Author Topic: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan  (Read 721026 times)

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1700 on: August 13, 2021, 07:19:04 PM »
So, how long until Kabul falls ?..

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
When will Kabul fall & guest on CNN blames Trump for today
« Reply #1701 on: August 13, 2021, 07:39:00 PM »
my NJ arm chair guess :

just after they accept they get the money into their accounts that Biden & team is bribing / begging them not to hurt US people

ORANGE MAN'S FAULT says AC on Communist news network:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-ambassador-afghanistan-blames-taliban-surge-trump-delegitimizing-afghan-government-075957663.html

on the jornolistor Cooper show

« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 07:41:50 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1702 on: August 13, 2021, 08:18:52 PM »
   
Daily Memo: Update on Afghanistan
The Taliban are gaining ground, and fast.
By: Geopolitical Futures

Sending reinforcements. The United States announced it would send an additional 3,000 troops to Afghanistan to help protect its embassy staff as they evacuate the country. The Taliban have gained control over several key cities, including Kandahar, and appear to be advancing toward the capital. Meanwhile, NATO is planning to hold an emergency session on the situation on Friday.

Bracing for an influx. The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, in a statement urged the Taliban to resume peace talks with the government of Afghanistan. The EU is worried about an influx of Afghan refugees as the security situation deteriorates in the country. (The bloc’s border agency on Thursday reported that the majority of migrants crossing into the Western Balkans, where the number of illegal crossings increased by 90 percent this year compared to last year, were from Afghanistan and Syria.) Meanwhile, India, too, is reportedly planning to reactive direct talks with the Taliban.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
WSJ recommends this
« Reply #1704 on: August 14, 2021, 05:05:51 PM »
Quality stuff YA!

This from the WSJ--

A Rescue Plan for Afghanistan
It’s not too late to prevent a bloodbath and total Taliban victory.
By The Editorial Board
Aug. 13, 2021 6:40 pm ET



What an awful, tragic irony. President Biden in April chose Sept. 11 as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now it’s possible that, on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban that once protected Osama bin Laden and that the U.S. ousted from power could again rule in Kabul.

Mr. Biden would like to absolve himself of responsibility for this looming defeat, but he cannot. He could have withdrawn U.S. forces in a careful way based on conditions and a plan to shore up Afghan forces or midwife an alliance between regional tribal warlords and the government in Kabul. The President did none of that.


Instead his mid-April decision to withdraw, on the eve of the summer fighting season, triggered the May 1 start of the Taliban offensive. The rapid withdrawal timetable meant U.S. forces would be preoccupied with that task rather than assisting Afghan forces. His decision to abandon multiple military bases, and withdraw all air power, has denied the Afghan army crucial support it relied on.

We are now watching the consequences, as the Taliban captures city after city. Soon the group could control or contest more than 90% of the country, including traditional anti-Taliban strongholds in the north. Insurgents have seized Kandahar and Herat—the second and third largest cities—and an assault on Kabul could come soon. The U.S. is evacuating all but a bare-bones diplomatic staff and may even move them from the U.S. Embassy.


Even now, however, it’s not too late to stop or slow the slaughter. Outside of well-regarded special forces units, Afghan army troops have retreated willy-nilly as they’ve lost confidence in holding off the Taliban. But allied air power and maintenance assistance were a basic part of Kabul’s defense strategy.

Government forces are more likely to fight, and could stand a chance, if Mr. Biden brings U.S. air assets back to the country. The U.S. will also need to deploy enough troops and contractors to keep the planes flying and Bagram air base secure.


The fall of Kabul may look inevitable, but the Taliban isn’t the Wehrmacht. A display of even modest renewed U.S. support would boost Afghan morale and give the Taliban pause on its march to Kabul. Once a rout is stopped, the U.S. can then work on a strategy that assists Afghans who oppose the Taliban to set up a resistance. This means working with friendly regional leaders who can provide areas of operational control. CIA teams, like Team Alpha that helped to topple the Taliban in 2001, could enter the country now and rally pockets against the Taliban with air power support.

The goal would be to impose costs that would give the Taliban reason to doubt it can regain control of the country. It could also give the Afghan government some negotiating leverage in talks with the Taliban.

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggests reconstituting a version of the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group to offer ideas for the Biden Administration. In February that group laid out a plan for a small residual U.S. force in Afghanistan that could prevent exactly the kind of rout we’re now seeing. This would need to be done quickly, but there is enough retired military and political expertise on Afghanistan to make it happen.

***
This would be an admission that Mr. Biden’s withdrawal was a mistake, but that would be a small price to avoid strategic disaster and perhaps a bloodbath that will stain America’s reputation and haunt his Presidency. Even the Democratic media has now picked up the Vietnam metaphor—“Biden’s Saigon”—that we warned about weeks ago.

