Afghan government collapse.

[The Mikado]

Whatever... meanwhile we some reports that the Taliban are conducting house-to-house searches in Kabul to round up ISKP members.

If you want nightmares, look up the details of how the Taliban executed Najibullah back in 1996. A lot of members of IS Khorasan might find themselves wishing they had the instantaneous end of an American drone strike by the end of this.

Honestly, if the Taliban wants to be on good terms with the US as they apparently do, gruesome public executions of IS fighters would be, depressingly enough, an absolute PR goldmine among Americans wanting something more visceral than a drone strike.

[compucomp]

So in other words, the Taliban are now doing the Americans' dirty work for them? I had predicted that the Taliban and US would eventually find common cause and start cooperating, but I thought it would take months to a year for that arrangement to come together and not one week.

[NOVA Green]

Sigh.... now that most Americans and the International Community are first learning about ISIS-K, we are being asked to use a shorter acronym ISKP to refer to the Daesh.   

It was kind of silly to act like they have anything to do with Iraq or Syria in the first place. ISK makes more sense.

Yes and no...

ISIS has been a legit contender among hardline International Jihadis going way back to the Iraq / Syria war, where AQI basically got destroyed as US & Allied Military forces worked their way down the "rat corridor" down the river valleys in the Heavily Sunni and Tribal countries all the way to the Syrian Border.

Here is a (350) Page paper, which I have not read in full from 2014 which examines the Iraqi Insurgency in much greater detail, which I would never attempt to boost lines from, simply to make a cheap political point when it comes to current political events.

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140513_Cordesman_IraqInCrisis_Web.pdf

We might look at how ISIS expanded turf from Iraq-Syria into places such as South Asia, but reality is that there is a bit of a "Global Market" when it comes to expansion of outfits, recruiting from places, $$$ invested, etc...

AGAIN--- Not a hater in any way shape or form against Muslims, totally disagree with some of the political and economic systems established in various countries.

Fundamentally their is a bit of a mixture going on with the "Post-Colonial Movement" mixed with the various increase of support among Western Countries for "Friendly Military Dictatorships" vs "Foreign Military Dictatorships".

Left vs Right was virtually not on the radar when it came to the Super Powers, where "Imperialism" could eventually come from all sides, while generally the local population are stuck in proxy wars from Mozambique to Afghanistan.

Regardless, ISKP has been rebuilding over the past 2 years, regardless of massive military losses against both TB & ANA fighters (Not to mention US Air Strikes).

New Dude running the joint has been mostly quiet, other than setting off some massive explosions murdering tons of kids in Kabul, and various other atrocities not getting as much attention.

Regardless--- US and allies can and will strike at will against those behind this, and would not be surprised to see the Taliban start getting aggressive in some of their few remaining "rear bases" in East Afghanistan.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

[NOVA Green]

So for anybody interested in reading an extremely detailed summary and high-level overview of the ISKP & Taliban relations in Afghanistan, here is an article from earlier today and Jeff as always hits it out of the ballpark:

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/world/story/explained-why-islamic-state-khorasan-and-taliban-are-at-loggerheads-with-each-other-in-afghanistan-1846475-2021-08-28?__twitter_impression=true

Also, Politico has an opinion magazine article out today regarding ISKP that might be worth a read for those who haven't already seen it:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/27/what-isis-k-means-for-afghanistan-507034

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

[NOVA Green]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

So not to disrupt the conversation you are both having, which has interesting merits and perspectives, but simply do want to make a point which one of my best friends and myself have been discussing for some (20) years, and the reality is that air power does not control territory, which requires active military ground forces.

Trying to think of an historical war where air power has actually *Won* a war, and certainly even looking back to WW II, which was arguably the first war where Air Power was used as part of combined operations, it did definitely impact events, for example the "Blitzkrieg" military tactics of the German military, the US/UK Air superiority on the Western Front certainly played a significant role there, but both were supplemented with a significant investment in ground forces to both defend, hold, and expand territory.

I digress slightly and do not want to distract from the conversation (and no disrespect to my USAF friends), but the concept that air power alone could have changed the balance of the war in Afghanistan alone does not make logical sense (look at Soviet Air superiority for example in the '80s).

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

So not to disrupt the conversation you are both having, which has interesting merits and perspectives, but simply do want to make a point which one of my best friends and myself have been discussing for some (20) years, and the reality is that air power does not control territory, which requires active military ground forces.

