Afghanistan Falls

[Innula Zenovka]

Non sequitur. Those Muslims who went to Syria were already immersed in Islamic extremism. We're calling them "radicalized".



That's the part I think we never grasped fully before Reagan and Bush pushed that invasion. But, I'll also submit that if any of those rural people take up arms or plant bombs to kill non-believers, there is absolutely ZERO to admire about their society. And, to be frank, it's their religion that's a huge restraint on their progress.

I just happen to think that women should be educated, and any society that refuses to do so is cutting themselves off from a major national asset, not to mention what should be "moral" for virtually the entire rest of the planet.

Yes, and many of the tribal and village elders would agree with you, or there wouldn't be so many young Afghan women graduates desperately trying to flee the country at the moment, but the Taliban outgun them, and they're prepared to go along with the Taliban for the time being, just as they were prepared to go along with the US (and probably much more enthusiastically) for most of the last 20 years.

 

[Sid]

What other choice do they have?
Inspecting the sand and the grass from below earlier than expected?

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

The problem is, this was NOT going to end well. It was never going to. We stayed as long as we did [through Obama] because we thought we would have a different result, and because pulling out was going to end this way. We either had to stay or go, and eventually the same outcome was going to happen.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

The problem is, this was NOT going to end well. It was never going to. We stayed as long as we did [through Obama] because we thought we would have a different result, and because pulling out was going to end this way. We either had to stay or go, and eventually the same outcome was going to happen.

I read "In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan by Seth Jones, and as scary as that book was, I'm afraid it's become true - not through a failure of arms but a failure of foresight and understanding.

 

[Fionalein]

Maybe after all these decades we'll finally get the message - primitive tribal societies like the Afghans are not prepared for the sacrifices required in order to become pluralistic and democratic. That's nothing more than American hubris.

I disagree, but in order to understand why it is good they need positive examples. To the Afghans it didn't matter, we were just another oppressor regime to them. Democracy at gunpoint seems like a doomed endeavour to me.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

Democracy at gunpoint seems like a doomed endeavour to me.

One would think that a country that was founded on rebellion to foreign rule would know that without having to suffer a repeat on the opposite end.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

One would think that a country that was founded on rebellion to foreign rule would know that without having to suffer a repeat on the opposite end.

It could be argued that the US was founded by colonialists who wanted -- understandably enough -- both to determine the progress and to retain the rewards of colonial expansion for themselves.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

It could be argued that the US was founded by colonialists who wanted -- understandably enough -- both to determine the progress and to retain the rewards of colonial expansion for themselves.

This.

When I was recovering from my broken jaw [right around my birthday] we went to Cherokee NC - and there is a Cherokee museum there. Apparently, the colonists were already trying to push the natives out of their land and George III said no, those are my citizens too.

So, my take away from that and other exhibits there, was that the Colonists wanted to own all the stuff and the throne was at least slightly protective of the native peoples and so...

Or you know, our foundation was on lies, for all the talk of how honest Washington was about chopping down cherry trees.

 

[danielravennest]

No, In Saigon they lost to a Communist regime backed by established Commie nations... In Kabul they lost to some loosly organized bandit warlords - This is far worse.

The Taliban are mostly funded by growing opium. So it is more correct to say we lost to religious fanatic narco-terrorists.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

The Taliban are mostly funded by growing opium. So it is more correct to say we lost to religious fanatic narco-terrorists.

So, GQP?

 

[Clara D.]

Judging by reports the Taliban have *LOTS* of nifty new American equipment at their disposal instead of Soviet hand-me-downs.

This time without having to buy it from the Afghani government!

And we trained the poor bastards we're abandoning all wrong to prep them for the USA being all "DONE NOW BYE." MERIKA style fighting with a heavily reliance on tech and air support doesn't work when the infrastructure leaves the country.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

The Taliban are mostly funded by growing opium. So it is more correct to say we lost to religious fanatic narco-terrorists.

During their reign from 1994 to 2001 the opium growth though decreased by 99%. The Taliban back then were strictly anti-opium. The rise of opium growth happened due to the Western presence.

The Taliban's inner circle can be viewed as US trained. Most of their leading personnel were Mujaheddin before, which received tons of funding, training and weapons back then to fight against the USSR.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Do you really think there's that big a difference between Chinese capitalists and capitalists everywhere else (except that locking up tens of thousands of Muslims in slave labour camps simply for being Muslims would probably be considered a step too far even in "deep red MAGA" states)?

Yes, there is a fundamental difference between Chinese capitalism and the rest of the world, and it's name is the Chinese Communist Party!

