US Forces In Full Scale Retreat From Afghanistan; 20 years of War Ending In Total Military Defeat?

[Prodromos]

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...7c6f28f46044b3

Taliban conquests in Afghanistan are challenging the Biden administration’s hopes that a desire for international respect — and for international aid and cash — may moderate the fundamentalist militia’s worst behaviors when the U.S. ends its war there.

Showing little interest in a diplomatic settlement, Taliban commanders have sped up their battlefield advances ahead of the U.S. military’s withdrawal at the end of this month. They’ve seized six provincial capitals in the past week.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/08...aliban-n408073

There are multiple disturbing reports coming out of the recently retaken provincial capitals, highlighted in the linked report. Taliban leaders have sent out orders for residents to “provide them with females above age 15” for their fighters to “marry.” In other words, young girls are being seized and handed out as prizes to the victorious fighters under the guise of being child brides.

In other areas, residents suspected of having aided the Americans have been rounded up, leading to the killing of large numbers of detainees en masse. They are clearly sending a message as to who is in charge now and how “justice” will be meted out in the future.

https://www.axios.com/inside-the-bid...d52c17e0c.html

The Taliban has stunned even some seasoned military and national security officials in the U.S. government with the speed of its conquests over the past week, sources with direct knowledge of the developments tell Axios.

Why it matters: President Biden isn’t budging — resolved to get out by Aug. 31, no matter what — people briefed on his thinking say. He may not see much of a pause between his total withdrawal from Afghanistan and the country’s total collapse into a bloody civil war.

[Heathen Hammer]

Funny enough, after Soviet's left, pro-Soviet government remained in power for quite some time, despite the fact that it was left high and dry by Yeltsin's regime.
It seems that regime that America was propping up isn't even going to do that and Taliban will probably take over whole country before the end of this year.

[Cookiegod]

before the end of this year is probably a bit overly optimistic, though obviously some of the panicky talks (e.g. the US and Turks talking about a Turkish presence in Kabul that the Taliban might be more tolerant to, which the Taliban immediately rejected) could point to it. But I think the Afghan government, as long as the US prop it up and no unforeseen events occur, can survive in the most important cities for a couple of years.

Contrary to the Mujahedeen gladly wrecking Afghanistan and bringing societal norms to the 21st century (as long as we're talking BC), who got created and propped up with the express purpose of getting the Soviets to intervene and then bleeding them (as has been directly and unambigiously admitted by decision makers of the time), the Taliban today don't really have any state interested in seeing them win, apart from Pakistan. Neither China, Russia, Iran, India, nor any of the smaller Central Asian republics are happy to see them win, and even Pakistan can't do so overtly. Hence why the US bombers operating from the gulf fly over Pakistan. The fact that the Taliban still dominate under these circumstances says a lot.

It's also a good point to mention that the Taliban basically disbanded when the US invasion hit, and their resurgence is very much due to American incompetence, corruption, and the indiscriminate violence by the alliance and the warlords alike.
Or the fact that to this day all the major and vital infrastructure we see in Afghanistan today is from the Soviet era. It is utterly pathetic how those billions of dollars evaporated with almost no tangible effect.

As much as I'd like to revel in the defeat of an invader, there's nothing positive in the ongoing events. (Rural) Afghanistan has always been conservative and tribal, but it wasn't hardcore Wahhabi, which even the cities will be for decades to come. Historical sites predating the Islamic era (such as the buddha statues) will once more be under threat. The Shia population will also be threatened, though the Taliban, to be fair, are more tolerant than the Islamic state.

The neighbouring states (and Russia) will have to foot the bill and allocate significant resources to at least secure the borders. It is in fact not inconceivable that in a not so distant future the US will once more ally with Afghani Islamists to troll/terrorise its neighbours. It's too much in character for them to not at least consider hurting Iran, Russia and China that way.

