You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Dear me we have ****ed this up....
Amazed how quickly it has happened.
Yes.
When I think of how much money, time and blood our nations invested in trying to make it a better, safer place, having the whole country descend into chaos this quickly is just shocking.
Maybe the next generation will work out why it happened and will be able to make changes a little more peacefully and successfully than we did.
So close to 20 years of occupation hasn't resolved anything, how does it get resolved?
IMO somehow the region has to sort it out themselves, god knows how that works though. Saudi funding to extreme Islam is a big problem, as is Israel always being happy to create the spark to ignite the tinder.
What are the chances of the west, Russia and China agreeing an arms embargo into the area, or will they all continue to see blood money as more important than life.
Is there a chance the strategy was to give up on fighting shadows, let them show themselves and pile back in? Probably not.
Lots more innocent people will be killed, tortured and persecuted.
The Taliban can now turn its attention to ****stan.
I remember channel 4 news doing a piece a few years into the occupation of Afghanistan. They were interviewing a former Taliban commander and when they asked him about the occupation, he simply replied “we’ve got all the time in the world…”
Hadn’t they just?
All those lives sacrificed, all that money spent and 20 years of ‘progress’ is completely erased in little more than a week.
I can only imagine how traumatic this is to witness for the families of soldiers who died or for those soldiers who lost limbs to IED’s or are suffering from PTSD.
We should never have been there in the first place. You’d like to hope that this time it will finally sink in about starting unwinnable wars in places we don’t belong
Encourage a generation of women to aspire to more then abandon them to the Handmaid's Tale on steroids. Makes me proud.
There is an element of that but, before the fall we are seeing now, women still faced a huge uphill battle for anything approaching the level of emancipation they had in the 60's and 70's. With the Taliban back in control, that generation with aspirations will be brutally reminded that the men that now control them do not want them to have ideas or aspirations.
We (and our applies) were trying to prepare Afghans to change their country for themselves. IMHO the Afghan government is corrupt and the military is unable to retain troops or use them effectively. This means, to me at least, that there is no chance to rule via soft politics and Afghanistan cannot be ruled by organised military force.
The Taliban have an advantage. They have a force of power, a set goal, and money. They can pay their fighters. They can rule by fear if they need to and did after the Russians left.
No one other than the Afghans have success in Afghanistan. I think we've shown well enough that it's largely pointless us being there. Unfortunately that leaves millions of normal people to suffer but what else can be done?
No more of this kind of thing then I guess:
Read this the other day too - horrendous. 🙁
A terrible situation. Short of staying there forever it was I feel inevitable, but it is an appalling tragedy for those living there. A lot of parallels to Vietnam, including the fact that all the Taliban had to do was wait. As a North Vietnamese leader once said ‘how long do you want us to fight you - ten years, twenty - we can fight for as long as it takes’.
I cant disagree with any of the above - all the western parties involved have created a real mess that isn't going to go away just because they have pulled the troops on the ground. ****stan must be the Talibans next move surely.
I understand there is a US commitment to exit Afganistan but why so quickly? They must have known what was likely to happen they are not stupid. It's not as if there is an election around the corner.
Did they suddenly realise the Afgan forces would never be capable of standing alone and decided there was little point in continuing?
My fear is that in 5 years time the West will be back in the region with more involvement than ever before.
So close to 20 years of occupation hasn’t resolved anything, how does it get resolved?
The same as every war ends: with either military defeat of the enemy (impossible for Afghanistan government) or negotiated political settlement.
Israel always being happy to create the spark to ignite the tinder.
Israel is neither the tinder nor the spark for conflict in Afghanistan. It's an abstraction to Afghans and its invocation is nothing more than a rhetorical device - just like Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Mindanao...
Amazed how quickly it has happened.
The warning signs were all there. The Bush administration invaded and drove the Taliban out, then pumped money in, but lost interest and turned to Iraq. In theory, the Afghan army and police were trained and equipped, but there was so much corruption that most of that money and effort was wasted. Police officials either hired their friends or just claimed they'd hired cops and pocketed the salaries themselves. Even an honest cop or solider is not going to risk their life to fight for a system that corrupt, so they just burn their uniforms and disappear as soon as the Taliban turn up.
