Poll: Will the Taliban regain power after the US "leaves"?

[Insight]

"Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs - among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base."

This report was from 2012, it is now 2015, with US troops on the way out, so consider that.

Rolling Stones fortunately published the full PDF report, and you can click on the link within the article to open the full report. I have posted the Rolling Stones article below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/army-colonel-challenges-pentagons-afghanistan-claims.html?_r=0

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-afghanistan-report-the-pentagon-doesnt-want-you-to-read-20120210

[Insight]

How can one have an election with foreign troops on the ground. Thats like having an election here in America with Chinese troop presence. Like Americans will sit still for that and accept it.

Its astounding to me how Pro-War ideologues still refuse to believe that Obama has decided on full US withdrawal, when they were so eager to believe that the US would stay after signing the SPA in 2012 with Karzai. This is called a convenient approach. First, when US made clear they wanted to stay, these types cheered this as truth and the reality. Now when US decides on exiting, these same types say this is a lie!!! lol they want to have it both ways!

[khushal]

They believe, it just that they want war to last as long as possible because it is how they make a living by prolonging the suffering of the poor and the helpless.

[Bengal_Tiger]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]

Thanks for your message on my visitor wall.

I didn't want to say it there because I feel it would be inappropriate to respond to a nice gesture like that by talking about formatting, but I'll do it here as the forum threads are where all the hurly-burly of "robust discussion" take place.

Yes, it'll be great to hear what you have to say and of course you have insights which I don't.

The only thing I request is formatting please I find reading your posts difficult at times e.g. you quote someone's comment and within the same quotation box you put your comments in bold whilst theirs is in regular font. That's not that bad but you also add other stuff later on and I just get confused and lose track. It's happened with other discussions of yours with others where I quickly chose not to read (the forum is after all just a leisure activity for us).

Hope that's ok and looking forward to your reply.

Manana

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali

Thanks for your kind words about Bangladesh and you welcoming my presence here is in stark contrast to a certain Arab (Yemeni to be precise) who is on this forum, discouraging non-Pashtun Muslims from contributing.


1. In terms of quoting people, that was a general comment not to give too much authority to "experts" (so-called).

As I said I'm not an expert on Afghanistan so can't say either way what is happening.


2. In terms of trusting ground sources, what I mean basically is the following.

There is an almost religious-like fundamentalist belief amongst some (including one or two in this forum) in the unquestionable truth of the "mainstream western media" and that if anyone questions their narrative or quotes from sources which disagree (no matter how much laden with actual facts) then he is a "conspiracy theorist", with connotations of being quasi-mad, irrational and quasi-radical.

Some of these connotations are not intended, but are subconscious.

The western media have an agenda and despite the false claims of them being free and fair they are connected to the establishments that rule the west and provide a narrative that supports the western agenda.

This sometimes includes dehumanizing people and casting them as units in a wider religious/ethnic community rather than the complex, multi-faceted reality of their individuality and often their general inherent human desire to live in peace.



Example. In place X in the middle east the media will say "so-and-so" is Sunni, "so-and-so" is a Shia. The viewer is led to believe these are people who hate all members of the opposite sect and will thus kill, they won't be shown the reality that most people (even in the middle east, and I'm not a fan of Arabs) want to live in peace.

There are simplified narratives presented e.g. "Yemen = Shia-Sunni conflict".

Nonsense, the Zaydi are hardly standard 12er Shia (though the Jarudiya strain within them are quite close to 12er Shias and are hostile to Abu Bakr and Umar) and most pray in Sunni mosques and vice versa. However in the western media the conflict in Yemen is portrayed as some sort of eternal conflict of hatred between two Shia and Sunni communities who loathe each other and live separately in an apartheid style situation.

Nonsense.

Anyway enough ranting from me, but the point is I would trust an Afghan who knows Afghanistan better than some western journalist who has a superficial understanding of Afghanistan and can't even speak Pashto or Dari.

Often western propaganda hides the true feelings and narratives of ordinary people.

Now there may be different types of Afghans, pro-Kabul, pro-Taliban, neutral, mixed etc.

