ISIS and Afghan Taliban

[spmetla]

From what little I know of US diplomacy with the Taliban in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, it was progressing well on core objectives of mitigating the Taliban's endorsement of international terrorism, until Bush and the New American Century neocons decided to take their American-boot-up-the-ass show on the road.

The major lynch-pin for the invasion of Afghanistan was that the Taliban refused to evict Al Queda and Bin Laden based on the Pashtun Wali concept of protecting their 'guests' no matter who comes knocking on the door. The operations in the Tora Bora Mtns almost got Bin Laden but he escaped over into Pakistan and for whatever reason the Bush Admin didn't put the pressure needed on Pakistan to pursue him. In hindsight we gave them an ultimatum much like Austro-Hungary did to to Serbia before WWI.

Soft power is just everything besides hard power, itself almost exclusively military force, despite frequent framing that treats soft power as but the domain of the The Simpsons and Will Smith and Elton John.

I understand what soft power is, in the government the major elements of power that can be exerted are DIME or diplomatic, information, military, and economic. I highly highly doubt soft power would have coughed up Bin Laden, unfortunately some criminal elements can only be eliminated with a combination of soft and hard power though the ramped up drone strikes etc.. done from Bush/Obama/Trump onward have certainly go overboard on the hard power part primarily because there are so many ungoverned regions in which these groups base themselves.

What was preventing us from taking Iran as a partner in 2001? There's a lot of ruin in a nation, and the US retains - despite everything - a fair amount of power to constrain the export, diffusion, and re-import of corruption, state failure, and economic exploitation. In 2001 meanwhile the US was unmatched in relative power anywhere and anytime. How many licks does it take to get to the ruin of a nation?

Nothing was preventing us from partnering Iran in 2001 besides the Bush administrations pig headedness. After the example of the gulf war a a decade earlier and toppling the Taliban in Iran's backdoor the Iranians very rightly feared they were next. If I recall correctly from what I read in the "Persian Puzzle" ten years ago the Iranians pretty much offered us everything we'd been asking for to reestablish relations and deescalate tensions between us and they were completed rebuffed by Bush Jr and Co which then proceeded to invade Iraq.

The year 2001 certainly was filled with potential and it's hard to believe twenty years later how those key decisions made have led us to the unfortunate position now.

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

I agree with most of the ideas of the Weinberger Doctrine but unfortunately it comes from an era with slightly clearer lines than now, there's a lot of what ifs and gray area that it doesn't address.
To start, I don't think anyone ever commits US troops without the intent of winning, but ignorance, overconfidence and so on make initial assessments with the 'fog of war' difficult. I would agree on the well defined military objectives that are tied to a political objective. That's generally what's been undertaken, the problem is the short sighted look beyond the military solution. In Iraq, the military pretty much did what it was asked, defeat Saddam Hussein's army, there wasn't a plan to occupy the country and provide security for ten years. The military plan seemed to assume that there'd be some sort of peace deal and then they go home, the Bush Admin forgot to consider that when engaging in regime change there's no one left with the legitimacy to make peace with.

The reassessment of the size forces is certainly one of the most scrutinized things that actually does happen which is what led to the deluge of hiring military contractors so that basic things like base security can be accomplished without having ot bring in a few hundred more troops that add to the much scrutinized troop numbers.

The last two are a bit difficult for the gray area aspect, special operations, drone strikes, cyber warfare etc... are largely done without vetting public opinion and with only a few key members of congress/senate notified. Sending regular formations of Soldiers somewhere certainly gets public debate.
The other problematic aspects are we have a lot of treaty allies now and as the US is the keep over the current world order versus the 'revisionist' powers of Russia and China this involves a lot of support for countries that aren't clear allies but have some tacit US agreements to maintain their territorial sovereignty (for example Ukraine, Taiwan). The willingness to use force is sadly as important as the ability to use it which is why the pendalum swing from pacifism/appeasement to militarism/hegemony are so dangerous to ourselves and the world. Putin may be an SOB but at least his allies know where he stands, same with the PRC when it comes to their interests.

