New answers tagged

20

Not sure this counts as a full answer, but here goes. The Afghanistan quagmire was probably largely unintentional, just like the Iraqi one. If you read up on the level of group thinking and hubris under the Bush administration circa 2001-03, it is pretty amazing in its naivety. I read a number of these books, mostly about Iraq though. These people truly ...


1

Probably not. China supports and expects all Afghan parties to build a political structure that conforms to Afghanistan's national conditions and is supported by its people, based on the principle of "Afghan-owned and Afghan-led" and proceeding from Afghanistan's own fundamental and long-term interests, so as to jointly open up a new future for ...


3

This answer is mostly a synthesis of years of reading media reports on Afghanistan from the U.S. and foreign press, as well as academic and defense industry specialized journalism, mostly from memory. China is already, and will continue to be, involved in business ventures in Afghanistan, using the resources available to other private businesses. While it ...


47

The question assumes that the US invaded Afghanistan solely to punish Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden. While this was indeed the main motivation, there are also some complex political reasons at play. Context of the invasion The 9/11 attacks were a major trauma for the US. In terms of both domestic and foreign politics, it called for a strong answer....


9

According to Pivot Theory, Afganistan is the center of the so-called Heartland (which is meant to be Eurasia). It's a very important region for projecting politics/power and influence into Central Asia. Different superpowers: British Empire (during The Great Game), USSR during the first Cold War, and then the US nowadays tried to maintain control over it. ...


3

It's because the US wanted more than to kill Osama bin Laden. Here's a recent quote about why the US invaded Afghanistan in the first place. A long-time skeptic of the 20-year military presence there, Biden said the United States had long ago achieved its original rationale for invading the country in 2001: to root out al-Qaeda militants and prevent another ...


-1

There are very few talks out there about the "nation-building" in Afganistan, but the news released by the White House in 2008 offers a piece of clue that the "rebuilding" has started during George W. Bush's term, as early as2003. Here it says: "On September 26, 2008, President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai received an ...


2

Writing partially from memory reading War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. Note that this answer is more geared towards early Bush policy, as per the question: There was no great intent to nation-build. Feith is unapologetic about it and makes his case that Rumsfeld et all felt that a large occupation force and ...


3

The United States is concerned that the Taliban will use Afghanistan to provide sanctuary to groups or individuals that will target the U.S. Government. “Ungoverned spaces, let alone a known terrorist organization like the Taliban dominating a nation, is altogether an ideal breeding ground for disparate terrorist groups that threaten the United States to ...


1

You have to take into account is that even if the US government does not officially recognize the Taliban, by holding talks and signing agreements with them they are legitimating them as representative of the Afghan people. With such clause they are granting them the right to decide who can or cannot enter in the areas they control.


30

Between 2000-2017, China was not very active in Afghanistan. China did not contribute troops to fight the Taliban, though it did provide several hundred million dollars of foreign aid to the Afghan government. During this time, Chinese companies also made several significant investments in Afghanistan's mineral and energy industries. However, as argued here, ...


12

TL;DR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan Every few decades since 1500 B.C. some great military nation tries to take over Afghanistan and loses. India, Mongolia, China, Middle East, Britain (3 times), Russia and now the US. The trick for when the aliens invade is get them to start with Afghanistan. This might be a flippant answer but they ...


0

They are not the same Taliban. In all these years many of the attacks against NATO troops that were attributed to the Taliban by the media were actually carried out by local rebel groups. Different insurgencies different militia groups some funded by Pakistan some seeking shelter from the Pakistani army, criminal organisations funded by the opium trade, they ...


67

TL;DR: The Taliban has lasted for so long because it has a durable organizational structure and safe haven in Pakistan. Undercutting the Taliban is more complicated than rooting out its network of poppy cultivation. Yes, the sudden removal of its drug funds would likely hurt the group, but the organizational structures, recruitment networks, and other ...


5

The numbers need to be taken into perspective. To cite a 2020 BBC article about withdrawals: In Iraq, the number of US troops will be cut by 500 to 2,500, while the number of service personnel in Afghanistan will fall from 4,500 to about 2,500. So at most we are talking 4500 soldiers, hardly anything to influence inner politics. You may have other ...


58

The Taliban are not just a drug-running organization, not even predominantly a drug-running organization. The US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan because the Afghan government at the time sheltered terrorists. For all the cost of the longest war, it never did spend enough effort to really reconstruct Afghanistan. Instead it went to Iraq, and elsewhere. The ...


Top 50 recent answers are included