So far Mr. Biden seems determined to stick with his hell-bent withdrawal, and perhaps he thinks Americans won’t care. But they will care if they see in a few weeks or months the revival of safe havens for al Qaeda or Islamic State. They will care if they think the U.S. homeland is threatened.

And they’ll care if China, Russia and Iran see the U.S. defeated in Afghanistan by a militia like the Taliban and conclude that Mr. Biden will fold if they challenge U.S. friends and interests. Each of them drew that conclusion about Barack Obama and exploited it in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria, and the broader Middle East. Mr. Biden’s vision to rally an alliance of democracies will find fewer takers.

We realize that our advice is a long shot given Mr. Biden’s determination to wash his hands of Afghanistan. But the costs of the bloody defeat that now seems likely will be far greater than the President thinks if the Taliban’s flag soon flies over Kabul.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Handover, Defeat in Afghanistan, John Ellis
« Reply #1705 on: August 14, 2021, 07:14:30 PM »
Scathing review.
----------------------
Handover.
Defeat in Afghanistan.
John Ellis
Aug 14, 2021
[Ellis is retired columnist/editor Boston Globe.]
This was originally sent to subscribers only. John Ellis News Items. It generated a lot of response. A number of subscribers urged me to make it freely available. So here it is.
——————

What do you suppose the chances are that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken thinks the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan — the “handover to the Taliban,” as Former U.S. Ambassdor Ryan Crocker put it the other day — is a good idea? “None” would be my guess.

What do you suppose the chances are that you could find more than 5 people at the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the National Security Council who think the “handover” is a good idea? My guess would be “none” as well.

Handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban is President Biden’s idea, if that’s the right word, and his alone. It is terrible policy, on any number of levels. “Worse than a crime, a mistake” (Talleyrand’s phrase) describes it best.

Axios reports that the Administration “derives comfort from the fact that the American public is behind them — an overwhelming majority support withdrawal from Afghanistan — and they bet they won’t be punished politically for executing a withdrawal.”

Given events and the likely consequences, the fact that the Administration “derives comfort” from anything regarding its decision to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban is nauseous. That they’re “betting” they will escape political punishment is perhaps more so. What we’re witnessing, in real time, on the BBC and CNN and on the websites of the world’s great news organizations is the Taliban’s reimagining of The Killing Fields. Mullah Pol Pot comes to Kabul in a Toyota pick-up truck. Prepare your 13-year-old daughters for “marriage.”

The U.S. military, especially the special operators, must be beside themselves. Abandoning the Kurds under Trump was bad enough. But this makes that look like home leave. This is an epic betrayal and strategically foolish to boot.

A few months back, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former George W. Bush Administration Deputy National Security Advisor Meghan O’Sullivan co-authored an op-ed for The Washington Post which made the case for continuing US operations in Afghanistan. They wrote: “The most basic rationale for continued U.S. military presence is not to bring about a peace agreement or a military victory. Rather, it is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist safe haven, something more likely to materialize if the Taliban comes to control much of the country’s territory.”

How long do you suppose it will take for Afghanistan to once again become a “terrorist safe haven?” Mr. Haass and Ms. O’Sullivan provided a plausible timeline: “As outlined in the Afghanistan Study Group report presented to Congress this year (one of us, Meghan, was a member of the study group), experts assess that al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other groups that have operated in Afghanistan could reconstitute and pose a threat to the American homeland 18 to 36 months after a U.S. withdrawal.”

What’s happening in Afghanistan isn’t happening in a vacuum. As noted above, it’s happening on TV. The world is watching and making adjustments accordingly. The question on everyone’s lips is: How’s everyone in Taipei doing today? Any update on America’s “strategic flexibility” regarding Taiwan?

Earlier this year, Haass and others argued that the US policy on Taiwan should shift from “strategic flexibility” (maybe we will come to its defense in the event of an invasion by mainland forces and maybe we won’t) to “strategic certainty,” (we will). America’s “credibility” should not be in doubt, they argued, perhaps anticipating the administration’s abandonment of Afghanistan. No such shift has been forthcoming. “Flexibility” remains, open to interpretation.

If you’re President Xi, you see Afghanistan, clearly, for what it is: a humiliating defeat for the United States. He might call it “flexible humiliation.” And what he knows from history is that defeated nations have little appetite for war in the immediate aftermath of losing one. Taiwan is there for the taking. How and when it happens are variables.

This being modern American politics, there is of course a Trump angle. Axios reports: “West Wing officials reject the notion that they could keep Afghanistan stable indefinitely with a small force of around 3,000 that they inherited from Trump. The Biden team's line is that the only reason the Taliban wasn’t killing Americans last year was because Trump had agreed to leave on May 1 this year. When that deadline passed, they contend, there would be no way to guarantee peace and stability with such a small force.”

Most everything in the world can be blamed (or partially blamed) on former President Trump. We know this from watching MSNBC. But this one is all Biden. What Trump left behind could have been undone with the stroke of a presidential pen. The idea that Trump made them do it is risible.

