Afghan government collapse.

[jaichind]

I assume one of the first acts of the new Taliban regime is to rename Hamid Karzai International Airport with ex-Prez Hamid Karzai being a old bitter enemy of the Taliban.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Ghani's tweet suggests to me that he's going to set up some form of government in exile.

I struggle to see this having credibility given the manner of his defeat.

[2952-0-0]

The Taliban haven't renamed Kabul as "Mullah Omar City" yet.

The west will have to give the Taliban a degree of legitimacy very soon. Anything should be done to convince them to allow the departure of Afghans who worked for western powers.

[Crumpets]

I assume one of the first acts of the new Taliban regime is to rename Hamid Karzai International Airport with ex-Prez Hamid Karzai being a old bitter enemy of the Taliban.

What are we thinking, Mullah Omar International Airport?

[jaichind]

I assume one of the first acts of the new Taliban regime is to rename Hamid Karzai International Airport with ex-Prez Hamid Karzai being a old bitter enemy of the Taliban.

What are we thinking, Mullah Omar International Airport?

That will be a good test of the new Taliban regime.  They claimed  that they are not out for revenge.  Calling it  Mullah Omar International Airport would be revenge.  They should just push the non-political line and call it Kabul International Airport and say something like there is no room for personality cult in land where everyone is below God and the Prophet.

[The Mikado]

I assume one of the first acts of the new Taliban regime is to rename Hamid Karzai International Airport with ex-Prez Hamid Karzai being a old bitter enemy of the Taliban.

What are we thinking, Mullah Omar International Airport?

Maybe make it more generic. Emir Al-Mu'minin International Airport. Commander of the Faithful is a title that COULD refer to Mullah Muhammad Omar, or it could refer to the present leader of the Taliban, or it could refer to Emir Dost Muhammad, the 19th century leader who drove out the Brits in the First Anglo-Afghan War whom Omar took his title in commemoration of.

It keeps things nice and ambiguous, like naming something "Royal" or "Presidential."

[President Johnson]

Looks like all NATO partners will withdraw their entire personell and other citizens. After scheduled for Monday, Germany immediately starts pulling people out. France and Italy do so as well.

German news media earlier reported that the Taliban promised to allow foreigners leave Afghanistan safely.

https://twitter.com/Dana_Regev/status/1426971898752245769

[Mr. Morden]

The best way to avoid Afghanistan ‘lapsing back into a breeding ground for terror’ would be to recognise the new government.

It sounds like Johnson is saying that there isn't really a "new government" yet, as such, and that the international community can maximize what little leverage it has by holding off on recognizing a new government until we see what shape such a government will have.

[jaichind]

This was an amazing run the Taliban had in what is really a political victory.  What the Taliban seems to have done to a massive leveraged political buyout in a recursive process of bigger and bigger buyouts. What they seems to have done is to make deals with various tribal leaders for them to defect to Taliban.  Then they levered that into bigger deals with higher level government commanders by convincing them that the Taliban could win and they better be on the right side.  These defections in term really created the impression of an unstoppable Taliban which turn allowed for even bigger deals with even higher level military and political leaders (like governors and army corp commanders.)  All this then ended up with the unilateral surrender of Kabul.  This entire process did involve some fighting but they were minor compared to the scale of territories that changed hands to Taliban.   

[lfromnj]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AstorAaron/status/1426955489427009541

Basically American Generals are reading too much DiAngelo and not enough Mao.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-joint-chiefs-chairman-critical-race-theory-congress/2021/06/23/84654c34-d451-11eb-9f29-e9e6c9e843c6_story.html

(Yes I know White Rage isn't DiAngelo but Milley is a complete idiot)

[NOVA Green]

This was an amazing run the Taliban had in what is really a political victory.  What the Taliban seems to have done to a massive leveraged political buyout in a recursive process of bigger and bigger buyouts. What they seems to have done is to make deals with various tribal leaders for them to defect to Taliban.  Then they levered that into bigger deals with higher level government commanders by convincing them that the Taliban could win and they better be on the right side.  These defections in term really created the impression of an unstoppable Taliban which turn allowed for even bigger deals with even higher level military and political leaders (like governors and army corp commanders.)  All this then ended up with the unilateral surrender of Kabul.  This entire process did involve some fighting but they were minor compared to the scale of territories that changed hands to Taliban.   

This appears be an accurate reflection...

Here are a few MSM articles which explore this topic in greater detail:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/world/asia/afghanistan-rapid-military-collapse.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/15/afghanistan-military-collapse-taliban/

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

That will be a good test of the new Taliban regime.  They claimed  that they are not out for revenge.  Calling it  Mullah Omar International Airport would be revenge.  They should just push the non-political line and call it Kabul International Airport and say something like there is no room for personality cult in land where everyone is below God and the Prophet.

