Wouldn't it be strange if China stepped in? — jorndoe

Not that strange. China has been involved in Pakistan (where the Taliban have their bases) for many years and has done deals with the Taliban in the past. But probably China will wait first for the situation to settle and then get involved - probably via the Pakistan government - if and as necessary.

The question is, what solutions can philosophy offer?

China doesn't "step in" until it is sure it has already won.

, well, what can anyone suggest...?
There are a few historically and politically savvy people around here.
Afghanistan seems to be converging on a rough theocracy, basic human rights out the window, oppression of females, ..., while we watch, before switching over to the food'n'shopping channel.

I think that the most responsible thing to do, though it is kind of demoralizing for me to say so, is to begin to prepare for the refugee crisis, which, I am sure, has already begun.

I think that the most responsible thing to do, though it is kind of demoralizing for me to say so, is to begin to prepare for the refugee crisis, which, I am sure, has already begun. — thewonder

Will the Taliban allow refugees to flee the country once it is in power?

Hopefully, but, y'know, not sticking around to find out is always an option, at least, when it's an option.

Afghanistan seems to be converging on a rough theocracy, basic human rights out the window, oppression of females, ..., while we watch, before switching over to the food'n'shopping channel. — jorndoe

Yes, our politicians like to talk about our achievements in Afghanistan like enabling millions of girls to go to school, but of course that's all out of the window now, plus the billions wasted to "build the Afghan state" that is now collapsing like a house of cards.

But it isn't just Afghanistan, there is a totally new world order being forged as we speak, and this time around the West has little say in it.

China is the new global power in the making and the West's enemy No 1, along with militant Islam and other loony ideologies.

But I think the West has had it too good for too long and we have forgotten that sometimes you have to fight to defend your life, your country, and your freedom.

Maybe the pandemic should serve as a wake-up call and we need to realize that the dream is over and that it's time to start rethinking the whole situation and devising new strategies before it's too late ....

Maybe the pandemic should serve as a wake-up call and we need to realize that the dream is over and that it's time to start rethinking the whole situation and devising new strategies before it's too late .... — Apollodorus

That's a nice sentiment and all, but, in Afghanistan, I think that we have to accept that it is already too late. The United States isn't going to reengage in the conflict and the ostensive dream of democratic Afghanistan isn't going to come to fruition in any determinate future. Though well aware that it could be potentially harmful to the morale of the Afghans fighting the Taliban now, I just don't think that anything can be done to stop them.

The question is, what solutions can philosophy offer? — Apollodorus

An expression of solidarity in the word, "godspeed", and to figure out what to do about what is to become an influx of refugees, hopefully convincing other countries to give them safe harbor. As for everyone else there, I don't know. All that we can do is to acknowledge that it is a situation beyond our control.

Without the ever-illusive "West" to fight, I think that the Taliban will just kind of internally dissolve. Perhaps, in the aftermath, there will be hope for people there then?

we have forgotten that sometimes you have to fight to defend your life, your country, and your freedom — Apollodorus

True enough, sometimes we have to fight for our interests. That would seem to apply to the Afghan government and military forces. Once we said we were leaving, bombers and all, the Afghanis seemed to lose their will to fight. Assuming that our help over the last 20 years was actually useful, it seems like the Afghanis could have put up more resistance to the Taliban than they did.

I do not know what is the matter with the Afghanis. Is it Islam? History? Culture? What?

As Kenny Rogers put it...

You've got to know when to hold 'em
know when to fold 'em
know when to walk away
know when to run

Hope for the best? — jorndoe

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

As Kenny Rogers put it...

You've got to know when to hold 'em
know when to fold 'em
know when to walk away
know when to run — Bitter Crank

There's this quote that Emiliano Zapata has, "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." @baker once said it to me here, which, in the general course of my madness, I wasn't quite sure how to respond to.

Anyways, there's this advice that I always give to people who had been brought into the now diffused situation created between the Mafia and I, which relates to this scene from the film, Catch-22, where Nately, played by none other than Art Garfunkel, has a conversation with an old Italian in a brothel.

As much as the Italian is extolling the virtues of cowardice, he is not necessarily incorrect. To suggest that "it is better to live on your feet than it is to die on your knees" is, in the general course of living within a fairly dangerous world, kind of better advice than the martial invocation of honor, glory, or self-sacrifice. I don't want to treat the people of Afghanistan like I used to certain people with cocaine habits, but, y'know, I would consider putting off the personal crisis of having left the country in a time of crisis until I, myself, had fled.

Not everyone can leave and there are probably only so many places to go, aside from that it's probably doubtful that too many Afghans read The Philosophy Forum, and, so, it's only so good of advice, but, even if the Afghan military begins to hold their own, it's going to be a long and difficult civil war. Otherwise, as I kind of see it, the Taliban are just kind of unstoppable at this point.

