Fate of Afghanistan, Taliban resurgence

[Kellhound]

It was just marginally better though, we went in and failed from the get go, it was battle of ideologies, yet the mindset of the Taliban was never rooted out. As a consequence, the nation was never properly build up, as in self sustainable, with people willing to die for it. A foundation build on quicksand won't last, the real sad part about all this, it was very much predictable. Now those who embraced the new values will have hell to pay.



Ultimately it was not a price politicians were willing to pay, the amount of dead necessary to truly get this whole thing properly done would have been astronomical.

We either needed to rule with an iron fist (which the US is not capable of doing) or we needed to spend a shit tone of money up front.

[Mihalik]

Indeed. I just caught Charlie Wilson's War last night - terrific movie (and SO topical now, obviously). The ending is sad beyond belief, especially given this summer's Taliban takeover.

The U.S. did do better overall because we went in at least trying to "help" whereas the Soviets came in ton conquer, pure and simple. Obviously that's over simplifying things to the Nth degree, but it broadly accurate.

We didn't tho. We didn't go in to help.

I'm old enough to remember the rhetoric around the war back in 2001. It had fuck all to do with helping anyone. We went in as an act of vengeance.



This "We went in to help" horseshit came later, after Torabora and after the first couple of years of failing to capture Osama when we needed some type of rhetoric to explain what the fuck we were still doing there.

The Soviets really did go in to help. At least to help as far as they understood help. They were trying to stabilize a modernizing socialist- soviet aligned government facing an Islamist uprising triggered by a series of legal reforms that were aimed to abolish Sharia law and to expand women's rights.

Were there geopolitical complexities and interests involved? Of course, Russian interests in the region extended back to the 18th century. But the soviets did go in to help a "reform" government to put down an extremist uprising, at least that's what they thought they were doing.

[Kellhound]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvza...n-for-12-years

Man, the scope of just how much money was completely blown with nothing to show for it and no even real prospects for success is astounding. We really need to stop thinking we're great at everything, because we fuckin aren't.

The US is not ruthless enough or willing to spend enough to be effective occupiers. That has been well known for decades.

- - - Updated - - -

The casualty rate of soldiers was lower, because the job wasn't done properly though. Applying a bandaid on a festering wound usually doesn't do much.

That should have led to higher casualties, as the US had stricter ROE than the USSR.

[Combatbutler]

We either needed to rule with an iron fist (which the US is not capable of doing) or we needed to spend a shit tone of money up front.

To make it work, every tunnel in the mountains needed to be cleared out, all Taliban supply lines needed to be broken and the villages needed to be inspected and those in league/sympathizers with the Taliban be incarcerated, while providing aid to the families in the hopes of stopping a cycle of hatred and even then the hopes of it working would have been very slim, due to the horrid terrain in Afghanistan, not to mention the monumental loss of life.

That should have led to higher casualties, as the US had stricter ROE than the USSR.

Indeed but any other approach wasn't really feasible longterm.

[Kellhound]

To make it work, every tunnel in the mountains needed to be cleared out, all Taliban supply lines needed to be broken and the villages needed to be inspected and those in league/sympathizers with the Taliban be incarcerated, while providing aid to the families in the hopes of stopping a cycle of hatred and even then the hopes of it working would have been very slim, due to the horrid terrain in Afghanistan, not to mention the monumental loss of life.

That is one way of doing it, yes. But that is not the only way.

[Adam Jensen]

Everyone who voted for sleepy Joe has helped play their part in dooming all the women and girls in Afghan to a miserable existance where they will be treated like second class citizens.

But at least thE oRaNGe mAN isNT maKInG mEAN tWeeTS.

At least Orange Man isn't letting hundreds of thousands of Americans die due to him spreading misinformation on the pandemic.
At least Orange Man isn't stoking the fires of insurrection
At least Orange Man isn't fucking with our right to vote anymore
At least Orange Man isn't kissing up to our enemies and writing them love letters
At least Orange Man isn't bribing our allies for political dirt on his political opponents

[uuuhname]

The US is not ruthless enough or willing to spend enough to be effective occupiers. That has been well known for decades.