Trying to think of an historical war where air power has actually *Won* a war, and certainly even looking back to WW II, which was arguably the first war where Air Power was used as part of combined operations, it did definitely impact events, for example the "Blitzkrieg" military tactics of the German military, the US/UK Air superiority on the Western Front certainly played a significant role there, but both were supplemented with a significant investment in ground forces to both defend, hold, and expand territory.

I digress slightly and do not want to distract from the conversation (and no disrespect to my USAF friends), but the concept that air power alone could have changed the balance of the war in Afghanistan alone does not make logical sense (look at Soviet Air superiority for example in the '80s).

I wouldn't care to speak for the person I'm arguing with here, but I suspect we both disagree with you on this.

1.The Northern Alliance quickly removed the Taliban from power with the assistance of U.S air support.

2.If you listen to the episode I linked to earlier from the Australian Broadcasting Company program Rear Vision, they make it clear that the Soviets lost in Afghanistan after the United States and the U.K provided the Mujahideen anti air craft missiles and the Soviets lost control of the air.

This is the episode:
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/afghanistan-a-history-of-invasion/13500760

Starting around 18:15
"Now the Soviets also went out of their way in the very first years to break what they perceived as the Islamic identity of Afghanistan and launched a persecution of the Islamic religion so severe as necessarily to provoke such an almost suicidal resistance on the part of the Afghan.

Until 1985, in a sense the Soviets were winning through genocide, they weren't politically winning but they were winning, I suppose  the way that the United States won against the Apaches, simply through overwhelming crushing force through genocidal policies.  

But when the United States was finally persuaded to deliver, along with the British, anti aircraft weaponry like the Stingers and the Blowpipes to members of the Afghan resistance, the Soviets as of 1986 lost control of the air, and as soon as they lost control of the air, they lost all control of the ground, and their expeditionary force was doomed and had to be withdrawn by 1989."


I agree with you that air support isn't sufficient when those on the ground really aren't motivated in fighting, as I think it's clear the Afghan military wasn't, but, air support can be critical otherwise.

[NOVA Green]

Meanwhile... looks like the TB are continuing their full court press when it comes to international legitimacy and foreign policy / diplomacy, and looks like they directly reached out to India (at least in terms of Political Communication).

https://twitter.com/sidhant/status/1431653566167412736?s=20

[NOVA Green]

Also, looking like the TB met with a Senior delegation of Afghan Sh'iites:

https://twitter.com/SAMRIReports/status/1431555883771863050?s=20

[NOVA Green]

Interesting article from The Economist regarding how deep rooted the financial corruption was in Afghanistan under the previous government:

Why Afghan officials have washed up in the United Arab Emirates

In some cases, their cash arrived first

For days the world wondered where President Ashraf Ghani had gone as the Taliban advanced on Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. It was little surprise when he surfaced in the United Arab Emirates (uae) on August 18th. Mr Ghani joins a long list of former leaders who have sought shelter in the sunny Gulf state. Pervez Musharraf, a former Pakistani president, Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Thai prime minister, and Juan Carlos, Spain’s erstwhile king, are all thought to call the uae home.

Most of these leaders left their countries under a cloud. Mr Musharraf was convicted of treason for abrogating and suspending Pakistan’s constitution in 2007. Thaksin Shinawatra was convicted of corruption committed while prime minister. Juan Carlos is accused of dodgy dealing with Saudi Arabia. And Mr Ghani (pictured) has been criticised for cutting and running, though he denies reports that he left Kabul with millions of dollars in cash. In a video posted on Facebook he said he fled “with one set of traditional clothes, a vest and the sandals I was wearing.”

Other Afghan officials planned ahead: they are suspected of having moved hundreds of millions of dollars from Kabul to Dubai, the uae’s financial hub, over the years. A former vice-president, Ahmad Zia Masood, once flew to Dubai with $52m (£38m) in cash, according to American diplomatic cables. (The average yearly income in Afghanistan is around $500.) Some of this money has gone towards real estate. Sher Khan Farnood, the late chairman of Kabul Bank (and high-stakes poker player), reportedly owned dozens of properties on the ritzy Palm Jumeirah in Dubai—or, at least, his name was on the property records. He gave loans to associates of Hamid Karzai, a former Afghan president, for the purchase of villas in the emirate. “What I’m doing is not proper, not exactly what I should do,” Farnood told the Washington Post in 2010. “But this is Afghanistan.”

Just as important, it is Dubai, which takes a relaxed attitude towards dirty money. The uae scores poorly on an index of money-laundering risk put together by the Basel Institute on Governance. That has made it the bane of foreign governments trying to tackle corruption—but a preferred haven for money-launderers, arms-smugglers and shady officials. Stable and secure, Dubai usually benefits when capital takes flight from more volatile parts of the region. Afghan officials are not the first to show up with suitcases full of cash. Baathists from Iraq rushed there when America invaded in 2003. So did relatives of Syria’s blood-soaked president, Bashar al-Assad, in 2012.

