Middle East Thread: Clarissa Explains the Fall

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread: Clarissa Explains the Fall

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Cat Mattress posted:

Turkey is loving pissed.

I love that "operating illegally" bit. Yeah, that's a stone you want to throw from your glasshouse, "Olive Branch".

If Trump pulls out do you think it's remotely possible that France will continue to stay?

# ? Mar 31, 2018 17:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 23:17

HorrificExistence: Jun 25, 2017; by Athanatos

Cat Mattress posted:

Turkey is loving pissed.

https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/979824089174102022

I love that "operating illegally" bit. Yeah, that's a stone you want to throw from your glasshouse, "Olive Branch".

lol i could have "disclosed" that with liveuamap.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 17:46

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Squalid posted:

If Trump pulls out do you think it's remotely possible that France will continue to stay?

Probably not, TBH. I doubt Macron would have the balls to make a stand alone.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 18:14

Kurtofan: Feb 16, 2011; hon hon hon

Cat Mattress posted:

Turkey is loving pissed.

https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/979824089174102022

I love that "operating illegally" bit. Yeah, that's a stone you want to throw from your glasshouse, "Olive Branch".

The replies are a special brand of crazy

# ? Mar 31, 2018 18:52

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/980126589219475456

While I think we have a special responsibility to the Kurds for acting as our proxies over the last couple years, making the mixed messages coming out of the Trump administration particularly grotesque, I want to go ahead and say that I think Obama deserves blame for encouraging Syrian Arabs to rebel and then not backing them up when the time came too (though that blame also falls on the other outside actors who made sure the rebels we could support were eclipsed by jihadists). While I didn't support intervention, I do think giving people hope and then doing nothing to help is the worst of both worlds, and I don't think it's a stretch to say it prolonged the war and got more people killed than if we'd done nothing at all.

Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 31, 2018

# ? Mar 31, 2018 19:04

Kurtofan: Feb 16, 2011; hon hon hon

Cat Mattress posted:

Turkey is loving pissed.

https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/979824089174102022

I love that "operating illegally" bit. Yeah, that's a stone you want to throw from your glasshouse, "Olive Branch".

I notice that account is pro assad, and very anti sdf, is that the official stance as well ? Bizarrely it seems also pro Turkey, i assume turkey doesnt care about assad anymore ?

# ? Mar 31, 2018 19:19

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

Sinteres posted:

https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/980126589219475456

While I think we have a special responsibility to the Kurds for acting as our proxies over the last couple years, making the mixed messages coming out of the Trump administration particularly grotesque, I want to go ahead and say that I think Obama deserves blame for encouraging Syrian Arabs to rebel and then not backing them up when the time came too (though that blame also falls on the other outside actors who made sure the rebels we could support were eclipsed by jihadists). While I didn't support intervention, I do think giving people hope and then doing nothing to help is the worst of both worlds, and I don't think it's a stretch to say it prolonged the war and got more people killed than if we'd done nothing at all.

I don't believe people in Syria rebelled because Obama told them to. Mostly they rebelled because the government was murdering them for protesting. I guess you could say that many were encouraged by the US and NATO intervening in Libya, but the protests against Assad started before that and had been going on for quite a long time before that happened.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 20:49

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Randarkman posted:

I don't believe people in Syria rebelled because Obama told them to. Mostly they rebelled because the government was murdering them for protesting. I guess you could say that many were encouraged by the US and NATO intervening in Libya, but the protests against Assad started before that and had been going on for quite a long time before that happened.

I didn't mean to suggest we started it, just that we prolonged it. I should have said that Obama encouraged them in their rebellion (leading to an increase in the number of rebels over time) rather than that he encouraged them to rebel.

Volkerball posted:

Certainly not, but he definitely betrayed them all the same. That's a common theme in interviews with Syrian activists from the beginning. US operatives embedded with them spoke to them like it was a common struggle and the US was with them, when in reality the Obama administration was just hoping the regime would fall on its own, and that when it did, they'd be remembered for standing on the right side without having invested anything more than words.

Yeah, Volkerball said it better than I did. Setting people up to mistakenly believe the West is coming to save them if they just hold out a little longer is the worst of both worlds.

Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 31, 2018

# ? Mar 31, 2018 20:58

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Randarkman posted:

I don't believe people in Syria rebelled because Obama told them to. Mostly they rebelled because the government was murdering them for protesting. I guess you could say that many were encouraged by the US and NATO intervening in Libya, but the protests against Assad started before that and had been going on for quite a long time before that happened.