I can see it now: "Prophet Mohamed International Airport"

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This was an amazing run the Taliban had in what is really a political victory.  What the Taliban seems to have done to a massive leveraged political buyout in a recursive process of bigger and bigger buyouts. What they seems to have done is to make deals with various tribal leaders for them to defect to Taliban.  Then they levered that into bigger deals with higher level government commanders by convincing them that the Taliban could win and they better be on the right side.  These defections in term really created the impression of an unstoppable Taliban which turn allowed for even bigger deals with even higher level military and political leaders (like governors and army corp commanders.)  All this then ended up with the unilateral surrender of Kabul.  This entire process did involve some fighting but they were minor compared to the scale of territories that changed hands to Taliban.   

That is exactly what happened. It is also pretty similar to a significant degree to how the USA took over Afghanistan from the Taliban in the first place in 2001!

[Joe Haydn]

That will be a good test of the new Taliban regime.  They claimed  that they are not out for revenge.  Calling it  Mullah Omar International Airport would be revenge.  They should just push the non-political line and call it Kabul International Airport and say something like there is no room for personality cult in land where everyone is below God and the Prophet.

I can see it now: "Prophet Mohamed International Airport"

Wouldn't that be idolatry?

[WMS]

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Reasonable chance that there is - at least for a time - a bizarre echo of Afghanistan's situation after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, with Pakistan taking the place of the Raj and setting Afghanistan's foreign policy for it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yeah, as long as Pakistan was providing aid and support to the Taliban the 2% chance of things working out was cut in half.

Once we evacuate everyone we should evacuate - as many Afghans as we can - and leave entirely, can we at least cut off all aid to those treacherous Pakistani snakes?

Pakistan's position is more or less delicate management of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations (a good offense is the best defense) through any means it feels are necessary, even if that means getting one's hands messy and doing things that might look hard to justify to an outward observer.
Not that I expected anything besides misinformed views from most Americans on this issue.
Reality tends to be nuanced. Pakistan is in a tough neighborhood. I suggest you read up on the history of the Durand Line and consider the difficulties Pakistan's geography presents.

Hold on there, are you justifying the actions of the Pakistani government as a whole and the ISI in particular in Afghanistan? Because they have indirectly and directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and many, many more Afghanis of all stripes. Those are the actions of a hostile power, not one the U.S. should be giving aid to.
I know damn well about Pakistani geography issues. There were plenty of articles about Pakistani needs for strategic depth versus India as well as the artificial nature of the border with Afghanistan. I can see their desire for a friendly power in Afghanistan.
But Pakistan didn’t have to choose to support the most brutal and extreme Afghani factions, now did they? They chose to support Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and then the Taliban. They chose to give aid and refuge to both the Taliban and Al-Qaida. They chose to send their own military against Ahmad Shah Massoud, the one Afghani leader who actually wanted something better for the Afghani people.
As long as the U.S. was dependent on the logistical supply chain through Pakistan little could be done about any of this. But that’s coming to an end.
So why in the hell should the U.S. give a penny to Pakistan after they leave the region? They’re not even our ally, but China’s!
A lot of people on this forum want the U.S. to cut ties with Saudi Arabia. There’s at least as good of a case to do so with Pakistan.

I didn't say Pakistan's doings are wholly justified or even necessarily smart (their track record of doing good things for Afghanistan is no better than that of the British). But to treat Pakistan as if it is a hostile actor is oversimplifying things to an insulting degree, given the fact that either way they would have an Afghanistan that would be a uncertain place for them. Additionally, it is an utter oversimplification to say they chose to do X and Y. What's new under the sun? A lot of decisions - choices - are made by states in the belief, correct or otherwise, that it will help their strategic interests. The US has a right to make those kinds of decisions, the Russians do, the Indians and Pakistanis do, etc. And those choices need to be understood in context, in the moment. Far from all these decisions are justified but they are both a normal part of statecraft and not in and of themselves justification for such outrage.

The ISI's decisions are comparable in rationale and context to the actions taken by Chinese states over the centuries to involve themselves in the affairs of so-called barbarians. Afghanistan is a wild, untamed land, a black hole of sorts where money comes in and seems to disappear. It is among the most militarily weak corners of the globe yet among the hardest to govern. Pakistan doesn't have a choice - the Taliban and related groups will always be knocking, just as there always would be nomads menacing or harming China somehow. So they feel that trying to pick winners (so that those winners will have something to owe them hopefully) is a worthy enterprise. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. ISI has no real obligation to put the interests of the people of Afghanistan above the interests of Pakistan or even consider it a strong factor in their decisionmaking. ISI works first and foremost for its interests and secondly for the welfare of Pakistan. The same goes for Indian intelligence agencies and Afghan ones, which probably are all involved in much the same kinds of clandestine activities. The game is innately "dirty". But what's new?

Deaths from terror attacks in Pakistan are declining and have been doing so for years, and it is clear there is some success on that front. Pakistan, much like the US, has been trying to pay down a bill it incurred for the way it saw off the Soviet threat (the greatest triumph in the history of the American-Pakistani relationship thus far). In this context Pakistan is a vital working partner that we need to cultivate, and Pakistan is an important player close to sea lanes (vital for US strategic interests) and Central Asia (an area where we need to try to counter Russian influence). We should wish Pakistan success in reducing, over time, the number of their citizenry whose lives are claimed by terrorism; they would do the same for us if asked.

