Afghanistan Peace Talks

[Heathen Hammer]

The war may be difficult but not pointless. Fundamentalism and all those preachers need to be erased or our civilization will start growing backward generations from now.

US is clearly not doing all it can - allowing opium to bring real benefits to locals and arming corrupt warlords would be a great start, so long as they support our values (western education would be sufficient).

It is pointless - because there is no way that support of Taliban can be stopped from within and outside of Afghanistan. Plus American stance against fundamentalism is illusionary at best, given how US is allied to world's main terrorist capital of the world - Saudi Arabia, and backed fundamentalist groups against secular governments of Libya and Syria.

[Abdülmecid I]

So, the Americans and the Taliban have signed a ceasefire agreement in Doha. According to the terms of the deal, the number of American troops stationed in the country will gradually decrease, until the last soldier leaves Afghanistan, perhaps sometime in spring 2021. In exchange, the Taliban promise to severe ties with al-Qaeda (not a particularly important clause, to be honest) and to negotiate with the government in Kabul, which they had so far refused to recognize as legitimate. It is interesting to note that the talks in Qatar included only the Taliban and the United States, as the government of Afghanistan was not invited to participate.

In my opinion, although it is true that both sides made concessions, the biggest winner, at least in the long term, are the Taliban. They will be obliged to respect and follow the demands of the agreement (as confirmed by the overall reduction of violence during the latest months), as American units remain present in Afghanistan, but when the current government loses its most crucial military advantage, there would be no incentive not to violate the terms, as the balance of forces will have been dramatically changed, to the detriment of their adversaries. The United States will also probably benefit, as there will be more resources, human and material, to spend in other geopolitical fronts than the quagmire of Afghanistan, but the prospects of their allied regime there are not particularly bright.

[Akar]

I'm interested to see how this plays out. On the surface it looks good but we'll see.

[Yayattasa]

The Taliban stood its ground against a superpower again.

[conon394]

The Taliban stood its ground against a superpower again.

Well its always easier to break something than to build something. Also the Taliban are not quite the same as the people who ground down the USSR seeing as thay whacked Massoud. The sad thing is in failure the US especially under Trump will not live up to the standards of say Classical Athens and shelter and bring to the US its on the ground collaborators who are likely doomed.

[Gromovnik]

Let's call it a draw again.

[Cope]

The Taliban stood its ground against a superpower again.

It was the original Mujahideen that fought against the USSR, not the Taliban.

[Gromovnik]

It was the original Mujahideen that fought against the USSR, not the Taliban.

Mijahideen means someone fighting in a jihad. Taliban means "student". They're not mutually exclusive. And in the context of Afghanistan, they are really not mutually exclusive.

[Infidel144]

In the context of Afghanistan, the Taliban was formed in 1994. Partly in response to the internecine fighting by the various mujahideen factions.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Taliban Ramp Up Attacks on Afghans After Trump Says ‘No Violence’
Deadly assaults against Afghan forces have increased since the U.S. and Taliban signed a deal to end their war. Afghans worry about the ambiguity of the Taliban’s promises.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/w...-violence.html

#ArtOfTheDeal

[Sar1n]

Just what I suspected. It's Vietnam all over again. The moment US and other foreign troops are gone, Taliban will roll in and take over whole country.

[Papay]

Its the same with Obama in 2016. He was claiming that US forces will withdraw completely and in the end he ordered some of them to stay passing the problem to the next president. The same will happen with Trump

[Love Mountain]

Maybe because withdrawing is a phenomenally bad idea. Anybody else remember a superpower withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the local government try to handle things on its own? This doesn't have to continue being a mistake, we can actually read history and learn from it. Instead of repeating what the Soviets did.

[Cope]

Maybe because withdrawing is a phenomenally bad idea. Anybody else remember a superpower withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the local government try to handle things on its own? This doesn't have to continue being a mistake, we can actually read history and learn from it. Instead of repeating what the Soviets did.

The only way the war won't continue being a mistake is if Washington stops lying about the situation, develops a coherent strategy (which is applied consistently) and informs the public that the US's presence in Afghanistan will be indefinite. Since non of those things are likely, the next best option is to reach some sort of crude agreement with the Taliban and withdraw - a position which is held by all of the significant presidential candidates.

[Love Mountain]

If Biden wins it could happen. Also, leaving Afghanistan will just mean Taliban takes over again. Though I was pretty horribly wrong with my predictions in just the last 48 hours so what do I know.

[Cope]

Biden has already made vague promises to withdraw from Afghanistan. His abysmal record on foreign policy (including as VP) indicates that he's just as clueless as the rest of the political establishment on how to develop - let alone execute - a suitable plan for the region. Frankly I'd be amazed if he was even well informed on what's going on over there. So if you're hoping he's going to come out and commit US forces indefinitely to protect the gov't in Kabul, you're dreaming. Biden'll tell the voters what they want to hear and then let the Pentagon do whatever it wants for another four years.

[Lord Thesaurian]

If Biden wins it could happen. Also, leaving Afghanistan will just mean Taliban takes over again. Though I was pretty horribly wrong with my predictions in just the last 48 hours so what do I know.

I think you’re right though I was similarly wrong. Any peace deal with the Taliban is doomed to failure, and any other government will require sustained western financial and military support. The situation is largely the same as it ever was.

[Papay]

The only way the war won't continue being a mistake is if Washington stops lying about the situation, develops a coherent strategy (which is applied consistently) and informs the public that the US's presence in Afghanistan will be indefinite. Since non of those things are likely, the next best option is to reach some sort of crude agreement with the Taliban and withdraw - a position which is held by all of the significant presidential candidates.

Well Bush was claiming that US presence in Afghanistan should be "indefinite". This was 20 years ago. Next Obama put 120.000 on the ground. This policy failed. In the last 5-6 years we have another policy of small number of soldiers and extensive bombing campaign. This failed too. The only logical scenario is a vietnam ending. My guessing is that neither Trump or the next president will have the guts to let Afghanistan fall into Taliban hands. But Taliban can wait. They control more than half of Afghanistan while the government controls the cities that are besieged. The only reason why Taliban dont attack the cities is because they know that the enemy firepower can push them back. So they do what they did wth the Soviets. Waiting outside the city gates

[Gigantus]

#ArtOfTheDeal

Newsflash from the BBC:

"The US military has conducted an air strike against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, just hours after President Donald Trump said he had had a "very good talk" with a leader of the group."

'Very good talk' starts getting synonymous with 'stand by for FUBAR'

[Cope]

'Very good talk' starts getting synonymous with 'stand by for FUBAR'

If he'd articulated the thought in a more bourgeois fashion ("constructive talks" for instance) would your jimmies be any less rustled?