Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
but it is not the business of foreign governments to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. That is liberal interventionism, first espoused by Gladstone and more recently by Blair.
Ever? What if a sovereign state has decided to commit genocide against an ethnic minority? What if they have decided to persecute some group in a way that falls short of genocide but is nevertheless clear persecution? Would you still refuse to intervene?
The invasion was certainly costly, but not at all futile: It did prevent the Taliban from sheltering Al Qaeda and enabling Al Qaeda to launch many more terrorist attacks against the West. And it did allow Afghanistan to have a much better (albeit corrupt and still far from perfect) Government, giving millions of people, most obviously including women, the chance for a massively better life than they would have otherwise had. Do you really not think that those things are worth while?
Those things are certainly worthwhile, but the cost of building Afghanistan as a nation was to be borne by Afghan, not by British and American - not to mention other NATO members' - lives.
Afghanistan is impossible to govern in any way the West would recognise as legitimate. It was never possible to eliminate the Taliban, only to keep them at arms' length. Nearly all the people in Afghanistan are of the peasant class who, after decades of war, want a cheap and easy life. This makes them loyal only to whichever armed man happens to be in their back garden, or paying them money, or giving them work. They don't really care about the Taliban's aims, or the coalition forces' aims.
The Americans and their allies spent a vast amount of money attempting to train illiterate, stoned, flaky peasants to fight a committed ideology in the Taliban. The Americans had to turn a blind eye to rampant corruption in the local police forces and militias they set up. A recurring theme in local militias was pederasty, where young teenagers were recruited as errand boys but kept on camp overnight for the "enjoyment" of police officers and soldiers.
I'm afraid that the venture of forming a coherent national security force was always folly. For many people in Afghanistan, they will not care too much for the ANA or the Taliban, but if the ANA have been routed out of the village where they've been treating the locals as a cash cow and a source of unlimited sex abuse on tap, I can quite believe that people may tacitly embrace the Taliban and keep their heads down for a quiet life.
Nobody who has been following what's really been going on in Afghanistan over the last ten years could ever have hoped we would leave without the country being taken over by Islamofascists again.
The thing that was futile (and totally unnecessary) was suddenly walking away and leaving so many people to the mercy of the Taliban, in the way we've suddenly done. And I would say it's also likely to prove very costly, in Afghan peoples' lives, in the reputation of the West, in terms of setting back the cause of democracy across the World, in terms of the numbers of terrorist attacks likely to be launched against us in the coming years, and in terms of increasing the power and influence of Russia and China in their attempts to suppress liberal democracy wherever they can.
The exit was a mess. But we had to leave. We do not have a divine right to implement liberal democracy anywhere other than our own country, and setting up a house-of-cards democracy in Afghanistan was a serious mistake.
The fundamental barrier to success in Afghanistan was the sheer delinquency of the people who made up the ANA.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ever? What if a sovereign state has decided to commit genocide against an ethnic minority? What if they have decided to persecute some group in a way that falls short of genocide but is nevertheless clear persecution? Would you still refuse to intervene?
The Balfour declaration, and subsequent British occupation of Palestine, is a classic case of British interventionism, and has led directly to the current situation in Palestine.
Without wanting to derail this thread too much, that's a massive over-simplification. There must have been thousands of events since the Balfour declaration, both small and large, that have helped to shape the situation in Palestine today. Most of those events were decisions by the Israeli Government, by Israeli settlers, or by the people of Palestine, including the decisions of certain groups to resort to terrorism. Nothing about the Balfour declaration is forcing the Israeli Government to do things like build settler communities in occupied territories, and nothing about the Balfour declaration is forcing Hamas to behave in the way they do: Those are decisions that those people are making today, and which they don't have to make. You can't just take one event from nearly 100 years ago, and imply that that single event is the sole cause of the situation today, ignoring everything that has happened since.
Of course, taking one single event and ignoring everything else does appeal to a certain political trend within left-wing circles of wanting to exclusively blame the UK (and sometimes, America) for everything that's bad in the World.
In late 2001, it was not morally wrong to bomb Al Qayda hideouts in the mountains of Afghanistan, but the actual invasion of that country was unwise and has now proved futile and costly. In any case, it took years for the USA to locate Bin Laden, and he was ultimately found and killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan
The USA were painfully close to killing Bin Laden in 2002 (iirc) in the Tora Bora area. If they had troops on the ground at the time they would likely have killed/captured him, but unfortunately air strikes by themselves weren't effective.
I am not happy about this, but it is not the business of foreign governments to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. That is liberal interventionism, first espoused by Gladstone and more recently by Blair.
Interesting video, thanks @brad465. I think that neatly sums up the situation, and his take on GWB's PR rehabilitation courtesy of multiple liberal figures is particularly spot-on.
Ever? What if a sovereign state has decided to commit genocide against an ethnic minority? What if they have decided to persecute some group in a way that falls short of genocide but is nevertheless clear persecution? Would you still refuse to intervene?
The response from the crank left is that that can only happen under a UN security council resolution. That seems very sensible until you step back and consider how likely that is. I would say not very likely at all. It is clear neither China nor the Russia will vote for anything proposed by the USA and vice versa.