However they have far more authority to speak on these issues than some Farangai western journalist, especially if they are ordinary civilians not affiliated to any political group or ideology.


Anyway I might have not made myself clear and am just rambling on and being long-winded but I've made some attempt to address some of your points, albeit maybe not as comprehensively and systematically as you may have wished.


As a foreigner who doesn't know about Afghanistan, I have some questions for you.

My questions

1. If the Kabul government has been democratically elected by the people how can Afghanistan be "occupied"?

Even if you argue that the elections are not legitimate or fair, what if hypothetically we knew that the majority of people in Afghanistan support the Ghani/Abdullah government and Kabul, then how can Afghanistan be "occupied"?

If it is not under occupation but under a popular government (albeit supported by foreign troops just as US troops are in Germany, Japan, South Korea etc) isn't armed opposition to it thus illegitimate?

Aren't the Taliban "terrorists"?

On social media, the vast majority of Afghans seem to be anti-Taliban



2. The goal of the people of Afghanistan is to live peacefully, happily and dignity in an independent Afghanistan.


Now isn't the issue of governance and how to make the lives of Afghanistan, very fundamental to any group striving to gain power?

What is the point of them trying to capture power if they have no vision of how they will make people's lives better?

The Taliban/"resistance" must have a programme for the Afghan people on all these points.

- How will they give them jobs?
- How will they give them good quality schools?
- How will they make them enjoy a better standard of living e.g. Iphones, cars and other consumer goods which everyone in the world has.

Is it wrong for Afghan citizens to want to have Iphones, cars, consumer goods which all of us in this forum enjoy?




Do the Taliban/"resistance" have any positive programme of their own besides just killing Muslim Afghan soldiers in the ANA (and also the Americans) and capturing power?

Why is it that the Taliban are prepared to kill Muslim Afghans but show utmost respect for Turkish soldiers?

Are Turkish lives more sacred than Afghan lives?

Link

I am genuinely interested.



To summarize, is Afghanistan really "occupied" when the government there has arguably (though you may despite this) received the democratic mandate of the Afghan people, and what will the Taliban do to make the lives of the Afghan people better or do they just want to enforce the backwards rule of the 1990s, or some sort of ISIS-type state?

Will answer one question a day to make sure I give it proper time.

1. If the Kabul government has been democratically elected by the people how can Afghanistan be "occupied"?

Even if you argue that the elections are not legitimate or fair, what if hypothetically we knew that the majority of people in Afghanistan support the Ghani/Abdullah government and Kabul, then how can Afghanistan be "occupied"?

If it is not under occupation but under a popular government (albeit supported by foreign troops just as US troops are in Germany, Japan, South Korea etc) isn't armed opposition to it thus illegitimate?

I disagree with any legitimate vote occurring under the auspices of of foreign troops that, as Jeremy Scahill has shown in Dirty Wars in Gardez, or Gopal in his vivid description of the murder or Malik Burget Khan Ishaqzai:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1759...an_blackwater/

are marauding and breaking down Afghan doors with impugnity. This is not to say that Afghans would all vote in an idealistic fashion for any one candidate, whether he be religious or irreligious, etc. Any true blooded Pashtun with village roots knows that politics is local. People will have deep respect for a particular politician who derives from their village more than they do Karzai or Omar or Ghani. If that particular landed or wealthy patron switches sides or parties, he generally carries a lot of the village with him or her.

Additionally, the presence of the occupying powers has been used to influence and force Afghans to pass laws or veto local council decisions because media attention hi-lited some particular issue. Instead, Afghans should have the right to evolve their systems of laws/ideologies locally and nationally without the destabilizing and forced hand of an outsider.

On a moral level, the concept of a vote occurring when a significant number of Afghans with ideologies and actions that run counter to the occupying force cannot sit or run safely in said election automatically ipso facto makes it null and void. The same would go for the Iraqi election. Until to some degree Saddam's name could be on the ballot, that election is a farcical one (I have no love for that man, but am providing an example).

