That is a very good point.

But the truth is that Afghan tribalism and factionalism have always attracted foreign meddling. — Olivier5

But why?

Why not just leave them to their own devices?

Why not just leave them to their own devices? — baker

Simply put it, the US (and many in the West) has even a more obscure line of thinking than the famous "Domino Theory" (which was the reason for the US entangle itself in the Vietnam war) to be in Afghanistan.

Haven't you heard it?

It goes like this: if the US would withdraw from the country it has occupied, it will create a safe haven for terrorists to strike mainland US from the safety of having camps in Afghanistan.

That's it.

That is the pure insanity of this all.

And if Osama bin Laden would have stayed in Sudan when the 9/11 attacks happened, I guess you would have invaded and occupied Sudan. Because, why not?

And now the commentators would be saying how important our presence in Sudan is. And if we leave Sudan to the insurgents, then it will become a safe haven for more attacks against the West. The discussion would be now on how we failed in nation building in Sudan. And how there is a history of Sudanese resistance to Western Imperialism (remember the Mahdi and the death of Gordon of Khartoum). But no. Afghanistan was chosen because the financier of a successful terrorist strike (of whom nobody was an Afghani) was in Afghanistan. Not in Sudan anymore.

(Osama wasn't in Sudan anymore, so Americans didn't invade Sudan)

I feel so much of US foreign policy at that time was driven by the desire to avenge 9/11. Bush and especially Cheney had a burning desire to demonstrate to the world that there had to be a cost for the injury it had suffered on that terrible day. Afghanistan and Iraq became the surrogates of that desire.

I feel so much of US foreign policy at that time was driven by the desire to avenge 9/11. — Wayfarer

Of course, but notice that this was a game play that basically they couldn't avoid.

When Libyans (or possibly Libyans) exploded a bomb in a Berlin disco that killed Americans, then Reagan bombed Libya. When Al Qaeda attacked US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Clinton sent cruise missiles flying to Afghanistan and Sudan (and was accused of "tail wagging the dog" as there was the Lewinsky scandal there). There simply was a tradition how to respond to these kind of events.

This meant that there was also a procedure on how to react in such cases and as in 9/11 a lot of people died, not just six people as during the Twin Tower bombing of 1993, then military response would have been on every American politicians table. It would have been very difficult to do anything else. Likely only perhaps a Bernie Sanders or a Ron Paul as president could have thought out of the box and chosen something else.

And then there were a lot of mistakes done later in Afghanistan, starting from things like forgetting the tribal aspect of the country and trying to make a strong central government, creating and training the new defence force in the picture of the US army. And things like not understanding that going after "Al Qaeda" and ending up killing local people might not be the best way forward. Or thinking that when you inform that you are leaving on a specific date the government and armed forces you created yourself somehow wouldn't matter in peace talks.

I've not heard of any side in a war stopping an ongoing war and opting for a limited peace-deal when the military objectives are totally obtainable and the most realistic peace option is the total surrender of the enemy.

Mistakes like that above.

Reports of the Afghan president resigning and the Taleban's Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to replace him. (Not yet confirmed and likely this isn't the case I think.) At least the Taleban is in Kabul, that is for sure.

That's what Afghans love to say. But the truth is that Afghan tribalism and factionalism have always attracted foreign meddling. — Olivier5

Well, of course foreigners have exploited existing local tensions, but have done so for their own reasons. And it does not mean they are not meddling.

In the days of the Empire the British meddled to keep Russia out of India, not because the Afghans were at each other's throats.

Pakistan has meddled to keep India out, etc.

Afghanistan’s embattled President Ashraf Ghani fled the country Sunday as the Taliban moved further into Kabul, officials said. His countrymen and foreigners alike raced for the exit, signaling the end of a 20-year Western experiment aimed at remaking Afghanistan.

So that's that.

The Talibans are taking life seriously and they don't fool around. This is what makes them so different from many, if not most people.

It's not about imposing Western standards for excellence upon other countries; it's about reporting information that just simply is not true. The BBC Obituary effectively claims that Mohammed Zahir Shah not only helped his country to transition to, something that never happened, but established a "modern democratic state", which I do think we can all understand as a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy are not the same thing. Zahir Shah was one of the better, if not debatably the best, monarch in Central Asia in recent history, and, so, had they wanted to celebrate his life, that would have been fine. The claim that he established a form of governance that he did not, however, is kind of problematic.

A liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy are not the same thing. — thewonder

Norway, Denmark, Sweden or Netherlands are not liberal democracies then?

Why not just leave them to their own devices? — baker

The thing is: if Afghanistan neighbour X (say Pakistan) decides against meddling in Afghanistan, other neighbours (say India, China or Russia) might simply fill the void. The marches of empires are places like that, where influence gets sought and traded.

If you read the constitution, though not quite so archaic, and consider the rights of the king, you will find that it is not a liberal democracy in the same way that a country like Denmark is and is more like a constitutional monarchy of the old aristocratic order.

Yes, you are right according to Afghanistan context. But you wrote that quote referring monarchy in general concepts. There are plenty of monarchies that are more developed than republican countries :chin:

Well, personally, I think that Europeans ought to be fairly skeptical of any aristocratic involvement within their political process altogether. The aristocracy should now have a purely symbolic and ceremonial role. If they want to run for office like everyone else without being granted unfair advantages, then, that's fine, but that's kind of where the buck stops.

