Afghanistan

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
Lew Dolby
Catbabel
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Lew Dolby » Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:31 pm

So, after Vietnam and now Afganistan, the lesson for the American people is . . .

. . . next time some Texan wants to take you into another foreign war, shoot the texan !!
WOULD CUSTOMERS PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SITTING ON THE COUNTER BY THE BACON SLICER - AS WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BEHIND IN OUR ORDERS.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Fishnut » Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:37 pm

Contractors working in Afghanistan loved to cut corners. In one incident, contractors constructing barracks for the Afghan National Army insulated the buildings with a highly flammable spray-on polyurethane foam, a safety violation so flagrant its use in construction is banned internationally. SIGAR called out the error but the military wouldn’t fix the problem.

“The typical occupant populations for these facilities are young, fit Afghan soldiers and recruits who have the physical ability to make a hasty retreat during a developing situation,” then Major General Michael Eyre said in a 2014 memo to SIGAR [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction], implying that people could simply escape from burning buildings if they had to. Eyre wrote this memo after some of the buildings had already burned to the ground.
Just one of the myriad examples of waste and mismanagement that the US government has carefully documented over the past 12 years, summarised in this article from Vice.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:20 pm

I'm no expert, but a warzone seems like roughly the worst possible place to live inside something extremely flammable.

And it's not like the US military struggles for cash - they just don't give a sh.t about their allies (as we learned in the withdrawal from Syria too, of course).
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan

Post by dyqik » Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:59 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:20 pm
I'm no expert, but a warzone seems like roughly the worst possible place to live inside something extremely flammable.

And it's not like the US military struggles for cash - they just don't give a sh.t about their allies (as we learned in the withdrawal from Syria too, of course).
But the contractors make more profit if they military money and do the bare minimum to get paid for it. The military on the ground who check the work often aren't in a position to deny payment or demand rework.

Such is government contracting...

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:43 am

Interesting article on who funds the Taliban https://theconversation.com/amp/the-tal ... tan-147411

Lead by an even split between drugs and mining (both industries needing drastic reform of supply chains IMHO), plus donations from governments and private individuals.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Martin Y » Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:06 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:43 am
Interesting article on who funds the Taliban https://theconversation.com/amp/the-tal ... tan-147411

Lead by an even split between drugs and mining (both industries needing drastic reform of supply chains IMHO), plus donations from governments and private individuals.
It's interesting to see where the money comes from but it's also interesting to see how that information can be spun. The bulk of the money is from taxing the major industries in the areas they control. Or, put another, way they extort protection money from the major industries in the areas they control. It's the freedom fighter vs terrorist thing all over again. The fact that one of the biggest industries in the country is opium production means that you can also spin them as a gigantic drugs cartel but I suppose if it wasn't the Taliban raking in their cut it would be whichever other corrupt government folk held sway. There were reports years ago that the Taliban actually reduced opium production when they had control, but it seems like in more recent years they need the money too much to suppress it.

It's also odd to see the Taliban described as "megarich" as of course they're dirt poor compared to the amount the US has expended in their country. Several years ago on another forum someone claimed the US had invaded so the CIA could seize control of the lucrative opium trade. But a back of the envelope calculation suggested the CIA could just have turned up at the farm gate with wads of banknotes and bought the entire crop for the next several hundred years more cheaply than funding the first decade of occupation.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Afghanistan

Post by WFJ » Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:37 pm


User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Gfamily » Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:47 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:43 am
Interesting article on who funds the Taliban https://theconversation.com/amp/the-tal ... tan-147411

Lead by an even split between drugs and mining (both industries needing drastic reform of supply chains IMHO), plus donations from governments and private individuals.
The one caveat I would have about that article is that the study it references is from 2008, so things may have changed in the meantime.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Fishnut » Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:32 pm

MPs are being recalled tomorrow to discuss the Afghan crisis. Please email your MP and call on them to let the UK accept refugees. This twitter thread has an suggested email from Citizens , which I've copied below for ease:

Dear [MP]

I am aware that Parliament is recalled tomorrow to discuss the Afghan emergency, so, as a constituent who...[Personalise – why do you care?]...I am writing to ask you to urge the government to accept as many Afghan refugees as possible. Please call on the government to be ambitious and act urgently to resettle Afghan refugees to the UK. This must come as a firm and long-term target to resettle 10,000 refugees a year in the UK as part of the global resettlement scheme, *excluding* Community Sponsorship, which is a separate programme and should not be considered part of the target. Without long term commitment and a clear target, local authorities and civil society cannot plan and put in place the infrastructure needed to welcome refugees.

