Afghan "train, advise and assist" 1984 style

[Gospel]

You calling it a perspective is ignorant. What part of what I said isn't true?

For one thing, your assumption that the Taliban cared about, or even knew about, 9/11. I'm sure some did, and were cheering on their hero bin Laden. But that isn't the same as the Taliban(much less Afghanistan) earning an violent 20 year invasion/occupation.
Tom

I do not see where I said the Taliban cared about anything other than establishing a Government ruled by Islam in Afghanistan. Fighting against/with America is a side note and any Demands from America are of no interest to them unless it advances that objective.

 

[TomC]

You calling it a perspective is ignorant. What part of what I said isn't true?

For one thing, your assumption that the Taliban cared about, or even knew about, 9/11. I'm sure some did, and were cheering on their hero bin Laden. But that isn't the same as the Taliban(much less Afghanistan) earning an violent 20 year invasion/occupation.
Tom

I do not see where I said the Taliban cared about anything other than establishing a Government ruled by Islam in Afghanistan. Fighting against/with America is a side note and any Demands from America are of no interest to them unless it advances that objective.

Post #729.
Tom

 

[funinspace]

I'm at work and took a quick look & stopped at Iran and Afghanistan being Enemies. Unless I'm reading the bolded red part wrong they are saying the US indirectly handed Iran victory over its Afghanistan enemies? When was Iran an enemy of Afghanistan?

That part also confused me but (a) the author, Abdelwahab El-Affendi, a Professor of Politics in Qatar, probably understands the complex politics of that region better than any of us; and (b) that detail is inessential to the larger point just in this excerpt.

I don't understand Mideast politics well, but the Sunni-vs-Shia conflict seems to be very important. Shi'ite Iran was indeed given a Shi'ite (formerly Sunni) Iraq for free, and there is a de facto alliance of Syria, Russia and Iran; and they are opposed to Sunnis. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and most Afghans including most Taliban are all Sunnis, so are all natural enemies of the Russia-Iran-Syria axis. (ISIS is Wahhabist, like Saudi Arabia.) I think El-Affendi is correct that the U.S. actions in the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts have implicitly helped the Russia-Iran axis.

The Kurds, mostly Sunni, are one benign group in the region and the U.S. has betrayed them repeatedly. The U.S. got involved in a complicated game of chess and behaved as though they didn't know which pieces were on which side.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the "Iran, the supposed enemy" is in regards to the view of the United States. The author doesn't make it very clear, but that is what I get out of the paragraph. And FWIW, Iran and the Taliban government of Afghanistan some 20 years ago definitely didn't get along well. Iran had in fact initially tried to mend some fences with the US by offering to help us with the Afghan situation. The Shrub basically said fuck off.

The author makes some good points. However, on the emergence of ISIS, he seems to gloss over the Saudi (and their piglet supporting cast of mini-kingdoms) effort to destroy Asaad by supporting the uprising, along with Turkey and the US. It became an impossible mix of gorilla warriors, terrorists, and freeto fighters. Who were we all really supporting among these Sunni men who were willing to fight Asaad? And how was there a fleet (600ish) of oil trucks regularly transporting oil from ISIS controlled territory to Turkey until the Russia air force destroyed them? The idea that US intelligence didn't notice them is laughable...

 

[Gospel]

I do not see where I said the Taliban cared about anything other than establishing a Government ruled by Islam in Afghanistan. Fighting against/with America is a side note and any Demands from America are of no interest to them unless it advances that objective.

Post #729.
Tom

That's not what it says. That's what you wish it said so you'd have something to argue with me about.

 

[barbos]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...escape-burqa-british-special-forces-kabul-ont

SAS troops fool Taliban by disguising as ‘devout’ women in burqas in dramatic Kabul escape

You can't make this shit up

 

[funinspace]

There is a lot in David Goldman's article I don't agree with, but I found this quote apropos; along with other tidbits regarding Russia and China's shift with the emergent power vacuum...
https://asiatimes.com/2021/09/afghan-debacle-cedes-eurasia-to-the-dragon-and-bear/

The collapse of the reality show posing as the government of Afghanistan in August created a problem for China as well as Russia. The United States spent US$2 trillion, or an average of $50 billion a year over 20 years, in a country whose annual GDP barely amounted to $20 billion.

The tsunami of American money corrupted everyone and everything, including the American military. The US created not a government, but a reality show in which hired actors stole all the props.

 

[TomC]

I do not see where I said the Taliban cared about anything other than establishing a Government ruled by Islam in Afghanistan. Fighting against/with America is a side note and any Demands from America are of no interest to them unless it advances that objective.

