|
This thread has emphasized the important point of not viewing Islam, or Sunni Islam, or any of the subdivisions thereof as a unified front. So I'd like to ask a question: what about Pakistan? The discourse around Saudi Arabia and Najdi Wahhabism is well-trodden, and often the discussion is pulled back there; but talk about Pakistan is not nearly as common, and more often consists of vague insinuations about ISI than the more concrete talking-points about KSA. I have to admit that I don't know much about Pakistan, despite it being an evidently crucial actor. I get the general dynamics, but there doesn't seem to be much deeper analysis (at least in English media). For example, which groups Pakistan supports and which ones it opposes; strategic and ideological differences with KSA; the fight against terrorism within Pakistan itself; relations in general with the US; how China's own burgeoning Islamic unrest influences that alliance; what Pakistan's desired endgame is (one post in this thread implies that it is waiting for the US to tire of its imperialistic meddling, but what comes after that?), and so on. It kind of seems like this angle is getting completely ignored.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Squalid posted:So what say you? If the Taliban were willing to agree to a peace deal on relatively lax terms, oh say the government had to give vice presidency to Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, put Taliban fighters on the army payroll and institute a few mild Islamist reforms of the government, would it be worth it? How much would you bet against the Taliban just using this to seize control of the government and/or plunging the country back into civil war 5 years down the track? Of course there is a reasonable chance this would happen if we stay the course or withdraw anyway so I'm not necessarily arguing against a settlement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:How much would you bet against the Taliban just using this to seize control of the government and/or plunging the country back into civil war 5 years down the track? High. It wasn't a real suggestion anyway, right now the Taliban have no interest in a settlement. A couple articles I've read recently on Afghanistan: "Scathing Report Details Bleak Outlook on Afghanistan posted:In a new quarterly report to Congress released Wednesday, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) office, John Sopko, outlined a stark backslide in progress in Afghanistan — a country the United States has sunk over $117 billion in since 2002. The following article is written by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. It is terrifying that people like her might be setting US policy in Afghanistan now "How to Win in Afghanistan posted:Our incompetent efforts at Afghan nation building rest on three shaky pillars that need to be rethought: This person for some insane reason thinks its a good idea to empower warlords and ethnic militias. These are the people who are running America now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The following article is written by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. It is terrifying that people like her might be setting US policy in Afghanistan now Well she's right that the overly centralized nature of the government we installed was a part of the ever increasing hostility to it. There's pretty much no real local representation or control, which isn't always a requirement to have a fair and functioning government, but in a heavily fractured ethnic map like Afghanistan it becomes just one more thing to be pissed off about. But it's not the main issue things are going to poo poo. Idiot woman posted:At the same time, Americans cannot target Taliban units in Pashtun areas if a civilian might be unintentionally harmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Well she's right that the overly centralized nature of the government we installed was a part of the ever increasing hostility to it. There's pretty much no real local representation or control, which isn't always a requirement to have a fair and functioning government, but in a heavily fractured ethnic map like Afghanistan it becomes just one more thing to be pissed off about. That makes sense to me, however what frightens me is what she seems to imply is the solution: devolve power to warlords with power derived from their clan and ethnic community, and cut the Pashtuns out of the central government. It's a recipe for disaster and likely to induce the kind of government collapse Iraq saw during the rise of ISIS. quote:But this is just blatant bullshit. The idea that we're super protective of Pashtun civilians is pretty much the opposite of the truth. It's a refrain I've heard from several conservative writers recently: to win in Afghanistan we have to take the gloves off, if that means killing more children and innocents so be it. "Sangin, Bloody Sangin, and Wretched Afghanistan posted:I suppose I have as much time on patrols as any American, and I loathed what I saw in Sangin, because what we gained could not be sustained. Our top generals were preaching a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy based on winning hearts and minds. “The conflict will be won,” General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander, wrote, “by persuading the population, not by destroying the enemy.” Yet by a two-to-one ratio, the Marines in the platoon rated the Taliban better fighters than the Afghan soldiers, and not one Marine believed the villagers supported the government. (See my book One Million Steps, page 244.) Every battalion commander who served there knew that the Afghan soldiers would give up what