Afghanistan War

[STURM]

Taliban faces in Doha shown how they need some International support for governing Afghanistan.

Which is why over the years they have had contacts with Russia, China and India. Just last month there was a delegation in Russia.

Even in the 1990’s when they were largely uncompromising; they were cognisant of the fact they needed foreign investment - even if it came from a U.S. oil/gas company.

Question now, can Taliban Political leadership as shown in Doha, control their fanatical fighters in the ground to be relatively more moderate ?

It will take time to truly mellow but the Taliban’s various commanders in the field generally follow orders. It’s also a different organisation compared to the past: years ago it came to the realisation that it had to adapt to the times if it wanted broad support. Lasting peace will also depend on accommodation with the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkmans, Hazaras and others.

 

[Ananda]

The way India media talk now, India knows they already lost. China capital will dominate Taliban Afghanistan. India seems bet more on potential power sharing before between Taliban and Pro Western administration.

Pakistan might be no longer dominant forces behind Taliban, but they have more cloud with Taliban compared to India. That's why Indian media and online sources more or less can only b****in on Taliban at this moment.

It's the game for China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia now.

 

[Feanor]

Some footage of Termez airport in Uzbekistan with apparently buckets of Afghani aircraft.

VK.com | VK

vk.com

 

[STURM]

It's the game for China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia now.

- Pakistan will remain the most influential for a variety of reasons but others are in a far better position to bring in investment.

- Iran initially welcomed the U.S. invasion as it saw the Taliban and AQ as major threats; it did initially cooperate with the U.S. - both benefited. As long as it can clamp down on the flow of drugs from Afghanistan; as long as the Talibs keep cross border trade open and don’t mistreat the Hazaras; Iran will be contend; after all it needs to focus on its western flank. The mullahs are happy to see. U.S. policy go off script in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

- India knows it can never be the dominant power in the country but did - with U.S. encouragement - plan a grater presence there to counter Pakistan and China.

- China already has a presence in Afghanistan and will seek to shore up its influence without making the Western mistake of deploying troops.
Let’s hope Afghanistan doesn’t fall in the Chinese debt trap.

- The Russians now have the satisfaction of saying their prediction that the U.S. would fail miserably was correct. They might also point out that at least the Kabul government they left behind lasted a couple of years. They will adopt a pragmatic relationship with the Taliban. They are paranoid - understandably so - of Taliban ideology - via Central Asian groups - making its way up north eventually reaching the the Caucasus but it comforts them that the Talibs have no intent of venturing out of Afghanistan. As the article (link below) makes clear Russia seeks to maintain its dominant position with the ex Soviet Central Asian states and having cordial and mutually beneficial ties with the Talibs is in line with that.

Does Russia have a new strategy for Afghanistan?

 

[ASSAIL]

An excellent article by ASPI Director Peter Jennings in today’s Oz titled,
“America cut and ran with panicked incoherence.
Behind paywall, anyone?

I précis,
What conclusions should be drawn from 2 decades of investment?
1. Biden has defined his presidency with the most disastrous foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Biden’s “forever war” has become his “forever defeat”.
2.He could not have designed a more catastrophic withdrawal, America ran with as much panicked incoherence as ANA.
3. There was no negotiation with US partners and no attempt to handover the Afghans who we’re simply abandoned after Trumps shameful “agreement to bring peace” which was subsequently endorsed by Biden.
4. Lesson for US Allies - none of the administrations words about the US being “back in the world and wanting to work with allies can be taken at face value so the key lesson for allies is to strengthen their own defence forces because you can’t rely on the US.
5. These events show that the US may not be prepared to commit to Taiwan, it may not be worth it.
So Beijing wins, their Foreign Minister has met with the Taliban and soft loans and hard power are sure to follow.
6. This has left the US and her allies utterly diminished, Xi and Vlad will be laughing at our collective stupidity.

No punches pulled there but Jennings is a respected and experienced strategic commentator and we should not dismiss his thoughts because they may offend.

 

[Stampede]

An excellent article by ASPI Director Peter Jennings in today’s Oz titled,
“America cut and ran with panicked incoherence.
Behind paywall, anyone?

