Afghanistan: Street fighting rages as Taliban attack key city

[Solauren]

Alot of the waste can be attributed to a very typical rich American mindset.

"Through money at it until it works".

I'll admit, this does work alot of the time. Provided you have competent, trustworthy people managing the money.

Apparently, trustworthy, competent people were in very short supply in Afganistan. This is not a surprise, since the US was a foreign invader.

More and more, I'm thinking that alot of the US occupation was the Afgan's conning the US out of money and resources. They had to know that the Taliban was just in hiding, and would return the second the US left, and nothing could stop that. So why not get as much from the American as you can in the meantime?

[Vendetta]

Apparently, trustworthy, competent people were in very short supply in Afganistan. This is not a surprise, since the US was a foreign invader.

Remember the administration who launched the invasion?

Do you think trustworthy, competent people were in ample supply among them and their circle of preferred contractors?

Do you think trustworthy, competent people were the point?

This was an unholy marriage of the neoconservative ideology that if you just went and installed liberal market democracy somewhere then it would immediately demonstrate its superiority and supplant whatever was there and naked grift from an administration with deep and abiding ties to the military industrial complex, perpetuated through two further administrations by the underlying assumption that America can't be losing, so you'd better make it look like they weren't at every level of reporting.

[Broomstick]

I think "Darth" Cheney (who, for a brief period of time, literally had no heart - I'm still wondering if he pulled strings to get a transplant) and Rumsfeld both saw an opportunity for military adventure and an opportunity to loot and frankly didn't give a fuck about who got hurt along the way.

I'll just drop a reminder that Rumsfeld was also involved with Vietnam (Secretary of Defense back then, as well as in the early 00's). Wow, both armed conflicts he was involved with turned into epic clusterfucks and retreats/routs. Coincidence?

[Gandalf]

I think "Darth" Cheney (who, for a brief period of time, literally had no heart - I'm still wondering if he pulled strings to get a transplant) and Rumsfeld both saw an opportunity for military adventure and an opportunity to loot and frankly didn't give a fuck about who got hurt along the way.

I'll just drop a reminder that Rumsfeld was also involved with Vietnam (Secretary of Defense back then, as well as in the early 00's). Wow, both armed conflicts he was involved with turned into epic clusterfucks and retreats/routs. Coincidence?

Rumsfeld wasn't made SecDef until November 1975, when the Fall of Saigon was in April 1975. So not much of a coincidence.

For angry Republicans in 2001, Afghanistan was a combination of an easy win for the military, a PR bonanza, a good rush for military contracts, and a chance to road test the Fukuyama on which most of US political class was high. The US had won history where the British and Soviets hadn't, so why not win where they didn't in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires?

[Juubi Karakuchi]

A strange development.

Russia says Afghanistan under the Taliban is better than it was under Ghani

Russia has been fostering closer links with the Taliban for several years in hopes of preventing instability in Central Asia

Celine Wadhera

Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan has praised the Taliban’s conduct, saying that the group – which is still designated a terrorist organisation in Russia – made Kabul “better” than it had been under the Afghan government.

While Dmitry Zhirnov did not yet officially acknowledge the Taliban to be the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, his comments reflect a Russian effort to deepen ties with the Taliban.

Speaking on Moscow’s Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday, Mr Zhirnov said that he was impressed with the Taliban’s “reasonable and business-like” conduct so far.

“The situation is peaceful and good and everything has calmed down in the city,” he said. “The situation in Kabul now under the Taliban is better than it was under Ashraf Ghani.”

After president Ghani fled the country on Sunday, Mr Zhirnov said “the regime fell like a house of cards”.

“There was a feeling of disorder, a power vacuum, and looters came out on the streets.”

He told the radio station that unarmed Taliban units entered Kabul, asking government and US forces to surrender their weapons; later he said that armed units entered the city and imposed a curfew.

He added that schools in Kabul, including those for girls, had started functioning again.

Mr Zhirnov said that he was expecting to hold security talks with the Taliban – who already surrounded the Russian embassy – on Tuesday, adding that the militant group had previously promised to protect Russian diplomats.

