Afghanistan situation.

[gemima]

Not sure of the reliability of this news outlet, but if the story is true, this is bad. Then again, not clear if it concerns only "empty" devices or also the databases ?

The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

Biometric collection and identification devices were seized by the Taliban last week.

theintercept.com

On the other side, this one had me laughing ! The Talibans complaining about F.B. censorship and speaking about "free speech" ......

Taliban Spokesman Accuses Facebook of Stifling Free Speech by Banning Group

At his first press conference in 20 years, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid joined the techlash by complaining about Facebook censorship.

theintercept.com

"THE TALIBAN SPOKESMAN, Zabihullah Mujahid, emerged from the shadows on Tuesday and devoted part of his first press conference to a rant about Facebook, in which he accused the tech giant of violating the Islamist group’s right to free speech by banning them from all its platforms."

The intercept is well regarded BUT they were responsible for revealing the identity of one of their sources - Reality Winner - through journalistic incompetence: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/business/media/the-intercept-source-reality-winner.html
So if you are a whistleblower they arent recommended!

 

[Dharma Police]

This is an iron-willed promise made by the Taliban five months ago. Given what we're seeing today, one might even say prophetic.

 

[fastpitch17]

Afghans protest the Taliban. The Taliban break it up by shooting into the crowd. 2 women shot to death for not covering their faces. Taliban say there will be no Democracy, only Sharia Law. Women working and female education will be decided by a panel of their Islamic Scholars.

Sharia Law is their interpretation of it and that pretty much means they take complete control of everyone. Their Islamic Scholars? Writing is on the wall.

 

[Balifrog]

Afghans protest the Taliban. The Taliban break it up by shooting into the crowd. 2 women shot to death for not covering their faces. Taliban say there will be no Democracy, only Sharia Law. Women working and female education will be decided by a panel of their Islamic Scholars.

Sharia Law is their interpretation of it and that pretty much means they take complete control of everyone. Their Islamic Scholars? Writing is on the wall.

I am very surprised that Western people living in the most populous Muslim country in the world, are surprised by all this.
Talibans want to apply a strict following of sharia laws. It is the same in Aceh. Or Iran.

Understand it is a country who has lived in war the last years, so sure there are excesses.

Note also that only very small parts of the population, mainly in Kabul, have had a taste of "western customs" in the village the tribal / elders system still prevail.

A rather good overview, showing the different "levels" of application :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Sharia_by_country

As this is a rather sensitive subject, I think it is better to stick to the global Afghanistan situation ?

Disclaimer : This does NOT mean I condone what the Taliban want to put in place. But it is definitively not any western nation's business to try to change the system.

 

[harryopal1]

: This does NOT mean I condone what the Taliban want to put in place. But it is definitively not any western nation's business to try to change the system.

Well, that is a very debatable assertion given the charter of the United Nations which states as it's purpose, among other things:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;.
2. ........
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;..."

While these lofty asperations may often be ignored by many countries all member countries of the UN do in principal accept the charter. To stand aside and say nothing while citizens of another country may be denied basic rights or tortured and killed defeats the stated purposes of the UN. It is not only the business of other countries to try and influence future government behaviour in Afghanistan but their responsibility to do so. This then is not just a "western" concern but a concern for all civilized countries.

 

[Balifrog]

While these lofty asperations may often be ignored by many countries all member countries of the UN do in principal accept the charter. To stand aside and say nothing while citizens of another country may be denied basic rights or tortured and killed defeats the stated purposes of the UN. It is not only the business of other countries to try and influence future government behaviour in Afghanistan but their responsibility to do so. This then is not just a "western" concern but a concern for all civilized countrie

So the following countries were all members of the U.N. :

Member states of the United Nations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Afghanistan (since 1946)
Iraq (since 1945)
Syria (since 1945)
Libya (since 1955)
Laos (since 1945)

But I suppose the US has a superior membership level, allowing to invade / attack / bomb them when they felt for it ? (OK, Libya was France's idea..)

Note that none of the above countries were at any moment a direct threat to the safety / integrity of the US !

Not to speak about all governments overthrown by the CIA ?

 

[Balifrog]

It seems SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction) has raised some alarming points since MANY years.
Included on the subject of "ghost soldiers" in the ANA and Afghan Police.

Some interesting reads / reports :

SIGAR | Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

SIGAR Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Home Page

www.sigar.mil

I downloaded the latest one ...

https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf

"LESSON 1 The U.S. government continuously struggled to develop and implement a coherent strategy for what it hoped to achieve"

A few other links on the same subject :

‘All the Signs Have Been There’ Predicting Afghan Security Force Collapse, IG Says

For more than a decade, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has been warning about “ghost soldiers” and corruption to anyone willing to pay attention.

www.govexec.com

https://www.govexec.com/defense/2019/04/its-getting-harder-track-us-progress-afghanistan/156525/ this one dated 2019

So obviously there was a lot of smoke and mirrors and nobody should be surprised by how it ended.

