The reasons were valid at the time. — Shawn

At the time. Yeah. That's the problem: reasons have to be valid for a bit longer. One has to anticipate what effects one's actions have.

So if a Mexican narco-group that has close ties to the Mexican government would for some insane reason make a terrorist attack in the US, that would be a valid reason to go AND OCCUPY Mexico and then start a fight "just to get the narcos"? Yep, I'm sure all Mexicans would eagerly support the US drone attacks and nightly raids by US Special Forces, even if they don't trust their own government. :shade:

Pakistan was training the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Hasn't that been dealt with or has the Taleban made statements that they aren't in it together with Pakistan anymore?

Pakistan usually trains mujahedeen in Pakistan. Taleban and Al Qaeda aren't the same thing for starters. And do note that Pakistan has had to fight it's own Pashtun islamists too. And they are totally fed up about the War on Terror bullshit.

Again, by most measures the Afghan war was won. The goal was never to defeat the Taleban — Shawn

Sorry, but this is simply utter bullshit.

Just from the starting speech where Bush adressed the nation in 20th of September 2001:

They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of Al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see Al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.

The Taliban must act and act immediately.

They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate.

In your years of observing the issue, how else would you would have dealt with Afghanistan?

Nothing in that speech includes the Taleban as the main threat. In fact you omitted to mention that since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban have participated in peace talks with the US behind closed doors with the Afghan government.

This is not a surprise - the speed might be, but not the result.

Way things are going, that fiasco could easily happen. — ssu

Almost anything is possible in that space, I agree.

Actually I've made a long argument about this in the War on Terror thread.

But to recap my thoughts:

a) America has a long tradition how to deal terrorism with punitive military strikes since (at least) the 1980's.
b) The horrific death toll from the attacks made it quite unreasonable to make it a police matter like in the 1993 Twin Tower bombing. It would simply have been like the suffering and anger of the people doesn't matter.
c) Overthrowing the Taleban and installing the Northern Alliance looked to be a great idea. The rapid collapse of the Taleban then was similar what we have seen now, actually, hence this wasn't a bad thought.
d) Even if it would have been an Al Gore administration, the US would have gone in (because of a), b and c))

So you would have gone into Afghanistan. This is the tragedy. But even then all wasn't lost. Then you should have a) understood how huge and complex the issue would be, b) understand the motives and agenda of the various players and neighbors and c) be persistent.

Don't try a military solution when you need a political solution.

I was at work, and, so, not sure if they just declared victory. There's videos of them in the presidential palace now.


I think that the overall effect of the campaign for women's rights in Afghanistan will have been positive, even in the soon to be declared "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". I recall during the early stages of the war hearing stories of women committing suicide by self-immolation in order to escape the Taliban because of that they had no other means to do so, and, so, I would caution against becoming too hopeful. Inheritance is a start for sure, though.

c) Overthrowing the Taleban and installing the Northern Alliance looked to be a great idea. The rapid collapse of the Taleban then was similar what we have seen now, actually, hence this wasn't a bad thought. — ssu

Interesting. I wonder if the NA was weary of fighting themselves after seeing what the US was able to do with the Taleban.

Don't try a military solution when you need a political solution. — ssu

1. Countries don't always deploy their military to achieve a solution. Sometimes they do it to test new weapons, train their troops, or boost their military industry.

2. I don't think any solution in Afghanistan is possible without first addressing the problem posed by Pakistan and its support for the Taliban.

Nothing in that speech includes the Taleban as the main threat. — Shawn

Yes, because there WERE those talks that didn't go anywhere. Because....Americans wanted revenge.
Clearly the overthrow of the Taleban was the objective once the short negotiations were over:

On October 7th Bush stated:

On my orders, the United States military has
begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military
installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully
targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a
terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of
the Taliban regime.

More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear
and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps; hand over
leaders of the al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals,
including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country.
None of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay
a price. By destroying camps and disrupting communications,
we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new
recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

Seeking to destroy the military capability of a regime is equivalent of destroying the regime.

And this is a case closed: destroying the Taleban's rule was a priority from the first cruise missile. Then to leave the Northern Alliance in charge...the administration that basically fell this Sunday.

