21–30 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just have strong level of petro-dollar support from the Gulf.
Not really. Most Gulf states are petrified of militant Islam, and the Taliban subscribe to a creed (Deobandi) that's not particularly popular among Arabs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just over a month ago [July 8] the President was actually arguing that the Afghan army would win: Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not. Q Why? THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. ... I trust the capacity of the…
They have 300,000 troops that are either poorly trained, lead by incompetent officers and/or corrupt to the bone. It is expected to lose badly. This was known, that makes the speech a big lie as many speeches of most leaders of most countries.
Also with the sheer size of the US embassy - it rather looks to me like there never was a sovereign afghan government in the first place, so of course they don't stand a chance on its own. It was all too artificial and US dependent.
Fall of Saigon v2. Although I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support.
The explanation is very, very simple, but I don't see any Western media talking about it at all.
Basically, Afghan government fell apart when USA withdrew the pork barrel of military contracts from locals.
People forget that 20 years ago USA mounted all kinds of warlords, and other rogue elements into seats of power. The entirety of regional elites which emerged in these 20 years are a product of that system.
The only things securing their loyalty to USA, and thus to the government in Kabul were American money.
The moment they ran out, it all fell apart just like Middle Eastern, and Latin American US friendly regimes. The "Our Bastard!" theory showed extreme naivete of people following it yet again.
There is no such things as "Our Bastards!" Time to learn that after 60 years.
Henry Kisinger lured USA into a geopolitical deathtrap with his lunatical political theories. Now US has found itself in the world surrounded by backstabbing, and turncoat regimes of its own making, who nor fear, nor respect it now, and who will pounce the moment USA stops spoonfeeding them, and shows its back.
USA has less allies in the world now than at any time in the last century.
USA can't now fight half the world dominated by solidified group of corrupt regimes.
Escaping this situation will be extremely hard.
USA cannot rely on allies who are loyal only to American printing press.
USA will not score any real allies without changing itself first
Fall of Saigon v2. Although I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just have strong level of petro-dollar support from the Gulf.
And America has "just" the biggest invested army world wide. I guess you need more than money to win the fight sometimes.
What an absolute bunch of morons and their failures.
*Edit: to answer the questions about "what should have been done instead", here is my reply from further down the page:
I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 2001, squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades.
"Explainers" are why this is happening - weak minded people who prefer marketing (appearance of performance) over results. Surprising to me considering the heated replies to the other thread on the front page about how "story-telling" to appeal to VCs is fake news, and we should all be concerned about product quality first.
US governance (both domestic and foreign) has devolved into nothing more than marketing sizzle instead of product quality.
Fall of Saigon v2. Although I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support.
I was told in January this year by many gleeful people they were so happy that "competence" was coming back into the US administration. What an absolute bunch of morons and their failures. *Edit: to answer the questions about "what should have been done instead", here is my reply from further down the page: I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 200…
I was told in January this year by many gleeful people they were so happy that "competence" was coming back into the US administration. What an absolute bunch of morons and their failures. *Edit: to answer the questions about "what should have been done instead", here is my reply from further down the page: I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 200…
Also, you may wish to recall that the US spent most of 2020 making a peace deal with the Taliban [1]. An agreement was reached, outlining an American withdrawal in 2021. It's, uh, now 2021.
If the coalition-supported government can't secure its own territory after nearly two decades of foreign support, by this point, it can only be described as a failed state.
Just like entering this war was bi-partisan politicking, so was withdrawing from it. One would hope that some lessons were learned in the process.
[1] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agree...