That means action is only possible on very rare occasions allowing tankies to say we would love to do something but...........
I suspect the Taliban are going to have a job on their hands, if they wish to impose the same level of strict rule they were able to do in the 1990’s
From what I understand, the average age in Afghanistan is just 18 yrs.
Most of the population were only young children, or not even born when they were last in control of the country and many have grown up in a less severely strict environment, with an increasing knowledge and exposure to the social, technological and political facets of the developed world. Particularly in the larger cities, like Kabul.
Likewise, education, commerce and improving lifestyles have benefited an increasing middle class, beyond anything they had in the past.
Even though the majority of the population are still poor, peasant class people, there must inevitably be a larger pool of ideological opposition which will be much harder to stamp out or suppress.
We are already seeing reports of large demonstrations and the expectation is that the Taliban will be ruthless in trying to stamp them out. Will they be able to though?
What are the odds of civil war and insurrection?
I suspect the Taliban are going to have a job on their hands, if they wish to impose the same level of strict rule they were able to do in the 1990’s
From what I understand, the average age in Afghanistan is just 18 yrs.
Most of the population were only young children, or not even born when they were last in control of the country and many have grown up in a less severely strict environment, with an increasing knowledge and exposure to the social, technological and political facets of the developed world. Particularly in the larger cities, like Kabul.
Likewise, education, commerce and improving lifestyles have benefited an increasing middle class, beyond anything they had in the past.
Even though the majority of the population are still poor, peasant class people, there must inevitably be a larger pool of ideological opposition which will be much harder to stamp out or suppress.
We are already seeing reports of large demonstrations and the expectation is that the Taliban will be ruthless in trying to stamp them out. Will they be able to though?
Insurrection and civil war looks possible.
In Afghanistan the middle class is only a very small group and another question is that the middle class is characterized by compromise and weakness, which means it is impossible to confront the Taliban when they find themselves facing in real threat.
Remember people can only pursue democracy when they have house to live, food to eat.
Russia's actions are not "willy nilly". They are essentially specific local irredentism (e.g. Crimea) or support for local nationalist groups (as in Abkhazia
That's ok then. Not like Russia invaded a sovereign nation and annexed part of it on spurious grounds. Funny you don't want that war stopped. it is OK for them to interfere in the business of sovereign states. Stop the American War eh?
That's ok then. Not like Russia invaded a sovereign nation and annexed part of it on spurious grounds. Funny you don't want that war stopped. it is OK for them to interfere in the business of sovereign states. Stop the American War eh?
Please cut the hyperbole and deliberate misinterpretation of what I have written. I merely stated that Russia's interventions are not haphazard and gave possible reasons (not justifications) for them. However, it is humbug for other countries to condemn Russia when meddling themselves in the Ukraine or Afghanistan.
Ukraine. No definite article required. "The Ukraine" is how Russia refers to the country and Ukrainians find it offensive.
“Ukraine is a country,” says William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times … Now that it is a country, a nation, and a recognized state, it is just Ukraine. And it is incorrect to refer to the Ukraine, even though a lot of people do it.”
U.S. President Barack Obama stood at a local elementary school in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to tout his new budget proposal. But after his opening...
Please cut the hyperbole and deliberate misinterpretation of what I have written. I merely stated that Russia's interventions are not haphazard and gave possible reasons (not justifications) for them. However, it is humbug for other countries to condemn Russia when meddling themselves in the Ukraine or Afghanistan.
The problem is that you seem to be applying different standards to Russia and to the West. The West's intervention in Afghanistan was also not haphazard and was motivated by fairly rational reasons.
I'm not sure how you think the West has been 'meddling' in Ukraine - as far as I'm aware, all we've done is support the legitimate and democratic Government, in the face of obvious military aggression by Russia. And I don't see anything hypocritical with intervening in Afghanistan in order to prevent terrorism and protect human rights, and then condemning Russia when Russian intervenes in Ukraine in order to undermine democracy and annex bits of the country that it feels like taking: The purposes of the interventions are very obviously totally different.
In Afghanistan the middle class is only a very small group and another question is that the middle class is characterized by compromise and weakness, which means it is impossible to confront the Taliban when they find themselves facing in real threat.
Remember people can only pursue democracy when they have house to live, food to eat.
Surely most of them are at the Airport trying to get out ....or is it poor illiterate Afghans who have no choice but remain and await The Taliban's new-look governance ?
Many Pakistanis are euphoric after the victory of the Taliban, celebrating the fall of Kabul, and the seizure of power by the extremist group, which has historic ties with Islamabad.
The Taliban are not mass murderers. They just employ what in my view are unduly harsh/inhumane and summary punishments for criminal acts, and those they perceive as traitors, according to their interpretation of Sharia law.
"The pass connecting the settlements of Tashkurgan and Pule Khumri is known as Robatak Pass. A mass murder was carried out there by Taliban in May 2000 in which 31 people were reported dead. Twenty-six of the victims were Ismaili Hazara from Baghlan province. Their remains were found to the northeast of the pass, in a neighborhood known as Hazara Mazari, on the border between Baghlan and Samngan provinces. The victims were detained four months before their execution by Taliban troops between January 5 and January 14, 2000"
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Taliban are not mass murderers. They just employ what in my view are unduly harsh/inhumane and summary punishments for criminal acts, and those they perceive as traitors, according to their interpretation of Sharia law.