President Vladimir Putin’s special representative on Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, said that Moscow had been building ties with the Taliban over the last several years, ties that they hoped would now pay off.

“It’s not for nothing that we’ve been establishing contacts with the Taliban movement for the last seven years,” Mr Kabulov said, also speaking on Ekho Moskvy radio.

“We saw that this force would in the end if not completely come to power would play a leading role in the future of Afghanistan in any case.”

He added that Russia would decide on whether or not to recognise the new Taliban government depending “on the conduct of the new authorities” and “how responsibly they govern the country in the near future”.

Speaking on Russian state television on Monday, Mr Kabulov added: “I have long decided that the Taliban is much more able to reach agreements than the puppet government in Kabul”.

Strengthening ties with the Taliban is an important geopolitical move for Russia, as an unstable Afghanistan risks becoming a launchpad for other extremist groups, enabling instability to spill into Central Asia, Russia’s backyard.

Taliban representatives have been hosted in Russia several times in recent years, and in July it was reported that Russia received assurances from the group that Afghanistan’s northern borders would not be used as a base for attacks on Central Asian states.

This is either empty posturing or a major strategic blunder; depending on whether or not Russia actually follows through.

I can't see Russia's central Asian allies being happy with this. The Taliban has helped Islamist groups that attack them - notably the Tajik Taliban - and is continuing to do so, even giving the aforesaid territory along the Tajik border. All Russia has extracted so far are 'assurances' that this will not happen again.

And if these countries feel that they can't rely on Russia any more, there's always China.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A strange development.

Russia says Afghanistan under the Taliban is better than it was under Ghani

Russia has been fostering closer links with the Taliban for several years in hopes of preventing instability in Central Asia

Celine Wadhera

Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan has praised the Taliban’s conduct, saying that the group – which is still designated a terrorist organisation in Russia – made Kabul “better” than it had been under the Afghan government.

While Dmitry Zhirnov did not yet officially acknowledge the Taliban to be the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, his comments reflect a Russian effort to deepen ties with the Taliban.

Speaking on Moscow’s Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday, Mr Zhirnov said that he was impressed with the Taliban’s “reasonable and business-like” conduct so far.

“The situation is peaceful and good and everything has calmed down in the city,” he said. “The situation in Kabul now under the Taliban is better than it was under Ashraf Ghani.”

After president Ghani fled the country on Sunday, Mr Zhirnov said “the regime fell like a house of cards”.

“There was a feeling of disorder, a power vacuum, and looters came out on the streets.”

He told the radio station that unarmed Taliban units entered Kabul, asking government and US forces to surrender their weapons; later he said that armed units entered the city and imposed a curfew.

He added that schools in Kabul, including those for girls, had started functioning again.

Mr Zhirnov said that he was expecting to hold security talks with the Taliban – who already surrounded the Russian embassy – on Tuesday, adding that the militant group had previously promised to protect Russian diplomats.

President Vladimir Putin’s special representative on Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, said that Moscow had been building ties with the Taliban over the last several years, ties that they hoped would now pay off.

“It’s not for nothing that we’ve been establishing contacts with the Taliban movement for the last seven years,” Mr Kabulov said, also speaking on Ekho Moskvy radio.

“We saw that this force would in the end if not completely come to power would play a leading role in the future of Afghanistan in any case.”

He added that Russia would decide on whether or not to recognise the new Taliban government depending “on the conduct of the new authorities” and “how responsibly they govern the country in the near future”.

Speaking on Russian state television on Monday, Mr Kabulov added: “I have long decided that the Taliban is much more able to reach agreements than the puppet government in Kabul”.

Strengthening ties with the Taliban is an important geopolitical move for Russia, as an unstable Afghanistan risks becoming a launchpad for other extremist groups, enabling instability to spill into Central Asia, Russia’s backyard.

Taliban representatives have been hosted in Russia several times in recent years, and in July it was reported that Russia received assurances from the group that Afghanistan’s northern borders would not be used as a base for attacks on Central Asian states.

This is either empty posturing or a major strategic blunder; depending on whether or not Russia actually follows through.