And just for the record, what Trump left behind was not 3000 US personnel in Afghanistan. That’s not how it works. If you include everyone in (just) the special operations “network,” including the locals, logistics, coordinators, intelligence analysts and air support, the numbers (at least) quadruple. We were spending a lot of money in Afghanistan and spreading it around. It was effective. We had eyes and ears everywhere.

When President Biden first announced that the US would be “leaving” Afghanistan, he set September 11, 2021 as the date when every last one of our people would be out. The announcement was greeted with astonished disbelief around the world. Could it really be possible that the US would officially hand over Afghanistan to the people who made it possible for Al Qaeda to attack it 20 years ago………on the very day of that attack?

The answer was “yes,” although the Administration subsequently tried to walk it back without bringing attention to the fact that they were trying to walk it back.

Remarkably, the American press gave the president a pass on this, which seems to be its default setting when it comes to the Biden administration. “Trump was so much worse,” is the always-applicable rationale.

Not in this case. Not by a long shot.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2021, 11:50:19 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1706 on: August 14, 2021, 09:42:48 PM »
The Taliban are taking over city after city in Afghanistan at a stunning speed. But as the U.S. found in 2001, it’s one thing to topple a regime, another to set up a stable new one. Even if the Taliban can negotiate a formal return to power, the country will remain chaotic for a long time, with serious implications for the region, especially for Pakistan and China—in different but geopolitically significant ways.

The impact will be most immediate for Pakistan, which is already feeling it. In the past two decades the Taliban have gone from being a proxy of Islamabad to a threat. When Washington toppled the Taliban in late 2001, Pakistan saw it as a major foreign-policy loss even though it cooperated with the U.S. Islamabad continued to view the Afghan jihadist movement as an ally even in 2007-14, when it faced a major insurgency on its own soil from the Pakistani Taliban rebels. For more than a decade the “good vs. bad Taliban” narrative dominated the national conversation, distinguishing between those who fought in Afghanistan and those who sought to topple the Pakistani state.

It wasn’t until early last month that the country’s top two generals—the army chief and the head of Inter-Services Intelligence—acknowledged, in a rare briefing to opposition members of Parliament, that the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban were “two faces of the same coin.” These remarks underscore that the Pakistani elite now fears its erstwhile proxies because their own country has been deeply penetrated by the Taliban ideology.

The Taliban comeback in Afghanistan will galvanize many Islamist actors in Pakistan to emulate the Afghan jihadist movement. It will be a huge challenge for a terribly weakened Islamic Republic of Pakistan to sustain itself with an Islamic emirate next door. Only a few years ago, and at great cost in blood and treasure, was Islamabad able to take back large swathes of its territory near the Afghan border from Taliban rebels. Those gains are at risk of being lost again.

Since the end of major military operations against Taliban insurgents in 2015, Pakistan has been increasingly dependent on China for its economic recovery. The biggest project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, in which Beijing has invested tens of billions of dollars. The fate of CPEC has increasingly come into question, especially in recent weeks with growing attacks, likely by Pakistani Taliban, targeting Chinese workers in the country. From Beijing’s point of view, a spillover of insecurity from Afghanistan will undermine its investments in Pakistan.


But a post-American Afghanistan also threatens Chinese interests outside Pakistan. For many years Beijing benefited from the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. China pushed ahead with its Belt and Road plans in Central Asia because the U.S. was ensuring that violence was contained within Afghanistan. In March Beijing announced that it would invest as much as $400 billion in Iran over 25 years in anticipation that a new nuclear deal would open Iran for business.

The U.S. decision to withdraw from Afghanistan has plunged China’s business plans in the region into uncertainty. Each of these Chinese projects is at risk of the violence radiating out of Afghanistan. And China isn’t alone in scrambling for solutions. This week Russian troops conducted joint exercises with forces from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on their borders with Afghanistan. But China has far more at stake than Russia, and unlike the Kremlin the People’s Liberation Army has never deployed a multidivisional force to maintain security beyond its borders.

China doesn’t have good options. It will work with Pakistan, Iran, Russia and the Central Asian nations to limit the disruption of its economic interests by the Afghan chaos. But each of these nations will be struggling to protect its own interests. This is why we see the Chinese enhancing their diplomatic ties with the Taliban. On Thursday U.S. News reported that China is prepared to recognize a Taliban regime even if it takes the country over militarily. This is in sharp contrast with the position of most other international and regional players, which have made clear that they would recognize a Taliban-dominated government only if it is formed as part of a negotiated settlement.

As we have seen in so many situations during the past two decades in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, regime change is a terribly messy process. Weak regimes can be toppled; replacing them is the hard part. It is only a matter of time before the Afghan state collapses, unleashing chaos that will spill beyond its borders. All of Afghanistan’s neighbors will be affected to varying degrees, but Pakistan and China have the most to lose.