The government also must protect Afghans already in the UK who are caught up in the immigration system. The Home Office should grant refugee status to those already in the asylum system and immediately make secure the status of undocumented Afghans. [If possible, add what your local community has done to welcome refugees]

Communities across the country are willing and able to welcome refugees, we just need the government to open the door. We have done it before, we can do it again.

Yours,

[your name]

I'm pretty sure everyone here knows their MP but in case you don't, you can find them here. When it says "location" it means constituency name, not your town.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
veravista
Catbabel
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:29 pm
Location: Directly above the centre of the earth

Re: Afghanistan

Post by veravista » Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:00 pm

I've given it a go, but frankly the useless potted plant we have for an MP won't do anything unless it follows the party line. Am not even holding my breath that I'll get a reply before Christmas if she follows her normal behaviour.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Fishnut » Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:27 pm

veravista wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:00 pm
I've given it a go, but frankly the useless potted plant we have for an MP won't do anything unless it follows the party line. Am not even holding my breath that I'll get a reply before Christmas if she follows her normal behaviour.
Mine will either get a brief reply from his secretary or a longer reply that's actually the party line that will be presented as his own thoughts, meanwhile he'll never know it was even sent. But it's the only thing that's really in my power to do right now so I'm doing it.

For anyone who wants to pre-empt the "it's all men refugees", this is a great piece. The TL:DR is that it's incredibly risky and expensive to become an externally-displaced refugee, even more risky for women, so most families pool their resources to finance a male relative to essentially act as a scout - go and find somewhere safe to settle so that they can then bring the rest of the family once they have the facilities. So if the UK's (pathetic) plan to take 20,000 refugees over 5 years wants to prioritise women and children they really need to prioritise the men who are escaping now.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

PeteB
Clardic Fug
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: Afghanistan

Post by PeteB » Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:59 am


User avatar
Trinucleus
Catbabel
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Trinucleus » Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:47 am

Do we have hypocrisy award?

Headline in the Expr*ss:

BIG HEARTED BRITAIN TO TAKE REFUGEES

Not if they come over in boats presumably

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Little waster » Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:34 pm

Trinucleus wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:47 am
Do we have hypocrisy award?

Headline in the Expr*ss:

BIG HEARTED BRITAIN TO TAKE REFUGEES

Not if they come over in boats presumably
Ha but Afghanistan is land-locked* ... so checkmate! :P


*my cousin despite being a Chief Petty Officer in the RN actually served in Afghanistan. They had him driving supply trucks out there for 6 months because that doesn't set off alarm bells regarding military overstretch.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Afghanistan

Post by IvanV » Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:52 pm

A lot of this mess has arisen from the confusion between the best possible result and the best result possible. When you look around at that part of the world, the best result possible was never going to be very good.

We spent a huge amount of money, quite a lot of people went to Afghanistan to "help" and ended up dead or injured, (though many more Afghans died), and Afghanistan has ended up not very far from where it started 20 years ago. "Spilt milk" in the sense of the proverb. A lot of people are now pointing to that spilt milk, and saying, surely we have to justify that with a better outcome. But that is to fall into the trap the proverb reminds us of.

What we have is not necessarily the worst result possible, or at least it hasn't got there yet. It is not yet anywhere near as bad as Syria or Yemen. It is not as bad as Libya - though there is a possibility local anti-Taliban interests will now provoke a civil war and send the place Libya-wards. It is not as bad as Somalia or Congo or North Korea or South Sudan. There are definitely quite a few worse places to live than Afghanistan just now. And quite a few of them are in what we might call "the same general area of the world" where similar general issues arise and provoke the terrible mess they are in. But there is a risk of it moving in the direction of some of these places. And if we left in a way that provokded such a downward spiral unncessarily, that would have been a mistake.

So, with that intro, I want to start thinking about what we can describe as "better" among reasonably feasible outcomes, once we recognise that we had been trying for an infeasible outcome.

Generally speaking, a stable outcome is a better outcome, in the sense that an unstable outcome is always quite appalling. Stable regimes can be utterly appalling too - North Korea for example, and several other stable regimes have committed quite unspeakable and large crimes against their people. Probably the previous Taliban regime was an example of a regime that was in the category of being unspeakably appalling, stable or not. But unstable regimes have no possibility of creating anything other than an appalling situation. Yemen, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia, etc, are so terrible because they are so unstable. I think it would be a perverse argument to say that a very unstable situation like those is our best result possible.

So, without stability, you have nothing. And that was what was untenable about the Afghan situation. It wasn't even stable. The coalition never achieved anything like stability. And there was no reasonable prospect of achieving it by those methods, and with the elected government in control. Thinking that the existing government could achieve stability was wishful thinking. And this was the fundamental problem of the strategy that we followed. And when you look around you in that part of the world, the only stable regimes are pretty unpleasant, whether heavily religious, or some heavy one-party state. Hateful as these are, they are mostly better than the unstable alternatives. They are the only thing that has a reasonable prospect of being better than the unstable alternatives. This kind of thing is probably, for the moment, what the best outcome possible was likely to look like.