I précis,
What conclusions should be drawn from 2 decades of investment?
1. Biden has defined his presidency with the most disastrous foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Biden’s “forever war” has become his “forever defeat”.
2.He could not have designed a more catastrophic withdrawal, America ran with as much panicked incoherence as ANA.
3. There was no negotiation with US partners and no attempt to handover the Afghans who we’re simply abandoned after Trumps shameful “agreement to bring peace” which was subsequently endorsed by Biden.
4. Lesson for US Allies - none of the administrations words about the US being “back in the world and wanting to work with allies can be taken at face value so the key lesson for allies is to strengthen their own defence forces because you can’t rely on the US.
5. These events show that the US may not be prepared to commit to Taiwan, it may not be worth it.
So Beijing wins, their Foreign Minister has met with the Taliban and soft loans and hard power are sure to follow.
6. This has left the US and her allies utterly diminished, Xi and Vlad will be laughing at our collective stupidity.

No punches pulled there but Jennings is a respected and experienced strategic commentator and we should not dismiss his thoughts because they may offend.

I don't subscribe to the OZ but I believe the same article is in today's the Strategist. - ASPI.

Lessons from Afghanistan | The Strategist

What is happening in Afghanistan is a tragedy for the millions of Afghans who believed the line that the United States, NATO, Australia and others were there to protect them and give the country a ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Certainly we all have a lot to think about.

I'd just like to acknowledge that thousands of ADF personal toured through Afghanistan over the last 20 years and this will certainly be a week of mixed emotions for them.

Their service is valued.



Regards S

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

No punches pulled there but Jennings is a respected and experienced strategic commentator and we should not dismiss his thoughts because they may offend.

I wouldn't dismiss what he says. Many countries have failed to live up to their own commitments on defence, for example see NATO countries who spend less than 2% of GDP and have no plans to increase it ever. The target has a purpose, it's not just a random symbolic figure. Europe would do well to take concrete steps to boost defence funding because it helps with deterence.

However, at the same time I have to wonder if the article is somewhat opportunistic. It calls for more investment in weapons technology to counter China, which has no bearing at all on the US' withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as increasing Australian defence spending well over 2% of GDP. That may be a good idea, but it's not like Australia has been doing a Germany and letting its airforce rot due to lack of maintenance.

I'm also not sure if I agree that there's a long-term geostrategic impact. All the experts predicted that the US would have been kicked out of Afghanistan ages ago. That it stayed as long as it did and then chose to leave is a sign of shifting priorities not a reluctance to fight - when was the last time any of our countries stayed longer than 20 years in a difficult conflict? However, as I'm sure OPSSG would say, Taiwan should consider whether it really can't increase its defence budget any faster because it is possible that in the future the US decides it's a hopeless cause. But that's been an issue for years.

As for Afghanistan's future, the country was propped up by international aid. Chinese loans won't cover that, and the idea of smart cities is madness. If China wants to bankroll the Taliban and Afghanistan's budget, it's welcome to do so, just don't ask us to cover the bill.

If there's been a failure it's been the evacuation of personnel and the fact that foreign nationals were allowed to remain when it was clear what was happening a few weeks ago. I understand a German transport left Kabul with less than 10 people on board, presumably because other countries hadn't made a paper application to fill the empty space in triplicate three weeks previously.

 

[STURM]

There was no negotiation with US partners and no attempt to handover the Afghans

In one report the Afghan CO of Bagram said his U.S. counterpart didn’t even inform him he was leaving. Just left overnight. An Al Jazeera report on the UN Security Council meeting mentored a number of American allies complaining that they weren't even consulted or notified abut the withdrawal announcement.

Lesson for US Allies - none of the administrations words about the US being “back in the world and wanting to work with allies

It I think would depend on who those allies were and other circumstances.

As Chuck Horner mentored to a Vietnamese refugee; “the last country which placed unlimited faith in the U.S. once had a capital called Saigon”.

These events show that the US may not be prepared to commit to Taiwan, it may not be worth it.

Maybe but the U.S. is obliged by law to defend Taiwan if attacked and Taiwan and the region it’s in is of far more strategic importance to the U.S. compared to Afghanistan.

So Beijing wins, their Foreign Minister has met with the Taliban and soft loans and hard power are sure to follow.

Actually the Chinese would have felt more secure with their investments if the Americans stayed. They’ve long - like India and Russia - had contacts with the Taliban and now will have to tread very carefully. They want the resources the country has and are willing to spend but a lot of uncertainties lie ahead. What they won’t do is to repeat the American mistake.

