The Paki arm of the Taliban has been attacking and killing Chinese in Pakistan, so I don't think they'll join with them.
I can see why an Indian politician would argue that, though.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Leaving Vietnam vs AFG
- Thread starter jmcquate
- Start date
I can see why an Indian politician would argue that, though.
I agree with Brett. There's no other way this could have unfolded. Maybe waiting until the fighting season is over, to buy some time to get folks out. You can't build a nation where the concept of a nation isn't understood, and may never be. We may be back in a few years, I hope we focus on a simple mission, and leave.
It has been said over the years that we are redefining victory because we can't achieve the classical capitulation and surrender. I don't believe that. Victory is one thing. Achieving mission objectives or state of stabilization may be good enough. After all, war is supposed to be the continuation of foreign policy by other means. So when that certain foreign policy objective is met. You are done. Of course defining that has been part of the problem the last 20 years. But if you accept that is an honorable outcome, it is easier to define it. If all the American people want is a USS Missouri event or an image like that of Gen Schwarzkopf arriving at Al Auja escorted by Abrams and Apaches, they will get these kind of results because no politician wants to be a loser in chief. They will keep kicking the can.
I also think we can do a better job of defining war. The war in Afghanistan essentially ended a long time ago when combat operations ceased under Obama. 2500 troops, a fraction of which can kick in a door or call in an air strike, is not a war footing. Moreover, losses have been minuscule for some time. What we had there wasn't much different than the operations in Syria, Iraq, and a half dozen places in Africa. We could have left 2500 troops in Afghanistan for a few more years before the cost equaled that of this debacle. It absolutely did not have to end this way. Ultimate Taliban recovery, likely, but not what we are seeing now.
You should definitely do a better job at re-reading the last sentence of my post next time. I think that will significantly enhance your user experience.
Do you think the Taliban would have waited?
You don't think we could have held them off with air power and special forces leading Afghan nationals? They didn't really move boldly until we tucked tail and left, removing any threat of air support for any Afghans that might have wanted to fight.
Air support still exists, and I suspect that when Afghanistan’s new rulers do stupid shit, they’re going to find their stuff getting blown up.
It’s not lost on me that both Afghanistan and Iraq are/were “artificial countries” whose border boundaries were penciled by adventurous British colonial powers. Neither was really ever a cohesive country with a singular identity based on language, religion, social/tribal, or natural terrain homogeneity.
Afghanistan, 2001-2021. US/NATO chose to keep the country geography altogether, despite multiple competing languages, ethnicies, and divisive terrain features. Result: complete nationwide takeover by an unwanted faction, the Taliban.
Former Yugoslavia, 1992-1995, 1998-1999. US/NATO chose to divide the former country’s geography into new mini nations based on ethnicities, languages, religions, and terrain features. The Bosnian War and Kosovo War are included. Result: four countries that arose from these conflicts are now full NATO members, and pretty much everyone (except the Serbs) still supports America.
Iraq, 2003-tbd. US/Coalition chose to keep the country geography altogether, despite three clear ethno-religious groups centered generally around Basra (Shia), Baghdad (Sunni), and Kurdistan. Our current Commander in Chief (along with Sen McCain) actually considered at one point in early 2003 splitting Iraq into three mini nations. Due to Turkish vehement opposition to an independent Kurdistan, and probably a bunch of other valid reasons, we didn’t. Result: tbd, but Iran-backed militia groups are deeply embedded in Iraq
I wonder if - right after we dusted Bin Laden in 2011 - if we had retrograded and given away Helmand, Kandahar, and the Pashtun areas to the Taliban as part of a peace deal, and focused on keeping Kabul separate and safe, maybe perhaps Kabul and the northern provinces (more Tajik than Pashtun) would have been able to hold their own long term. But we will never know and it’s not worth rehashing unless we can learn a real lesson from it.
Afghanistan, 2001-2021. US/NATO chose to keep the country geography altogether, despite multiple competing languages, ethnicies, and divisive terrain features. Result: complete nationwide takeover by an unwanted faction, the Taliban.
Former Yugoslavia, 1992-1995, 1998-1999. US/NATO chose to divide the former country’s geography into new mini nations based on ethnicities, languages, religions, and terrain features. The Bosnian War and Kosovo War are included. Result: four countries that arose from these conflicts are now full NATO members, and pretty much everyone (except the Serbs) still supports America.
Iraq, 2003-tbd. US/Coalition chose to keep the country geography altogether, despite three clear ethno-religious groups centered generally around Basra (Shia), Baghdad (Sunni), and Kurdistan. Our current Commander in Chief (along with Sen McCain) actually considered at one point in early 2003 splitting Iraq into three mini nations. Due to Turkish vehement opposition to an independent Kurdistan, and probably a bunch of other valid reasons, we didn’t. Result: tbd, but Iran-backed militia groups are deeply embedded in Iraq
I wonder if - right after we dusted Bin Laden in 2011 - if we had retrograded and given away Helmand, Kandahar, and the Pashtun areas to the Taliban as part of a peace deal, and focused on keeping Kabul separate and safe, maybe perhaps Kabul and the northern provinces (more Tajik than Pashtun) would have been able to hold their own long term. But we will never know and it’s not worth rehashing unless we can learn a real lesson from it.
This is the smartest thing you’ve said on this entire site.
There's RUMINT flying around Reddit and other places that the Taliban had allegedly pre-negotiated agreements with certain key individuals, so that when they made their move, those folks would flip in return for a substantial payoff and order their people back to garrison. Standard Afghan tactic . . . "I fight for the guy who pays me."
Well, the intel community isn't saying anything right now and nor would they (besides, they'll probably be extra quiet for a while given this latest oopsie) and we'll know the answer in another 20-30 years, but when you've eliminated the other possibilities, this one looks like a pretty good theory.
How do you know that they didn’t predict this outcome? You’re making some fairly significant assumptions based on zero evidence Or knowledge of the IC assessments.
Probably because the president made a statement based on intel a month ago saying the exact thing that happened this weekend wouldn't happen?
You really are super fucking dense.