Mr. Bokhari is director of analytical development at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy and a national-security and foreign-policy specialist at the University of Ottawa’s Professional Development Institute.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1707 on: August 15, 2021, 05:13:28 AM »
The helicopters have improved.


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1708 on: August 15, 2021, 05:19:06 AM »
Spoils of war


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1709 on: August 15, 2021, 06:30:29 AM »
Some questions in my mind:
- The question is which country will first recognize the Taliban govt. China ?
- Currently Pak is rejoicing, but in time there could be blowback in Pak. The Durrand line will get obliterated. Pak will lose territory. For this to happen the Taliban Shuras have to move out of Pak
   and into Afghanistan, so Pak's hold on them is now much less. They dont need Pak's protection anymore, only medical care. Hope India builds more hospitals in Kabul.
- Will there be new proxy wars..will Taliban splinter into factions ?
- In the long term, India may benefit. There is good will for India in Afghanistan, Indian investments in dams, new parliament, education etc are likely to be safe.
- Biden handled the withdrawal poorly, its a big setback for the USA in terms of credibility and loss of investment  $ and lives. However, we could not stay there for ever. This withdrawal is a bit
   like what we did in Iraq, after catching Saddam, we left his trained soldiers out of a role and the vacuum was filled with ISIS etc.
- Russia + Iran or China + Pak, India will likely support any Russian initiatives.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1710 on: August 15, 2021, 07:02:22 AM »
YA:  May I have the URL for that picture please?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Biden: " America is back!"
« Reply #1711 on: August 15, 2021, 07:49:34 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYuQekIL_CI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD64kYG-z5I

I always thought of Joe Biden as a horses ass.

Same Obama team Blinken et al who gave us ISIS

leaves in the same vulnerable position - AGAIN!

« Last Edit: August 15, 2021, 07:51:18 AM by ccp »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1712 on: August 15, 2021, 08:02:42 AM »
YA:  May I have the URL for that picture please?

Modified link https://digitalhayat.in/2021/08/15/america-repeating-the-history-of-vietnam-war-in-afghanistan-had-to-leave-saigon-like-this-46-years-ago/

“There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy" - President Joe Biden (July 8, 21)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2021, 08:09:55 AM by ya »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1713 on: August 15, 2021, 08:26:37 AM »
Cost of the Afghan war. Imagine if they had bought BTC instead  :-)

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afghanistan-43d8f53b35e80ec18c130cd683e1a38f

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Question for Ya
« Reply #1714 on: August 15, 2021, 08:33:52 AM »
Ya,

I am thinking we see images of Taliban walking through mountain passes carrying their AK 47 s
and RPGs
I assume like ISIS they are advancing in pick up trucks

Why won't the AFghan forces simply use the air power that was supplied to them
and blast them to the land of 100 virgins.

They sound like they have the fire power to annihilate them .

Think if that money went into bitcoin in 2014!   :wink:


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Question for Ya
« Reply #1715 on: August 15, 2021, 08:46:14 AM »
Ya,

I am thinking we see images of Taliban walking through mountain passes carrying their AK 47 s
and RPGs
I assume like ISIS they are advancing in pick up trucks

Why won't the AFghan forces simply use the air power that was supplied to them
and blast them to the land of 100 virgins.

They sound like they have the fire power to annihilate them .

Think if that money went into bitcoin in 2014!   :wink:

The Taliban was smart, they first took over all the border crossings in to Afghanistan, so they could starve any city they wanted to. Second, its easy to take up outlying areas, just walk in. This is a great morale booster. The big cities just collapsed, after the Americans left, the psychological loss of that support was immense.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1716 on: August 15, 2021, 08:49:22 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1717 on: August 15, 2021, 08:59:15 AM »
Biden : it is orange man's fault!

 :x

He has been for his entire political career a lying sniffling political coward
who lies like no other.

Dirtball...... :cry:

I am only surprised the MSM is NOT letting off the hook for this .

Even Max Boot was on yesterday saying it is all HIS fault and blaming Trump for this is BS.
WOW!!!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1718 on: August 15, 2021, 02:59:36 PM »
All badthings are the bad orange man's fault!


Biden : it is orange man's fault!

 :x

He has been for his entire political career a lying sniffling political coward
who lies like no other.

Dirtball...... :cry:

I am only surprised the MSM is NOT letting off the hook for this .

Even Max Boot was on yesterday saying it is all HIS fault and blaming Trump for this is BS.
WOW!!!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1719 on: August 15, 2021, 03:55:45 PM »
Did anyone see Blinken on today ?

he sounded completely in panic mode pointing fingers at everyone but himself
and claiming this is not Saigon

Of course it is not like Saigon
   we have updated evacuation helicopters now

This guy should either by fired (doubt Biden will) or resign

he is the worst Sec of State since madams Pantsuit
   and Albright and possible of the last 70 - 80 yrs

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1720 on: August 15, 2021, 04:30:47 PM »
The deed is done, on Biden's watch.