The U.S. military kept on filing reports about all the progress that had been made, everything was going fantastically, etc. This went on through the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. Nobody wanted to be the one to say, "Hey, we just burned a trillion dollars and got thousands of people killed and we have nothing to show for it," so everyone just went on pretending.
Trump sold himself as a dealmaker but was too stupid to realize that he is a hopeless negotiator. His administration made deals with the Taliban (and North Korea, etc.), ignoring the really, really obvious fact that the Taliban will ignore any deal anytime it suits them. The only thing those guys respect is military strength, so you can't do any deal with them unless you are willing to station thousands of troops there indefinitely.
Bush gets most blame for starting this without any coherent plan for ending it. Trump gets a lot for his fantasy that he could negotiate with murderous fanatics who have no interest in a peace treaty. Obama gets some for being naive enough to believe all the bogus status reports. Biden gets a big dose of blame for not bothering to plan an orderly retreat. I can understand his view that the war was lost and it's time to get out, but this is just pathetic.
https://twitter.com/NJdoc/status/1426780707339358208
How are the neighbouring Stans feeling about it? Are they aligned with Moscow or Mecca ? Can we expect a domino theory all the way to the Russian border?
Israel is neither the tinder nor the spark for conflict in Afghanistan. It’s an abstraction to Afghans and its invocation is nothing more than a rhetorical device – just like Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Mindanao…
The Afghanistan conflict is not an isolated bubble, it is single conflict in a war of religion, oil, greed and power being played out in the whole region.
****stan must be the Talibans next move surely.
The ****stani intelligence services see the Taliban as their ally. Their enemy is India. A large part of the reason that the U.S. could never wipe out the Taliban was that the ****stani military were giving them haven. Do you remember where Bin Laden was living when he was killed? Do you remember how pissed off ****stan was about that? They weren't pissed off because he was secretly living in ****stan, they were pissed off because they knew he was there and thought he was safe but the U.S. killed him without warning ****stan what was going on.
We should never have got involved. Any canter through history show that no one has controlled Afghanistan. The Russians tried in the 80’s, the British tried in the days of empire all with no success. I feel sorry for the service men and women who lost their lives out have come home mentally and physically injured for nothing.
It isn't even that it will return to the state it was in before occupation, it looks to be heading to a much much worse place.
1839 British take Kabul
1842 British kicked out, return and quit
1878 British have another go
1919 British have another go
1979 The Red Army takes kaboul.
1986 - 89 The Moujahidines kick the Russians out.
Civil war which the Taliban win (note the change from Moujahididne because they're the good guys remember and the Taliban are bad guys, obviously)
Heroin adicts benefit from cheap supplies to Europe
2001 Two Saudis fly planes into the towers in New york and the US takes Kaboul, go figure.
2021 Saudi is still untouchable, the Moujahitaliban are about to take Kaboul and Russia looks interested.
And still we buy heroin. Would it really be any worse if we just let them get on with whatever horrors they get up to when not in the horrors of a war?
it is single conflict in a war of religion, oil, greed and power being played out in the whole region.
Israel has no oil and is not in the same region as Afghanistan. Israel is not to blame for foreign interventions and invasions of Afghanistan nor the religious extremists taking power there.
So close to 20 years of occupation hasn’t resolved anything
Economically more beneficial to let it drag on 😉
I'm surprised that WW2 only took 6 years, especially being faced by about a million and a half heavily armed Germans and not like today's mostly of former agricultural workers with a few mercenaries thrown in rag tag army of nationalists, freedom fighters and religious nutters off doing the lord's work.
Dear me we have ****ed this up….
I'd see it more as the Taliban and their many enablers in the region as the ones who ****ed it up.
'We' attempted to improve things, without much success.
What a grim place, don't beat yourself up about it, there's almost sod all 'we' can do to help while they are in the grip of a death cult / religion / call it what you will.
