US strikes deal w/ Taliban to remove troops from Afghanistan (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

Surprised I didn't see it posted anywhere. And to preface -- I know there are too many contextual complexities to name regarding this.

Props to this administration for pushing to get this done. Endless war shouldn't be what American citizens view as 'normal'.

This would be a huge win for Americans and Afghanis if this works out as planned:

Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war

President Trump says it is "time after all these years to bring our people back home".

www.bbc.com

The US and Nato allies have agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants uphold the deal.

President Trump said it had been a "long and hard journey" in Afghanistan. "It's time after all these years to bring our people back home," he said.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban are due to follow.

Under the agreement, the militants also agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control.

 

[Lapaz]

It should be noted that the US hadn't planned on ending their financial support of Afghanistan. That was going to continue at least through 2024. I should also be noted that the only reason we hadn't had US military deaths since April is because we were drawing down our forces and ended military engagement.

Exactly. We hadn't lost a soldier in about 17 months because we were no longer engaging militarily with troops on the ground. We were only training, maintaining equipment, and providing air support. We could've done that indefinitely, while the Afghans kept fighting on the ground. We will probably lose soldiers in the future going back in to deal with terrorists havens, which could've otherwise been dealt with by Afghan soldiers instead.

 

[SystemShock]

You keep bringing up all of the sunk costs, facts

but we had gotten Afghanistan to a point that it wasn't costing us that much in lives nor money.

It's all about "us", isn't it.

The U.S. was providing stability and guidance, which is leadership.

So, in just about every post, you mention the thousands of Afghani dying for their country, and still fighting... all while the corruption of the Afghani government was very evident for everyone to see. How in the heck can you say there was stability, or that the U.S. provided any sort of leadership?

Many were fighting to maintain the new lifestyle for their women.

HA! HA! That's funny right there.

America had a similar event in 1876, and it took us more than a century to stop fighting among ourselves.

1876? I don't think you are referring to the establishment of MLB or "can you hear me, Mr. Watson?"... so I am going to take a wild guess and say you are referring to Little Bighorn? Are you forking kidding me? Ever heard of reservations?

 

[bdb13]

And who cares if 12 year old girls are given away as brides to 50 year old men. Now the left glorifies the Taliban.

forked up world isn't it?

Sometimes there are no good choices, just decisions that have to be made.

 

[coldseat]

Exactly. We hadn't lost a soldier in about 17 months because we were no longer engaging militarily with troops on the ground. We were only training, maintaining equipment, and providing air support. We could've done that indefinitely, while the Afghans kept fighting on the ground. We will probably lose soldiers in the future going back in to deal with terrorists havens, which could've otherwise been dealt with by Afghan soldiers instead.

That's just a fundamental disagreement, I think. We kind of keep going in circles, but I just don't believe that was tenable long turn. We did it for a while and it held the Taliban at bay for the last 16 months, but the Afghan military was losing ground and losing the war. They wouldn't have won with the US just staying on the sidelines and giving advice and tepid leadership with minimal air support. Our inability to get the Afghan government to focus on building up their nation and control/limit the ramped corruption doomed them from the start.

 

[Paul]

That's just a fundamental disagreement, I think. We kind of keep going in circles, but I just don't believe that was tenable long turn. We did it for a while and it held the Taliban at bay for the last 16 months, but the Afghan military was losing ground and losing the war. They wouldn't have won with the US just staying on the sidelines and giving advice and tepid leadership with minimal air support. Our inability to get the Afghan government to focus on building up their nation and control/limit the ramped corruption doomed them from the start.

When people help themselves the results are better than when they lay back and wait for others to help.

There are 14 different tribes in Afghanistan. They do not have the nationalism of a single culture to form a united front. They share some cultural values, but are not a single strong unit. The Taliban is united by religious fanaticism and hence they are a much better fighting force. Multiculturalism is great during good times, however, it falls apart during times of stress.

 

[DaveXA]

When people help themselves the results are better than when they lay back and wait for others to help.

There are 14 different tribes in Afghanistan. They do not have the nationalism of a single culture to form a united front. They share some cultural values, but are not a single strong unit. The Taliban is united by religious fanaticism and hence they are a much better fighting force. Multiculturalism is great during good times, however, it falls apart during times of stress.

