|
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. In some sense, that's a large part of my point, so maybe we're just talking past each other. People like to say "ugh, but Pakistan!" or "ugh, Wahabists from KSA" or "ugh, porous borders!" but that's completely ignoring that that's just kinda how it's been for decades, so going to Afghanistan and trying to "fix" Afghanistan to whatever Western or US goal you're seeking means you need to understand that ahead of time instead of complaining about it after the fact. And of course that includes members of the same or allied/partner/trade networks who don't give a drat about a porous border drawn up decades ago. But packaging that message as saying that if only those pesky outsiders would knock it off isn't super helpful for understanding the problem or providing solutions. The most clear outside nation-state influence in Afghanistan comes from US and coalition partners. Other contributors to Afghanistan's situation are not nearly so nationally clear-cut as ISAF and subsequent operational forces post-ISAF. There I think we might largely agree. However, what's the point of complaining about the outside influences? One argument could be that it's too complicated so gently caress it. Another point could be argument for expanding the conflict across multiple international boundaries? Or you can sit and gripe about boundaries drawn up decades ago while nodding sagely? I'm generally not a big fan of arguments regarding Afghanistan that say the real problem is "X" and then there's zero input into how to deal with "X." You might as well say the real problem is humans whom you disagree with opposing the humans you agree with.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:In some sense, that's a large part of my point, so maybe we're just talking past each other. The whole point is that complaining about the outside influence is dumb. The Taliban have it and it has been a major advantage for them - as demonstrated by the continued stream of useful war material to them. The locals getting it too isn't a sign that things are hosed. The locals being unable to provide basic services with a government that is obviously corrupt and incompetent is a sign that things are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
I thought this article about what losing in Afghanistan might look like was pretty interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/world/asia/afghanistan-war.html While I think there's something to the idea that Western backing promotes elite complacency and corruption, I have very little faith that they'd pull it together without us since the way we've cycled through periods of engagement and withdrawal doesn't seem to have made a dent so far. I thought the linked article (https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/ISEC_a_00292) in the part about civil war which discusses how and why extremists tend to prevail in extended conflicts (in part because people believe they won't be as cynical and corrupt as more typical leaders) was particularly interesting, since it has obvious applications in this thread beyond just Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted: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. It's funny how in any conflict that goes on long enough both sides begin to look more and more alike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Warbadger posted: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. Their origins were only really foreign in the sense that almost all Pashtun women and children had been driven out of southern Afghanistan and into Pakistani refugee camps during the Soviet war. During the 90s people who grew up in those refugee camps did form the basis of what became the Taliban as they entered back into Afghanistan and its civil war (though the Taliban also allied with and absorbed other Afghan Mujahideen groups). In no way were they formed or made up of foreign jihadists though, they were pretty much all Afghans, Pashtuns, mostly from Afghanistan and not Pakistan as they were predominantly those who had grown up in the refugee camps (and been educated either in religious schools operated in those camps or in Pakistani madrassas, thus they called themselves Taliban, "the Students"), so they were from Afghanistan. Basically you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I thought this article about what losing in Afghanistan might look like was pretty interesting. Its not that western backing in and of itself promotes corruption. Its who the west backs that does that. And usually its the first person that says 'Yes I will work with you'/'further your interests in the region, fingers crossed' Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Its not that western backing in and of itself promotes corruption. It's massive amounts of money with no accountability beyond if they support the west or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
axelord posted:It's massive amounts of money with no accountability beyond if they support the west or not. The money enables greater corruption while war and being in a key position where the backer(s) have no clear alternative ensures less accountability. It has pretty much always been that way, sometimes even with corruption being a central feature to ensure loyalty to outside interests like in the Russian backed autonomous regions where actual organized crime forms the nucleus of the new government. Randarkman posted:Their origins were only really foreign in the sense that almost all Pashtun women and children had been driven out of southern Afghanistan and into Pakistani refugee camps during the Soviet war. During the 90s people who grew up in those refugee camps did form the basis of what became the Taliban as they entered back into Afghanistan and its civil war (though the Taliban also allied with and absorbed other Afghan Mujahideen groups). In no way were they formed or made up of foreign jihadists though, they were pretty much all Afghans, Pashtuns, mostly from Afghanistan and not Pakistan as they were predominantly those who had grown up in the refugee camps (and been educated either in religious schools operated in those camps or in Pakistani madrassas, thus they called themselves Taliban, "the Students"), so they were from Afghanistan. Basically you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Haha, no. They grew up in, were educated in, and trained as fighters in another country. They were organized, funded, led, and equipped by foreigners. They also definitely had fighters from outside the refugee camps brought in by their backers. Like, if the US went through with the Bay of Pigs a decade later and allowed American volunteers to join up do you think it would have been fair to call it domestic Cuban opposition to Castro? Warbadger fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
