The US and NATO is planning to pull out of Afghanistan by September this year. What is Your view on that ? A good idea ?

Personally I am sceptical, but I think that 20 years is enough. We can't get stuck in Afghanistan forever and I don't see what more we can do at the moment. I think the operations in Afghanistan was flawed from the get go. We have certainly killed a lot of terrorists, including bin laden and if that is what you regard as success then OK, but we have not been able to stabalize the country and I do not believe we have made it a much better place for the Afghan people. In order to win a war you need to ge the local people on your side and on your side from the get go. You need to make the place better than what it was. I believe we failed at that.

It's a double-edged sword. The country is by no means ready for a stable run of government sufficient to keep radical elements from seizing power, but western countries' patience have run out in terms of having people and materiel on the ground there. Perhaps there would have been far more resources available to support Afghanistan without the expense and distraction of several years in Iraq.

I think removing the Taliban was the right thing to do. If the country goes back to being led by them, harboring terrorists etc., then blockade them, sanction them. We tried one thing, it failed, some people there resent it, what else is there to do ?

Imagine if after 20 years of US/French/UK/Soviet occupation, Germany was in chaos, with a strong Nazi element ready to seize back power ! It's difficult to imagine. And we wouldn't have left because Germany is in the middle of "us". But Afghanistan is not our problem at the end of the day.

Oh well, another failed state helped along by the west. The selfish in me wants the giant buddhas recreated/put back together.

Also if our real beef is with fundamentalist Sunni Islam (and it is) then we should start by dealing with the countries promoting this heinous ideology.

Aesma wrote:

Also if our real beef is with fundamentalist Sunni Islam (and it is) then we should start by dealing with the countries promoting this heinous ideology.

Europe, Asia, nor the US have been weaned from Saudi and Emirati oil, lol.

Aesma wrote:

Also if our real beef is with fundamentalist Sunni Islam (and it is) then we should start by dealing with the countries promoting this heinous ideology.

Defenders of those countries would be quick to point out they don't promote it...they just fund its growth. The actual rulers don't care one way or the other about piety.

The border of countries in the area should be redrawn to match ethnic line in order to reduce tension.

c933103 wrote:

The border of countries in the area should be redrawn to match ethnic line in order to reduce tension.

Perhaps we should put the UK in charge of cleaning up the mess they left behind?

In the year 2000 Afghanistan had 20 million inhabitants, now 40 million.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... population

Reminds me of the British in India.
However since independence Indian population grew from around 350 million to about 1,2 billion or so. So let's see if Afghanistan is going to shrink population through slaughter or follow the Indian way.
What if the US had to enforce a two child policy in villages and one child in cities?

As with everything, the US needed a plan when you attack a country, a plan to exit. The Taliban surrendered quite fast, but the US refused to move on. That was the key moment to have a chance to really change Afghanistan for the better. We can not imagine that today, but in the 1960-ish, Afghanistan was a very liberal place full of hippies.

Hopefully, Afghanistan will find a way to have a peaceful way forward.

Sokes wrote:

In the year 2000 Afghanistan had 20 million inhabitants, now 40 million.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... population

Immense growth rate.

Afghanistan’s population is growing at a rate of 2.33% per year. The country is seeing negative net migration due to internal conflict; however, its fertility rate of 4.56 births per woman still pushes the population up. Because of the high fertility rate, the population is very young, with a median age of 18.4 years.

Especially the median age is very low, not good for a country to have such a young population. 50% of the nation's inhabitants were born when the NATO/US/Coalition forces were in the country.

What a mess. GB2 campaigned against 'nation building', then ......

ps - agree with just about every post previous, a couple posts do not agree, I agree with both.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the citizens of the USA wanted blood revenge against al-Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan for supporting them. All we got was the Taliban and other Afghanistan tribes ripping the USA off with in effect bribes and due to the culture of the region, impossible to get control over by Western powers.