Those are some bold assumptions you're making about multiculturalism. My family is essentially multicultural and multi-racial. We haven't fallen apart during stressful times. Same goes with many of our friends...with whom we get along about as well as can be expected. So....

 

[Paul]

Those are some bold assumptions you're making about multiculturalism. My family is essentially multicultural and multi-racial. We haven't fallen apart during stressful times. Same goes with many of our friends...with whom we get along about as well as can be expected. So....

Multiple ethnic groups living together works best with the adoption of a single unifying culture that serves as an umbrella. Multiple ethnic groups with different cultures is a recipe for no unity during times of stress. 14 tribes during times of stress is not a plan for a solid unified front.

Just look at the division of America along different cultural lines.

 

[coldseat]

When people help themselves the results are better than when they lay back and wait for others to help.

There are 14 different tribes in Afghanistan. They do not have the nationalism of a single culture to form a united front. They share some cultural values, but are not a single strong unit. The Taliban is united by religious fanaticism and hence they are a much better fighting force. Multiculturalism is great during good times, however, it falls apart during times of stress.

Afghanistan can not be accurately described as multicultural. It's basically all the same culture with a number of subcultures. It's also very tribal as you say, but that's not the same as multicultural. They all basically follow the same religion, dress the same and eat the same thing.

That's really neither here nor there though. Doesn't really have to do with what I was discussing.

 

[Lapaz]

That's just a fundamental disagreement, I think. We kind of keep going in circles, but I just don't believe that was tenable long turn. We did it for a while and it held the Taliban at bay for the last 16 months, but the Afghan military was losing ground and losing the war. They wouldn't have won with the US just staying on the sidelines and giving advice and tepid leadership with minimal air support. Our inability to get the Afghan government to focus on building up their nation and control/limit the ramped corruption doomed them from the start.

Our disagreement is that I don't think the Afghans had proven to be hopeless, so I don't think it was the right time to leave. I said indefinitely, because it was costing us very little, and because that implies a circumstance based decision, not a deadline based decision. Had the Taliban taken a major capital, then I would agree that it was time to leave. I think I would've agreed that it was a lost cause if the army allowed the Taliban to take a major city, despite our aid. I don't think it was inevitable, although I will agree that it was more likely than not. I would've liked us to stay until they proved they were incapable of defending their country, and the loss of a major city would've been the indicator to me. At that point, there wouldn't have been any immorality in our decision to leave.

 

[Paul]

Afghanistan can not be accurately described as multicultural. It's basically all the same culture with a number of subcultures. It's also very tribal as you say, but that's not the same as multicultural. They all basically follow the same religion, dress the same and eat the same thing.

That's really neither here nor there though. Doesn't really have to do with what I was discussing.

Once the Soviets left the nations fragmented status was evident due to tribalism. I think this is why the USA effort in Afghanistan failed. They do not have much unity as a people. That is why the Army was not good enough to fight. This was a major disappointment to Biden.

 

[SystemShock]

Our disagreement is that I don't think the Afghans had proven to be hopeless, so I don't think it was the right time to leave. I said indefinitely, because it was costing us very little, and because that implies a circumstance based decision, not a deadline based decision. Had the Taliban taken a major capital, then I would agree that it was time to leave. I think I would've agreed that it was a lost cause if the army allowed the Taliban to take a major city, despite our aid. I don't think it was inevitable, although I will agree that it was more likely than not. I would've liked us to stay until they proved they were incapable of defending their country, and the loss of a major city would've been the indicator to me. At that point, there wouldn't have been any immorality in our decision to leave.

It's not that the Afghani are hopeless, is that the situation was hopeless.

It is obvious you think the Taliban is some sort of invading entity alien to Afghanistan. The Taliban are Afghani, and they have been fighting for their country for decades, waging holy war against invaders, first against Russia when they were mujaheddin; and yes, in their eyes, the U.S. are invaders too, and see those who fight alongside the invaders as traitors to their country and their religion.

The Taliban may not had a seat in a governor's office, but as evidenced by their swift take over, they had the Afghani people with them; not all of the people, sure, but a number sizable enough that they didn't oppose this take over, and that is something to say for a region in which people fight civil wars like it was the national pastime.

