The War On Afghanistan Is Lost But The U.S. Still Tries To Keep A Foot In Its Door
The Afghan government forces the U.S. had trained are quickly losing the fight against the Taliban. The U.S. has promised a complete retreat from Afghanistan. But it has now a plan to keep a foot in the door by staying in control of Kabul's international airport. That plan is likely to fail.
When the Soviet troops left Afghanistan the government forces they had supported held out for three more years. Then the Soviets cut off all while the U.S. continued to support the various Pashtun warlords and Mujahedin. Without Soviet resupply the government forces had to give up. Now the U.S. occupation forces are leaving the country. But the government and the forces they are leaving behind are much less prepared to survive than the ones the Soviets had backed. The speed at which the Taliban are now taking over lets me assume that it will take only a few month until the Afghan government forces collapse completely.
Afghanistan has about 400 districts. The Taliban already controlled for some time more than 50% of the countryside but had usually refrained from taking the district centers. That has now changed. Between May 1 and June 14 this year the Taliban took control of 34 districts in Afghanistan. During the last week they added a dozen more, 4 of those on Sunday alone.
Remarkably a lot of the districts the Taliban took were not in primarily Pashtun regions but in the north where the population is often Uzbek, Tajik or from other ethnic minorities. Before the U.S. invasion those populations were often anti-Taliban.
The tactics the Taliban are using shows little variance. They first attack checkpoints and small strongholds around the district center to then besiege the main strongholds of the government military and police. Tribal elders are then send in to communicate Taliban requests to surrender. The Taliban do promise not to harm anyone who does so. They are only asking the soldiers to disarm and to register their names with them. They provide them with enough money to travel back home.
The government is no longer able to resupply and reinforce besieged positions. Its meager airforce lacks the helicopters to do so. The few old Soviet made MI-19 are still flying. The Afghans can maintain those mostly themselves. Years ago Afghanistan wanted to buy more of theses from Russia. But the U.S. Congress intervened. The weapon lobby demanded that the Afghan airforce should buy and fly U.S. made aircraft. UH 60 Blackhawk helicopter and other U.S. made aircraft were delivered. These were less capable and more complicate and expensive that the Russian stuff. The Afghans had no capabilities to maintain them. U.S. contractors were hired to do that. But now those contractors are leaving together with the U.S. troops. The Blackhawks get grounded one by one and soon none will be none left to fly.
With no chance of getting relieved the holdouts in the various district centers now tend to give up instead of fighting to the end. Each day hundreds of soldiers surrender and are welcome by the Taliban. They leave behind an enormous amount of weapons, trucks and ammunition for the Taliban to use in their next operations.
Attempts by the government forces to regain control of Taliban held districts have failed. Last week a U.S. trained commando unit of some 50 soldiers tried to recover the Dawlat Abad district center in Faryab Province. The plan was for some 50 commandos to go in first with some 170 soldiers and police ready to follow them. Air support was supposed to be available. The commandos went in, got cut off and within an hour half of them were dead. Those who were supposed to follow and support them had feared an ambush and had never left their bases. The promised air support never arrived.
The Afghan army is demoralized and does not have the support it needs to hold its positions. It will soon fall apart. China has recognized this and it urges its citizens to leave the country.
A week ago the Turkish President Erdogan floated the idea that Turkish troops could be used to 'secure' the international airport of Kabul. The idea seemed to have originated in Washington DC. After Erdogan's announcement the Taliban immediately rejected it:
Turkey should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan under the 2020 deal for the pullout of U.S. forces, a Taliban spokesman said on Thursday, effectively rejecting Ankara's proposal to guard and run Kabul's airport after U.S.-led NATO forces depart.The development raises serious questions for the United States, other countries and international organizations with missions in Kabul about how to securely evacuate their personnel from landlocked Afghanistan should fighting threaten the capital.
...
Asked in a text message whether the Taliban rejected Turkey's proposal to keep forces in Kabul to guard and run the international airport after other foreign troops leave, the Taliban spokesman in Doha responded that they should go as well.
During the last week President Biden visited NATO and had a meeting with Erdogan. He gave the plan a go:
US President Joe Biden agreed to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's requests to support Ankara’s forces as they retain control of Kabul International Airport after American and NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan this summer, a senior US official said Thursday."President Biden committed that that support would be forthcoming" during their meeting in Brussels on Monday, national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters on a briefing call today.
“President Erdogan expressed satisfaction with that, and the two of them tasked their teams just to work out the final details,” Sullivan said.
US officials “are putting together a detailed and effective security plan” to assist the Turkish security plan, which Western officials see as vital to protecting diplomatic missions to the Afghan government as the Taliban makes gains in various parts of the country.
One does not protect diplomatic missions by holding the main airport of a foreign country. There must be other reasons why this was put on the table.
The CIA has tried to get drone-bases in countries neighboring Afghanistan to continue its drug smuggling business fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Negotiations were held with Pakistan but Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan publicly rejected the plan:
In an interview with Axios HBO, Imran Khan categorically stated that he would not allow the US to use Pakistan as a base for its Afghan operations.
...
Mr Khan told the interviewer, Jonathan Swan, that he would "absolutely not" allow the US to have the CIA in Pakistan to conduct cross border counter-terrorism missions against al-Qaeda, the Islamic State group, and the Taliban.Pakistan's cooperation is seen as critical to US President Joe Biden's plans to completely withdraw US troops from Afghanistan by September.
Mr Khan has always been opposed to the US using Pakistan as a base from which to launch operations, and his comments follow similar remarks made by Pakistani government officials.
This stance won a lot of praise in Pakistan with the term #AbsolutelyNot trending in the country.
Pakistan was under pressure to accept a CIA base as it is in need of a loan from the IMF which the U.S. controls. China though does not want more CIA meddling in or around Afghanistan. Last year the U.S. took the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) off its terrorist list. China fears that the CIA will to stir up trouble in Xinjiang by training and equipping radical Uighur ETIM forces in or near Afghanistan. It now seems to have provided Pakistan with sufficient support to avoid further U.S. pressure.
With no other country around Afghanistan willing to support the CIA it needed to find a way to stay in Afghanistan. Turkish control of the airport of Kabul would allow it to keep drones within the country and to stay in contact with its networks on the ground.
A country that has its main international airport controlled by foreign forces is not sovereign. Such a position can thus only be temporary. When the Taliban take Kabul, and there is little that lets me believe that they will have trouble to do so, the airport will come under fire. The Taliban have by now captured enough long range artillery to put it under siege and to bomb it to smithereens. U.S. air support for the Turkish forces would have to come from the wider Middle East and would have to cross through Pakistani airspace. A long term defense of the airport is therefore not possible.
So what is the real plan behind the attempt to keep a U.S. or NATO foot in the door of Afghanistan? Would the U.S. or NATO consider an attack on Turkish and possible Hungarian forces at the airport in Kabul as a trigger to eventually re-invade the country? Does that make any sense?
Posted by b on June 21, 2021 at 18:41 UTC | Permalink
Mineral rich and strategically located Afghanistan is like a beautiful rich woman who wears rare and expensive jewelry. She is going to get robbed and raped for certain. It is inevitable.
The US wants the location to contain China and the US wants the minerals Afghanistan possesses.
All War is for economic reasons. Even ideological differences are a distant second place compared to economic (minerals) reasons.
