Depressing reports.

BBC News - Afghanistan: Fighting rages as Taliban besiege three key cities
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58040141

And yes, of course they'll take care of anybody who cooperated with our peace missions. And install a fundamentalist regime.

While we do our best to look the other way and inhale every feelgood story anybody comes up with.

Makes you re-think about our foreign strategies and policies. What did we learn here? What did our soldiers die for, what about the locals? Unwelcome questions pop up.

Isn't it the plan to let Taliban take over the country when the US decided to retreat from it, as everyone know the Afghanistan government have not enough force to defend itself against Taliban?
And wasn't it the ground that caused the US passed law allowing Afghans base worker move to the US, which appears to me a vefy late decision considering how things have already been developing?
The US nowadays should not and do not have resources to govern and polive the world, is something I keep seeing in political discussion im.the US, and hence people want to retreat from.auch faraway places that offer no visible benefits from the US. But as the US president Biden claim doing so is to refocus their resources onto countering new challenges fron China and Russia and Indo-Pacific region, maybe they forget that Afghanistan is also a key part of the region, situated between China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia. Is it conductive to tje stated goal to essentially hand over Afghanistan to the other camp despite maintaining order in the country have been costing a lot and yielding little for the US?

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.

keesje wrote:

Makes you re-think about our foreign strategies and policies. What did we learn here? What did our soldiers die for, what about the locals? Unwelcome questions pop up.

Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.

keesje wrote:

Makes you re-think about our foreign strategies and policies. What did we learn here? What did our soldiers die for, what about the locals? Unwelcome questions pop up.

Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

I don't think the US has any skills where country occupation after military victory is concerned. What really irks me is that the Brits are prepared to support the US even though the US doesn't have a clue what to do once the opposition has been defeated. Worse still the US won't listen to more competent allies.

I expect that within a few months Afghanistan (most of) will be controlled by Taliban. One of their factions - Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly also has designs on controlling parts of Pakistan. Promises to be a big mess. How to spend a trillion dollars and fail to change anything!

art wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.

keesje wrote:

Makes you re-think about our foreign strategies and policies. What did we learn here? What did our soldiers die for, what about the locals? Unwelcome questions pop up.

Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

I don't think the US has any skills where country occupation after military victory is concerned. What really irks me is that the Brits are prepared to support the US even though the US doesn't have a clue what to do once the opposition has been defeated. Worse still the US won't listen to more competent allies.

I expect that within a few months Afghanistan (most of) will be controlled by Taliban. One of their factions - Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly also has designs on controlling parts of Pakistan. Promises to be a big mess. How to spend a trillion dollars and fail to change anything!

I completely agree and have to wonder what it would look like had we never gone in.

Well let's be honest it was bound to happen as soon as Western forces leave. Could spend another ten or twenty years there and you'd have the same result as soon as troops are withdrawn. But with more lives and money wasted in the meantime. There's no good solutions as far as Afghanistan is concerned. My heart does break for all the people who will be executed in cold blood, the moderates who will have to live under Taliban rule and the ladies who won't be able to get an education.

art wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.

keesje wrote:

Makes you re-think about our foreign strategies and policies. What did we learn here? What did our soldiers die for, what about the locals? Unwelcome questions pop up.

Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

I don't think the US has any skills where country occupation after military victory is concerned. What really irks me is that the Brits are prepared to support the US even though the US doesn't have a clue what to do once the opposition has been defeated. Worse still the US won't listen to more competent allies.

I expect that within a few months Afghanistan (most of) will be controlled by Taliban. One of their factions - Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly also has designs on controlling parts of Pakistan. Promises to be a big mess. How to spend a trillion dollars and fail to change anything!

The Brits failed also. Their skills from Northern Ireland didn't translate well. Read Blood, Metal and Dust by Ben Barry, a British general. It covers the whole Afghanistan/Iraq debacle.

johns624 wrote:

art wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.


Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

I don't think the US has any skills where country occupation after military victory is concerned. What really irks me is that the Brits are prepared to support the US even though the US doesn't have a clue what to do once the opposition has been defeated. Worse still the US won't listen to more competent allies.

I expect that within a few months Afghanistan (most of) will be controlled by Taliban. One of their factions - Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly also has designs on controlling parts of Pakistan. Promises to be a big mess. How to spend a trillion dollars and fail to change anything!

