>More than 1,000 Afghan soldiers have fled to neighbouring Tajikistan after clashing with Taliban militants, officials have said. The troops retreated over the border to "save their own lives", according to a statement by Tajikistan's border guard.
>Violence has risen in Afghanistan, with the Taliban launching attacks and taking more territory in recent weeks. The surge coincides with the end of Nato's 20-year military mission in the country. The vast majority of remaining foreign forces in Afghanistan have been withdrawn ahead of a September deadline, and there are concerns that the Afghan military will collapse.
>Under a deal with the Taliban, the US and its Nato allies agreed to withdraw all troops in return for a commitment by the militants not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control. But the Taliban did not agree to stop fighting Afghan forces, and now reportedly control about a third of the country.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57720103
How long do you reckon it'll be until we're back in Afghanistan? Will China and Iran give it a go?
It seems to be forgotten that as shit as their recent performance has been, the Afghan national army has been fighting this whole time. They've taken more casualties than the US suffered in Vietnam despite coming from a country with a population smaller than ours. And for what? A flagrantly corrupt government full of human rights abusing warlords, kleptomaniacs and carpet-baggers? Their foreign allies, who've made it abundantly clear they had little to no idea what was going on at any given time and who, in the end, hoped only that the ANA would be able to delay things long enough for the diplomats to leave in BA Club Class rather than the same fleet of helicopters used in Saigon?
There's something distasteful about comfortable people in functional countries pretending to be confused why someone would just give up when faced with such a situation, staring down inevitable long-run defeat. (And thanks to Miles we know exactly what British citizens actually do when stuck in such a horrible place: We don't stay and fight the Taliban because it's The Right Thing To Do, we do a panicked jog from safehouse to safehouse until the Turks take us in.)
>>35120 They're cowards, lad. They surrendered without a fight to an enemy they knew would destroy their home, they ran knowing what would happen to the people behind them. The DRA managed to put up a fight.
>>35121 >They're cowards, lad.
I dunno, I'm guessing there's probably more going on than the majority of the hundreds of thousands of people recruited to the army just happening to be cowards.
>>35123 From what I've read, the numbers in the Afghan army were vastly inflated so that generals/war lords could claim their fictitious salaries and the ones that did exist generally weren't trusted with ammunition because they had a habit of selling on the bullets.
The liberal firsherperson "invading Afghanistan was a good thing actually" angle in the media is getting to mind bending levels of surrealism honestly. There's nothing they won't turn identity politics on now. Here's a good analysis.
>That’s exactly the problem: all these statements seem to rest on the assumption that the occupation of Afghanistan was a good thing for women and girls – something Hilary Clinton herself claims.
>But it absolutely wasn’t. Nearly 70,000 civilians were killed and injured in the US’s longest-running war – many of whom were women.
>But the violence has been entirely legitimised or brushed over by claims that women and girls in Afghanistan once again need Western rescue efforts – as if the people being murdered are just collateral damage.”
>>35127 >getting to mind bending levels of surrealism honestly
In what sense, the Taliban are by all account bloody nasty people to women. The women of which are now speaking about it and making NATO feel awkward:
It's identity politics but one that would be perfectly understandable to anyone pre-21st century, just rephrase it to an ethnic group if you feel confused. In 2001 the narrative was precisely supported by that woman getting executed in a sports stadium which did later turn into a place women could go for reasons other than being killed. Yesterday the Taliban spokesman defended Sharia law by referencing how Arab countries get to do their thing.
Now I'm not saying we should impose a brutal totalitarian regime on the country until it becomes civilised but identity politics isn't a Godwin.
>Dear British fisherpersons, Western military intervention is never a good thing
>“The British government should take a lead in offering a refugee programme and reparations to rebuild Afghanistan, an act which would go a great deal further in advancing the rights of the Afghan people, women in particular, than continued military or economic intervention in the fate of Afghanistan.”
>>35127 I don't think the invasion of Afghanistan was a good thing, but the advancement of women's rights was a good thing that happened only because of the invasion. A happy accident, if you'll permit me to be glib.
Is there any particular reason why Afghan women don't fight the Taliban? I mean, warfare these days is less a case of physical strength and more being able to point and shoot a gun. Even a woman should be capable of that. Only logical explanation they don't want to liberate themselves is because they love a bad boy.
And there was everyone worrying the Taliban wouldn't match other countries behaviour.
>>35132 Are there any examples of them shooting at Taliban?
How would the Taliban even go about retaking a city when the heaviest equipment they have are pick-up trucks. It took Assad years of urban warfare even with tanks and aircraft - laplanderstan can't possibly spare those.