I can't see Russia's central Asian allies being happy with this. The Taliban has helped Islamist groups that attack them - notably the Tajik Taliban - and is continuing to do so, even giving the aforesaid territory along the Tajik border. All Russia has extracted so far are 'assurances' that this will not happen again.

And if these countries feel that they can't rely on Russia any more, there's always China.

Well China did host several Taliban members several weeks ago, and have been among the first to embrace the new regime.

Apparently that USAF cargo plane that was seen taxiing down the runway with people running alongside it was, according to their conversations with air traffic control, completely packed with some 800 people on board, the reaction of which was amazement they even got off the ground.

[Broomstick]

I believe a later recount of the people actually departing said airplane in Qatar gave a passenger total of 640. Although it is true the pilots gave 800 as an estimate.

[Rogue 9]

The C-17's maximum payload is 170,900 pounds. The plane can carry tanks. If it was 800 people aboard, their average weight would have to be above 200 pounds to give it problems.

[Elfdart]

The Americans have spent twice as much time and I dare not even ask how much more money on this war, and somehow they manage to fuck it up even more spectacularly than Vietnam. Did everyone who learned how not to do this COIN stuff the hard way lose the post-war battle of DoD office politics and get fired or something?

But they did it right this time. Remember, they only lost Vietnam because of hippies, homosexuals, Hollywood/ pop music and Teh Librul Meja. So they took the Dixie Chicks off the radio, purged the media of anyone opposed to "war on terror" (or even those who questioned it), ran ever political campaign around stopping Teh Gayz from getting married or joining the armed forces, and paid off the movie business by providing men and equipment for pro-war movies*. So how could they lose?

* Needless to say, these jingoistic soft-porn flicks invariably sucked. Compare that to Oliver Stone's Platoon and Francis Coppola's Apocalypse Now, which got no help from the Pentagon and are masterpieces. So much for "liberal" Hollywood.

[loomer]

Al-Jazeera's reporting that the protest in Jalalabad's been fired on, so that's not a great sign.

[Broomstick]

The C-17's maximum payload is 170,900 pounds. The plane can carry tanks. If it was 800 people aboard, their average weight would have to be above 200 pounds to give it problems.

Good thing it wasn't a cargoload of average Americans, then!

One potential problem with piling people in like that is that if something happens to shift all their weight to one point it could potentially make the airplane uncontrollable. With airplanes it's not just about total weight, it's also about how it's distributed. That's why when these airplanes carry tanks they're carefully secured in place. When carrying people on the floor like that there are usually straps and hold-ons for the people but I very much doubt there was anything of the sort in place when 600+ rushed the airplane and got on board. That means careful flying and no abrupt maneuvers.

Glad it landed safely.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Well China did host several Taliban members several weeks ago, and have been among the first to embrace the new regime.

True. I may have spoken too soon. That said, I doubt that China is all that invested in the Taliban. What they want is a stable government - that isn't a US ally - that they can do business with, and which will suppress the foreign fighters. Russia and its allies probably want the same. On reflection I don't see either sticking their necks out to protect the Taliban, not against serious internal resistance anyway.

Al-Jazeera's reporting that the protest in Jalalabad's been fired on, so that's not a great sign.

I see three possible explanations. Either the Taliban are two-faced, or they are arguing among themselves, or they've lost control of some of their fighters. False, divided, or weak. None of those bode well for the Taliban's future.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well China did host several Taliban members several weeks ago, and have been among the first to embrace the new regime.

True. I may have spoken too soon. That said, I doubt that China is all that invested in the Taliban. What they want is a stable government - that isn't a US ally - that they can do business with, and which will suppress the foreign fighters. Russia and its allies probably want the same. On reflection I don't see either sticking their necks out to protect the Taliban, not against serious internal resistance anyway.

Al-Jazeera's reporting that the protest in Jalalabad's been fired on, so that's not a great sign.

I see three possible explanations. Either the Taliban are two-faced, or they are arguing among themselves, or they've lost control of some of their fighters. False, divided, or weak. None of those bode well for the Taliban's future.

Well the Taliban claim there won't be reprisals against Afghans who have worked with the west but nobody is buying that the softly-softly approach is anything other than a poorly-executed act so I'd go with the first option, hence the chaos at the airport. At the moment it's in the Taliban's best interest to let all those who wish to leave, to go. Once the Americans and British have finished their evacuations, all that is bound to change.