 

[peterAustralia]

Many excellent points provided earlier in this thread. I might attempt to add a few more, hope which are accurate. I was suprised that after twenty years the afghan air force did not have enough trained aircraft maintainers to keep a fleet of COIN aircraft, attack helicopters, transport aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft. I dont know how hard it is to service an Embarer Tucano (assume reasonably hard but nowhere as difficult as a fast jet) . Part of me , the non-serious part.. is thinking maybe a few hundred ww2 IL2 ground attack planes would be suitable. Of course I am not being serious about this, but maybe there is a modern equivalent that is effective and easy to maintain, large simple, with some armour against small arms.

I am also suprised that after twenty years they have not worked out how to pay ANA a reasonable wage and pay them on time

Was not a smaller ANA better, one that was more highly trained, higher paid, more motivated, It seemed they did not have the ability to get rid of those who were not really caring. Has anyone seen that youtube video of Afgan army soldiers attempting to do star jumps in their morning physical training exercise (says a lot)

I am suprised by how few in the US military were schooled in the local languages , Dari, Tajik etc. From the little I read the number of US service people that were fluent in the local language was in the tens.

I was suprised that early on, the US allied themselves with corrupt, murderous warlords. For example Dostum tied an enemy of his to a tank track whilst still alive, and had the tank drive around. A westerner who arrived a bit later saw the mess and asked if they had recently killed a goat. Dostum after the 2001 initial invasion, took many Taliban prisoners, packed them into shipping containers and buried those containers in the desert, (bad way to go). This was reported a little at the time, however it was not hyped up too much because dostom was an ally.

It is also true that the Taliban did many many awful things

I was surprised that the US did not learn the lesson from Vietnam, that trying to prop up a government that is totally corrupt is a lot harder than propping up a government that is doing its best. I am suprised that the US was so ineffective in removing corruption from the Afghan government. I do realise that this is the Afghanistan role, and the US was really annoyed with how woeful the Afghan government was, and that in many ways its hands were tied.

I was suprised that the US did not seek to bypass the warlords early on, and deal with the local tribes and villages directly in terms of funding small projects. I know they did this a little, credit to them, however the bulk went to warlords and politicians in Kabul and contractors. I do realise that for major projects you need large contractors to manage them.

I dont know if these things were implemented, whether that would have made a difference, perhaps some, but maybe not enough

For those that used to live in Victoria, I can recall the academic Damien Kingsbury, going on ABC 774 radio in approx 2011, and saying the war was lost then. At the time I had not reached that view, however it turns out that he was right, and I was wrong.

 

[STURM]

I the US was really annoyed with how woeful the Afghan government was, and that in many ways its hands were tied.

It worked both ways.

The U.S also did things which annoyed and undermined the Afghan government. Creating instant warlords undermined the government; blowing up wedding guests in the mistaken belief they were Taliban created mote Taliban volunteers; making promises on development/aid projects but failing to follow up sent the wrong message; reports of harsh interrogations and even atrocities didn’t win “heats and minds”, nighttime raids in villages done in the writing way insulted villagers, etc.

I was surprised that the US did not learn the lesson from Vietnam, that trying to prop up a government that is totally corrupt is a lot harder than propping up a government that is doing its best.

It was the only government the U.S. had to work with and totally changing things would have required deep institutional and political reforms which the U.S. simply wasn’t in a position to do.

Also: corruption played a major role in things going totally ratshit but there were also a long list of other factors which played a part; sone of which the Americans were responsible for.

I am suprised that the US was so ineffective in removing corruption from the Afghan government.

The U.S. actually created or contributed to some of that corruption by creating instant warlords, awarding contracts to certain people; closing a blind eye to
certain Afghan officials when there was a need, etc.

I was suprised that early on, the US allied themselves with corrupt, murderous warlords.

It was to be expected. The U.S. - like others - is very selective on what it preaches. The decision to work with Dostum and other warlords was based on sheer necessity. Without them the Taliban wouldn’t have been defeated as fast as they were.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Following up on my earlier post.