At the end of the day you can do all stuff you want as Chinese in PRC, as long as you don't openly question the party or become a threat to them. If you start doing that though you will face consequences. Just have a look at the increasing disapperances of well known Chinese billionaires, and their returns to the public sometimes later, not talking about what happened.

In PRC the Communist Party is near almighty. And it makes sure that your company's doing also will benefit great lengths their vision and its country. If they think you neglect your "service to the people", they will immediately let you re-think your doings.

As for Africa: China has not the historical ballast which Europe's former powers have. First they go in and spread around gifts for free strategically, like railways, streets, mobile networks. If then something in that country happens, they ask for a mining/drilling license. China did not arrive there with a military force, didn't try to rule these areas nor engaged into slavery. And most of the time this is then viewed quite favorable. Some people already talk about "Africa becoming China's China."

 

[Free]

 

[Mona Eberhardt]

I'm not surprised that the Taliban took Afghanistan back so easily and that the US-backed Afghan government collapsed within a few days. Let's face it, the whole image of a Western-style democratic government (which, as it turns out, could only stand as long as the American soldiers were there) was smoke and mirrors. Of course the US were defeated (so it's finally time to point those chevrons down). The US Armed Forces spent twenty years and bazillions of USD, yet failed to weaken and eradicate the jihadists.

But how did the US come to this inglorious defeat? What's behind the decision to leave so quickly? How did the Taliban manage to survive, regroup, and retake Afghanistan in what looked like a cakewalk, with the country's official army and government surrendering unconditionally? Let's talk facts. It was no surprise - unless you were a "political analyst" in a "prestigious" mainstream publication. As long as US troops were in Afghanistan, the Taliban had no chance of securing a military victory. But, being a guerrilla force, winning battles is less important than not being defeated, neutralised, and eradicated as a movement. The Taliban succeeded in this. They could never defeat the Americans, but the Americans couldn't completely eradicate them. This meant certain territories were kept under Taliban rule and served as bases for their operations.

So, after the Americans left, there was nothing to hold back the Taliban. In the West, governments, embedded "journalists", "esteemed" establishment academics, and "political scientists" had all conspired to create a Potemkin village: they were reassuring everyone that a new state had been put in place, with a well-trained and equipped 300,000-strong army, etc. I'll say it again: it was a Potemkin village; nothing more, nothing less. Yes, the army had all the trappings of an army, weapons, uniforms, precision drills, that sort of crap, but it had no morale, and it had no loyalty to the government. So, it fell apart at the mere sight of the Taliban.

Also, the elite that was running the country had no connection to the majority of the population. Furthermore, the US had made alliances with various tribal leaders, landowners, and warlords who were also running drugs (opium production). This doesn't mean these guys had any relationship with the population. On the other hand, the Taliban, despite not expressing the majority of the Afghan people, are deeply connected with the Pashtuns and have strong roots in certain areas and parts of the populace.

So, on one hand we have a government and a state constructed solely with the support of the US military presence and, on the other hand, a popular movement which, despite its obvious barbarity and extremism, has roots in local societies and managed to survive for twenty years. This helped it gain support abroad, especially with various Persian Gulf monarchies of similar ideology (Qatar, Saudi Arabia) and rebuild its cooperation with Pakistan.

Pakistan turned a blind eye to the Taliban having hiding places in its lands. Whenever the Taliban were coming under serious pressure from American attacks, they crossed the border and fell back in Pakistan, where they had safe bases from where they could launch new offensives in Afghanistan. Had Pakistan closed its borders to the Taliban, attacking their leaders and trapping the rest of them in Afghanistan and leaving them at the mercy of the US Armed Forces, I'm sure we'd be reading a different story. But that's not what happened.

Now, as to US withdrawal, it was the obvious choice after having been defeated. Only through constant, costly military presence could the US ensure the longevity of the regime it had installed in Afghanistan - mind you, this regime didn't even control the entire country: it couldn't protect both Kabul and Kandahar. It couldn't function without the US propping it up, and the US realised this couldn't last forever. The top brass in the US decided there was no reason for them to hang around in Afghanistan forever: Al-Qaeda was no more, and the creation of a new group like it seemed implausible, as the jihadist movement had taken on other forms, especially after ISIS.

Of course, the US still suffered a defeat: they couldn't destroy the Taliban, or create what they were saying they wanted to, i.e. a new, modern, democratic, Afghan state. This never happened. As was the case with every other attempt to "export democracy" (a basic element of US strategy from the days of Clinton and all the way to yesterday), this one failed too. So, they had two choices: One, stay there forever. Two, find a way to make a deal with the Taliban and move out. Trump had made this deal with the Taliban, although many forget it nowadays. And Biden simply follows in Trump's footsteps.