Furthermore, the alterations and insurbordination to some mythical agreed upon constitution that suddenly created a chief executive position due to Abdullah outright losing, and the foreign powers diluting the power of Ghani by not backing the the President's executive role of enforcing law and adherence to said constitution more than proves that Kharij are the Svengali to the expatriot/emigre monstrosity called a "central government."

To further buttress my claims, you can see how dysfunctional and nonfunctional this has become:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32196037

The Title of that article?

Afghan Elections: One year on and still no government

On 5 April 2014 voters went to the polls in a carnival atmosphere, despite heavy rain. But more than two-thirds of cabinet posts are still unfilled.

She said that the problems began when the international community persuaded Ghani to share power with Abdullah Abdullah, the opponent he narrowly defeated in a contested election.

Since both men have two deputies, there are six separate powerbases to satisfy in making appointments.
"Two different mentalities, how can they work under the same umbrella?," she asked.
Since there are no political parties in Afghanistan, a country where patronage is the main driver of power, the jockeying for position has gone on.

So im summary, I think that Afghans have every right to oust/not elect/not support Taliban, but this has nothing to do with the fact that an foreign occupier force that has a proven history of aggressive night raids and atrocities being present in the country (and re-initiating those raids under Ghani) renders any and every election illegitimate.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]

Thanks for your message on my visitor wall.

I didn't want to say it there because I feel it would be inappropriate to respond to a nice gesture like that by talking about formatting, but I'll do it here as the forum threads are where all the hurly-burly of "robust discussion" take place.

Yes, it'll be great to hear what you have to say and of course you have insights which I don't.

The only thing I request is formatting please I find reading your posts difficult at times e.g. you quote someone's comment and within the same quotation box you put your comments in bold whilst theirs is in regular font. That's not that bad but you also add other stuff later on and I just get confused and lose track. It's happened with other discussions of yours with others where I quickly chose not to read (the forum is after all just a leisure activity for us).

Hope that's ok and looking forward to your reply.

Manana

Sorry about formatting - I am not sure how to solve this. Will do my best to give a clean presentation but I type rapidly and sort of type at the speed I would talk and focus on getting my thought on the page more than the presentation aspect (but I agree both are important).

[Bengal_Tiger]

Instead, Afghans should have the right to evolve their systems of laws/ideologies locally and nationally without the destabilizing and forced hand of an outsider.

On a moral level, the concept of a vote occurring when a significant number of Afghans with ideologies and actions that run counter to the occupying force cannot sit or run safely in said election automatically ipso facto makes it null and void. The same would go for the Iraqi election. Until to some degree Saddam's name could be on the ballot, that election is a farcical one (I have no love for that man, but am providing an example).

Furthermore, the alterations and insurbordination to some mythical agreed upon constitution that suddenly created a chief executive position due to Abdullah outright losing, and the foreign powers diluting the power of Ghani by not backing the the President's executive role of enforcing law and adherence to said constitution more than proves that Kharij are the Svengali to the expatriot/emigre monstrosity called a "central government."

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]

Sorry for my delay.

This is the first time I read this.

Thanks for your response.

As I've said before and will say again a guest has to display the utmost sensitivity in dealing with issues of a foreign country, and I do not want to offend anyone.

I have to be honest, yes your reply and the part I've highlighted is something that NATO or others will have to answer.

How can an election be called legitimate if the people do not have complete choice for who they want to vote including those who are opposed to by the "foreign security/occupying" (depending on one's POV) forces?

There really isn't much I can say to that.

Yes.

So if the possible negotiations between Ghani and the Taliban do ever come in to fruition and then they have elections agreed on by all parties the subsequent government (elected by the people with all major parties e.g. Taliban, non-Taliban) would be legitimate in your eyes?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]

Sorry for my delay.

This is the first time I read this.

Thanks for your response.

As I've said before and will say again a guest has to display the utmost sensitivity in dealing with issues of a foreign country, and I do not want to offend anyone.

I have to be honest, yes your reply and the part I've highlighted is something that NATO or others will have to answer.

How can an election be called legitimate if the people do not have complete choice for who they want to vote including those who are opposed to by the "foreign security/occupying" (depending on one's POV) forces?

