Taliban offensive of 2021 and collapse of Afghan government.

[Feline Supremacist]

Taliban are more of a ends justify the means lot and more willing to do what needs to be done to ensure the survival of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. These folks fought the Soviets and Americans for a combined 3 decades.

ISIS got buttfucked and raped in the ass hard by Russia, Iran and Iraqi Shia militias. Only barely last a year. And the Taliban rekt ISIS hard as well.

ISIS are nowhere close to being in the Taliban's league.

Careful how you talk about our glowies, they lurk here.

 

[Ghostse]

Didn't Saddam also once toyed with the idea of a gold standard currency as well?

I don't know if he did, but he was butt-hurt at the West & the US in particular and tried to move the country to only accept international trade in Euros to depower the dollar.

He also in the 70s and 80s was trying to make himself the leader of the Pan-Arab world (Starting a war with Iran to show he could stand up the Persians) so looking at a gold standard to get out from under the International Jew wouldn't be far fetched.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

You believe absolute bullshit in order to justify edgelord views.

You have a tendency of calling other people full of shit yet never stick around to explain why or face the heat when they explain why they are not full of shit.

Yea i dont expect that to happen but i did have an ACOG with a bible verse on it when i was in afghanistan. When we got home and they refitted our weapons there was a dude there that litteraly grinded the verse off the scopes.

Trijicon biblical verses controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Supposedly in the ancient Battle of Pelusium, the Persians tied domestic cats to their shields so the Egyptians (who viewed the cats as sacred) would be less inclined to shoot arrows at them, fearing retribution from whatever cat god they had. Considering Persia stomped the Egyptians pretty hard, its very likely this is true.
Such a tactic would get a general canned for "cultural insensitivity" today.

Also I always like to wonder how the armies of old would react if given access to todays technology.
Would they carpet bomb and fuel-air bomb the living shit out of any living thing that doesn't throw up the white flag or would they inevitably assume the moral soft warfare of today?

Taliban are more of a ends justify the means lot and more willing to do what needs to be done to ensure the survival of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. These folks fought the Soviets and Americans for a combined 3 decades.

To be fair some of the major backbone fighters of the Mujahideen are the same people gather to resist the Taliban in the Panjshir today. And 30 years ago...
Or rather the sons of the same Mujis who drove out the Soviets...

 

[Ghostse]

Also I always like to wonder how the armies of old would react if given access to todays technology.
Would they carpet bomb and fuel-air bomb the living shit out of any living thing that doesn't throw up the white flag or would they inevitably assume the moral soft warfare of today?

Depends on which armies of old from what time period.

Pre-bronze Age collapse civilizations were quite cosmopolitan, engaging in trade and diplomacy over (expensive) wars. Post-collapse, things turned to a much more brutal state of affairs.
In the early Medieval period in Europe, there was a lack of farmable land compared to people alive (and food production was based on Mediterranean 'scratch plow' and Roman slave-based farming) and often killing everyone and just taking their goods was preferred. In the late Medieval, with argicultural advances and a reduced population due to war and onset of the black death, there was a lack of people compared to territory - war leaders were more interested in capturing and co-opting populations instead of extermination.

There is also the "Horse Problem". Which I will tried to tl;dr as this:
Primitive people tend to be violent to outsiders. This is usually a needed a consequence of their environment; if you don't defend your resources, you'll find yourself without any. And when you are limited to human foot traffic, you can presume anyone inside your territory is only there to take your shit.

Once you give primitive people horses, there tends to be a period of marked, horrific violence and then a scaling back - people can now pass through your territory, or visit and then leave. Native Americans are a favored target of analysis because they were observed by enlighted minds and had been isolated from nearly all technological advancements, but the Roman analysis of the Britain Celts describes them the same way once they got Roman horse.

If your society doesn't adapt to a new innovation, they tend to over use it violently until sense starts to prevail. Constant extermination-level violence is not a good long-term survival strategy for people or animals. Even if you win your fight, you may be beat up and a less-fit but uninjured member may finish you off, meaning the fittest might not be surviving.

So you give the Babylonians a B-52 and they would be carpet bombing everyone who looked at them funny until they started to appreciate the cost. And I don't even mean the moral one, I mean the material one.

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

Also I always like to wonder how the armies of old would react if given access to todays technology.
Would they carpet bomb and fuel-air bomb the living shit out of any living thing that doesn't throw up the white flag or would they inevitably assume the moral soft warfare of today?

They would be as ruthless as they could possibly be, Western states didn't begin the "softness" warfare track until the 30 Years War. Almost everything of note in the modern era can be traced to this pivotal war and the Peace of Westphalia that came from it. The war was just that bad and the concept of Bellum se ipsum alet was viewed with increasing contempt. The Nobility of the era are largely responsible for the reduction of violence, a quick fight, one side surrenders, presents their sword to the opposition and its inspected and says "what an elegant blade, you may retain it" its returned the two sides salute and the losing army would depart and disband.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

...a quick fight, one side surrenders, presents their sword to the opposition and its inspected and says "what an elegant blade, you may retain it" its returned the two sides salute and the losing army would depart and disband.