When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
   An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
         So-oldier of the Queen!

- Rudyard Kipling
« Last Edit: August 15, 2021, 04:49:11 PM by ya »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Stratfor: After fall of Kabul, then what?
« Reply #1721 on: August 15, 2021, 05:09:29 PM »
Where Are the Taliban and Afghanistan Headed After the Fall of Kabul?

The Taliban is now in Kabul, and negotiating for the peaceful transfer of power from a collapsing Afghan government to the reinstated Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has fled to Uzbekistan, while former President Hamid Karzai, former Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah and former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are reportedly in talks with the Taliban to facilitate the transition.

Taliban officials have reportedly told their forces to take up security positions inside Kabul, but not to enter people's houses or engage in revenge attacks, and have offered an amnesty for those who worked with the Afghan government or even with foreign forces. Reports of looting have emerged, and shots fired near the airport reportedly stopped commercial flights. Several Western embassies have closed or evacuated staff, and earlier reports noted that the United States was calling on any remaining citizens in Kabul to shelter in place given the status of the airport. Nonetheless, the Taliban is seeking to shape the narrative that their accession to power is legitimate — a message for both inside Afghanistan and beyond its borders.

The speed of the Taliban's final advance suggests less military dominance than effective political insurgency coupled with an incohesive Afghan political system and security force struggling with flagging morale. In many cases, local officials and forces simply melted away or directly handed power to the Taliban, a pattern that largely seemed to be repeated in the final move on Kabul.

As the Taliban looks to formalize its control over Afghanistan and seeks legitimacy domestically and internationally, we will be considering several questions over the next several days and weeks — the answers to which will shape the next phase of the Afghan situation.

Is Ghani planning to set up some sort of anti-Taliban political or military force in Uzbekistan, and will he be able to gain any international support?

Ghani has come under criticism from several officials who have stayed in Kabul for fleeing, but he refused to step down as president. It is possible that as several Western nations have asserted that they will not recognize Taliban rule, Ghani is positioning himself as the nucleus of an Afghan government in exile. His declining support in Afghanistan may make this moot, but we will also watch the Uzbek government to see if it will allow an opposition force to be established within its borders. Any reconstitution of a Northern Alliance opposition to the Taliban would need to include Uzbek and Tajik militia.
With the collapse of the Afghan police and security forces, where are the former soldiers and police going, and where are their weapons? Are they fleeing Afghanistan, shifting sides, or just reverting to their ethnic and tribal affiliations, and thus becoming the nuclei of numerous localized militia?

The Taliban has taken control of most of Afghanistan, at least nominally. But much of that has been due to the collapse of the Afghan security forces, not necessarily their defeat. Afghanistan remains a complex ethnic and tribal society with local interests, and long-term control requires authority over the use of force. If soldiers and police have retained their weapons and shifted allegiance from the nation to their locality, then this presents a lingering civil war challenge for the Taliban. Such local militia forces may also provide levers for foreign powers to exploit to keep the Taliban off balance.
What sort of negotiated settlement are Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah and former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar likely to forge with the Taliban? In their attempts to gain domestic and international legitimacy, will the Taliban seek to keep aspects of the current bureaucracy or offer political concessions to powerful local leaders to avoid a prolonged civil war?

Insurgency and governance are not necessarily the same skill sets, and the Taliban may find itself struggling to maintain its internal cohesion and manage the complex human landscape of Afghanistan. If the Taliban wants international recognition and engages in at least limited commerce with its neighbors, it will need to set up a functioning bureaucracy. Forging selective power sharing arrangements may give it access to a trained workforce and reduce the likelihood of anti-Taliban insurgency, but it will also require additional political compromises by the Taliban.
Will the Taliban facilitate the peaceful evacuation of foreign personnel from Kabul after they complete the transfer of power?

If they are seeking legitimacy, then they may well do so. It is unclear, however, if the Taliban have complete control over all of their forces and fighters, and there may be some seeking to exploit foreigners caught behind the lines in Afghanistan.
Which countries are likely to recognize the Taliban-led government? Has Taliban outreach to Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and the Gulf paved the way for formal, or even unofficial, recognition?

Pakistan has sent mixed messages, but the apparent inevitability of Taliban control may leave Islamabad and Afghanistan's other neighbors little option but to deal with the Taliban, even if they don't grant formal diplomatic recognition. If China or Russia were to recognize the Taliban, that would be a major victory for the group, as no permanent member of the U.N. Security Council recognized their first government in the late 1990s. China is particularly important to watch in this regard. Beijing has engaged with the Taliban and laid out its expectations of any future government — deny sanctuary for Uyghur militants, protect Chinese business and infrastructure interests, limit the spread of cross-border militancy from spilling into Central or South Asia and compromising China's Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing may well recognize the reality of the Taliban over the preferences of Western powers, just as recently we have seen China reengaging with the new military leadership of Myanmar, effectively accepting the military as the legitimate government. But while Chinese diplomatic recognition would be a major breakthrough for the group, it would require the Taliban to exert more influence or control over foreign militant elements inside Afghanistan, something it may not be fully capable of doing.
What are the implications for other militant groups in Afghanistan, namely, al Qaeda and the Islamic State Khorasan Province?