The Brits failed also. Their skills from Northern Ireland didn't translate well. Read Blood, Metal and Dust by Ben Barry, a British general. It covers the whole Afghanistan/Iraq debacle.

Really if you take a look at most of military history, occupation rarely works out well for the occupier. Unless the territory was already highly disputed (meaning the occupants wanted you there) or if you go the old fashioned route, it usually only worked because you killed everyone there and moved your people in.

You take the average American or British (or whoever) soldier and they don’t care about Afghanistan, and really, why should they? They’re thousands of miles from home in a country that could get wiped off the Earth, and it would have no impact on their normal lives back home.

It was never going to work. Afghanistan in particular is not a country in the traditional sense. It’s been tried over and over again, with no success

Unfortunate situation for sure, but then again you cannot babysit the entire world all the time. In the end, the local people "have to grow up" and learn to take care of themselves.
Yes, train them well but in the end they have to take over the baton.

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition. Which, in turn, would have raised GDP, employed millions of people, and prepared us for the serious challenges which lie ahead. Instead, left devastation in the mid east and in the US. We could have used a small percent of those trillions$$$ to bribe mid east countries into doing a little bit of improving their country.

Also, the American electorate needs to look into the mirror. How many of you on this forum vote for a congress man or woman who in turn voted to send troops to Afghanistan or the Middle East to topple a dictator and leave the country in ruins?

Fact is if the local troops can't or won't stand against the Taliban, then what is the point of having foreign boots on the ground.

Besides if the Taliban can get men to fight, but the government in Kabul cannot, then who the legitimate government?.

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.

That would have to be the first lesson, plan for the post-war period. It’s easy to blow stuff up and send the bad guys into hiding. The hard part is the whole reconstruction period and in particular the hearts and minds side of it. This is something that post WW2 the USA has never really been good at.

Another thing to consider, if you invade a country with a weak or non-existent central government, then it will take time for the people to accept a central government over their local tribal/religious/warlord leader.

Realistically, that would have to be measured in decades. I think it is fair to say that 2 or 3 generations would have to live under a stable government that provides at least basic education, policing and infrastructure.

That’s not something the USA, or any other nation for that matter, is willing or able to commit to.

Read up on the First, Second and Third Anglo-Afghan wars, then the Russian experience before us—it was ever thus going back to Alexander the Great. Afghans like to fight, go figure. Back to the 18th century for them.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition. Which, in turn, would have raised GDP, employed millions of people, and prepared us for the serious challenges which lie ahead. Instead, left devastation in the mid east and in the US. We could have used a small percent of those trillions$$$ to bribe mid east countries into doing a little bit of improving their country.

Spare me. Have you actually seen the “devastation” in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar? The Ritz in Doha or the Marquise Marriott in Dubai are quite civilized, the cities are very safe, I’ve been out past midnight without fear, every modern amenity you could desire. Iraq now actually votes, are not happy with Iranian influence and don’t want a theocracy. Egypt is Egypt, but not devastated. Israel is among the most advanced technological countries in the world. Syria is a mess, but after 50 years of al Assad rule it couldn’t be otherwise. Lebanon has always been the playground for many factions, local and European, Beirut was nice and safe the last time I was there, prior to Syria’s implosion. Walked from the Phoenician to the Soldare for dinner several times or cabbed from the Movenpick.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition. Which, in turn, would have raised GDP, employed millions of people, and prepared us for the serious challenges which lie ahead. Instead, left devastation in the mid east and in the US. We could have used a small percent of those trillions$$$ to bribe mid east countries into doing a little bit of improving their country.

Spare me. Have you actually seen the “devastation” in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar? The Ritz in Doha or the Marquise Marriott in Dubai are quite civilized, the cities are very safe, I’ve been out past midnight without fear, every modern amenity you could desire. Iraq now actually votes, are not happy with Iranian influence and don’t want a theocracy. Egypt is Egypt, but not devastated. Israel is among the most advanced technological countries in the world. Syria is a mess, but after 50 years of al Assad rule it couldn’t be otherwise. Lebanon has always been the playground for many factions, local and European, Beirut was nice and safe the last time I was there, prior to Syria’s implosion. Walked from the Phoenician to the Soldare for dinner several times or cabbed from the Movenpick.

Those places appear ‘civilized’ to anyone with $$$ to spend...or perhaps flight crew put up in a nice hotel. Ask EK/QR crew what the management culture is like. Ask the taxi driver from Bangladesh what they think of the place. Ask the Indian hotel manager who is only there because the locals buy degrees instead of studying biz-ad. Ask the Filipina nurses who have to moonlight as hookers. There’s a whole lot of scene staging with mountains of BS for a foundation.