Drone flight over Ghouta. https://twitter.com/HadiAlabdallah/status/980756947661152256?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The money enables greater corruption while war and being in a key position where the backer(s) have no clear alternative ensures less accountability. It has pretty much always been that way, sometimes even with corruption being a central feature to ensure loyalty to outside interests like in the Russian backed autonomous regions where actual organized crime forms the nucleus of the new government. Still Afghans and still in a foreign country (though considering where Pashtuns live that one isn't as significant as it may seem) as a result of war. Now I'm sure that people who weren't Afghans joined the group, I would guess mostly Pashtuns from Pakistan anyway (to whom the distinguish is kind of meaningless), and there is no doubt about it that Pakistani intelligence was deeply involved in aiding Taliban in its early days and so probably provided training and equipment, still I have never seen anything to indicate that they weren't mostly Afghan in origin. Their leaders, at least the ones we know of, were also, to my knowledge, all Afghans as well, often born well before the Soviet invasion. Which foreigners are you talking about? Are you talking about "the Arabs" (such as what became al-Qaeda, and other foreign jihadists)? Most of those were already in country, and while subsequently given shelter and protection by the Taliban, never were part of the Taliban.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
This article about MBS is loving fascinating, and way too long to clip excerpts from (except for this line which supports the Al-Saqr is MBS conspiracy theory: His favorite diversion is Call of Duty, the video game). If you want to understand the region, it's worth reading. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/09/a-saudi-princes-quest-to-remake-the-middle-east Just as a teaser, one of the more interesting parts is when it talks about how the Saudis and Emiratis orchestrated the coup in Egypt. Edit: Here's a bonus article about a study by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum which concludes that in the absence of the US being willing to act decisively against the regime, arming rebels just fueled a cycle of escalations which led to a lot more deaths. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/04/02/what-policy-lessons-are-there-from-the-war-in-syria/?utm_term=.cec50d7a45e8 Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
remaking the middle east into a hollow shell of free market feudalism that's a fascist reactionary client state of america and Israel and completely destroying arab chances for freedom and democracy. all of the same repression but with letting women drive and being able to go see a Minions sequel in the cinema. nothing new to see here. also I dont like call of duty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Even if most of the information isn't really new, I think it's by far the best whole narrative I've seen that puts together all the information about the palace coup MBS orchestrated, his mostly successful efforts to flatter Trump/get around a more skeptical US bureaucracy by dealing directly with Trump's son in law, and his various attempts (successful and otherwise) to restructure the region to his liking. I definitely don't see it as a sympathetic portrayal--while I think the argument that KSA needed some radical reform is pretty obviously true, because being an oil funded welfare state that exported its problems wasn't going to work forever (especially since half the region is going to be baked by global warming this century), his insane ambition/recklessness/hypocrisy seems like a serious problem even if you believe in the agenda he's selling. The part about MBZ supporting him over Nayef because of a Wikileaks cable was really interesting too, and that part was new to me even if others might have already been aware of it. Edit: Here's an interview MBS did with Jeffrey Goldberg, in which he dropped some bombs: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/mohammed-bin-salman-iran-israel/557036/?utm_source=twb About his bête noir, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Prince Mohammed said, “I believe the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good. Hitler didn’t do what the supreme leader is trying to do. Hitler tried to conquer Europe. … The supreme leader is trying to conquer the world.” Another key—though sub rosa—member of Prince Mohammed’s alliance is Israel, a country about which Prince Mohammed did not have a bad word to say. In fact, when I asked him whether he believed the Jewish people have a right to a nation-state in at least part of their ancestral homeland, he said: “I believe that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land.” Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:About his bête noir, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Prince Mohammed said, “I believe the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good. Hitler didn’t do what the supreme leader is trying to do. Hitler tried to conquer Europe. … The supreme leader is trying to conquer the world.”  Though I think Bibi may have said exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
I'm just waiting for some conservative army officer to off MBS in the name of the old ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I'm just waiting for some conservative army officer to off MBS in the name of the old ways. there was never any 'old ways'. it was always 'their way', conservatism was nothing more than a tool. I dont get what's with this strange fascination people have with him 'reforming the religion' when he's just turning one form of instrument of fascism to another. the new fascism will be corporate foreign companies and media control with more emphasis on one-man rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Is trump really pulling the us out of syria ? If so what effect will that have on the war ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Is trump really pulling the us out of syria ? Probably not? Some US Army leadership has been getting as close to saying the President is just wrong or doesn't know the plan as they can without actually saying that. And if it comes down to it, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he goes with the Obama-style tactic of talking about how there are no boots on ground, because the US has decided for a while that not only do spec ops people not count as boots on ground, but the regular people sustaining them and firing artillery support apparently don't count, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Is trump really pulling the us out of syria ? If so what effect will that have on the war ? Officers on the ground are saying no: https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/980497159383547907 quote:I spoke to a Kurdish commander in Manbij. He said U.S. officers send him whatsapp messages expressing support. I'd really love to hear the conversations between Trump and Mattis regarding this, though