1839 British take Kabul
1842 British kicked out, return and quit
The remnants of an army, Jellalabad, January 13, 1842
R4 interview with security expert pointed out that the towns and cities taken so far have been taken without much fighting
Regional governors, tribal elders and warlords we bought into our side, have handed power over without much resistance
I suppose they now have all the weapons we/USA supplied then with too.
Poor country (and loved what skatistan were doing & still do elsewhere )
Looking at the imagery, you’d struggle to tell the difference between today and the the final humiliating exit from Saigon
Very little seems to have been learnt in the intervening years
https://twitter.com/ozkok_a/status/1426818553664126977?s=21
I do wonder what would have happened if Iraq hadn't happened.
I mean, the world was kind of OK with the US invading Afghanistan. It had been attacked and after some mental gymnastics Afghanistan had been blamed (they could hardly go invade Saudi, after all, and somebody's country had to be bombed to dust).
If Afghanistan had been the focus for the last 20 years would things have turned out differently.
It’s not as if there is an election around the corner.
I actually think this is exactly the reason for the timing. He needs the maximum amount of time for images of Chinooks on the roof of the embassy to fade.
This thread is worth a read. Thomas Tugendhat is chair of Foreign Affairs Committee, and served in Afghanistan both in military and civilian roles. Strong stuff
https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1425919651469565955?s=19
I expect that the Taliban will be setting about settling scores with anyone deemed to be a collaborator or insufficiently pious. That and the further subjugation of everyone female.
Will ‘we’ be ready to accept our responsibilities for the next wave of refugees fleeing our way?
Hmmmmmm…. let me hazard a guess…
‘We’ attempted to improve things, without much success.
How incredibly selfless of "us". If only there had been some kind of precedent that would have indicated how difficult it would be for foreign powers to control and change Afghan societies.
This thread is worth a read. Thomas Tugendhat is chair of Foreign Affairs Committee, and served in Afghanistan both in military and civilian roles. Strong stuff
There is so much in there that I agree with, it is hard to believe he is a tory, so little of it seems to align with current tory ideology.
This thought has just entered my head after reading the word 'time' quite a lot when failed conflicts of a 'helping' nature occur.
Could it be that unless you (as a country) are invading/protecting (call it what you will) another country that you intend to keep as your own or one that has a religious, economic, government, weather? structure in place similar to your own - you will ultimately fail long term.
The theory is that even as helpers, like the west was to Afgan, we essentially invaded their country and tried to support it using our methods. These could have been successful whilst we were present but as soon as it is removed things will go back to how they were.
Unless the helpers colonize any said country they are 'helping', the original invaders have time on their side and will always win.
Edit. I say original invaders, more accurate is probably 'a sector of the countries own people with different beliefs' In that, there will always be some through the generations which makes it virtually impossible to remove.
Will ‘we’ be ready to accept our responsibilities for the next wave of refugees fleeing our way?
We aren’t even honouring promises of visas to those who got scholarships now… you know, in case they decide to overstay rather than go home to be tortured and killed for seeking to learn in the west.
This thread is worth a read. Thomas Tugendhat is chair of Foreign Affairs Committee, and served in Afghanistan both in military and civilian roles. Strong stuff
It's another "our brave heroes were stabbed in the back" thread. If I really thought that keeping troops there indefinitely would lead to a stable, functioning state, I'd be all for it. There's no indication that it would. The Afghan army outnumbered the Taliban by three or four to one (on paper), but in town after town, they just laid down their weapons and turned it over to the Taliban. If 20 years of military and economic support can't produce an army that doesn't capitulate when some guys roll up in pick-up trucks, I don't see what another 20 or 50 years is going to do.
Prediction: The next occupation of Afghanistan will be at the instigation of China, after a rise in terrorist attacks both inside their borders, and in countries where they are working hard to make allies.
The theory is that even as helpers, like the west was to Afgan, we essentially invaded their country and tried to support it using our methods.
Afghanistan was never invaded to 'help' them. It was invaded as revenge for 9/11.