I don't favor the zeroing out of aid to nations on this basis, aid is a basic thing to give to solidify a working relationship on a given issue, and nations work with each other on various things both military and civilian. Anger and high-and-mighty feelings of superiority makes for ruin in the long term and wastes resources. It reeks of the arrogance that costed us an easy win in Afghanistan, and can only harm the nation in the long run. Pakistan has its own interests, so do we, many of those overlap, but also many do not. And their intelligence agencies do try to help those interests, doing an imperfect but not completely terrible job. So do ours as well. And maintenance of those interests are key for national prosperity and thus the lot of every citizen. Is that too hard for you to understand? I hope not.

The "zero out aid for X and Y and Z" crowd either doesn't know foreign policy well, or is  careless on foreign policy, or both. Thankfully the people actually in charge are not often from their ranks.

In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. has just suffered a major international defeat. A monumental humanitarian crisis is unfolding. And the foreign power most responsible for this is Pakistan. And you want to explain that away as just a normal day in statecraft that the U.S. shouldn’t get too upset about.

I am treating Pakistan as a hostile actor because that is exactly how they have acted. This isn’t some minor kerfluffle about some border post being moved ten feet. This isn’t some case of diplomats dueling with briefcases at dawn over the exact wording of Subparagraph 57-L in Section 66 of the Fourth Appendix of a Mohair Agreement. This is actively assisting in a U.S. strategic defeat.

You keep on talking about how Pakistani interests in Afghanistan explain their actions there. I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing with the idea that the U.S. should continue to treat Pakistan the same way as if nothing has happened.

Gee, “major non-NATO allies” should, perhaps, act as allies? Is that too hard for you to understand? I hope not.

Once the U.S. is fully out of Afghanistan what interests do we have in Pakistan? What interests do we have there that justify continuing to fund a government, military, and intelligence service that hates the U.S. and acts against U.S. interests whenever possible? What is so goddamned important that the very idea of the U.S. doing anything to Pakistan is so opposed by you? That’s what countries do to each other in geopolitics in pursuit of their interests as you have gone on and on about. Why is it okay for Pakistan to act against the United States and not okay for the United States to act against Pakistan? What is driving this double standard of yours?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AstorAaron/status/1426955489427009541
Basically American Generals are reading too much DiAngelo and not enough Mao.

This has less to do with CRT/political correctness/the scare of the week and more to do with the natsec blob being predisposed to producing favourable metrics regarding their progress in Afghanistan. At some point in the process, there has been dishonesty as well as ignorance.

[Splash]

What a disaster.

https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1427002551858311173

[H. Ross Peron]

This is so heartbreaking to me. Biden campaigned as a moderate but on this issue he tried to pander to the anti-war left too much and rushed America's withdrawal from Afghanistan. This is so embarrassing, an unmitigated disaster.

One thing is clear though, the Afghan "army" are some of the the most useless army ever.

Biden didnt end the war because of DSA and left wing podcasters calling him an imperialist murderer. Normie Democrats such as unionized schoolteachers and black church ladies oppose the war now or at the very least could care less.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If we're talking about lies told by American politicians, military figures and diplomats, then the biggest is actually the idea that the situation coming to a close was a singular war in which American soldiers were fighting toe-to-toe against ferocious Taliban militiamen every day. Easier to sell than terms like 'military occupation', particularly given American self-image. Of course this linguistic dishonesty ended up backfiring rather badly.

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1426989373329973253

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

What a disaster.

https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1427002551858311173

Looks like it is literally from a disaster movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8i6LojvpE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcubpWgI_dg

[Filuwaúrdjan]

By the way, the massacres, executions, lynchings and rapes (including of children) have already started. Worse in some parts of the country than others - very bad in Kandahar it seems. It isn't clear quite how centrally directed this is, but certainly no one towards the top of the Taliban is stopping it.

[_.]

By the way, the massacres, executions, lynchings and rapes (including of children) have already started. Worse in some parts of the country than others - very bad in Kandahar it seems. It isn't clear quite how centrally directed this is, but certainly no one towards the top of the Taliban is stopping it.

You have that backwards. Bacha Bazi became common again (and has been common for the last two decades) after the Taliban fell because the new American-aligned Kabul government allowed for it, while it was previously having been banned by the Taliban. Wealthy corrupt pedophilic warlords had too much influence in the new bureaucracy.

You can see why Afghans detest the Kabul regime so much


While the Taliban isn't a good thing, the American-backed Kabul regime hasn't performed very well either.
We can't pretend that Afghanistan was on track to be a developed country in 2025 (despite the trillions spent there).

[_.]

What is the plan to get Afghan refugees out of Kabul now that the Taliban has effectively taken over?

This should be paramount and Biden definitely should've planned his withdrawal better to allow for refugees to enter the United States.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ghani's tweet suggests to me that he's going to set up some form of government in exile.

I struggle to see this having credibility given the manner of his defeat.

If anything, it might help the Taliban to have the hated old government to keep attacking.