What has the Afghan government done over the past 20 years? Other then sell opium? I think they wanted the US to say forever so they did as little as possible. Sorry for the local population, but some people have no vision and prefer to be dominated by dictatorship (whatever you want to call the Taliban).

SRQLOT wrote:

What has the Afghan government done over the past 20 years? Other then sell opium? I think they wanted the US to say forever so they did as little as possible. Sorry for the local population, but some people have no vision and prefer to be dominated by dictatorship (whatever you want to call the Taliban).

I think the actual point is expecting workable government in a country composed of yesteryear tribal elements is unrealistic. How are they realistically supposed to govern? Most of the non-drug trade economy is in Kabul, and that's also where the educated people are. The government itself has been a revolving door of moneyed interests keeping a closed circuit of corruption going. The rest of the country is living their own way in another time and place. If you have a suggestion for how to effectively govern there, the world is all ears.

Western attitude also needs to change. The idea of Western Neo-Imperialism, telling other countries (especially those in Asia and Africa) how to run their affairs, should be placed in the garbage bin.
Afghanistan et al. will need to take care of itself. Too bad if that means the Taliban will run the place for a while. However, if part of the Afghan population is horrified at that prospect or worked with Western powers in the past and are therefore in danger, by all means we should welcome them in the West and offer them a new home.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition. Which, in turn, would have raised GDP, employed millions of people, and prepared us for the serious challenges which lie ahead. Instead, left devastation in the mid east and in the US. We could have used a small percent of those trillions$$$ to bribe mid east countries into doing a little bit of improving their country.

Spare me. Have you actually seen the “devastation” in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar? The Ritz in Doha or the Marquise Marriott in Dubai are quite civilized, the cities are very safe, I’ve been out past midnight without fear, every modern amenity you could desire. Iraq now actually votes, are not happy with Iranian influence and don’t want a theocracy. Egypt is Egypt, but not devastated. Israel is among the most advanced technological countries in the world. Syria is a mess, but after 50 years of al Assad rule it couldn’t be otherwise. Lebanon has always been the playground for many factions, local and European, Beirut was nice and safe the last time I was there, prior to Syria’s implosion. Walked from the Phoenician to the Soldare for dinner several times or cabbed from the Movenpick.

Those places appear ‘civilized’ to anyone with $$$ to spend...or perhaps flight crew put up in a nice hotel. Ask EK/QR crew what the management culture is like. Ask the taxi driver from Bangladesh what they think of the place. Ask the Indian hotel manager who is only there because the locals buy degrees instead of studying biz-ad. Ask the Filipina nurses who have to moonlight as hookers. There’s a whole lot of scene staging with mountains of BS for a foundation.

I’m well aware of all that, but how did the US create those problems? BTW, you must hang out in bad places, the hookers I’ve seen were all Russian or Ukrainian. They are Westernized, but they are civilized. You can be quite safe, the food and drink won’t kill you and they happen to be popular vacation places. What they are not is devastated by the US MIL.

Dieuwer wrote:

Western attitude also needs to change. The idea of Western Neo-Imperialism, telling other countries (especially those in Asia and Africa) how to run their affairs, should be placed in the garbage bin.
Afghanistan et al. will need to take care of itself. Too bad if that means the Taliban will run the place for a while. However, if part of the Afghan population is horrified at that prospect or worked with Western powers in the past and are therefore in danger, by all means we should welcome them in the West and offer them a new home.

Been replaced by Chinese neo-imperialism. The Chinese don’t bother with imposing their way, they just bankrupt their governments.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Spare me. Have you actually seen the “devastation” in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar? The Ritz in Doha or the Marquise Marriott in Dubai are quite civilized, the cities are very safe, I’ve been out past midnight without fear, every modern amenity you could desire. Iraq now actually votes, are not happy with Iranian influence and don’t want a theocracy. Egypt is Egypt, but not devastated. Israel is among the most advanced technological countries in the world. Syria is a mess, but after 50 years of al Assad rule it couldn’t be otherwise. Lebanon has always been the playground for many factions, local and European, Beirut was nice and safe the last time I was there, prior to Syria’s implosion. Walked from the Phoenician to the Soldare for dinner several times or cabbed from the Movenpick.

