Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[HiMucker]

This 20 year war in Afghanistan has to be up there in one of the biggest wastes of time and lives, from a long list of pointless conflicts. One thing I find hard to believe, is that the Taliban swept through the country so quickly without major popular support. There is no talk of any mass civilian support in the media.

[gallsman]

One thing I find hard to believe, is that the Taliban swept through the country so quickly without major popular support. There is no talk of any mass civilian support in the media.

Civilians can't do much against the men with guns. The Afghan military has collapsed and largely surrendered without a fight unit by unit, handing the Taliban a free ride

[HiMucker]

One thing I find hard to believe, is that the Taliban swept through the country so quickly without major popular support. There is no talk of any mass civilian support in the media.

Civilians can't do much against the men with guns. The Afghan military has collapsed and largely surrendered without a fight unit by unit, handing the Taliban a free ride

Ah jeez, I get all that. Biden announcing withdrawal date was just a complete strategic blunder of massive proportions. I just find the speed of the Taliban advance hard to believe without a large degree of popular support support. Only a few days ago US military intelligence reports were stating that the Taliban could take the country within 6 months. That suggests that even they did not foresee the speed of this even in a worst case scenario.

[tiempo]

UppaInfadels

[Milltown Row2]

So do people want the Americans and uk armies back in Afghanistan?

[JPGJOHNNYG]

Didn't Trump want to pull out even earlier. Didn't the UK pull out 8 years ago, the criticism of Biden from others seems a bit rich. The Afghans had years to get their shit together either that or the majority don't actually mind the Taliban.

[Tony Baloney]

One thing I find hard to believe, is that the Taliban swept through the country so quickly without major popular support. There is no talk of any mass civilian support in the media.

Civilians can't do much against the men with guns. The Afghan military has collapsed and largely surrendered without a fight unit by unit, handing the Taliban a free ride

Ah jeez, I get all that. Biden announcing withdrawal date was just a complete strategic blunder of massive proportions. I just find the speed of the Taliban advance hard to believe without a large degree of popular support support. Only a few days ago US military intelligence reports were stating that the Taliban could take the country within 6 months. That suggests that even they did not foresee the speed of this even in a worst case scenario.

Lack of resistance doesn't necessarily have to equal support. The general population presumably were expecting the army, which has been trained and had billions pumped into it by coalition forces, to not crumple like a wet paper bag. I would say 10s of billions were siphoned off along the way.

Conspiracy theories have started already that Trump agreed to the withdrawal to hand the country over to Russia for access and mineral rights.

[johnnycool]

Didn't Trump want to pull out even earlier. Didn't the UK pull out 8 years ago, the criticism of Biden from others seems a bit rich. The Afghans had years to get their shit together either that or the majority don't actually mind the Taliban.

Pompeo is the main man here.

He had a "treaty" with the Taliban to free 5000 of their men in prison and in return got a 3 month ceasefire. Since that and Trump announcing the withdrawal of US troops, the Afghan forces have been resigning en masse since so there's no real surprise they marched all the way to Kabul unhindered.

The fake outrage from anyone in GB and the US is just that. They wanted out one way or the other.

[tbrick18]

Another typical example of Western (British and American) interference in foreign countries and then walking away when they get fed up leaving a shit storm behind them.

The Afghan people are left to fend for themselves again and will probably pay the price for what ever the US and Uk did when there.
God help them.

[imtommygunn]

It will probably create more extremists too 

[Hound]

They haven't made it better, for sure. But I don't think they've made it worse. The way the taliban treat their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters is abhorrent. And was long before the US invaded.

[Milltown Row2]

Another typical example of Western (British and American) interference in foreign countries and then walking away when they get fed up leaving a shit storm behind them.

The Afghan people are left to fend for themselves again and will probably pay the price for what ever the US and Uk did when there.
God help them.

Which is it? don't have interference in foreign countries or do? You can't have smooth interference in foreign countries without a backlash from within the country and people saying they shouldn't be in it.. 20 years now and gone in 20 minutes

[tbrick18]

Another typical example of Western (British and American) interference in foreign countries and then walking away when they get fed up leaving a shit storm behind them.

The Afghan people are left to fend for themselves again and will probably pay the price for what ever the US and Uk did when there.
God help them.

Which is it? don't have interference in foreign countries or do? You can't have smooth interference in foreign countries without a backlash from within the country and people saying they shouldn't be in it.. 20 years now and gone in 20 minutes

For me it's simple. IF the US and UK decide to go into a country to topple a regime, such as the Taliban, then they should be prepared to stay until there is a reasonable chance that when they do leave that the people left behind are not going to suffer the consequences of a return to power of the regime that is supposed to have been removed. Anything else is irresponsible and negates everything that happened before including the countless lives lost.