Sure, Denmark had a more efficient and effective government than that of Italy, but, there are inherent problems with involving the aristocracy within the political process.

My point the whole time is that the BBC did not present factual information in the article on Zahir Shah's death, which is somewhat suspect. He was a good king, but he was a king and not the prime minister of a liberal democracy. That's the point that I've been trying to get across.

He was a good king, but he was a king and not the prime minister of a liberal democracy. That's the point that I've been trying to get across. — thewonder

In this point I am completely agree with you :up:

Let's remember what a certain US President answered a month ago on July the 8th 2021:

"Mr. President, some Vietnamese veterans see echoes of their experience in this withdrawal in Afghanistan. Do you see any parallels between this withdrawal and what happened in Vietnam?"

"None whatsoever," Biden replied. "Zero. What you had is you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy — six, if I’m not mistaken. The Taliban is not the South — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable."

Afghanistan and Iraq became the surrogates of that desire. — Wayfarer

Interesting they didn't bomb Saudi Arabia, given that's where the hijackers were predominantly from.

To be fair, what were the operational directives of Afghanistan. If we treat the issue as purely definitional, I think final conclusions can be made about the war in Afghanistan.

In another thread I said that Iraq was a victory, according to what was intended to be the outcome of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

To win over the population in the Middle East isn't something that can be achieved militarily and is beyond the scope of achieving by war effort, which people often associate as some goal of winning a war, which never transpired in Vietnam, and will never transpire in Afghanistan, apart from the people already seeking refugee status from there.

Oh, never. Saudi oil is the lifeblood of industrial culture. (Actually I remember some caustic remark by some former diplomat, who lamented that the greatest mistake in the history of relations between Arabia and the West was 'telling them what oil is for'.)

:up: That's the one. Vested interests trumps (no pun intended) ideology every time. In the meantime SA funds Wahhabi radicalism worldwide.

To be fair, what were the operational directives of Afghanistan. — Shawn

What were they? Because the war continued on after OBL was killed. As I said earlier, it was and is the insane idea of "occupying a country, because it otherwise would possibly be a safe have for terrorists". That is the "operational directive", objective. And if you don't understand just how insane that idea is, then there you are.

Naturally the idea then was that to train "Afghans themselves fight the Taleban". Which end result we have seen: an Afghan National Army that simply couldn't get ammo or food for it's troops to fight, even if they would have wanted to fight.

In fact all the documentaries tell it so well. The only place in Afghanistan were you saw young males walking around was in Kabul. In the countryside if you notice, the villages were filled with old men, women and children. That told you what the people supported.

In another thread I said that Iraq was a victory, according to what was intended to be the outcome of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. — Shawn

And if you purpose that because Saddam was overthrown that it was a huge success,then just listen to why a certain American decision maker said that going into Iraq was a bad idea (during Desert Storm).


Yes. He obviously changed his mind. But in 1994 he was totally correct. It would be a Quagmire. So then Obama pulled the troops out and ISIS appeared. And now you are in a situation where the Iraqi leadership wants the US troops out. 2500 of them there now. Being attacked infrequently, but still. That simply isn't a huge success.

Let's say that the US has been in other parts of the world far more successful with it's foreign policy than in the Middle East and Central Asia.

As I said earlier, it was and is the insane idea of "occupying a country, because it otherwise would possibly be a safe have for terrorists". That is the "operational directive", objective. And if you don't understand just how insane that idea is, then there you are. — ssu

I'm not really following you here. If the objective was to take down Bin Laden, then that was done in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan, where the US was.

Again, by most measures the Afghan war was won. The goal was never to defeat the Taleban, and if the Taleban turn out to prepare jihad against the US, then it seems that, that would be a reason to see it as a disaster.

Interesting they didn't bomb Saudi Arabia, given that's where the hijackers were predominantly from. — Tom Storm

If you make a simple extrapolation of what happens to previous US allies in the Middle East, that will happen. First you lost Iraq in the 1950's. Then Iran in 1979. Now Afghanistan. And ties with Pakistan have been very cold for long. Remember that there was an alliance called CENTO.

How US allies end up in the Middle East: The most successful F-14 ace ever (11 air victories), Jalil Zandi, from the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force.


When Saudi Arabia has it's revolution and it all turns into one giant shit show, I guess Americans will be extremely happy bombing the then ex-Saudis. Way things are going, that fiasco could easily happen. Because who care a shit what happens in the Middle East.

I mean, I can't fathom Afghanistan turning out again to be a breeding ground for jihadism.

Doesn't this all depend on Pakistan?

To my estimation, Kabul has effectively fallen.. I could be wrong, though.

I'm not really following you here. If the objective was to take down Bin Laden, then that was done in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan, where the US was. — Shawn

Correct. He seemed to have slipped by paying bribes to the US allies. So why invade and occupy Afghanistan?

So why invade and occupy Afghanistan? — ssu

The reasons were valid at the time. Pakistan was funding training for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Hasn't that been dealt with or has the Taleban made statements that they aren't in it together with Pakistan anymore?

you’re not wrong. It’s all over the news that the Taliban have won.