The message that Ashraf Ghani left on Facebook translated with Google Translate:

"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Dear compatriots,

Today I came across a tough choice. I have to face the armed Taliban who want to enter the palace or leave the country where I have dedicated my life to protecting and nurturing it for the last 20 years. If left unchecked, countless patriots would be martyred and the city of Kabul would be devastated, resulting in a major humanitarian catastrophe in the six-million-strong city. The Taliban had made it clear that they were ready to carry out bloody attacks on all of Kabul and the people of Kabul Sharif. In order to prevent a flood of bloodshed, it was better to leave.

The Taliban have won the sword and gun judgment and are now responsible for protecting the honor, property and self of their compatriots. But the legitimacy of hearts did not win them over. Never in history has dry force given legitimacy to anyone and never will. They are now facing a new historical test. Either it will preserve the name and honor of Afghanistan or it will give priority to other places and networks. Many people and many strata are in fear and have no faith in the future. The Taliban must ensure that all the peoples, ethnicities, different strata, sisters and women of Afghanistan have a clear plan to win legitimacy and win the hearts of the people and share it with the people. I will always continue to serve my people in terms of ideas and programs. Lots more news for the future!


Long live Afghanistan!"

. Countries don't always deploy their military to achieve a solution. Sometimes they do it to test new weapons, train their troops, or boost their military industry. — Apollodorus

Yeah no. Their still is a political agenda. Some political agenda. What you are designing are just the perks and additional objectives.

Let's remember that just to have a peace time army as a deterrence, you need to test new weapons, train the troops and boost the military industry. The vast amount of military expenditure during the Cold War went to arms that never were used. General Curtiss LeMay didn't want his B-52s of the Strategic Air Command to be used in the Vietnam war. They were there sitting in the Continental US waiting to nuke Soviet Union, remember. But he was walked over on this one.

Training by going to war is a disastrous policy as you are then spending a lot of resources. Far better to train without your soldiers getting dead.

By total surrender, you can avoid some death, yes.

How much reprisals there will be is the question. At least Kabul will get now a fair share of looting before sharia law clamps down in earnest.

Training by going to war is a disastrous policy as you are then spending a lot of resources. Far better to train without your soldiers getting dead. — ssu

However, military service is not mandatory. And the USD trillions spent don't just disappear, they are going into someone's pockets.

Plus, the problem still remains that Afghanistan is impossible to sort out without first addressing the problem of Pakistan and its support for the Taliban.

I can't say that I would've made another choice. The Afghan military just simply had no will to fight.

Hamid Karzai has requested that people stay in their homes and remain calm so that their coordination committee can ensure a peaceful transition of power.

I can't say that I would've made another choice. The Afghan military just simply had no will to fight. — thewonder

There might be a reason just why there wasn't any will to fight.

A military needs support, not only bullets and food, but also support from the people. Would you have a will to fight to the end and give your life for an extremely corrupt government whose leader ran away and then declared on Facebook that he did it to save lives? Well, you might think then about saving your life then too.

Besides, there are still thousands of Americans and Westerners in Afghanistan I guess. So things can get even worse from here. A true tragedy. Let's hope that evacuation goes calmly.

Imagine citing war criminal George fucking Bush as an authoratative source on anything whatsoever.

The military could have baited the Taliban into overextending themselves by attacking Kabul, and, perhaps, been capable of, at least, maintaining control for a while longer, if not long enough to bolster support for what would've been a rather lengthy civil war.

Once the Taliban marched through the second and third largest cities nearly unopposed, however, nothing could be done but surrender. It was a sage and difficult decision that will have ultimately saved a number of lives.

Granted, it isn't necessarily heroic to have fled the country, however.

The United States has closed the Kabul airport to commercial flights, stranding thousands of Afghans who supported them. You are right to suggest that the evacuations need to be carried out orderly, which is to say in as swift and efficient manner as possible. There's no changing our decision to have suspended commercial flights and prioritizing our own personnel, but the flights need to continue and the people there need to be granted safe passage.

I would also suggest that, due to the emergency situation of the evacuation, Qatar Airlines or whatever other companies there are at the Kabul airport, need to give people the chance to evacuate without at all paying for it. I would imagine that this could somehow be funded by the United States or even the United Nations. It is, however, doubtful that something like that will happen.

Perhaps, as per the negotiations for the peaceful transition, the Taliban could be convinced to extend amnesty to people there and to just kind of let people flee the country?