 

[harryopal1]

My point was simply that few countries adopt the position that what happens in other countries is not their business. Whether it be for pursuing self interest or humanitarian reasons many countries will continue to regard whatever happens in Afghanistan. rightly or wrongly, as their business

 

[HappyMan]

This does NOT mean I condone what the Taliban want to put in place. But it is definitively not any western nation's business to try to change the system.

I think I probably asked you this before, but where do you think the line of "it's okay to interfere" should be drawn? Is it okay for Afghanistan's neighbors to try to change things? What about other, non-neighboring countries in the region who are/aren't affected by Afghanistan's behaviour? Is it specifically the fact that the countries doing the interfering are "western" that is the problem?

I know some people feel more strongly about lines drawn on paper than others do, but if my town was taken over by a gang of thugs, I wouldn't be worried about which wilayah the police force sent to fight them was from. I'd be worried about their results. Isn't the main question just whether or not the "help" is actually helpful (leads to "better" lives for the citizens, as viewed by those citizens)? Yeah, obviously governments suck at applying utilitarianism, but a belief that everyone should (at all times) mind their own business doesn't make sense unless you are an anarchist. Interference is pretty much what governments do.

 

[Hawk256]

I know some people feel more strongly about lines drawn on paper than others do, but if my town was taken over by a gang of thugs, I wouldn't be worried about which wilayah the police force sent to fight them was from. I'd be worried about their results. Isn't the main question just whether or not the "help" is actually helpful (leads to "better" lives for the citizens, as viewed by those citizens)? Yeah, obviously governments suck at applying utilitarianism, but a belief that everyone should (at all times) mind their own business doesn't make sense unless you are an anarchist. Interference is pretty much what governments do.

What exactly do you propose to do in Afghanistan? What can be done that hasn't been tried for the past 20 years?

 

[Balifrog]

Is it specifically the fact that the countries doing the interfering are "western" that is the problem?

Among other reason, yes this is the principal one.
Western countries have no business interfering in how another government rules, and even more so when they have no clue about the local culture.
Look at China's approach in Africa. Strictly business, they don't come up with great theories like human rights, democracy, womens rights, gays rights etc....
And it works well.
Do you hear China or Russia calling the Talibans "terrorist" ? No, they are pragmatic, and just wait to see how things turn out.
The Gulf countries, who are sure culturally and religiously much closer to the Talibs than us, have the same approach.
We (the West) have it completely wrong. We ask them first to accept our views, beliefs, lifestyle and if they dont accept we say "sorry, we cant do business with you". Bon, of course except if the country in question is VERY rich. Think Saudi, Qatar, and in earlier days Libya, Irak, Iran...
Usually we try to put a puppet chief of state at the head, usually completely incompetent and corrupt bug never mind as long he dances to our tunes.

France excelled at this in Africa in the 60' / 70' till recently. The great times of "Francafrique"

Worst case (Iraq) we flatten the country, destroy all infrastructure, then invade them and expect them to welcome us like liberators. "Look, we liberated you from a tyran, now you have democracy !"
FFS, the people have no water, no electricity anymore, no law inforcement, no judicial system, no government anymore, gangs and tribes are running wild, and you expect them to feel gratefull ?

Russia went in Afghanistan to help "a young developing socialist country". We all know the rest.

 

[Dharma Police]

 

[HappyMan]

What exactly do you propose to do in Afghanistan? What can be done that hasn't been tried for the past 20 years?

I propose nothing, as I'm not knowledgeable/clever enough to even guess at a solution that doesn't involve killing a whole lot of people and essentially imprisoning the rest for a generation or two. My cure would probably be worse than the disease.

On the other hand, there are plenty of countries out there that have a history of oppression and internal strife, but that are currently at peace. There are people who study the processes by which such things occur. I imagine something can be done by some group who does understand these processes. I don't agree that it matters where that person or group of persons comes from, so long as the results are an improvement over the present status.

 

[HappyMan]

Among other reason, yes this is the principal one.
Western countries have no business interfering in how another government rules, and even more so when they have no clue about the local culture.
Look at China's approach in Africa. Strictly business, they don't come up with great theories like human rights, democracy, womens rights, gays rights etc....
And it works well.
Do you hear China or Russia calling the Talibans "terrorist" ? No, they are pragmatic, and just wait to see how things turn out.
The Gulf countries, who are sure culturally and religiously much closer to the Talibs than us, have the same approach.
We (the West) have it completely wrong. We ask them first to accept our views, beliefs, lifestyle and if they dont accept we say "sorry, we cant do business with you". Bon, of course except if the country in question is VERY rich. Think Saudi, Qatar, and in earlier days Libya, Irak, Iran...
Usually we try to put a puppet chief of state at the head, usually completely incompetent and corrupt bug never mind as long he dances to our tunes.