China will tread carefully in navigating the Taliban’s return

Analysis: Difficult to predict how China will deal with its volatile neighbour, but Uyghur issue could prove contentious

www.theguardian.com

This may well be the Taliban’s thinking as well as Washington’s understanding, too. In 2018, almost 80% of Afghanistan’s $11bn public expenditure programme came from donor grants. Now as the Taliban takes over, this is likely to be significantly reduced.

“[The] Taliban may want China to be their economic lifeline, and the US knows it. That’s why even during the Obama years, Washington had encouraged China to move ahead with its investment in the Aynak copper mine because of the scale of revenue it could provide to the Afghan government,” said Small. “In that sense, the US does understand what this could amount to if the Taliban were able to create the conditions for these paper commitments to translate into reality.”

But there is no guarantee this will happen any time soon, said Sun. Despite Beijing’s talk of “belt and road” initiative going through Afghanistan, its actual economic activity in the country has long been limited due to serious security concerns. For example, according to China’s ministry of commerce, Beijing’s foreign direct investment in Afghanistan was $4.4m in total last year. In comparison, it invested $110m in neighbouring Pakistan in the same period.

“The security situation in Afghanistan will continue to be fluid and uncertain,” noted Sun. Although the Taliban has declared the war is over, it’s still unclear whether small-scale conflict will continue across the country, and if the civil war resumes. “This would mean that China will adopt a wait-and-see approach when it comes to economic assistance through investments for the time being. This also means that the ball is in the Taliban’s court now.”

There's no guarantee that China is going to pick up the tab for the Taliban. So either the Taliban need to play nice and create an atmosphere in which everyone feels comfortable providing aid & investment, or the country may collapse again.

 

[peterAustralia]

OK,, fair point, the warlords were needed early on to assist with the initial invasion. My thoughts were that after a few months it ought to have been possible to start dealing directly with local villages, paying them small amounts to do small projects. I know this was done a little. A difficult political decision to make, and implementing such a strategy would be very difficult

Generally the western militaries fought well, and made a lot of effort to avoid civilian casualties, far far better than the US in Vietnam, not perfect, drone strikes often got it wrong. However in general a lot of effort when into avoiding collateral damage, so credit is due their. Also the armed forces were more highly trained, used better tactics than Vietnam, and medical care was much better, so credit there as well. In terms of dealing with the locals,, maybe not as good

I just checked a youtube video, (ultimate source of all wisdom!!!) and according to that the afghan air force had only 20 embarer super tucanos. Gee,,, that aint much,,, You would think that 100 would be more suitable. Does it take 20 years to train pilots, maintainers, etc, and only have 20 fixed wing attack aircraft? I feel the US air force stuffed up here, It should have been obvious that the US military could not stay forever, there seems to be a glacial speed in getting the afghan air force up and running.. after 20 years you have 20 fixed wing attack planes.... I do realise that they had some hind gunships from India, and some Hughes 500 attack helicopters, and these are in addition to the Tucanos and these attack helicopters are both good. Why did they not start training large numbers of pilots, aircraft maintainers, operation people eighteen years ago?

In terms of morale etc, and protecting your infantry,, having air power helps a lot.. Your infantry has big problems if you have 20 fixed wing attack aircraft for a large mountainous country of 36 million people. I feel that this was not an afghan problem, this was the US military not getting its act together, their have to be some smart people in the US Air Force, and after 20 years this was the best they could come up with?

 

[STURM]

There's no guarantee that China is going to pick up the tab for the Taliban.

We can say with certainty they won’t pick up the tab. If the conditions are right however Chinese mining and other investments will provide significant revenue. What the Taliban desires from China is legitimacy; it’s not bothered about the West not recognising its government but seeks greater contact with certain other countries.

 

[STURM]

OK,, fair point, the warlords were needed early on to assist with the initial invasion.

The warlords also provided a far better form of governance than the government and in the areas they controlled they kept the Taliban at body. The problem is that their militias and people were loyal to them not the government.

The warlord issue was generally not with the old school ones like Dostum, Atta and Khan but with the new ones created by the Americans. This led to discontent with the locals an in their eyes weakened the government which they already viewed as ineffectual and an American puppet.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

We can say with certainty they won’t pick up the tab. If the conditions are right however Chinese mining and other investments will provide significant revenue. What the Taliban desires from China is legitimacy; it’s not bothered about the West not recognising its government but seeks greater contact with certain other countries.