I mean we literally worked with warlords that had child sex slaves and turned the other eye to it. maybe the problem isn't how ruthless enough we were but the very idea of trying to occupy that part of the world was a bad idea from the get go. not like, history or anything can show the laundry list of other countries that tried and failed.

[Combatbutler]

That is one way of doing it, yes. But that is not the only way.

Another might have been, the army being compromised entirely out of women, I doubt they would have laid down their arms.

[Adam Jensen]

It's also very telling how the rabid fanbase, trying to call Biden absent or whatever, have magically forgotten how often Trump played golf.

OMG! Jen Psaki was on vacation! How dare she not be at work 24/7!!!!

- Conservatives less than a year after Sir Golfs-a-Lot leaves office.

[JohnBrown1917]

The US is not ruthless enough or willing to spend enough to be effective occupiers. That has been well known for decades.

- - - Updated - - -

.

Oh that is completely wrong, the US is amazing at that if you look at the shit the CIA or Seal teams pull off. Not to mention Guantanamo bay, blacksites or the sort of local people they work with to achieve what they want. Be it warlords in Afghanistan or fascists in Middle/south America.

[Mihalik]

The US is not ruthless enough or willing to spend enough to be effective occupiers. That has been well known for decades.

That should have led to higher casualties, as the US had stricter ROE than the USSR.

What sort of torture porn hellscape fantasy would be sufficiently ruthless in your imagination to be an "effective occupier"?

We tried to whole Agent Orange every rice field shit in Vietnam and failed. We tried the whole "Black sites" and torture camps shit too, just drove up extremist recruitment.

What is an "effective occupation strategy" in your imagination? Ethnic cleansing? Death camps? The soviets half tried some of that shit and failed miserably. The Nazis went in wholesale on that across much of Europe, failed at it too.

Fucking clarify.

[Kellhound]

I mean we literally worked with warlords that had child sex slaves and turned the other eye to it. maybe the problem isn't how ruthless enough we were but the very idea of trying to occupy that part of the world was a bad idea from the get go. not like, history or anything can show the laundry list of other countries that tried and failed.

Trying to occupy Afghanistan by force fails, but countries keep trying it.

- - - Updated - - -

Another might have been, the army being compromised entirely out of women, I doubt they would have laid down their arms.

Still an attempt to win by force of arms that which cannot be won by force of arms.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh that is completely wrong, the US is amazing at that if you look at the shit the CIA or Seal teams pull off. Not to mention Guantanamo bay, blacksites or the sort of local people they work with to achieve what they want. Be it warlords in Afghanistan or fascists in Middle/south America.

Oh, you have no idea what level of violence is need to control by fear.

[uuuhname]

Trying to occupy Afghanistan by force fails, but countries keep trying it.

and your complaint is they weren't forceful enough! what the fuck? can you keep the narrative straight??? please?

[Nurasu]

Here's me thinking gunning down 12 year olds at their schools in night raids so they don't grow up to be Taliban members is pretty damn ruthless...

[JohnBrown1917]

Oh, you have no idea what level of violence is need to control by fear.

Which the US is more than capable off.

[Specialka]

and your complaint is they weren't forceful enough! what the fuck? can you keep the narrative straight??? please?

No, his complain is that if you do not go in there with the clear intention to go all the way, you do not go. Like in real life, if you do not give yourself the mean to achieve something, do not do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Which the US is more than capable off.

But not willing to do.

[bladeXcrasher]

OMG! Jen Psaki was on vacation! How dare she not be at work 24/7!!!!

- Conservatives less than a year after Sir Golfs-a-Lot leaves office.

Maybe she should just stop giving press briefings altogether, that's something conservatives could get behind and support.

[uuuhname]

No, his complain is that if you do not go in there with the clear intention to go all the way, you do not go. Like in real life, if you do not give yourself the mean to achieve something, do not do it.

or just don't do imperialism? full stop!

[Nurasu]

But not willing to do.

We did it in Kandahar; just because it didn't work doesn't mean we didn't do it. We literally went in and killed their kids at night if we thought they might become radicalized. They lived in constant fear of drone strikes on their houses. Yes, I suppose there's a certain scale you can reach when it would finally be fully effective, but we were hardly benevolent to them.

[Specialka]

or just don't do imperialism? full stop!

Yeah, sure kid, whatever float your boat.