At least see if they can do a mission on their own. Once.
Were they planning to stay there forever. How retarded is this stuff.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
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?
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.