Afghanistan needs such common vision. I propose a post-islamic, civilized (not religious, not tribal) vision for all Afghans. Invent a new national meta-narrative and sell it to the people. — DiegoT

I think I'll start a thread about the irreconcilable differences between Islam and democracy or whether democracy can exist with respect to Islam. I have a paper in a book that I want to address in regards to the issue.

propose a post-islamic, civilized (not religious, not tribal) vision for all Afghans. Invent a new national meta-narrative and sell it to the people. — DiegoT

Like the communists had done in the Saur-revolution? They surely wanted to "modernize" Afghanistan. What better way to bring "modernization" than to kill the "Islamists" (as we would call them today):

Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, Afghan communists executed 27,000 political prisoners at the sprawling Pul-i-Charki prison six miles east of Kabul. Many of the victims were village mullahs and headmen who were obstructing the modernization and secularization of the intensely religious Afghan countryside. By Western standards, this was a salutary idea in the abstract. But it was carried out in such a violent way that it alarmed even the Soviets.

Hence I would propose first knowing Afghan history and culture before issuing that they simply have to have a new national meta-narrative. Above all, the answers have to emerge from inside Afghanistan itself, not from foreigners that have fought a war in their country for decade and a half.

I'd like to resurrect this relatively old thread, given what is happening in Europe, France, The U.K., and such.

It seems to me that there is no apparent threat to US soil as far as my limited knowledge spans. Yet, Europe is experiencing a crisis in my view of immigration, domestic nativism, and terrorism.

Trump doesn't seem to care much about what's going on in Afghanistan, and given the short attention span of most Americans on these issues, then I don't think much willpower exists to change Afghanistan or Iraq for the better.

I'd ask @ssu to chime in again, out of my curiosity, just what is Pakistan's role in all this. I know that Syria imploded, and is the next Afghanistan, Africa is fucking experiencing a profound ideological shift...

It seems to me, that the War on Terror is failing (relatively speaking, if not for the US, then for the world, which Trump doesn't give a shit about), not winning. Am I correct on this or is this just me stating some random anecdotal opinion.

Side note, some members of my family are linguists for the military, and they're jammed up with work on the issue. I even considered learning some Pashtu and Farsi from my family and asking my uncle if he could hook me up.

And thoughts, opinions, or ideas on the issue?

Pretty interesting video:

I'd ask ssu to chime in again, out of my curiosity, just what is Pakistan's role in all this. — Wallows

Huge.

Even before looking at the video you posted (have to watch it later), it's a historical fact that the Pakistani ISI created the Taliban and, just like a classic intelligence service would do, burned the candle from both ends.

Yet first one has to understand Pakistan and it's military. The military in Pakistan is truly a nation in a nation and the political leadership has had trouble of controlling the military... apart when the military itself has been in power through a military junta. In the case of Pakistan you can indeed talk about a 'deep state'. Pakistan feels threatened from India and hence it's primary objective now is to keep India and Afghanistan apart. Some Pakistanis (like former dictator Zia ul-Haq) have also dreamed about a confederation of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Next issue is the the Durand line, the border between drawn by the British that divided the Pashtuns into two and a border area that Pakistan has had difficulties in controlling. The strategic reason why the US hasn't been able to tackle the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is that Pakistan has offered a safe haven for the Taliban. Now the US and Pakistan have been for long allies, yet the friendship has turned sour and neither country actually believes anymore in trying to have friendly relations or even keeping up an appearance of being allies.

Thanks. The follow up question deriving from the above is how close are Iran and Pakistan, and Russia must be watching from the sidelines but have no idea who they're rooting for?

The situation in Afghanistan has been deteriorating for the last 10 years. I think that what we view as 'deterioration' is, unfortunately, the norm for Afghanistan. It the mixture of ethnic-religious groups the geography and Islamic fundamentalism that causes it. The Afghan government will stumble on but will survive.

Pakistan's long time friend has been China. Pakistan and China found each other thanks to the Sino-Indian border war of 1962 and hence Pakistan has bought cheap Chinese weapons.

Iran was the first country to recognize the independence of Pakistan and both countries were members of SEATO, the Asian version of NATO. When an insurgency started in Pakistan's Balochistan province in 1973 (that neighbors Iran), Iran gave military and monetary assistance to Pakistan. Yet when the Shah was overthrown and the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the relations went sour. The Shia/Sunni divide, which hadn't been a problem earlier, started to be a thorny issue in the relations.