We are in a never-win situation and someone had to finally make the necessary long-term decision to leave but no one wants that shame of having 'lost' a war. Almost immediately after the announcement by Pres. Biden, Republicans have bashed the proposed withdrawal as fears it will allow al-Qaeda and ISIS to grown again with bases in Afghanistan, in a stretch, that it increases the risk to 'Islamic' terrorism in the USA and to destroy Israel. Of course the Republicans have forgotten that their President, Trump, had as a major policy goal to get the USA out of Afghanistan and seemed to support it. Hypocrites to the bone.

Other issues to some is that we will have 'lost to the terrorists', make us look weaker vs. China and Russia as have 'given up', much like after the Vietnam War. Likely in the vacuum of the USA and allies' withdrawal will see China swoop in with 'soft power' there for trade, to get access to critical mineral wealth for their industrial needs (as has done in some countries in Africa). Sadly there will be no 'peace dividend' from our withdrawal as likely a shift to deal with the expansionist plans of China and to keep Russia in place as well as to keep the MIC well funded.

c933103 wrote:

The border of countries in the area should be redrawn to match ethnic line in order to reduce tension.

This would probably solve 90% of world conflicts.

For more than 2.000 years nobody has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan, which leads to the logical conclusion that it's simply not possible for outsiders to come in and tell them how to run their show. Arrogance, however, will usually prevail over something as mundane as facts and, well, here we are.

I appreciate the desire for revenge following 911, but it's also fair to say that the plan to invade, displace the Taliban, catch OSM, occupy and install a "friendly western minded" government was always going to fail. The plan should have been "invade, displace the Taliban, get OSM, leave". This is a people which simply cannot be ruled by outsiders, and as barbaric, backwards and inhumane we may find their way of ruling themselves is, it's still their train-set to play with. If change is going to happen, it must come internally and not be forced upon by external forces.

So if you're asking me, the decision to pull out is roughly 9 years overdue, and it's about bloody time someone realised mission: impossible only becomes mission: possible in Hollywood flicks.

It's the epitome of irony that OSM was eventually found in Pakistan.

Remember how back in 2009 all the news reports were talking about how there was no political will within NATO to stay any longer? What's been achieved since then?

If only we - the west - hadn't spent most of the past twenty years arming the mostly corrupt Afghan National Army up to the teeth. It's going to be awkward when the Taliban overthrows them and has all that flash weaponry.

There's a fantastic documentary called 'This Is What Winning Looks Like' made by Vice's Ben Andersen. It's a fascinating look behind the scenes of how the Afghan Police and Afghan National Army's incompetence and corruption alienates most of the local population despite the best efforts of Western Peacekeepers. The government militias are little more than Warlords. And in many cases much worse.... How the American soldiers manage to have so much patience with them, I'll never know. The worst thing about this doco is that it's from 2011/12 - nearly ten years ago. What has improved since then? How much money has been flushed down the toilet since then?

https://youtu.be/BKHPTHx0ScQ

B777LRF wrote:

So if you're asking me, the decision to pull out is roughly 9 years overdue, and it's about bloody time someone realised mission: impossible only becomes mission: possible in Hollywood flicks.

But why 9 years and not 15 years?

B777LRF wrote:

It's the epitome of irony that OSM was eventually found in Pakistan.

Perhaps a more surgical approach would have been better.

It is not impossible that the Taliban will be back this year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56747158

I do worry about the future of the Region. The Taliban is still highly active and a strong force, but at the end of the day, I think Russia and the US have given over 40 years to a cause that is only winnable from the internal side.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/1 ... sap-481950

The Pentagon will likely first reinforce the roughly 3,500 troops currently in Afghanistan with logistics and security to ensure a safe withdrawal, said the defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss future plans. That could mean sending additional personnel into the country before the full exit, but the details are still being worked out.

