Geopolitics in the 2020s.

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

No sympathy. Fucking drug dealers bring death to our streets and kill our loved ones. A plague on society. Hang the fucking lot of them. End of.

You sound like a lovely chap...

Have you ventured into the "Peru Two" thread on the off topic section of the forum? I think you'd have a field day!

[Boo Khaki]

No sure how hypothetically smuggling 227kg of methamphetamine, which might or might not actually exist, into Australia causes death on Scottish streets, but whatever.

[Boo Khaki]

8 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

No need for the obfuscation. It is what it is. You obviously don't do moral compass. Enjoy your junk.

Rich, coming from someone who evidently believes a State can practice capital punishment, and still retain a single shred of moral authority.

[NotThePars]

Me during the sesh: haha f**k yes! Get the tunes on, here we fucking gooooo

Me for the week after:

No sympathy. Fucking drug dealers bring death to our streets and kill our loved ones. A plague on society. Hang the fucking lot of them. End of.

[coprolite]

On 30/07/2021 at 08:50, mizfit said:

 

Just seen it’s mainly tourist areas in the south, icmeler and Marmaris getting it bad. Few accusations of people deliberately fire raising as well.

 

A tour guide in Marmaris told us that most of the trees around there were eucalyptus that had been planted by the government because they grow well in dry conditions. He also said they'd burn easily because they're oily.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/taliban-claim-capture-kandahar-grip-on-afghanistan-grows?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Just as well we spent 20 years building a solid independent democratic state rather than a puppet regime with a few AKs and access to US aid funds. The two completely pointless and evil invasions of the war on terror end in the murder of countless people and total failure, and apparently no one's to blame for either part of that 

[Sergeant Wilson]

35 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/taliban-claim-capture-kandahar-grip-on-afghanistan-grows?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Just as well we spent 20 years building a solid independent democratic state rather than a puppet regime with a few AKs and access to US aid funds. The two completely pointless and evil invasions of the war on terror end in the murder of countless people and total failure, and apparently no one's to blame for either part of that 

My military career is in the past now, but how did anyone think the Afghan army could beat Casey's drum never mind The Taliban?

[Soapy FFC]

Is it just me, or does this seem like a repeat of the closing days of Vietnam?

[Enigma]

I’ve put his videos up before but this is a fairly decent wee take on the geopolitics involved in what’s going on in Afghanistan for anybody interested.

 

[DiegoDiego]

Ethiopia is in big trouble. With Eritrea taking the losing side in the civil war it could easily lead to regional issues. Expect things to get a lot worse before they get better.

[ICTChris]

For the first time since the ending of the second Karabakh War, Russian peacekeepers have specifically blamed Azerbaijan for a ceasefire breach.

Azeri forces have also cut off water supplies to Stepanakert.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

Ethiopia is in big trouble. With Eritrea taking the losing side in the civil war it could easily lead to regional issues. Expect things to get a lot worse before they get better.

They embarked on a course of ethnic federalism under a formerly Hoxhaist rebel group from Tigray in 1991 just as Yugoslavia was starting to completely unravel. What could possibly go wrong...

Edited August 13, 2021 by LongTimeLurker

[GordonS]

Is anyone here genuinely knowledgable about Afghanistan? If so, I have a question.

To those saying the western allies shouldn't be pulling out now - if not now, then when? Is it likely there would be a better time in future to pull out? Is this not what would happen whenever they pull out? Or is the argument that they can and should stay indefinitely, because the current level of losses is manageable and justifiable?

[Detournement]

Seeing people greeting about Al Qaeda potentially using Afghanistan as a base is a bit odd when the USA/UK have been directly arming and funding them in Iraq and Syria for the last 8 years. Wee Pritti even went to visit their field hospital in the Golan Heights. 

Afghanistan has trillions of dollars of mineral deposits which can be exploited if the fighting stops. I imagine whoever is funding the Taliban has their eye on that prize. 

Mitch McConnell said the Taliban will burn down the US Embassy on 9/11 and now I've got my hopes up. Please let it happen. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Detournement

[Detournement]

Allen Dulles is turning in his grave. 

[ICTChris]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

Is anyone here genuinely knowledgable about Afghanistan? If so, I have a question.

To those saying the western allies shouldn't be pulling out now - if not now, then when? Is it likely there would be a better time in future to pull out? Is this not what would happen whenever they pull out? Or is the argument that they can and should stay indefinitely, because the current level of losses is manageable and justifiable?

I am not knowledgable about Afghanistan but from what I've read about it there are many complicated factors at play.  The pull out really wasn't expected - there have a lot of previous pull backs before but this time the US have genuinely withdrawn.  That has caused the Afghan security services and their allies in the country to really lose heart for the fight.  Also, in terms of what is actually happening in a lot of Afghanistan isn't a war of conquest, it's a lot of commanders defecting as they don't particularly want a bloody fight with the Taliban.  I'm pretty sure that the army commander in Herat has essentially defected along with the entire garrison.  this is a grand old tradition in Afghanistan of course, with many Communists from the 80s happily changing sides when it suited them post Soviet withdrawal.