Sending the navy to deter pirate attacks or escort vessels in a dangerous area can lead to conflict, routine air patrols and training can lead to incidents like the Hainan island crash.

The 2000 election and the entire response to 9/11 are some of the very greatest blunders, hinges, in all of history, and many people won't survive them ongoing. That's worth a lot of disappointment.

Couldn't agree more, as a patriotic guy seeing a generation of our effort, revenue, and standing wasted is incredibly disappointing.

To get back on topic though, talking with friends and chatting on facebook and other social media today, there's certainly a lot of soul searching going on today by Afghan veterans. I am and remain ashamed of our hurried and unplanned departure, while every administration has led up to this point I still lay may blame for the immediate debacle on the Trump for dealing with the Taliban that undermined the little legitimacy left for the actual Afghan government and then with Biden for doing this stupid hurried pullout. Call it ripping the bandaid off, sure, but it didn't have to be with leaving bases in the middle of the night without letting the ANA know, without a plan to help the translators that worked with us, without a pledge of support to the Afghan government and people.

I truly feel terrible for the Afghans that wanted a modern life that are now stuck there, I can only hope that I'm as wrong about the Taliban's intentions on ruling as I was about the ANA willingness to fight. Having my dad talk to me about where he was when Saigon fell and then see that imagine of a CH-47 evacuating the US Embassy in Kabul to match the parallel perfectly. To think this year started out with an attempted coup by the sitting president and then has led to this by my preferred "America is Back" candidate is depressing.

[Shaka_Khan]

[Montmorency]

Pro-Taliban Y'all-Qaida meme.


Biden speech on Afghanistan today. Over-the-horizon counterterrorism. The Afghan government and military are contemptible and unsalvageable. Don't involve American troops in this business. New information: Ghani government asked Biden admin to slow down evacuation to avoid precipitating panic.


Tragic 2005 story on a National Guardsman pointlessly killed in Iraq due to a lack of training and equipment. Captures the essence of the whole broader conflict.

More stories on how the ANA was totally overmatched, undertrained for their independent mission, undersupplied (by massive corruption and bad logistics), in pay arrears forever, and basically bribed by the Taliban Mongol-style into surrender. This is, by the way, another component of incredible mission failure by the US, since propping up the ANA was exactly the domain of the American military and state department to a T. ANA failure is a systemic failure by the American military and government, not a political failure. But it makes more sense if you interpret the continued intervention as being more about lining the pockets of military-industrial corporations, security contractors, and other interested actors on the take, rather than achieving a concrete military or strategic outcome. The common Afghan soldier, especially the serious ones, has been betrayed many times over. But we're disturbingly good at facilitating the betrayal of allied fighters once we have no use for them...
https://observers.france24.com/en/20...diers-army-eat
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...or-the-taliban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...lapse-taliban/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghani...an-11628958253
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/w...-collapse.html

This story reviews the point directly, reiterating the old leaked internal documents from State and Defense - that the US military was never honestly preparing the ANA for anything useful, knew about it, and lied about it, because the security establishment believes that any level of deceit towards the American public and political class is justified in the pursuit of it's harebrained internal consensuses. Every discrete actor or group here, at every level of American government and society from President to the voting public, messed up continuously. This is what people talk about when they say it feels shameful to be an American. How is one to be proud of 'with great power comes great failure, better luck next time'?

In the summer of 2011, Army Lt. Gen. William Caldwell IV made a round of public appearances to boast that he had finally solved a problem that had kept U.S. troops bogged down in Afghanistan for a decade. Under his watch, he asserted, U.S. military advisers and trainers had transformed the ragtag Afghan army and police into a professional fighting force that could defend the country and keep the Taliban at bay... In fact, according to documents obtained for the forthcoming Washington Post book“The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War,” U.S. military officials privately harbored fundamental doubts for the duration of the war that the Afghan security forces could ever become competent or shed their dependency on U.S. money and firepower. “Thinking we could build the military that fast and that well was insane,” an unnamed former U.S. official told government interviewers in 2016.