The 3500 troops present currently is a testament to the current semi-stability in the region. It is far lower than the peak years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %93present)#/media/File:Afghanistan_Troop_Strength.svg

Will Afghanistan succumb to the Taliban again? Time will tell.

B777LRF wrote:

For more than 2.000 years nobody has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan, which leads to the logical conclusion that it's simply not possible for outsiders to come in and tell them how to run their show. Arrogance, however, will usually prevail over something as mundane as facts and, well, here we are.

I appreciate the desire for revenge following 911, but it's also fair to say that the plan to invade, displace the Taliban, catch OSM, occupy and install a "friendly western minded" government was always going to fail. The plan should have been "invade, displace the Taliban, get OSM, leave". This is a people which simply cannot be ruled by outsiders, and as barbaric, backwards and inhumane we may find their way of ruling themselves is, it's still their train-set to play with. If change is going to happen, it must come internally and not be forced upon by external forces.

So if you're asking me, the decision to pull out is roughly 9 years overdue, and it's about bloody time someone realised mission: impossible only becomes mission: possible in Hollywood flicks.

It's the epitome of irony that OSM was eventually found in Pakistan.

Problem here is, "Afghanistan" is not one single entity. It have its regular civilian and then there is Taliban controlling some entity that the civilian government cannot control. Nowadays US military presence can help inhibit Taliban attack against the civilian government controlled territory but that's where it stop.

Extremists will probably attack India. Something will happen based in Afghanistan. Just like always.

Mortyman wrote:

The US and NATO is planning to pull out of Afghanistan by September this year. What is Your view on that ? A good idea ?

Personally I am sceptical, but I think that 20 years is enough. We can't get stuck in Afghanistan forever and I don't see what more we can do at the moment. I think the operations in Afghanistan was flawed from the get go. We have certainly killed a lot of terrorists, including bin laden and if that is what you regard as success then OK, but we have not been able to stabalize the country and I do not believe we have made it a much better place for the Afghan people. In order to win a war you need to ge the local people on your side and on your side from the get go. You need to make the place better than what it was. I believe we failed at that.

1. NATO should never have been involved. Neither should NZ or Australia.

2. The US jumped in and they should stay until they have rebuilt and fixed the mess they have made, if it take 50 years it takes 50 years.

seb146 wrote:

Extremists will probably attack India. Something will happen based in Afghanistan. Just like always.

They don’t even share a border with India. When was the last time Afghan extremists attacked India?

Kiwirob wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

The US and NATO is planning to pull out of Afghanistan by September this year. What is Your view on that ? A good idea ?

Personally I am sceptical, but I think that 20 years is enough. We can't get stuck in Afghanistan forever and I don't see what more we can do at the moment. I think the operations in Afghanistan was flawed from the get go. We have certainly killed a lot of terrorists, including bin laden and if that is what you regard as success then OK, but we have not been able to stabalize the country and I do not believe we have made it a much better place for the Afghan people. In order to win a war you need to ge the local people on your side and on your side from the get go. You need to make the place better than what it was. I believe we failed at that.

1. NATO should never have been involved. Neither should NZ or Australia.

2. The US jumped in and they should stay until they have rebuilt and fixed the mess they have made, if it take 50 years it takes 50 years.

Agreed, but PM Howard was joined at the hip with the Bush administration. Personally it would have been better to make Gulf states that send money to radical Central Asian madrassas pay for all the cost of Afghan reconstruction...however long it takes.

It’s high time to get out. Time to end the forever wars. I’ll only believe it when I see it though...September is still quite a ways away, plenty of time for the hawks to move the goal posts.

Kiwirob wrote:

2. The US jumped in and they should stay until they have rebuilt and fixed the mess they have made, if it take 50 years it takes 50 years.

It was a mess well before the US got there.

flyguy89 wrote:

It’s high time to get out. Time to end the forever wars. I’ll only believe it when I see it though...September is still quite a ways away, plenty of time for the hawks to move the goal posts.

