Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#71

Post by rascul »

fnord77 wrote: post #32
throwaway894345 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that the Afghan people by and large do not want Taliban rule, right? Very few want to be ruled by a violent, oppressive theocracy. Personally I would like the US to leave Afghanistan as well, but I have sympathy for the people who may have to suffer Taliban rule. Ideally the international or at least regional community would step in.

where do new taliban come from? It's been 20 years since the original invasion and the Taliban from back then are probably either all dead or too old to fight. So it must be a popular ideology for some.

Some new fighters might come from the families and friends of people the US and allies have killed.

Edit: Also, I recall hearing that many fighters are foreign. I imagine there's a greater than zero amount of people willing to go to Afghanistan and fight the US.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#72

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

kook_throwaway wrote: post #57
rootusrootus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad we couldn't at least have done some sabotage of equipment left behind. Hell, just slashing tires on the humvees for starters, would make a pretty big dent in their immediate usefulness. But there are probably other low-effort ways to make them difficult to repair.

Our government put more effort into stopping poor people from having affordable vehicles than preventing the Taliban from getting military vehicles[1]. See engine disablement section, basically just replace oil with salt water. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

Sounds bad for the environment. Or do you think all that motor oil would be captured in an environmentally responsible way?

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#73

Post by kook_throwaway »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #72
kook_throwaway wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our government put more effort into stopping poor people from having affordable vehicles than preventing the Taliban from getting military vehicles[1]. See engine disablement section, basically just replace oil with salt water. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

Sounds bad for the environment. Or do you think all that motor oil would be captured in an environmentally responsible way?

Another decade of bombs and depleted uranium is bad for the environment too.

Besides, DoD is already the biggest polluter on the planet. Anything that slows the war machine will be a net positive.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#74

Post by throwaway894345 »

fnord77 wrote: post #32
throwaway894345 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that the Afghan people by and large do not want Taliban rule, right? Very few want to be ruled by a violent, oppressive theocracy. Personally I would like the US to leave Afghanistan as well, but I have sympathy for the people who may have to suffer Taliban rule. Ideally the international or at least regional community would step in.

where do new taliban come from? It's been 20 years since the original invasion and the Taliban from back then are probably either all dead or too old to fight. So it must be a popular ideology for some.

> where do new taliban come from?

You can say this about any abhorrent, oppressive belief system. This is insufficient grounds to subject the whole population to said oppression.

> So it must be a popular ideology for some.

hHow do you get from there to “thus it should be the law of the land for every Afghan”? If it’s so popular, why can’t it win in free elections?

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#75

Post by throwaway894345 »

rascul wrote: post #71
fnord77 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where do new taliban come from? It's been 20 years since the original invasion and the Taliban from back then are probably either all dead or too old to fight. So it must be a popular ideology for some.

Some new fighters might come from the families and friends of people the US and allies have killed. Edit: Also, I recall hearing that many fighters are foreign. I imagine there's a greater than zero amount of people willing to go to Afghanistan and fight the US.

> fight the US

To be clear, they aren’t fighting the US, they’re fighting the Afghani government.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#76

Post by rascul »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #75
rascul wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some new fighters might come from the families and friends of people the US and allies have killed. Edit: Also, I recall hearing that many fighters are foreign. I imagine there's a greater than zero amount of people willing to go to Afghanistan and fight the US.

> fight the US To be clear, they aren’t fighting the US, they’re fighting the Afghani government.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I had heard this was the case in the past, before the latest withdraw.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#77

Post by throwaway894345 »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #50
pm90 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who should?

The Afghan people who by and large do not want Taliban rule.

Motivation alone is insufficient for ordinary citizens to assemble into an effective fighting force. You need competent leadership, training, and experience. The Taliban has those qualities and by all appearances the Afghan military does not.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#78

Post by throwaway894345 »

Causality1 wrote: post #15
throwaway894345 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that the Afghan people by and large do not want Taliban rule, right? Very few want to be ruled by a violent, oppressive theocracy. Personally I would like the US to leave Afghanistan as well, but I have sympathy for the people who may have to suffer Taliban rule. Ideally the international or at least regional community would step in.

Step in and do what? Occupy the country indefinitely? How many decades will it take for Afghanistan to stop being Afghanistan?

I’m an American, so my taxes have footed the bill for Afghanistan’s security and liberty for the last twenty years. I don’t like that this is the cost (and I’m sympathetic to people who are frustrated at the expense), but seeing how quickly the Taliban have swept in, I would rather maintain a minimal force for another two decades, especially if the burden could be shared by the International community and perhaps specifically the regional community who have the most to gain from a free Afghanistan. It’s probably not reasonable to expect a country to effectively adopt democracy in just a few years’ time, so maybe we should anticipate longer time horizons.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#79

Post by throwaway894345 »

avsteele wrote: post #42
MattGaiser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Americans haven't been engaged in ground combat operations for years now outside of special forces. They were just providing the weapons, logistics, training, and air power to contain the Taliban. That seems reasonably sustainable. Make it into South Korea with airstrikes.

Take a look at the territory controlled by the Taliban vs time while we were at this level. They were not contained. We just were keeping them out of a few urban areas. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57933979

I skimming your link, it seems the Taliban didn’t take significant territory until the US pulled out altogether. In the time during which the US was not actively fighting on the ground but was providing logistic support and air strikes and so on, the Taliban were effectively kept at bay.

Re: US unleashes B-52s in bid to stem Taliban advance

#80

Post by throwaway894345 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #29
laurent92 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afghanistan is about the same size as Texas, permanent occupation is technically manageable. However, it would bring hate upon the US. It’s also a proxy-war with Russia, who might be funding the opposite side, so the costs to colonization are not just occupation, but hedging the spendings of all other countries who don’t want USA to occupy the zone. So, impossible if we don’t get others on board, among Arab countries…

Many already (and will always) hate the US, and the US has the GDP to outlast declining Russia. If anything, this is a test bed for remote force projection. If Afghans want US protection that doesn’t require boots on the ground, that seems reasonable considering capabilities already available. “Peace through superior firepower.”

> the US has the GDP to outlast declining Russia

I particularly look forward to Russia’s declining influence as the world transitions away from oil. As much as people like to criticize US leadership and government, the Kremlin is on a whole different level (and I’m glad that this isn’t such a controversial sentiment among liberals since 2016).

Post reply on HN