In all seriousness, though, despite that that's not necessarily not serious, to answer @Apollodorus's question, we're about to have to cope with a refugee crisis.

I think that, as Western interference created the crisis, it would not only be ethical, but that we are also responsible for providing safe harbor for Afghan refugees. What narrative is likely for us to be told, and it is something that will happen, albeit to an extraordinarily limited extent, is that the Taliban, or, perhaps, more particularly either al-Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups, as the Taliban are more concerned with their territorial control, will exploit the refugee crisis by disguising potential terrorist threats as political refugees, thereby dismissing the problem of the refugee crisis and just kind of letting them fend for themselves. What we, as philosophers, should then do is to make an attempt to change the general mindset in these regards.

I guess that the Taliban have seized most of the border checkpoints, and, so, leaving is probably kind of difficult. Every now and then, though, it probably couldn't hurt to try, y'know?

The Organization for World Peace more or less suggests that the United States has to take initiative so that people can safely leave the country, which who knows if will happen, particularly now?

Maybe Afghanistan is not especially unique. There are numerous countries that could or will destabilize -- without any western help -- and be incapable of coping with global warming, water and food shortages, insurgents... including the usual Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Each time this happens, a new addition to the refugee flows will be created, as they head toward someplace -- anyplace -- better.

The people living in those better someplaces will not be thrilled to see hundreds of thousands or millions, of desperate refugees hiking down the road toward them. Europe, North America, China, Australia, Japan, and bits and pieces of the rest of the world will make up the destinations.

Japan may seem like a paradise compared to broiling SE Asia or India, but I don't see the Japanese being able to take on large numbers of refugees, given their limited energy, limited land resources and very homogeneous population.

Europe and the US can absorb a fair number of people, but that will depend on what local conditions are like in Europe and North America. The same goes for China.

I can easily imagine militarized borders to keep people out. The southern half of the globe will suffer first and more than the northern half. The cooler richer north may decide that the south is a lost cause. "Stay back, or we'll shoot you."

So, in the grand scheme of things, Afghanistan may not register as all that large on history's radar screen.

That's something, I guess.

I don't know. I just felt some sort of inspiration to do something upon witnessing this whirlwind of events, only to later realize that I could only give out half-baked, potentially detrimental, advice.

So, in the grand scheme of things, Afghanistan may not register as all that large on history's radar screen. — Bitter Crank

Not for nothing has Afghanistan been called 'the graveyard of empires'. No occupying power has ever gone in there and come out better off. It's heartbreaking to see all the effort, work and good intentions of all those who did try and nation-build being completely destroyed by barborous terrorism but I think that's exactly what's going to ​happen.

I hate to think of what a lot of those families will go through when the Taliban reigns. But who can do anything to stop it? The US spent trillions of dollars and shed a lot of blood, and as soon as they leave it will all turns to s**t. But they couldn't stand there with their finger in the dyke for the rest of history.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2021/08/13/taliban-former-us-military-base-afghanistan-ghazni-province-ward-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn

As Kenny Rogers put it...

You've got to know when to hold 'em
know when to fold 'em
know when to walk away
know when to run — Bitter Crank

:fire:

We should've met when I was younger. Just my luck!

It's heartbreaking to see all the effort, work and good intentions of all those who did try and nation-build being completely destroyed by barborous terrorism — Wayfarer

Really - the effort? Like ripping the fucking place to pieces out of a paranoid fear of communism?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

I see two problems:

1. Radical Islam, assuming there's another version of Islam

2. The Global Policeman, Uncle Sam, seems to get involved and stay involved in something only if there's profit to be made. Bad doggy! Bad, bad doggy!

I think that if Taliban proves to be the will of the people in Afghanistan, then there's no other way than to be friends with Taliban and see to it that it becomes a fully developed nation.

In other words, we must make the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and network with them, co-exist, sharing tomorrow, etc.

We must get rid of war mentality and paranoia and begin to work smart toward a better Afghanistan. Why not use Artificial Intelligence for doing the nation-building the most intelligent?

I think that, as Western interference created the crisis, ... — thewonder

I would avoid the term 'western' and simply call the culprits by their names: the United States and Israel.

Europe isn't to blame for this mess of power politics, yet it bore the brunt of the fallout. I'm sure that has suited the United States and Israel just fine.

In other words, we must make the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and network with them, co-exist, sharing tomorrow, etc. — DrOlsnesLea

Good initiative, but I guess it does not matter when Taliban group is so extremist. They do not want anything according to "west" nations or at least globalized world. They want to impose their own religious and political beliefs and ideas. We should not give up on them and still make some efforts to get Afghanistan a real free country.
Precisely, this is what happens in 1979 with Iran... which would have been a very developed country but then, radical islamists showed up.