I think the speed that the Taliban have retaken cities shows what little impact the last 20years really had. If you cannot train/supply an army to look after its country over 20 years, would it ever happen? I guess the Taliban will be happy for all the fancy equipment it will be collecting from the Afghan army along its way to Kabul. As Britain and America have sent a bunch of troops back to help get people out I wonder will the Taliban sit back for a day or 2 and let this happen, to avoid pissing America off and drawing them back in, or will they start trying to have ago in Kabul and capture some high ranking diplomats etc? I mean is it not really risky flying in and out of Kabul right now, surely the Taliban could take a pop at a plane if they really wanted to. How do you get all these people/troops out of a city that’s surrounded?
How do you get all these people/troops out of a city that’s surrounded?
I guess the Taliban will be happy for all the fancy equipment it will be collecting from the Afghan army along its way to Kabul
They won't know how to use or maintain much of it, that was the problem with the afghan army, and the way the US set up conflicts to feed tax spending into private company profits. The maintenance of equipment was done by American contractors rather than teaching Afghan engineers to maintain their own equipment. The operators may switch sides, but the equipment will have a limited lifespan.
As above and what I've heard a few times recently, the Chinese may decide to enter stage left. Could be Genghis khan all over again.
They wouldn't have left that much, maybe some vehicles. If you watched the documentary on pulling out of camp Bastion one of the Afghan commanders made the comment along the lines of 'they would have taken the concrete walls if it wasn't so heavy'
Afghanistan was never invaded to ‘help’ them. It was invaded as revenge for 9/11.
No, the perpetrators of 9/11, embassy bombings and many other atrocities were being given safe haven by the Taliban and were hellbent on committing more of the same. The initial invasion was motivated, at least in part by the need to stop that. Huge mistakes were later made of course, but as the primary reason for attacking the Taliban regime it had far more justification than the Iraq war. In that one very limited measure of success, it largely worked. The AQ leadership were evicted and never recovered their former capacity and effectiveness. As ever, scant regard was given to 'what now' after the invasion and it became a predicable cluster****.
I'm not trying to justify the whole debacle, impossible of course. But try to remember how the world felt just after 9/11. People were avoiding London thinking it might be next. Saying it was just revenge seems trite to me.
As someone said above above, I think the big problem was the invasion of Iraq.
The rest of the world was broadly supportive of the US after September 11, and to a lesser extent the action NATO took in response (the only time article 5 has ever been triggered I belive. Who expected that to be for the defence of America?)
There was no surprise that the collation won the war, the Taliban had no chance against such military prowess.
However, what should have happened then is a massive effort of nation building, think of what happened in Germany after the war (is there also an analogy there about overturning an ideology which the leadership and some of the people had held, nazis/taliban?)
However Bush and Blair saw the ease with which they had won the war and decided to do it all over again way before they had won the peace, divide the international community and stir up another hornets nest. They thought winning the war was the end, not the beginning.
The fact that we have made such a pigs breakfast of both Afghanistan and Iraq now means that we are unlikely to ever have any international support should the need arise to do something similar again, and probably more importantly, no locals are ever going to welcome us if that is likely to be the outcome for their country.
Its a lesson that should have been learnt by now
1) you cannot enforce a peace on a country from outside
2) You cannot create a functioning government without the consent of the people
Saying it was just revenge seems trite to me.
I think seeing to be taking revenge was very important to the Bush administration they couldn't be seen to be doing nothing. Making someone pay th eprice is taking revenge:
Edit to add:
revenge
/rɪˈvɛn(d)ʒ/
Apprenez à prononcer
noun
noun: revengethe action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.
"other spurned wives have taken public revenge on their husbands"
h
Synonymes :
vengeanceretribution
retaliation
reprisal
requital
recrimination
tit for tat
measure for measure
getting even
redress
satisfaction
repayment
payback
lex talionis
ultionthe desire to repay an injury or wrong.
"it was difficult not to be overwhelmed with feelings of hate and revenge"
h
Synonymes :
vengefulnessvindictiveness
vitriol
virulence
spite
spitefulness
malice
maliciousness
malevolence
malignancy
ill will
animosity
antipathy
enmity
hostility
acrimony
venom
poison
hate
hatred
rancour
bitterness
revengefulnessmaleficence
(in sporting contexts) the defeat of a person or team by whom one was beaten in a previous encounter.