(Picture: Young Shah Reza Pahlavi with Pakistani President Iskander Mirza. I don't know who or what they are planning to shoot in the picture)


The Islamic Republic of Iran didn't like at all that Pakistan created the Sunni Taleban and used this proxy to gain hold of Afghanistan. And Pakistan has been very close to Saudi-Arabia, which itself is the nemesis of Iran. Pakistan even had an armoured brigade in Saudi Arabia to defend the Kingdom and routinely the two countries have military excersizes.

Iran on the other hand has then sought closer ties to Pakistan's enemy, India. So basically the two countries are good friends with the others worst enemy. Yet the two countries try to improve relations especially with trade and they have an oil pipeline project also. Perhaps if the US puts Pakistan firmly on the "Axis-of-evil" camp (or whatever it is called today), then perhaps Iran and Pakistan will find each other because of necessity.

After all, the US foreign policy is such a trainwreck in the Middle East and Central Asia that past strong allies of the US will in the end up as it's most hated enemies.

(close ties, which Iran doesn't like)


As for Russia, the country has closer ties to Iran than Pakistan. For example, when in 2015 Russia attacked insurgents in Syria with cruise missiles shot from the Caspian Sea, Iran didn't mind the missile flying over it's territory, even if one of those missiles hit an Iranian mountain by accident. (See here)

Thank you for offering your deep and edifying knowledge on the subject. Are you by any chance a history teacher or more with government? Curiosity asks.

Warm regards.

Not so sure if it's deep and edifying knowledge, but thank you. In the university I started with economics, but then changed the subject to economic history, from which I got a masters degree. You could say that my work is more with the government, even if I'm not a government employee.

International politics has always interested me. One might think that international politics is so far from ordinary life and events happening on the other side of the World don't effect you, but actually it isn't so. Actually World events do have an effect, but many simply don't notice it.

Cool. Economic history sure sounds interesting. I majored in economics too.

And, yes, so it seems to me really paradoxical how US interests are misaligned with competing interests in the Middle East. Is this just a feature of US democracy as to create chaos and then declare the need for policing?

I majored in economics too. — Wallows

Great. Economics is important.

And, yes, so it seems to me really paradoxical how US interests are misaligned with competing interests in the Middle East. Is this just a feature of US democracy as to create chaos and then declare the need for policing? — Wallows

No. I don't think so.

It's not Divide et Impera.

I think the basic problem is that as the sole Superpower, the US simply can do whatever it wants.

There's no Soviet Union who's countermoves it has to anticipate. The Soviet Union made Cold War US foreign policy to be far more cautious than now. Things like the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have been out of the question. Now the US doesn't have those limits. And there's no real budgetary or military constraints when interfering in the politics of Third World countries. What can they do if you shoot some cruise missiles there or have Predator-drones circling above? The US foreign policy establishment can be as illogical as it wants as it can be. It simply doesn't have to take into consideration other players: it can genuinely decide on policies that are totally based on domestic politics.

Let's take the policy of being in Afghanistan. Why does the US keep forces in Afghanistan? The reason is actually absurd, when you think of it: US forces are in Afghanistan in order for Afghanistan not to become a terrorist safe haven, from where the US could be attacked. This is the real reason. Nothing to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or other countries in the region. No thought is given to Afghanistan's own history or how Afghans view outside occupiers. No thought is given to what agenda the other players in Central Asia could have. No thought is given to the fact just why if left itself alone would Afghanistan constitute such danger to the US? Somalia has been in anarchy for decades and it doesn't present a terrorist threat to the US, the only threat it creates is to international shipping with piracy around the waters of Somalia. Besides, if Osama bin Laden would have stayed in Sudan, I guess the US would then have invaded Sudan. Perhaps then in an alternative universe Sudan would be the place where the US could not forgo, as otherwise it could turn into a safe haven for terrorists. After all, none of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan. (Or Sudanese)

But what is important is that the policy sounds good for the American voter. The American voter after 9/11 wouldn't have felt good if the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan, but started an arduous police investigation which would have ended years later in the FBI making a raid in Pakistan and Osama bin Laden been sent to jail in the US. Just like the US did with the first Twin Tower terrorists of the first terrorist attack. Nope, that would have been too lame when thousands died.

Hence these kind of policies are possible when a) there is the will to such aggressive politics and b) there is the capability to implement such policies. Let's look at how limited other countries are in comparison.

France can behave as dominant power only in it's former African colonies. There it can intervene with it's Foreign legion etc. and topple unfriendly leaders. Yet the country cannot operate in impunity anywhere else.

