The US War in Afghanistan

[McLaren]

Has anyone read the text of the Doha agreement? I was curious and so I read it...it's not long

via state department website: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/up...or-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

Considering Trump criticized the Iran deal so harshly for being too lenient on the Iranians...this deal sure doesn't appear to constrain the Taliban very much. Notably, it doesn't even attempt to bind them from...like...taking over Afghanistan, just that if they happen to do so that they won't train terrorists. It has far more constraints on the United States, if anything - point 1F is particularly broad and restrictive:



So if we abide by these terms, we cannot even threaten to use force against the Taliban to safeguard the passage of US Citizens or Afghan refugees. Who wrote this? It's like a college freshman level document. It also explicitly calls for removing Taliban members from sanctions (with no apparent conditions) and releasing all prisoners - we shouldn't be surprised that the Taliban has done just that.

We signed on the dotted line and the bar for the Taliban violating this agreement is quite high - they don't appear to have done so yet. I'm curious as to why the Trump administration even negotiated with the Taliban to begin with - was the hope that they wouldn't try to take over Afghanistan? Because that doesn't seem to be supported in the text.

"Great negotiators" means they sucked up to him and he gave them everything they asked for. It's far from a secret by this point, the way to get Trump to agree with anything is to boost his ego & make it seem like he'll get all the glory for it.

Had a GM like that, easiest way to get anything done from him when I needed something.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm not entirely sure that threatening to use force against the Taliban (or anyone) who obstructs passage of US citizens or refugees constitutes "against the territorial integrity or political Independence of Afghanistan".

That being said, accepting refugees, or doing just about anything in Afghanistan, probably constitutes intervening in its domestic affairs. Heck, just condemning subjugation of women is intervening in its domestic affairs. It's almost impossible not to.

Territorial integrity seems pretty vague & broad. If the Taliban established control over an airport in the US, I think we would agree that would be a violation of our territorial integrity.

 

[Keef]

Has anyone read the text of the Doha agreement? I was curious and so I read it...it's not long

via state department website: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/up...or-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

Considering Trump criticized the Iran deal so harshly for being too lenient on the Iranians...this deal sure doesn't appear to constrain the Taliban very much. Notably, it doesn't even attempt to bind them from...like...taking over Afghanistan, just that if they happen to do so that they won't train terrorists. It has far more constraints on the United States, if anything - point 1F is particularly broad and restrictive:



So if we abide by these terms, we cannot even threaten to use force against the Taliban to safeguard the passage of US Citizens or Afghan refugees. Who wrote this? It's like a college freshman level document. It also explicitly calls for removing Taliban members from sanctions (with no apparent conditions) and releasing all prisoners - we shouldn't be surprised that the Taliban has done just that.

We signed on the dotted line and the bar for the Taliban violating this agreement is quite high - they don't appear to have done so yet. I'm curious as to why the Trump administration even negotiated with the Taliban to begin with - was the hope that they wouldn't try to take over Afghanistan? Because that doesn't seem to be supported in the text.

I know Chrunch has read it because I linked it to him a few days ago.

As for the text, I'm not sure how current those words are because the Biden administration has had discussions since this was written.

That said, the fact that Trump wouldn't even allow themselves to guarantee safe passage of American citizens seems like a pretty Trump thing to do.

 

[Touring Mars]

Multiple agencies are reporting that there has been one or more explosions outside the airport in Kabul after UK and US intelligence agencies warned of an imminent 'lethal attack' by ISIS-K, which now appears to have happened.

NBS News are reporting a 'complex attack' involving at least two explosions, and there are reports of fatalities and casualties.

 

[Blitz24]

Multiple agencies are reporting that there has been one or more explosions outside the airport in Kabul after UK and US intelligence agencies warned of an imminent 'lethal attack' by ISIS-K, which now appears to have happened.

NBS News are reporting a 'complex attack' involving at least two explosions, and there are reports of fatalities and casualties.

Is this the Taliban showing a snake like mask or did they truly release people from prison that they were unaware could so easily undermine their rule?

 

[Danoff]

Multiple agencies are reporting that there has been one or more explosions outside the airport in Kabul after UK and US intelligence agencies warned of an imminent 'lethal attack' by ISIS-K, which now appears to have happened.

NBS News are reporting a 'complex attack' involving at least two explosions, and there are reports of fatalities and casualties.

Never let an opportunity go to waste right? Bad PR situation for the US combined with a bunch of people you hate all being grouped together in one place... perfect opportunity for terrorism.

 

[UKMikey]

What a cluster****. I feel bad for the innocent people left behind.

 

[Touring Mars]

The absolute depravity of these attacks is becoming apparent.

Defenseless men, women, children and elderly who have been queuing outside Kabul airport, some for days on end in scorching heat with little to no food, water or shelter, some being carried in wheelbarrows, and others wading knee-deep in open sewers near the airport perimeter, are now being slaughtered by suicide bombers... it's absolutely disgusting.