Afghanistan is jeweled and beautifully located in South Asia. Her destiny this century is to be robbed and raped. More war is the plan, the only plan the US can construct.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Jun 21 2021 19:16 utc | 2
When oh when will the U$A's corporate empire learn that meddling in other nation's business, for the sake of business hegemony, is a losing preposition? Probably never.
Back in the 70's, Afghanistan was on it's way towards modernization, but oh no, they were too "socialist" for our corporate masters, and had to be over thrown.
And the beat goes on. The "greed is good" crowd is still in control......
Posted by: vetinLA | Jun 21 2021 19:19 utc | 3
The point of the Turks holding Kabul airport, is for a Sunni Muslim force to hold it, who won't be immediately massacred by the Taliban. In my view there's a technical problem. The US would like to be able to helicopter out US (and maybe other Western) diplomats from the roof of the embassy, when the inevitable Taliban takeover comes. Unfortunately, there are no longer safe territories within helicopter range where those people can land. Not Pakistan, not Uzbekistan. They have to transfer to fixed-wing aircraft at the airport. That's why the airport has to be held.
Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 21 2021 19:24 utc | 5
Red Rider @ 2 said; "All War is for economic reasons."
Always has been, always will be. No matter the reasons given to the peons.
Posted by: VetinLA | Jun 21 2021 19:25 utc | 6
"China fears that the CIA will stir up trouble in Xinjiang by training and equipping radical Uighur ETIM forces in or near Afghanistan. It now seems to have provided Pakistan with sufficient support to avoid further U.S. pressure."
If I were China I would want Pakistan heavily involved in supporting the US after the pullout from Afghanistan. Pakistan also gains leverage over the US if it hosts the US military and drone operations. The US will need to continue to supply weapons to Pakistan to keep the defense relationship including weapons that have nothing to do with fighting in Afghanistan like submarine detection planes. It will alienate India driving a wedge in the Quad.
China is able to counter ETIM through its relationship with the Taliban. And China conducts joint patrols with Tajikistan on the Tajik-China border. For some reason, China provides almost no humanitarian support for Syria where thousands of Uighur fighters are active in Idlib. If China wanted a first line of defense against ETIM it would help Syria get back on its feet. But it has only donated 150,000 doses of vaccine and this was after dragging its feet for months in delivering after the initial donation announcement. It almost seems like China is under some kind of pressure not to help Syria even with humanitarian help. China should at the very least donate $1 billion a year in humanitarian assistance to Syria. It's hard to understand China's indifference considering the extent it affects their security. Sometimes I wonder who wastes more money on the military in relation to otehr spending on foreign affairs. China's $250 billion military budget in 2020 or America's $800 billion military spending last year?
Posted by: posternnn | Jun 21 2021 19:32 utc | 7
The China back-door thesis is interesting. What if the Taliban began supporting ETIM or perhaps ETIM based itself out of East Afghanistan? There would be no shortage of geniuses in Langley saying "we created al Qaeda once before, why not do it again and unleash it in Xinjiang?". The quid quo pro would be no resistance to the Taliban reoccupying Afghanistan and acknowledged it as the legitimate government. The mujahideen bled the Soviets, so why not try a bit a proxy asymmetry against the PRC?
Posted by: Patroklos | Jun 21 2021 19:35 utc | 8
@2 Red Ryder
"Mineral rich and strategically located Afghanistan is like a beautiful rich woman who wears rare and expensive jewelry. She is going to get robbed and raped for certain. It is inevitable."
I don't think I really follow your train of thought about women and what is inevitable. That's a pretty weird way to express your idea.
Posted by: Weird | Jun 21 2021 19:36 utc | 9
Turkey to retain control of airport after NATO withdraws ... and only the Taliban noticed that Turkey is part of NATO, don't we accuse them of being backward and illiterate?
If they truly wanted a functioning airport to allow foreigners to leave the country safely, it would be slightly less insane to ask either Russia, China, Pakistan, or even Iran for temporary security pending Taliban approval.
Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Jun 21 2021 19:41 utc | 10
"Mineral rich" Afghanistan would have been a target for American mining companies, if it were the case. But it is isn't. Yes there are some, but not that great.
Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 21 2021 20:00 utc | 11
Domestically, Biden must end the Afghan Forever War. Many in his won party demand it; and as domestic economic conditions worsen, that demand will grow stronger. IMO, much of the non-Pashtun population wants peace and has gotten word that Russia advises all armed resistance cease so the invaders will leave. Khan's response and that of Pakistan as a whole is very encouraging. Unfortunately, he's now a target for Regime Change. The hem and hawing related to leaving Afghanistan to the Afghans relates to a debate occurring within the Deep State which fears the domestic rejection of Empire which many people rightly see as the primary cause of domestic issues. That's why the change in narrative noted by Crooke and the danger of it being challenged. On the Imperial Balance Sheet, Afghanistan's no longer an asset but a liability that will worsen until its totally divested.
What is the fastest way to create lots of DEBT (money)? Wars, civil war, technological waves, credit bubbles (speculative, housing,...), infrastructures...
What is the real purpose of war? To capture & control more areas for EXPLOITATION? War is the fastest way to create lots of debt for all parties.
“the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the debt it creates. You control the debt, you control everything.”
Money Power = Land x Lives x Loans
Putting Afghanistan in further debt, enables it to be exploited... What are its revenue sources? Who pays for its security and infrastructure? Will NATO leave by September?
Who wants to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt?
Posted by: Max | Jun 21 2021 20:11 utc | 13
Since the handwriting is now on the wall, and it's obviously just a matter of time (probably around a year) that the Taliban will take over the rest of the country, the diplomats and NGO staffers should start leaving NOW.
Why wait until the whole thing falls down, and you may end up being stranded in Afghanistan. Now is the time to get out, while the getting is still good.
Antoinetta III
Posted by: Antoinetta III | Jun 21 2021 20:14 utc | 14
Thanks for this great reporting on Afghanistan, b. When Canada was taking part in the US-led military occupation of Afghanistan, our establishment TV news media would endlessly have coverage in favour of that occupation (but would never report on the poll after poll that showed that the majority or plurality of Canadians were opposed). But in recent years our same news media barely gives us any updates on Afghanistan - the developments just haven't fit the pro-war propaganda and narrative that they spent a decade drilling into the Canadian population. So most of the new developments are just not reported: Nothing happening, nothing to see there.
Red Ryder @2, concurred, I see it in similar terms. Prior to this century the UK also tried a few times to force Afhanistan into its servitude. The US/UK elite - of the same culture - are, and probably always have been, about looting, plunder, and exploitation. Extrapolate to Canada, Australia, and perhaps NZ for the sake of rounding out the Five Eyes syndicate.
Posted by: Canadian Cents | Jun 21 2021 20:15 utc | 15
I vividly remember the US withdrawal from Saigon at the end of the American-Vietnam war. It was an awful scene for US imperialist but was one of triumph for antiimperialist forces around the world.
It has been clear for a number of years now that the US just cannot win in Afghanistan. Just as it was clear that the US could not win in Vietnam seven years before the US had to make that humiliating withdrawal from Saigon. It is sad for the US imperialist. Once they admit defeat they will have to withdraw and along with that the opposing forces will take over and declare victory. For the imperialist' this will make for bad optics for the image of the US as the most powerful country ever.
However as much as a defeat this may be for the US, we can be sure that attempts will be made to to turn this into a moral victory for US imperialism and that, furthermore, the US war hawks should become even more aggressive in advocating for even more moral victories.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 21 2021 20:16 utc | 16
Those Uyghur jihadists stuck in Idlib province in Syria and in refugee camps in Turkey are bound to get a warm welcome from the Taliban when Ankara finally ships them off to Kabul as part of this proposed "security force" to protect the airport so the CIA can continue to ship out its heroin.