....

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/08/28/why-afghan-officials-have-washed-up-in-the-united-arab-emirates?utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_source=twitter

[NOVA Green]

First footage from inside the building hit by the US drone strike:

https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1431782953219153920?s=20

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

The US withdrew from Bagram on July 4. Your article is from July 26. I'm going to hit ignore and stop wasting time responding.

[Mr. Morden]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/macron-says-france-britain-propose-kabul-safe-zone-2021-08-28/

France and Britain will submit a resolution to an emergency United Nations meeting due Monday on Afghanistan proposing a safe zone in Kabul to try and protect people trying to leave the country, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Sunday.

"Our resolution proposal aims to define a safe zone in Kabul, under U.N. control, which would allow humanitarian operations to continue," Macron told French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD) in an interview published on Sunday.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is a humanitarian tragedy, and while I understand the rationale for leaving, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a hack that Biden has severely mismanaged the process. If this had been happening under his predecessor there would be no hesitation about laying the blame on him.

[CumbrianLefty]

This is a humanitarian tragedy, and while I understand the rationale for leaving, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a hack that Biden has severely mismanaged the process. If this had been happening under his predecessor there would be no hesitation about laying the blame on him.

That is fair comment, but I would simply add that it *is* his predecessor's "process".

Of course that doesn't alter the fact that on this at least, Biden agreed with him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is a humanitarian tragedy, and while I understand the rationale for leaving, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a hack that Biden has severely mismanaged the process. If this had been happening under his predecessor there would be no hesitation about laying the blame on him.

That is fair comment, but I would simply add that it *is* his predecessor's "process".

Of course that doesn't alter the fact that on this at least, Biden agreed with him.

Yes... as is so often the case with fiascoes, path dependency has been a huge factor here.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

The US withdrew from Bagram on July 4. Your article is from July 26. I'm going to hit ignore and stop wasting time responding.

I think you have a genuine problem with reading comprehension.

[Mr. Morden]

New US airstrike against IS:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/29/us-drone-strikes-an-isis-k-vehicle-packed-with-explosives-in-kabul.html

The United States carried out a military strike on Sunday against an ISIS-K target in Kabul, a development that comes in the final days of an immense humanitarian evacuation mission.

“U.S. military forces conducted a self-defense unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul, eliminating an imminent ISIS-K threat to Hamad Karzai International airport,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Navy Capt. Bill Urban wrote in a statement.

“We are confident we successfully hit the target. Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material,” he added.

There were no known civilian casualties following the strike.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is a humanitarian tragedy, and while I understand the rationale for leaving, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a hack that Biden has severely mismanaged the process. If this had been happening under his predecessor there would be no hesitation about laying the blame on him.

That is fair comment, but I would simply add that it *is* his predecessor's "process".

Of course that doesn't alter the fact that on this at least, Biden agreed with him.

Yes... as is so often the case with fiascoes, path dependency has been a huge factor here.

Yeah. Dubya still bears the vast majority of the blame for this catastrophe, honestly. The war could have been well and truly "won" by 2002 with a reasonable settlement with the Taliban that would have put the Afghan government in a better position to build its legitimacy, but that would have required people in charge back then to care about the Afghan people. It doesn't seem like either the interventionists then or the isolationists now ever gave a sh*t about them, though.

[NOVA Green]

New US airstrike against IS:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/29/us-drone-strikes-an-isis-k-vehicle-packed-with-explosives-in-kabul.html

The United States carried out a military strike on Sunday against an ISIS-K target in Kabul, a development that comes in the final days of an immense humanitarian evacuation mission.

“U.S. military forces conducted a self-defense unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul, eliminating an imminent ISIS-K threat to Hamad Karzai International airport,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Navy Capt. Bill Urban wrote in a statement.

“We are confident we successfully hit the target. Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material,” he added.

There were no known civilian casualties following the strike.

Looks to be in the Khaje Bughra neighborhood of Kabul West of the airport (PD-11).

Unconfirmed reports multiple casualties including a child. Elsewhere (2) dead and (3) injured have been reported.


https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1431964281118003211?s=20


Edit: Just in Al Jazeera is reporting (3) children, based upon info from Afghan sources.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/29/kabul-airlift-enters-final-phase-us-warns-of-more-attacks-live

[NOVA Green]

Ok--- had been seeing reports of (9) civilians killed as a result of the drone strike, but was waiting to post until we had something more official.

https://twitter.com/holmescnn/status/1432070021300195328?s=20

[NOVA Green]

From the first individual to report on this who is an independent journalist who does some work for TOLOTV in Afghanistan, and does not appear to be a pro-TB / Propaganda guy based upon his previous posts.