Just a minor note - the Korean War is still not officially over and our people and materiel are still there 68 years later. Afghanistan is nothing compared to that.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

It’s high time to get out. Time to end the forever wars. I’ll only believe it when I see it though...September is still quite a ways away, plenty of time for the hawks to move the goal posts.

Just a minor note - the Korean War is still not officially over and our people and materiel are still there 68 years later. Afghanistan is nothing compared to that.

Neither of these opinions are incorrect.

Afghanistan offers no value to any would-be conqueror since Alexander needed a path to India. The Korean conflict will remain stable so long as China has no desire to take in NK refugees by the millions.

I can think of far better things to spend our money on that will not alter the state of affairs within the US, the EU, and more or less everywhere that are not these places.

flyguy89 wrote:

It’s high time to get out. Time to end the forever wars. I’ll only believe it when I see it though...September is still quite a ways away, plenty of time for the hawks to move the goal posts.

Kiwirob wrote:

2. The US jumped in and they should stay until they have rebuilt and fixed the mess they have made, if it take 50 years it takes 50 years.

It was a mess well before the US got there.

There is no denying that, but the US made it a mess on a much larger scale that spilled over to allied countries.

B777LRF wrote:

It's the epitome of irony that OSM was eventually found in Pakistan.

When did OBL become OSM?

Wasn't there Lithium found there ? Maybe China can send 5000 soldiers there if it means they can grab that.

Cynic mode : maybe the Afghan government can hire 3500 Blackwater types and win the war thanks to taking no prisoners ?

Aesma wrote:

Wasn't there Lithium found there ? Maybe China can send 5000 soldiers there if it means they can grab that.

It is probably cheaper to just pay the local warlords to mine it for them.

How China deals with it will be interesting to follow. China already extracts oil from north eastern Afghanistan. They invested in copper mining. China constructed a military base "for the Afghan army" in the same region, and started training Afghan troops in late 2018. China and Afghanistan are connected via a spit of land. It wouldn't surprise me a great deal if China ends up sort of annexing parts of Afghanistan, but in a much more insidious and brutal manner than the Soviets and Americans used. Can't have an insurgency if the entire indigenous population is sent to reeducation camps and ethnic Chinese citizens are sent repopulate the region.

We should've pulled out once OBL was killed. That was our reason for going in, that should've been our reason for getting out. We weren't there for "nation building", we were there to kill the people who attacked us on 9/11. Nation building doesn't work in A-stan.

Don't worry, I'm sure Washington will find a new play ground to start a new war .. The US has been hellbent on a war with Iran for decades now and who knows, maybe China ...

Unfortunately for the USA, their mindset is / was to assist the nations in rebuilding and putting in place governments that recognize and have a place at the table for all parties in the nation. Once the invasion of Iraq was over they could have left, but they remained to try to ensure that a nation was built, we all know the price.
Afghanistan was somewhat different, the initial invasion was a surgical strike, just as with Iraq, they attempted to set up inclusive governments, the only way to allow that to happen was to deploy more troops to ensure safety. Neither worked because those willing to have inclusive governments are not as extremist as those against.

The Taliban will be in control of the country in due course, what we need to see is whether the rest of the world makes them a legitimate government.

Mortyman wrote:

Don't worry, I'm sure Washington will find a new play ground to start a new war .. The US has been hellbent on a war with Iran for decades now and who knows, maybe China ...

Never China, they're too much of a peer. Hopefully, not Iran either. If their neighbors have a problem with them let them deal with it. They could if they wanted to, but too many of their own people would die. They'd rather have the Americans do their fighting for them. It has to stop.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Extremists will probably attack India. Something will happen based in Afghanistan. Just like always.

They don’t even share a border with India. When was the last time Afghan extremists attacked India?

They don't share a border with the United States, either...

Mortyman wrote:

Don't worry, I'm sure Washington will find a new play ground to start a new war .. The US has been hellbent on a war with Iran for decades now and who knows, maybe China ...

