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:
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" (??).