"Zimbabwe snatched the game 18–16, but the Spanish had their revenge later"verbliterary
verb: revenge; 3rd person present: revenges; past tense: revenged; past participle: revenged; gerund or present participle: revenginginflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to oneself.
"I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you"
h
Synonymes :
take revenge onexact/wreak revenge on
get one's revenge on
avenge oneself on
take vengeance on
get even with
settle a/the score with
get
pay back
pay out
retaliate on/against
take reprisals against
exact retribution on
let someone see how it feels
give as good as one gets
give/return like for like
give tit for tat
give someone their comeuppance
get one's own back on
recriminateinflict revenge on behalf of (someone else).
"it's a pity he chose that way to revenge his sister"
inflict retribution for (a wrong or injury done to oneself or another).
"her brother was slain, and she revenged his death"
h
Synonymes :
avengetake/exact revenge for
make retaliation for
retaliate for
exact retribution for
take reprisals for
get redress for
get satisfaction forrequite
Expressions
revenge is a dish best served cold — vengeance is often more satisfying if it is not exacted immediately.
Origine
late Middle English: from Old French revencher, from late Latin revindicare, from re- (expressing intensive force) + vindicare ‘claim, avenge’.
Traduire "revenge" en
noun1. vengeance
2. revancheverb
1. venger
Usage de "revenge" au fil du temps
Définitions proposées par les Oxford Languages
Not quite sure what happened with the more voluminous than intended copy/paste there but it's fitting.
The ****stani intelligence services see the Taliban as their ally.
Good piece on R4 yesterday pointing out that the ****stani military and military intelligence have had a constant policy of support, regardless of changes in ****stani government.
Taliban has income streams - "tax" (extorsion) in the areas they control, sale of coal and marble to the Chinese, truck companies in ****stan. This means they can pay their forces and but stuff without direct support from outsiders.
Iran is keeping on good terms with the Taliban groups on their border to keep it stable.
China is playing a similar game - as long as the border is maintained they have no interest in getting involved.
Russia - who knows? Certainly some schadenfreude.
Terrible situation, not sure what could be done after Trump announced wihdrawl date,
I'm sure I heard something on the news a few days ago saying that the Taliban could take control of Kabul in perhaps as little as 30 days. They got that a bit wrong.
I think as Edukator says, Bush had to be seen to be doing something after 9/11. Firing some cruise missiles into caves wouldn't have been enough, it had to be something far more forceful.
As others have said, the whole thing just seems like it's been a massive exercise in futility. All those lives lost, and for what? I fear that the Taliban will be emboldened by this and become even more extreme.
(is there also an analogy there about overturning an ideology which the leadership and some of the people had held, nazis/taliban?)
1) Germany was comprehensively defeated militarily and dismembered as a military force
2) there was a functioning state which German-speaking people regarded as legitimate and could be rebuilt
3) the Western allies accepted that "former" Nazis could continue in office/in post apart from at the top level
4) the Soviets installed puppets that had been held in reserve and were willing to occupy indefinitely
5) the allies stripped Germany's assets to pay for the invasion, and allowed the ethnic cleansing of Germans to avoid future cross-border "confusion"
None of those things was true in Afghanistan
The ****stani intelligence services see the Taliban as their ally.
Yes I get that but if I was them I wouldn't trust the Taliban. They already have a presence in ****stan and they will see that as an easy option for expansion in the region - then India really needs to start considering what will happen next.
@Edukator your cut and paste game is on point, well done. Of course revenge was an element in the mix, but my point is that to claim it was the only reason is wrong. The then Afghan regime were harbouring the perpetrators of the world's worst terrorist attack(s) and had more in the pipeline. The primary motivation was to stop that.
The then Afghan regime were harbouring the perpetrators of the world’s worst terrorist attack(s) and had more in the pipeline. The primary motivation was to stop that.
Errmmmm - Saudi Arabia was financing and supporting many of the "terrorist" organiastions why not invade them?
I roughly agree with your first four points politecameraaction but point 5 is well off. The Marshall plan and investment in Germany wasn't asset stripping and you need to explain what you mean by ethnic cleaning. Borders changed very little, people generally returned from whence they came when possible and some Jews left voluntarily for their promised land.