So who's going to pay salaries, keep the hospitals open, etc? It isn't about legitimacy via "western recognition", it's about money. Taliban fighters don't work for free, and they'll only have more mouths to feed if they're taking the country over.

Chinese "investment" is usually good for China but frequently bad for the host country - see the unfinished motorway in Montenegro and the railway to nowhere in Kenya. There's no way Beijing is going to throw down the sort of money to make the Taliban self-sufficient.

 

[STURM]

I never suggested that Chinese cash would make the Taliban “self sufficient” or that China would pick up most the tab....

A large of the reason they badly seek good ties with China is not only the revenue from Chinese mining and other possible forms of revenue to be gained fbut also a level of legitimacy which comes from being chums with a UN permanent Security Council member. Whilst the main motivation is indeed driven by financial reasons (didn’t suggest otherwise); it’s also driven by strategic factors.

A lot of the remaining needed revenue will come from a traditional source: taxing the cross border trade from country’s numerous border crossings; as well as other means which includes taxing the drug trade. We can also expect that aid from benefactors in the Gulf will continue to flow.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

A lot of the remaining needed revenue will come from a traditional source: taxing the cross border trade from country’s numerous border crossings; as well as other means which includes taxing the drug trade. We can also expect that aid from benefactors in the Gulf will continue to flow.

That may provide money to keep the Taliban's current fighters loyal, but it won't pay for everything else. Even if the Taliban try to legalise and tax the drug trade, corruption isn't going to go away so there's no guarantee money will actually get to where it needs to be. Given how many members of the Taliban dabble in drugs they may just exempt themselves from taxes.

This is the thing, the Taliban aren't just an insurgent force now they're the next government. It's a lot easier to pay for yourself when you can just take what you want from helpless civilians. Now the helpless civilians will be knocking at their door demanding help.

I fully expect the Taliban will hold out their begging bowl to North America, Europe and Japan. The question is then whether the developed world gives in to avoid a worse humanitarian crisis or not.

 

[John Fedup]

With all the other crap going on (especially COVID), the West and Japan won’t be giving jack$hit to Afghanistan. Even if they did the ingrained corruption would limit most benefits from any donations. The country has been a mess for centuries and the locals are content to continue this tribal cultural horror show for centuries to come it appears. Localized civilization hotspots might appear adjacent to new Chinese mining sites though.

 

[STURM]

With all the other crap going on (especially COVID), the West and Japan won’t be giving jack$hit to Afghanistan.

The Taliban is under no illusion that recognition or aid will be forthcoming from the West which is why from a few years ago contacts were already established with the likes of India, Chiba and Russia - all 3 countries in Afghanistan's backyard so to speak and all eager (for slightly different reasons) for ties.

The country has been a mess for centuries

That’s not true. There have been periods when the country enjoyed periods of peace and stability. Prior to the Soviets coming the country was a secular country which was increasingly looking towards the West (not always a good thing though).

the locals are content to continue this tribal cultural horror show for centuries to come it appears.

“Horror show” to outsiders maybe but traditionally the various ethnic groups; especially the Pashtuns live by a strict tribal code which governs almost everything and is driven by history and the harsh environment they live in. It will also be a mistake to assume the country remains largely backwards. The past few years have seen increased industrialisation and there has been a growing middle class. Kabul may not be New York or Amsterdam but the past decade it has gained a reputation as a fairly progressive city.

The country’s curse is geography. Most Afghans would just like to be left alone. As an Afghan put it to Al Jazeera : I lost my home to Soviet bombing. Lost in again during the U.S. occupation.

 

[STURM]

Still early days no doubt but things appear for not to be moving in the right direction. The Taliban has offered an amnesty and asked female employees to return to work. In Herat girls are back in school (this was actively encouraged when Ismail Khan was in charge). All this are part of the Taliban’s attempt to provide a softer image; to not repeat some of its previous mistakes.

Meanwhile it’s interesting to see how some toy around with the narrative. The U.S. Secretary of State decanted Afghanistan wasn’t a failure because the main objective was to defeat AQ. Problem is that’s only part of the narrative and the U.S. didn’t stay on fit another decade of OBL’s assassination to defeat AQ.

NATO’s Secretary General was at least accurate with his narrative. He said a main objective was also to rebuild Afghanistan and that was a failure.