we paid so dearly to gain. Yet the top Marine general in Helmand wrote me that I did not understand operations or strategy. We had a difference of opinion long before Sangin fell. Given Trump's statements he probably agrees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Probably, but as far as I know the Taliban of today isn't even close to being the united party that ruled the country, so the question is, would "Taliban" splinter if that happened, and would other claimants to power pop up from its remains? Otherwise a less brutal Islamic government with a better human rights record than the original Taliban is probably the best hope for peace. I'm rather irritated Gulbuddin Hekmatyar isn't loving out of the game yet, he was a big contributor to the flimsy post-Soviet coalition descending into a total shitshow and is in general an rear end in a top hat. On the plus side he's not actively at war with the government this month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm rather irritated Gulbuddin Hekmatyar isn't loving out of the game yet, he was a big contributor to the flimsy post-Soviet coalition descending into a total shitshow and is in general an rear end in a top hat. Supposedly he's planning on returning to Kabul in the near future, now the UN sanctions have been lifted? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/lifts-sanctions-gulbuddin-hekmatyar-170204125508334.html quote:The United Nations has lifted sanctions against Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of the Hezb-i-Islami group in Afghanistan and one of the most infamous figures in the country's civil war in the 1990s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Its cool that some guy from a House Subcommittee has finally cracked the puzzle of how to win a forever war in the graveyard of empires
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Everything discussed here is meaningless if Flynn and co can get their war with Iran. Even if it's (initially) just limited to surgical bombing of Nuclear and missile facilities, I can't see any way that the whole Middle East is going to avoid exploding. Iranian allied and supported groups are all over Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and especially in Iraq there is nothing really between them and US forces. And of course, I expect that in the event of a war that the Iranians could quite reasonably expect is aimed at complete regime change and perhaps Nation State dismantlement a-la Iraq or Libya, I can see them quite reasonably making a deal with the Taliban and arming and supporting them against America, Sunni/Shia differences notwithstanding. (Plus, there are plenty of Afghan Shias that Iran is already sending to Syria, quite easy to arm them and send them the other way).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
mediadave posted:I can see them quite reasonably making a deal with the Taliban and arming and supporting them against America Iran is already arming and training the Taliban, and have been for at least a few years. https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-backs-taliban-with-cash-and-arms-1434065528
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Everything discussed here is meaningless if Flynn and co can get their war with Iran. Even if it's (initially) just limited to surgical bombing of Nuclear and missile facilities, I can't see any way that the whole Middle East is going to avoid exploding. Iranian allied and supported groups are all over Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and especially in Iraq there is nothing really between them and US forces. And of course, I expect that in the event of a war that the Iranians could quite reasonably expect is aimed at complete regime change and perhaps Nation State dismantlement a-la Iraq or Libya, I can see them quite reasonably making a deal with the Taliban and arming and supporting them against America, Sunni/Shia differences notwithstanding. (Plus, there are plenty of Afghan Shias that Iran is already sending to Syria, quite easy to arm them and send them the other way). Another factor here is that we're seemingly overdue for another conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Since 2006 Hezbollah has only gotten stronger and the Syrian conflict has given them access to a lot of new weapons system and has has given them a lot of operational experience. I have to imagine that with Trump in office there's going to be immense temptation among some elements of the Israeli government to try and do what they failed to do in 2006 and defeat Hezbollah in a shooting war. That, combined with the possibility of a war between the United States and Iran, means that the Middle East is looking like even more of a powder keg than usual right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
The entire notion of building highly centralized governments in afghanistan, iraq, and syria is flatly ridiculous due to the obsession with building big national armies to do the west's bidding instead of working with the level of institutions that are available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