Bizarre as it might sound, given that the US presence in Afghanistan was always also about them dominating the region and power projection, it still also presented a net positive to the rivals.
Hence why the Russians are expressing the same wishful thinking as the Americans that the Afghan government will continue in some form or another:

The offensive by the Taliban movement (outlawed in Russia) in Afghanistan is losing steam and it has no resources for seizing major cities, including Kabul, Russian Foreign Ministry Deputy Spokesman Alexander Bikantov told a briefing on Thursday.

"The Taliban has no resources to capture and hold the major cities, including the country’s capital city Kabul. Their offensive is gradually running out of steam," he said.

... right before the Taliban took another couple of cities.

Obviously it's a bit hard to predict. Whether the Taliban will continue to make major gains all ultimately hinges on the morale of the soldiers on the government side, as they don't have much shortage regarding equipment. With every city taken the Taliban free prisoners that fill their ranks and gain vast numbers of weapons and supplies that can help them win. But the amount of pressure that they can bring to bear against any single point will always be limited by logistics and enemy air power. So I don't see the potential for infinite exponential growth.

[Ludicus]

The destruction of the romantic idea of "nation building" (the famous "nation building" that animated the Iraq war) is evident today in the violence and dread that assails the lives of millions of Afghans. When the last US contingent leaves Kabul at the end of the month, Afghanistan will join the list of wars that, out of arrogance, carelessness, impossibility or desperation, the West has lost in the last decades. This time, defeat was in sight.

[Papay]

Its quite probable that the regime will collapse from the inside if Taliban reach the outskirts of Kabul. I dont think that Ghani will fight to the death like Najibullah did

Bty in Kunduz a whole army corps surrendered without a shot and Taliban captured the airport almost peacefully

[Heathen Hammer]

Taliban leaders have sent out orders for residents to “provide them with females above age 15” for their fighters to “marry.” In other words, young girls are being seized and handed out as prizes to the victorious fighters under the guise of being child brides.

So kinda like Hollywood producers.

[Ludicus]

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq. Invaded and destroyed, for nothing. Nothing.They called it "the process of Creative destruction" (Condoleezza Rice/Bush) ,"the creative chaos", the "new project for the Middle East", the "Grand Strategy" for the birth of real democracy in the Middle East.The destruction of Lebanon as part of the "birth pangs" of Freedom.
-----
"The process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism", writes Schumpeter, in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), in which he described capitalism as the "perennial gale of creative destruction", arguing that the creative-destructive forces unleashed by capitalism would eventually lead to its demise as a system.
Can savage capitalism be humanized? the logic of profit at any cost, the exploitation without thinking of people, politics of exclusion, the dictatorship of the economy? inclusive capitalism is the only possible solution, for capitalism continue to thrive.

[Knight of Heaven]

"The process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism", writes Schumpeter, in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), in which he described capitalism as the "perennial gale of creative destruction", arguing that the creative-destructive forces unleashed by capitalism would eventually lead to its demise as a system.
Can savage capitalism be humanized? the logic of profit at any cost, the exploitation without thinking of people, politics of exclusion, the dictatorship of the economy? inclusive capitalism is the only possible solution, for capitalism continue to thrive.

Not sure how it is relevant to the Afgan war, or the geo politics of the middle east.

[Cookiegod]

The fall of Ghazni is another heavy blow. Now Kabul is cut off on the land route from the other major cities to the south, with the fall of Kunduz having cost them the north.

The Afghanis are barely fighting at all. The governor of Ghazi was apparently escorted out of the city after some deal was made.

The destruction of the romantic idea of "nation building" (the famous "nation building" that animated the Iraq war)

There was never anything romantic about it. It has always just been a half baked excuse. The only thing that got built in Afghanistan was the opium production. It's really pathetic that after 2 decades and so many billions wasted the only thing that still keeps Afghanistan running is Soviet infrastructure.

[Ludicus]

There was never anything romantic about it.

