Afghan "train, advise and assist" 1984 style

[TomC]

... The USA didn't have any qualms about supporting Saddam, but they didn't start the war, and didn't take a direct (or even much of an indirect) role, until it looked like Iraq might not win. Lots of foreign nations provided similar support on both sides, but none were daft enough to get directly involved in a conflict that never looked likely to achieve anything for anyone except lots of needless killing. Rumours of US encouragement for launching the invasion appear to be just that - rumours. If there were substance behind them, it would be remarkable that no hard evidence has yet leaked out, particularly after Saddam lost power....

A cynical view is that the U.S. hated both Iran and Iraq and calibrated its support to prolong the war. (Half a million dead Muslim soldiers was a win for the U.S.) The war benefited U.S. businesses including munitions merchants. The political hack Dick Cheney was rewarded by Halliburton with its CEO slot. Evidence that Cheney, for one, was not anti-Iran despite the GOP-led support for Saddam is that Halliburton allegedy violated the "Trading with Enemies Act" while Cheney was CEO.

Honestly, I don't disagree exactly.

I believe the main goal was dominating the Gulf oil region. A heady combination of wealth and power. Lots of underhanded dealings, lots of violence, lots of lies...

The U.S. really did earn the moniker "The Great Satan".

Tom

 

[bilby]

I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false. Which makes it an interesting blend, an exercise in sorting fact from fiction.

Or are you saying that nothing that was said is true? That it's all horseshit from start to finish?

She had me until she started talking about Big Tech and Critical Race Theory. Weird how people can be sensible about one thing and batshit crazy about another.

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

You might as well ask the USA not to support Israel.

Pakistan doesn't so much support the Taliban, as the two support each other. A big chunk of rural Pakistan is dominated by the Pashtuns, who represent around 20% of the population. That's a big chunk of the electorate that whoever is in power in Islamabad doesn't want to alienate.

Pakistan no more controls its Pashtun population than the USA controls its zionist population - one of the problems with democracy is that the people control the government, rather than the other way around.

Asking Pakistan to stop funding the Taliban is like the mad mullahs demanding that the US stop satirical cartoonists from drawing Mohammed - it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what powers a democratic government has. That misunderstanding is comprehensible coming from authoritarians who are used to being obeyed, but is passing strange coming from people who are in the habit of telling the government not to infringe their freedoms.

Pakistan funds the Taliban in the same way, and for much the same reasons, that the US funds Social Security. Asking them to stop is a completely futile exercise, as it would be a massive vote-loser, and the politician who proposed it would likely lose his office, and run a non-trivial chance of being shot.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... The USA didn't have any qualms about supporting Saddam, but they didn't start the war, and didn't take a direct (or even much of an indirect) role, until it looked like Iraq might not win. Lots of foreign nations provided similar support on both sides, but none were daft enough to get directly involved in a conflict that never looked likely to achieve anything for anyone except lots of needless killing. Rumours of US encouragement for launching the invasion appear to be just that - rumours. If there were substance behind them, it would be remarkable that no hard evidence has yet leaked out, particularly after Saddam lost power....

A cynical view is that the U.S. hated both Iran and Iraq and calibrated its support to prolong the war. (Half a million dead Muslim soldiers was a win for the U.S.) The war benefited U.S. businesses including munitions merchants. The political hack Dick Cheney was rewarded by Halliburton with its CEO slot. Evidence that Cheney, for one, was not anti-Iran despite the GOP-led support for Saddam is that Halliburton allegedy violated the "Trading with Enemies Act" while Cheney was CEO.

Honestly, I don't disagree exactly.

I believe the main goal was dominating the Gulf oil region. A heady combination of wealth and power. Lots of underhanded dealings, lots of violence, lots of lies...

The U.S. really did earn the moniker "The Great Satan".

Tom

And lets not forget all the "Shock and Awe" that was going to keep all the camel-fuckers on the straight and narrow. Funny how that just didn't work out.

Eisenhower told us to fear the Military Industrial Complex. More prescient words were never spoken.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Rachel Maddow, we've gotten out 19,000 in the last 24 hours.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If we couldn't prove it that does not give us the right to change the government.

The UN supported going in and getting al Qaeda. But nation building was Bush's idea.

He admitted it. What more do you want?

What am I supposed to do, shoot you and send you to hell so you can go ask him?

You don't know what he said, when he said it or what he was talking about, or if the tape was not doctored.

And that tape came out after the US was asking permission to enter a sovereign nation's territory.

Is that the only evidence that exists?

The tape shows we were right. And if it were doctored he would have had plenty of opportunity to say so--but he didn't. The fact that we picked the right country shows it's pretty darn likely we knew who did it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Truth is,
That was a USA invasion of Iran. We used Baathist Hussein as a proxy. But that was the USA invading Iran, not Iraq.
Tom

No. It was just yet another battlefield in the eternal Sunni/Shia war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

The problem is Pakistan is between a rock and a hard place. They crack down too hard on their Islamists and their government probably gets overthrown and now we have nuclear-armed terrorists. Their Islamists keep trying to egg on a war with India that would be very likely to go nuclear, don't trust them to be remotely sane about handling the bomb.