Unverified reports indicate that the Taliban have freed dozens of prisoners, including some ISKP members. The Taliban have used foreign fighters in its cause, and in the past have sheltered transnational militants. It has also, however, fought the rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan, seeing it as a competing power center. Numerous prisons have been overrun and emptied, or have seen prison breaks, so the Taliban will not only see its own fighters freed, but potentially competing militants. If the Taliban are serious about gaining some aspect of international recognition, even regionally, it will be forced to act quickly to rein in other militants. This will add to the likely simmering unrest that is likely to plague Afghanistan as the Taliban transitions from insurgency to rule.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1722 on: August 15, 2021, 05:38:20 PM »
- Somethings I am wondering about:
- Absolutely no fight by Afghan forces, many of their officers are well trained at the Indian Army Academy.
- It appears that Biden had no clue, July 8 he was saying Taliban cannot take Kabul. Looks like they forgot to inform him. https://twitter.com/i/status/1426729833296506888
- The US military obviously knew, as you can see videos of US military spokesmen tying themselves in knots. It is said that the currency markets know everything, watch the exchange rate of the Afghani to US $, it started spiking up in Jan 2021 and went parabolic the last few months. At the moment its 100 AFN=1 US$ on the black market. The Afghan people will lose all their money...at risk of becoming worthless.
- Several weeks ago, a couple of Afghan security ministers resigned their positions and left the country. The army chief was changed, that was the writing on the wall.
- The US left all its weapons, helicopters for the Taliban once they knew they would evacuate. Perhaps they did not have time ?. Each of those military Humvees cost a lot of $$. Or was that part of the deal with the Taliban, to allow the US to exit safely. No news of the Talib's shooting down aeroplanes taking off from Kabul.
- Pakis are rejoicing and in heaven. They have defeated the US...sort of makes sense in retrospect, because Biden never made the phone call to Imran Khan, Paki Prime Minister. This was a major issue in Pak politics that Biden had ignored Imran Khan. Perhaps, the reason was the inability of the US to extract any concessions out of Pak and hence the absence of a call.
 


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1724 on: August 15, 2021, 08:50:29 PM »
Obviously we didn't give them enough LGBTQPWTF training!


- Somethings I am wondering about:
- Absolutely no fight by Afghan forces, many of their officers are well trained at the Indian Army Academy.
- It appears that Biden had no clue, July 8 he was saying Taliban cannot take Kabul. Looks like they forgot to inform him. https://twitter.com/i/status/1426729833296506888
- The US military obviously knew, as you can see videos of US military spokesmen tying themselves in knots. It is said that the currency markets know everything, watch the exchange rate of the Afghani to US $, it started spiking up in Jan 2021 and went parabolic the last few months. At the moment its 100 AFN=1 US$ on the black market. The Afghan people will lose all their money...at risk of becoming worthless.
- Several weeks ago, a couple of Afghan security ministers resigned their positions and left the country. The army chief was changed, that was the writing on the wall.
- The US left all its weapons, helicopters for the Taliban once they knew they would evacuate. Perhaps they did not have time ?. Each of those military Humvees cost a lot of $$. Or was that part of the deal with the Taliban, to allow the US to exit safely. No news of the Talib's shooting down aeroplanes taking off from Kabul.
- Pakis are rejoicing and in heaven. They have defeated the US...sort of makes sense in retrospect, because Biden never made the phone call to Imran Khan, Paki Prime Minister. This was a major issue in Pak politics that Biden had ignored Imran Khan. Perhaps, the reason was the inability of the US to extract any concessions out of Pak and hence the absence of a call.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1725 on: August 16, 2021, 04:27:31 AM »
Obviously we didn't give them enough LGBTQPWTF training!

 :-D,  but seriously, at this moment our allies Taiwan, Japan, Ukraine are likely having some internal discussions. Can the US be relied on ?. Answer is no, atleast with Biden in place. They will be buying more weapons...am buying military stocks!