As for the chaos we saw at the Kabul Airport, with thousands of Afghans trying to flee, the blame lies squarely with the US and its allies (the EU and NATO in general). Thousands of Afghans, either to make ends meet or because they believed in a westernisation of Afghanistan, worked with the allied forces. They were assured that, if things went wrong, they'd be given visas and granted safe passage to the West. We're talking about 200-300 thousand people. Of course, given that there's over sixty countries these people worked with, each country wouldn't need to take an exorbitant number of people. The US, for instance, could very easily issue visas for 50,000 people. As for Greece's alt-right government... Here's what Notis Mitarakis, its Immigration Minister, has to say:

Of course, Afghans who worked with the NATO and EU countries have every reason to fear for their lives. It's not just the barbaric Taliban administration; they fear retaliation stemming from being viewed as collaborationists. If NATO and EU countries don't honour the promises they made, the blood of these people is on their hands.

As for Ashraf Ghani, he's a coward. He should stand up for his government and try to do something for his citizens, not load a few vehicles with cash and flee before the Taliban even got to Kabul's suburbs. Salvador Allende (toppled by the US-backed Pinochet junta so Milton Friedman could get a country to use as his lab rat) resisted and made his final stand. Then again, could we ever expect this corruption-riddled and disconnected from Afghan reality elite to show even a vestige of spine? No.

Will the Taliban's victory embolden other jihadist groups? Absolutely. It'll boost their prestige and appeal. Of course, this'll also depend on the Taliban administration's success, whatever this success may be. I'm certain the Saudi head-chopping dynasty will aid them, and I'm certain Turkey's Erdogan regime will do the same.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

And look who in the mean time openly embraces the Taliban and shows up in Kabul... one of its neighboring countries, China.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Taliban Conquers Much of Afghanistan, Bans COVID Vaccine

It is said that the Taliban has banned the coronavirus vaccine in certain regions Afghanistan. Read more about the COVID vaccine ban here.

futurism.com

I suspect the only people wearing "masks" are women with their veils.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yes, there is a fundamental difference between Chinese capitalism and the rest of the world, and it's name is the Chinese Communist Party!

At the end of the day you can do all stuff you want as Chinese in PRC, as long as you don't openly question the party or become a threat to them. If you start doing that though you will face consequences. Just have a look at the increasing disapperances of well known Chinese billionaires, and their returns to the public sometimes later, not talking about what happened.

In PRC the Communist Party is near almighty. And it makes sure that your company's doing also will benefit great lengths their vision and its country. If they think you neglect your "service to the people", they will immediately let you re-think your doings.

As for Africa: China has not the historical ballast which Europe's former powers have. First they go in and spread around gifts for free strategically, like railways, streets, mobile networks. If then something in that country happens, they ask for a mining/drilling license. China did not arrive there with a military force, didn't try to rule these areas nor engaged into slavery. And most of the time this is then viewed quite favorable. Some people already talk about "Africa becoming China's China."

Yes, and I quite understand that the consequences for someone like Jack Ma of falling out with the Chinese Communist Party (or of a Russian oligarch falling out with Vladimir Putin) are considerably more serious, or potentially so, than are the consequences for Jeff Bezos or Jack Dorsey if they upset Joe Biden, but I don't see that has much to do with how they run their companies, so long as they stay within the laws and rules (formal and informal) governing Chinese businesses, and it certainly doesn't exempt them from the normal operations of the market.

They have to pay for labour and raw materials just as any other business has to do, and they're in business to make a profit, just as is any other business. They might be better at it, and they may well be able to take a longer-term view of their interests, with the support of their government, but ultimately they're part of the world capitalist economy and -- at least as far as I'm concerned -- one of Marx's greatest insights was that economic relations determine social relations.

That is, even though I'd like to pay my employees more, because I'm generous and because I see the advantages of a well-paid and loyal workforce, I'm still ultimately constrained by the need to control my costs in order to make enough money to cover my all my overheads (rent, supplies, etc) and give my shareholders an adequate return, otherwise I'll run out of money, not be able to borrow, and I'll go bust.

How much working directly or indirectly for a Chinese business, rather than a British, American or German one, actually makes a great deal of difference to the Nigerian or Ghanaian labourer working in their local plants, or building infrastructure, I'm not sure, or the Vietnamese or Bangladeshi worker in a local garment factory producing cheap fashion for a Chinese manufacturer, but I'm prepared to be persuaded it does, I guess, by evidence.