>>35133 >Protests against Afghan Taliban spread in early signs of resistance
>Flag-waving protesters took to the streets of more Afghan cities on Thursday as popular opposition to the Taliban spread, and a witness said several people were killed when the militants fired on a crowd in Asadabad in the east. "Our flag, our identity," a crowd of men and women waving black, red and green national flags shouted in the capital Kabul, a video clip posted on social media showed, on the day Afghanistan celebrates independence from British control in 1919. A witness reported gunshots fired near the rally, but they appeared to be armed Taliban shooting in the air.
>One woman walked with an Afghan flag wrapped around her shoulders, and those marching chanted "God is greatest". At some protests elsewhere, media has reported people tearing down the white flag of the Taliban. A Taliban spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
>Some of the demonstrations are small, but, combined with the ongoing scramble by thousands of people to get to Kabul airport and flee the country, they underline the challenge the Taliban face to govern the country. Since seizing Kabul on Sunday, the Taliban have presented a more moderate face to the world, saying they want peace, will not take revenge against old enemies and will respect the rights of women within the framework of Islamic law.
>In Asadabad, capital of the eastern province of Kunar, several people were killed during a rally, but it was not clear if the casualties resulted from Taliban firing or from a stampede that it triggered, witness Mohammed Salim said. "Hundreds of people came out on the streets," Salim said. "At first I was scared and didn't want to go but when I saw one of my neighbours joined in, I took out the flag I have at home. Several people were killed and injured in the stampede and firing by the Taliban." Protests also flared up in the city of Jalalabad and a district of Paktia province, both also in the east. On Wednesday, Taliban fighters fired at protesters waving flags in Jalalabad, killing three, witnesses and media reported. Media reported similar scenes in Asadabad and another eastern city, Khost, on Wednesday.
>First Vice President Amrullah Saleh, who is trying to rally opposition to the Taliban, expressed support for the protests. "Salute those who carry the national flag and thus stand for dignity of the nation," he said on Twitter. Saleh said on Tuesday he was in Afghanistan and the "legitimate caretaker president" after President Ashraf Ghani fled as the Taliban took Kabul.
>In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Ahmad Massoud, leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan based in the old anti-Taliban stronghold of the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul, called for Western support to fight the Taliban. "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," wrote Massoud, the son of Ahmad Shah Massoud, a veteran guerrilla leader killed by suspected al Qaeda militants in 2001. Other former Afghan leaders including ex-president Hamid Karzai have been holding talks with the Taliban as they put together a new government.
>While Kabul has been generally calm since Taliban forces entered on Sunday, the airport has been in chaos as people rushed for a way out of the country. Twelve people have been killed in and around the airport since then, a NATO and a Taliban official said. The deaths were caused either by gun shots or by stampedes, according to the Taliban official. He urged people who do not have the legal right to travel to go home. "We don't want to hurt anyone at the airport," said the Taliban official, who declined to be identified.
>On Wednesday, witnesses said Taliban gunmen prevented people from getting into the airport compound. A Taliban official said soldiers had fired into the air to disperse the crowd. Gunmen unleashed sustained fire into the air on Thursday at several entrances to the airport, sending the crowds, including women clutching babies, scattering. It was not clear if the men firing were Taliban or security staff helping U.S. forces inside.
>Under a pact negotiated last year by former President Donald Trump's administration, the United States agreed to withdraw its forces in exchange for a Taliban guarantee they would not let Afghanistan be used to launch daft militant wog attacks. The Taliban also agreed not to attack foreign forces as they left. U.S. President Joe Biden said U.S. forces would remain until the evacuation of Americans was finished, even if that meant staying past an Aug. 31 U.S. deadline for withdrawal.
>>35133 >How would the Taliban even go about retaking a city when the heaviest equipment they have are pick-up trucks. It took Assad years of urban warfare even with tanks and aircraft - laplanderstan can't possibly spare those.
The taliban have been killing people consistently through 20 years of occupation. They're not a regular army and they have plenty of sympathisers and supporters in every one of those cities. The Afghan army didn't dare put up any resistance because they were likely as scared of being shot in the back or having an IED planted in their barracks as they were of an actual frontal attack.
So they won't be able to take a city and when they act as one they will get btfo by any resistance. Remember how hard the Americans had to go at Mosul or later how the same city took the Iraqi army years to retake after most of the cities defender ran away.
>Muh fifth column
So like those Afghan civilians that were waving weapons around. If it's a fifth column then it's a civil war of which we've had plenty in recent memory. Why be so keen to make excuses?
>>35152 I have no idea what points you're trying to make here?
It is incredibly hard to capture a city where the defenders are disperse, ununiformed, and using civilians as shields. History has shown this time and time again, and is why Assad resorted to indiscriminate killing with barrel bombs and alleged chemical weapons. But I don't get how this is relevant to this situation where a standing army retreated instead of actually fighting?