REPUBLICANS have been wanting war with Iran.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Extremists will probably attack India. Something will happen based in Afghanistan. Just like always.

They don’t even share a border with India. When was the last time Afghan extremists attacked India?

They don't share a border with the United States, either...

When did Afghans attack the United States?

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

They don’t even share a border with India. When was the last time Afghan extremists attacked India?

They don't share a border with the United States, either...

When did Afghans attack the United States?

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in AFGHANISTAN when GWB decided it just wasn't a big deal to find him because WMDs were all over Iraq.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

They don't share a border with the United States, either...

When did Afghans attack the United States?

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in AFGHANISTAN when GWB decided it just wasn't a big deal to find him because WMDs were all over Iraq.

It’s a stretch to say Afghanistan attacked the US, they didn’t most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis as is OBL, when they didn’t find him in Tora Bora, because he’d already moved to Pakistan the US should have left, but they didn’t they decided to stay and play. Note the US didn’t invade Pakistan who harboured and quietly supported him.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

When did Afghans attack the United States?

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in AFGHANISTAN when GWB decided it just wasn't a big deal to find him because WMDs were all over Iraq.

It’s a stretch to say Afghanistan attacked the US, they didn’t most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis as is OBL, when they didn’t find him in Tora Bora, because he’d already moved to Pakistan the US should have left, but they didn’t they decided to stay and play. Note the US didn’t invade Pakistan who harboured and quietly supported him.

Yes, this point has fallen by the wayside over the years and shouldn't, just as the continued DC silence over Saudi involvement in 9/11 quietly continues. The hope at the time was that the Pakistani government would link up with radical tribal elements and they'd eventually take care of the Taliban, but the various tribes in Pakistan don't like their government much either, and strange bedfellows stabbing each other in the back is par for the course in the region. Stupid all the way around.

As an India, I am and would probably sound biased a bit but that I guess is human nature.

The way I see it, Taliban will take over for sure. China, Pakistan and Russia will all have the spoils of war. I am sure people remember the book Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. I am afraid that things are going to be much more bad than were described in the book.

FWIW, I had been to Qatar/Doha. It probably would take 50-100 years to make Afghanistan something like that, even though by western standards Qatar may not be great, but it probably is far better than Afghanistan today. And while I haven't been in Afghanistan, although few people whom I know who went there, they had very positive experiences in Afghanistan.

The average Afghan host is supposed to be very warm and hospitable.

Sadly, both Pakistan and China will help Taliban to occupy the power. It makes sense to have a single warlord then to negotiate with many when you want to take out oil. Minerals, lithium whatever. And unlike the West, it would be more practical, transactional relationship. They won't care what happens in Afghanistan.

zkojq wrote:

There's a fantastic documentary called 'This Is What Winning Looks Like' made by Vice's Ben Andersen.
...

https://youtu.be/BKHPTHx0ScQ

Thanks for posting.
A few thoughts:
-The best predictor for peace is a lack of conflict for some decades. I don't remember exactly how long.
-The British in India controlled 60% of land with 80% of population. The thinly populated areas they left to be ruled by local princes. These were not fully autonomous.
-One can't expect people grown in poverty not to be corrupt.
-Gandhi: "Reform always comes at a snails pace. " I believe changing existing generations is close to impossible. One has to start with the new generation. Hopefully those were proper nourished in early life. Otherwise academic potential will be very low.
-A parliament made of locals is a good idea. A judiciary made of locals is a bad idea.
-Self determination of countries is an ideology not supported by evidence. Even for the US there is a hypothesis that a risk of losing the cold war in Africa was necessary for the Kennedies to push their racial reforms. Very often it is outside influence that brings change for the better.
-Napoleon did not succeed completely. 1814/ 1815 there was the Congress of Vienna and restauration of monarchies. Still some ideas already got stuck.