Look at what happened in Iraq first time around. And now look at this mess in Afghanistan.
I'm not saying it was wrong to remove the Taliban or Saddam, but if you're not going to follow up by supporting indefinitely then what was the point?
History has shown that the UK and US have done this many times but generally they only ever go into a country out of self interest but then try to portray themselves as protectors of the innocent.
It's all BS. These wars are only ever about money and never about protecting the innocent in the countries they go into. I suspect the in the case of Afghanistan the cost risk analysis was done and the risk of "terrorist" attacks on British or US soil is acceptable when weighed against the cost of remaining in place to keep the peace.

[J70]

Another typical example of Western (British and American) interference in foreign countries and then walking away when they get fed up leaving a shit storm behind them.

The Afghan people are left to fend for themselves again and will probably pay the price for what ever the US and Uk did when there.
God help them.

Which is it? don't have interference in foreign countries or do? You can't have smooth interference in foreign countries without a backlash from within the country and people saying they shouldn't be in it.. 20 years now and gone in 20 minutes

For me it's simple. IF the US and UK decide to go into a country to topple a regime, such as the Taliban, then they should be prepared to stay until there is a reasonable chance that when they do leave that the people left behind are not going to suffer the consequences of a return to power of the regime that is supposed to have been removed. Anything else is irresponsible and negates everything that happened before including the countless lives lost.

Look at what happened in Iraq first time around. And now look at this mess in Afghanistan.
I'm not saying it was wrong to remove the Taliban or Saddam, but if you're not going to follow up by supporting indefinitely then what was the point?
History has shown that the UK and US have done this many times but generally they only ever go into a country out of self interest but then try to portray themselves as protectors of the innocent.
It's all BS. These wars are only ever about money and never about protecting the innocent in the countries they go into. I suspect the in the case of Afghanistan the cost risk analysis was done and the risk of "terrorist" attacks on British or US soil is acceptable when weighed against the cost of remaining in place to keep the peace.

That's the key, isn't it.

The American people don't give two fucks about the people of Afghanistan.

To the extent that any profess concern, its politically motivated to stick the boot in on the other side. Most of those ponitificating about foreign interventions and with a recent love for isolationism were crowing about freedom fries and trying to intimidate anyone who didn't "support the troops" back in the 2000s.

The US broke it. They should have stayed there until it was fixed. However long that took.

[Milltown Row2]

Another typical example of Western (British and American) interference in foreign countries and then walking away when they get fed up leaving a shit storm behind them.

The Afghan people are left to fend for themselves again and will probably pay the price for what ever the US and Uk did when there.
God help them.

Which is it? don't have interference in foreign countries or do? You can't have smooth interference in foreign countries without a backlash from within the country and people saying they shouldn't be in it.. 20 years now and gone in 20 minutes

For me it's simple. IF the US and UK decide to go into a country to topple a regime, such as the Taliban, then they should be prepared to stay until there is a reasonable chance that when they do leave that the people left behind are not going to suffer the consequences of a return to power of the regime that is supposed to have been removed. Anything else is irresponsible and negates everything that happened before including the countless lives lost.

Look at what happened in Iraq first time around. And now look at this mess in Afghanistan.
I'm not saying it was wrong to remove the Taliban or Saddam, but if you're not going to follow up by supporting indefinitely then what was the point?
History has shown that the UK and US have done this many times but generally they only ever go into a country out of self interest but then try to portray themselves as protectors of the innocent.
It's all BS. These wars are only ever about money and never about protecting the innocent in the countries they go into. I suspect the in the case of Afghanistan the cost risk analysis was done and the risk of "terrorist" attacks on British or US soil is acceptable when weighed against the cost of remaining in place to keep the peace.

That's the key, isn't it.

The American people don't give two fucks about the people of Afghanistan.

To the extent that any profess concern, its politically motivated to stick the boot in on the other side. Most of those ponitificating about foreign interventions and with a recent love for isolationism were crowing about freedom fries and trying to intimidate anyone who didn't "support the troops" back in the 2000s.

The US broke it. They should have stayed there until it was fixed. However long that took.

The Taliban were never going away, Russia couldn't do it and the US or UK Gov's were and are unable to fix it... the only way to 'fix' it is from within, and maybe in 100 years the Taliban might be more progressive, who knows?

Meddling in other countries has never really worked, countries as you have said, are only interested in what they can get out of it for themselves

Places like there can be fixed by outside governments