There really isn't much I can say to that.

Yes.

So if the possible negotiations between Ghani and the Taliban do ever come in to fruition and then they have elections agreed on by all parties the subsequent government (elected by the people with all major parties e.g. Taliban, non-Taliban) would be legitimate in your eyes?

Bengal Tiger,

Our Pashtun society has its delicate balances. In the kalaay under optimal conditions there is the role of the prominent people (i.e. sometimes its the folks with wealth, hereditary popularity, etc), average people, and the religious tint of course. The closest comparison I can come up with is a feudal system historically, but there are differences because each man has some degree of pride.

Each of these players represents to some extent, a piece of this puzzle. I am not a huge fan of the monarchy era since the royal family may have leaned on the tribes when it was convenient for them... but otherwise did nothing productive for Pashto or Pashtuns. However, one thing that was reasonable in that time period was that the culture was not put upon, or pushed by force. Amanullah may have had the zeal of independence and may have wanted advancement and a strong nation amongst the world's nations but the more crafty Nadir and his son understood just how much you could lean on the people before you instigated a bad response.

Under that situation urban centers began to develop and the rural urban exchange began to occur where people from various provinces and even from across the border in tribal areas began to crowd to the cities for education, etc. And in this context, families became mixed - comprised of rural religious people and educated people with a variety of ideas... and they had to sort of tolerate each other which was good.

The religious establishment even had some cherished memories of that relatively balanced era. Abdul Salaam Zaeef himself admits:

Zahir Shah the Pashtun King who ruled from 1933 to 1973, was still on the throne, and the country was peaceful. Under his reign students flocked to the universities and foreign tourists travelled throughout the country. Fate had withheld its judgement: the government was strong and the people were content.

Here is a link to his autobio by the way that was published by Columbia:

http://www.kalamullah.com/my-life-with-the-taliban.html

So then these elites like Qayum Karzai et al fled the nation during the subsequent wars and times of turmoil. In that era, some of them like Habibullah Karzai became gunrunners and financiers and middle men in power centers like Quetta.

At the time not a one said that the War against Russia was wrong or bad or "not the fight that need to be had." It is only recently that Hamid Karzai and others have begun to revisit history and state things reflective of the Nationalists across the way, saying things like "we should never have fought Russia." At the time, he was more than happy to collaborate with Hekmetyar et al. The embarrassing thing is that they in their own times referred to these rough handed tribal derived men who fought in the front lines as their heroes, but when it was convenient for them or when they saw $$$ coming their way - suddenly they labeled themselves as anti soviet resistance and labeled all of these old friends of theirs as proxies or brigands or terrorists.

All of this is to point out that the three power centers of the kalaay:
1.) Prominent people
2.) The denizens
3.) The malangaan and religiously zealous people

Were in a homeostatic balance of sorts. Due to the government not directly attacking the role of any of the three components of actively suppressing any of the three components, a fragile harmony permitted the development my family saw and that Zaeef admitted to above.

Beneath the surface though, the policies of accepting outside development and playing off both super powers was beginning to create an intelligentsia amongst all the three power centers that would result in that fragile balance being devastated. This in turn resulted in reactionaryism and set back the clock a century or more.

I tend to be harsher on power center 1) above because I think that with position and knowledge come responsibility... education should help one understand their people and not push them toward selfish aggrandizement and secondary gain (current governance) or cause them to think they can beat and kill the culture and ideologies out of their brethren (Najib era).

If however, in the complete absence of foreign forces, these power centers sit down again (the old elites, Taliban, the people) and they find their harmony and balance again - I am all for that and have no issue whatsoever with that being done.

If however, this involves destruction of one of those traditional power bases due to outside force and pressure (whether it be from Pakistan hyper galvanizing its own proxies or the Americans and West breaking down doors for Ghani) then I cannot morally or logically agree with this.