As much as I dislike US intervention in the stable states of Libya and Syria, I can imagine they may have been a blessing to Afghanistan. To believe the US could have built a functioning state in 20 years after generations of warfare is utopian. Well, it worked for Germany. But then Germany didn't have tribal mentality. Also children/ woman decreased strongly since the 1920s.

Living in India I know about India. But many Indians see things radically different from myself. Who is to say who is right?
Obviously only Afghans, maybe neighbors and US soldiers can really know about it. And even they may be wrong.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

When did Afghans attack the United States?

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in AFGHANISTAN when GWB decided it just wasn't a big deal to find him because WMDs were all over Iraq.

It’s a stretch to say Afghanistan attacked the US, they didn’t most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis as is OBL, when they didn’t find him in Tora Bora, because he’d already moved to Pakistan the US should have left, but they didn’t they decided to stay and play. Note the US didn’t invade Pakistan who harboured and quietly supported him.

Your fellow Kiwis were "playing" there until quite recently. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/1 ... tan-in-may

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in AFGHANISTAN when GWB decided it just wasn't a big deal to find him because WMDs were all over Iraq.

It’s a stretch to say Afghanistan attacked the US, they didn’t most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis as is OBL, when they didn’t find him in Tora Bora, because he’d already moved to Pakistan the US should have left, but they didn’t they decided to stay and play. Note the US didn’t invade Pakistan who harboured and quietly supported him.

Your fellow Kiwis were "playing" there until quite recently. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/1 ... tan-in-may

I know and I’m disgusted that we got involved, they were no threat to NZ, nor were they a threat to Norway, this was just another American folly that other countries were sucked into.

What even is the alternative at this point?

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Extremists will probably attack India. Something will happen based in Afghanistan. Just like always.

They don’t even share a border with India. When was the last time Afghan extremists attacked India?

Yup. That is the possibility. They can join hands with the 'Pakistani Extremists' and attack India for 'Kashmir Cause' or anyother 'Religious Causes'.

Sharing a border is not required to attack a country. If your 'Nearby Neighbour' shares the same ideology then it is fine to 'Launch An Attack' against anyother country, as in this case, India.

As the saying goes, 'The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend'.

Aaron747 wrote:

It's a double-edged sword. The country is by no means ready for a stable run of government sufficient to keep radical elements from seizing power, but western countries' patience have run out in terms of having people and materiel on the ground there. Perhaps there would have been far more resources available to support Afghanistan without the expense and distraction of several years in Iraq.

Nothing much was done to achieve anything productive over those two decades by the invaders.

Blowing up festivities, seeding the lands with the remains of DU munitions, corruption out of bounds fed by money from the invaders.
soldiers in gated communities that shoot at anything when they have to step outside. poppy production the highest ever.

The natives really have no perspective. Add that infusing weapons to the "neolithic" islamist tribes to frustrate the Soviets
turned the society upside down. Just imagine a US were the rednecks from flyover country have full power over the whole state.

aerosreenivas wrote:

As the saying goes, 'The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend'.

Not really up front as cause.

Look at who moves all the "Mercenary Nomads of Jihad" around.

Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria, ... and back.
The majority of conflicts today are synthetic.
A nice word here, some rich story dropped there. the people next village over eat your children .. make jokes about your god ..

aerosreenivas wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Extremists will probably attack India. Something will happen based in Afghanistan. Just like always.

They don’t even share a border with India. When was the last time Afghan extremists attacked India?

Yup. That is the possibility. They can join hands with the 'Pakistani Extremists' and attack India for 'Kashmir Cause' or anyother 'Religious Causes'.

Sharing a border is not required to attack a country. If your 'Nearby Neighbour' shares the same ideology then it is fine to 'Launch An Attack' against anyother country, as in this case, India.

As the saying goes, 'The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend'.

The question was when have they ever done this, nobody has answered it and as for Kashmir the people should be allowed to choose.

Long overdue. We have zero national interest.