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? — thewonder

"Internally dissolve"? Surely not when the Taliban are an instrument of Pakistan intended to keep India and Russia out.

And don't forget Iran's own mad mullahs who took over in 1979 and are still in charge.

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

Well, I doubt very much that the West made a serious effort to build a proper Afghan military. Plus, no Afghan army can beat the Taliban - who is getting unlimited manpower and materiel from Pakistan - without outside support.

Afghanistan has a population of about 30 million, Pakistan has 225 million. The Afghans don't stand a chance without Western backing.

So, it isn't the Afghans, it is Pakistan that has its own agenda in the region.

Yes, my understanding is that Pakistan created the Taliban for its own purposes in Afghanistan, but wasn't able to maintain control over it. But... Pakistan didn't conjure up fanaticism; the Afghanis supplied that themselves.

Tribalism is raised as an issue -- invaders / occupiers / technical assisters couldn't overcome tribalism. So, what did the Taliban do with tribalism? Apparently they found a way of using it.

Afghanistan is reputed to have vast mineral resources--minerals important in the current economy. Why hasn't some nation -- us, Russia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan started mining these riches? Such a move would have helped Afghanistan (under the best of circumstances) become richer. They might still be medieval fanatics, but at least they'd have a pot to piss in.

I expect that China will dig a few mines.

I suppose the ultimate solution would be to convert the entire nation to liberal protestantism. Let's see, where is the instruction book on that approach? Either that or use the nuclear option. But that's frowned upon.

Afghanistan is reputed to have vast mineral resources--minerals important in the current economy. Why hasn't some nation -- us, Russia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan started mining these riches? Such a move would have helped Afghanistan (under the best of circumstances) become richer. They might still be medieval fanatics, but at least they'd have a pot to piss — Bitter Crank

It's only been lithium for Afghanistan in mountains.

Try and build a road that won't get blown up...

But... Pakistan didn't conjure up fanaticism; the Afghanis supplied that themselves. — Bitter Crank

It all started with British India. First there were the Aligarh and Deobandi movements of the 1860's, then the All-India Muslim League, and the Caliphate Movement of 1919 that spawned Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan's Jamaat-e Islami (Islamic Congress) and other Islamist organizations.

All Taliban members (taliban literally means "students") were educated in Islamic fundamentalist schools (madrassas) in Pakistan.

THE MASSACRE IN MAZAR-I SHARIF

The Afghans are tribalist, patriotic, and at the most nationalist but they were fanaticized by Pakistan. There is still a large part of the population that is not Muslim fundamentalist. The Afghans would rather do business with India and retain their independence but Pakistan won't let them.

The problem in the region is not Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

Precisely, this is what happens in 1979 with Iran... which would have been a very developed country but then, radical islamists showed up. — javi2541997

Wasn't Iran a monarchy at that point?

"Internally dissolve"? Surely not when the Taliban are an instrument of Pakistan intended to keep India and Russia out. — Apollodorus

People keep making digs at Pakistan's Inter-Intelligence Service, of which, there is plenty of reason to, but the Taliban really actually are a somewhat autopoietic Afghan, particularly Pashtun, though we kind of tried to play off the existent ethnic tensions there, phenomenon.

Afghanistan is reputed to have vast mineral resources--minerals important in the current economy. Why hasn't some nation -- us, Russia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan started mining these riches? Such a move would have helped Afghanistan (under the best of circumstances) become richer. They might still be medieval fanatics, but at least they'd have a pot to piss in. — Bitter Crank

This is not true. They have vast amounts of opium and that's about it. There's some lithium there, which, I think, is used in the manufacturing of computers, and, so, a conflict mineral, but, not really enough to build a developed nation off of. We claimed that they had vast mineral resources so as bolster the ostensive nation-building project, but, in so far that some country doesn't legalize heroin, I wouldn't forecast any resource economy in any near future.

Wasn't Iran a monarchy at that point? — thewonder

They were ruled by the “Shah”. It was like a monarchy but no as extremist as ayatollahs.

I'm pretty sure that it was, in point of fact, a monarchy, despite the White Revolution that did occur after the coup d'état orchestrated by the United States and United Kingdom, whom you may be able to consider as a monarchy, but was not a monarchy in quite the same sense that Iran under the Shah was a monarchy.

To relate this to Afghanistan, check out this obituary. Zahir Shah did become a Liberal reformist late in life, but, the 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan establishes a constitutional monarchy, which, though I do understand how such a comparison could be drawn, also would seem to differ from that of the governance within the United Kingdom.

In point of fact, when doing research for a paper for community college on the War in Afghanistan, I noticed a number of discrepancies in the general history and demographics of the country, such as the number of Pashtuns to live there, something the CIA World Fact Book formerly listed as 85 point something, I believe, which would seem to be a certain flaw in our general strategy there, but, y'know, I mean...

Anyways, some people say that less, even significantly less, Pashtuns live there and the Encyclopedia Britannica did seem a bit shy on information at times.