Again, this is the problem with drone strikes especially within crowded densely populated areas....

Even if this was a result of secondary explosions, still doesn't make it any easier.


https://twitter.com/MuslimShirzad/status/1432067670141243394?s=20

[NOVA Green]

Surprised that there has not been a single comment yet on this....

Just recently got back after having run a few errands and a few more media outlets are starting to cover:

CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/afghanistan-kabul-taliban-us-news-08-29-21/h_2bd817e241b383fb2d746202ef5ed752

A man named Ahad, who said he was a neighbor of the family, told CNN: "All the neighbors tried to help and brought water to put out the fire and I saw that there were 5 or 6 people dead. The father of the family and another young boy and there were two children. They were dead. They were in pieces. There were [also] two wounded." 

Ahad told CNN he had witnessed the airstrike at around 5 pm local time as he walked towards his home. He said he heard the noise of the rocket and a loud bang, and ducked for cover, before trying to help rescue his neighbors. Ahad told CNN that two other people were wounded in the attack.

The US military said in their statement that there were “Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material,” the spokesperson said.

A local journalist who visited the scene soon after the airstrike told CNN that "whatever material was in the car, I don’t know. The car was in a very bad state, just a skeleton of the car was left." 

The journalist — who is not being named for security reasons — was told by family members of the deceased that there were two cars parked at the home: One was a Corona and the other was a Camry.

The journalist said he'd been told that one of the cars contained one of the fathers and his three children getting ready to go to a family event. 

The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/29/afghanistan-live-news-terror-attack-highly-likely-in-next-24-36-hours-says-biden-last-uk-troops-leave-kabul

https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1432082514991009797?s=20

[NOVA Green]

So originally when I first got up this was something I was planning on posting an article I read from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ):

Taliban Move to Ban Opium Production in Afghanistan


Prices of the raw material for heroin soar in anticipation; the group is seeking acceptance from the international community

Taliban leaders, seeking international acceptance after seizing power in Afghanistan, have told farmers to stop cultivating opium poppies, residents of some major poppy-growing areas say. This has caused raw opium prices to soar across the country.

In recent days, Taliban representatives began telling gatherings of villagers in the southern province of Kandahar, one of the country’s main opium-producing regions, that the crop—a crucial part of the local economy—would now be banned.

This followed a statement by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid at an Aug. 18 news conference in Kabul that the country’s new rulers won’t permit the drug trade. Mr. Mujahid at the time didn’t offer details of how the Islamist group intends to enforce the ban.

Local farmers in Kandahar, Uruzgan and Helman provinces said raw opium prices have tripled, from about $70 to about $200 per kilogram, due to uncertainty about future production. In the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif, the opium price has doubled, residents there said. Raw opium is processed into heroin.

The Taliban have long been one of the narcotics industry’s top beneficiaries, using taxation of the drug business to finance their 20-year insurgency, Western governments say. Afghanistan accounts for some 80% of the world’s illicit opiates exports, and the poppy-planting season starts in about a month.

Two decades of U.S. attempts to curb Afghanistan’s drug business have failed, partly due to the huge political cost of alienating Afghan farmers who depend on the poppy crops for their livelihoods.


....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/taliban-afghanistan-heroin-ban-opium-production-11630181316?mod=searchresults_pos1&page=1


Needless to say this is a HUGE deal, in that illicit supplies of Opiates have been causing havoc in Iran & Russia / (Some former Soviet Republics) for quite some time, w/o even going into the dimensions in Pakistan, but ALSO within Afghanistan over the past 20 years from when it was not considered Haram by the TB when they first took power, as opposed to Cannabis & Tobacco.

Opiate addiction in Afghanistan has gone through the roof compared to 1996, so might also net some domestict benefits as well as INTNL.

Still, much of the Talib base in rural Afghanistan when they started to recover ground starting maybe around '05/'06 started as alliances with local impoverished farmers, tribes, etc while drug eradication efforts were aligned with "Anti-Taliban" measures.

Obvious question here is that although the price of Opiates might be going through the roof according to the WSJ in some of the largest metro areas, to what extent will their be effective border controls and/or if TB choose to clamp down, will various other even more handline political-military formations move to guerrilla warfare and protect drug manufacturing outfits for $$$.

Not like this is a new thing if anybody really wants to bring up countries such Columbia for example....