Senior U.S. officials said the Pentagon fell victim to the conceit that it could build from scratch an enormous Afghan army and police force with 350,000 personnel that was modeled on the centralized command structures and complex bureaucracy of the Defense Department. Though it was obvious from the beginning that the Afghans were struggling to make the U.S.-designed system work, the Pentagon kept throwing money at the problem and assigning new generals to find a solution.

Twitter thread pointing out that Trump's Winter 2020 deal ending sanctions, limiting air strikes (?), exchanging 5000 Taliban prisoners for 1000, had the immediate effect of permanently undermining ANA readiness and set the stage for the mass distributed surrender of ANA forces this summer (it wasn't just hashed out in a few weeks, it was a long time down the pike).


Reminder of Coalition war crimes in Afghanistan, including calculated mass execution of civilians and their posthumous addition to official "kill lists" (Joint Priority Effects List).

The major lynch-pin for the invasion of Afghanistan was that the Taliban refused to evict Al Queda and Bin Laden based on the Pashtun Wali concept of protecting their 'guests' no matter who comes knocking on the door. The operations in the Tora Bora Mtns almost got Bin Laden but he escaped over into Pakistan and for whatever reason the Bush Admin didn't put the pressure needed on Pakistan to pursue him. In hindsight we gave them an ultimatum much like Austro-Hungary did to to Serbia before WWI.

I wasn't around to follow the events in realtime, so my awareness is limited to items such as this.

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

Speaking of which, fill me in: did George Bush ever specify that neutralizing bin Laden was a primary goal of the "War on Terror," or was it all just a pretext for launching the crusade against the Axis of Evil, with Afghanistan being a mere roadstop on the way to manufacturing consent for the conquest of Iraq that Bush and co had explicitly campaigned on since before the election?

The President wanted a plan that featured the rapid use of military force and the insertion of troops on the ground as soon as possible. It should be noted here that some Defense officials believed that the terrorists likely had the help of a state sponsor and that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the most likely suspect.9

The issue of simultaneously attacking Iraq was brought up at Camp David by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, but the suggestion had little support among the National Security Council (NSC) principals and was sidelined by the President. The timing was not fortuitous. However, on September 26, President Bush asked Rumsfeld in private to “look at the shape of our plans on Iraq” and asked for “creative” options.10 In any event, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) planning for a potential war in Iraq would begin in earnest in November 2001 before the conclusion of the initial fighting in Afghanistan.11

In terms of Value Over Replacement, it's plainly been historicist bias not to rank Bush and Trump as among the three worst presidents in our history. These contemporary bottom threes are mostly defensible, but seeing Bush moved out of the bottom 10 is an outrageous revision.

But this is also tangential to what I was getting at, which is that

I understand what soft power is, in the government the major elements of power that can be exerted are DIME or diplomatic, information, military, and economic. I highly highly doubt soft power would have coughed up Bin Laden, unfortunately some criminal elements can only be eliminated with a combination of soft and hard power though the ramped up drone strikes etc.. done from Bush/Obama/Trump onward have certainly go overboard on the hard power part primarily because there are so many ungoverned regions in which these groups base themselves.

What I mean is, kinetic measures against OBL himself were always going to be more about revenge than degrading credible opposition capabilities (noting that a clean operation eliminating him with limited geopolitical collateral would have bothered very few people). Whereas preventing the use of Afghanistan as a staging and training ground for transnational networks into the future was, theoretically and intellectually, the highest objective behind the invasion. Before 2001 the human rights picture in Afghanistan or the Taliban's legitimacy was a niche activist interest. My point therefore is that following the attacks I suspect our subkinetic array of sticks and carrots was sufficient to bend the Taliban towards our purposes, cheaply if incrementally improving its security and human rights landscape.