Russia can behave as a bully in it's near abroad and in Syria, but that's where it's limits can be found. With it's information operations and hybrid warfare the country punches well over it's actual weight, but this is more about Vladimir Putin's abilities as a brilliant intelligence director.

China has a lot of potential to be a classic imperialist, but it has one important factor limiting this: the United States. If China would start intervening militarily in some country, the operation would create an absolute shit storm for the country as a hysterical United States would react to any such action as it did to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Hence all they can do is to go on with their belt and road initiative.

Democracy would not be an option, because the country is run by tribes and democracy doesn´t work on a tribal and patriarchal network. — DiegoT

It is the Church that dismantled the tribal and patriarchal network in Europe. For obvious reasons, this is not an option in Afghanistan. Furthermore, such network is of tremendous value to an individual. It dramatically increases the number of people who will object, resist, and fight back, when he gets attacked by outsiders.

There are real and good reasons why people tend to be tribal.

A citizenship would have be slowly built, women would have to have less children, an internal cultural revolution (based on the pre-islamic past, like we did in Europe in the Renaissance) would need to be supported. — DiegoT

The more individualistic European social structure was shaped by Church policies, which dismantled the clans and the tribes, and by the same token spectacularly increased State -and Church power. Furthermore, it took almost a thousand years to achieve that; after which, the Church was no longer needed and was discarded.

Two more generations, and until them, the doctor prescribes an authoritarian transition to keep peace and order and to make changes possible. — DiegoT

Authoritarianism is not particularly viable when the other side does not hesitate to shoot back. You would need to convince them not to shoot back, but that requires them to believe that they shouldn't.

That is where religion kicks in.

In Europe, it was the role of the Church to preach against rebellion and in favour of accepting State power. There is no centralized Church in Islam. There is no organization with control over the belief system that has the credibility to do that.

I propose a post-islamic, civilized (not religious, not tribal) vision for all Afghans. — DiegoT

Individuals benefit tremendously from tribal solidarity. Hence, they will not give it up, unless a power like religion manages to convince them to do that.

Islam protects tribal solidarity, and the tribes protect Islam.

For example, promiscuity and rampant divorce would substantially weaken tribal ties. However, they have an elaborate honour system to prevent exactly that. Anybody who dares to contemplate engaging in that kind of behaviour, is at risk of getting unceremoniously terminated by their own relatives. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Furthermore, it is clearly in their own interest to remain tribal and Islamic. What would they even gain from an atheist, individualistic alternative? Thanks to their tribal, Islamic ways, they have managed for almost twenty years to keep the upper hand on a superpower like the United States. Prior to that, they happily bankrupted the Soviet Union. Why would they give up that kind of power and ability? Would you do that? I admire them for what they have achieved.

Why would they give up that kind of power and ability? Would you do that? I admire them for what they have achieved. — alcontali

The real problem of Afghanistan is that the country has a myriad of different people so that it resembles a Central Asian version of Yugoslavia. Afghanistan is of course much older and the present country can be traced back to the Durrani Empire if not earlier. If successful in denying the Soviets a victory, the Mujahideen were incapable of forming afterwards a functioning coalition and guiding the country back to peace. This has been difficult in many countries where similarly the insurgency hasn't been lead by one single actor, but a whole multitude of various groups with totality different agendas and objectives and that have been united only against the common enemy. So just to blame Afghans as people for not "getting their act together" after the Soviet retreat and the fall of the Communists is quite ignorant and rather condescending.

Let's not forget that the country has been in war now for 40 years and is one of the poorest countries in the World. The unstable situation gave the ISI the chance to create and use a proxy (the Taleban) to take control of the country and even then the Taleban couldn't secure control everywhere. Then the US swooped in after 9/11 determined NOT TO engage in nation building (as let's say in Bosnia), but to be there just to hunt "the terrorists". And hence Afghanistan has given the US it's longest war ever.

Anybody who dares to contemplate engaging in that kind of behaviour, is at risk of getting unceremoniously terminated by their own relatives. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. — alcontali

@Baden. This guy's been skirting around the edge of some pretty unpleasant stuff for some time, but this is open support for honor killing - enough is enough.

@ssu, may I ask what is happening to Africa? It's my suspicion that Africa is prone to radicalization. Libya may have lost Gadaffi, and he seemed to be in perpetual check by Europe, now, what?

Well, that's a bit of large thing to answer. Just like "What's happening in America? Meaning what's happening in North, South and Central America? Where's the continent going?" 54 countries are a quite a list to go through. I'm not sure I even would remember everyone of them. There's a lot of narratives how we approach Africa.