[Captain Seafort]

I see three possible explanations. Either the Taliban are two-faced, or they are arguing among themselves, or they've lost control of some of their fighters. False, divided, or weak. None of those bode well for the Taliban's future.

If I were a betting man my money would be on option four: all of the above.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Either way this is not good for the Taliban. The warlords will be even less inclined to trust the Taliban's word than they were already. There's also the resistance in Panshir, being led by what's left of the government. It has been speculated that they're holding out for negotiated stake in the system.

Panjshir stands strong’: Afghanistan’s last holdout against the Taliban

Members of collapsed government have vowed to resist the new regime, but can they succeed?

Emma Graham-Harrison
Wed 18 Aug 2021 20.05 BST

When President Ashraf Ghani fled Afghanistan, and the Taliban seized Kabul in a single bloodless day, the country’s long civil war seemed all but over. But within hours a group of fighters and politicians had vowed otherwise, promising to fight back from the last corner of the country not under control of the militant group.

Panjshir valley, north of Kabul in the Hindu Kush, was a resistance stronghold for decades, first against the Soviets in the 1980s, then against the Taliban in the 1990s. It is still dotted with rusting tanks from the fights of those decades.

The vice-president, Amrullah Saleh, who was born and trained to fight there, vowed it will reprise that role, after he declared himself “caretaker” head of state under the constitution the Taliban effectively seemed to have swept aside.

There are many in Afghanistan who hate their new rulers, and the history of the last 20 years serves as a potent reminder that the Taliban should not consider themselves entirely secure just because they now control most of it.

The group were themselves all but destroyed in the wake of the US-led invasion in 2001, before they reformed and fought their way slowly back to power. Part of the movement’s strength was that their austere vision is shared with some in Afghanistan, even as it repels others.

Any long-term resistance movement would draw from the same dynamic. There are many in Afghanistan who may be forced to live under Taliban rule, but will never embrace it.

The last few days have seen protests by women in Kabul, and in defence of the flag of the toppled republic in eastern Afghanistan.

Those people came out into the streets despite the Taliban’s long track record of bloodshed and ruthless suppression of dissent. One person was killed in Jalalabad city when gunmen broke up the group who had taken down the Taliban banner.

Afghanistan’s ambassador to Tajikistan, Lt Gen Zahir Aghbar, a former senior security official before becoming an envoy, promised Panjshir would form a base for those who wanted to fight on. “Panjshir stands strong against anyone who wants to enslave people,” he said.

“I cannot say that the Taliban have won the war. No, it was just Dr Ashraf Ghani who gave up power after treacherous talks with the Taliban,” he told Reuters in an interview.

Videos released on social media appeared to show potential opposition figures gathering in what is now the only province held by Taliban opponents. Defence Minister Gen Bismillah Mohammadi and Ahmad Massoud, the son of assassinated Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, were shown alongside Saleh.

Panjshir’s geography, nestled on the edge of the Himalayas, makes it a natural fortress and for now the Taliban have not attacked it – despite their lighting sweep across Afghanistan and the capture of huge stashes of weapons, ammunitions, vehicles and other military supplies.

That may be because they are focused on structuring their new government after the previous one collapsed so fast it took even the militants by surprise.

But it may also be because the retreat to Panjshir seems – at least for now - as much political as military. The current leaders of the historic anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, who have holed up there and vowed to fight, may be bidding for a stake in the new government as well as planning a guerrilla campaign.

After 20 years leading an insurgency, at least some in the Taliban have admitted the shift to governing a country will be a challenge. There may also be some in the group who recognise that an inclusive government could help them achieve greater legitimacy and something closer to peace.

They have asked the health minister and the mayor of Kabul to stay in office and there are rumours that ex-president Hamid Karzai, currently leading negotiations on the shape of the new government along with former peace envoy Abdullah Abdullah, could be offered a cabinet post.

Aghbar hinted at the options for a deal, saying the Taliban could become part of a coalition government that would represent all Afghan factions if they “let others live in peace and accord”.

