out the Parisians was cased by the Italians neglecting to tell the French they were bribing the Warlord who controlled the region. They weren't even attacked by the Taliban, just the Warlord's militias.
There are regions that are not controlled by Warlords, but for the most part, Warlords work with whomever they chose.
You use incorrect definition of walord in the Afghan context.
Right now there are no regions controlled by warlords. Panjshir might be controlled by a warlord's son (Massoud Jr), for now because I don't know how they can hold out there all alone and against the now best armed army in the region.
I don't know that the situation is that clear on the ground, because I doubt we have a true understanding of what's going on. I'd bet that most of the Warlords have probably just allied themselves with the Taliban's likely regime. They are not truly under the control of the Taliban, they are just deciding to co-operate for now.
Oh I'm sure there were plenty of warnings from boots on the ground, only to be rebuked and ignored by the Generals, who rationalized how things were going just fine and told the politicians what they wanted to hear.
And also speaking of the Islamic State - Afghanistan is now also an Islamic State, not Islamic Emirate or Republic. They will have to fight the ISK insurgency as the ISA.
The ISK (ISIS was only in Iraq and Syria, and was never "ISIL"). And the local IS are actually badly armed and equipped compared to the Taliban, especially now but also before too.
Because you might as well teach dogs how to shoot a gun. They would spend the whole time molesting each other or shooting rounds off into the air, they wouldn't even listen to their own kind unless you beat them, they stole everything that was nailed down and they ran around raping little boys practically nonstop.
Because that is who those people are. We should have just nuked that fuckin' place twenty years ago. They weren't worth all the effort we've put in.
This is what you get when you try to arrogantly force your values onto another society that does not agree with you. This is richly deserved. Western values are a failure at home and abroad: Christianity, leftism, equality, all of that bullshit.
From what I read, too, the Afghan special forces were fairly solid. The problem is the special forces were (as any special forces unit) a tiny number.
The general soldiery, though: no motivation, no loyalty outside their local tribe, constantly high, and more. Plus, well, there's their PT time. See jumping jacks and push ups
It was always built to work with foreign support and civilian contractors.
They did "mission once". Their Commandos and combat pilots were actually pretty good.
An example of the Commandos and pilots working together in an impressive fashion: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-39204400 (they then cleared the hospital complex from suicide terrorists dressed as soldiers and medical personnel, an extremely grueling work among dead and injured people everywhere and hostages as human shields).
Afghanistan fell because it was a puppet state, not a nation.
No one who lived and worked there believed in the soul of the nation of Afghanistan because it didn't exist. It was a reality forced on them through foreign occupation, where many yet remember being tribal enemies of their neighbors.
To defend this faux nation the US recruited sellswords and mercenaries in order to bolster the appearance of the Afghani military. However much to the chagrin of the would-be-imperials, these mercenaries acted exactly as mercenaries throughout history have acted. They take your coin and flee at the first sign of danger if not held to direct account by an army at their backs.
And so, as anyone paying attention realized long ago, the moment the US military leaves the hired swords make deals directly with the new leadership and turn over their arms.
We sought to neither usurp nor crush the spirits of those we occupied and this is the pathetic fate we wrought in so doing.
They did. That's why they stayed so long, there was no one willing to actually do the job and join the military. The taliban is not this massive group of overwhelming forces, it's simply their version of the Afghani UN, only, it actually works. See, it's mainly a group of militias joined with the same common ideology of no whores, no fags, no drugs, uber sharia, and death to outsiders. Almost every town and city is run by a different faction under their normal operating procedures, this will return once they have control and things settle down. You see, they hate other militias almost as much as they hate us. Which is why they always are going backwards in their technology and development. It's going to be a long, bloody slide downhill.
Yes drugs, actually. (And the country has 5 million heroin addicts.)
Yes fags, too, as long as they're young boys.
Not in the least, no.
The Taliban actually outlawed bacha bazi before the U.S. allies brought it back.
Doesn't this clash with "death to outsiders"? Or can they make their own heroin?
General Boobs is mostly correct. The US military's priorities in order look like:
There was a Pashtun commander that basically warned us of the dangers of the Taliban winning the Civil War prior to the 9/11. He was the most capable general in the field, he was fighting for the Northern Alliance, and he was assassinated by the Taliban a few months before 9/11.