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1726 on: August 16, 2021, 04:48:27 AM »
Anyone remember what political and other changes occurred after the fall of Saigon ?...there might be some lessons there.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1727 on: August 16, 2021, 04:58:20 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Kabul the LBGTSQ RSVLOMOP capital of the Islamic World
« Reply #1728 on: August 16, 2021, 05:14:21 AM »
"Obviously we didn't give them enough LGBTQPWTF training!"

but not for lack of trying :

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/15/biden-prioritized-lgbt-agenda-afghanistan-terrorists-took-over/


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
No more mean tweets!
« Reply #1730 on: August 16, 2021, 10:01:30 AM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/395201.php

The dems once again feed our allies to our enemies.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Michael Yon in 2006
« Reply #1732 on: August 16, 2021, 10:16:45 AM »
second

I have previously mentioned these posts by him in 2006:



https://www.michaelyon-online.com/there-be-dragons.htm


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
MY 2009
« Reply #1735 on: August 16, 2021, 02:16:11 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1736 on: August 16, 2021, 02:43:07 PM »
we can find the footage of the C 130 taking off with the Afghans running around it

on MSM

no one mentioned that I saw of them clinging to the jet then falling to their deaths
though

disgusting

not just "heartbreaking"

but mask face can only worry about his political fortunes

watch, while this debacle takes center stage  pelosi and crew will be busy ramrodding  their socialist agenda down our throats... 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Stratfor: The Talibans Challenge of Legitimacy
« Reply #1737 on: August 16, 2021, 03:30:22 PM »

The Taliban’s Challenge of Legitimacy
6 MIN READAug 16, 2021 | 22:22 GMT


After gaining control of Kabul, the Taliban’s desire for international legitimacy will be shaped by their willingness and capability to constrain transnational militants from using Afghanistan as a base of operations. As the Taliban enter final negotiations with representatives of the Afghan government, the group has already engaged in outreach to countries around the region, most notably China and Russia. Both Beijing and Moscow have already set very specific terms for recognition — the Taliban must demonstrate its willingness and capability to limit transnational attacks from its territory. In the case of Chinese Uyghurs, this may be a relatively simple task, both politically and militarily. But that task grows more challenging when considering groups like al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), which will feel empowered to set their sights back on other regional targets amid the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Taliban officials have promised that they will not allow Afghan soil to be used for operations against other countries, so long as those countries are not engaged in military action against the Taliban.
Moscow and Beijing have said they are willing to engage with the Taliban, but both also noted that they will withhold formal diplomatic recognition until the Taliban demonstrate a capability to constrain foreign militancy in Afghanistan.

The Taliban's Willingness to Contain Militancy

The Taliban’s willingness to contain militants will be dependent on the balance of two opposing drivers: the need to gain international legitimacy and the need to maintain the loyalty of like-minded transnational groups. The Taliban in the past gave shelter to transnational militants (most notably al Qaeda), despite Western condemnation and airstrikes. That support contributed to the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Currently, several foreign fighters and groups operate alongside the Taliban, from al Qaeda and AQIS to Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Haqqani Network. While most have been fighting against U.S. and Western forces in Afghanistan, or against the Afghan government and military, AQIS and TTP have directed activities against Pakistan. And despite competing against Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Taliban have also retained relatively close cooperation with more like-minded foreign militants.

The Taliban may be focused on Afghanistan, but they have clear sympathies with many of these other militant movements. An agreement to constrain or control them would, at least on the surface, appear to contradict the Taliban’s ideology and its existing relationships. The Taliban may be willing to constrain specific smaller groups, like the ethnic Uyghur militants that concern China. Managing these other groups, however, will take stronger political will and clearer benefits from constraining rather than shielding. At least on a limited basis, Moscow and Beijing may provide the incentive.

The Taliban will seek international legitimacy to gain access to trade, as well as selective infrastructure and development assistance. Such legitimacy, which was denied to the Taliban in the 1990s, would also reduce potential external support for anti-Taliban movements inside Afghanistan. Russia is a particular concern, given its continuing relations in Central Asia and the history of ethnic conflict in Afghanistan. Recognition from China or Russia would also help shield a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan from U.N. Security Council actions. If these benefits outweigh the perceived benefits of allowing attack planning and training from inside Afghanistan, the Taliban may well be willing to selectively constrain the operations of its current partners, at least over the next year or two.

The Taliban's Capacity to Contain Militancy

The Taliban clearly have interests in gaining international or at least regional legitimacy for its takeover of Afghanistan. But with inherent constraints, it will be difficult for the group to control militant activities both within and beyond its borders, regardless of intent. Political cohesion within the Taliban will be the first and most significant test. Taliban fighters hail from numerous individuals and groups, some with competing ideas about just what the Taliban should be, where they should focus, and whether they should take on a more internationalist role. Whether Taliban leaders are able to retain centralized loyalty and ensure commitment to central goals, rather than local or personal interests, during a transition from an insurgency to status-quo power will offer the first indication of the Taliban’s ability to control transnational militants, as local leaders who have close relations with transnational militants may be more sympathetic to their fighting partners than to a governing body in Kabul. The second test will then be whether the Taliban can exert control over all of Afghanistan, lest risk creating negative space that other groups could occupy outside of Taliban control. And the third and final test will be whether the Taliban can enforce control over groups that have fought on their territory, but now have shifting priorities.