Perhaps a beter comparison is with what happened in countries occupied by the Nazis, France, Holland, Belgium, Scandinavia the Baltics... . Round here there are monuments to the resistants but the dead collabos are long forgotten and still dispised.
A few Saudis, TJ, or the whole Royal family? If it really was Saudi Arabia then ivading Afghanistan was a little off target as I alluded a page back. Fact is The Bush administration went on a Crusade, going as far as trying to persuade Jaques Chirac that it was all in the Bible and he was fulfilling Biblical prophecies. He missed the verse about turning the other cheek.
Borders changed very little,
that really is not true. Poland moved hundreds of miles west taking a good chunk of Germany and loosing a big chunk to Ukraine plus numerous other border adjustments and massive movements of people
But you are right - the marshall plan created the conditions for modern Germeny to arise and nothing similar was done for Afghanistan
there was assett stripping as well - the BSA bantam was a DKW stolen from Germany
There is so much in there that I agree with, it is hard to believe he is a tory, so little of it seems to align with current tory ideology.
I've very recently worked with him, he Tories pretty hard locally, don't worry.
It really didn't matter where the Poland - German border was, it was all occupied by the Soviets. My Polish father-in-law couldn't return after being de-mobbed in the UK and his father died after 5 years in a Soviet prison for having been in the Polish military. That part of Poland had swapped hands several times and had a partly German speaking population.
I think seeing to be taking revenge was very important to the Bush administration they couldn’t be seen to be doing nothing.
Definitely they had to be seen to retaliate against Al Qaeda. It wouldn't matter who was U.S. President, if a terrorist group did that, they have no political option but to respond very forcefully. The Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda. IIRC, the Bush administration gave them an ultimatum of handing over the AQ leaders or facing invasion. This had widespread international support - AQ and the Taliban deserved everything they got. So yes, revenge against AQ and the Taliban, but not against Afghanistan.
After defeating the Taliban, Nato couldn't just walk away and hand it back so they started pumping money in to rebuild. With hindsight, that never worked and all the rosy reports about how well everything was going were little more than wishful thinking. As soon as the Iraq invasion kicked off, Afghanistan was doomed to failure.
A few Saudis, TJ, or the whole Royal family?
by my understanding its the whole administration.
The Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda.
the Saudis were financing them and the UK and US had trained and armed them ( taliban and al queda)
Errmmmm – Saudi Arabia was financing and supporting many of the “terrorist” organiastions why not invade them?
I'm not a spokesperson for the Bush government. I'm not trying to justify the Afghanistan invasion, or saying I agreed with it just suggesting that perhaps the reasons for it were a little more complex than 'revenge', or any other one liners or over simplifications.
The Saudi regime are a malign influence in the world and US and UK connivance with them grieves me, but bringing it up in this context is whataboutery. Bin Laden and the AQ leadership were in Afghanistan not KSA.
Interesting use of quotation marks around the word terrorist. Do you question the use of that term in regard to Al Quaida?
The Saudi "administration" is a family founded by Ibn Saud who shagged his way around the penisular gaining blood allegience from the various tribes. He signed the 50/50 deal with the US and became big boss but the tribal and family rivalries remain. The "whole administration" isn't how I see the ruling class in Saudi.
Edit: I used doss on the floor of the Saudi Ambasadors son. 😉
BBC and others now reporting Taliban are in the outskirts of Kabul. Taliban say they have stopped their advance to negotiate a peaceful transfer of power. What a tragic waste of lives for political expediency in the U.S. and throughout the west.
Interesting use of quotation marks around the word terrorist. Do you question the use of that term in regard to Al Quaida?
Al Queda were " freedom fighters" when we were training and equiping them and as ever one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
I think the reason's for the invasion had far more to do with revenge than 'helping' Afghanistan, which is the point I was making initially.
If you want to argue that it was more to increase western security then that's more difficult to prove one way or the other.
However, I don't think it's controversial to say that nation building was never part of the original justification or plans for the invasion (beyond deciding which of their cronies would be awarded the juiciest 'rebuilding' contracts).