Recalling the debates around Syria and Ukraine, I continue to lament that right-wing Trotskyism,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

he neoconservatives who went through the Trotskyist and socialist movements came to see foreign policy as a crusade, the goal of which was first global socialism, then social democracy, and finally democratic capitalism. They never saw foreign policy in terms of national interest or balance of power. Neoconser vatism was a kind of inverted Trotskyism, which sought to "export democracy," in Muravchik's words, in the same way that Trotsky originally envisaged exporting socialism. It saw its adversaries on the left as members or representatives of a public sector-based new class. The neoconservatives also got their conception of intellectual and political work from their socialist past. They did not draw the kind of rigid distinction between theory and practice that many academics and politicians do. Instead they saw theory as a form of political combat and politics as an endeavor that should be informed by theory. They saw themselves as a cadre in a cause rather than as strictly independent intellectuals. And they were willing to use theory as a partisan weapon.

like most things Right, seems to retain elite-tier clout no matter the results, yet imagining a hard-left American administration trying to pick up where the Soviets left off in a proper "liberatory" war of choice is farcical: The governing party would suffer a historic landslide defeat at the nearest opportunity like few moments in our history have seen - regardless of how well or poorly operationalized the adventure may have been.

I truly feel terrible for the Afghans that wanted a modern life that are now stuck there, I can only hope that I'm as wrong about the Taliban's intentions on ruling as I was about the ANA willingness to fight. Having my dad talk to me about where he was when Saigon fell and then see that imagine of a CH-47 evacuating the US Embassy in Kabul to match the parallel perfectly. To think this year started out with an attempted coup by the sitting president and then has led to this by my preferred "America is Back" candidate is depressing.

Biden's brand was optimism, decency, and good feelings, just like Obama's was unity and prosperity through cerebral dealmaking, and Trump's was getting the right sort of people back in power again. These brands reflect/arise from both their political fortunes and their underlying personalities. Biden was never going to go turbo-Carter and tell the sane part of the American - or Afghan - public to plan for the rest of their lives on the Rollercoaster to Hell. (Though his address linked at the top of the post is fairly sober and forthright.)

Tangential note: Even with half a million troops in Afghanistan on rotation, defeating the Taliban would arguably be out of reach without somehow leashing the Pakistani government. And even then, the Saudi and Iranian and Russian and Chinese governments...
And to think we had their diplomatic support/approval for many potential courses of action in late 2001... It serves one well to remember that the old adage isn't "Swing that big stick all about like you're cosplaying Leatherface."

[ReluctantSamurai]

There were clear winners during 20 years of war in Afghanistan:

https://theintercept.com/2021/08/16/...efense-stocks/

If you purchased $10,000 of stock evenly divided among America’s top five defense contractors on September 18, 2001 — the day President George W. Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks — and faithfully reinvested all dividends, it would now be worth $97,295. This is a far greater return than was available in the overall stock market over the same period. $10,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund on September 18, 2001, would now be worth $61,613. That is, defense stocks outperformed the stock market overall by 58 percent during the Afghanistan War.

[Montmorency]

What the...

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...ap_Topline.pdf

There were clear winners during 20 years of war in Afghanistan:

Pakistan and the United States Have Betrayed the Afghan People

Although these numbers are staggering, much of U.S. investment did not stay in Afghanistan. Because of heavy reliance on a complex ecosystem of defense contractors, Washington banditry, and aid contractors, between 80 and 90 percent of outlays actually returned to the U.S. economy. Of the 10 to 20 percent of the contracts that remained in the country, the United States rarely cared about the efficacy of the initiative. Although corruption is rife in Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction repeatedly identifies bewildering corruption by U.S. firms and individuals working in Afghanistan.

In many cases, U.S. firms even defrauded Afghans. In 2010, one military official with the International Security Assistance Force explained to New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall that “without being too dramatic, American contractors are contributing to fueling the insurgency.” As it neglected to tackle Pakistan and tried to do security on the cheap, Washington also strongarmed the Afghan government it into so-called “peace talks” with the Taliban. More than anyone, the Afghan government understood the Taliban and their Pakistani handlers could not be trusted to honor their commitments, such as they were.

BITCH

I said

between 80 and 90 percent of outlays actually returned to the U.S. economy.

Stop exporting corruption!