Obviously, but that's what they say.
Well, the libertarian is not justified, he doesn't know what he is saying. We know that even before the American Civil War, Manifest Destiny and Romantic nationalism was used to validate military expansionism. Suffice to say,statements made by the Bush administration is the perception of the United States' ineluctable role and moral obligation to guide global society along what it deems to be the right path.
--
The logic of global capitalism is no longer cultural but has evolved into a logic of war. Pope Francis,

We are in a world economic system that is not good. A system that in order to survive must make war, as great empires have always done. But since you cannot have a Third World War, you have regional wars. And what does this mean? That arms are made and sold, and in this way the idolatrous economies, the great world economies that sacrifice man at the feet of the idol of money, obviously keep their balance sheets in the black.

Council for Inclusive Capitalism

Today more than ever, there is nothing remotely amusing about a group of wrongheaded extremists plotting to take over a government and impose its own dangerously eccentric views on an unwitting and unprepared majority.And all of this is happening because a large, disgruntled minority of Americans dutifully memorized the Declaration’s listing of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without perceiving that these rights can exist only within the context of the social contract

----
The actual situation. Now they are ready to reestablish the Islamic Emirate.



------
Meanwhile,Iran doesn’t know what to do,
Iran Sets Its Eyes on Afghanistan | The Washington Institute

Iranian leaders are keen on protecting (and, by extension, controlling) Shia Muslim communities in Afghanistan, especially now that the Sunni Taliban captured their first two Shia towns in the Bamyan province earlier this month. Although sectarian data is difficult to pin down in Afghanistan, an estimated 15 to 29 percent of the population is Shia... Ethnographic maps indicate that these Shia are fairly concentrated in the center of the country, with smaller pockets in the north, west (particularly Herat), and southwest.
The potential for friction cannot be dismissed given how close Iran and the Taliban have come to open warfare in the past.

At present, Tehran appears to be exploring three main options for avoiding dangerous destabilization in Afghanistan and furthering its interests there: (1) covertly or overtly supporting a Taliban takeover while reaching tactical and strategic agreements with the group in order to contain its activities, (2) waging a proxy war against the group, or (3) intervening directly.

[Heathen Hammer]

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq. Invaded and destroyed, for nothing. Nothing.

What do you mean for nothing? They saved petrodollar and created so much value for military-industrial-parasite complex shareholders (many of which tend to be politicians that push for wars, but there is no connection here, stop being a conspiracy theorist)!

[Papay]

I always knew that it will end up like this but to be honest i am quite surprised on how easily Taliban capture cities. According to reports Kandahar and Herat will fall in the following days, perhaps hours

[Prodromos]

If the war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing, then why are Afghans so afraid of going back to Taliban rule? Clearly they think there's something worth preserving about the current order. But what do they know, they only live there.

[Heathen Hammer]

If the war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing, then why are Afghans so afraid of going back to Taliban rule? Clearly they think there's something worth preserving about the current order. But what do they know, they only live there.

Its more complicated then that. Afghans aren't a singular ethnic entity, some support Taliban, some oppose it. At the end of the day, NATO was defeated and Taliban is winning, so all those "accomplishments" were more about creating income for Raytheon, along with CIA likely being involved with opium production.

[irontaino]

This just shows us that the US military budget needs to be slashed. They weren't nation building, they were building a glass house.

[Heathen Hammer]

This just shows us that the US military budget needs to be slashed.

By who? People that are in power are literally the ones that gain from it, both wings of Uniparty also happen to have some kind of stock in Military-Industrial complex.

They weren't nation building, they were building a glass house.

I think everyone who didn't base his understanding of the world from CNN already knows that Forever Wars aren't being done for humanitarian reasons.

[Ludicus]

What do you mean for nothing? They saved petrodollar and created so much value for military-industrial-parasite complex shareholders

I think we can agree on that.
-----
Matthew A. Shadle, Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia. His work focuses on the development of Catholic social teaching and its intersection with both fundamental moral theology and the social sciences, with special focus on war and peace, the economy, and immigration,

Political scientists have found that while democracies tend to live in peace with one another, democracies can in fact go to war with their non-democratic neighbors, and wage war more vehemently, than non-democracies; perhaps something similar is true of capitalism.
...The idea of an intrinsic pacifism of democracies is questionable, as evidenced by the popularity of the Gulf War or of the war in Afghanistan in the Western public opinion.