Post #729.
Tom

Sorry if I misunderstood the first paragraph of 729. It appeared to be conflating Al Qeda with the Taliban, suggesting that the Taliban was supporting Al Qaeda. Like it was a government agency or something. Americans often confuse this relationship. Bin Laden had money and supported the Taliban is more like the reality.
Tom

ETA [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION];

 

[Gospel]

I do not see where I said the Taliban cared about anything other than establishing a Government ruled by Islam in Afghanistan. Fighting against/with America is a side note and any Demands from America are of no interest to them unless it advances that objective.

Post #729.
Tom

Sorry if I misunderstood the first paragraph of 729. It appeared to be conflating Al Qeda with the Taliban, suggesting that the Taliban was supporting Al Qaeda. Like it was a government agency or something. Americans often confuse this relationship. Bin Laden had money and supported the Taliban is more like the reality.
Tom

ETA [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION];

I didn't conflate anything. What I believe is when the US rolled up on their block waving guns around & demanding the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Ladin (an Al-Qaeda dude), they didn't cooperate not because they were protecting him, but because it wouldn't advance their goal. Not to mention that they don't give a damn about the US and its problems.

 

[bilby]

There is a lot in David Goldman's article I don't agree with, but I found this quote apropos; along with other tidbits regarding Russia and China's shift with the emergent power vacuum...
https://asiatimes.com/2021/09/afghan-debacle-cedes-eurasia-to-the-dragon-and-bear/

The collapse of the reality show posing as the government of Afghanistan in August created a problem for China as well as Russia. The United States spent US$2 trillion, or an average of $50 billion a year over 20 years, in a country whose annual GDP barely amounted to $20 billion.

The tsunami of American money corrupted everyone and everything, including the American military. The US created not a government, but a reality show in which hired actors stole all the props.

But that money didn't go to Afghanistan. It mostly went to America. It was spent on international logistics; consumables; payrolls for American personnel; and equipment that was largely either removed from the country or destroyed. The fraction that went to payrolls for local people, or that paid for equipment donated to Afghans, or abandoned in usable condition, is tiny.

When you buy a Humvee, the money is spent in the USA. Shipping it to Kabul is done by US logistics personnel, whose wages go into the US economy, and into the economies of transit points such as the UAE. If it's airlifted, that's done on American aircraft, and they don't buy much fuel in Kabul for those planes.

The Humvee's crew are Americans who send much of their pay home, and spend most of the rest at the PX where they buy American goods from Americans. Their uniforms, sidearms, ammunition and fuel are all American. They eat American food, watch American movies, and drink American cola and American beer.

The impact of American money on Afghanistan was probably pretty significant, but it wasn't likely greater than the size of the rest of the economy, even before the black economy of Afghanistan is considered (you don't think that Afghan opium exporters declare every cent of their income to the government, do you? Shit, most trade in legitimate goods and services in the country is probably done in ways that the government cannot easily detect or estimate).

GDP figures for non-OECD nations are rarely accurate; For warzones and unstable regions, they're basically pure guesswork.

 

[funinspace]

Literary license?

There is a lot in David Goldman's article I don't agree with, but I found this quote apropos; along with other tidbits regarding Russia and China's shift with the emergent power vacuum...
https://asiatimes.com/2021/09/afghan-debacle-cedes-eurasia-to-the-dragon-and-bear/

The collapse of the reality show posing as the government of Afghanistan in August created a problem for China as well as Russia. The United States spent US$2 trillion, or an average of $50 billion a year over 20 years, in a country whose annual GDP barely amounted to $20 billion.

The tsunami of American money corrupted everyone and everything, including the American military. The US created not a government, but a reality show in which hired actors stole all the props.

But that money didn't go to Afghanistan. It mostly went to America.

Well.....duh.

It was spent on international logistics; consumables; payrolls for American personnel; and equipment that was largely either removed from the country or destroyed. The fraction that went to payrolls for local people, or that paid for equipment donated to Afghans, or abandoned in usable condition, is tiny.

When you buy a Humvee, the money is spent in the USA. Shipping it to Kabul is done by US logistics personnel, whose wages go into the US economy, and into the economies of transit points such as the UAE. If it's airlifted, that's done on American aircraft, and they don't buy much fuel in Kabul for those planes.

The Humvee's crew are Americans who send much of their pay home, and spend most of the rest at the PX where they buy American goods from Americans. Their uniforms, sidearms, ammunition and fuel are all American. They eat American food, watch American movies, and drink American cola and American beer.