Certainly not, but he definitely betrayed them all the same. That's a common theme in interviews with Syrian activists from the beginning. US operatives embedded with them spoke to them like it was a common struggle and the US was with them, when in reality the Obama administration was just hoping the regime would fall on its own, and that when it did, they'd be remembered for standing on the right side without having invested anything more than words.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 20:58

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

lol if you believe a CIA agent telling you they have your back.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 21:44

Zudgemud: Mar 1, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Darkman Fanpage posted:

lol if you believe a CIA agent telling you they have your back.

They will have your back, with a dagger.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 21:56

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Darkman Fanpage posted:

lol if you believe a CIA agent telling you they have your back.

State was meeting with them too.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 22:00

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

lol if you believe the United States has your back.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 22:01

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Darkman Fanpage posted:

lol if you believe a CIA agent telling you they have your back.

Take note of the knife they're sharpening when they say that.

# ? Mar 31, 2018 22:18

Rigged Death Trap: Feb 13, 2012; BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP

Cat Mattress posted:

Take note of the knife they're sharpening when they say that.

a foot long blade
your name engraved
you wont feel a thing
until it effortlessly slides in

# ? Mar 31, 2018 22:28

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Turkey is loving pissed, episode 2:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey/turkey-says-france-could-become-target-for-backing-syria-kurds-idUSKBN1H60LD

quote:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey said on Friday that a French pledge to help stabilize a region of northern Syria controlled by Kurdish-dominated forces amounted to support for terrorism and could make France a �target of Turkey�.

French backing for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), spearheaded by the Kurdish YPG militia, has angered Ankara at a time when it is fighting the YPG in northern Syria and considers it a terrorist organization.

President Tayyip Erdogan said France had taken a �completely wrong approach� on Syria, adding that he exchanged heated words with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, last week.

The split with France is the latest rift between Turkey under Erdogan and its NATO allies in the West.

Turkey has long complained about U.S. support for the SDF, among a number of irritants to ties with the leading NATO power. Last year it compared the German and Dutch authorities to Nazis for restricting pro-Erdogan demonstrations during a campaign for a referendum to give him greater powers.

The White House said President Donald Trump, who added fresh uncertainty on Thursday when he said that the United States would be �coming out of Syria� very soon, spoke to Erdogan on Friday �to discuss regional developments and the strategic partnership between the United States and Turkey�.

�The two leaders expressed support for continued efforts to increase cooperation between their two countries, to advance shared interests as NATO allies, and to work through issues that affect the bilateral relationship,� a White House statement said.

Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said the French stance was setting Paris on a collision course with Ankara.

�Those who enter into cooperation and solidarity with terror groups against Turkey ... will, like the terrorists, become a target of Turkey,� Bozdag, who is also the Turkish government spokesman, wrote on Twitter. �We hope France does not take such an irrational step.�

Macron met an SDF delegation on Thursday and gave assurances of French support to stabilize northern Syria. A presidential source later said France could increase its military contribution to the U.S.-led coalition which - alongside the SDF - is fighting Islamic State in Syria.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 16:45

HorrificExistence: Jun 25, 2017; by Athanatos

Turkish paratroopers landing in Northern Iraq

https://twitter.com/Ozkok_/status/980419400820981760

# ? Apr 1, 2018 17:30

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Syria's former colonial master showing up to tell the Ottomans to gently caress off is a pretty solid plot twist.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 17:36

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Pretty decent Times article referencing a thing that's come up a time or three re: Afghanistan; that not only are the Taliban just as talented at failing to lose as ever, but they're getting Kinda Good at actual 21st century warfighting now too.

quote:

WASHINGTON � Once described as an ill-equipped band of insurgents, the Taliban are increasingly attacking security forces across Afghanistan using night-vision goggles and lasers that United States military officials said were either stolen from Afghan and international troops or bought on the black market.

The devices allow the Taliban to maneuver on forces under the cover of darkness as they track the whirling blades of coalition helicopters, the infrared lasers on American rifles, or even the bedtime movements of local police officers.

With this new battlefield visibility, the Taliban more than doubled nighttime attacks from 2014 to 2017, according to one United States military official who described internal Pentagon data on the condition of anonymity. The number of Afghans who were wounded or killed during nighttime attacks during that period nearly tripled.