For years, the US has been struggling to make the
NationalKabul Government work. Normally by making it a city state capable of exuding power in the rest of the country.The rest of the country is governed by Warlords who have their own issues with population, natural resources, and money. These Warlords are the ones who actually control real power and territory. They would typically ally with the Taliban or the US, playing us off one another to get what they want.
The military has been well aware that the ANA has been struggling for a long time to keep a strong NCO corps in the army. They get lots of 1 time enlistments, and they have generals and bureaucrats, but they don't have those kind of veteran NCO's capable of keeping up the middle.
Whatever policy objectives were needed to make that NCO corps work, clearly never got implemented; otherwise we'd see more fighting.
The evaporation of Afghanistan's ability to defend itself has gone far too quickly. I really feel like some decision was reached, likely with the Pakistanis, to basically let the whole thing go. This is not the first time that the Taliban have launched an offensive.
I seriously doubt the US was planning on staying forever. As much mineral wealth as the country has, you would have to colonize the damn place just to make a return on investment. You'd have to build all the school, the roads, bridges, mines, and whole economy from scratch, and it would take a long time to even begin teaching the Afghanis themselves how to extract the ore, so you'd be importing foreign workers to a country that's been isolated for thousands of years. It ain't worth it. Worse, the Fabian Socialists (who are the globalists) have no fucking clue how to build an economy. Only how to parasatize one. They thought that they could make it work, but they are too stupid to know how out of their element they were; and I think they finally just gave up.
Good luck, Russia & China!
They aren't going to be too happy about an Islamist state being so close when they still have to deal with their own Islamist threats.
And let me elaborate: the warlords of Afghanistan are the leaders of the mujahideen parties from the 1980s (plus the newcomer Dostum after defecting in 1992) who then fought each other 1993-1996, mostly over Kabul.
Not to be confused with local militia commanders and tribal leaders and drug lords and assorted bandits. These guys aren't called "warlords" in the context.
So it's Warlord Land and any attempt for central control was pointless.
I don't believe there's any logical or muh oil motive for America staying in Afghanistan.
It was mostly to not look retarded if some warlord immediately take over after western forces left. Which they did.
Russia and China would tolerate the Taliban government until Taliban affiliated terrorists show up in their territory. Which might take a while, as the Taliban would likely target America first.
What? The warlords got totally defeated by the T quickly effortlessly. Even after Dostum was named Defense Minister of the country, the very next day he was defeated and fled. Ismail Khan was captured and they made him tell everyone to stop fighting.
And China hosted Taliban leaders last month already. Officially.
Massoud was Tajik not "Pashtun".
Also last week turned out his son was useless.
It's been a while since I researched that part of the war.
And no, the Americans and Kabul central government and its governors have destroyed the power of the warlords and disarmed then. In that they even killed Ismail Khan's son.
So you're saying they should've armed all the other warlords and hope the western-backed warlord alliance would crush the Taliban, instead of building an Afghan nation and national army?
What's the difference between Taliban and the others anyway. Do the Afghans generally prefer the Taliban, or was it a city warlord vs rural hick Taliban cultural divide, or was it just tribe vs tribe.
Cathy, pls.
The warlords turned out to be the gov's last ditch backup options but it was just too late. They lacked modern weapons (unlike the T) and the enemy advances cut then from their manpower pools in the remaining enclaves so they failed to even mobilize and rearm before quitting like everyone else did.
What's the best solution then.
I know Afghanistan is a US military fuckup but I don't know exactly why. They had 20 years, this is the best they can do?
The fear was that if they won't be disarmed (and the disarmament of militias was an early task during the first few years when the Taliban were only regrouping in Pakistan, where they spawned the Pakistani Taliban splinter group) "the country may return to the civil war". I guess that's averted!
And more recently: https://gandhara.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-warlords-resurgence-echoes-civil-war/31217648.html (too late and against government opposition until literally the last days).
Answer: The people living in Afghanistan are Afghanies. This is what "all races are the same" leads to.