 

[Swammerdami]

Here's a 6-minute Trevor Noah segment from two years ago. He presents evidence that the U.S. didn't know what its goals in Afghanistan were then, except to spend money as fast as they could! For example, they provided millions of dollars in forest-camouflage uniforms ... in a country with almost no forest.

[YOUTUBE]jEgbIUWWAJQ[/YOUTUBE]

$20,000 average per American household was spent on that war. That's a lot of money. Noah blames Bush, Obama AND Trump: "If there's one issue that unifies Americans, it's lying about war."

 

[DBT]

I'm not really interested in arguing over the video. I threw it out for viewers to assess what she said. As I've said, I don't think it's entirely true or entirely false, just that there are interesting bits and pieces.

You dump a bucket of horseshit on the table and tell us rooting through it could provide something interesting. When people complain that it is horseshit, you respond, well, I'm not really interested in talking about what is on the table, I just thought it was interesting.

I'm not dumping anything. If someone is not interested in the video they don't have to watch or analyze what is said on it.

It's an open forum, so I assume it's permissible to post alternative views for examination for anyone who may be interested.

If nobody is interested, that's fine.

 

[barbos]

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

The problem is Pakistan is between a rock and a hard place. They crack down too hard on their Islamists and their government probably gets overthrown and now we have nuclear-armed terrorists. Their Islamists keep trying to egg on a war with India that would be very likely to go nuclear, don't trust them to be remotely sane about handling the bomb.

Well, US did not really need active Pakistan government cooperation. They did not even need a road to Afghanistan. Russia is more expensive but, all things considered, it would have been much cheaper in the long run. All US needed to do is to shut down the Pakistan border for illegal crossing. I don't think it's too much to ask. This is ridiculous. USSR was fighting insurgency while US/Pakistan was openly supporting it and it was the time before infrared sensors and drones. Build a wall there and let drones fly and shoot anyone within 500 meters of it. Demolish all towns within 500 meters of the border if you have to. Make it 1000 meters in fact.

 

[Jayjay]

Pakistan influence over taliban was mentioned in this thread before. I still think it's crazy to think that US would spend trillions of dollars and 20 years while there was such a simple solution - ask Pakistan not to support taliban.

The problem is Pakistan is between a rock and a hard place. They crack down too hard on their Islamists and their government probably gets overthrown and now we have nuclear-armed terrorists. Their Islamists keep trying to egg on a war with India that would be very likely to go nuclear, don't trust them to be remotely sane about handling the bomb.

Well, US did not really need active Pakistan government cooperation. They did not even need a road to Afghanistan. Russia is more expensive but, all things considered, it would have been much cheaper in the long run. All US needed to do is to shut down the Pakistan border for illegal crossing. I don't think it's too much to ask. This is ridiculous. USSR was fighting insurgency while US/Pakistan was openly supporting it and it was the time before infrared sensors and drones. Build a wall there and let drones fly and shoot anyone within 500 meters of it. Demolish all towns within 500 meters of the border if you have to. Make it 1000 meters in fact.

The US can't even close its own border with Mexico for illegal crossings. Doing the same between Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been even harder. And even in case of moderate success, the support in Pakistan would still be there and they'd just try to find other routes through third countries.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, we're up to post #59. And I've yet to hear a single reasonable action that Biden could have taken to withdraw peacefully from Afghanistan. I've heard: 1) he should have killed all the Taliban (not possible, we've been trying for 20 years); and 2) close down the border with Pakistan. (Not possible.)

 

[barbos]

Well, US did not really need active Pakistan government cooperation. They did not even need a road to Afghanistan. Russia is more expensive but, all things considered, it would have been much cheaper in the long run. All US needed to do is to shut down the Pakistan border for illegal crossing. I don't think it's too much to ask. This is ridiculous. USSR was fighting insurgency while US/Pakistan was openly supporting it and it was the time before infrared sensors and drones. Build a wall there and let drones fly and shoot anyone within 500 meters of it. Demolish all towns within 500 meters of the border if you have to. Make it 1000 meters in fact.

The US can't even close its own border with Mexico for illegal crossings. Doing the same between Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been even harder.

That's because US does not really want to spend money on it. These tunnels are laughable. All they need to do is fucking demolish 200-500 meters of towns which sit on border and problem is solved.

And even in case of moderate success, the support in Pakistan would still be there and they'd just try to find other routes through third countries.

What third countries? Iran? Why would Iran let taliban to use them for transit of weapons and people?
If you just shoot dead 50% of people trying to pass Pakistan border, eventually they would run out of people.