The spectacle of the peace talks was important in Washington, which hoped to create a fiction of power transition to cover the process of a negotiated U.S. defeat. There was genuinely nothing to discuss: The Afghan government was committed to constitutional rule of law—including elections, howsoever problematic—while the Afghan Taliban were committed to overturning the constitution and opposed elections as non-Islamic. The Taliban used the spectacle of the peace process as a recuperative retreat to revivify and emplace their forces while stashing weapons as they awaited U.S. withdrawal.

Bitch

[Shaka_Khan]

It feels strange that this is being discussed as history. There are adults who were born after 9/11 now...

[spmetla]

I wouldn't say that the US ignored Pakistan's funding, it's more that we were logistically stuck working with either them or the Russians and CIS states. Whenever we put pressure on Pakistan suddenly our supplies that were being moved through Pakistan began being attacked by 'militants' and Pakistan cannot and does not want to take control of the Northwest Frontier Province which is semi-autonomous and largely the support zone for the Taliban.
The US sold Pakistan equipment to do counter-terrorism and most of that ended up just shoring up their frontier with India.

There was a window of opportunity to put pressure on Pakistan in 2001-2003 but once we invaded Iraq it was clear we had no leverage to deal with Pakistan.

As for US incompetence in contracting, well that's a given. Sheer corruption and mismanagement all the way up and down though that stems largely from a Defense industry that up until two years ago has never even attempted being audited. Contracting mismanagement, pricing markups by suppliers and so on are the norm even within the US.

Read the below report on the burnpits at FOB Salerno. The US contracted to build incinerators to replace the burn pits and then never used them. FYI it is a case study in the Army's ILE for mid level officers in trying to rectify the Army's mismanagement in contract control by teaching the responsibilities for it. Bear in mind that military Officers generally don't have a business background so when they are suddenly in charge of checking work quality and contracts for compliance they aren't too good at it which is compounded by rotating troops out every nine months.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/A...J-20131029.pdf
EDIT: No the link to the actual inspection, without the DoD certs on your PC you can't view the original even though unclassified. Here's a report SIGAR did for congress that highlights many of the key points below.


As for the polling data, most Americans have been completely ignorant about the war in Afghanistan for the last 20years. Talking with friends that are suddenly outraged at the quick pullout they seem to have the impression that US Soldiers were in the 'trenches' up until a few weeks ago and then suddenly left when in actuality the ANA has been in the lead for fighting the Taliban for the past five years, US/NATO commitments were really in air power, training, and advising not so much fighting anymore. US casualties have only been in the dozens per year the last few years and hasn't had a combat KIA in years either.

The spectacle of the peace talks was important in Washington, which hoped to create a fiction of power transition to cover the process of a negotiated U.S. defeat. There was genuinely nothing to discuss: The Afghan government was committed to constitutional rule of law—including elections, howsoever problematic—while the Afghan Taliban were committed to overturning the constitution and opposed elections as non-Islamic. The Taliban used the spectacle of the peace process as a recuperative retreat to revivify and emplace their forces while stashing weapons as they awaited U.S. withdrawal.

This is why I still lay blame on Trump too for even negotiating with the Taliban, it undermined the Afghan government and legitimized the Taliban. Any power sharing should have been based around having the Taliban join the political process through elections and perhaps greater autonomy for the provinces/districts.

Meanwhile Ashraf Ghani has fled to the UAE and the first Vice President of Afghanistan, Amrullah Saleh has vowed to keep fighting the Taliban and has fled to the Panshir valley to continue the resistance. This together with the protests in Jalalabad that in which three people were killed by the Taliban and the rumors of arrests in Herat and Kandahar make the situation tenuous for all Afghans to include the Taliban. Transitioning from resistance to rule is always dangerous and difficult, most conquerors make poor rulers and the Talibans deal with the devil that is narco-terrorism will be difficult to break.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...le35956937.ece

Afghanistan's defiant vice president Amrullah Saleh said on August 17 he is “the legitimate caretaker President” after President Ashraf Ghani fled the country.

“Clarity: As per d constitution of Afg, in absence, escape, resignation or death of the President the FVP becomes the caretaker President. I am currently inside my country & am the legitimate care taker President. Am reaching out to all leaders to secure their support & consensus,” he posted on Twitter.