I don't pretend to know what more realistic, cheaper, strategy could have closed down the Al-Qaeda operation in Afghanistan and left it moving in the direction of a stable regime that was not some kind of utterly unspeakable regime like previous Taliban regime that protected it. But I do think we aimed too high. You can argue it is noble to have tried. But if trying led to a worse outcome, I don't know.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:07 pm

Some interesting points on the roots of Islamism: https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/sta ... 30468?s=21

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Little waster » Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:34 pm

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:52 pm
I don't pretend to know what more realistic, cheaper, strategy could have closed down the Al-Qaeda operation in Afghanistan
But isn’t this the Original Sin of the Afghan Invasion? The Big Lie repeated so many times we’ve forgotten to even question it. The deliberate blurring of two distinct entities, a barbaric Taliban government in Kabul and a dispersed, loosely-affiliated terrorist global network going under the umbrella name of Al-Qaeda.

Even within Al-Qaeda there were/are marked differences between the small, essentially independent, terrorist cells across the globe and organised guerrilla training camps in the AfPak badlands. And if the last 20 years have taught us nothing else, then it has shown that there is an unimaginable gulf between sitting in a palace in Kabul sending out directives and actually dictating what is going on the lawless tribal lands where Afghanistan blurs into Pakistan. Even if the Taliban wanted rid of AQ it was never clear they could do it, we still haven’t uprooted them from our own countries. At best the Taliban and AQ were fellow travellers but more often they were openly antagonistic, resenting each other as rival power centres for the hearts and minds of the Islamic World. Toppling the Taliban to defeat AQ always made as much sense as bombing Fianna Fáil to beat the IRA, and with about the same results.

IIRC the 911 attackers had no connections with the training camps in Afghanistan, they were recruited, trained and funded in situ in Saudi Arabia, Berlin and the US itself, if Al-Qaeda had never set foot in Afghanistan 911 would have happened exactly the same. It was always a false prospectus.

Even the neocons* themselves rarely talked about toppling the Taliban to directly defeat Al-Qaeda, it was always about “draining the swamp” by replacing corrupt and sclerotic Islamic dictatorships with open and prosperous, free-market liberal democracies. The idea being that a US-style turbocapitalist (god forbid anyone suggest European-style Social Democracy) society could be simply transplanted into the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan where it would immediately flourish and once young Arab men experience the joy of playstations, Starbucks and blue jeans they would turn their back on all that Palestine and Sharia nonsense instantly robbing AQ of their recruits. These shining beacons would then force Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. to follow suit in a sort of benign Dominoes-effect (sic). With democracy spreading across the Islamic World, the Islamists (and the Palestinians) would then just magically wither away. We all saw how well that hypothesis worked out. The irony is something like that did eventually happen without any Western initiation or permission with the Arab Spring and lets say the results were mixed. The nauseating spectacle of 2011-era Blair pleading for the pro-democracy activists in Egypt to stop protesting and go home leaving Mubarak in power, and then later the same in Libya with Gadaffi, crystallised everything wrong with the whole War on Terror.

Returning to Afghanistan, those AQ training camps, were training men in guerrilla tactics not terrorism, the AQ terrorists were all being trained at home, by the Internet, by their mates, by their Imams. All Iraq and Afghanistan did was give these Islamist guerrillas a battlefield to put their training to use and the best recruiting sergeant they could ever have wished for. Once those wars started the battlefields themselves proved the best training camps. The second Bush embarked on this murderous scheme (with good intentions or foul) he handed victory to AQ even if it has taken 20 years and lakes of blood for it to reach its sad denouement but to even suggest it at the time was to be denounced as a traitor and a supporter of lslamofacism.

So the question was never “how do we close AQ operations in Afghanistan?” but instead “do we need to?”. The AQ operations in Saudi were always more pressing a threat but they are still untouchable as we need their oil.


*using the strict historically correct definition of the neocons as an ideology of idealistic liberal interventionists. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were never neocons they were just happy for them to provide ideological cover.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Afghanistan

Post by noggins » Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:28 am

Little waster wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:34 pm
Trinucleus wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:47 am
Do we have hypocrisy award?