The impact of American money on Afghanistan was probably pretty significant, but it wasn't likely greater than the size of the rest of the economy, even before the black economy of Afghanistan is considered (you don't think that Afghan opium exporters declare every cent of their income to the government, do you? Shit, most trade in legitimate goods and services in the country is probably done in ways that the government cannot easily detect or estimate).

GDP figures for non-OECD nations are rarely accurate; For warzones and unstable regions, they're basically pure guesswork.

I didn't get to the issues you are arguing about, from what was in the paragraph I quoted (assuming that is where these points are coming from)... I guess it is good that you aren't arguing that the US backed Afghan officials weren't 'hired actors'.

Though when talking money on Afghanistan, it seems that Afghan security was costing roughly 20% of their GDP, not that they were paying for it. Well, at least the west won't be flushing billions down that rat hole any more...

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/a-breakdown-of-u-s-military-spending-in-afghanistan-1.10038437

The U.S. and NATO have promised to pay $4 billion a year until 2024 to finance Afghanistan’s military and security forces, which are struggling to contain an advancing Taliban. Already, the U.S. has spent nearly $89 billion over the past 20 years to build, equip and train Afghan forces.
<snip>
It is difficult to see how the Afghan government will be able to pay to keep its military running after 2024.

More than 80 percent of the Afghan government budget is paid by the U.S. and its allies, according to SIGAR.

 

[bilby]

But that money didn't go to Afghanistan. It mostly went to America.

Well.....duh.

It was spent on international logistics; consumables; payrolls for American personnel; and equipment that was largely either removed from the country or destroyed. The fraction that went to payrolls for local people, or that paid for equipment donated to Afghans, or abandoned in usable condition, is tiny.

When you buy a Humvee, the money is spent in the USA. Shipping it to Kabul is done by US logistics personnel, whose wages go into the US economy, and into the economies of transit points such as the UAE. If it's airlifted, that's done on American aircraft, and they don't buy much fuel in Kabul for those planes.

The Humvee's crew are Americans who send much of their pay home, and spend most of the rest at the PX where they buy American goods from Americans. Their uniforms, sidearms, ammunition and fuel are all American. They eat American food, watch American movies, and drink American cola and American beer.

The impact of American money on Afghanistan was probably pretty significant, but it wasn't likely greater than the size of the rest of the economy, even before the black economy of Afghanistan is considered (you don't think that Afghan opium exporters declare every cent of their income to the government, do you? Shit, most trade in legitimate goods and services in the country is probably done in ways that the government cannot easily detect or estimate).

GDP figures for non-OECD nations are rarely accurate; For warzones and unstable regions, they're basically pure guesswork.

I didn't get to the issues you are arguing about, from what was in the paragraph I quoted (assuming that is where these points are coming from)... I guess it is good that you aren't arguing that the US backed Afghan officials weren't 'hired actors'.

Though when talking money on Afghanistan, it seems that Afghan security was costing roughly 20% of their GDP, not that they were paying for it. Well, at least the west won't be flushing billions down that rat hole any more...

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/a-breakdown-of-u-s-military-spending-in-afghanistan-1.10038437

The U.S. and NATO have promised to pay $4 billion a year until 2024 to finance Afghanistan’s military and security forces, which are struggling to contain an advancing Taliban. Already, the U.S. has spent nearly $89 billion over the past 20 years to build, equip and train Afghan forces.
<snip>
It is difficult to see how the Afghan government will be able to pay to keep its military running after 2024.

More than 80 percent of the Afghan government budget is paid by the U.S. and its allies, according to SIGAR.

So it exactly as I suggested; The US impact on the ~20bn Afghan economy is around the ~4bn mark, and nowhere near to the $50bn implied in the paragraph you quoted.

That's a non-trival amount, but hardly a 'tsunsmi of American money'. And American money couldn't have caused much corruption in Afghanistan proper, because Afghanistan proper was already corrupt beyond redemption long before the Americans turned up.

The whole problem is that American influence in Afghanistan, even when they had a large military force deployed there, never had any real impact on anything. The problems were concealed (behind those paid actors), and immediately came back into the light once the US troops were gone.

Colonialism depends on the colonising power making a difference not just to the lives of those peoples who are colonised, but also to the colonial forces themselves. The British Empire was successful in large part because (and to the extent that) its people 'went native'; And US colonialism has largely failed on the same basis.