In January 2001 the Taliban committed a mass execution of Hazara people in Yakawlang District of Bamyan province, Afghanistan. This started on January 8 and lasted for four days; it took the lives of 170 men. Taliban apprehended about 300 people, including employees of local humanitarian organizations. They were grouped to various assemblage points where they were shot dead in public view. Around 73 women, children and elderly were taking shelter in a local mosque when Taliban fired rockets at the mosque
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Taliban are not mass murderers. They just employ what in my view are unduly harsh/inhumane and summary punishments for criminal acts, and those they perceive as traitors, according to their interpretation of Sharia law.
In late 2001, it was not morally wrong to bomb Al Qayda hideouts in the mountains of Afghanistan, but the actual invasion of that country was unwise and has now proved futile and costly. In any case, it took years for the USA to locate Bin Laden, and he was ultimately found and killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
At 10 am on 8 August 1998, the Taliban entered the city and for the next two days drove their pickup trucks "up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved—shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys."[20] More than 8,000 noncombatants were reportedly killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.[21] In addition, the Taliban were criticized for forbidding anyone from burying the corpses for the first six days (contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial) while the remains rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs
I stated that the Taliban carry out harsh/inhumane and summary punishments to those whom they perceive as traitors, according to their interpretation of Sharia law. This includes the Shia Hazaras, whom they have selectively targetted from time to time. However, the Hazara victims of the Taliban are a relatively tiny percentage of the total Hazara population, which comprises about 15% of the overall population of Afghanistan. Contrast this with the 1888-1893 campaign against the Hazaras, in which about 60% of the total Hazara population was either killed or displaced.
The hatred of Sunni Muslims for the Shia is widespread throughout the Muslim world, and results in continuing persecution and killing of them; it has happened throughout Afghanistan's history and throughout the Muslim world, and the Taliban are not unique in this respect. In the Arab world, Saudi Arabia takes a lead role in persecuting the Shia, e.g. in the Yemen.
I stated that the Taliban carry out harsh/inhumane and summary punishments to those whom they perceive as traitors, according to their interpretation of Sharia law. This includes the Shia Hazaras, whom they have selectively targetted from time to time. However, the Hazara victims of the Taliban are a relatively tiny percentage of the total Hazara population, which comprises about 15% of the overall population of Afghanistan. Contrast this with the 1888-1893 campaign against the Hazaras, in which about 60% of the total Hazara population was either killed or displaced.
The hatred of Sunni Muslims for the Shia is widespread throughout the Muslim world, and results in continuing persecution and killing of them; it has happened throughout Afghanistan's history and throughout the Muslim world, and the Taliban are not unique in this respect. In the Arab world, Saudi Arabia takes a lead role in persecuting the Shia, e.g. in the Yemen.
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.
giftarticle.ft.com
President Vladimir Putin has ordered Russia’s defence ministry to begin evacuating its citizens from Kabul as the Kremlin expressed increased concern at the security situation in Afghanistan.
Details of the explosion at Kabul airport remain unclear. There have been some reports of gunfire on the ground.
The explosion has occurred at the Abbey gate entrance where British troops are based. It was one of three gates that had been closed followings warnings of a terrorist threat.
The White House has confirmed that President Biden has been briefed on developments.
The UK, the US and other nations have been moving to end the evacuations of tens of thousands of citizens ahead of the 31 August deadline.
news.sky.com
Quite surprised to see it was actually ISIS behind the attack. It does make sense considering the spate of attacks they unleashed on London, and the fact there are lots of western forces in one place makes it a prime spot.
An official has confirmed at least 60 Afghans were killed and 143 others were wounded in the suspected suicide bombings.
Islamic State affiliate, ISIS-K, said on its Telegram account it was behind the attack.
Quite surprised to see it was actually ISIS behind the attack. It does make sense considering the spate of attacks they unleashed on London, and the fact there are lots of western forces in one place makes it a prime spot.
It may be ISIS, but I think that they have a habit of claiming responsibility for just about any atrocity. The cartoon in Private Eye a few years ago showing an answerphone in a wrecked building saying,”Hello, you have got through to ISIS...Yes, it was us”, was rather too near the truth. That said, it is quite possible that ISIS are trying to demonstrate to the Taliban that they should be their next proxy-terrorists in residence.
Meanwhile, our government is getting itself in a twist about saving cats and dogs, while leaving those who have helped us to a very uncertain fate. I wonder if we will ever find out who seems to have overruled the Defence Minister.
What if a sovereign state has decided to commit genocide against an ethnic minority? What if they have decided to persecute some group in a way that falls short of genocide but is nevertheless clear persecution? Would you still refuse to intervene?
That's a high proportion of the Afghan fatalities.
If it's indicative of their presence at the Airport it does not bode well for their counter-terrorism capabilities and the future wellbeing of the populace.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
time.com
www.dw.com
giftarticle.ft.com
