Do the Taliban have the capability to govern Afghanistan long-term?

[jmbar2]

OK, so the dog finally caught the car. Can it drive the car?

The Afghan people are not the same as they were when the Taliban originally governed for 5 years or so. They've had 20 years of education, access to the internet, cellphones, and women have been working in the professions. The people been exposed to democratic, modern ideas, and have seen how the rest of the world lives from international media.

It seems doubtful to me that the Taliban will be able to effectively impose their draconian fundamentalism on that nation for long. I believe at some point that the modern Afghans will overthrow them. Maybe not immediately, but the younger generations simply won't want to live under such an oppressive regime.

What do you think? What are the historical precedents for backwards, draconian rule being imposed and maintained on an increasingly educated, internet connected populace?

[Sneederbunk]

1. About as much as other Afghanies.

[honest.abe]

2. That's my hopeful thinking as well.

Once oppressed people have been exposed to freedoms they will have a very hard time giving them up. We shall see in the next few months and years what happens.

[SoCalDavidS]

4. The Guns & Islamic Discipline Will Force Them To Give Up Those "Freedoms."

The so-called "army" already gave up in the face of the Taliban. Getting the oppressed people to do the same won't be ANY problem at all.

[roamer65]

3. Not when you will become quickly indebted to the Chinese.

They will March to the tune of Beijing or they will be swept away.

Chinese money is going to flow in, just like with Pakistan and they will match to the drumbeat of Beijing.

I can tell you there is extra worry over these developments in New Delhi.

[jmbar2]

24. Interesting viewpoint

China would definitely add an interesting wrinkle to the story.

[roamer65]

26. With Afghanistan, Pakistan and Myanmar under the Chinese sphere of influence...

New Delhi has a LOT to worry about, especially along the Line Of Control in Jammu and Kashmir to the north.

[jmbar2]

28. I hadn't ever thought of it from that geopolitical perspective.

If I were India, that would make me very nervous as well.

[tblue37]

5. Iran.

[PortTack]

6. As long as we were there, they were fine with it. No army was formed, or not enough of one

They should have taken action decades ago, but obvious it wasn’t a priority

And yes, I think the country will go back to very draconian rule, especially when it comes to women

[SoonerPride]

7. The people will not rise up.

Hell their military of 385,000 troops just vanished into thin air.

There is no resistance to the implementation of a strict 12th century sharia law state.

That’s what they have.

[Irish_Dem]

8. China had to relent eventually and allow their people much more freedom.

It had been a horrendous, draconian, miserable, jackboot rule for so long. But Beijing began to worry about a populace of 1 billion people rebelling. So the Chinese people were given a significant increase in living standards and a lot more freedom, day to day.

I believe China will have a large presence in Afghanistan, and an alliance with the Taliban. Perhaps Beijing will share their wisdom. Neither country are likely to ever be a democracy, but moderation is more sustainable long term.

[dalton99a]

9. 74% of Afghanistan's population is rural, and 57% illiterate

(The founder of the Taliban was illiterate)

[GrassClippings]

10. It's really simple.

It seems doubtful to me that the Taliban will be able to effectively impose their draconian fundamentalism on that nation for long.

The thousands of Afghans trying to flee tells me otherwise. There will be no more internet, no schools, no personal liberties. You either submit to the Taliban or you get killed. It’s that simple.

[stillcool]

11. don't know, but here's some history

An archive of interesting articles from back in the day can be found at Third World Traveler
https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/
From William Blum

Afghanistan, 1979-92:

Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_page.html

Afghanistan page

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban
The Real Afghanis
How can the US bomb this tragic people? - Robert Fisk
A Resource War - Afghanistan
The Fire Down Below
The Truth About Afghanistan
Betrayal (1/04)
War Without End - Afghanistan (9/04)
'One Huge US Jail' (3/05)
The U.S. War In Afghanistan Continues (7/05)
Women and Warlords: Letter From Afghanistan (5/06)
Afghanistan: The Other Lost War (9/06)
Abandoning Hypocrisy - Canada in Afghanistan (9/06)
Afghanistan - Foreign Troops and the Insurgency (9/06)
Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade? (9/06)
Afghanistan: Five Years Later (10/06)
Afghanistan Unliberated (10/06)
Women in Afghanistan (11/06)
Afghanistan - The Bloodiest Field for Slaughtering Human Rights (12/06)
Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan (12/06)
Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence - by Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls (3/07) - a book review
Occupation Forces Support Afghan Narcotics Trade - Multibillion dollar earnings for organized crime and Western financial Institutions (4/07)
The US and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are the Main Human Rights Violators In Afghanistan (12/07)
Women's lives worse than ever [in Afghanistan] (2/08)
Afghanistan, Another Untold Story (11/08)
The Other Front [Afghanistan] (12/08)
The Afghan Scam (1/09)
'The Killing of Women Is Like Killing a Bird Today in Afghanistan' (7/09)

https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
.... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
1996: "We will engage terrestrial targets someday-ships, airplanes, land targets-from space.... We're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space.

[jmbar2]

16. Thanks for the massive number of links

Just the titles of those articles is like an instant history lesson. The future looks bleak for the Afghanis. But we can't fix them. I fear for their women and children.

[Hekate]

12. Wrong question. It never was a single political entity in reality.

Who knows what will happen, but there’s no Ho Chi Minh, General Charles deGaul, or General George Washington involved.

[brooklynite]

13. Go back and look at Afghanistan in the 60w and 70s...

The progress you’re thinking of was only in Kabul, and was more progressive then. If you lived in the rural areas, you probably never saw a difference.

[jmbar2]

18. The links above are eye opening

I hadn't realized that they had earlier periods of freedom and lost them over and over again. Still, I hope that somehow the forces of modernity will help the people overcome this tragedy.

[GoCubsGo]

14. They have no intention of "driving the car."

They want to rule, not govern. The country will likely devolve back into the collection of tribes that it always has been, with the tribal warfare that comes with it.

[sarisataka]

15. This is correct

As long as the tribes acknowledge the Tailban and enforce sharia they will be left to do what they want in their territory. As long as it doesn't challenge Tailban supremacy they can fight each other to their hearts content.

[Takket]

17. they have the ability to kill anyone who tries to stop them, which is all that matters

[Johonny]

19. I think it will remain fractionalized

with local warlords. The "national" Taliban government will likely only be as successful as the previous governments in keeping the whole system in line to maintain enough peace to make any sort of economy work.

Obviously, there is pressure to trade off Chinese and Pakistani investment for their raw materials. But colonialism is generally a death sentence and guarantee for continued poverty not modernization. The Afghani people have traded one colonial power for another. The result is likely going to be continued impoverishment.

[Deminpenn]

23. Think so, too

The rural parts will continue to be governed by their tribes. Maybe there's some taliban enforcers around ala the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, but I doubt their life will change much.

It might well play out as Iraq has with the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen splitting off or being mostly autonomous like the Kurds. Those tribes would control the north and the Taliban/Pashtun the south.

Then you have the nations of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan who might not take kindly to the Tailban/Pashtun trying to govern their ethnic populations inside Afghanistan's borders.

Another comparable might be Yugoslavia that eventually broke up into more homegenous ethnic countries or Czechoslavakia that seperated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia or Serbia splitting apart.

[rampartc]

20. the iranian clerics seem to be performing adequately.

several american states, including my own, were living at 20th century levels of civilization until tsken over by fundamentalists.

[FakeNoose]

21. You know what? It's not our problem

Whether they fish or cut bait - we don't need to worry about it.

Why do Americans think it's up to us to solve the world's problems? It really isn't. We aren't the policemen, we aren't the democracy-enforcers. Isn't it rather arrogant of us to think that we should butt in on Afghanistan's history and self-determination?

Let's keep our focus on our own problems in North America.

[jmbar2]

25. I agree that we can't fix them

But I am heartsick over the fate of the women and girls there. It's tragic.

[Wounded Bear]

22. They don't govern. They rule, and they'll be there for the forseeable future...nt

[Deep State Witch]

27. Look At Iran

They've been a theocratic dictatorship since 1980.