British racist thugs, who voted for Brexit and hate everything foreign, drink tea and eat curry, without a thought for the origins of these now quintessentially British things. Where are the equivalent fundamental changes to American lifestyles?

Americans in Afghanistan largely lived in little pockets of the USA, eating cheeseburgers and drinking Coca-Cola. US influence on Afghanistan can be measured by Afghan influence on the US - and by that measure, it was practically zero.

 

[Trausti]

 

[untermensche]

What is your point with that?

The Taliban is a bunch of religious fundamentalists.

Like the Republican party.

Look at Texas.

 

[Trausti]

What is your point with that?

The Taliban is a bunch of religious fundamentalists.

Like the Republican party.

Look at Texas.

Even the Taliban noticed the rot of useless governmental busybodies.

 

[Derec]

Colonialism depends on the colonising power making a difference not just to the lives of those peoples who are colonised, but also to the colonial forces themselves. The British Empire was successful in large part because (and to the extent that) its people 'went native'; And US colonialism has largely failed on the same basis.

There is usually a cultural exchange, but the "wokes" would be crying "cultural appropriation" if they existed when tea became popular in Britain!

British racist thugs, who voted for Brexit and hate everything foreign,

Brexit was misguided in many ways (although I can understand their frustration with EU), but it isn't racist, and much less thuggish. Voting for a peaceful exit from a supranational organization is the opposite of thuggishness.

drink tea and eat curry, without a thought for the origins of these now quintessentially British things.

Brits also like to drink beer and eat pork pies and bangers. Islamist invaders would like to ban all those.

Now you may say there isn't enough of them to ban anything. But there is more of them each year - partly due to migration and party due to very high birth rates (5-8 children per women is the norm)

Where are the equivalent fundamental changes to American lifestyles?

Your examples are beverages and food. US has a lot of culinary influence from all over the world. But Shariah Law is a different matter. All Shariah believers should stay in Afghanistan or go to another Muslim country - not to US or Europe! We have more than enough Islamists already!

 

[untermensche]

What is your point with that?

The Taliban is a bunch of religious fundamentalists.

Like the Republican party.

Look at Texas.

Even the Taliban noticed the rot of useless governmental busybodies.

What the hell does that mean?

Deluded Christian fundamentalists are who Republicans try to appease.

You know, anti-science book burners.

 

[bilby]

There is usually a cultural exchange, but the "wokes" would be crying "cultural appropriation" if they existed when tea became popular in Britain!


Brexit was misguided in many ways (although I can understand their frustration with EU), but it isn't racist, and much less thuggish. Voting for a peaceful exit from a supranational organization is the opposite of thuggishness.

drink tea and eat curry, without a thought for the origins of these now quintessentially British things.

Brits also like to drink beer and eat pork pies and bangers. Islamist invaders would like to ban all those.
View attachment 35198
Now you may say there isn't enough of them to ban anything. But there is more of them each year - partly due to migration and party due to very high birth rates (5-8 children per women is the norm)

Where are the equivalent fundamental changes to American lifestyles?

Your examples are beverages and food. US has a lot of culinary influence from all over the world. But Shariah Law is a different matter. All Shariah believers should stay in Afghanistan or go to another Muslim country - not to US or Europe! We have more than enough Islamists already!

Sorry everyone.

I didn't mean to inspire this pointless shower of racist claptrap, but I forgot that he is on a hair trigger looking for opportunities to post it.

My bad.

Show

Oh, shit, I just nudged the "IsLaM iS nOt A rAcE" button on my way past...

 

[Trausti]

What is your point with that?

The Taliban is a bunch of religious fundamentalists.

Like the Republican party.

Look at Texas.

Even the Taliban noticed the rot of useless governmental busybodies.

What the hell does that mean?

Deluded Christian fundamentalists are who Republicans try to appease.

You know, anti-science book burners.

So you think the $2T we frittered away in Afghanistan teaching tribesmen to be feminists was money well spent?

 

[untermensche]

What the hell does that mean?

Deluded Christian fundamentalists are who Republicans try to appease.

You know, anti-science book burners.

So you think the $2T we frittered away in Afghanistan teaching tribesmen to be feminists was money well spent?

I was against it when GW on his own changed the mission to nation building.

I thought GW was the most criminal incompetent president in history, but along came Trump.

How low will the Republicans go?

 

[Derec]

Oh, shit, I just nudged the "IsLaM iS nOt A rAcE" button on my way past...

Well, it isn't. No matter how much you Islamophiles want to tar anybody who dares criticize the so-called "religion of peace" with the term "racist" ...