That has forced American commanders to rethink the limited access they give Afghan security forces to the night-vision devices. Commanders now worry that denying the expensive equipment to those forces puts them at a technological disadvantage, with potentially lethal consequences.

For years, American commanders have been reluctant to give night-vision equipment to rank-and-file Afghan soldiers and police officers out of concern of widespread corruption among those forces. The devices � headsets and infrared lasers � are usually given only to elite Afghan commandos and police special mission units, according to American military officials.

As some of this equipment falls into Taliban hands, the militants are joining a larger trend, said David W. Barno, a retired lieutenant general who led the war effort in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. Advanced equipment, such as drones and precision weapons, is being seized by other extremist groups in other global conflict zones, he said.

�It�s going to be a problem,� Mr. Barno said, �and it�s going to change how we operate.�

With the spread of the devices, infantry units on patrols have been told not to use certain marking devices that can be seen only by night-vision equipment. Helicopter crews have been made distinctly aware that their aircraft are no longer cloaked by darkness.

In one case last November, Taliban fighters wearing night-vision goggles attacked a police outpost in Farah Province, in western Afghanistan. By the time the predawn assault was over, eight Afghan officers lay dead in their beds, Haji Abdul Rahman Aka, the elder of the province�s Pule Regi area, said at the time. Only one Afghan officer survived.

The frequency and ferocity of the nighttime Taliban attacks are linked to attempts by Afghan forces, based in small checkpoints across the country, to hold territory that has been wrested away from the militants.

...

One of the first batches of night-vision equipment for conventional units in southern Afghanistan, part of a monthslong pilot program, was sent to the embattled 215th Corps in Helmand Province in the spring of 2016.

Only 161 of the 210 devices were returned, according to the military documents obtained by The Times, and the equipment was not effectively used, in part because the forces were not properly trained to use it.

Afghan troops said the missing devices were reported as �battle losses,� but could not support that claim with any proof or records to explain where or when they were left behind, according to the documents.

At the time, the commander of the 215th Corps was Maj. Gen. M. Moein Faqir. He was later arrested on sweeping corruption charges that included misuse of food money meant for his troops.

...

The American military headquarters in Kabul has said it equips only Special Operations units in the Afghan Army and police forces with night-vision technology.

Capt. Tom Gresback, a spokesman for United States forces in Afghanistan, declined to comment on the plans to distribute the devices to the Afghan National Army, as outlined in the military documents. He said American commanders would provide Afghan national defense and security forces �with the resources necessary to promote security throughout Afghanistan.�

But some American advisers closer to the ground fight are already trying to get the technology for their Afghan counterparts, according to a United States official. He said that would require a decision made through the leadership in Kabul and the Pentagon to allow American commanders to distribute the devices to even more Afghan security forces.

With the night-vision devices, Taliban fighters have been able to approach Afghan bases nearly undetected before attacking.

Initially, such ambushes were attributed to Taliban forces known as �Red Units� located in Afghanistan�s southern provinces. But over the last year, the night-vision devices have frequently turned up in the country�s north and east, according to two American military officials, signaling a widespread distribution into other groups of Taliban fighters.

Those officials said the Taliban were using both tightly controlled American-made devices and gear that is widely available for purchase. In some cases, American officials said, the equipment was left on the battlefield by United States or Afghan troops, including those who were killed in action.

In others, Afghan soldiers are believed to have sold the devices to the extremists.

That was disputed by Gen. Dawlat Waziri, who until recently served as spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Defense. He said all night-vision equipment provided to Afghan troops by the American military had been �accounted for.�

�No case of night vision sold by our soldiers to the Taliban has been reported,� General Waziri said.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said fighters obtained night-vision devices after attacking Afghan bases or capturing members of the Afghan security forces.

Rank-and-file Afghan police officers are particularly under threat by increasing numbers of deadly nighttime attacks, said one of the American military officials. Those units are spread farther into sparsely populated areas across Afghanistan than are army soldiers.

Officers with the Afghan National Police, especially in the south, have been making desperate requests for the equipment for months, the official said. The police are part of the Ministry of Interior, which is suspected of rampant corruption.

In Helmand Province, Marine Corps advisers are helping a request by the 505th Zone of the Afghan National Police to receive night-vision devices, Col. C.J. Douglas, the head of the Marines� police advising component there, said in an email.