The point that I'm really making, though, is that, as much as some of the Arab monarchs were presented as reflecting Western values, democracy, as it always seems to be, being one of the key one of them, though true, perhaps, to some extent, ought not really to instill a sense of nostalgia within anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism of clandestine actions undertaken by the so-called "West" in the region.

check out this obituary. — thewonder

The most important paragraph:

He built the country's first university, and developed cultural and commercial bonds with the West. Travellers began to view Afghanistan as an attractive destination, with its mountains, rich culture and the relics of many ancient civilisations.

It is dramatic how extreme religion or politics can destroy a country’s future and development. Afghanistan looked so attractive to all the West countries and then, since 1979 Taliban revolt the tables had turned for the worst. When you see or hear something related to Afghanistan you would think as a third world country with violence due to toxic religion which destroyed what was a good starting point for society.

ought not really to instill a sense of nostalgia within anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism of clandestine actions undertaken by the so-called "West" in the region. — thewonder

Yes, I am agree with you. This is due to of how sticky the tribesmen and religion is in Asia. It is so difficult to put “West values” so randomly. I guess it is a process which takes some years if the country has a chance to do so.

Sure, in Afghanistan, they could have transitioned to an actual liberal democracy under Zahir Shah, assuming of course, that, y'know, being ousted didn't happen to play into his later change of heart, and I do think that, perhaps, had he remained in power, that could have been a possibility.

What these monarchies in Central Asia seem, to me, to have been, however, is an experiment in both publicity and a fairly limited form of democracy, perhaps, somehow arbitrated by the United Kingdom in kind of particular, though I do think that the United States showed more initiative in the actual carrying out of the coup d'etats and whathaveyou, so as to establish a kind of synthesis between, oh, I don't know, Saudi Arabia and what some people seem to think that the United Kingdom should be run as.

One thing that's not mentioned about Zahir Shah is his invitation of German and Japanese businessmen to the country to develop infrastructure leading up to and during the Second World War, which he did eventually have to rescind and expel such people from the country, but only really after being threatened by the Allied powers. Granted, the Library of Congress does suggest that he was not really in control of over the country at this point in time in this article, but, who is really to say anything about that, really?

All in all, I think that Zahir Shah was probably a pretty alright guy who could have, in so far that he wasn't ousted, transitioned the country to a "modern democratic state" eventually, should he have been willing to, but the basic premise of the BBC article is just simply false. It wasn't a modern democratic state; it was a constitutional monarchy. The 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan, though I am sure the regime made some progress in this regard, makes absolutely no mention of women's rights whatsoever, which is kind of a focal point in the article.

Yes, I am agree with you. This is due to of how sticky the tribesmen and religion is in Asia. It is so difficult to put “West values” so randomly. I guess it is a process which takes some years if the country has a chance to do so. — javi2541997

I'm not sure that you fully do, but that's alright. We've gotten kind of off-topic, anyways.

Indeed.

The 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan, though I am sure the regime made some progress in this regard, makes absolutely no mention of women's rights whatsoever, which is kind of a focal point in the article — thewonder

1964 is a "recent" date in relation to women's rights. I guess, according to that time, there wasn't true women rights around the world. This is another issue which took years to establish properly. We are living in an era right now that most of the women in the world don't feel discrimination but this issue was not common at all both in West and Asia world.
To be honest, the 1964 Afghanistan constitution was better than nothing. At least it was written as a parliament monarchy with its advantages and disadvantages but you know we have to start in some point better than being ruled by tribal entities.

It wasn't a modern democratic state; — thewonder

This can be another thread or debate we can discuss separately. How can we consider a State as "modern"? What is the meaning of modern?

I mean that it wasn't a liberal democratic state. Ostensibly, it was a constitutional monarchy à la the United Kingdom, whom I assume was the model for the constitution, but it does seem to have been a constitutional monarchy more in the sense that it was, well, a monarchy. Zahir Shah's reign was notably marked by peace and stability, and, so, probably to some degree laudable. If we are to consider Mohammed Daoud Khan's "bloodless coup" to have been without warrant entirely, I think that that'd play into a depiction of Afghanistan that promotes pro-Western narrative, but doesn't correspond to any sort of historical reality. It doesn't seem like Zahir Shah was just some symbolic and ceremonial figure of a king. It seems like he had the authority of a monarch. Daoud Khan wasn't terribly great, and even arguably worse, but there was a popular will to transition to a genuine republic. The Wikipedia article on Zahir Shah states that, "He was considered a relatively "mild" leader compared to previous Kings; Zahir Shah had never signed a warrant for execution of anyone for political reasons during his reign. He also used his power several times to reduce capital punishment given to some criminals convicted in court cases. At Zahir Shah's behest a new constitution was introduced in 1964 which made Afghanistan a modern democratic state by introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, women's rights and universal suffrage", citing the same obituary for its reference. There is no mention of women whatsoever within the entire 1964 constitution. It doesn't say anything about women, women's suffrage, or women's rights. Women are not mentioned at all. Perhaps, women were given a better place in Afghan society at the time? The constitution flat out does not establish any rights for them at all.

