Afghanistan. It's fucked

[Brian Peacock]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

A lesser problem for whom? Because the Taliban is a massive problem for the Afghan people. The media's view of this tragedy is to primarily frame it from the perspective of what it means for the West - how safe are we from international terrorism, how many of 'our brave boys' have died, etc. Also, the assumption that the West's involvement in Afghanistan--and the region as a whole--has been some kind of civilising force that's kept the country from barbarism is completely bogus, fundamentally imperialist and, I'm sorry to say, more than a tad racist. On the contrary, the history of the West's involvement in the region is directly responsible for creating the chaotic conditions we see today. Their blood is on our hands.

[JimC]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

A lesser problem for whom? Because the Taliban is a massive problem for the Afghan people. The media's view of this tragedy is to primarily frame it from the perspective of what it means for the West - how safe are we from international terrorism, how many of 'our brave boys' have died, etc. Also, the assumption that the West's involvement in Afghanistan--and the region as a whole--has been some kind of civilising force that's kept the country from barbarism is completely bogus, fundamentally imperialist and, I'm sorry to say, more than a tad racist. On the contrary, the history of the West's involvement in the region is directly responsible for creating the chaotic conditions we see today. Their blood is on our hands.

Without denying your points about the responsibility of Western adventurism, the poisonous fruits of fundamentalist Islam are a massive part of the evil consequences for women and others in Afghanistan and other places.

[Svartalf]

The trouble is hunting down the Taliban would involve going into Pakistan. That wasn't an appealing option.

Given what happened to Osama, I'm not sure a dertemined POTUS would be that bothered by it.

[Svartalf]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

too bad we can't make a weapon keyed to the fanatic gene, at any rate, one or the other, they both need to be eliminated like rabid plague rats.

[Svartalf]

The one thing we should have done, while we had armed forces there should have been to hunt down the taliban, one by one...

O man, why didn't anyone think of this before you came up with that brilliant idea??

I'm pretty sure I was not the first to have it... I'm stille rueing the fact those who might have done it, however partially, did not.

[Brian Peacock]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

A lesser problem for whom? Because the Taliban is a massive problem for the Afghan people. The media's view of this tragedy is to primarily frame it from the perspective of what it means for the West - how safe are we from international terrorism, how many of 'our brave boys' have died, etc. Also, the assumption that the West's involvement in Afghanistan--and the region as a whole--has been some kind of civilising force that's kept the country from barbarism is completely bogus, fundamentally imperialist and, I'm sorry to say, more than a tad racist. On the contrary, the history of the West's involvement in the region is directly responsible for creating the chaotic conditions we see today. Their blood is on our hands.

Without denying your points about the responsibility of Western adventurism, the poisonous fruits of fundamentalist Islam are a massive part of the evil consequences for women and others in Afghanistan and other places.

Indeed. But Islamic fundamentalism doesn't spring from nowhere does it(?) The failure to acknowledge that Western involvement in the region (from the proxy tribal wars before WWI and the West's exploitation of those during, to the carve up of the spoils thereafter; from the partition of India, the mishandling of the creation of Israel, to the installation and support of 'friendly' dictators post WWII) has been the recruiting Sergeant for jihadis is somewhat of a mistake I fear.

[Svartalf]

And to ice the cake, some analysts say the Haqqani's get along better with IS better than most Taliban.

can somebody remind me why the taliban don't get along with IS? and why the haqqani would do so better?

[Svartalf]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

The Taliban was created by the US to give the Russians a hard time, IS was created by the US to bring down Assad.

...maybe the CIA should start a secret army, to beat them?

Really? I never heard of that, and would have thought that the taliban debacle would have taught them better.

[Svartalf]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

A lesser problem for whom? Because the Taliban is a massive problem for the Afghan people. The media's view of this tragedy is to primarily frame it from the perspective of what it means for the West - how safe are we from international terrorism, how many of 'our brave boys' have died, etc. Also, the assumption that the West's involvement in Afghanistan--and the region as a whole--has been some kind of civilising force that's kept the country from barbarism is completely bogus, fundamentally imperialist and, I'm sorry to say, more than a tad racist. On the contrary, the history of the West's involvement in the region is directly responsible for creating the chaotic conditions we see today. Their blood is on our hands.

Without denying your points about the responsibility of Western adventurism, the poisonous fruits of fundamentalist Islam are a massive part of the evil consequences for women and others in Afghanistan and other places.

and that tree is much older than the soviet invasion of Afghanistan...

[Svartalf]

The Taliban are a lesser problem than IS which carried out the bombings. The two dont mix well.

A lesser problem for whom? Because the Taliban is a massive problem for the Afghan people. The media's view of this tragedy is to primarily frame it from the perspective of what it means for the West - how safe are we from international terrorism, how many of 'our brave boys' have died, etc. Also, the assumption that the West's involvement in Afghanistan--and the region as a whole--has been some kind of civilising force that's kept the country from barbarism is completely bogus, fundamentally imperialist and, I'm sorry to say, more than a tad racist. On the contrary, the history of the West's involvement in the region is directly responsible for creating the chaotic conditions we see today. Their blood is on our hands.

Without denying your points about the responsibility of Western adventurism, the poisonous fruits of fundamentalist Islam are a massive part of the evil consequences for women and others in Afghanistan and other places.

Indeed. But Islamic fundamentalism doesn't spring from nowhere does it(?) The failure to acknowledge that Western involvement in the region (from the proxy tribal wars before WWI and the West's exploitation of those during, to the carve up of the spoils thereafter; from the partition of India, the mishandling of the creation of Israel, to the installation and support of 'friendly' dictators post WWII) has been the recruiting Sergeant for jihadis is somewhat of a mistake I fear.

Two older roots would be the wahhabite cult favored in saudi arabia, and the muslim brothers... and of course the more recent but quite as poisonous salafi branches...

I read about fundie islam around 1990, but it was not much, and I don't remember where the books might be.

[Hermit]

The one thing we should have done, while we had armed forces there should have been to hunt down the taliban, one by one...

O man, why didn't anyone think of this before you came up with that brilliant idea??

I'm pretty sure I was not the first to have it... I'm stille rueing the fact those who might have done it, however partially, did not.

They did not because they could not. Success was not denied them because of a lack of trying.

The problem was that active enemies were indistinguishable from the general population at large. The soldiers on the ground could not tell one from the other. Consequently, and somewhat understandably, they treated the lot of them as enemies, which in turn was a major (though by no means only) reason that made them hugely unpopular. There was zero incentive to cooperate with the purported liberators.

[pErvinalia]

The soldiers on the ground could not tell one from the other.

Should have killed them all! [/Seth]

[Joe]

The trouble is hunting down the Taliban would involve going into Pakistan. That wasn't an appealing option.

Given what happened to Osama, I'm not sure a dertemined POTUS would be that bothered by it.

That was a one stationary guy, Svarty, and a couple of dozen US troops.

Estimates of the Taliban's numbers vary, but 10,000 fighters is kind of a ballpark. The Taliban is a primarily Pashtun outfit, and the Pashtun tribal areas straddle the border with Pakistan, and were a friendly sanctuary for Taliban fighters. This was one reason they are so hard to wipe out.

We got heat for a raid to kill one notorious outlaw, what kind of backlash would we get for an invasion?

That said, we operated drones in Pakistan trying to take out Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.

[Brian Peacock]

For some reason bombing a wedding to kill a prominent figure and their guard detail hasn't seemed to work in anyone's favour.

[Joe]

Yeah, it's a huge blind spot. We just don't get how the drone war is sowing the wind.