If that fails, the option to start fighting again in earnest will still be open, although any anti-Taliban resistance may face more challenges than the group did in its long battle against Kabul and its western allies.

The Taliban had a permanent a base for its leaders to run operations and fighters to rest, across the border in Pakistan. None of Afghanistan’s other neighbours are likely candidates to support an anti-Taliban movement, at least for now.

Panjshir is a fortress, but it is also isolated by its defences, which would make supplying an insurgency a challenge. And perhaps most importantly, the Taliban have funded themselves not only through drugs but covert support from allies including many of America’s regional rivals.

Washington has made clear it is all but walking away from Afghanistan. Saleh and his allies would probably struggle to find significant foreign backing.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... he-taliban

I'm not inclined to write Saleh off as quickly as this article does. It's quite possible that neighbouring governments have helped the Taliban, but their primary goal was almost certainly to get the Americans out. Unless the Taliban can miraculously mutate into a stable and reasonable government - similar to the notion described in the article - and get rid of the foreign fighters, it will have outlived its usefulness. And there are, of course, the warlords; who can clearly see that the Taliban have trouble with both the truth and military discipline.

[Agent Fisher]

I don't think the Pansjir resistance is holding out for a stake in any sort of negotiation. It's being led by the Afghan VP, Saleh, and Ahmad Massoud, the son of the Lion of Pansjir, who got assassinated by the Taliban in '01. Saleh has tweeted that he'll never bow or be under one roof with the Taliab. And Massoud isn't gonna give up the fight.

I've also seen reports that the Northern Alliance flag has been hoisted in Pansjir, and that Afghan Special Forces units that weren't already wiped out, along with scattered Regular Army, are heading into the valley to regroup, but that may just be the rumor mill getting reported.

[Broomstick]

Al-Jazeera's reporting that the protest in Jalalabad's been fired on, so that's not a great sign.

I see three possible explanations. Either the Taliban are two-faced, or they are arguing among themselves, or they've lost control of some of their fighters. False, divided, or weak. None of those bode well for the Taliban's future.

The Taliban were never going to allow public protests. What were those people thinking?

But yes, I also expect they have lost control of some of the fighters because that's a problem every army in every war has to greater or less lesser degree, I expect there's internal arguing, and two-face is still on the table as a possibility.

[loomer]

Looks like the violence against interpreters might have started, but I'm not sure how reliable an account it is. Source

[loomer]

Taliban militants are intensifying a search for people they believe worked with U.S. and NATO forces, including among the crowds of Afghans at Kabul’s airport, and have threatened to kill or arrest their family members if they cannot find them, according to a confidential United Nations document.

The document, from a U.N. threat-assessment adviser, directly contradicted the militant group’s public assurances that it would not seek revenge on members and supporters of the toppled government.

There were multiple reports that the Taliban had a list of people they wanted to question and punish — and their locations, the document said.

Already, the document said, the Taliban had been going door to door and “arresting and/or threatening to kill or arrest family members of target individuals unless they surrender themselves to the Taliban.”

The document, dated Wednesday, was provided to the United Nations by the Norwegian Center for Global Analyses, a group that provides intelligence information to agencies of the global organization. It was shared internally at the United Nations and seen by The New York Times.

Members of the Afghan military and the police, as well as those who worked for investigative units of the toppled government, were particularly at risk, the document said.

It contained a reproduced letter dated Aug. 16 from the Taliban to an unnamed counterterrorism official in Afghanistan who had worked with U.S. and British officials and then gone into hiding before the insurgents came to the official’s apartment.

The letter instructed the official to report to the Military and Intelligence Commission of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Kabul. If not, it warned, the official’s family members “will be treated based on Shariah law.”

The Taliban have repeatedly issued assurances that they will not use their victory to wreak revenge on those who opposed them. The report adds to the growing doubts about that pledge, and suggests that the Taliban may indeed engage in reprisal killings, as they did when they took over in Afghanistan more than 20 years ago.

On Wednesday, a public display of dissent in the northeastern city of Jalalabad was met by force. Taliban soldiers fired into the crowd and beat protesters and journalists.

NYTimes.