Headline in the Expr*ss:

BIG HEARTED BRITAIN TO TAKE REFUGEES

Not if they come over in boats presumably
Ha but Afghanistan is land-locked* ... so checkmate! :P


*my cousin despite being a Chief Petty Officer in the RN actually served in Afghanistan. They had him driving supply trucks out there for 6 months because that doesn't set off alarm bells regarding military overstretch.
Good, that sounds like a sensible , flexible , cross-service use of personnel and taxpayers money.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Afghanistan

Post by IvanV » Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:32 am

Little waster wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:34 pm
IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:52 pm
I don't pretend to know what more realistic, cheaper, strategy could have closed down the Al-Qaeda operation in Afghanistan
But isn’t this the Original Sin of the Afghan Invasion? The Big Lie repeated so many times we’ve forgotten to even question it. The deliberate blurring of two distinct entities, a barbaric Taliban government in Kabul and a dispersed, loosely-affiliated terrorist global network going under the umbrella name of Al-Qaeda.
...
Even if the Taliban wanted rid of AQ it was never clear they could do it, we still haven’t uprooted them from our own countries.
...
Toppling the Taliban to defeat AQ always made as much sense as bombing Fianna Fáil to beat the IRA, and with about the same results.
We are all aware of the Big Lie of Iraq invasion. I wasn't aware there might be a Big Lie of the Afghanistan invasion too. I shall have to suspend judgment for now as this is an entirely new idea to me. But you make it look very compelling.

I can certainly see how it was so much easier to distract attention from it. Al-Qaeda bombed out of their caves. Appalling regime replaced.

They do say that if there is such a thing as a just war, then it must be one you can win. That's why we don't go bombing North Korea however terrible the regime. I thought the Iraq invasion particularly ill-advised because it placed the Afghan situation at increased risk of ending badly, through diversion of attention and resources. But from the viewpoint of today, perhaps it never could have ended well.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Afghanistan

Post by noggins » Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:43 am

Re the Big Lie.

I can see the appeal of Magic Iraq, with its oil and position.

But I cant follow the money for Afghanistan. Intervention seems completely irrational. Iraq being rational, but stupid.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan

Post by dyqik » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:06 pm

noggins wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:43 am
Re the Big Lie.

I can see the appeal of Magic Iraq, with its oil and position.

But I cant follow the money for Afghanistan. Intervention seems completely irrational. Iraq being rational, but stupid.
The motivation can still be going after Al Qaeda. It's the "and so we have to remove the Taliban entirely and build a new country" that was the moved goalpost.

The main lie is that the base of 9/11 wasn't Saudi Arabia.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Afghanistan

Post by lpm » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:28 pm

On the old forum there were various threads across the years, basically wondering why we were there. People arguing for continued intervention still aren't coming up with clear answers.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Fishnut » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:31 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:06 pm
noggins wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:43 am
Re the Big Lie.

I can see the appeal of Magic Iraq, with its oil and position.

But I cant follow the money for Afghanistan. Intervention seems completely irrational. Iraq being rational, but stupid.
The motivation can still be going after Al Qaeda. It's the "and so we have to remove the Taliban entirely and build a new country" that was the moved goalpost.

The main lie is that the base of 9/11 wasn't Saudi Arabia.
Well, there was the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline that the presence of the Taliban made more difficult to complete. And the country has about $1 trillion in mineral resources.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Afghanistan

Post by dyqik » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:34 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:31 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:06 pm
noggins wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:43 am
Re the Big Lie.

I can see the appeal of Magic Iraq, with its oil and position.

But I cant follow the money for Afghanistan. Intervention seems completely irrational. Iraq being rational, but stupid.
The motivation can still be going after Al Qaeda. It's the "and so we have to remove the Taliban entirely and build a new country" that was the moved goalpost.

The main lie is that the base of 9/11 wasn't Saudi Arabia.
Well, there was the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline that the presence of the Taliban made more difficult to complete. And the country has about $1 trillion in mineral resources.
I don't think that was much of a consideration initially. The main consideration was almost certainly "we have to be seen to hit back", and Afghanistan was the relevant target without massive international political downside.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Afghanistan

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:54 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:34 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:31 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:06 pm


The motivation can still be going after Al Qaeda. It's the "and so we have to remove the Taliban entirely and build a new country" that was the moved goalpost.

The main lie is that the base of 9/11 wasn't Saudi Arabia.
Well, there was the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline that the presence of the Taliban made more difficult to complete. And the country has about $1 trillion in mineral resources.
I don't think that was much of a consideration initially. The main consideration was almost certainly "we have to be seen to hit back", and Afghanistan was the relevant target without massive international political downside.
I agree.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq there was never an attempt by the US government to actually seize any oil or mineral resources. Iraqi oil was sold on the open market.

Some US companies made profits but it would have been vastly cheaper and less difficult to just give them some government contracts without invading. Seizing natural resources really doesn't figure as explanations for either.

Post Reply