France excelled at this in Africa in the 60' / 70' till recently. The great times of "Francafrique"

Worst case (Iraq) we flatten the country, destroy all infrastructure, then invade them and expect them to welcome us like liberators. "Look, we liberated you from a tyran, now you have democracy !"
FFS, the people have no water, no electricity anymore, no law inforcement, no judicial system, no government anymore, gangs and tribes are running wild, and you expect them to feel gratefull ?

Russia went in Afghanistan to help "a young developing socialist country". We all know the rest.

I take your general meaning, that America in particular (and the West in general) have a history of failure and hypocrisy when it comes to meddling with other nations. I agree that we should never have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan for the reasons that we did. I'll add that I don't think that the average American citizen (taken from a sampling of people I know, which perhaps says as much about me as it does about them) has a broad enough world view to want to help Afghanistan in a way that does not include making Afghanis more "American".

But, I don't agree that we should necessarily ignore human suffering because it is on the other side of a line. Sure, your average foreigner doesn't understand exactly why/how Afghanistan got to be so bad, and he/she comes around with a whole bag full of biases, but the same things are true for your average local. You think your average citizen in New Hampshire knows how to fix the local economy? Shit, no. That's what experts are for. I just don't see why you'd automatically reject a solution based on the geographic location it originated from.

Finally, the Taliban certainly has no respect for those lines, in and out of Pakistan on the daily. You think they'll just stay out of any areas of Afghanistan where they are not supported by a majority of citizens? They'll let the minorities sort themselves out, since they have no business meddling?

 

[Bad_azz]

Indonesia has moved its diplomatic mission to Pakistan from Kabul.
' "Temporarily, the diplomatic mission in Kabul will be done from Islamabad," Retno Marsudi said in televised remarks at the Halim military airport in Jakarta.

The initial plan had been to "continue our diplomatic mission in Kabul with a small team" but changed due to a "new development", which she did not specify. '
Reuters article: Indonesians evacuate

 

[Nimbus]

It’s not hard to answer “what” should be done in Afghanistan, it’s the “who” that we struggle with. Despite two decades of training and comparable (if not superior) weaponry, the Afghan National Army with 180,000 soldiers simply melted away against the Taliban when Americans left.

Russians and Americans tried their version of modernity in Afghanistan, both failed. Perhaps the Taliban is the version of Afghanistan they prefer. Perhaps change must happen organically rather than imposed by foreign invaders, like the Arab Spring.

 

[Balifrog]

Perhaps the Taliban is the version of Afghanistan they prefer. Perhaps change must happen organically rather than imposed by foreign invaders, like the Arab Spring

Spot on

Change or revolution has to come from inside.
Not imported or imposed by outsiders.

 

[HappyMan]

Spot on

Change or revolution has to come from inside.
Not imported or imposed by outsiders.

I've been thinking about this since the topic came up, and I'm not sure that assuming popular sovereignty makes sense, in this day and age. How does even 75% of the population stand up to 25%, when that 25% has machine guns? Myanmar comes to mind.

 

[Nimbus]

I've been thinking about this since the topic came up, and I'm not sure that assuming popular sovereignty makes sense, in this day and age. How does even 75% of the population stand up to 25%, when that 25% has machine guns? Myanmar comes to mind.

Every country is different. Somalia was (and still largely is) a failed state, yet with minimal foreign intervention the democratic government manages to hold off the extremists. Aceh and Timor Leste were fairly successful in holding off the Indonesian military, and they eventually succeded in gaining independence or full autonomy. Go back further and we see that Indonesia managed to repel the Dutch and her own Islamic fundamentalists with minimum resources.

I’m not anti democratic, I’m just getting more and more skeptical about democracy imposed through foreign military intervention.

Indonesia didn’t become fully democratic until 54 years after her independence. Mighty Korea didn’t become democratic until 1987. All this came without foreign intervention.

If we want to help people, the worst offender is probably the North Korean regime, responsible for famine and other neglect that killed up to 3.5 million people. Yet nobody seems interested in liberating them. The Taliban are no angel, but if they don’t support Al-Qaeda they’re not much worse than the Iranian regime.

 

[Nimbus]

Seems like the former administration had a larger share of the blame than I previously thought.

Pompeo Is Lying About Afghanistan

slate.com