Honestly even fighting for the aim of making your enemy surrender seems like fucking wishful thinking in today's wars...

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

Honestly even fighting for the aim of making your enemy surrender seems like fucking wishful thinking in today's wars...

This is exactly what the Taliban did, they did positional warfare, they surrounded each city and began negotiations leading to the surrender of most of the cities including Kabul. The way the Taliban conducted their entire campaign was more 19th century than post-WW1 technological warfare. Its very impressive and I think it will be studied by serious students of warfare.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Honestly even fighting for the aim of making your enemy surrender seems like fucking wishful thinking in today's wars...

Of course that is wishful thinking. We are simply coming full circle in terms of violence, we have set our secular religions of ideologies above just about everything else. Something tells me that surrender in modern wars, and the ones to come, will not be pretty circumstances.

To compare: Imagine the difference between the American Civil War then, and imagine how the Second (hypothetical) one might end if it started tomorrow, and ended some time later. Yesterday, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia were allowed to march off into the history books as a fighting force and to turn back to rebuilding. the country after the war. Today, if some civil war happened and was to end, there would be no recognition of the defeated as fellow countrymen who fought for a cause that lost and must be reconciled, but implacable enemies that must be lined up against a wall and executed, from the highest ranker, to the lowliest cook.

Now, which one is likely to dissipate as a guerilla force into the mountains and make reconstruction harder? Lee had the option, but he turned it down in favor of reuniting the country. I don't think that'll happen at the end of the next American Civil War.

(Sorry for rambling, just been dealing with some personal issues and I enjoy rambling to help clear my mind.)

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

This is exactly what the Taliban did, they did positional warfare, they surrounded each city and began negotiations leading to the surrender of most of the cities including Kabul. The way the Taliban conducted their entire campaign was more 19th century than post-WW1 technological warfare. Its very impressive and I think it will be studied by serious students of warfare.

Yeah, I was mostly bemoaning Western armies.

Also IIRC, most of the tribal warlords in Afghanistan are only loyal to themselves, and will throw in with whatever group is coming to power; so it makes sense they would drop all pretense of loyalty to the ANA at the flip of a switch.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Yeah, I was mostly bemoaning Western armies.

Also IIRC, most of the tribal warlords in Afghanistan are only loyal to themselves, and will throw in with whatever group is coming to power; so it makes sense they would drop all pretense of loyalty to the ANA at the flip of a switch.

Afghans have always done pretty much what @attractive_pneumonia states, they surround their opponent and start negotiating. It can be funny at times, like when one warlord makes fun of a Talib's beard on the other side; even when we showed up right after 9-11 they were still doing this. I can't recall the exact event but I do remember one commander getting mad at some foreign jihadis and telling them they'd be defeated by women (our female pilots) and the jihadis losing it (which was his intent, iirc).

They're an insular group of tribes and while it works out for them when they come together against outsiders it can be a failing, like when Mullah Omar failed to understand the consequences of not turning Bin Laden over.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

Reports are now that the UK is pulling out in 12-24 more hours, tops. I wouldn't expect the US to be too far behind. Negotiations have clearly fallen apart. Not much hope for anyone who isn't already in the airport.

 

[Ishtar]

Also I always like to wonder how the armies of old would react if given access to todays technology.
Would they carpet bomb and fuel-air bomb the living shit out of any living thing that doesn't throw up the white flag or would they inevitably assume the moral soft warfare of today?

Given ancient Assyrian ways of conducting war, you'd have Assyrian kings bragging on their streams about how many skulls they piled up while dabbing on the captured idols of ruined cities to strangely hypnotic hymns to Ashur. Modern norms of war were developed over centuries, and in ancient times restraints were based on material considerations(as someone said earlier) before moral ones. Give the Assyrians nukes, or the Sea peoples AK-47s and they'd do as they did with swords and spears.

To compare: Imagine the difference between the American Civil War then, and imagine how the Second (hypothetical) one might end if it started tomorrow, and ended some time later. Yesterday, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia were allowed to march off into the history books as a fighting force and to turn back to rebuilding. the country after the war. Today, if some civil war happened and was to end, there would be no recognition of the defeated as fellow countrymen who fought for a cause that lost and must be reconciled, but implacable enemies that must be lined up against a wall and executed, from the highest ranker, to the lowliest cook.

Thing is, this creates bad incentives in terms of conflict resolution. If your enemy can expect no mercy, they will show you none. This makes war a lot less "clean" than it otherwise can be. In your scenario, all sides and factions(because it wouldn't just be two factions) would have every incentive to fight to the bitter end, because they could not expect leniency, for them or their family, friends, communities, etc...

 

[PetrifiedTom]

This is exactly what the Taliban did, they did positional warfare, they surrounded each city and began negotiations leading to the surrender of most of the cities including Kabul. The way the Taliban conducted their entire campaign was more 19th century than post-WW1 technological warfare. Its very impressive and I think it will be studied by serious students of warfare.