I just look at a country that openly imprisons and exploits tens of thousands of slave labourers in concentration camps simply because they're members of what is thought to be a troublesome domestic religious and ethnic minority, and find it hard to believe they're, nevertheless, notably good employers abroad, and particularly in Africa, but maybe I do the government of the PRC a disservice.

From Covid to Blackface on TV, China’s Racism Problem Runs Deep

China’s anti-Black racism shows in its media and its treatment of Africans during the pandemic.

www.hrw.org

This isn’t the first time the Lunar New Year show has featured racist caricatures. In CCTV's 2018 Lunar New Year gala, a skit intended to showcase the Chinese government’s friendship with African countries and China’s investment in Africa featured a Chinese actress in blackface with an exaggerated fake posterior and a basket of fruit on her head, reciting lines like, “China has done so much for Africa” and “I love Chinese people! I love China!” Accompanying her was an actor from Ivory Coast dressed in a monkey costume.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

More than 600 Afghans cram into one U.S. transport flight, as thousands flee Taliban (Paywall)

Human remains were also found in the wheel well of a U.S. Air Force C-17 plane that departed Kabul airport on Monday, according to three people familiar with the issue.
The plane’s crew declared an emergency while leaving the capital’s airport after its landing gear wouldn’t go up and later found the remains in the wheel well. The discovery came after the plane diverted to another location and landed, two of the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was not immediately clear whether the plane involved was the same one depicted in viral videos that appeared to show two people falling from a departing C-17 that was climbing from the airfield. A fourth official said on Monday that it is believed that “absolutely” people fell from that plane and that the video was real.
The U.S. military closed the airport on Monday after that incident and as it struggled to deal with thousands of Afghans who ran onto the runway seeking flights to flee the Taliban. At least seven people died in the chaos at the airport, the Associated Press reported.
U.S. troops reopened the runway just before midnight in Kabul, said Maj. Gen. Hank Taylor, a senior official at the Pentagon.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

I just look at a country that openly imprisons and exploits tens of thousands of slave labourers in concentration camps simply because they're members of what is thought to be a troublesome domestic religious and ethnic minority, and find it hard to believe they're, nevertheless, notably good employers abroad, and particularly in Africa, but maybe I do the government of the PRC a disservice.

You are sidelining the discussion. I am not talking here about the wrong-doings of the PRC, nor its government, mainly about the economic side of life.

Of course there are wrong-doings at large in China. Tibet for example, which is still for me the main one. The Uigurs, and many many more.

But the European states are in no good position to criticise that, because at the end of the day most European states are morally not better than China is. Let's just take for example the refugee camps on Lesbos, Greece. Why are these there? Because most member states of the EU refuse to take the refugees in, like it is their contractual duty. Or let's talk about the refugee boats an the Mediterrenean sea, and how many deaths there are every year and how many states are nowadays refusing to let refugee rescue ships into a harbour. Human rights of refugees mean in the EU nothing if it might cost votes, that's the plain truth.

How about the deal with Erdogan, which is basically bribing him with billions of Euros so that he keeps the refugees in Turkey and does not open the flood gates to the west?

Or how about Australia and it's "No, you won't make Australia your home" campaign?

And the USA got Guantanamo, and a list of meddling in the interior affairs of foreign states several pages long, including rightfully elected head of states, that there's a whole Wikipedia article only dedicated to that and Noah Chomsky once called it the "number one rogue state ever."

And most importantly: why did China became so wealthy? Because we were so drunk on exporting our jobs there, that's why, more importantly because that's how unregulated capitalism and "free trade" works. And if economy would really have an ethic compass we would have stopped doing business with China long ago. But we are still feeding the dragon, so we've got no right to complain about that, because basically we are supporting that in indirect ways as well every single day. Because there's money to make, it's still an emerging market where you can sell millions of stuff. Money, money, money!

China knows all about our shortcomings, and when you try to criticise them, well, you've got to hear "first fix your own inhuman stuff before you come critisising us." Which happens often enough by the way. There's the Chinese term 百年國恥, which means "century of humiliation."

It refers to the time frame from the first Opium War in 1839 to the founding of the end of WWII. Basically it's their sum of experiences with major Western powers, British Empire, France, USA, Germany. And the result of it is that the Chinese have a deeply rooted distrust against the West, it's their national shame and trauma, because they know from first hand experience that Western promises and actions are normally totally different things, and since generations they're sworn to never let that happen again. Also to never bow down their head to the West again as well. They want to be the center of power in their region again, like they've been for hundred of years before the 19th century, and work towards that goal with no compromise.