Contrary to popular belief, capitalism is not killing war. War is killing capitalism.Contrary to popular belief, in a Marxist or Keynesian perspective, the capitalism is peaceful as long as there are no major economic problems. Jacques Fontanel, in “War and Capitalism”

But in case of major economic crisis, the situation can quickly escalate into an international conflict. Wars have not disappeared with the spread of capitalism around the world and their occurrence in the future should be more frequent, given the growing tensions over natural resources. To reduce the risk of war in the future would involve a thorough reform of the capitalist mode of production, including more controls and regulations, to prevent financial crises or overexploitation of natural resources.

In other words...
Read the full article COVID-19 Impact: Is “Inclusive Capitalism” Part of the Way forward

[Lord Thesaurian]

Not sure how it is relevant to the Afgan war, or the geo politics of the middle east.

It isn’t, but we have to blame capitalism for everything somehow. Communist/socialist countries have never engaged in regime change in Afghanistan, so naturally, this is an inevitable and unique result of an Austrian economist’s plot to destabilize the Middle East. Condi Rice, a well known Marxist, was in fact referencing theory in her famous speech. Her communist designs, hell-bent on destroying the old imperialist order in the Middle East, saw the invasion of Afghanistan as a mere stepping stone toward the broader proletarian revolution, the “birth pangs of freedom” that culminated in the Arab Spring:

Revolution is back on the agenda. The fall of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia in early January and then a month later, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, after decades of what seemed like insurmountable repression, dramatically demonstrated that revolution is the surest way to win social change. It is also the way to debunk the hypocrisy and racist ignorance of politicians and commentators in the West. Just two weeks before the revolution began in Tunisia, The Economist in Britain ran an article titled “Arab democracy: A commodity still in short supply”. It concluded “Most people are inured to authoritarian rule as a fact of life.”1 By March, mass movements across the region from Morocco to Oman, Syria and Jordan, and even Iraq, all clamouring for democracy and decent living conditions, confirmed the inspirational impact of revolution. Every regime was offering reforms and dedicating billions of dollars for wage increases and job creation to try to save their own skins. But in country after country the masses, once aroused, refused to believe them and continued to demand they step down.

The most basic Marxist proposition – that the interests of the capitalist class are irrevocably counterposed to the interests of the vast majority – is dramatically confirmed. Pictures of massive crowds standing up for fundamental human rights flickering around the globe are something any decent person feels an affinity with. On 26 February at a 100,000-strong demonstration against an anti-union bill in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, a man held up a poster with a picture of Mubarak beside Republican Governor Scott Walker. The caption read: “One dictator down. One to go.” At the same time the stock markets were shivering in fright, business pages worrying about the “worsening” situation every time a new revolt sprang to life. As I write, the stock markets are falling as those who benefit from US support for the repressive Saudi regime watch in horror as protesters confront riot police. What is good for one side is inevitably bad for the other.

https://marxistleftreview.org/articl...b-revolutions/

Sadly, the US, like their Soviet bretheren before them, failed to achieve the dream of socialist revolution in Afghanistan. Schumpeter’s capitalist Taliban allies have nearly completed the creative destruction of the government in Kabul, with all the horrors of capitalism sure to follow.

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pakistan-...130617593.html

It's been confirmed by investigators that the TTP were responsible for the attack on a bus in Pakistan killing several Chinese cities.

The attack was planned from Afghan soil. China is stepping into a cesspool.

[Prodromos]

Its more complicated then that. Afghans aren't a singular ethnic entity, some support Taliban, some oppose it.

We have survey data showing the overwhelming majority of Afghans oppose the Taliban. There's not a whole lot of support for returning to Taliban rule.

2018 Asia Foundation survey:

This year, the proportion of respondents who have a lot or a little sympathy with the Taliban is 13.4%, similar to 2018 (15.9%). Respondents who say they have no sympathy with the Taliban have increased almost 3 percentage points, to 85.1%, since 2018 (82.4%). Urban respondents (88.6%) are more inclined than rural respondents (83.9%) to claim to have no sympathy at all.