Those places appear ‘civilized’ to anyone with $$$ to spend...or perhaps flight crew put up in a nice hotel. Ask EK/QR crew what the management culture is like. Ask the taxi driver from Bangladesh what they think of the place. Ask the Indian hotel manager who is only there because the locals buy degrees instead of studying biz-ad. Ask the Filipina nurses who have to moonlight as hookers. There’s a whole lot of scene staging with mountains of BS for a foundation.

I’m well aware of all that, but how did the US create those problems? BTW, you must hang out in bad places, the hookers I’ve seen were all Russian or Ukrainian. They are Westernized, but they are civilized. You can be quite safe, the food and drink won’t kill you and they happen to be popular vacation places. What they are not is devastated by the US MIL.

I didn’t say the US created it, another poster did. The US did enable it though.

No bad areas, in DXB I stayed near the old city to be closer to museums. The bad areas are north of the airport.

Anyway civilized is a facade - you’re still talking about surface stuff. Make a post critical of the place while staying there and you may get an unpleasant response from the authorities. And god forbid you should have a traffic accident with a local - the fault will be yours regardless of what’s caught on camera. Buddy of mine at EK found out the hard way.

art wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.

keesje wrote:

Makes you re-think about our foreign strategies and policies. What did we learn here? What did our soldiers die for, what about the locals? Unwelcome questions pop up.

Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

I don't think the US has any skills where country occupation after military victory is concerned. What really irks me is that the Brits are prepared to support the US even though the US doesn't have a clue what to do once the opposition has been defeated. Worse still the US won't listen to more competent allies.

I expect that within a few months Afghanistan (most of) will be controlled by Taliban. One of their factions - Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly also has designs on controlling parts of Pakistan. Promises to be a big mess. How to spend a trillion dollars and fail to change anything!

I'm not a Pakistani cheerleader but maybe that would lead them to go in and deal with their neighbor, they might be more successful than westerners...

frmrCapCadet wrote:

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition.

Raytheon, LockMart, Honeywell, etc. thank you for your service as a taxpayer.

Aaron747 wrote:

I didn’t say the US created it, another poster did. The US did enable it though.

No bad areas, in DXB I stayed near the old city to be closer to museums. The bad areas are north of the airport.

Anyway civilized is a facade - you’re still talking about surface stuff. Make a post critical of the place while staying there and you may get an unpleasant response from the authorities. And god forbid you should have a traffic accident with a local - the fault will be yours regardless of what’s caught on camera. Buddy of mine at EK found out the hard way.

So they are nationalistic ensuring that their citizens come first and foreigners are second class citizens, but they are not responsible for the deeper troubles that exist in their country?

par13del wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I didn’t say the US created it, another poster did. The US did enable it though.

No bad areas, in DXB I stayed near the old city to be closer to museums. The bad areas are north of the airport.

Anyway civilized is a facade - you’re still talking about surface stuff. Make a post critical of the place while staying there and you may get an unpleasant response from the authorities. And god forbid you should have a traffic accident with a local - the fault will be yours regardless of what’s caught on camera. Buddy of mine at EK found out the hard way.

So they are nationalistic ensuring that their citizens come first and foreigners are second class citizens, but they are not responsible for the deeper troubles that exist in their country?

Who said they are not responsible? If by ‘they’ you mean the Gulf states being talked about.

So saying the US enabled it is a misunderstanding on my part of them not being responsible.
Ok.

par13del wrote:

So saying the US enabled it is a misunderstanding on my part of them not being responsible.
Ok.

Well yes, that is not a fact in dispute. The British enabled development of Gulf powers pre-WW2 and the US after (Bahrain/UAE/Qatar not till early 70s). They are not responsible for the work ethic or cultural values in the region.

Can we please keep this thread on topic, subject of discussion are not the shortcomings of certain countries besides Afghanistan. Thanks.

I think instead of trying to blame nations (who got wide support at the time) we better think about new approaches, respecting local culture and needs.

Maybe even pro actively. Seldom healthy, developing countries get into deep trouble like Afghanistan. Maybe we look around for countries at risk send trucks and create jobs instead of sending aircraft carriers to "defend" our something.

Now China will probably step in, quickly putting down road infrastructure, railroads, hospitals, powerplants and IT infrastrucuture, without asking for political reform. The way they have been doing for 20 years.

keesje wrote:

I think instead of trying to blame nations (who got wide support at the time) we better think about new approaches, respecting local culture and needs.