Posted by: Jen | Jun 21 2021 20:17 utc | 17
Won’t we need Afghanistan to at least launch drones against Iran?
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 21 2021 20:20 utc | 18
@Weird
You grasping reality will start with your children or never.
Posted by: Weird | Jun 21 2021 20:27 utc | 19
The US MSM is ablaze with "Taliban against Afghan forces" headlines, conveniently forgetting that the Taliban are Afghan forces too, in fact they preceded the current "Afghan forces" in government until the US intervention.
So why do their guys always beat our guys? Because their guys fight for their country and our guys fight for us.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 20:28 utc | 20
@ ToivoS, why did the U$A withdraw from Vietnam? There was conscription in the U$A, thereby the rich were at risk. Also, the U$A was being constrained by money creation due to the gold standard. Both of these issues have been addressed.
Name a nation that the U$A has WITHDRAWN its military after occupying it, other than Vietnam. Aren’t we still in Germany, Japan, South Korea, ...?
It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.
How much DEBT has the Afghanistan conflict created so far? In trillions? Who got that money?
Posted by: Max | Jun 21 2021 20:33 utc | 21
@ CJC #10
re: . . .Turkey to retain control of airport after NATO withdraws
It's more than NATO.
The US-Taliban agreement:
The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) months following announcement of this agreement. . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 20:34 utc | 22
Nothing like a plan that should have been implicated 6-months ago. So, the pullout could be done without the Taliban gaining ground. That’s makes sense. But the US has no sense. They would have captured or killed bin Laden when he was hold up in the mountains of Tora Bora. They knew exactly where he was. Instead they let the most wanted man on earth. Disappear and could have let the Afghans alone….….
Posted by: Dennis18 | Jun 21 2021 20:38 utc | 23
@ Max
re: . . . why did the U$A withdraw from Vietnam?
The US had no choice because the conscription-based US Army was broken, with troops refusing to obey orders and fragging their superiors etc. . .So Washington pulled out the troops and ended the draft.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 20:39 utc | 24
The US "experts" who are crying about a possible, or inevitable, return to Talban government haven't read the agreement.
The US-Taliban Agreement of Feb 29, 2020 called for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan by May 2021, and recognized that the outcome would be a return to a Taliban government. For example one agreement condition, II-5:: "The Taliban will not provide visas, passports, travel permits, or other legal documents to those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies to enter Afghanistan." . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 20:49 utc | 25
The US has fairly good relations with Vietnam now after all that happened. Maybe the Taliban don't want a total break with the West. They may be able to arrange some kind of agreement with Turkey about the airport security. Depends what Erdogan is planning I guess.
Posted by: dh | Jun 21 2021 20:56 utc | 26
@dh:
The US is cozying up to Mohammad al-Jolani of AQ, re-branded as Hay-at Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/09/washington-positioning-syrian-al-qaeda-mohammad-jolani-asset/
Posted by: Keith McClary | Jun 21 2021 21:08 utc | 27
"For some reason, China provides almost no humanitarian support for Syria...China should at the very least donate $1 billion a year in humanitarian assistance to Syria. It's hard to understand China's indifference considering the extent it affects their security. Sometimes I wonder who wastes more money on the military in relation to otehr spending on foreign affairs. China's $250 billion military budget in 2020 or America's $800 billion military spending last year?"<\blockquote>posternnn | Jun 21 2021 19:32 utc | 7:
From what I gather China sees Syria as a national interests of Israel, Iran, Russia and Turkey. The last thing they want is to step on their toes especially when some of them are their allies and or in the process of being lobbied to switch sides.
Posted by: Ian2 | Jun 21 2021 21:17 utc | 28
@26 I don't put Syria and Afghanistan in the same bag. The US is in Syria to protect Israel from Iran and Hezbullah. Going into Afghanistan was a reaction to the Twin Towers bombing.....Bin Laden, Bush, we must do something etc.. I could be wrong but I see the Taliban as quite pragmatic. Of course the MSM wants us to think they are just a bunch of bloodthirsty muslim fanatics.
Posted by: dh | Jun 21 2021 21:26 utc | 29
Posted by: Canadian Cents | Jun 21 2021 20:15 utc | 15
Poor Canada, so far from God, so close to United States. Leaders decided to spare the population from suffering (lumber tariffs and other privations) paying the price with their souls. It seems that the folks largely appreciate what is done for them, Canadians are more rational than Mexicans.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 21 2021 21:30 utc | 30
We'll find a reason to stay - just watch. We'll get the usual blather about 'not abandoning allies' and 'maintaining a presence'.
Posted by: ian | Jun 21 2021 21:38 utc | 31
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 20:39 utc | 24
The US had no choice because the conscription-based US Army was broken, with troops refusing to obey orders and fragging their superiors etc.
And the Nazi Germany had to retreat its troops from Eastern front because winters were harsh and mud in spring too deep.
This simplistic "views" are as inaccurate as insulting.
Posted by: Abe | Jun 21 2021 21:49 utc | 32
Maybe the Taliban don't want a total break with the West. They may be able to arrange some kind of agreement with Turkey about the airport security. Depends what Erdogan is planning I guess.
Posted by: dh | Jun 21 2021 20:56 utc | 26
When Taliban had their previous chance to govern, they definitely wanted relationships with the West. However, even more than Pakistan, they will find accommodation with China. Unlike Pakistan with its industrial exports, developing it in a remote location is hard. Minerals are the most reliable way to go, and the West totally sucks at development aid., including helping in mineral extraction without wholesale looting and destruction. China is the largest mining nation and largest buyer. The putative stumbling block are the Uighurs, but nobody has to explain Taliban to what extend Western concerns about the welfare of the Muslim folks is genuine, and to what extend they are not. On top of that, Uighur extremists are all to often too extreme, linking with ISIS that has very checkered history with Taliban.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 21 2021 22:16 utc | 33
I got a call on my cell from Mazār-i-Sharīf in Afghanistan, and was on the no fly list for quite a while (I guess, but it was toward the top)
Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Jun 21 2021 22:17 utc | 34
re: Why is the US in Afghanistan?
Decades ago Washington had its own "Silk Road" strategy, to move into the -Stans in Central Asia after the uSSR breakup. There was a large interest in Kazakhstan up north, as well as the other -Stands including Afghanistan. It was of course a road to nowhere but as we know the creeps in Washington ain't too bright. There were no seaports to accommodate this road, for one thing. There were some other considerations, like an energy pipeline, but it was all just going nowhere until 9-11 came along, giving the US to do what it does worst, employ its military.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 22:23 utc | 35
@ Abe 32
re: This simplistic "views" are as inaccurate as insulting.
You need to get out more.
. . .from Fragging: Why U.S. Soldiers Assaulted Their Officers in Vietnam
During its long withdrawal from South Vietnam, the U.S. military experienced a serious crisis in morale. Chronic indiscipline, illegal drug use, and racial militancy all contributed to trouble within the ranks. But most chilling of all was the advent of a new phenomenon: large numbers of young enlisted men turning their weapons on their superiors. The practice was known as “fragging,” a reference to the fragmentation hand grenades often used in these assaults. . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 22:33 utc | 36
dh | Jun 21 2021 20:56 utc | 26
The US has fairly good relations with Vietnam
This "fairly good" relationship is mainly done in spite to China and to gain another pawn on the SCS theatre.