>So like those Afghan civilians that were waving weapons around. If it's a fifth column then it's a civil war of which we've had plenty in recent memory. Why be so keen to make excuses?
What? Who is making excuses for what?
No ones saying there was a massive fifth column turning on the army, but it's pretty clear that there were enough members of the taliban already operating in the cities to effectively demoralise regular army attempting to form any real defence, if not completely sabotage it.
>How would the Taliban even go about retaking a city when the heaviest equipment they have are pick-up trucks.
The Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police were completely dysfunctional due to corruption, tribal rivalries and a shortage of people with enough education to run an effective leadership.
The Taliban were active all over Afghanistan, they controlled a number of remote areas, but with the support provided by the Americans, the ANA and ANP could just barely hold back the tide. The American presence in Afghanistan wasn't particularly large, but it had a disproportionate impact due to the high level of skills and the comparatively huge resources at their disposal.
When the Yanks left, the Afghan government collapsed almost overnight because it was obvious to everyone that they wouldn't be able to mount an effective resistance. The Americans took all of the planes with them, all of the armoured vehicles and heavy artillery, all of the high-tech gubbins and all of the expertise and supply needed to keep all of that stuff running. The Taliban didn't fight their way into Kabul, they just walked in.
Ordinary Afghans could have fought back, but they knew all too well that it would be a futile gesture. The Taliban are scrappy by the standards of an army, but they have very well established structures of leadership, communications and supply. They were capable of taking on the Afghan National Army and they are more than capable of crushing any resistance.
More to the point, Afghanistan has been a warzone for most of the last two centuries. The Taliban aren't an invading force like ISIS, they're just the latest in a long succession of warlords. You don't survive for very long in that environment unless you learn to keep your head down and let the people with guns get on with it. If by some miracle the Afghan people manage to fight off the Taliban, then what? There'd just be a bloody big power vacuum for another generation of warlords to fight over. If the Americans couldn't create a functioning government after twenty years and trillions of dollars, the Afghans certainly can't do it on their own.
A lot of them are barely literate. They're for most intents and purposes just a ragtag group of uneducated religous extremists with Kalashnikovs and other assorted weapons, who really don't like women having any rights.
The biggest disgrace is still that the West just upped and left and allowed these savages to roll back almost in an instant twenty years of efforts of turning Afghanistan into a civilised nation. And when the Afghanistan adventure is now framed as a success by NATO because, hey, twenty years with no 9/11-scale daft militant wog attacks on the West, then that only adds to the ignominy for those whose country has had to endure 40 years of almost constant meddling, and bombing, by foreign powers, and who are now human targets for the Taliban because they collaborated with the West.
>The biggest disgrace is still that the West just upped and left and allowed these savages to roll back almost in an instant twenty years of efforts of turning Afghanistan into a civilised nation.
Maybe that should be a lesson to us about cultural imperialism, even if the poor precious womenfolk are being mistreated.
We had no business being there, and even if we did we have been humbled quite thoroughly. if we wanted to clean up our cold war loose ends, there would have been much more efficient ways to do it than invasion.
The truth is our sole interest in the middle east is maintaining instability. The current media narrative about Afghanistan merely serves to manufacture consent for any potential future action we fancy getting up to in the area.
>>35153 >It is incredibly hard to capture a city where the defenders are disperse, ununiformed, and using civilians as shields. History has shown this time and time again, and is why Assad resorted to indiscriminate killing with barrel bombs and alleged chemical weapons. But I don't get how this is relevant to this situation where a standing army retreated instead of actually fighting?
Because if you follow the post chain we're talking about a gaggle of civilians waving weapons around. The army could've easily defended the city, a shitty militia could defend the city, assaulting cities is nearly impossible even for proper armies much less an irregular army having to go street to street in their flipflops.
>demoralise regular army attempting to form any real defence, if not completely sabotage it.
It's a siege during a civil war so not a unique situation.
>>35155 The ANA had huge resources at their disposal and much of which has now ended up in Tajikistan. They didn't even try to fight and it's not like smaller groups couldn't have held onto areas despite the lack of central leadership.
>The Americans took all of the planes with them, all of the armoured vehicles and heavy artillery
Nope. The Afghans even have specifically been using prop planes because they're ideally suited and armoured vehicles were abandoned, artillery equally existed. Afghan planes literally took off and went to Tajikistan. There's a lot of finger pointing going on towards NATO and yet even Syrian canon fodder during the The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war weren't as useless.
>>35158 >Maybe that should be a lesson to us about cultural imperialism, even if the poor precious womenfolk are being mistreated.
I had no idea basic human rights was 'cultural imperialism'. Maybe we should engage in more of it? A kind of sneering imperialist visage rather than your cultural relativist belief that some people just aren't up for it.
I would at least prefer it if your sort had some consistency in your application of it, yes.