Of course, the difficulty here will be with those who can't really defect to the Taliban - the religious minorities like the Hazara being the most obvious.  There is heavy fighting in these areas.  One factor I've not seen mentioned much is the influence of Iran on the country - the Iranians were the sponsors of Shia Afghan groups who fought the Soviets in the 1980s.  Afghan Shias have been recruited to fight for Iranians in Syria, so there's already military relations between those communities.

Regarding if this would have happened whenever the coaltiion withdrew, probably.  Trying to build a NATO style army with logistical challanges of that and the lack of central control in the country doesn't seem like a good decision.  Also, the early years of the iSAF in Afghanistan saw most of the coaltion head off to invade Iraq - one of the lesser thought consequences of the Iraq war is that focus went away from Afghanistan.  I don't think that's a particularly persuasive argument against it though.

My aunt and uncle went backpacking in Afghanistan in the 1960s, I'm very jealous of them for being able to go.  It seems like an amazing place but it's been destroyed by decades of conflict.  

[Lex]

The Afghan situation is hopeless simply because the Taliban retains the backing of large heavily armed sections of the country.
The west has two options. One is to stay there in perpetuity, having soldiers killed on a regular basis and propping up a lame duck government and ‘training’ an Afghan army who’s more likely to kill the trainers than the Taliban.
Option two is leaving and letting the Taliban back in power.
There’s no third way. They chose option one for the last twenty years, now they’re choosing option two.

[welshbairn]

Afghanistan can only be run with a complex network of alliances, accepting a great deal of autonomy and radically different rules in mainly rural areas where tradition dictates expectations and in major cities where western liberal ideas hold more sway. Russia and America tried the same thing, install a friendly government in Kabul and rule from the centre. America put their Northern Alliance pals, who did most of the ground work overthrowing the Taliban post 9/11, into most prominent Government positions, with a token Pashtun as President. They tried to give it legitimacy by holding elections but that's not how Afghanistan works. While America was doling out suitcases of cash and military backing the central government held some sway, now that they've gone I bet half the Afghan army has joined "Taliban", nobody wants to be left on the losing side. Shifting alliances can change outcomes overnight. My gloomy prediction is that a united force calling themselves "Taliban" will momentarily seize Kabul and overall power, then in days rival factions will start off a decade of more civil war. The last time it happened various warlords and their soldiers were shelling each other from different suburbs of Kabul. For a country whose major natural resource through history has been a rock for making blue paint, and top quality hashish, it's unfathomable why the big powers keep feeling the need to intervene and making things much worse in the end.

[GordonS]

 

1 hour ago, Lex said:

The west has two options. One is to stay there in perpetuity, having soldiers killed on a regular basis and propping up a lame duck government and ‘training’ an Afghan army who’s more likely to kill the trainers than the Taliban.
Option two is leaving and letting the Taliban back in power.

That's how it has appeared from what I've read. But I've seen some, like Rory Stewart, argue that the rate of losses in Afghanistan is relatively low in recent years and worth it. Since 2015 there have been 15-20 coalition military deaths per year.

As someone who would not put my life at risk for democracy in Afghanistan, or the life of anyone I care about, I feel I can't support British soldiers staying there. I think lots of people in the armed forces see it differently though, they see the mission as worthwhile and I respect that.

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

 For a country whose major natural resource through history has been a rock for making blue paint, and top quality hashish, it's unfathomable why the big powers keep feeling the need to intervene and making things much worse in the end.

Historically - because it was on the Silk Road and a crucial crossroads between east and west. You can see in the faces of the people that there's been a lot of genetic diversity over the years.

In the age of empire - because that's what colonialists did. They extended their territory wherever they could.

For the USSR - Partly support for the local communist regime, partly Cold War politics, partly projecting power into the Middle East and growing influence in the search for warm water ports, partly many other little things.

For 2001 - that one is easy. It was completely intolerable for the West to allow Al Qaeda to operate from Afghanistan, which the Taliban were definitely going to continue doing. I was slightly surprised Afghanistan still existed on 10 September 2001. It may well be that this first objective - preventing Afghanistan from being a base for international terrorism - may prove successful, as the Taliban will probably enjoy a period of openly ruling the country. Time will tell.

It's a bit of a myth that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, as several have controlled it for long periods. But they do have a fair old list of defeated invaders.

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, GordonS said:

But I've seen some, like Rory Stewart, argue that the rate of losses in Afghanistan is relatively low in recent years and worth it. Since 2015 there have been 15-20 coalition military deaths per year.

Around quarter of a million deaths caused by the conflict since 2001.