It's being wined and dined by the school jock after China gave him the finger like a back-up shag. But Vietnam knows the score, it works for them for now and it would be stupid not to play along as long as it is aligned to its interests.
A large number of its businesses exporting to the west are, you guessed it, are founded and operated by the Chinese for the lower wages and to skirt quotas, tariffs etc.
Vietnam is still a communist state, how is this fact not lost in the face of full spectrum demonisation of China for being communists in the minds of the 5 eyes populace is a most interesting question indeed.
It's as moronic as "China is authoritarian!" but Saudi Arabia is A-OK!
Today democracy and human rights are just fig leaves of the hegemony, war cry for the expendables.
Posted by: A.L. | Jun 21 2021 22:33 utc | 37
Posted by: posternnn | Jun 21 2021 19:32 utc | 7
It almost seems like China is under some kind of pressure not to help Syria even with humanitarian help.
China has given political cover to Syria at the UN. It is also probable that its been agreed between putin and xi that Syria is to be a Russian show. For China to fly in vaccines now would not make Russia look good.
Additionally there aren't much military nor political ties between Syria and Chinese in the past like there were between Syria and Russia. To do much more uninvited would breach Chinese's own policy of non-interference of others internal affairs. Remember this whole Syria saga is dressed up and still designated as a civil war by the UN...
In any case there's much we don't know, what's not to say China isn't bankrolling something behind the scenes with Russia as the frontman?
Assad have said those who have helped Syria in its hour of need will be rewarded in its reconstruction. When that time comes and the contracts doled out we'll know for certain.
Posted by: A.L. | Jun 21 2021 22:49 utc | 38
Beijing is warning Chinese nationals to leave Afghanistan urgently due to spiraling violence.
https://www.www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1226739.shtml
They are worried about jihadi retribution for the treatment of Uygurs in Xinjiang. I suspect that Pakistan's Imran Khan will influence the Talibs to not target Chinese. But there are other groups than the Taliban there that have a bone to pick with any and all foreigners.
Posted by: Mike A. | Jun 21 2021 22:53 utc | 39
Glad to hear that Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan is not letting the US use Pakistan as a base for its continued machinations, in spite of heavy US pressure, and that Pakistan as a whole was saying #AbsolutelyNot. Kudos Pakistan.
According to M. K. Bhadrakumar:
"Washington is now considering the hiring of Pentagon contractors (mercenaries) to secure Kabul airport. But that will be a hugely controversial step with grave consequences, as apparent from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s brusque rejection of the very idea of American military presence on Pakistani soil in relation to the Afghan situation."
MKB also places all this into the context of "the US’ grand project to create rings of instability in [Russia and China's] adjacent regions — Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Hong Kong, Myanmar, Afghanistan."
https://www.indianpunchline.com/fizz-is-gone-from-biden-putin-summit/
Posted by: Canadian Cents | Jun 21 2021 23:03 utc | 40
*Mi 9 or Mi 17 helicopters. There is no Mi 19.
You forget the ISIS group that magically appeared in Afghanistan a few years ago. The same group that immediately attacked the Taliban, forcing the Taliban to dedicate its best forces to countering the threat instead of fighting the puppet child sex slaver Quisling warlord regime. What's more likely than continuing the occupation in the name of "fighting ISIS"? Just like Iraq was reinvaded and reoccupied in the name of "fighting ISIS" and continues to be occupied to this day?
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Jun 21 2021 23:27 utc | 41
. . .current PBS.org headline
"Taliban gains Afghan territory, may seek ‘complete return to power’ amid US withdrawal"
. . .There's just no cure for stupid.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 23:37 utc | 42
I remember back in early 70s a lot of Similar BS was coming out of the US loser’s ass that we will hold this and that but the fucking rats eventually had to escape from the roof of their embassy and throw their helicopters in the sea. Can’t believe s single word. Ok’ing out of these losers. They are done they will leave defeated, no one around Afghanistan wants them
Posted by: Kooshy | Jun 21 2021 23:40 utc | 43
At the outset I must commend the members on this forum for the insight & grasp they obviously have of global geopolitics. What I would like to ask is: Sandhurst educated/trained Ahmad Massoud, son of late Ahmad Shah Massoud, was being groomed for the last 5-6 years as the leader in waiting of a (new CIA proxy) Northern Alliance to put a spoke in the Taliban's victory celebrations How much of factor would he be as the new CIA party pooper? Does he have/can he build a significant support base in the north of the country, given a helping hand from RAW-CIA and/or MIT is forthcoming? https://youtu.be/kKRXLf3gvgw
Posted by: Yousuf Minty | Jun 22 2021 0:00 utc | 44
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 21 2021 22:33 utc | 36
I know what fragging is. Pointing to that as cause or contributing factor to failed US war in Vietnam is misleading.
Vietnam/VietCong were mostly constriction. Most of US forces were professionals (navy, airforce, specops, armor&mechanized etc.) Only "cannon fodder" / grunts were conscription on US side.
US failed because they faced determined enemy, that used smart strategy and tactics and had support from local populace (in some areas, adleast) and more importantly, technical support from both USSR and China, and used it well. They fought out and bled out US forces, with great price, but prevailed.
That US grunts morale bottomed out is nothing new or specific for Vietnam war, nor causing factor for their withdrawal. They had to leave because they lost and they were gonna get pushed into sea.
Posted by: Abe | Jun 22 2021 0:13 utc | 45
Also, amateurs look at casualty numbers and decide who "won" or "lost". Professionals look at strategic goals and are they reached or not.
US strategic goals were entrenching friendly government on their side, eliminating VietCong and destroying North Vietnam's military capabilities, preferably making it "friendly" in future. US failed on all those accounts. That is why they lost.
NV's goals were to prevail and outlast US invaders, and they did that, so they won.
Posted by: Abe | Jun 22 2021 0:17 utc | 46
re Afghanistan and 800 other locations///
Ate at Chinese restaurant recently. Opened a fortune cookie and read "US leaves when Britain says so. Never before, only after."
Say what?! Weird, because I read one years ago that stated "US enters when Britain says so. Never before, only after".
Another one read "US and Britain have special relationship."
The Chinese know something. And they know how to use fortune cookies.
Posted by: chu teh | Jun 22 2021 0:41 utc | 47
Abe @45
What you say is reasonable. But, do not discount fragging in the Army, race riots at air bases in Thailand and riots with junior officers overboard on our carriers. The services were concerned their forces were becoming unreliable, and that was a bigger threat than "losing" Vietnam. They even reversed Gen. Hershey's policies of punitively drafting resistors as dissent in the ranks worsened. Disintegration of our armed forces was a significant factor in our decision to get out of Vietnam.
Posted by: Lefty665 | Jun 22 2021 0:50 utc | 48
chu teh @47--
The Chinese know that is was the Anglo nations--the USA and UK--that jointly attacking it during the Opium Wars, although you'll need to look really hard to find any mention of that fact in history texts--especially US history texts that completely erase the USA's involvement using Turkish opium. Chinese also know similar collusion occurred during the Boxer Rebellion and the betrayal at Versailles when Japan was awarded Germany's Colonial Concession instead of allowing China to regain its own land.
Posted by: Lefty665 | Jun 22 2021 0:50 utc | 48
Let us agree to disagree.