Ironic that you keep saying you wanted U.S. troops to stay until the Afghani proved they were incapable of defending their country, when the Taliban just did that... took them 20 years, but they made the enemy spent $2,000,000,000,000 (and counting, the spending has not ended), killed 2000+ U.S. troops, and maimed who knows how many more, but in the end, they defended their country yet again.

As for the morality of it... well... you have to go back more than 2 decades to figure that one out.

 

[Paul]

It's not that the Afghani are hopeless, is that the situation was hopeless.

It is obvious you think the Taliban is some sort of invading entity alien to Afghanistan. The Taliban are Afghani, and they have been fighting for their country for decades, waging holy war against invaders, first against Russia when they were mujaheddin; and yes, in their eyes, the U.S. are invaders too, and see those who fight alongside the invaders as traitors to their country and their religion.

The Taliban may not had a seat in a governor's office, but as evidenced by their swift take over, they had the Afghani people with them; not all of the people, sure, but a number sizable enough that they didn't oppose this take over, and that is something to say for a region in which people fight civil wars like it was the national pastime.

Ironic that you keep saying you wanted U.S. troops to stay until the Afghani proved they were incapable of defending their country, when the Taliban just did that... took them 20 years, but they made the enemy spent $2,000,000,000,000 (and counting, the spending has not ended), killed 2000+ U.S. troops, and maimed who knows how many more, but in the end, they defended their country yet again.

As for the morality of it... well... you have to go back more than 2 decades to figure that one out.

The Taliban are right wing religious fundamentalists, no different than some Trumpers. I am surprised you have sympathy for them.

 

[zztop]

Now the left glorifies the Taliban.

you going to site your resources to where you got this information/thought/opinion from? Or is this just something you came up with on your own?

 

[Paul]

you going to site your resources to where you got this information/thought/opinion from? Or is this just something you came up with on your own?

Here are a few things forum members have said. They love the Taliban.

The Taliban are Afghani, and they have been fighting for their country for decades, waging holy war against invaders, first against Russia when they were mujaheddin; and yes, in their eyes, the U.S. are invaders too.

I don't think we've see any ISIS style murdering and pillaging at this point.

I am not saying that the Taliban deserves the benefit of the doubt, but so far it just looks like the Taliban is taking control over the government structures that were already in place, they aren't trying to burn it all to the ground.

I doubt they are going to establish a Malala scholarship for girls or anything, but it seems to me that people's fear of the Taliban is what is causing most of the panic, rather than the actions of the Taliban during their return to power.

 

[not2rich]

Here are a few things forum members have said. They love the Taliban.

Neither of those quotes is an example of "glorification," and even though I disagree with a lot of the sentiment being expressed on this thread, your statement above is completely untrue.

 

[Paul]

Neither of those quotes is an example of "glorification," and even though I disagree with a lot of the sentiment being expressed on this thread, your statement above is completely untrue.

The Taliban is a hyper conservative fundamentalist religious movement. They are a billion times worse than the most evangelical fundamentalists in America. They do not deserve any words that remotely resembles acceptance or kindness. I understand some folks think the "enemy of my enemy" is my friend and hence see them as a positive, however, that is a mistake.

 

[not2rich]

The Taliban is a hyper conservative fundamentalist religious movement. They are a billion times worse than the most evangelical fundamentalists in America. They do not deserve any words that remotely resembles acceptance or kindness. I understand some folks think the "enemy of my enemy" is my friend and hence see them as a positive, however, that is a mistake.

Neither of the comments you quoted "remotely resemble acceptance or kindness." Maybe the lack of unequivocal condemnation has you confused as to what "acceptance or kindness" actually means.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The Taliban is a hyper conservative fundamentalist religious movement. They are a billion times worse than the most evangelical fundamentalists in America. They do not deserve any words that remotely resembles acceptance or kindness. I understand some folks think the "enemy of my enemy" is my friend and hence see them as a positive, however, that is a mistake.

This is just asinine, there's not a single person here that believes any of the crap you just spouted. And then you make the comparison to U.S. evangelical fundamentalists, who btw have been flirting with some of the finer points of Sharia Law. I suggest you go back, workshop your ideas and then come back with a more sound argument.