Afghanistan: 200-Year History Tells The Same Old Story

[gl556tr]

2001-09-11. The catastrophe of this day triggered Blair's signing up with Bush to invade Afghanistan. Yet again.

What followed was a textbook case of Aldous Huxley’s adage that the only thing you learn from history is that no one learns from history.

[jno]

you and Huxley may well be right, broadly speaking; but a great deal of human progress results from observing what others have already done.

[New Judge]

And then promptly ignoring it.

[davebro]

or - doing the same thing over & over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity?

[Zacs-Master]

Ah but what about Bonnie Prince Charlie’s “if at first you don’t succeed, try try again”?

[davebro]

or even Robert the Bruce!

[Zacs-Master]

Did he say it as well? What a coincidence.

[davebro]

Probably a common saying in Scotland.

[fender62]

interesting read https://bigthink.com/learning-from-the-past/afghanistan-the-lessons-of-history

[Zacs-Master]

Seems to be Nicola’s raison d’etre!

[emmie]

“If at first, you don’t succeed, try, try, and try again”. Initially coined by Thomas H Palmer, a famous educator as a way of encouraging children to do their homework. It was made famous by Edward Hickson’s Moral song. We can use this phrase in our work, dating, or social life.

[emmie]

no one learned that Afghanistan is an impossible place to conquer and hold, no one has won a war there not the Russians, nor the British, nor the Americans. Its a lost cause, best to leave well alone

[ichkeria]

This is a complete fallacy: the idea was to neutralise al-Qaeda in the country by removing the Taliban.
This was achieved. No one knows what might have happened had it not.
The only thing that has now failed is our will.

[gl556tr]

Precisely, ichkeria.

Twenty years' dedicated work across Afghanistan's society has brought a new 'wave' of people who are/were dedicated to furthering the foundations laid by many.

This has sadly been demolished.

[Zacs-Master]

‘ The only thing that has now failed is our will’

I disagree. I think the bean counters called it.

[New Judge]

//…the idea was to neutralise al-Qaeda in the country by removing the Taliban.
This was achieved.//

How was it achieved? Within a fortnight (or thereabouts) they were back in the Presidential Palace. They were not removed. They simply hid in the hills until the invaders left (as they were sure to do at some point).

//Twenty years' dedicated work across Afghanistan's society has brought a new 'wave' of people who are/were dedicated to furthering the foundations laid by many.//

So what happened to them then? And what happened to the Afghan Army which was trained and equipped by The West over the last two decades? I know the answer: they had not been paid/they had no willpower/ they were young and inexperienced. Add as many reasons as you like because the end result would be the same: unless Western “peacekeeping” forces remain on the ground ad infinitum the place will degenerate into the shambles it's been for as long as anyone cares to remember. Afghanistan is not like Connecticut or Derbyshire and trying to make it so would never work.

[Stickybottle]

As usual one cannot argue against the reasoning and observations of New Judge

[ynnafymmi]

What prompted Bin Ladens attack on the Twin Towers was the presence of US and GB soldiers in Saudi Arabia occasioned by Saddam Husseins attack on Kuwait back in 1991.If Saddam hadnt attacked Kuwait then there wouldnt have been any Yankee or Brit soldiers in Saudi Arabia.Saddam Hussein started all this kraaaaap.Too late now.

[sevenOP]

"The Same Old Story"

Of lies ? Like what really happened only 2 days ago at Kabul Airport?

"Many we spoke to, including eyewitnesses, said significant numbers of those killed were shot dead by US forces in the panic after the blast" - BBC News

Curiously the footage is not visible on the BBC website...

https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579

[Gromit]

//…the idea was to neutralise al-Qaeda in the country by removing the Taliban.
This was achieved.//

If that was the mission, it is no wonder it hasn’t worked.
Al Qaeda are quite different from the Taliban, with totally different aims.

Both had their origins in the mujahideen, the freedom fighters fighting the Russians after they invaded.
The mujahideen were made up of two components, Afghans who wanted their country back, and foreign Jihadists mainly from Saudi Arabia who wanted holy war.

When the Russians retreated, the mujahideen split.
Half became the Taliban who took over the country. The other half became al Qaeda who took their holy war ethos international, mainly against the United states.

Very quickly the two sides began to dislike each other. The Government in Kabul grudgingly tolerated Bin Laden’s men as long as they did their holy warring outside Afghanistan. At its peak, there were less than 400 al Qaeda operatives training in Afghanistan.

The United States regarded 9/11 as an act of war, and were going to avenge it with its military might. In the rush for war, they picked the wrong enemy. The Taliban could very easily have been bought for a fraction of what the war has cost. They would have given up al Qaeda at the drop of an hat. Instead, the US needed a war so they invaded. They easily toppled the Taliban and captured the country. After that, their efforts to nullify al Qaeda were unsuccessful.

So we’ve had a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan which gained us nothing. Terrorism was not defeated (increased if anything), and we have just given up the no-win game and left.

But to claim al Qaeda were neutralised by defeating the Taliban, and proclaiming that as achieving our mission, is
100% wrong.

[Gromit]

Al Qaeda (and the splitter group ISIS) are followers of an extreme form of Islam called Wahabism.
Wahabism is exported from Saudi Arabia. Most of the funding for al Qaeda in the early years came from Saudi Arabia. The majority of al Qaeda soldiers came from Saudi Arabia. Nearly all the terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. - so we invaded Afghanistan?