While there's an obvious risk of propaganda, this fits with what a bunch of Afghan folks have been saying. While prosecuting collaborators would not be in and of itself objectionable, it both contradicts the amnesty and here comes with a threat of collective punishment. I'm sure Ralin will offer some pissant defence for it (or not, since he has that funny tendency to crawl back into his hole), but collective punishments for someone else's deeds are an ugly and almost entirely indefensible thing. It's also, as it happens, a violation of the Sharia.

[Broomstick]

I've heard that, in an attempt to control crowds around the Kabul airport, some individuals have fired into the air over crowds. Why anyone thinks that would do anything other than induce panic is beyond me, but there it is. The problem is that bullets that go up eventually come down, and when they do people get hurt. It would not surprise me if that sort of thing has happened over the past few days.

It's also possible that some are using the situation to settle personal grudges.

Or the Taliban are colossal asshats and taking an opportunity to shoot at people they don't like.

Or all of the above.

I am this morning wondering if what the Taliban meant when they said "general amnesty" was that they would shoot people dead in the street or engage in summary executions, but that they WOULD in fact eventually arrest and put on trial collaborators.

As for collective punishment and threatening family members - that's a feature of some societies, isn't it? The entire family is held responsible for the misdeeds of one member. Look at what North Korea does with that concept. I agree it's very ugly. It can also be effective in coercing people to do what is wanted.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I don't think the Pansjir resistance is holding out for a stake in any sort of negotiation. It's being led by the Afghan VP, Saleh, and Ahmad Massoud, the son of the Lion of Pansjir, who got assassinated by the Taliban in '01. Saleh has tweeted that he'll never bow or be under one roof with the Taliab. And Massoud isn't gonna give up the fight.

I've also seen reports that the Northern Alliance flag has been hoisted in Pansjir, and that Afghan Special Forces units that weren't already wiped out, along with scattered Regular Army, are heading into the valley to regroup, but that may just be the rumor mill getting reported.

Actually that rings true. Army personnel have good reason to fear Taliban reprisal - judging by their recent behaviour - so they'll likely join up with someone like Saleh if only for protection. The same goes for warlords. The wikipedia article on this conflict cited a Financial Times article (unfortunately paywalled) which claimed that in many cases, regular troops were more loyal to local leaders - due to ethnic, tribal, or even family ties, or other reasons - and so stood down after said leaders cut deals with the Taliban. If so, a lot of regular troops could now be working for warlords; once again, if only for a measure of protection.

While there's an obvious risk of propaganda, this fits with what a bunch of Afghan folks have been saying. While prosecuting collaborators would not be in and of itself objectionable, it both contradicts the amnesty and here comes with a threat of collective punishment. I'm sure Ralin will offer some pissant defence for it (or not, since he has that funny tendency to crawl back into his hole), but collective punishments for someone else's deeds are an ugly and almost entirely indefensible thing. It's also, as it happens, a violation of the Sharia.

And all the more reason for Afghans not to trust the Taliban. If it cannot keep promises such as this, then why should any of its promises be believed? This will make it all the harder for the Taliban to keep control, for anyone with any clout will be demanding bigger and bigger concessions, and ever tougher guarantees, before agreeing to anything. And getting warlords and local factions to disarm will be all the harder. Their weapons and militias are their only security now.

I've heard that, in an attempt to control crowds around the Kabul airport, some individuals have fired into the air over crowds. Why anyone thinks that would do anything other than induce panic is beyond me, but there it is. The problem is that bullets that go up eventually come down, and when they do people get hurt. It would not surprise me if that sort of thing has happened over the past few days.

It's also possible that some are using the situation to settle personal grudges.

Or the Taliban are colossal asshats and taking an opportunity to shoot at people they don't like.

Or all of the above.

I am this morning wondering if what the Taliban meant when they said "general amnesty" was that they would shoot people dead in the street or engage in summary executions, but that they WOULD in fact eventually arrest and put on trial collaborators.

As for collective punishment and threatening family members - that's a feature of some societies, isn't it? The entire family is held responsible for the misdeeds of one member. Look at what North Korea does with that concept. I agree it's very ugly. It can also be effective in coercing people to do what is wanted.