2019 AISS survey:

https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/what...-afghans-want/

A survey by the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies examines, for the first time, the people’s views on regime type in the country. The survey, which was conducted in 34 provinces of Afghanistan, found that over 68 percent of respondents prefer the post-2001 political system compared to the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate. Over 80 percent of these respondents say they support and endorse the legitimacy of a political regime where the head of the state and the country’s leaders are directly elected by the people in a free and fair election. Over 80 percent of these respondents also support elements of a democratic regime such as women’s rights and liberties, social equality, and freedom of expression.

This finding shows that the people of Afghanistan support an electoral democracy and refuse the Taliban’s Emirate. It also challenges the conventional wisdom that suggests democratic values and processes are alien to and not supported by the people of Afghanistan, due to the tribal structure of the society. According to this assumption, democratic decay, on the one hand, and the growth of the Taliban, on the other, are outcomes of the people’s unfamiliarity with the Western notion of electoral government and their support for tribal and religious mechanisms of governance and legitimation. The new survey does not confirm this assumption. It shows that the past two decades of practicing democracy through voting, media, and civil society activities have significantly influenced people’s political choices. Despite the post-2001 political system’s inability to produce an effective government, the people still prefer it to the Taliban’s Emirate.

Respondents’ views on an ideal political system for Afghanistan is also examined by their level of support for or opposition to ‘a Taliban-style government.’ Respondents were asked “How much do you support or oppose a Taliban style government for Afghanistan?” More than 77 percent say they are against such a regime. Only 15 percent of respondents support a Taliban-style government for Afghanistan (Table 12).

Concerning ethnic affiliations, 89 percent of Hazaras, 87 percent of Uzbeks, 86 percent of Tajiks, 84 percent of the mixed, 60 percent of Pashtuns, and 75 percent of other ethnic groups oppose a Taliban-style government in Afghanistan.

2021 Asia Foundation survey:

https://asiafoundation.org/where-we-...nistan/survey/

There are continued fears that any peace deal between the Afghan government and Taliban may result in the loss of gains or compromises in areas such as women’s rights, girls’ education, a strong central government, and freedom of the press. Afghans however, appear resolute in their determination to resist such losses, and across all waves of the Survey, a majority of Afghans have expressed the importance of protecting such areas under the terms of any peace deal.

The protection of women’s rights, freedom of the press, and protection of the constitution among others, have been noted objectives of the Afghan negotiating team. Over 90% of Afghans believe it is either very important or somewhat important to protect the following as part of a peace agreement: the current constitution (92.0%), freedom of speech (96.0%), freedom of the press (96.3%), a strong central government (96.6%), women’s rights (97.0%), and equality among different groups of people (96.0%). 88.1% say it is important to protect foreign economic assistance in a peace deal. Over half of respondents (51.6%) say it is important to protect the presence of foreign troops.

Support for the protection of women’s rights appears strong throughout the three waves of the Survey. In all waves, only a fifth or less of respondents said they would be very willing or somewhat willing to accept a peace agreement where women may no longer work outside the home. Unsurprisingly, Afghan women are more likely to say they are very unwilling to accept a peace agreement where women may no longer work outside the home, when compared with men (81.6% females compared to 67.1% males). Utilizing the same question but disaggregated by region, 92.4% of respondents in the Central/Highlands region say they would be very unwilling, while this is significantly lower in the East (61.7%) and South West (66.3%).

Support for accepting a peace deal where women and girls may no longer attend school is extremely low. Just over 10 percent say they would be either very willing (6.7%) or somewhat willing (3.9%) to accept such a deal. Again, women (90.8%) are most likely to report being very unwilling to accept such a deal, while this is slightly lower for men (83.1%). Almost all respondents in the Central/Highlands (99.1%) say they would be very unwilling to accept such a deal, while this is lowest in the East (78.3%).