So is the idea you could construct a government in Afghanistan right now that wouldn't de facto amount to empowering some specific warlords over other warlords.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So is the idea you could construct a government in Afghanistan right now that wouldn't de facto amount to empowering some specific warlords over other warlords. I mean it sort of calls into question what exactly western nations are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan if they are to work with people actively and violently defying the authority of the central government. Panzeh posted:The entire notion of building highly centralized governments in afghanistan, iraq, and syria is flatly ridiculous due to the obsession with building big national armies to do the west's bidding instead of working with the level of institutions that are available. I think this is any interesting point but I'm not sure what the alternatives could have been, any ideas? Do you think there's any reforms that could make the Afghan government more viable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I mean it sort of calls into question what exactly western nations are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan if they are to work with people actively and violently defying the authority of the central government. Uhh, no poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Uhh, no poo poo? I have a sinking feeling most leaders of the western world would say the same thing. Today we face the terrible realization that there is no plan for Afghanistan. Our leaders are doing their best to pretend none of it exists and if we just wait long enough all the problems will solve themselves. Or more cynically, 'Afghanistan can be continued indefinitely as an economy of force operation, as it is today, to prevent terrorist sanctuary.' Literally nobody believes the Taliban are going to be defeated, and we are wasting billions of dollars while sleep walking into disaster. This isn't just America's problem either, The EU just pledged another 1.5 billion a year in aid to the Afghan government through 2020, and NATO nations are paying more on top of that. As Taliban influence expands (SIGAR estimates the Taliban gained influence across an additional 15% of Afghanistan last year) refugee flows are going to increase. And even as the Afghan governments need increases aid is falling, the EU pledge $4 billion a year for four years in 2012. The same is true in other places as well, the EU is reducing its support for the AMISOM mission in Somali which is likely cause the withdrawal of some portion of its force. When Ethiopia withdrew its some of its forces last year Al Shabaab immediately entered the gap and reoccupied the territory, and any draw down in AMISOM is likely to produce the same result. Hopefully the elections this year go well but the Somali government is still in no position to stand by itself. If these conflicts are fundamentally unwinnable the nations involved should look to end them. If defeat is intolerable why do we ignore that the status quo is unsustainable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Because it's preferable to fight a forever war against terrists rather than reach a negotiated settlement with terrists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 01:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Squalid posted:
I knew about afganastan being hosed, but i am sad that Somalia is probably hosed too, it seemed like it was finaly stabalizing at least in the urban areas and had growing business, it wasn't Nigeria or kenya but stuff seemed to finally getting better 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I mean it sort of calls into question what exactly western nations are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan if they are to work with people actively and violently defying the authority of the central government. To put it simply, the US can't force the people of Afghanistan to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the central government. That's up to the central government itself. It's also a far greater task than most people assume, given that Afghanistan hasn't had a single recognized central government exercising control over the entire country since 1978. It's not like the US came in, overthrew a central government, and installed a new one - the Taliban, rather than being "the central government", was just the dominant faction at the time and controlled only about two-thirds of the country, having seized Kabul just a few years before 9/11. We couldn't just plop in a central government to rule the country, we needed a central government capable of unifying the country - and we couldn't just do that by supplying guns and money to our preferred faction, because Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia were all doing that too. It's not just that there was "no plan". It's that in 2001, the country still hadn't even stabilized after the last time a foreign power overthrew the government and installed a new one of their own choosing. It's hardly a surprise that our attempt to overthrow the strongest faction and install a new one of our own choosing failed to put an end to the decades of civil war stemming from the last time someone did that - particularly when every other significant power in the region had spent the previous decade trying to do the same thing and didn't stop when we got involved. Saying that there was "no plan" implies that there could have been a good plan that would have made the situation work, and I'm not sure that's true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I mean it sort of calls into question what exactly western nations are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan if they are to work with people actively and violently defying the authority of the central government. No-bid contracts for $400/gallon gas etc. is the main thing at this point. And at every point after bin Laden's totally unforeseeable and unstoppable escape from Tora Bora.