Maybe even pro actively. Seldom healthy, developing countries get into deep trouble like Afghanistan. Maybe we look around for countries at risk send trucks and create jobs instead of sending aircraft carriers to "defend" our something.

Now China will probably step in, quickly putting down road infrastructure, railroads, hospitals, powerplants and IT infrastrucuture, without asking for political reform. The way they have been doing for 20 years.

I question whether The Taliban is motivated by any of those things. When China goes in and does all of these wonderful things they demand repayment in full, on schedule and with exorbitant interest. Sure it's nice not to be told to abide by certain values so you can keep burning 12 year old girls at Friday night prayers. Regardless, the first missed payment triggers a 99 year occupation of whatever crown jewel you have. I have a feeling China's playbook will end up working as poorly as the Soviet's and American's. The Taliban prefers a 14th Century lifestyle and I trust they'll be reminded daily of the shabby treatment China metes out to their brothers and sisters. Let's see what happens to all the fancy infrastructure projects.

One thing potentially more dangerous about China is that they have a very low regard for human rights, especially Muslims (Uighurs).
I can imagine, any incursion by China into Afghanistan will be absolutely ruthless. Perhaps they will even use tactical nuclear weapons against the Taliban if they feel the need.

Traditionally we, the west, have always started to position our (local) adversaries as evil ones, threatening us. We have to, if they are blokes - daddies who love soccer - have caring mothers - feel obligation to protect their country, our young guys might hesitate shooting, bombing them. No place for cowards, commies.

Maybe we need to step over the centuries old way of reviewing, judging situations and programming ourselves.

keesje wrote:

Traditionally we, the west, have always started to position our (local) adversaries as evil ones, threatening us. We have to, if they are blokes - daddies who love soccer - have caring mothers - feel obligation to protect their country, our young guys might hesitate shooting, bombing them. No place for cowards, commies.

Maybe we need to step over the centuries old way of reviewing, judging situations and programming ourselves.

Everybody does this, not just your perceived "evil" west.

I think the prognosis is not good for Afghanistan. I am not very well informed but with the US and other countries leaving the taliban are likely to take control of most if not all of the country. I understand that the TTP 'offshoot' of the taliban shelters near Pakistan and has designs on taking control of some parts of Pakistan adjacent to the Afghan border. That could drag Pakistan (ally of China) into conflict in border areas. India appears to want to support the existing government. China's president has just met up with Afghan taliban representatives.

Whatever happens, it promises to be very messy.

Is it legal for Afgan citizens to own firearms to protect their families?

I guess this sectarian violence will go on forever.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Is it legal for Afgan citizens to own firearms to protect their families?

The central government has no power outside the major cities, some of them anyway. There are armed religious zealots roaming the land. The finer points of legality are not really on anyone’s mind.

Who knows, maybe in a few years the NRA will finally have their example of a polite society where everyone is armed to the teeth. I would not bet on it if I were you.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Is it legal for Afgan citizens to own firearms to protect their families?

I guess this sectarian violence will go on forever.

This is a country where the law is largely irrelevant. No point in asking.

Why the US were Foolish to think that we could "Nation-build" in the area, drawn up by the Brits, as Afghanistan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab9zK8yT4_Y

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Why the US were Foolish to think that we could "Nation-build" in the area, drawn up by the Brits, as Afghanistan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab9zK8yT4_Y

Nation building in AG is possible in theory, but requires a multigenerational, multinational commitment. Cannot be done in a few decades' time. Until then it will be a refuge for radicals who can't risk operating in more developed places.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition. Which, in turn, would have raised GDP, employed millions of people, and prepared us for the serious challenges which lie ahead. Instead, left devastation in the mid east and in the US. We could have used a small percent of those trillions$$$ to bribe mid east countries into doing a little bit of improving their country.

Spare me. Have you actually seen the “devastation” in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar? The Ritz in Doha or the Marquise Marriott in Dubai are quite civilized, the cities are very safe, I’ve been out past midnight without fear, every modern amenity you could desire. Iraq now actually votes, are not happy with Iranian influence and don’t want a theocracy. Egypt is Egypt, but not devastated. Israel is among the most advanced technological countries in the world. Syria is a mess, but after 50 years of al Assad rule it couldn’t be otherwise. Lebanon has always been the playground for many factions, local and European, Beirut was nice and safe the last time I was there, prior to Syria’s implosion. Walked from the Phoenician to the Soldare for dinner several times or cabbed from the Movenpick.