Main factor that led to lost war from US point of view is that US airforce (100% professional) failed to do its strategic/tactical job (destruction of NV military assets, control of the sky, effective ground support) thanks to NV's AA defenses and small, but crucial fighter air force. You can't blame that on US conscripts or morale.
Without air force doing its job US can't win any war - it is simply not capable by design as it is its strategic imperative.
Also, are you saying that US left Vietnam because it feared of mutiny of its troops? That is ludicrous.
Posted by: Abe | Jun 22 2021 1:10 utc | 50
Don Bacon # 36
I think you miss the point. Fragging or whatever was a result of the whole conduct of the war and the demoralisation because the enemy stood their ground and fought back. Fragging was not the main event here it was a result of the complex situation.
Posted by: Orage | Jun 22 2021 1:50 utc | 51
@38 Of course the Vietnamese know the score. So do the Taliban. I bet they play the US like a fiddle. Don't give the US an inch.
Posted by: dh | Jun 22 2021 1:55 utc | 52
Abe @ 50
Actually Abe you start reasonably, with agreeing to disagree, then descend to insults. F*ck you.
Neither the Air Force or Navy were "100% professional" later in the war. Many people took 3 year enlistments with some choice of MOS rather than be drafted for 2 years into the Army (sometimes into the Marines) and sent to fight with a rifle in the jungle. That accelerated after the National Guard units filled up. That meant there were many in those services who were opposed to the war, among those were many who were not happy about being in the service at all. In addition to fragging, the Thai air base race riots and carrier riots are recorded history. I suggest you read about them to help resolve your ignorance.
I never contended that disintegration in the services was the only, or primary, reason we got out of Vietnam, just that it was one of several reasons the service chiefs turned against the war. They were concerned our armed forces were on the road to becoming an unreliable strategic liability rather than an asset.
Dunno about you, but I was in the D.C. area during those years. I had skin in the game so I was paying attention to what was happening, and had senior DoD social relationships that provided current (unclassified) poop about what was going on.
Posted by: Lefty665 | Jun 22 2021 2:04 utc | 53
>>Years ago Afghanistan wanted to buy more of theses from Russia. But the U.S. Congress intervened. The weapon lobby demanded that the Afghan airforce should buy and fly U.S. made aircraft. UH 60 Blackhawk helicopter and other U.S. made aircraft were delivered.
And these helicopters are not good for Afghanistan, since they can not carry much cargo and can't go in high mountain areas.
Btw Afghanistan does not have the money to buy anything, it is the US/Europe that have been buying stuff for them. Afghanistan can not even pay the army its salaries, salaries are paid by the US & Euro puppets.
Posted by: Passer by | Jun 22 2021 2:10 utc | 54
@54 The Taliban probably won't be buying much stuff from the US. It comes with strings attached. China will be happy to supply what they need.....on credit. And they don't really need an army. They do their own policing. Sharia Law. The BBC won't like it but it works.
Posted by: dh | Jun 22 2021 2:37 utc | 55
Thanks for the posting b about empire's losing war in Afghanistan
Thanks to the broad range of MoA barflies adding value in comments
I especially like the suggestion of having China/Russia or such run the Kabul airport until all of empire troops and support folk leave like they agreed to do last month but didn't.
When is empire going to be pushed out of Iraq?
When is empire going to be pushed out of Syria?
I see a lot of dominoes set up to fall. To some degree I believe that these dominoes have been set up to fail and who knows what order that will occur and what the ensuing global chaos will birth or evolve from the global crash.
Unfortunately, that is when the power of the MSM will be in full use to bend the narrative of events to fit the desired social outcome.
Until and unless I see/read about the downfall of global private finance, I will assume that those that own the money systems continue to move the levers behind the curtain that control the outcomes of the falling dominoes.
The shit show continues until it doesn't and why don't the parties of the civilization war we are in over who controls global finance in the future talk about the nuts and bolts of finance....evolving from all private to ???
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 22 2021 2:41 utc | 56
@PH 56
Yes, the US losing everywhere, and then factor in the terrible US crime wave based upon mindless inter-personnel hatred and worsening living conditions for many, and the future looks bleak. The country cannot be weak at home and strong abroad.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 22 2021 3:27 utc | 57
@ psychohistorian (#56)
When it comes to the Monetary (value allocation), Economic (value creation), and Financial (value distribution) systems, discussions are happening. What are the key questions that need to be addressed to define these systems?
The Congress and Private Finance have lost the privilege due to its abuses of the monetary system to be responsible for money going forward. Three strikes and you’re out.
The key dimensions are:
– Creation. Who will create money? The Monetary Authority (MA) that is democratically elected and with democratic oversight will be responsible for nation’s money creation, allocation and management. Its head will be a like the CFO of a company. The president, Vice President and MA chairperson will publish every quarter, yearly and the election cycle the signed financial statements of the nation. In the election cycle, we also elect the MA chairperson and this TRIO will act like the CEO, President and CFO of a company during their IPO roadshow. MA manages international coordination.
– Allocation. What criteria will drive money allocation? The Monetary Authority will drive nation’s monetary allocation towards productivity, thereby only productive credit and no speculative or consumption credits. The Monetary limits will be defined during the election.
– Transparency. Complete digitization with best of art of security and AI engine to minimize fraud. The monetary allocation needs to be completely transparent online, with a built in AI engine for monitoring of fraud and other shenanigans. It needs to be completely digitized with realtime capture of nation’s key economic parameters such as spending, allocation, unemployment, inflation, credit, expenses,...
– Regulation. The Monetary Authority will be responsible for regulating the banking system at the federal, state and county administration levels. It will have a complete picture of nation’s money supply through digitization of money.
– Taxation. Let’s energize economy with guaranteed basic income and no taxation for household making less than $200,000.
– Restrictions. Guaranteed personal privacy and restrictions needing approval through a judicial system with a right to appeal. The banking charter renewed every twenty years. Also, separation of consumer, commercial and investment banking. No universal banking.
What other key dimensions, questions, ... need to be addressed?
Posted by: Max | Jun 22 2021 3:31 utc | 58
@ Don Bacon (#57),
Yes, the U$A has been captured by the Global Financial Syndicate and performing poorly. However, it can turn the crisis into an opportunity and make it the FINEST moment of the nation and world. How?
“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis'. One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger–but recognize the opportunity”.
The challenge is for the U$A and our world. Will it be the Finest or worst moment in the history of humanity? Let’s see which nation has the imagination to define the future.
Posted by: Max | Jun 22 2021 3:42 utc | 59
karlof1 | Jun 22 2021 0:51 utc | 49 and all
re opium in China...why was it so utterly successful?
I've heard it remarked that the Crown understood fully that the sufferings of its subjects was eminently useful and valuable. Thus they imposed such conditions.
That is the simple answer to why their introduction of opium into China was instantly so successful in plundering/draining China's valuables while stopping the drain of British silver.
To those whose business it was to know, the fact of China's sufferings and misery guaranteed with certainty the enormous demand for opium before the first shipments arrived.
There is an analogous situation in the US...something that might be overheard on Main Street... like "Have a Percodan Day", or "Percocet Day", or "Oxycontin Day". Popular would be an understatement.
In China, it led to an unstoppable 50-year revolution.