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I knew about afganastan being hosed, but i am sad that Somalia is probably hosed too, it seemed like it was finaly stabalizing at least in the urban areas and had growing business, it wasn't Nigeria or kenya but stuff seemed to finally getting better Well it is going to have elections hopefully this month, mind you they aren't like ours, some 300 or so clan leaders are going to select several thousand electors which will then vote for Parliament. State institutions are still virtually nonexistent. Al Shabaab was pushed out of urban areas however they remain powerful in rural areas and continue to bloody the noses of those who fight against them. See this incident from last month: "Witnesses say dozens killed in al-Shabaab attack on Kenyan troops posted:Captain Nur Muhidin, a Somali national army officer stationed in Kulbiyow, said the troops spotted the al-Shabaab convoy before the attack and shelled it with mortars. I think modern Somalia might be very close to what Panzeh envisions when he describes working with the levels of institutions available to create a Federalized or Confederate state, and it remains somewhat successful. A major pillar of stability for the current government is what amounts to massive bribes to the Warlord-Entrepreneur class to keep them working within the system. They still sometimes fight wars with each other, Puntland and Galmudug in particular have frequent violent clashes which can displace tens of thousands. Remember the occupation of Somali is over ten years old now, and while Al Shabaab won't challenge AMISOM for urban areas most Somalis remain rural. . It's hard to tell how much of the state is self sustaining vs how much would fall apart instantly if foreign money and troops disappeared. US combat "advisors" authorized to call in "self-defense" strikes during patrols seem to be playing an increasingly important role in Somalia, with American activity in the conflict coming to resemble advise and assist tactics in places like Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I have a sinking feeling most leaders of the western world would say the same thing. Today we face the terrible realization that there is no plan for Afghanistan. Our leaders are doing their best to pretend none of it exists and if we just wait long enough all the problems will solve themselves. Or more cynically, 'Afghanistan can be continued indefinitely as an economy of force operation, as it is today, to prevent terrorist sanctuary.' Literally nobody believes the Taliban are going to be defeated, and we are wasting billions of dollars while sleep walking into disaster. These ongoing conflicts are reminiscent of the American war on drugs. Regardless of what motivated them at the beginning they are no longer about achieving "victory" in any concrete sense. Having an open ended international military commitments serves a lot of political and economic interests. War is a racket. Besides, it's a mistake to think most conflicts have concrete victories or defeats in any final sense. American military experience is so steeped in the experiences of the World Wars and the Civil War, where you have uniformed armies fighting set-piece battles, trading territory and eventually reaching a final settlement after a few years of near total warfare. Most conflicts throughout history sprawl over decades or centuries, vary year to year in intensity, and are largely conducted as massacre and counter massacre of civilian populations with only the occasional outright battle between anything approximating equal forces. It shouldn't be a surprise that when the US or other great powers wade into these conflict zones the result is a muddled and incoherent policy with no clear exit strategy and often no clearly defined goal. Westerners tend to have a very selective and narrow conception of war and this leads to very unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved with military force. Of course our leaders benefit from these unrealistic expectations so they are happy to encourage us to think this way even when they should know better themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
So Somali held their election and have a new President  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/08/somali-presidential-election-won-mohamed-abdullahi-mohamed quote:The election of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, a 55-year-old former prime minister and dual US-Somali national with a reputation for independence and competence, has raised the hopes of millions of people in the poor and violent east African state. The election was unfortunately marred by a few. . . irregularities. "Fueled by Bribes, Somali Election Seen as Milestone of Corruption posted:Somali investigators estimate that at least $20 million has feverishly changed hands during parliamentary elections that will culminate in the selection of the president on Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Russia has allegedly begun supporting the Taliban. http://www.npr.org/2017/02/13/515020244/why-is-russia-helping-anti-u-s-insurgents-in-afghanistan N.P.R. posted:Russia is supporting anti-U.S. insurgents in Afghanistan — and through them, terrorists, top U.S. national security leaders say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
There have been rumblings about this for a little while now, Russia even held a peace summit including the governments of Iran, Pakistan and representatives of the Taliban, but not the United States. I haven't seen any evidence of direct covert financial or material support, but Russia has begun pushing a diplomatic line sure to irritate the US. Russian state media has started making some interesting arguments. That the real enemy in Afghanistan is ISIS, and that it is the Taliban rather than the Afghan government that is doing the most to fight them. It is all rather nonsensical in my opinion but combined with Russian diplomatic efforts in Libya I think Russia is clearly making a concerted push to gain diplomatic leverage against the US on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