And again, the Taliban are ruining what reputation they had. Those Afghans who hated the government, and desperately hoped that maybe, just maybe, the Taliban can fix things, are now seeing the truth. The Taliban are breaking their promises, gunning down protestors, and have also declared that there will be no democracy, because it is apparently un-Afghan.

On top of that, various reports are stating that the US government has frozen Afghanistan's overseas assets; while donors are either cutting Afghanistan off or threatening to do so. So bribery is not going to be an option. One wonders how they will keep the warlords on side for much longer.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So they're not even waiting for the last plane to leave before reprisals begin? Why am I not surprised?

More detailed info on that flight.

[Broomstick]

Having had some time to ponder things I wonder if part of the problem is a failure to understand a different world view combined with language/translation problems.

When the Taliban say "we will restore law and order" I'm pretty sure what they mean by that and what Westerners hear are two different things. The Taliban mean their law and order, by their methods. They do NOT mean a Western-style legal system, not at all.

Gun down people protesting the new government? Of course - because the Taliban believe they have divine sanction and thus opposing the rule of the Taliban is to oppose the will of God. And the population does NOT have a right to either public assembly or protest or freedom of speech or religion or anything of the sort in TalibanLand. People engaging in a public protest in the streets are breaking the law, opposing the will of God, and NOT behaving in a lawful or orderly manner. So the Taliban restore order, by Taliban methods. Which, by our standards, is brutal.

Same thing when they say they'll respect women's rights. They'll respect the rights of women under their system, not ours.

Forgot religious tolerance. Any Muslim not toeing the line in their view is a heretic, or at least not doing Islam correctly, and needs to be brought to heel. Anyone not Muslim? At best second class citizenship. At best. At worst execution.

General amnesty? I think they mean "we won't gun you down in the street like a dog". I think they find it expedient to let the foreigners leave of their own accord, and as many collaborators as can go with them, but after that I think there will be arrests, "interrogations", prosecutions, and penalties for any who remain.

Oh sure, they seem to be mostly leaving the airport alone... but they never said they would make it easy to GET TO the airport. Their law and order seems to involve tight controls over the streets and who moves through them and when. So... IF you can get to the airport you're free to go if some other nation will take you, but good luck getting to the airport.

I don't think the Taliban have actually lied, or if they have it's been by omission and maybe not even that. I do think that the West tends to hear what it wants to hear and doesn't do a very good job of actually listening to what's being said, or considering context.

[loomer]

Well, I don't think anyone was expecting them to introduce a Western model or to actually uphold the amnesty, but I also don't think it's as much a matter of simple misunderstanding as that. They've had thirty years of dealing with Western audiences, backers, and interferers, and the idea of an amnesty is not only familiar from the times it was tried, but has huge precedents in both Islamic jurisprudence and Pashtun traditions. They want to be seen as reasonable to ease the transition and prevent an immediate resumption of hostilities, so they're saying the right words without the intent to actually follow them up, not simply misunderstanding them.

They tortured and murdered nine Hazara people last month. Go on, Ralin. Tell us how this is just an isolated incident and how the Hazara have nothing to fear. Meanwhile, my country is sitting on its arse refusing to even consider helping most of those who need it, because Australia is a fucking nightmare country that will allow Mr Potatohead to torture children. We had an evacuation flight come back with just 26 people on it - a C-130J, which has a rated capacity for 128 and can fit more in a pinch - while refusing to even allow our allies to put their own citizens on it, because boy, we're just really good at being human beings. Just so fucking good at being human beings.

[wautd]

@Broomstick I agree completely with your last post. I never really was optimistic when the Taliban was taking over, and news of them committing atrocities and murders are starting to come out, so their media charm offensive only lasted a very short while.
I'm just depressed when you check some social media (comments sections on Facebook or YouTube) that there are a lot of people who at best are naïve about the Taliban, or have a short term memory where they forgot or are ignorant about the Taliban in the past.
Or worse, actually are saying that the Taliban are the good guys*. Radical/fundamentalist Islamic fascism appears to be stronger than ever

* The elected government was corrupt but come on. Nothing new elections couldn't fix. That doesn't mean that genocidal religious extremists would be a better alternative