Madness

US forces will take over air traffic control at Kabul airport

From Jennifer Hansler

The Departments of State and Defense have announced that US forces will now take over air traffic control at Kabul airport, in addition to expanding security there.

“Tomorrow and over the coming days, we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals,” the joint statement from the two agencies said.

“And we will accelerate the evacuation of thousands of Afghans eligible for U.S. Special Immigrant Visas, nearly 2,000 of whom have already arrived in the United States over the past two weeks,” the statement said. “For all categories, Afghans who have cleared security screening will continue to be transferred directly to the United States. And we will find additional locations for those yet to be screened.”

I never thought that I'd agree with Forbes Magazine.

Some updates from CNN, The Guardian, and Axios:

All US Embassy personnel have evacuated, the State Department said

From CNN's Jennifer Hansler

All personnel have evacuated from the US Embassy in Kabul and are now at the Kabul airport, the State Department said Sunday night.

“We can confirm that the safe evacuation of all Embassy personnel is now complete. All Embassy personnel are located on the premises of Hamid Karzai International Airport, whose perimeter is secured by the US Military,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement.

US Ambassador still at Kabul airport, has not left country – AFP

On The Guardian's blog, Afghanistan live news: Taliban declare ‘war is over’ as they take control of Kabul

The state department has confirmed to AFP that US Ambassador Ross Wilson is still at Kabul airport.

Senior Taliban official: 'too early to say how we will take over governance'

On The Guardian's blog, Afghanistan live news: Taliban declare ‘war is over’ as they take control of Kabul

A Taliban leader said on Monday that it was too soon to say how the insurgent group will take over governance in Afghanistan, Reuters reports.

“We want all foreign forces to leave before we start restructuring governance,” the leader told Reuters by phone. He did not want to be named.

He also said that Taliban fighters in Kabul had been warned not to scare civilians and to allow them to resume normal activities.

The US embassy in Kabul is telling its citizens and Afghan nationals not to travel to the airport unless they are told to, that it is unsafe.

On The Guardian's blog is posted an image from The United States Embassy in Kabul's twitter which reads:

"We remind all American citizens and Afghan nationals that the security situation in Kabul remains unsafe. Please do not travel to the airport until notified."

U.S. joins 60 countries in urging safe exit of citizens from Afghanistan

The U.S. and over 60 countries issued a joint statement Sunday saying Afghans and international citizens who wish to leave the country should be allowed to do so, with airports and border crossings remaining open.

Driving the news: The statement was issued as the U.S. completed its evacuation of American Embassy staff and prepared to take over Kabul airport's air traffic control to fly personnel out of Afghanistan after the Taliban swept into the capital earlier in the day.

Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Qatar and Japan, along with the European Union and several of its member countries, were among the statement's signatories.
What they're saying: "Given the deteriorating security situation, we support, are working to secure, and call on all parties to respect and facilitate, the safe and orderly departure of foreign nationals and Afghans who wish to leave the country," the statement reads.

"Those in positions of power and authority across Afghanistan bear responsibility — and accountability — for the protection of human life and property, and for the immediate restoration of security and civil order," it continues.
"The Afghan people deserve to live in safety, security and dignity. We in the international community stand ready to assist them."

I would also suggest that, due to the emergency situation of the evacuation, Qatar Airlines or whatever other companies there are at the Kabul airport, need to give people the chance to evacuate without at all paying for it. I would imagine that this could somehow be funded by the United States or even the United Nations. It is, however, doubtful that something like that will happen. — thewonder

Oh you mean that the US would open it's borders to anybody wanting to come to the US from Afghanistan? Or those with visas? I think those that worked with the Westerners would be enough. Besides, if the Taleban sits idly by and lets the former enemy board planes and fly away, it would be a really positive thing that they truly want to end this conflict.

And open door solution is not a good solution.

Happened here in Europe few years ago. Not a good outcome with Brexit and all that. And I guess one or two Al Qaeda members might want to sneak in too. And once you have those one or two making a terrorist strike... who cares about the 150 000 decent, hardworking Afghans wanting to become taxpaying Americans?

Sorry, but that's how people view these things today. You can blow the terrorism threat to all sizes you want.