This war will never end lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
The Islamic state blew up dozens of people in a Sufi shrine in Pakistan, and army has claimed to have killed a hundred people in response. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39003673 quote:Soon after the bombing, army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa vowed that "each drop of [the] nation's blood shall be avenged, and avenged immediately". 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Are there any good articles or books about Yemen over the last 16 years or so since the start of the war on terror?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Comrade Cheggorsky posted:Are there any good articles or books about Yemen over the last 16 years or so since the start of the war on terror? This article provides a good basic over view of Yemeni history and the origin of the Houthis. It is from 2010 so obviously it misses a whole lot but the first few sections alone have more info than just about any popular media source. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG962.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Comrade Cheggorsky posted:Are there any good articles or books about Yemen over the last 16 years or so since the start of the war on terror? Gregory Johnsen wrote a book called The Last Refuge which focuses on the war on terror. It's also one of the best books on Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
It's Spring everybody! Strap in for the next Taliban offensive!"Taliban Sets Out Spring Offensive Battle Strategy In Afghanistan posted:Taliban forces in Afghanistan plan to extend their control of provinces in which they already have a heavy presence in the upcoming spring offensive, a spokesman told the German dpa news agency in an interview. Last month even before the fighting season really started the Afghan government finally lost the long contested Sangin province. The Coalition released this rather ridiculous statement following their withdrawal.  Trump has still not made any statement about his Afghanistan strategy. I'm guessing he'll wait until some disaster. The Generals keep making noise about needing just a few thousand more troops to hold the stalemate. . .
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's Spring everybody! Didn't want that province anyway 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
So anybody catch America's heroes return to Somalia?"U.S. to Send Troops to Somalia Amid Blowback posted:The United States will send several dozen troops to help train Somali forces in their fight against the al Qaeda-linked militant group al Shabab, Pentagon officials said Friday, the latest move in the tit-for-tat escalation in the troubled East African nation. Note that this isn't a radical escalation, US SF have been kicking around Somalia for ages calling in 'self defense' strikes on Al Shabaab, but these are the first regular US troops to come back since 1994. And Trump was going to be the isolationist President lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:We talking Karzai? Yet another great Cheney relic! IIRC he was literally some piece of poo poo in an oil company and Cheney was like 'Oh, you'll be a good president' and we all had to act shocked when he was a corrupt piece of poo poo. I don't think that Cheney guy is on the level!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
The USA lost a big opportunity to bring stability to Afghanistan when they refused to permit the restoration of Mohammed Zahir Shah as the King of Afghanistan. Zahir Shah had widespread support amongst the country, which only started going to pieces after he had been deposed in the first place, but because The Land Of The Free And Home Of The Brave "don't do kings", in the words of SoS Madeline Albright, they forced him to withdraw. The Americans' designated president Hamid Karzai was clocked as a US stooge from the start and that permanently undermined him and the Kabul government. It's not too dissimilar to what happened when the USA tied on the strings of another puppet republic, Vietnam - when in 1955 the monarchy was abolished with more votes than there were registered voters in a turnout of 108% (now that's an impressive commitment to democracy). We all know how that ended up. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:I thought Karzai is a Pashtun of royal decent? He's the Popal dynast for whatever it's worth (nothing). The large tribal confederations are meaningless and nobody actually gives a poo poo about them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
I'm reading Ghost Wars but I'm just passed half way through. It seems like the Taliban got into power at least partially by feigning to restore Zahir Shah to the throne
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Are there still any successors kicking around somewhere? If so they've probably lived their whole life in London or an equivalent city and you probably couldn't pay them enough to go back
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Zahir Shah was pretty dang old even when he was ousted: His son was actually a member of the Afghan Foreign Ministry before the coup, but even so the old king's son does not give the same legitimacy as The Guy Who Literally Already Was King Before And Is Still Kicking Around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Oh hey I remember this war! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 04:23
|
|