What is the meaning of modern? — javi2541997

I remember in the 1970's, I think it was, a Time Magazine account of something that had happened in Afghanistan, I think an overthrow or revolution or something of the kind, which purportedly was going to result in a greater degree of civil freedoms. I remember some internal commentator saying glumly that Afghanistan had just taken a great leap forward into the 14th century.

Debating about something as complex as the rule of law in Afghanistan needs to have a better empathic view. First of all, we don't truly know what is the history of Afghans and their territory. We just know some brief articles from Wikipedia or West newspapers. It is difficult to understand such complex culture and values. For this reason I guess we should not speak about west things as "liberalism" or "monarchy" in a country of the Middle East completely surrendered by Islam principles. I guess one of the errors made back then was to establish a very "modern" state according to West values. Good intention but it was an argument to radicals to say "they are selling our Islam value to the west. The real law of Afghanistan is developed by God or Muhammad! Etc..."
Sometimes, what we consider as "modernized" principles cannot fit at all in some countries beacuse they have a sticky religion and custom beliefs. If we, the western, go there trying to "impose" what we consider as "democracy" they would do exactly the contrary.
Also, Afghanistan had bad luck in geographical aspects too. It always been a country which Soviet Unión wanted to control.

I remember some internal commentator saying glumly that Afghanistan had just taken a great leap forward into the 14th century — Wayfarer

It is interesting this news because what we consider as "XIVth century", for them, it is just living as how Quran or religion says. The talibans do not care about modernity neither civil rights. These concepts are something that we in the western have developed. It is not a real business in the Middle East.

The problem in the region is not Afghanistan, it's Pakistan. — Apollodorus

That's what Afghans love to say. But the truth is that Afghan tribalism and factionalism have always attracted foreign meddling.

the Middle East — javi2541997

Not to be pedant but Afghanistan is a Central Asian state.

Not to be pedant but Afghanistan is a Central Asian state — Olivier5

Don't worry and thank you for correct my mistake :up:

As both Mazar-i-Sharif and now Jalalabad have fallen, it's now only Kabul, basically. Done deal, collapse is inevitable and rapid.

The fall of Saigon comes to mind, even if the South Vietnamese held up much longer after the withdrawal of US troops.

I remember in the 1970's, I think it was, a Time Magazine account of something that had happened in Afghanistan, I think an overthrow or revolution or something of the kind, which purportedly was going to result in a greater degree of civil freedoms. I remember some internal commentator saying glumly that Afghanistan had just taken a great leap forward into the 14th century. — Wayfarer

The Saur revolution cannot be said to have resulted in a greater degree of civil freedoms. Especially when it ended up with the Soviet Union having to invade the country.

Yes, I think it was that one. Long time ago, very hazy memory.

The city of Khandahar, which has just fallen to the Taliban, is a version of the name of the ancient kingdom of Gandhara, which at the time of Alexander the Great was a centre of Buddhist civilisation and culture. I think the Bamiyan Buddhas, so casually destroyed by the Talibs a couple of decades back, were a relic of those times.

As both Mazar-i-Sharif and now Jalalabad have fallen, it's now only Kabul, basically. Done deal, collapse is inevitable and rapid. — ssu

Biden said indignantly there would be no repeat of the shambolic last minute evacuation of Saigon this time around. I have a very bad feeling that's exactly what is going to happen. There is already smoke coming from the roof of the US Embassy where they're burning documents.

I have a very bad feeling that's exactly what is going to happen. There is already smoke coming from the roof of the US Embassy where they're burning documents. — Wayfarer

They are destroying all artifacts with US logos and such. Anticipating that the victorious Taliban would parade them around just like with the American firearms and trucks they are doing now.

Actually, when you having air support flying from a far away country (as none of the neighboring countries have anymore US bases) and you deploy troops to secure a withdrawal (or retreat), many things can go awry. What would it take? Some long range artillery strike on the Kabul airport runways and what would you do after that? Luckily the Taliban don't have those, I assume, but who knows if someone conveniently gave them some field howitzers or rocket launchers.

Anyway, a lot of things can go wrong here. Because even if officially the Taleban has said it will leave the embassies intact, there surely is the urge to bloody the nose of the invader.

In the end Biden (and Trump) really fucked it up. That they did get the Taleban to negotiate in the first place does seem that things weren't so good for insurgents couple of years ago. But now no need to even wait for the US to go home.

In the end Biden (and Trump) really fucked it up. — ssu

Let’s not forget the people who launched the whole debacle. The ultimate exploding cigar.

Let’s not forget the people who launched the whole debacle. — Wayfarer

As on another thread I commented, Al Gore would have done the same thing as Bush and gone into Afghanistan.

There would be no Iraq, but still.

Might have worked.

Remember Yugoslavia? That peace there has held. So the "nation building" there was successful, something that the Republican commentators are quick to forget.

(This one worked, you know)