Posted by: chu teh | Jun 22 2021 3:51 utc | 60
For those who think there's nothing in Afghanistan worth taking, guess again;
Posted by: vetinLA | Jun 22 2021 3:53 utc | 61
Try this;
https://www.khaama.com/afghanistan-the-saudi-arabia-of-lithium-1747
Posted by: vetinLA | Jun 22 2021 3:55 utc | 62
@ Max with the response that takes us way off subject...thanks but will continue on Weekly Open Thread
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 22 2021 3:59 utc | 63
@ chu teh (#60), Can you please elaborate on the demand side. Why was there such a high demand for opium? What drove the demand for opium in China? It is truly unfortunate to see this abuse by Imperialists.
I ponder over the same questions when it comes to the U$A too.
@ psychohistorian, no problem. Looking forward to it. Thanks.
Posted by: Max | Jun 22 2021 4:08 utc | 64
#5
Of course, turk loving turk laguerre had to rush in a comment in defence of his beloved countrymen and goat molester Erdogan.
Like the illiterate rural fanclub and voterbase of said dictator and the turkish "hasbara" call centers who litters any site who even mention turks.
But it quite make sense considering that the slumdog goat fucker Erdogan desperately need money to at least try to save the worthless lira and his ottoman ambitions. Turks to the rescue! For that reason alone he'll stupid and opportunistic enough to give it a try especially after his war on Armenia that went "so well".
But yes and even if he bring a few thousand of his multikulti cutthroats from his war on Syria (as he did in Armenia) he'll be massacred within a month. US tried that too....
Posted by: Utc | Jun 22 2021 5:07 utc | 65
Posted by: Max | Jun 22 2021 4:08 utc | 64
Perhaps this edit [addition in brackets] will clarify:
To those whose business it was to know, the fact of China's [peoples'] sufferings and misery guaranteed with certainty the enormous demand for opium before the first shipments arrived.
[I.e., Chinese persons demanded relief and were the ready market for a remedy..as opposed to the State.]
Posted by: chu teh | Jun 22 2021 5:17 utc | 66
Max @ 60:
Opium was used in many different ways in China: as a medicine, as an aphrodisiac and as a recreational drug favoured by the scholarly class. Some time in the 17th century tobacco smoking was introduced into China and the practice of smoking opium began not long afterwards. This set a new social context in which opium addiction could occur.
The Qing emperors did all they could to curb opium addiction by banning opium use. However as representatives of a foreign elite that conquered China and set themselves up as China's rulers didn't endear the Qing emperors to the Chinese population. Being ruled by foreigners itself could have been a source of stress for the Chinese, especially as the Qing differentiated Manchu from Han Chinese by compelling Han Chinese to adopt certain styles of dress and even hairstyles as symbols of their subservience.
I have no idea of how resistant the Chinese overall were towards the Qing. I know that southern China around the Pearl River delta area during the 1700s and early 1800s was rife with piracy and many communities in that region were more loyal to pirate rulers than to the Qing in Beijing. The pirate known as Madame Ching, operating in the first decade of the 1800s, commanded a fleet of 1,000 large junks, 800 smaller ships and 80,000 pirates: a fleet that size surely means she and her allies effectively ruled a large part of southern China in defiance of the Qing. Madame Ching's fleet not only fought the Qing Dynasty but also the Portuguese and the British East India Company, and as far as I know beat them all.
Posted by: Jen | Jun 22 2021 7:02 utc | 67
Posted by: Lefty665 | Jun 22 2021 2:04 utc | 53
There isn't a single thing remotely close to insult in anything I wrote down.
Suggesting that first or second world army exits war cause of fear of mutiny in this day and age is ludicrous. There are handful examples in recent history, certainly not in scenario like Vietnam war. It is just not how war and military works. If it was, rarely every war would be fought.
On the other hand, you repeatedly ignoring contributions of other side (you know, millions of Vietnamese people that fought and died), is what is real insult.
Yeah, US lost war because of feelings, not because other guy beat it deservingly. Right.
Posted by: Abe | Jun 22 2021 7:24 utc | 68
Would the U.S. or NATO consider an attack on Turkish and possible Hungarian forces at the airport in Kabul as a trigger to eventually re-invade the country? Does that make any sense?
The link mentions Turkish, Hongarian and Pakistani forces. "For many, Pakistan sounded like a reasonable partner. Islamabad has a longstanding relationship with the Taliban, as a neighbouring country."
Islamabad was the eager arms,money and training dealer for Taliban since day one (1979), a fact that most in the West don't want to know. US and Saudi funds used to be channeled massively, with a hefty commission for this in between dealer.
Posted by: Antonym | Jun 22 2021 7:32 utc | 69
Hamid Karzai International Airport
Would any fixed-wing aircraft be able to land, load and take-off safely if the airport was under serious artillery fire. Nah, I doubt it.
BTW, the Soviet Union realised it was dealing with a stalemate in Afghanistan and got out cleanly, the United States will continue to believe in its moral right to victory and remain until the last possible moment when it'll have to retreat under pressure and messily. But all Washington regimes are populated with morons, even Trump's because he didn't clean house first.
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jun 22 2021 10:26 utc | 70
With regards to Vietnam war and the current struggle in Afghanistan, read Mao's "Little Red Book" and you will begin to understand about struggle. Determination and Guerrilla Warfare are almost impossible to stop. Only by winning the hearts and minds can you win. Mao knew about class struggle and the rejection of foreign elements in the land. The idea the you can win a war with military might will only mean many years and decades of descension and armed struggle against an occupying force. Like it or loath it, that is the fact of why a win is only temporary.
Posted by: aardvark | Jun 22 2021 11:16 utc | 71
Posted by: Utc | Jun 22 2021 5:07 utc | 65
I see the debate level on MoA is in serious decline.
Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 22 2021 11:28 utc | 72
"Would any fixed-wing aircraft be able to land, load and take-off safely if the airport was under serious artillery fire. Nah, I doubt it."
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jun 22 2021 10:26 utc | 70
That's why the Turks. Nice Sunni Muslims, of similar views to the Taliban, are less likely to be attacked. The Soviets could be helicoptered out, the border's not far away. Like I said earlier, the issue is just a technical problem of how to get the US diplomats out when the inevitable happens.
Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 22 2021 11:33 utc | 73
Saïgon, Berlin or Yalta?
I remember Saïgon...
They "wanted" (just talk) , to keep a foot too....
~~~
The US authorities and media lie so much... Why think today that their (isolated) narrative about Afghanistan can represent even 1% of reality?
~~~
It is sometimes difficult to dare to follow Thierry Meyssan’s logic. But it must be admitted that his thesis makes it terribly possible to put together all the pieces of a complicated puzzle in which there are many actors.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the simultaneous withdrawal of the Patriots and THHAD, the (too) slow withdrawal(but true) from Iraq and Syria “under the pretext of redeployment” in the Far East, are consistent with his analysis.
~~~
I thought the Biden meeting-Putin was purely media-oriented until I read that the delegations included hundreds of high-level people. The tree hid the forest, Meyssan offers an interesting reading of the plan.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article213394.html
https://www.voltairenet.org/article213446.html
As Lavrov said, “it will not be a one-way street”, and there will probably be many obstacles and provocations.
الجزائر
Posted by: الجزائر | Jun 22 2021 12:57 utc | 74
Kabul, Saïgon, Berlin or Yalta?
I remember Saïgon...
They "wanted" (just talk) , to keep a foot too....
~~~
The US authorities and media lie so much... Why think today that their (isolated) narrative about Afghanistan can represent even 1% of reality?
~~~
It is sometimes difficult to dare to follow Thierry Meyssan’s logic. But it must be admitted that his thesis makes it terribly possible to put together all the pieces of a complicated puzzle in which there are many actors.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the simultaneous withdrawal of the Patriots and THHAD, the (too) slow withdrawal(but true) from Iraq and Syria “under the pretext of redeployment” in the Far East, are consistent with his analysis.