Last year, after 20 years in Afghanistan, the U.S. signed an accord with the Taliban agreeing to withdraw American troops if the Taliban severed ties with al-Qaida and entered into peace talks with the government. In these talks, Taliban leaders emphasized that they wish to grant women’s rights “according to Islam.”

Now, this may not mean gender equality by any stretch but it is better than nothing and in particular, it is better than what the previous crop of Taliban ever did in the 1990's. I have argued elsewhere that the Afghans I know well, the rural type, have rejected modernity several times during this and the past century. They are among the very few non-European people to never be colonized. They are firmly pre-modern, to this day. Even though they now own machine guns. But in a sense, rural Afghanistan is also pre-Islamic: the harsh tribal code known as pashtunwali predates Islam; it is HARSHER on women than the Shariah. (Let that sink.) No heritage for girls for instance, when Muslim law grants her half of their brothers' inheritance. Islam was pro-women back in those times, it represented progress for them, including in Arab tribal society. The whole Arab renaissance is made possible by the radical modernity (pro-science and to a degree pro-women) of Islam, back in the early days.

In effect, by still going by tribal law, rural Afghanistan rejected the modernity of Islam. It was only superficially converted.

Mohamad said: “The best amongst yourselves treat your women the best, and I treat my wives the best.” And he did.

I say: take them at their word. "Treat women according to Islam". Grant them inheritance, for a start.

then there's no other way than to be friends with Taliban — DrOlsnesLea

Meaning, grinning while they cut your throat.

In effect, by still going by tribal law, rural Afghanistan rejected the modernity of Islam. It was only superficially converted. — Olivier5

True. Good point. But not only rural areas but sadly the most part of Afghanistan except Kabul. This country was always ruled by tribal organizations, so I guess it is not easy to establish a normal/regular administration system.

There's no such nation as Afghan at least not in such terms like German or French nation. Everyone there belongs to his or her own tribe, valley, and sects, rather than to state or nation. Occupying Paris or Berlin meant losing war for those nations, but occupying Kabul like occupying a valley, left the rest of the country totally intact. The Afghans don't even notice that their country is invaded. If someone wants to occupy this country and keep it occupied, has to occupy every single entity, tribe, valley individually, one after another, which is an absolutely hopeless undertaking given the Afghan infrastructure. Since the passes are impassable in winter and will remain so until the end of spring snowmelt. But this is exactly what Taliban had done. Afghanistan can be conquered only by Afghans. As long as this lesson is ignored Afghanistan remains the graveyard of superpowers.

SP

, sure, I guess "the West" took part in getting the Taliban going - the USSR, the US, Pakistan, ...
Either way, the movement was and is religiously motivated, and currently on a crusade.
They're not inherently Afghan, though, they have presence/networks in neighboring countries as well.

The UN has asked the Taliban to chill - not going to happen, probably hardly even heard.
With fairly well-defined borders and no external resistance/interference, their goal is in sight.

They have been confronted by whoever before, and cries for help ain't new.
Uncertain/unpleasant future for some, Sharia for all.
Hopefully, the Taliban caliphate won't be as bad as Daesh.

Many Americans understandably don't want to send their young people off into a fire across the globe, and return missing a foot.

Anyway, "the religious students" will have a country of their own, to do with as they like.

I guess "the West" took part in getting the Taliban going - the USSR, the US, Pakistan — jorndoe

I think that the Taliban was purely a Pakistani thing to counter the anarchy after the Pro-Soviet regime of Najibullah had fallen.

Wouldn't it be strange if China stepped in? — jorndoe

Why would China step in? Isn't the example of the a) British Empire, b) Soviet Empire and c) US Empire that Afghanistan is not the place to go, if you don't want to kill your empire?

What's NATO going to do, now?

Nothing much?

Have people noticed the similarity of the collapse of the Afghan government and the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the rapid conquest of the Taliban to the time when the Taliban control shattered and the Northern Alliance drove quickly into Kabul?

It's all about tribal politics. And for the tribes to change sides. Otherwise such rapid collapse is hard to understand...especially Northern Afghanistan (which is non-Pashtun) falling quickly to the Taliban, which was the region where the Northern Alliance has it's roots.

A telling signal was that Ashraf Ghani went to talk...to ancient warlords like Dostum in order to get support. Dostum is basically the example that shows everything that is wrong in Afghanistan. Dostum started in the Communist Afghan Army as a Marshal, was honored as a "Hero of Afghanistan" by President Mohammed Najibullah, then defected to the mujahideen and became a warlord, then joined the Northern Alliance and was a friend of the US, then became the vice president of Afghanistan from 2014 to 2020.

Dostum now with President Ghani:

What's NATO going to do, now?

Nothing much? — Shawn

Evacuate the embassies. Likely separately as countries, but naturally coordinating the operation.

Even if I cannot forecast the future, it's likely that Ghani's government will fall. Not much capability of getting through a siege of Kabul where there is from 4 to 6 million people.