The more we import diverse levels of competence and function in western countries, the closer we get to failed states ourselves.
https://jamestown.org/program/afghan-warlords-reluctant-to-disarm/
Totally wrong.
We've never had proper control over the Warlords. Never. Disarming them is impossible.
The attacks on a French patrol that freaked out the Parisians was cased by the Italians neglecting to tell the French they were bribing the Warlord who controlled the region. They weren't even attacked by the Taliban, just the Warlord's militias.
There are regions that are not controlled by Warlords, but for the most part, Warlords work with whomever they chose.
You use incorrect definition of walord in the Afghan context.
Right now there are no regions controlled by warlords. Panjshir might be controlled by a warlord's son (Massoud Jr), for now because I don't know how they can hold out there all alone and against the now best armed army in the region.
I don't know that the situation is that clear on the ground, because I doubt we have a true understanding of what's going on. I'd bet that most of the Warlords have probably just allied themselves with the Taliban's likely regime. They are not truly under the control of the Taliban, they are just deciding to co-operate for now.
The warlords: all of them fled the country (not sure about Hekmatyar). But son of Massoud is in Panjshir Valley and "organizing the resistance" (??).
Corruption runs deep in the US Army.
Oh I'm sure there were plenty of warnings from boots on the ground, only to be rebuked and ignored by the Generals, who rationalized how things were going just fine and told the politicians what they wanted to hear.
oh, there was check that fighting force is there, and equipped ...during Obama years ...you may know them as ISIL
And also speaking of the Islamic State - Afghanistan is now also an Islamic State, not Islamic Emirate or Republic. They will have to fight the ISK insurgency as the ISA.
The ISK (ISIS was only in Iraq and Syria, and was never "ISIL"). And the local IS are actually badly armed and equipped compared to the Taliban, especially now but also before too.
You do have a point.
He has no point at all. The "ISIL" (ISK) there are cave dweller underdogs in Afghanistan, resembling the T 2002-2005. (They're also largely Uzbeks.)
The people in charge were clueless and systematically promoted only the most spineless bootlickers while anyone who told the truth got the axe.
So like the U.S. government then?
Because you might as well teach dogs how to shoot a gun. They would spend the whole time molesting each other or shooting rounds off into the air, they wouldn't even listen to their own kind unless you beat them, they stole everything that was nailed down and they ran around raping little boys practically nonstop.
Because that is who those people are. We should have just nuked that fuckin' place twenty years ago. They weren't worth all the effort we've put in.
This is what you get when you try to arrogantly force your values onto another society that does not agree with you. This is richly deserved. Western values are a failure at home and abroad: Christianity, leftism, equality, all of that bullshit.
Whatever you say, Jihadi John.
From what I read, too, the Afghan special forces were fairly solid. The problem is the special forces were (as any special forces unit) a tiny number.
The general soldiery, though: no motivation, no loyalty outside their local tribe, constantly high, and more. Plus, well, there's their PT time. See jumping jacks and push ups
It was always built to work with foreign support and civilian contractors.
They did "mission once". Their Commandos and combat pilots were actually pretty good.
An example of the Commandos and pilots working together in an impressive fashion: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-39204400 (they then cleared the hospital complex from suicide terrorists dressed as soldiers and medical personnel, an extremely grueling work among dead and injured people everywhere and hostages as human shields).
They're staying in Iraq. Just reclassified as "noncombat".
It is odd that an army can topple a government in just a few days but can’t train an army to defend one after 20 years of training
Afghanistan fell because it was a puppet state, not a nation.
No one who lived and worked there believed in the soul of the nation of Afghanistan because it didn't exist. It was a reality forced on them through foreign occupation, where many yet remember being tribal enemies of their neighbors.
To defend this faux nation the US recruited sellswords and mercenaries in order to bolster the appearance of the Afghani military. However much to the chagrin of the would-be-imperials, these mercenaries acted exactly as mercenaries throughout history have acted. They take your coin and flee at the first sign of danger if not held to direct account by an army at their backs.
And so, as anyone paying attention realized long ago, the moment the US military leaves the hired swords make deals directly with the new leadership and turn over their arms.
We sought to neither usurp nor crush the spirits of those we occupied and this is the pathetic fate we wrought in so doing.