God help the decent people of that country. What chance do they have when the Taliban are the 'moderates'?

 

[Danoff]

The absolute depravity of these attacks is becoming apparent.

Defenseless men, women, children and elderly who have been queuing outside Kabul airport, some for days on end in scorching heat with little to no food, water or shelter, some being carried in wheelbarrows, and others wading knee-deep in open sewers near the airport perimeter, are now being slaughtered by suicide bombers... it's absolutely disgusting.

God help the decent people of that country. What chance do they have when the Taliban are the 'moderates'?

I had kinda wondered about Biden's sense of urgency at wrapping up evacuations quickly. It seems as the local government fell and the Taliban took control, credible ISIS threats had started coming. With the region completely destabilized, a slow and steady peaceful evacuation is not really an option. Yet trying to get everyone out in a hurry makes for a bigger target too.

It's much easier to play armchair quarterback on this one rather than being in the game.

 

[ryzno]

So much for trusting them to wait till the 31st. I called it the other day when I posted ISIS had made their threats.

Too soon to say I told you so and we ****ed up?

 

[TexRex]

It's much easier to play armchair quarterback on this one rather than being in the game.

Too soon to say I told you so and we ****ed up?

 

[ryzno]

View attachment 1076679

Say what you want my friend. I tried to go, I WANTED to go. More than I can say about most of y'all here. I was in the JROTC in high school set to go to the N GA Military Academy. Then I ****ed up... I've told y'all I come from generations of military family.

But yeah I am arm chair QBing, sadly. I have to sit here a look at the news telling me 4 of my brothers died.
I'm very mad right now.

 

[Famine]

So much for trusting them to wait till the 31st

"Them" being? The Taliban say the suicide bombers weren't them and most fingers are pointing at Da'esh; the previous administration did trust the Taliban enough to negotiate with them and free a bunch of their fighters who were in prison.

In any case, the Taliban had no need to wait until August 31st. The agreement with the previous administration expired on May 1st. That's when they agreed they'd not take any military action against the Afghan army until, and they didn't... they just swelled their ranks for 10 months to the biggest they'd been since 2001, ready for May 1st.

****ing Biden though, eh?

 

[Touring Mars]

Reports saying 13 people killed and 60 injured seems pretty conservative to say the least.

4 US soldiers are now confirmed dead, and footage on social media suggests that the civilian death toll is far higher than is currently being reported.

It has been pretty obvious for some time that this was never going to end well, but it is tragic to see how an already bad situation is likely going to descent into total carnage.

edit: Latest reports suggest that more than 4 US soldiers are dead.

edit 2: At least 60 confirmed dead according to the BBC

 

[McLaren]

Has the Taliban responded yet? For a while there, they were doing as much "good PR" as possible, so I'm wondering if they're going to announce some sort of action against ISIS-K.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I can't even imagine the anxiety and fear on the ground in Kabul right now.

I don't eve know what can be done at this point. If we send in reinforcements, it risks a significant escalation with the Taliban - do we really want to go down that road again? If we don't send in reinforcements, then it seems likely that we will strand Americans in Afghanistan...and I find it hard to see them surviving a Taliban regime.

I halfway feel like the US should have maintained security of Kabul indefinitely - at least until such time that vulnerable Afghans and Americans could have exited the country - particularly after seeing how swiftly the Taliban took over provinces in their early advance. With the Taliban in control of Kabul, the options for the US are severely limited - we don't seem to have any good options left.

 

[Touring Mars]

Has the Taliban responded yet? For a while there, they were doing as much "good PR" as possible, so I'm wondering if they're going to announce some sort of action against ISIS-K.

Yes, the Taliban have reportedly both 'condemned the attack(s)' and blamed US forces who are/were (allegedly) responsible for the zone where the attacks took place, even though the Taliban control all the surrounding areas and hence all access to that area to begin with.

 

[Blitz24]

Yes, the Taliban have reportedly both 'condemned the attack(s)' and blamed US forces who are/were (allegedly) responsible for the zone where the attacks took place, even though the Taliban control all the surrounding areas and hence all access to that area to begin with.

Sounds like they went halfway so they don't piss off ISIS-K or Al-Qaeda as sellouts to the West.

 

[McLaren]

Yes, the Taliban have reportedly both 'condemned the attack(s)' and blamed US forces who are/were (allegedly) responsible for the zone where the attacks took place, even though the Taliban control all the surrounding areas and hence all access to that area to begin with.

Ah. Quite bold of them to blame US forces. I just read on Reddit that they had executed an ISIS leader the day after they took Kabul which makes me wonder if the bombings are now ISIS retaliation and the start of another, bloody struggle.

 

[Touring Mars]

Fox News are reporting that at least 12 US military are dead, and children are amongst the others killed.

edit: US officials report that 11 soldiers and a Navy medic have been killed, no figures on those injured...