If you want to use women's rights as a reason to intervene in Afghanistan, there's a long list of other countries you're going to have to invade as well; but somehow I think you might balk at the prospect of invading literally every country between Israel and China and telling them to stop making women live in cupboards and chopping bits off them.
I still wouldn't agree it was the right thing to do, but I'd at least respect you for having some consistency in your principles, instead of only bringing it up when it's halfway convenient because in truth you actually don't give the slightest of a mid-air fuck.
>>35161 >I would at least prefer it if your sort had some consistency in your application of it, yes.
This isn't a hard calculation really, it's a balance universalist human rights against pragmatic concerns of sovereignty and doability. Obviously the international community fails to live up to the basic calculation but it's generally held that sovereignty stops somewhere, albeit getting hazy beyond threatening others, you rather notice the rule when states justify their actions with language like anti-daft militant wog actions.
This doesn't really apply here as the Taliban aren't the recognised government of Afghanistan and the original legal justification for being there is at minimum a strong argument. Staying there beginning with the UNSC resolution on the creation of ISAF is much stronger. Going beyond that it's not a war scenario but a nation building scenario which nobody really cares about and ideas that states export in their international relations. Indeed it's arguable that NATO now has a responsibility to intervene given we're seeing ethnic cleansing going on and we're the only legitimate force left in Afghanistan outside of Panjshir.
(Remember, you're the one who has turned this into a force argument and not a civilising debate)
>instead of only bringing it up when it's halfway convenient because in truth you actually don't give the slightest of a mid-air fuck.
Ironic as you clearly don't give a fuck. Although I suspect if you had abuse in your proximity or it's refugee boats in the channel then mysteriously you do care.
>>35163 Go back to the linguistics department, Noam.
>'Nam 2.0
Why not Korean DMZ Conflict 1.02 or Cuban Pete (the king of the rumba beat) lo-fi mix?
You're following an analyst who doesn't understand what Rare Earth's are nor that the US has been fine with China in Afghanistan for years. The worry is legitimate that China well, has, cosied up to the Taliban because Xi thought prioritises 'development' over human rights and international stability. That should be criticised along with anyone else who breaks international consensus on a threat to international security.
>>35162 >This isn't a hard calculation really, it's a balance universalist human rights against pragmatic concerns of sovereignty and doability.
Surely the lesson of the last 40 years has been that Afghanistan is on the wrong side of doability?
When the Soviets rocked up and leveled entire villages on behalf of their own half-puppet half-crazed local government the resultant state managed to outlast the USSR itself. When we rocked up to "nation build" the nation couldn't even wait until the last US forces had fucked off before imploding. If anything the record's getting worse.
When China goes in they should take the free market solution: break Afghanistan up into 8 smaller countries, give their mates one each and have them compete to see who makes the best Babystan after 20 years. I'm putting my money on the Australians.
>>35165 China doesn't play that game.
They'll do exactly what they've been doing in African countries, which is to promise lots of money, build infrastructure to move minerals out of the country, and work some accounting magic to leave them in permanent debt.
All they've got to do is keep the Taliban happy (bribed) enough to let them get on with it in peace, and maybe export a few Uighur brides.
>A Spanish Twitter account with an Apu Apustaja frog avatar has successfully negotiated with the Taliban for fair and humane treatment of Spanish citizens at the nation’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The Spanish government had seemingly failed to establish a clear and open line of communication with the Taliban, inspiring the owner of the frog-avatar account to take action.
>“Nangarhar’s sweet district was completely conquered,” Taliban spokesperson Mansoor Afghan announced on August 14, to which the account @panamach2 reached out to respond using Google translate, “Hello brother, please don’t hurt the Spanish people at the embassy, we were forces in your country by America. We don’t like them either.”
>>35169 >Taliban reiterates on Twitter assurance of preexisting self-interested policy to leave foreign troops alone
Not quite as interesting when you remove the invented clickbait.
>>35172 I wonder if anime will chill the Taliban out once they start accessing to it. Someone should commission an Islamic series to get them into it - Moehammad running late for his first day of Jihad with toast in his mouth.
>The State Department on Tuesday expressed concerns over the makeup of the new interim Afghan government announced by the Taliban, including the lack of female leaders
Right. That's what's wrong with the Taliban. No female leaders.
>>35239 Yes, I'd argue the rampant mysogyny is a massive problem with the Taliban. However, the cheek of the US State Department to say things like this while being best mates with Gulf Arab states and the Egyptian government is beyond.
>while being best mates with Gulf Arab states and the Egyptian government
If a less-than-democratic Mideastern leader plays ball with the West, then what's a few human rights violations here and there. They're our allies, y'know.
Just look at Saudi Arabia, a country which still has a dismal track record of women's rights. How many times have you heard the West say, "Erm, we really don't like you doing that".