It is unclear if the Afghan police unit will get them.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 17:36

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Willie Tomg posted:

Pretty decent Times article referencing a thing that's come up a time or three re: Afghanistan; that not only are the Taliban just as talented at failing to lose as ever, but they're getting Kinda Good at actual 21st century warfighting now too.

'Extremists stole high tech from the guys we supply, so we have to send even more high tech to be stolen.' :downs:

On an unrelated note, Erdogan played army today:

https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/980482729967079429

Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Apr 1, 2018

# ? Apr 1, 2018 17:41

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Sinteres posted:

Syria's former colonial master showing up to tell the Ottomans to gently caress off is a pretty solid plot twist.

Why would Turkey tell Turkey to gently caress off? :confused:

# ? Apr 1, 2018 18:03

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Sinteres posted:

'Extremists stole high tech from the guys we supply, so we have to send even more high tech to be stolen.'

I mean they're also just... buying NODs. They're not all stolen, its simply after the better part of two continuous decades of low intensity warfare the Taliban finally figured out that it is at times helpful to attack in the other half of a given day. In absence of any concrete objective you could at least give the poor fucks in the countryside a chance to see what's coming at them.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 18:08

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Willie Tomg posted:

I mean they're also just... buying NODs. They're not all stolen, its simply after the better part of two continuous decades of low intensity warfare the Taliban finally figured out that it is at times helpful to attack in the other half of a given day. In absence of any concrete objective you could at least give the poor fucks in the countryside a chance to see what's coming at them.

Yeah, I was being a little unfair. Still, if the Afghan government can't afford or doesn't have the access to buy equipment the Taliban can, that's arguably even worse for showing what a futile effort this whole thing is than the Taliban just being really good at scrounging poo poo up. Not that I really have a better solution than kicking the can like everyone in Washington wants to do forever.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 18:13

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Cat Mattress posted:

Why would Turkey tell Turkey to gently caress off?

After WW1, France took over the Evil Overlord duty from the Ottoman Empire

# ? Apr 1, 2018 18:39

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Sinteres posted:

Yeah, I was being a little unfair. Still, if the Afghan government can't afford or doesn't have the access to buy equipment the Taliban can, that's arguably even worse for showing what a futile effort this whole thing is than the Taliban just being really good at scrounging poo poo up. Not that I really have a better solution than kicking the can like everyone in Washington wants to do forever.

I'd guess the problem is the Taliban can concentrate their equipment in a small number of very well outfitted strike teams, while the Afghan army has to spread the aid they receive throughout the whole country.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 19:59

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Sinteres posted:

Yeah, I was being a little unfair. Still, if the Afghan government can't afford or doesn't have the access to buy equipment the Taliban can, that's arguably even worse for showing what a futile effort this whole thing is than the Taliban just being really good at scrounging poo poo up. Not that I really have a better solution than kicking the can like everyone in Washington wants to do forever.

The Taliban in Afghanistan has international backers providing funds, weapons, and bodies. That is why the Taliban will not be simply beaten - you could kill every Taliban soldier in the country today and by tomorrow morning more would cross over from Pakistan. Why would providing international support to the people fighting them be a sign of futility?

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 1, 2018

# ? Apr 1, 2018 20:19

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

steinrokkan posted:

I'd guess the problem is the Taliban can concentrate their equipment in a small number of very well outfitted strike teams, while the Afghan army has to spread the aid they receive throughout the whole country.

I have noticed overall a trend toward small elite teams backed by a mass of Poor Sad Hosers, from the Taliban's "red teams" to the SAA's "tiger units" to the Afghan army's "special forces" to the USA's "tier one operators" or whatever. It seems like the emerging doctrine is regulars keeping the world out of the way of the marginal percentage that actually does the dirt.

Warbadger posted:

The Taliban in Afghanistan has international backers providing funds, weapons, and bodies. That is why the Taliban will not be simply beaten - you could kill every Taliban soldier in the country today and by tomorrow morning more would cross over from Pakistan. Why would providing international support to the people fighting them be a sign of futility?

Ask an NVA veteran.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 21:14

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Warbadger posted:

The Taliban in Afghanistan has international backers providing funds, weapons, and bodies. That is why the Taliban will not be simply beaten - you could kill every Taliban soldier in the country today and by tomorrow morning more would cross over from Pakistan.