Anyway, I think the real issue are the Westerners now in Afghanistan: there were a lot of Americans in the country, for example.

Earlier on Sunday, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued an urgent alert warning American citizens to "shelter in place" amid reports of gunfire at the airport on the outskirts of Afghanistan's capital city. - In the coming days, "we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals."

Oh you mean that the US would open it's borders to anybody wanting to come to the US from Afghanistan? Or those with visas? I think those that worked with the Westerners would be enough. Besides, if the Taleban sits idly by and lets the former enemy board planes and fly away, it would be a really positive thing that they truly want to end this conflict. — ssu

I mean everyone. We owe it to all of those Afghans.

You are most certainly correct that the Taliban letting everyone leave would be a very good sign. It would, ultimately, be beneficial to them, I think, as well.

It'd certainly be an odd situation for the Taliban to have to wait for everyone to leave the country, one that they can't quite avoid due to the American military presence at the airport, but it would work wonders for them diplomatically and ultimately soften them to a certain extent, I think. It is a deal that could be made.

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” - Emma Lazarus

It says that on the Statue of Liberty.

Furthermore, as I do feel strongly about this, the United States is one of, if not the, most powerful and wealthy nations in the world. Though they, perhaps, should for every refugee crisis, this particular one is one that the United Nations Refugee Agency, or whomever else, can find adequate funding with which to cope with. The United States doesn't have to hastily withdraw after some indeterminate critical mass of so-called "Westerners" are evacuated. Negotiations can be made with the Taliban for the safe withdraw of everyone, though I wouldn't promise to be capable of evacuating everyone, who wants to leave. I believe, though I may have miscounted, that seventy nations, along with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, have signed a declaration in favor of "the safe and orderly departure of foreign nationals and Afghans who wish to leave the country". People all around the world have watched the Taliban sweep over Afghanistan. They can now do something about the situation there, which is to hold both the nations to have signed the declaration, the most pertinent thing within their respective countries, and the Taliban, though of this, I will say, that I am not in favor of any form of military engagement, to it. A deal for the safe withdraw of foreign nationals and Afghans will offer the emerging Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to challenge common perceptions of the organization that led the insurrection from which it will soon be created and show mercy. It will also give nations around the world, particularly the United States, a chance to rectify the situation created out of what has always been a half-hearted promise, that of the hope for a liberal democratic Afghanistan. I wouldn't claim that things will go as I should like them to. I will only say that they can. If they can, it would be a grave mistake not facilitate a peaceful transition as such and minimize the potential harm to both the would be Afghan expatriate and the emergent Afghan nation. Should anyone either within or outside the Philosophy Forum read this and believe that they have some capacity to put it into effect, I would recommend that they do so in the immediate now.

Should anyone either within or outside the Philosophy Forum read this and believe that they have some capacity to put it into effect, I would recommend that they do so in the immediate now. — thewonder

:up: :100:

Let’s see what the future holds to the Afghan citizens. I wish they would not live the same experience as Syrian refugees. Now Afghanistan is a mess but we wish Taliban forces do not go mercenary against their own population. If most Afghans want to leave I wish they do it because the situation is unbearable not because their lives are in huge risk.
Also, it is important protect women in this context. Taliban forces will not have complain about abuse and slave them. Now, UN and all international organizations should protect children and women in this weak situation.

Oh, most definitely.

Had I any real bargaining power, I'd push for women's rights, civil liberties, and whathaveyou. The only things that I think can be somehow guaranteed at this point, however, are safe passage and a certain degree of asylum. Everything else, the status of women in Afghan society in particular, will have to be met, as it very well should, as the new nation develops.

Hamid Karzai can probably suggest that, as per the peaceful transition, the Taliban should be understanding of the situation that women there are in, offer them some liberties, and show restraint in the use of force, but he can't very well demand that the Islamic Emirate be established as if it were the nation that the United States was going to ostensibly build there.

Everything else, the status of women in Afghan society in particular, will have to be met, as it very well should, as the new nation develops. — thewonder

This complex and sensible situation will not be easy because of their religious belief. I guess they will even need an international refereeing or something similar to guarantee the women’s rights and security.
It is true that we don’t know how Afghanistan will look like afterwards yet but there are big probabilities that will be a chaos in different levels: some could be easy of repair, others don’t. I wish nobody has their life in risk again.