~~~
I thought the Biden meeting-Putin was purely media-oriented until I read that the delegations included hundreds of high-level people. The tree hid the forest, Meyssan offers an interesting reading of the plan.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article213394.html
https://www.voltairenet.org/article213446.html
As Lavrov said, “it will not be a one-way street”, and there will probably be many obstacles and provocations.
الجزائر
Posted by: الجزائر | Jun 22 2021 13:00 utc | 75
The answer is that the situation is complicated. The main reason for US military operations anywhere in the world is to serve the careers of members of the National Security State and, even more important make money for corporations who produce armaments, ammunition, and infrastructure. There is the ideological component of American Exceptionalism favored by think tanks but I think that is far less important today than 20 years ago. Finally there is the issue of maintaining Empire as a practical enterprise to keep ruling classes in power around the world but even that vast project seems to be declining as power is shifting into unknown territory with the rise of China as well as the power of private interests that may no longer need Washington as an agent for their concerns.
Posted by: Chris Cosmos | Jun 22 2021 13:13 utc | 76
@ aardvark | Jun 22 2021 11:16 utc | 71
"winning the hearts and minds", the quote is supposed to be first from Lyautey, 125 years ago in Tonkin [my grandfather was officer in the French colonial Army there at the time].
They failed.
Posted by: الجزائر | Jun 22 2021 13:20 utc | 77
@ Max 59 writes:
“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis'. One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger–but recognize the opportunity”.
This is an old myth the mandarin chinese word for 'crisis' is wĕijī/危机/危機 and is thus written in two syllables of either 6+6 or 6+15 strokes. The first syllable character is a morpheme meaning "steep slope", The second character originally meat a weaving loom, but now means mechanism or machine. The word for 'positive opportunity' is jīhuì/机会/機會 and has as its basic meaning 'meeting of circumstanses'--and might as well be negative.
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jun 22 2021 13:30 utc | 78
@ Posted by: Jen | Jun 22 2021 7:02 utc | 67
I have no idea of how resistant the Chinese overall were towards the Qing.
Well, they were the last dynasty of China. They were literally toppled by the Chinese people. Can't get more resistance than that.
By the end of the 19th Century, opium was used as a drug in China. We don't need to get too cute about the many possible usages of the product before that in order to understand the gravity and brutality of Western + Japanese colonization of China.
During the Soviets time the line was clear between those that were "pro Islam" and those who were "pro secularism" with the govt representing the later camp- both groups believed in their cause religiously- thus the govt then was far stronger than the govt of today that everyone hates, including those working in it.
Soldiers are there for the salary. Politicians & Civil Servants are there for bribes and paychecks. The govt is to people what Saudi Arabia was to Trump- a milk cow.
My prediction: as soon as full Taliban takeover from the govt, locals will rise and get rid of the Taliban. Local defenses are in the process of takin shape and it is a beautiful sight- i wish i could post some pics here.
Taliban will face a far diff Afghanistan than the one in 90s.
Posted by: Afgun | Jun 22 2021 15:12 utc | 80
The reason non-Pashtun areas are falling is because the people in those areas is because people there had relied on govt to provide security while they themselves pursued economic activities to provide for their families.
That is about to change and there has never been shortage of free weapons in Afghanistan for those who want to fight. And fight people will... after tasting coca cola and facebook and.... there is no going back.
Posted by: Afgun | Jun 22 2021 15:16 utc | 81
Good article. I'm having trouble with this topic. On its face it makes no sense that the US would leave Afghanistan like this, especially considering its geographical position at a time when the US is re-organizing its forces for the China/Russia confrontation while dealing with Iran as well. My gut says there must be some sort of behind the scenes deal here. US leaving gives them deniability if their proxy takfiri groups set up shop and organize/stage attacks from Afghanistan... but against whom? The obvious answer is China but could just as well be against Iran, or even against Pakistan (Baloch separatism?) which is increasingly close to China. The US would love to drag China into some conflict near its borders.
It's no secret that the US wants to put a wedge in the China-Russia relationship, but I doubt it is very happy about Iran being part of this as well. Maybe US/Israel is gearing up for "the big one" (the long predicted regional war), trying to get in one last reorganization of the region before the China thing really heats up in which it would be necessary for the U.S. to get its sitting ducks out of Afghanistan (I doubt the US would be this stupid but it is a possibility).
Is there anyone here who is a follower of geopolitical think tanks? Any indications from articles/publications of those which are aligned with Biden's advisors?
Posted by: anon | Jun 22 2021 15:21 utc | 82
@80 "....after tasting coca cola and facebook and.... there is no going back."
Sad but very true. No doubt there is a generational gap in Afghanistan like there is everywhere else. I guess the real test will come when the Taliban start punishing people for un-Islamic activities.
Posted by: dh | Jun 22 2021 15:29 utc | 83
IMO USA/NATO will remain in Afghanistan. Maybe even conduct another "surge".
Sadly, they may conduct a false-flag atrocity to make that happen. Or, we may hear "reports" of another terrorist attack being planned for 9-11 on Afghan soil (this year will be the 20th anniversary of 9-11). Or, "reports" of Iranian incursions into Afghanistan (as the new Iranian hard-line government thumbs its nose at USA/NATO). Or, some other scare-mongering fake news that requires USA/NATO to remain.
Biden will wring his hands, moaning "I tried" to exit but we must stay a little longer while Harris will rejoice at saving Afghan women from the Taliban. Then the media will memory-hole Afghanistan (once again).
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 22 2021 15:32 utc | 84
Don't know what others have said, but this is all about heroin.
Posted by: Burt | Jun 22 2021 16:11 utc | 85
@ 30 Piotr Berman says, 'Poor Canada, so far from God, so close to United States.' We share a border with Russia. No other country in the Americas is so fortunate!
A Pakistani-Canadian family was run over by a truck, while they walked on a sidewalk recently. Pakistan's High Commissioner to Canada spoke at the funeral:
https://twitter.com/CTVToronto/status/1404045893846941696
And Canada has renewed a flight ban with India recently, while allowing flights from Pakistan.
https://twitter.com/OmarAlghabra/status/1407004103776129028
Not sure what all that adds up to, but could indicate imperial pressure on Canada regarding Pakistan.
Posted by: Bruised Northerner | Jun 22 2021 16:15 utc | 86
@ Jen (#67), Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש , chu teh (#66), thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it.
Name a nation that the Dollar Empire has withdrawn its forces from after occupying it, other than Vietnam. It seems like the Empire is playing a sophisticated game and thinks it can fool China, Russia and Iran (Non-$ Bloc). The key upcoming events are elections in Russia, Germany and Afghanistan withdrawal by September. Also, there is the 2022 Winter Olympics early next year.
A plausible scenario is for the Financial Empire to stage a conflict in Iran driving the oil prices high. Will this placate Russia? High oil prices ($100+) might result in a global recession, providing an excuse for the stock market correction and slowing down China’s growth. Also, this will result in higher demand for the US$. It plays to Empire’s advantage. The Empire will NEED its forces to be in Afghanistan as it likes to open multiple fronts with adversaries. It can further escalate with regards to Taiwan creating a quagmire for China. In this scenario, China’s economy is slowed, global demand for its products falls, its Iran partner gone and Taiwan becomes a trouble spot. What will China and Russia do?