This is a pretty simplistic view of the problem. It�s far more complicated and difficult than that. If it were that simple they might well have been defeated by now.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 21:37

svenkatesh: Sep 5, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

mlmp08 posted:

This is a pretty simplistic view of the problem. It�s far more complicated and difficult than that. If it were that simple they might well have been defeated by now.

No, this is a pretty simplistic view of the problem.

If you have something of substance to say, say it.

Related:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/26/is-trump-ready-to-dump-pakistan/

# ? Apr 1, 2018 21:53

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Warbadger posted:

The Taliban in Afghanistan has international backers providing funds, weapons, and bodies. That is why the Taliban will not be simply beaten - you could kill every Taliban soldier in the country today and by tomorrow morning more would cross over from Pakistan. Why would providing international support to the people fighting them be a sign of futility?

The situation you described (even if I think it's hyperbolic), in which even wiping out the enemy wouldn't accomplish anything, is about as futile as it gets. We didn't manage to permanently turn the tide even when we did have greater cooperation during Obama's presidency from a Pakistani government that felt at least somewhat threatened by the forces they'd unleashed, granting us more freedom to strike inside their borders, so it's hard to imagine things are going to improve in the future. I can accept that some version of our status quo involvement there may be the least bad alternative, but that doesn't make the status quo less depressing.

svenkatesh posted:

Related:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/26/is-trump-ready-to-dump-pakistan/

I'd be happy to trade up from Pakistan to India, and think it would be a long overdue change, but I don't think it would lead to anything getting better in Afghanistan. Modi's a nationalist piece of poo poo, but if you're going to have a garbage ally you should at least take the stronger one.

Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Apr 1, 2018

# ? Apr 1, 2018 21:54

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

svenkatesh posted:

No, this is a pretty simplistic view of the problem.

If you have something of substance to say, say it.

Related:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/26/is-trump-ready-to-dump-pakistan/

i dont want to make mlmp's argument for them, but Literal Series' Of Books have been written about afghanistan that still necessarily abstract some of the more nightmarish wrinkles and that you then subsequently link a think tank opinion piece about words that came out of trump's mouth (lol) makes you kind of extra lovely.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 22:12

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

svenkatesh posted:

No, this is a pretty simplistic view of the problem.

That doesn't actually make any sense, just from a syntax perspective.

If someone thinks the only or priarmy problem with the Taliban is just "they have external support," they're being simplistic to the point of either ideological blindness or general ignorance.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 22:18

svenkatesh: Sep 5, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Willie Tomg posted:

i dont want to make mlmp's argument for them, but Literal Series' Of Books have been written about afghanistan that still necessarily abstract some of the more nightmarish wrinkles and that you then subsequently link a think tank opinion piece about words that came out of trump's mouth (lol) makes you kind of extra lovely.

I'm aware of the literal series of books, having read many (but surely not all) of them. Do any of them say that the Taliban would be able to self-sustain without the financial and material support of the Saudis and Pakistanis, and without bodies from Uzbekistan and Tajikstan?

Also 10/10 for judging the article by the title alone. The article quotes administration officials, but not Trump.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 22:20

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

I mean if we're playing more-erudite-than-thou there's not really a whole lot much new in that article as it pertains to this thread's conversation other than what is commonly assumed in the demi-fresh context of the Age Of Trump. Unless you're circuitously arguing in favor of the fundamental uselessness of your own link, in which case: may God see fit to make me as drunk later this evening as you are right now.

mlmp08 posted:

That doesn't actually make any sense, just from a syntax perspective.

If someone thinks the only or priarmy problem with the Taliban is just "they have external support," they're being simplistic to the point of either ideological blindness or general ignorance.

The classic mistake: Alexander should've marginalized the Saudis, too. why does everyone discount them, so?!??!

# ? Apr 1, 2018 22:29

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

mlmp08 posted:

That doesn't actually make any sense, just from a syntax perspective.

If someone thinks the only or priarmy problem with the Taliban is just "they have external support," they're being simplistic to the point of either ideological blindness or general ignorance.

The Taliban having external support is, in fact, one of the larger reasons they are still around and as a group are able to contest Afghan power structures at the regional and national level. There are other reasons, but I don't need to list and explain every facet of the situation to point out that the Taliban getting stuff like night vision gear purchased and smuggled in by their foreign backers isn't a thing the locals are going to be able to easily match without foreign backing off their own.