It appears Amrullah Saleh has retreated to the country's last remaining holdout: the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul.

"I won't disappoint millions who listened to me. I will never be under one ceiling with Taliban. NEVER," he wrote in English on Twitter on August 15, before going underground.

A day later, pictures began to surface on social media of the former Vice-President with the son of his former mentor and famed anti-Taliban fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud in Panjshir — a mountainous redoubt tucked into the Hindu Kush.

Mr. Saleh and Massoud's son, who commands a militia force, appear to be putting together the first pieces of a guerilla movement to take on the victorious Taliban, as fighters regroup in Panjshir.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ahmad-massoud/

Ahmad Massoud is the leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan.

In 1998, when I was 9 years old, my father, the mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, gathered his soldiers in a cave in the Panjshir Valley of northern Afghanistan. They sat and listened as my father’s friend, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, addressed them. “When you fight for your freedom,” Lévy said, “you fight also for our freedom.”

My father never forgot this as he fought against the Taliban regime. Up until the moment he was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001, at the behest of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, he was fighting for the fate of Afghanistan but also for the West.

Now this common struggle is more essential than ever in these dark, tense hours for my homeland.

I write from the Panjshir Valley today, ready to follow in my father’s footsteps, with mujahideen fighters who are prepared to once again take on the Taliban. We have stores of ammunition and arms that we have patiently collected since my father’s time, because we knew this day might come.

We also have the weapons carried by the Afghans who, over the past 72 hours, have responded to my appeal to join the resistance in Panjshir. We have soldiers from the Afghan regular army who were disgusted by the surrender of their commanders and are now making their way to the hills of Panjshir with their equipment. Former members of the Afghan Special Forces have also joined our struggle.

But that is not enough. If Taliban warlords launch an assault, they will of course face staunch resistance from us. The flag of the National Resistance Front will fly over every position that they attempt to take, as the National United Front flag flew 20 years ago. Yet we know that our military forces and logistics will not be sufficient. They will be rapidly depleted unless our friends in the West can find a way to supply us without delay.

Opinion by David Ignatius | Good intentions and seductive illusions: Scenes from Afghanistan’s long descent

The United States and its allies have left the battlefield, but America can still be a “great arsenal of democracy,” as Franklin D. Roosevelt said when coming to the aid of the beleaguered British before the U.S. entry into World War II.

To that end, I entreat Afghanistan’s friends in the West to intercede for us in Washington and in New York, with Congress and with the Biden administration. Intercede for us in London, where I completed my studies, and in Paris, where my father’s memory was honored this spring by the naming of a pathway for him in the Champs-Élysées gardens.

Know that millions of Afghans share your values. We have fought for so long to have an open society, one where girls could become doctors, our press could report freely, our young people could dance and listen to music or attend soccer matches in the stadiums that were once used by the Taliban for public executions — and may soon be again.

The Taliban is not a problem for the Afghan people alone. Under Taliban control, Afghanistan will without doubt become ground zero of radical Islamist terrorism; plots against democracies will be hatched here once again.

No matter what happens, my mujahideen fighters and I will defend Panjshir as the last bastion of Afghan freedom. Our morale is intact. We know from experience what awaits us.

But we need more weapons, more ammunition and more supplies.

America and its democratic allies do not just have the fight against terrorism in common with Afghans. We now have a long history made up of shared ideals and struggles. There is still much that you can do to aid the cause of freedom. You are our only remaining hope.

[Montmorency]

Fun fact: The majority of living Afghanis, including the Taliban themselves, are younger than the US mission in Afghanistan, the sociological implications of which would be a fascinating area of study if there were anyone with the means or ability to study it.

We've changed Afghanistan's cultures profoundly, in an absolute manner of speaking.

Couple choice quotes:

A 30-year-old Afghan soldier from Jallaabd, who was just ten when the U.S. freed his country from the Taliban’s grip, told The Daily Beast he “can’t believe what happened.” On Saturday night, he says he and his contingent were told by their superior to surrender. “We did, we had a plan to fight for a while but no one asked us for fight. This is the most ridiculous moment of my life.”

