What I haven't heard in all the MSM discussion of Afghanistan

[thucythucy]

is a cogent explanation of how a collection of semi-literate and for the most part lightly armed guerrillas have been able so easily to defeat an army which for the past 20 years has been provided billions in arms and billions in training, including armored vehicles and an air force.

It all reminds me of comments heard during the Vietnam War.

On one side we had a government and its armed forces equipped and trained and financed by the most advanced military in the world, on the other side guerrilla fighters and some conventional forces with far less funding and equipment. While there were some courageous fighters on the one side (I'm talking about the ARVN) they essentially folded once they no longer had the support of American air power and a half million American troops.

This seems echoed by what's happening now in Afghanistan, except the echo today is happening faster and louder.

The explanation I've seen here is that the majority or perhaps the plurality of Afghan men aren't bothered by the Taliban, that Taliban misogyny, to quote an American phrase, is "a feature not a bug."

I don't know enough to comment intelligently, except to ask if there's any other explanation.

You would think that at the very least those who have the most to fear from the Taliban would put up some resistance. If the Taliban will actually murder anyone who had anything to do with Americans and NATO, or the Afghan government, or the Afghan army, shouldn't this motivate them all to resist? And yet all I've heard are descriptions of how the Afghan military and government simply collapsed in a matter of days, a house of cards waiting for a simple gust of wind.

In short, how could twenty years of "nation building" be undone in mere days?

[msongs]

1. there was no there , there nt

[thucythucy]

2. That would seem to be the case.

Last edited Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)

One the one side religious fanatics with a 10th century view of the world, on the other side.... what? People unwilling to defend themselves even under the threat of death?

I haven't seen any explanation, other than how "demoralized" our allies were with the announcement of our withdrawal. Too demoralized even to try to defend themselves?

I heard one analyst compare this to the collapse of France in 1940. But the French and their British allies were defeated by a mechanized, highly advanced military using state of the art equipment and an entirely new set of tactics--the use of massed armor combined with air power--"blitzkrieg." Even so, the French collapse came after five weeks of heavy fighting.

I think the analogy to Vietnam--in so many ways--is far more relevant.

[SCantiGOP]

3. The government and the army knew

That the Taliban would eventually win, so it made sense to take off or surrender as soon as possible.
I guess where they are now is at least better than a Taliban takeover after a six-month Civil War.

[Hoyt]

4. Afghanistan has failed miserably. But we know who will take the blame

among 50 to 60% of the electorate, rightly or wrongly.

[Azathoth]

5. North Vietnam was better funded than the Taliban

They had millions in weapons and equipment funneled to them through various Communist Bloc channels, especially the PRC. Everything Chomskyites furiously accused the US of doing in the South, various Communist countries were doing in the North.

The Taliban, frankly, are closer to what leftists wanted to believe North Vietnam was. They are a genuinely indigenous movement, representing to one degree or another the religious and tribal sensibilities of a significant sector of the Afghan population. Sure, they're more extreme in the same sense that Ted Cruz is more extreme than many Texans. But he's close to enough to their sensibilities that they can overlook his excesses. And yes, the Taliban have received external support from foreign sources like Pakistan, but they are not propped up by foreign powers, and some of that foreign support probably can be seen more as ethnic solidarity rather than pure political interference.

The short answer I think is, they actually do represent a sizable chunk of the Afghan population. And it's very difficult to liberate a people from themselves.

[thucythucy]

6. I agree with most of what you're saying, except

that "Everything Chomskyites furiously accused the US of doing in the South, various Communist countrie were doing in the North."

I don't recall there being half a million Russian or Chinese troops in country supporting the Vietcong or NVA, nor do I recall Russian or Chinese (or Bulgarian or East German) air force units bombing ARVN positions or South Vietnamese cities and hamlets.

The one intervention would seem to me to grossly outweigh any intervention by the other.