What we are seeing now is just how much of a total victory 9/11 was.
The “whole administration” isn’t how I see the ruling class in Saudi.
Fair enough. I thought you were trying to say it was a couple of rogue princes rather than being Saudi policy
Al Queda were ” freedom fighters” when we were training and equiping them and as ever one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
When did "we" train and equip Al Quaida?!! The US and UK did train and equip the forerunners of the Taliban in the form of the Mujahideen when it suited us in a proxy war against the Russians. Deluded and short sighted and definitely came back to bite us, but AQ are a totally different beast. I am not aware that the west trained and armed Al Quaida? You have some evidence for that TJ?
Osama bin Laden fought with the Muhahideen in Afghanistan. After that, he founded Al Qaeda.
There are more than a couple of rogue princes, TJ. There are about 4 000 princes but there's a hard core of 35 to squabble about official policy and then squabble with the Religious clerics. The West tries to deal with Saudi as if it were a western state, but it isn't. The various people making it up do what they can get away with and there are several agendas running concurrently.
https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1426801235966021634
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1426853120601169923
Osama bin Laden fought with the Muhahideen in Afghanistan. After that, he founded Al Qaeda.
Indeed he did, as did Muslims from all over the world, including the UK and US. See also Chechnya and Syria. But Al Quaida was formed well after that, and was primarily an arabic (principally Saudi and Egyptian), Wahabhi inspired organisation. The Mujahhideen were largely Pathan nationalists but their fight was seen as a rallying call to muslims everywhere as a fight (not unjustified perhaps) against imperialism (Russian in that instance).
TJ is claiming that the west armed and trained the terrorist organisation Al Quaida. That is wholly different assertion. I am not aware of any evidence that this is true.
When did “we” train and equip Al Quaida?!!
the people who went on to become al queda - a lot of them have been trained and supported to foment strife in countries we did not like. al Queda is not a single homogenous organisation.
We also created the conditions for it to arise with our wars and proxy wars in the middle east
al Queda is not a single homogenous organisation.
I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Or wasn't true at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan. AQ was a cohesive organisation with a well establish and rigidly enforced command structure, all operations were approved and financed by the leadership. With the demise of 'core AQ', the subsequent franchises such as AQAP in the Yemen, AQI in Iraq - which morphed into IS etc then yes, they were more amorphous and less rigidly organised.
Was totally predictable by anyone who ever looked at the history of the area ….
Long before Russia had issues with the Mujahadine ( sp? ) and the US ( and allies ) had with the taliban , the Afghans ( and others in the area ) never liked outsiders telling them what to do … and just like in Vietnam and as said earlier in the thread they had all the time in the world to make continued foreign occupation ( in their eyes ) far too expensive ( not only in monetary terms ) for it to continue
Afghanistan was never invaded to ‘help’ them. It was invaded as revenge for 9/11.
Essentially, but then the western powers found themselves saddled with a responsibility to maintain some level of peace and stability.
Like many I was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I didn't believe there was any sort of plan or thought about what happened after, and I was sort of right.
Anyway the invasion and subsequent occupation happened, and once us enlightened westerners had committed ourselves to this course of action there was an inherent responsibility to see the whole thing through, even if it took many, many years.
I have to lay this current shit-show at Biden's feet. He's unilaterally decided on a rapid withdrawal, and the consequences are the worst possible...
I understand why he's done it it, the Afghan occupation was a lasting remnant of a knee jerk, vanity war declared by a simpleton (advised by bastards) that shouldn't have happened. The backlash and ramp up in anti-American sentiment will be significant, he has created new enemies and emboldened the old ones.
As unpalatable as remaining longer term, and paying the price in money and blood to build a functioning, robust democracy might be, that was the right thing to do now...
I know he's not Trump, but I really don't think he should be cut any slack for this, he has basically sacrificed another nation to try and placate voters in his own, that's no better than Bush who started the whole thing...
As above and what I’ve heard a few times recently, the Chinese may decide to enter stage left.
If they do they'll be bogged down like everyone else who has ever tried to have a go.