He says he and other soldiers wanted to fight. “This is a drama that happened and we still have no idea what will be the fate of our country.”

Meanwhile, a Taliban fighter named Hafiz Haji told The Daily Beast, “We reached the presidential palace gate—the presidential guards quickly got down off their post... we are inside the place, we are now in the palace, we did it indeed! Captured everything, lots of weapons in the palace depot.”

A source in Kabul told The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity that the Taliban had sought a peaceful transfer of power without fighting. They also revealed that Ali Ahmad, the former minister of interior, will likely be made the head of an interim caretaker government.

A senior Afghan official in Kabul expressed his frustration to The Daily Beast as the situation deteriorated throughout the day. “The fall of Kabul dishonors the sacrifice of over 150,000 Afghan lives, over 3,000 of NATO soldiers’ lives, 20 years of reconstruction efforts and over a trillion U.S. dollars. It is the beginning of hopelessness and bottomless uncertainty for the long-suffering Afghans. May Allah protect us because all the worldly superpowers came, killed us, failed and left us in lurch.”

Read the below report on the burnpits at FOB Salerno. The US contracted to build incinerators to replace the burn pits and then never used them. FYI it is a case study in the Army's ILE for mid level officers in trying to rectify the Army's mismanagement in contract control by teaching the responsibilities for it. Bear in mind that military Officers generally don't have a business background so when they are suddenly in charge of checking work quality and contracts for compliance they aren't too good at it which is compounded by rotating troops out every nine months.

Good point. US Grant's Wild West administration in the Orient. The link is broken though.

Back to Panjshir then, war never changes.

[Hooahguy]

As for the polling data, most Americans have been completely ignorant about the war in Afghanistan for the last 20years. Talking with friends that are suddenly outraged at the quick pullout they seem to have the impression that US Soldiers were in the 'trenches' up until a few weeks ago and then suddenly left when in actuality the ANA has been in the lead for fighting the Taliban for the past five years, US/NATO commitments were really in air power, training, and advising not so much fighting anymore. US casualties have only been in the dozens per year the last few years and hasn't had a combat KIA in years either.

There's an interesting poll that came out this week that shows that Americans don't really know what we should do about Afghanistan anymore.

I mean look at these numbers:


Also something tells me that a good number of participants haven't actually been following the war and the withdrawal plans like they claim. Ultimately this boils down to the fact that Americans wanted out of Afghanistan, but wanted out quietly so we wouldn't have to pay attention just like we havent paid attention for 20 years. But now that Afghanistan collapsed we are being forced to recognize our failure and we didnt want to face it.

Meanwhile Ashraf Ghani has fled to the UAE and the first Vice President of Afghanistan, Amrullah Saleh has vowed to keep fighting the Taliban and has fled to the Panshir valley to continue the resistance. This together with the protests in Jalalabad that in which three people were killed by the Taliban and the rumors of arrests in Herat and Kandahar make the situation tenuous for all Afghans to include the Taliban. Transitioning from resistance to rule is always dangerous and difficult, most conquerors make poor rulers and the Talibans deal with the devil that is narco-terrorism will be difficult to break.

As more info starts to come out its hard to see Ghani as anything but a villain in this story. Read stories of units being ordered to stand down and saw video of officers ordering crying soldiers to turn over their weapons, so it will be interesting and sad to know what exactly happened. I agree with you that Trump shares equal blame in this debacle- not including the Afghan government in Doha doomed it as we all knew they couldn't survive on their own.

As for the Afghan forces themselves, I think people are kidding themselves if they think they could have stood on their own if it wasn't for the betrayal from the top. There was far too much corruption, drug use, and ineptitude to allow for that. This short video popped up on Reddit yesterday which really just hammers that home. Now make no mistake, there were Afghan soldiers and units who stood and fought (as we see whats going on in Panjshir now), but it would never have been enough. I am definitely following news of the resistance closely, since I feel that the Taliban is going to have a harder time maintaining control this time around as we now have a generation of Afghans who havent lived under Taliban rule as Monty said.