General News & Politics (48 Viewers)

May 23, 2013
4,312
Now that Taliban are in control, how long do you think they will stay in power and what will it take for them to be removed?

Are there counter-movements in Afghanistan with potential to grow and offset them in the future?
Taliban will have control of the country for the foreseeable future. This time around I don't think they will be viewed as a pariah state as they were in the 90's. And that comes down to the fact that they were in large part politically legitimized through the Doha peace deal and because they have managed to broaden their foreign affairs from being entirely Pakistan centered. Currently the Taliban has positive relations with the likes of China, Russia and Iran and in due time imo they will be recognized by those countries with the West eventually following suit. The only thing which could serve as a spoiler for this is the fact that former President Ashraf Ghani, did not resign as president prior to leaving the country.

Regarding any counter-movements rising within Afghanistan, the likelihood of an effective opposition forming is rather low. The Taliban and Pakistan established a positive rapport with their former adversaries from the 90's, the warlords of the "Northern Alliance." That is why the north, which is not traditionally seen as a Taliban stronghold, fell like a house of cards before any other part of the country. Warlords are the dominant force in those areas rather than the government and they ordered their forces to stand down in the face of Taliban advances.

For an uprising to take place, weapons and cash will be needed. And unfortunately, most of the weapons stashes and billions upon billions of siphoned funds are in the bank accounts of the warlords.

- - - Updated - - -


- - - Updated - - -

The leadership of the Northern Alliance is currently lobbying in Pakistan. They are the utmost traitors to Afghanistan. These individuals are responsible for both of the Taliban's rises to power. First in the 90's, their destruction of Kabul and mass rape gave way for the vulnerable Afghan people to be taken advantage of by the Taliban. And then from 2001-14, when the warlords had full control of the government, instead rebuilding the country and bringing about a positive new chapter in our history, they opted to stuff billions into foreign bank accounts and act as strongmen throughout the country. Their treachery and excesses gave way to the Taliban's reemergence in 2004.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
Last edited:
May 23, 2013
4,312
OK, maybe this Taliban guys aren't so bad after all.

These are not Afghans or Taliban. Still a funny tweet, just thought I'd clarify...

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding any counter-movements rising within Afghanistan, the likelihood of an effective opposition forming is rather low. The Taliban and Pakistan established a positive rapport with their former adversaries from the 90's, the warlords of the "Northern Alliance." That is why the north, which is not traditionally seen as a Taliban stronghold, fell like a house of cards before any other part of the country. Warlords are the dominant force in those areas rather than the government and they ordered their forces to stand down in the face of Taliban advances.
I'd like to add a caveat to this point, if negotiations between the Warlords and Taliban/Pakistan fail, then there is a chance that conflict will resume. However, such a conflict would likely be restricted to the north, as these warlords do not have much sway in other parts of the country.

- - - Updated - - -

Patriotic Afghan youths in the country's east are protesting in favor of the Afghan national flag (our flag for 100 years) as opposed to the Taliban flag. The Taliban have in response opened fire on the peaceful protestors and attacked them. Sad days ahead for this country....


- - - Updated - - -

 
Last edited:

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,933
They should have sanctioned Pakistan 20 years ago and maybe Afghanistan wouldn't have been in this mess.

Anyway, Monetary aid is a failed practice that brings more harm then good.
Sanctions are only useful if they are tied to some achievable target. US has given Taliban legitimacy by signing a peace deal and imposing sanctions are just like pissing in the same pot you’re drinking from.
Sadly enough this hypocrisy is usually lost on US policy makers and they just use sanctions as punishments without any objective in mind. Nobody even remembers why Cuba is sanctioned in the first place.
 

Tomice

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2009
3,024
Sanctions are only useful if they are tied to some achievable target. US has given Taliban legitimacy by signing a peace deal and imposing sanctions are just like pissing in the same pot you’re drinking from.
Sadly enough this hypocrisy is usually lost on US policy makers and they just use sanctions as punishments without any objective in mind. Nobody even remembers why Cuba is sanctioned in the first place.
That was my point, the west should have sanctioned Pakistan decades ago, with a clear goal, to stop funding, arming and harboring the Taliban and numerus other terror groups.

In Afghanistan case I agree with you completely, there is no reason for sanctioning the Taliban beside posturing, It is a pointless exercises anyway. The Taliban are gonna trade with Pakistan, China and Iran who have a vast interest in Afghanistan, they don't need the west for trade. Doesn't mean you should give them aid either
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,933
That was my point, the west should have sanctioned Pakistan decades ago, with a clear goal, to stop funding, arming and harboring the Taliban and numerus other terror groups.

In Afghanistan case I agree with you completely, there is no reason for sanctioning the Taliban beside posturing, It is a pointless exercises anyway. The Taliban are gonna trade with Pakistan, China and Iran who have a vast interest in Afghanistan, they don't need the west for trade. Doesn't mean you should give them aid either
The objective should not also be something fundamental to your existence. Pakistan’s rivalry with India is central to Pakistan’s existence and means Pakistan will always fund Taliban to be their puppet. ISI would’ve starved Pakistanis and would not agree to let Taliban loose. They resisted giving OBL years back after 9/11, and even after it was known that’s he’s in Pakistan they evaded any serious punishment.
The only successful use of sanctions that I can remember is what Obama imposed on Iran and led to JCOPA. Unfortunately Trump listened to John Bolton and reinstated all sanctions asking Iran to completely change its policies, and so far the sanctions are still in place despite wiping out entire Iranian middle class.
 

Tomice

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2009
3,024
The objective should not also be something fundamental to your existence. Pakistan’s rivalry with India is central to Pakistan’s existence and means Pakistan will always fund Taliban to be their puppet. ISI would’ve starved Pakistanis and would not agree to let Taliban loose. They resisted giving OBL years back after 9/11, and even after it was known that’s he’s in Pakistan they evaded any serious punishment.
The only successful use of sanctions that I can remember is what Obama imposed on Iran and led to JCOPA. Unfortunately Trump listened to John Bolton and reinstated all sanctions asking Iran to completely change its policies, and so far the sanctions are still in place despite wiping out entire Iranian middle class.
That's a fair argument.

For the second part, while I don't think the JCOPA in itself was a very good deal (in terms of accomplishing the intended goal), I can't argue with the fact that it was a rare example of successful use of sanctions.
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,933
That's a fair argument.

For the second part, while I don't think the JCOPA in itself was a very good deal (in terms of accomplishing the intended goal), I can't argue with the fact that it was a rare example of successful use of sanctions.
We’re in complete agreement. JCOPA was not a great deal but it was nevertheless a deal with defined objectives.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,408
These are not Afghans or Taliban. Still a funny tweet, just thought I'd clarify...

- - - Updated - - -
Right, they look like they could be Pakistani or something.

By the way, thanks for the background. I think more Americans are now aware of the stupidity of the past, and many of them never wanted to go to war in Afghanistan after 9/11 in the first place. But the general public is in this weird state of limbo here where they want the troops out of Afghanistan, while at the same time saying the decision to pull them all out is a mistake. Perhaps there was a better way to withdrawal over time, but at the end of the day it just seems like the same result was already baked into the cake. It's been a literal disaster since the beginning of the beginning, and was always going to end as such.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 39)