The US, thankfully has never invaded the above mentioned countries. If it had, the places would probably be something of a mix between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Syria is the only country where the west stuck it's nose in and if it wasn't for Russia's cleanin up the mess created, Syria would be worse off than Afghanistan right now.

Let's guess how this plays.. Afghanistan will become a basket case, Pakistan will claim that the very forces they back are going to destabilise their country, they'll beg the USA again for military aid to 'secure the borders' and use those weapons to point towards India...

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Why the US were Foolish to think that we could "Nation-build" in the area, drawn up by the Brits, as Afghanistan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab9zK8yT4_Y

Didn't Russia try to "nation build" Afghanistan in 1980? From that, how could we think it would turn out any different? Let Pakistan and China try to "nation build" Afghanistan. This is the definition of insanity.

Afghanistan comprises many tribal regions, separated by mountainous regions and pass chokepoints. These people have been fighting each other, toppling/assassinating rulers for as long as I can remember. You'll never make a "nation" out of that. It's just the way it is. The only way to partially "rule" over such a country is by brutal dictatorship. It will never be tamed by any means because of the physical geographical setup.

I don't think that China wants to give it try. They might be smart enough to have learned from the mistakes of Britain, Russia, and the United States. Dabbling in Pakistan is all that China wants to do.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/2 ... -live-news

This looks like Afghanistan will once again go into a Civil War. The Taliban is bad for Afghanistan, but they took over prior to 9/11 and they will continue to rule that area.

Medecins Sans Frontieres does such good work in that area, great respect.

tu204 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

What we have spend in the mid-east would have brought the US infrastructure to A or A+ condition. Which, in turn, would have raised GDP, employed millions of people, and prepared us for the serious challenges which lie ahead. Instead, left devastation in the mid east and in the US. We could have used a small percent of those trillions$$$ to bribe mid east countries into doing a little bit of improving their country.

Spare me. Have you actually seen the “devastation” in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar? The Ritz in Doha or the Marquise Marriott in Dubai are quite civilized, the cities are very safe, I’ve been out past midnight without fear, every modern amenity you could desire. Iraq now actually votes, are not happy with Iranian influence and don’t want a theocracy. Egypt is Egypt, but not devastated. Israel is among the most advanced technological countries in the world. Syria is a mess, but after 50 years of al Assad rule it couldn’t be otherwise. Lebanon has always been the playground for many factions, local and European, Beirut was nice and safe the last time I was there, prior to Syria’s implosion. Walked from the Phoenician to the Soldare for dinner several times or cabbed from the Movenpick.

The US, thankfully has never invaded the above mentioned countries. If it had, the places would probably be something of a mix between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Syria is the only country where the west stuck it's nose in and if it wasn't for Russia's cleanin up the mess created, Syria would be worse off than Afghanistan right now.

Russia was part of the mess in Afghanistan.

And of course there are right now more than twice more refugees from Syria than there are from Afghanistan, talk about a cleanup !

johns624 wrote:

art wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's depressing but also...what is the alternative? We were there for 20 years, after going in with *zero* plan for nation building once we toppled the Taliban the first time.


Nothing. We learned nothing. We never do. We need to feed the military-industrial complex for Jesus and we'll probably do it again somewhere else. Just stand for the anthem and don't ask any questions.

I don't think the US has any skills where country occupation after military victory is concerned. What really irks me is that the Brits are prepared to support the US even though the US doesn't have a clue what to do once the opposition has been defeated. Worse still the US won't listen to more competent allies.

I expect that within a few months Afghanistan (most of) will be controlled by Taliban. One of their factions - Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly also has designs on controlling parts of Pakistan. Promises to be a big mess. How to spend a trillion dollars and fail to change anything!

The Brits failed also. Their skills from Northern Ireland didn't translate well. Read Blood, Metal and Dust by Ben Barry, a British general. It covers the whole Afghanistan/Iraq debacle.

I would like to point out the work we (1 Royal Anglian) did in Sangin with the locals before we handed over to the USMC, to which they bulldozed half the town. We actually learned alot about supporting and communicating with locals and that all went down the toilet when the handover was complete.

readytotaxi wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres does such good work in that area, great respect.

It might become too dangerous for them to continue their work.

It will soon be.
Talibans are remnants of the middle age armed with modern weapons.