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Edit: Here's an interview MBS did with Jeffrey Goldberg, in which he dropped some bombs: Middle East thread of despair: You're the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. You know what wahhabism is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Trump just received a Turkish delegation this past friday, they likely rode his dick hard to inflate his ego, so naturally he's making public announcements now to try and appease them as well as that freezing of the 200 million. But unless Trump truly has become dictator of the US, I seriously doubt this poo poo won't get reversed very quickly by literally everyone else involved in US foreign policy right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/qalaatalmudiq/status/980867568079654912?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Cool the jihadis are killing each other again. Great rebellion you got her guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Trump just received a Turkish delegation this past friday, they likely rode his dick hard to inflate his ego, so naturally he's making public announcements now to try and appease them as well as that freezing of the 200 million. Trump can withdraw the troops from Syria anytime he wants there's no one that could stop him. Politically declaring victory and bring the troops will probably seen as a win. Plus he's all about America first and the mid term elections are coming up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
I actually wonder if Trump is holding Syria funding hostage while he tries to convince the Pentagon to use their budget to pay for the wall
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/980897328491122689?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
axelord posted:Trump can withdraw the troops from Syria anytime he wants there's no one that could stop him. Politically declaring victory and bring the troops will probably seen as a win. Plus he's all about America first and the mid term elections are coming up. He's gonna have a hard time politically declaring victory when, with no american air power to stop them like last time, the russian mercs and Assad take back those oilfields and it gets turned into: "Once again, Trump is a stooge of Putin." Even if it's more that he's a stooge of Turkey in this case. But yea, without the already existing accusations of him being Putin's puppet, I could see him doing this without much fear of blowback. But with it still going pretty strong and not dying down, it'd be something that would utterly kill him politically if anyone within dems or reps is halfway politically competent to seize on it. Flavahbeast posted:I actually wonder if Trump is holding Syria funding hostage while he tries to convince the Pentagon to use their budget to pay for the wall lol I honestly doubt he even thinks about it that much. Bringing that poo poo up in public or just getting started on it, with the mid term elections, would only highlight how he utterly failed on this campaign promise, instead of just conveniently forgetting about it. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Apr 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
This is the shittiest Matrix spinoff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
The reason the Wahhabism evasion almost works is that nobody really self identies as Wahhabist. It's a useful outside description to differentiate some people who consider themselves Salafi from others (though when people in the West say Salafi they mostly mean the same thing as when they say Wahhabi anyway), but my impression is that they really dislike the label, and view it kind of like a less offensive version of calling a Muslim a Mohameddan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Pretty much, also the reason I exclusively use the term Wahhabism as opposed to Salafism because of how little I respect it for how much its ruined the Muslim world. TBH Goldberg using it in an interview with MBS is continual reenforcement of Goldberg being a complete and utter shitstain of a journalist & human. My disdain for MBS notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
In Syria news, the Trump administration continues to be all over the place, with the US apparently creating new bases around Manbij while Trump says he told the Saudis they're might have to pay us if they want us to stay in Syria. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Hachi machi that's a spicy take
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
he's right though. Dictatorships are only a threat to their own people which is why every zionist in the US are lining up to suck his dick and why they're showering money to Sisi with. I mean who gives a poo poo if arabs get mass murdered and get tortured to death, really? no one.
Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Apr 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:he's right though. Dictatorships are only a threat to their own people which is why every zionist in the US are lining up to suck his dick and why they're showering money to Sisi with. I mean who gives a poo poo if arabs get mass murdered and get tortured to death, really? no one. Not really. Autocrats tend to get a bit looney as the decades of absolute power go by. It tends to be inconvenient to be associated with them at that point for elected officials. They also tend to go invade the neighbors to shore up domestic support or implode into a hellish failed state that fucks up a region eventually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:he's right though. Dictatorships are only a threat to their own people which is why every zionist in the US are lining up to suck his dick and why they're showering money to Sisi with. I mean who gives a poo poo if arabs get mass murdered and get tortured to death, really? no one. / 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
I don’t get it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I don’t get it. I mean Saudi Arabia has been funding international terrorist movements for years but that's never hurt anyone. And obviously before the whatabout crew comes in this is not unique to saudi arabia or dictatorships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I mean Saudi Arabia has been funding international terrorist movements for years but that's never hurt anyone. What?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I mean Saudi Arabia has been funding international terrorist movements for years but that's never hurt anyone. What does this even mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 03:14
|
|