Well, I assume you are referring to Islamic radicalization in the continent. One area is of course the Sahel and especially Mali. If you have sometime the time to listen (for example when working, walking or jogging), here's a discussion of the situation at the present given last September. The situation is discussed by members of the US Foreign Policy establishment (and some others) and even listening to the start of the summit (by Judd Devermont, speaks 5 min) will give some picture of what is going on there and a really quick review what has happened in Mali:

Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS): the Sahel Summit (very long, 3h 20min)


Then there's Nigeria, Libya, Somalia...

Ok sorry for badgering you. I'll give it a watch.

It's amazing that ISIS hasn't yet infiltrated Afghanistan or Africa... Yet...

Actually if you listen to the summit, I think I remember them mentioning ISIS and/or it's affiliate. But I like these kinds of discussions as they aren't made to sell a story (apart of US foreign policy, that is :grin: ) and don't talk about the issues as just with "warlords" against "innocent people".

And you are not badgering me.

According to a damning expose by the Washington Post, Afghanistan was a monumental failure and all administrations knew it. They fudged the truth to disguise it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

http://archive.is/fARjB

Horrific stuff.

Still, the point here is nation-building, not fighting a landlocked war between Pakistani, Saudia Arabian, and Iranian influence.

Still, the point here is nation-building, not fighting a landlocked war between Pakistani, Saudia Arabian, and Iranian influence. — Wallows

I think the structural problem is that if you go to war, your objective would be to win it. In truth, that hasn't been at all the objective. Nothing like that. Just fanciful rhetoric to pander the American voter. This is why American wars get so fucked up.

As the objective was to destroy a small cabal of terrorists and to do this a whole country was invaded and a regime that basically had nothing to do with the attacks apart from giving Bin Laden a refuge (just like Sudan had earlier given), the whole war was fucked up right from the start. This is because the occupation itself and the overthrow of the Taliban was the primary cause for the insurgency. It had nothing to do with the small Al Qaeda remnants that then did withdraw to Pakistan during the fighting. Yet if you remember at the time, Bush was not their to do nation building, but to fight Al Qaeda.

So, Taliban is back mostly in Afghanistan. Anything new changed or is it same old?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/10/biden-says-afghans-must-fight-for-themselves-as-taliban-advances.html

I would chalk the rationale behind the so-called "War on Terror" moreso up to a justification for the expansion of the security apparatus than I would to a placation of the American populace so as to secure votes.


I haven't followed the conflict too much as of late as I kind of quit reading the news.

They're religious people. So they say. They understand they're either right or wrong and should accept that including any potential reward or consequence thereof.

I support the withdraw, despite that I think that the Taliban will continue to fight and eventually win. It's a sad and difficult situation within a country with a long and troubled political history.

The world's most powerful nation waged the longest war in its history against an organization primarily comprised of Pashtun tribesman and will probably have to consider it as a loss. There are just some things that people will never let go of, even if you can't agree with them. It's not much consolation, but I think that there is something to be learned from that.

Terror, it's claimed, is a demand for justice, a not so gentle reminder to redress a wrong done. War, though apparently a solution, actually adds one more item to the list of perceived unforgivable offenses. A vicious cycle of violence is inevitable: Terror -> War -> Terror -> War...and so on.

So, Taliban is back mostly in Afghanistan. Anything new changed or is it same old? — Shawn

Well, it was entirely predictable, wasn't it?

Afghanistan is a heritage of the old “Great Game” rivalry between England and Russia. The idea was to keep the Russians out of India and the Indian Ocean. After the partition of India the focus shifted to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban was indeed the creation of England, America, and elements of the Pakistani military and secret service.

Of course Pakistan is playing a double game. It has long been an ally of China and has been pretending to be friendly with America whilst at the same time arming the Taliban and providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda and other terror organizations operating in Kashmir and other parts of India.

It is obviously impossible for the West to defeat the Taliban so long as it has a secure guerrilla base in Pakistan from where it recruits thousands of fanatical fighters and it gets unlimited financial and military support.

America and England know exactly what the situation is but they are doing absolutely nothing about it. So, China and Pakistan look set to be the winners of the Great Game, after which all they need to do is to ally themselves with Turkey and take over the Mid East, North Africa, and Europe.

Terrorism isn’t the biggest problem any more ....

Afghanistan — Shawn

The world and UN gave up on this country since 1991. Probably because they do not have oil.
Taliban forces are accurate for all of those who work in the world drug dealer market. It is a country which produces a lot of weed and heroine.
Why didn’t they (UN, NATO, etc...) remove all the plantations the Taliban forces have in their territories?