Keep in mind that privates in Afghan army didn't receive salary for last 6-8 months and rations were abysmal. No one sane would kill and die for a government who treats you like necessary force but neglect providing necessary minimum.

Thing is that Afghan government shut itself in its ivory tower in Kabul rarely step outside the city gates hoping that people in rural areas will die for flag, president, and democracy. How sorrow truth must have been to watch village after village and town after town handing over to Talibans who offered nothing except cessation of unnecessary bloodshed. If government doesn't believe in victory, why would a peasant from forgotten by God place would? If at least some government officials would be on first line maybe, just maybe the image of fleeing president in last civil plane from airport in Kabul wouldn't be so... preposterous?

 

[The Last Boyscout]

Reports are now that the UK is pulling out in 12-24 more hours, tops. I wouldn't expect the US to be too far behind. Negotiations have clearly fallen apart. Not much hope for anyone who isn't already in the airport.

it's okay - the US totes evacuated 70 gorrillion peeps already (from the city to the airport, but not from the airport out - but Biden, don't you dare mention that part. goddamit, Joe, take another booster cocktail shot you sleepy fuck and let's rehearse this again so you don't blurt it out!)

 

[Roybertitos]

No he's right, we literally scoop the smartest and most resourceful people out of these places.

Also, many Mexicans that have lived here since they were children and are now collecting Social Security that can't speak or read English? Lots. Something other countries don't tolerate.

Brain drain is a real phenomenon, that's literally how it works in Third World countries. I don't blame them either, would I wallow in some filthy country where I get paid shit, or go somewhere else where the streets are actually paved and you get paid three times more? Almost nobody would say no to that deal, which is why most people study careers they know are in demand elsewhere so they can gtfo.

A lot of the smartest, most talented people I knew in highschool ended up in America, Canada, or the UK. I personally don't fault anybody who tries to find a better life elsewhere, I blame our corrupt government who use them as pay pigs cause they send dollars and euros back to their families which props up the economy. There's even a term for it, Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), and I believe you have tax incentives or something if you are one.

If our government tried to encourage those people to stay then we'd be a better country, no question. I despise them for just giving up and allowing our country to just wallow in squalor while they get fat off our taxes. I hate that they have put into the minds of a generation of people that they'll never be more than slaves in foreign nations, working as nursing home attendants in the West or as maids in Dubai where they get raped and abused with no consequences. It's a fucked up situation.

 

[Captain Wetbeard]

Reports are now that the UK is pulling out in 12-24 more hours, tops. I wouldn't expect the US to be too far behind. Negotiations have clearly fallen apart. Not much hope for anyone who isn't already in the airport.

There was never a negotiation, the IEA gave a hard deadline to leave by because they hold all the leverage. Any Americans must either file for a visa or be out by September 1st, otherwise they'll be treated as overstaying their visa and will be arrested. Any Afghans who want to leave must be out by the 1st of September or they must have a passport and be approved for travel. Because of the fact people are arrested for overstaying visas in every country on earth, no other country will back the US up on it if they attack over the Taliban following through on their red line.

 

[The Bovinian Derivative]

Careful how you talk about our glowies, they lurk here.

>be aspiring FBI agent
>dream about catching the Al Capone of the 21st century
>be assigned to the monitoring a shitposting and lolcow forum 24/7
feels bad man

 

[Captain Wetbeard]

>be aspiring FBI agent
>dream about catching the Al Capone of the 21st century
>be assigned to the monitoring a shitposting and lolcow forum 24/7
feels bad man

You know they'll be having more fun here than in most assignments, after 6 months they probably have a body pillow in their cubical.

 

[DumbDude42]

Given ancient Assyrian ways of conducting war, you'd have Assyrian kings bragging on their streams about how many skulls they piled up while dabbing on the captured idols of ruined cities to strangely hypnotic hymns to Ashur. Modern norms of war were developed over centuries, and in ancient times restraints were based on material considerations(as someone said earlier) before moral ones. Give the Assyrians nukes, or the Sea peoples AK-47s and they'd do as they did with swords and spears.


Thing is, this creates bad incentives in terms of conflict resolution. If your enemy can expect no mercy, they will show you none. This makes war a lot less "clean" than it otherwise can be. In your scenario, all sides and factions(because it wouldn't just be two factions) would have every incentive to fight to the bitter end, because they could not expect leniency, for them or their family, friends, communities, etc...

war ever being 'clean' was a historical anomaly limited in time and scope to feudal europe (and to some extent its colonies) where wars were fought mainly to resolve territorial disputes between noble houses, with the population otherwise completely disinterested and unaffected by its consequences.

apart from that time and place, what people today call 'total war' has been the norm throughout most of the world for pretty much all of history.

 

[Bungus Scrungus]

I like how Blinken coped and said "we already succeeded in getting revenge for 9/11 so whatever". Then why the fuck were we still there for a DECADE after we killed Osama Bin Laden you stupid dickhead?