 

[Gospel]

Well, we're up to post #59. And I've yet to hear a single reasonable action that Biden could have taken to withdraw peacefully from Afghanistan. I've heard: 1) he should have killed all the Taliban (not possible, we've been trying for 20 years); and 2) close down the border with Pakistan. (Not possible.)

I agree, the only issue I have with the withdrawal is how many Americans are still in Afghanistan right now, and can they (those willing) all be out by next Tuesday.

 

[Jayjay]

That's because US does not really want to spend money on it. These tunnels are laughable. All the need to do is fucking demolish 200-500 meters of towns which sit ob border and problem is solved.

And even in case of moderate success, the support in Pakistan would still be there and they'd just try to find other routes through third countries.

What third countries? Iran? Why would Iran let taliban to use them for transit of weapons and people?
If you just shoot dead 50% of people trying to pass Pakistan border, eventually they would run out of people.

It's not a matter of Iran or any other country "letting" Taliban get supplies. It's a matter of them not being willing or able to set up a 1000 meter killzone for automated drones on their own border like the hypothetical US does in this hypothetical scenario. What you're suggesting is basically what Israel is doing to Gaza... except with about 2000 times the land area, and it's still leaking supplies.

 

[funinspace]

Well, we're up to post #59. And I've yet to hear a single reasonable action that Biden could have taken to withdraw peacefully from Afghanistan. I've heard: 1) he should have killed all the Taliban (not possible, we've been trying for 20 years); and 2) close down the border with Pakistan. (Not possible.)

I agree, the only issue I have with the withdrawal is how many Americans are still in Afghanistan right now, and can they (those willing) all be out by next Tuesday.

Americans have been told over and over to GET OUT for well over a month. Part of the problem is also that people are not necessarily keeping the US embassy informed when they arrive or depart. And since we are not a police state, that is ok. At some people are responsible for their own safety.

One reference from 6 July:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...an-safety-of-u-s-embassy-in-kabul-top-concern

On April 27, the U.S. Embassy’s chargé d’affaires, Ross Wilson, tweeted that non-essential U.S. personnel would leave. The spokesperson would not say how many people left under that order, saying only that staff numbers are constantly being assessed.

Wilson blamed the departure on “increasing violence & threat reports in Kabul.” He also posted a U.S. Embassy site warning to all American citizens to leave Afghanistan immediately on any available commercial flight. And to Americans planning to visit Afghanistan, the order was clear: don’t.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, we're up to post #59. And I've yet to hear a single reasonable action that Biden could have taken to withdraw peacefully from Afghanistan. I've heard: 1) he should have killed all the Taliban (not possible, we've been trying for 20 years); and 2) close down the border with Pakistan. (Not possible.)

I agree, the only issue I have with the withdrawal is how many Americans are still in Afghanistan right now, and can they (those willing) all be out by next Tuesday.

travel.state.gov

Not to be unsympathetic or wish to broad brush those who are still in country wanting to leave but at what point do we exercise caution as to where we travel?
There is 20 minors and their families from San Diego that traveled to Afghanistan this summer stuck there. Why would any functioning adult(s) make such a decision? Now others are likely to risk their lives to save these people from themselves.

 

[barbos]

That's because US does not really want to spend money on it. These tunnels are laughable. All the need to do is fucking demolish 200-500 meters of towns which sit ob border and problem is solved.

And even in case of moderate success, the support in Pakistan would still be there and they'd just try to find other routes through third countries.

What third countries? Iran? Why would Iran let taliban to use them for transit of weapons and people?
If you just shoot dead 50% of people trying to pass Pakistan border, eventually they would run out of people.

It's not a matter of Iran or any other country "letting" Taliban get supplies. It's a matter of them not being willing or able to set up a 1000 meter killzone for automated drones on their own border like the hypothetical US does in this hypothetical scenario. What you're suggesting is basically what Israel is doing to Gaza... except with about 2000 times the land area, and it's still leaking supplies.

1000 meter zone is on Afghan side.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't know if this deserves a new thread, but I am surprised that it's not being discussed.


https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/26/world/afghanistan-taliban-biden-news

The Pentagon confirmed at least two blasts outside the Kabul airport and said there were a number of casualties, after Western governments warned of a security threat there.

RIGHT NOWPresident Biden is huddled in the Situation Room with his advisers.

I haven't used up all of my gift posts for the month so hopefully, anyone interested can read the entire article. But, this is all over the news, so anyone paying attention already knows about this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's because US does not really want to spend money on it. These tunnels are laughable. All they need to do is fucking demolish 200-500 meters of towns which sit on border and problem is solved.

And even in case of moderate success, the support in Pakistan would still be there and they'd just try to find other routes through third countries.

What third countries? Iran? Why would Iran let taliban to use them for transit of weapons and people?
If you just shoot dead 50% of people trying to pass Pakistan border, eventually they would run out of people.

Didn't the Brits try that with the Indians?