What are other plausible future scenarios? Time will tell...
Posted by: Max | Jun 22 2021 16:53 utc | 87
@79 and @80 Afgun - What do you base these claims of Local defenses mobilizing to kick the Taliban out? And if they can kick them out, why don't they start already?
Posted by: Inkan1969 | Jun 22 2021 17:14 utc | 88
@ Don Bacon
Regarding reasons to exit Vietnam, I share your view about the underdiscussed impact of troops taking matters into their own hands. What would I look like in the history books if the situation had gotten worse?? Probably wouldn’t have reached the equivalent of a German army surrendering in Stalingrad. But, imagine squads defecting.
TPTB have a motive for placing blame elsewhere. They don’t want grunts wondering what power they themselves possess. They don’t want grunts to learn that grunts in another era concluded some members of the officer class were their enemy and they decided to do something about it.
Posted by: oglalla | Jun 22 2021 23:40 utc | 89
@ Inkan1969 - 88
Taliban is the newest avatar of the age old inter-ethnic Afghan civil war that spans more than 240 years. Resistance is forming not because of the Taliban but because of Pashtuns. There have been many instances where the govt collapse is followed by Pashtun militia takeover followed by locals kicking their asses.
The resistance is a response to Pashtun takeover... it will ripe fully once the govt collapses fully. Right now there is a cartoon of a govt in Kabul.
Posted by: Afgun | Jun 23 2021 1:41 utc | 90
Earlier in the comments there were questions raised about what China is/was doing to support Afghanistan and some part of that answer is in a new posting at Xinhuanet lined to below
Chinese envoy voices grave concern over situation in Afghanistan
The take away quote
"
The issue of the withdrawal of foreign troops remains the biggest external factor affecting the situation in Afghanistan for some time to come, said Zhang. "Foreign troops cannot come and go as they wish. China urges foreign forces to withdraw in a responsible and orderly manner, fully consult with the Afghan government on post-withdrawal arrangement, and enhance transparency with countries in the region to prevent the security situation from worsening, or even getting out of control."
Terrorism remains a severe challenge facing Afghanistan and regional countries. All parties should step up their efforts to fight terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, the Islamic State, and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement to prevent the resurgence of terrorist forces. China firmly opposes any politicization of counterterrorism or double standards in this regard, he said.
Lasting peace cannot be achieved without the strong support of development. The international community should continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan, help the country engage in regional cooperation, strengthen connectivity, and enhance its capacity for independent development.
There is a need to help Afghanistan implement the national peace and development framework 2021-2025, and solve a series of difficult problems such as drugs, poverty, and refugees. Developed countries should earnestly fulfill their commitments and continue to provide development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, said Zhang.
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has played an important role in supporting peace and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Its mandate expires in September this year. Under the current situation, there is great uncertainty in the future environment of UNAMA. The United Nations should continue to play its role on the Afghan issue. But the effective delivery of mandate cannot be achieved without security guarantees. Regarding the UN presence in Afghanistan after September, China requests the UN secretary-general to propose options for early consideration by the Security Council, he said.
As a friendly neighbor of Afghanistan, China has all along actively supported the peace process in Afghanistan and has been making efforts in this regard.
The memorandum of understanding between China and Afghanistan on Belt and Road cooperation is being implemented in an orderly manner. China has so far provided Afghanistan with grant aid worth billions of RMB yuan. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China has provided multiple batches of anti-epidemic supplies and emergency food assistance to Afghanistan. Early this month, 700,000 doses of COVID-19 vaccine and other medical supplies arrived in Kabul, said Zhang.
China will do its utmost to continue to be a supporter, mediator and facilitator of the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan to help the country achieve peace, stability, development and prosperity at an early date, he said.
"
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 23 2021 4:50 utc | 91
@Inkan
This is happening in the outskirts of Kabul- an area that the Taliban burned down entirely back in the 90s...hopefully the link would show.
@Red Ryder #2
Nonsense.
Plenty of wars are started for ideological reasons, or for the ruling classes to have a "short victorious war".
Posted by: c1ue | Jun 23 2021 15:05 utc | 93
@Peter AU1 | 72
You score many pints in Your comparison of Nazi Germany's different treatment of the "Jewish" question" and the "Slavic nuisance" Nut I should like to add this:
a: Many more Chinese than Soviet citizens died during the Second World war (1932-1946).
b: Many more civilian Japanese Citizens on the islands of Japan and Táiwan died than the number of Jewish deaths in concentration camps. And these were real 'haolocosts' in the sense of being burned alive: Eight times as many bombed and fire-burned in The Grater Tôkiô area as compared with Nàgasaki and Hirôshima. Many other cities in Japan, Okinava and Táiwan also erazed. Then famine in adition. I have met populations statisticians who put the number at about 10 million --and then not counting starvation and decease as the troops returned after the wars in Asia and in the "Pacific" ocean.
But Belarus suffered the greatest and gravest by percentage of all people killed.
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jun 23 2021 15:43 utc | 94
Travelling thru Afghanistan several times during 197679, all foreing anthropologists and experts uninamuously agreed there would have to be a change in the social systam and the economy if Afganistan ere to survuve, THE fazascists in Washinton D.C, well understood this, an decided the Aghans should return to the Iron age (B.C-800 to A,C.800). Then came Islam--for a while. Mullahs I met on my roads and in Ccoffee houses/chaikanah had no qualms about educationíng female girls: t´That was a mantra put into them while attending male-only religious schools whilst being refugees in Pakistan,Arranged by US front organizationa and oven eqonomicLLE FINANCED BY NORDIC M´AO-ISTS since they were anti-Soviet goodd/God-.for aus all (i.e.: Noth Atlantic elites.
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jun 23 2021 16:53 utc | 95
Sorry for mis-spellings of "goodd/God"
It should of caurse been ; "gees and goats"
Shakespeare:
"Welcome to Cyprus, sheep and goats"
He could have added : "Swine and sacrificial calves" -- as the US fro nowhere north of Rio Grande have now done to upholster opiate profits.
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jun 23 2021 17:01 utc | 96
No need to apologise, to err is human, to keyboard is universal !
And I like your comments. I am , truthfully, re-reading The Little Red Book ! Mainly because I found it again while tidying up decades of archived literature. There is a lot of sense in there.
The CPC made mistakes, but, we all do in growing up.
Live long and prosper my friend.
Posted by: Sarlat La Canèd | Jun 23 2021 19:00 utc | 97
Sorry !
My comment was in response to
Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jun 23 2021 16:53 utcin the 90s above !
I may be a mite polluted.
Well, "may" !
Posted by: Sarlat La Canèd | Jun 23 2021 19:05 utc | 98
@ oglalla 89
Exactly. The breaking down of the US Army in 1970, including mission refusal and fragging, was (of course) never covered by the US MSM for the reason you state. Therefore many people are ignorant of the facts: "It just didn't happen."--but yes it did. I was in the Army at the time.
Thanks for your wise comment.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 23 2021 19:20 utc | 99
The US and its allies in Afghanistan have been there way too long. On September 11, 2021, they will have been there 20 years, that's 2x as long as the Russians have been there. Osama Bin Laden died a long time ago and the longer the troops stay, there will be more people like him. ISIS was formed because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Something more extreme than ISIS could form.
Posted by: pink prince | Jun 23 2021 22:52 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Is it possible there is a link between the CIA and heroin smuggling that requires the use of the airport?
Posted by: Greg S | Jun 21 2021 19:08 utc | 1