Fighting against a common foreign enemy inside Afghanistan has strengthened ties between the Taliban and their transnational militant partners, but with that enemy gone, the core interests of those individual groups move back to the fore. The Taliban share some common goals and intent with these groups, but they do not align across the board. AQIS and TPP clearly have a foreign focus, and will look at the Taliban victory as a cue to accelerate their attacks in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This risks undermining relations with not only Pakistan but also China, which sees the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a critical economic link. The Taliban may be able to refocus some groups to the consolidation phase that is still necessary to control Afghanistan, as it has with Jamaat Ansarullah, the so-called Tajik Taliban. But this may be short-lived as they focus on their broader goals in Tajikistan.

The Taliban may be willing to use force or expel troublesome leaders or groups from Afghanistan, but their military capacity to do so remains in question. The Taliban did turn their forces against ISKP, as there were clear ideological differences and competition over power. It is possible similar patterns may emerge with the TTP or Jamaat Ansarullah, which have geographically and often ethnically constrained goals. Smaller groups like the remnants of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) may also be relatively easy targets, assuming the Taliban can locate them. But it is difficult to see the Taliban, likely faced with ongoing insurgency and resistance, having the political or military will and capacity to shift their sights against al Qaeda. A split with the Haqqani Network would also trigger a civil war between Taliban fighters.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1738 on: August 16, 2021, 04:13:54 PM »
wow
Erin Burnett did show. the video of the people falling after the plane

maybe this will wake up /shake up some the dumb ass woke

new phrase:

"WAKE UP the WOKE"

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1739 on: August 16, 2021, 04:25:06 PM »
It will be ORANGE MAN BAD's fault! Oh, and the unvaccinated...

wow
Erin Burnett did show. the video of the people falling after the plane

maybe this will wake up /shake up some the dumb ass woke

new phrase:

"WAKE UP the WOKE"

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1740 on: August 16, 2021, 05:38:10 PM »
I am sure, everyone has seen this..but its a must watch. How can the commander in chief be so wrong on everything.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1426710333264179214

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1741 on: August 16, 2021, 05:59:51 PM »
I am sure, everyone has seen this..but its a must watch. How can the commander in chief be so wrong on everything.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1426710333264179214

Well, this is a perfect example of how far the FUSA has fallen.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1742 on: August 16, 2021, 06:39:54 PM »
made mistake of stomaching
Cuomo

who , now he and brother , are off the front pages

is back on the air

has veteran on and keeps referring to him as "my brother"

and referring to veterans as HIS "brothers and sisters"

yeah right.

the narcissist always somehow has to make it about himself.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1743 on: August 16, 2021, 08:58:10 PM »
I am sure, everyone has seen this..but its a must watch. How can the commander in chief be so wrong on everything.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1426710333264179214

Thank you ya, I had not seen that.  It was just noise then, but the context of reality and how wrong he was makes it beyond amazing.

He made a career out of being wrong and rose with the Peter Principle.  The man projects weakness in so many ways, his aging frailty is the least of it.  His speeches and talking points come from people who are not old or frail but the policies and positions are weak.  When he projects fake strength, it turns out to be falsehoods.  He blamed all this on the Afghans and he blamed it on Trump.  If Trump locked him in to this position, why didn't any other Trump policy lock him in? 

Also, he laid out another red line for the Taliban to cross in his talk today:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/08/16/watch_live_president_biden_speaks_on_fall_of_afghanistan.html

After he had doled out more than 200% of the blame, he took full responsibility, "The buck stops here." What's wrong with that math?  The buck isn't stopping anywhere, it is spiraling downward and out of control.  That's why he had to make the talk and why he had to hide until his writers gave him these words to utter.  So he threatens the Taliban.  Wow, they fear him, they just took over the country faster than he could get Americans and allies out.  If they harm Afghans, they deserve it because they wouldn't fight to defend themselves and if they hurt Americans, he's going to do what?  He also said we're leaving and can't/won't change the timetable.  Boxed in it seems, but what his words really mean is that his lips are moving because he was taking too much heat for staying silent.

What's left to see is if the Taliban respect the pronoun preferences of American personnel when the terrorists get to the embassy.  God help those left behind in this disaster like the 13 year old girls these sickos will be raping in forced 'marriages' as they control everything.

This is what Americans wanted and that's what great leaders do.  Follow polls.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2021, 09:01:53 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1746 on: August 17, 2021, 04:35:12 AM »
China sending a message re: Taiwan

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1748 on: August 17, 2021, 04:48:48 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« Reply #1749 on: August 17, 2021, 07:05:25 AM »
So, how long until Kabul falls ?..

August 13 (just last Friday), narrative news was still reporting that a handful of obscure provincial capitals were having issues.

ya knew where this was leading.