[Karachi]

I dont think Taliban will come anymore, specially since Pakistani now is in no position to support them. Looking at pakistani media over the last few years, I think many pakistanis higher up in the military/government have realized that it was a mistake to support them to begin with

[Toramana]

Taleban were the product of the necessities of big-power conflict and have overstayed their use. They have no place in 21st Century although people like Barakzai who are suffering from nostalgia as well as feel to be left out are yearning for their return. Afghans and Afghanistan has to take a step ahead and leave the past behind.

[kanishka]

i honestly think it will be an war between Pakistan, Afghansitan over KPK and FATA...

just like Alsace-Lorraine between Germany and France.

Afghansistan will fight over the ruling of who gets to governm Pashtuns in NWFP and FATA and north Balochistan.

it would be

Non-Pashtunists AFghans vs Pakistanis vs Pashtunist Afghans

or more like

Non-Pashtunistan Afghans & Pakistanis making an alliance againts PAshtunistan Afghans.
and would India back Pashunist Afghans? ionno, how about more like

China + Pakistan + Saudi Arabia + Non-Pashtunist Afghans vs Pashtunist Afghans & India.

Or worse...

China+Pakistan+Saudi Arabia+Non-Pashtunist Afghans+Central Asia+ Iran+ India vs pashtunistan losers... basicaly eveyone vs Pashtunistan winers....


Taliban is created by Pakistan to prevent Pashtunistan ever becoming a reality.... the Taliban has no reason to even last when Western Powers withdraw. The taliban was made to secure the Durand Line. Remember, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras united with Pakistan to fight the soviets because they didn't want a Pashtunistan. SAme with Taliban, to prevent a Pashtunistan.

It's all about Pashunistan, the bloody durand line !

[Toramana]

Taleban is a spent force. The only consistent follower they have here is Barakzai Abdali. No one else is interested in them.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Taleban is a spent force. The only consistent follower they have here is Barakzai Abdali. No one else is interested in them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/wo...gins.html?_r=0

1.

The sudden eruption of violence in northern Badakhshan Province is an early indication of what could lie ahead for the Afghan military, which has lost not only soldiers but also armored vehicles and weapons to the insurgents in the last week of fighting.

2.

The fighting season typically begins in late spring, when melting snow opens up the mountain passes that the Taliban rely on for mobility. But through last autumn and into the winter, there was more fighting and violence than usual as the Taliban maintained a campaign of suicide attacks, assassinations and hit-and-run attacks.

3.

The military’s operation in northern Helmand, called Zulfiqar, has been a struggle for Afghan forces for more than two months. In the face of public statements proclaiming the mission a success, locals tell stories of soldiers refusing to fight or bulldozing homes. Government forces, particularly the police, have suffered heavy casualties.

4.

In the past three years, the Taliban have gained control of about 70 percent of the Jurm district, which is home to more than 35,000 people, said Mr. Bedar, Badakhshan’s deputy governor. They have also expanded their presence in the districts to the north, south, and east of Jurm, Mr. Bedar said, adding that if the Taliban were able to seize all of Jurm, other districts might also fall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N41GP20150413

5.

The Defense Ministry said earlier Monday that the attack caused 30 soldiers to be "killed, wounded or become missing." The ministry said it was conducting an investigation into the attack, which it said came from unspecified "neglect" by an army officer there. It said the fighters looted military equipment and set fire to vehicles it couldn't take.

6.

- Dozens of Taliban fighters aided by foreign militants seized Afghan government checkpoints in a previously stable northeastern province, officials said on Monday as the annual spring fighting season began in the 13-year-old war.

Facts ^ above vs Toramana's minority secularist atheist agenda driven brain ---> The facts win everytime.

[Black Pakistani]

I'm sick of Afghans and Afghanistan, just give your land to us and **** off already.

[Bengal_Tiger]

I think the Taliban's inability to retain control of a minor city like Kunduz, 5th biggest in Afghanistan, further highlights the fact that they will never be able to regain power in Afghanistan ever again.

In fact every day, every week, every month that goes by Afghans become more and more educated, urbanized (migration to cities), thus less in to backwards extreme fundamentalism or tribalism, so Afghanistan becomes more and more of a society in which extreme fundamentalism cannot take over.