 

[ryzno]

"Them" being? The Taliban say the suicide bombers weren't them and most fingers are pointing at Da'esh; the previous administration did trust the Taliban enough to negotiate with them and free a bunch of their fighters who were in prison.

In any case, the Taliban had no need to wait until August 31st. The agreement with the previous administration expired on May 1st. That's when they agreed they'd not take any military action against the Afghan army until, and they didn't... they just swelled their ranks for 10 months to the biggest they'd been since 2001, ready for May 1st.

****ing Biden though, eh?

They were supposed to guarantee a safe exit.
**** them. They didn't. Also **** every President that couldn't get it done for the last 30+years. This BS has been going on for longer than I've been alive. We should've never been anywhere over there acting as the worlds police. We definitely don't look like a military superpower anymore... Not that Nam helped anything...

 

[Danoff]

We definitely don't look like a military superpower anymore...

Because of a suicide attack by terrorists?

 

[Biggles]

The question I find myself asking is why the Taliban were able to regain control of the country so easily? It suggests to me that they actually have a lot of support in the country - possibly in the rural areas where the population has very traditional Islamist views. This may stand in stark contrast to Kabul - & a few other large cities - where a larger proportion of the population has more "western" ideas about how they want their lives to be. Combine that with a corrupt & ineffective central government and it created a power vacuum that only the Taliban was positioned to fill. It's not that unlike what happened in Vietnam.

 

[ryzno]

Because of a suicide attack by terrorists?

Seriously? Did you miss my Nam reference? We failed, again...
And the Tals aren't?

 

[Tornado]

Considering the president went from "we must shore up our internal defenses" to flying out of the country in a helicopter to immediately being granted refuge elsewhere in the span of 12 hours, the upper levels of the government had probably cut a deal with the Taliban before they even started the offensive.

 

[Danoff]

Seriously? Did you miss my Nam reference? We failed, again...

Failed at...



What exactly were we trying to do? There are lots of possible answers to this question, none of them particularly satisfactory. If your answer is "not get hit by a suicide bomb"... then yes we definitely directly failed at that, but it doesn't support your conclusion. "Evacuate people without getting them blown up by ISIS" is also an acceptable answer that doesn't support the conclusion.

Vietnam actually had a clearer goal than our mission in Afghanistan.

 

[ryzno]

What exactly were we trying to do?

Who actually knows anymore? Reason seemed to change under every President. 9/11 was enough of a reason for me and my generation. We failed... And we failed on the pull out. Wonder what the baby is gonna be and look like.
Also when did ISIS add a K? I'm pretty sure I get the reference but still.

Also answer my question. Are the Tal considered terrorists in your book?

 

[Famine]

They were supposed to guarantee a safe exit.

Up until May 1st, yes. That was the agreement with Trump - no attacks on Americans up to May 1st. That passed just under four months ago, and it actually looks quite like they still haven't attacked any Americans.

Though they can hardly guarantee no-one else will attack, and this attack seems to be perpetrated by Da'esh, who are enemies of the Taliban. And the USA. And pretty much everyone else.

 

[Danoff]

Who actually knows anymore? Reason seemed to change under every President. 9/11 was enough of a reason for me and my generation. We failed...

Did we? Our 9/11 goals were to stomp Al Qaeda and nab Bin Laden.

And we failed on the pull out.

That was always going to be ugly.

Also answer my question. Are the Tal considered terrorists in your book?

It really gets into the definition of terrorist. For some, states can't be terrorists, and the Taliban at this point are considered a state actor (at least by some). I think the organization has carried out terrorist attacks, and so I'd say it's fine to call them terrorists. But as they transition into a government, that term doesn't apply so well.

Definitely the Taliban harbored terrorists and have in the past carried out terrorist actions, so it's fair, but getting muddier.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The question I find myself asking is why the Taliban were able to regain control of the country so easily? It suggests to me that they actually have a lot of support in the country - possibly in the rural areas where the population has very traditional Islamist views. This may stand in stark contrast to Kabul - & a few other large cities - where a larger proportion of the population has more "western" ideas about how they want their lives to be. Combine that with a corrupt & ineffective central government and it created a power vacuum that only the Taliban was positioned to fill. It's not that unlike what happened in Vietnam.

I think that is part of it. I have a friend with family in Kandahar, and the Taliban retaking that province was met with a collective shrug I'm led to believe. But I also think there was a tacit understanding, if not direct threats, that if the ANA resisted the Taliban, then the Taliban would harm/kill their family members in provinces already under Taliban control. In the absence of a strong, non-corrupt central government, I think many ANA soldiers realized that the Taliban was in a strong position to make good on this, and the prospect of Taliban rule was a less dreadful outcome. So they laid down their arms. Who knows what other kind of payoffs and specific threats occurred behind the scenes. I think this is not unlike how the Cartels of Central and South America have been able to project so much strength - leveraging vulnerabilities that more legitimate actors will not.