US left Bagram Airbase at night with no notice, Afghan commander says
American troops quietly withdrew from the key airbase in the early hours, new base commander says.
www.bbc.com
US withdrawal from Afghanistan - your thoughts?
- Thread starter Bulletpoint
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Mixed feelings. The bottom line though is that Afghan citizens have to decide what their country will be like. No one can do it for them. I feel for them since the have so often been pawns in other country's games and yet such a strong people as well. It would be really sad if things just went back to the hell that was there in the 2000s. I fear it will - the most powerful group there likes it like that.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
They are not going to embrace western philosophies or way of life. Once Osama Bin Laden was executed it was mission accomplished.
@A Canadian Cat Pretty much covers it. There was never any way for the U.S. to be able to permanently resolve so many issues the Afghan people face.
They have to do it themselves. I don't like the odds.
They have to do it themselves. I don't like the odds.
No good for my country. Infiltrating islamist groups, refugees and common turmoil in Central Asia region, as well as low-priced heroin. Considering opened borders between Russia and these "allies", all this will influence russian cities very soon.
Interesting perspective ... didn't think of that.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Afghanistan is like a mortgage, easy to get hard to get rid of.
One thing that surprised me was that Biden recently said "We did not go to Afghanistan to nation build".
I was under the impression that nation building was the argument used to stay in Afghanistan for 20 years - it only took a couple of months to kick out the Taliban government after all. And Bin Laden was killed 10 years ago - in Pakistan.
Yet it's only now that the US forces leave Afghanistan. What have they been doing there for all those years if not trying to nation build?
(not trying to stir up a political discussion for or against any political party or US president)
'We did not go to Afghanistan to nation build'
The US President is defending the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this autumn.
www.bbc.com
I was under the impression that nation building was the argument used to stay in Afghanistan for 20 years - it only took a couple of months to kick out the Taliban government after all. And Bin Laden was killed 10 years ago - in Pakistan.
Yet it's only now that the US forces leave Afghanistan. What have they been doing there for all those years if not trying to nation build?
(not trying to stir up a political discussion for or against any political party or US president)
Last edited:
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
They overthrew the Taliban with the help of the Northern Alliance. Their local allies better settle somewhere else.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Yeah, that was clearly the goal. I sure thought it was. I suppose it's easier to say it was not your original goal in order to save face since it was not achieved.
The Soviets left things in a fairly similar state. My father was part of the UN observer mission that monitored the Soviet troop withdrawal between 1988 and 1989. He really liked the Afghans he met and had a great deal of respect for the Soviet troops. Even while he was there the forces that eventually became the Taliban were directly firing on to Kabul and other cities. They controlled pretty much all of the mountains and high ground. After the Soviet's withdrew, they quickly took over the rural areas and effectively laid siege to the cities until they fell too.
I fear the exact same thing is likely to happen again. The differences between then and now are that then the government the Soviets left was united, even if it was not really of the people but their army was not in good shape. Where as now the Afghan army is better equipped and trained but the political leadership is a mess. In the end I fear those differences will not really amount to a better result.
Indeed we don't want to go there. The on the ground policy was fairly consistent between all the presidents. I mean on the ground in a practical sense. Day to day US and allied forces tired to disrupt the Taliban forces, protect the Afghan government and train the Afghan army forces. I am not calling out the differences in rhetoric which would be likely to send this discussion in a political direction.
Yes, it's deja vu all over again... I'm pretty sure the Taliban will retake the whole of the country within long. And I think there is little doubt that they will continue their cruel and oppressive ways. The question is whether Afghanistan will again become a haven for international islamistic terrorism.
In numbers: How has life changed in Afghanistan in 20 years?
How did 20 years of war between the US and the Taliban change Afghanistan?
www.bbc.com
B
burning_phoneix
Guest
Taliban are actually quite against the use of drugs. They were very close to eradicating Afghan poppy production before the war. I doubt there will be turmoil or inflitration groups, the Taliban are quite isolationist in that regard.
Well if you read the article, it says the Taliban briefly shut down opium but then switched to taxing it, making a lot of money.
Now that the Taliban has taken over again, I wonder how many US supplied weapons fell into their hands? And what kinds?
The entire stock of the Afghan army and police most likely -- all Made In America (and paid for too)
Similar situation to when Iraqi army evaporated and left thousands of weapons circulating in civilian hands... and then again when ISIS took Mosul initially.
Beat me to it, although there are also various warlords with 'alliance fluidity' collecting up such weapons (and fighting men).
Lesson here is that "client states" propped up by "big brother" and awash with "big brother's" money breeding dependency and corruption and undermining whatever social cohesion there might be, will never stand up to highly-motivated, combat-hardened insurgencies.
Also, militaries make for terrible civil administrations for nation and post-war rebuilding programmes.
Indeed. Didn't 'we' learn those lessons before?
Was 09/11 the real reason for the intervention, or only an excuse?
I'm thinking about
The arabian invaders in the Middleage lost their religious passion very soon.
The communist regime in Russia was an outlaw only in first several years, then it evolved and became a full participant of foreign relations.
Every revolution has its end. The question is, will it be killed (like ISIS) or die itself (like USSR and, maybe in future, Taliban?).
I'm thinking about
Really, it seems the only one way to stand against an insurgency, and it's always ineffective.
The arabian invaders in the Middleage lost their religious passion very soon.
The communist regime in Russia was an outlaw only in first several years, then it evolved and became a full participant of foreign relations.
Every revolution has its end. The question is, will it be killed (like ISIS) or die itself (like USSR and, maybe in future, Taliban?).