Make some points of your own if you want to contest that.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Apr 1, 2018

# ? Apr 1, 2018 22:34

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Warbadger posted:

The Taliban having external support is, in fact, one of the larger reasons they are still around and as a group are able to contest Afghan power structures at the regional and national level. There are other reasons, but I don't need to list every reason and explain the entire situation to point out that the groups fighting the Taliban needing external support to continue fighting them isn't exactly unusual.

Make some points of your own if you want to contest that.

One of the most basic points would be that as much external support as the Taliban may get, it still gains and often retains tons of local support. It's not like the whole of Afghanistan just got invaded by outsiders to support the Tablian. Also, I think going after a group that had very strong ties with outsiders and then bitching about external support is pretty dumb. To make an admittedly rough analogy, it would be kind of dumb and a real lack of vision to attack a nation with tons of allies and then cry about how said alliance is the real reason you're losing in that country.

The thing I tend to believe that is something I admit I can't really support is that I think that even without outside support for the Taliban, you'd still end up with an Afghan central government that requires outsized foreign support of its own to be functional for a rather long time. This isn't just the bullshit of assuming people other than Europeans can't run a country. Afghanistan has eaten a ton of poo poo sandwiches over the years due to outside influencers, and it makes long term stability very difficult. There were US units that arrived early on, and locals thought they were Russians returning for Afghanistan 2 Lubyanka Boogaloo.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 22:54

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Warbadger posted:

The Taliban having external support is, in fact, one of the larger reasons they are still around and as a group are able to contest Afghan power structures at the regional and national level. There are other reasons, but I don't need to list and explain every facet of the situation to point out that the Taliban getting stuff like night vision gear purchased and smuggled in by their foreign backers isn't a thing the locals are going to be able to easily match without foreign backing off their own.

Make some points of your own if you want to contest that.

You may like to blame external actors for Taliban's presence, but the fact remains: Taliban survives, on a community by community level, because it represents a form of authority said communities seek. It wouldn't be able to survive, with all the foreign assistance in the world, if it didn't offer community services.

I mean, see the government for what happens when a totally disconnected force with foreign backing tries to assert sovereignty over the country - it definitely doesn't look like the Taliban trajectory.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 23:06

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

mlmp08 posted:

One of the most basic points would be that as much external support as the Taliban may get, it still gains and often retains tons of local support. It's not like the whole of Afghanistan just got invaded by outsiders to support the Tablian. Also, I think going after a group that had very strong ties with outsiders and then bitching about external support is pretty dumb. To make an admittedly rough analogy, it would be kind of dumb and a real lack of vision to attack a nation with tons of allies and then cry about how said alliance is the real reason you're losing in that country.

The thing I tend to believe that is something I admit I can't really support is that I think that even without outside support for the Taliban, you'd still end up with an Afghan central government that requires outsized foreign support of its own to be functional for a rather long time. This isn't just the bullshit of assuming people other than Europeans can't run a country. Afghanistan has eaten a ton of poo poo sandwiches over the years due to outside influencers, and it makes long term stability very difficult. There were US units that arrived early on, and locals thought they were Russians returning for Afghanistan 2 Lubyanka Boogaloo.

You do understand where the name Taliban comes from, right? Like - they have domestic support and are better at getting it than many groups but it has always been a foreign jihadi group with foreign funds, fighters, assets, and safe sanctuary that its local competition does not have. They can absorb losses a domestic group simply cannot take in both territory and fighters, while having more to offer including a leg up on providing services.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 1, 2018

# ? Apr 1, 2018 23:07

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

Warbadger posted:

You do understand where the name Taliban comes from, right? Like - they have domestic support but it has always been a foreign jihadi group with foreign funds, fighters, assets, and safe sanctuary that its local competition does not have. They can absorb losses a domestic group simply cannot take in both territory and fighters.

You can't really be saying the Taliban are foreign to Afghanistan, can you? They have foriegn support on one hand but on the other they're basically the pashtun militia.

# ? Apr 1, 2018 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 23:17

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Count Roland posted:

You can't really be saying the Taliban are foreign to Afghanistan, can you? They have foriegn support on one hand but on the other they're basically the pashtun militia.

I said right in the post that they have local support. So I guess I didn't say that! Foreign fighters were the origin of the group and its name, though, and they still seem to have plenty of them. Plus things like, you know, night vision devices and such that the local warlord and even national government isn't going to have the connections or funds to equip an army with.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 1, 2018

# ? Apr 1, 2018 23:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread: Clarissa Explains the Fall

«‹›636 »