# US and Taliban sign Afghanistan peace deal



## notimp (Feb 29, 2020)

*US and Taliban sign Afghanistan peace deal*
Deal could result in American troops leaving Afghanistan within 14 months

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/us-taliban-sign-peace-agreement-afghanistan-war


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 2, 2020)

idiots!  you should never trust terrorist to uphold a damn treaty  this false sense of security will be the death of us all their goal is to kill westerners and spread the false version of islam by signing the deal they get their breeding ground back and time to plot to kill us


----------



## RaptorDMG (Mar 2, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> idiots!  you should never trust terrorist to uphold a damn treaty  this false sense of security will be the death of us all their goal is to kill westerners and spread the false version of islam by signing the deal they get their breeding ground back and time to plot to kill us



Well the past 20 years the Taliban just wanted everyone to leave their country after all they fought the isis invasion when they came in and they got invaded in the first place because the said no to the US going in and striking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The main downside is that without US support the current (corrupt) Afghan government will probably collapse and the Taliban would enforce Islamic law on the country which wouldn't be good for the inhabitants but probably slightly better than a constant state of war.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 2, 2020)

So you're telling me that after nearly twenty years at war, the end result is that we've decided to legitimize the fucking Taliban as the new rulers of Afghanistan?


----------



## notimp (Mar 2, 2020)

Xzi said:


> So you're telling me that after nearly twenty years at war, the end result is that we've decided to legitimize the fucking Taliban as the new rulers of Afghanistan?


No one cared about Afghanistan. Mountain region. Disperse ruling structure (warlords), almost no natural resources.

You literally only went there, so people wouldnt ask, why you invaded Iraq after 911 all the time.

As soon as you went there, local fractions used you as chess pieces in their own, lets wipe out our neighbor clan games. (For everyone always their local opponents where 'taliban', when the US asked.) And whatever power structure the US supported never had much influence outside the capital, because the country was so segmented.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49192495

Also wars are never ended, because you finally learned how to trust the other side. Don't know which Marvel movie taught you that, but..


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 2, 2020)

The next president (don't know why Bernie came to mind) will likely just rip apart the deal because "We don't deal with terrorists!" or "It's not a good deal." and thus, they remain there as if it was their land/country.

I never agreed with govts sending soldiers to foreign countries, but rather deal with the issues they have in their own countries – Homelessness, violence, elderly, waste, etc. Go fight a war that's not mine? No thanks.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> You literally only went there, so people wouldnt ask, why you invaded Iran after 911 all the time.



Ummm... WHAT? We were there in operation Enduring Freedom BEFORE we ever went to Iraq (after the 911 thing... not considering the Gulf War). We went there partially to hunt Taliban, and SPECIFICALLY, to track down Osama Bin Laden. No source you want to quote can prove me wrong, because I WAS THERE. Was also in the Arabian Gulf during Iraqi Freedom.


----------



## FGFlann (Mar 2, 2020)

Moving swiftly away from conspiracy theories.

A deal like this is the best result you're going to get. This little experiment in nation building at the irrational, ass-end of the earth was doomed from the start because the United States and other western governments don't have the stomach to do what's necessary to tame a country like Afghanistan, which would require permanent occupation and death on the level of a genocide.


----------



## notimp (Mar 2, 2020)

Enduring freedom begins October 7, 2001
Iraq Invasion begins March 19, 2003

So basically one and change years apart.

Peak number of troops in Iraq was around 180,000, spiked in 2003
Peak number of troops in Afghanistan was around 100,000, spiked in 2011

So my version of events roughly is, 2001 - roughly 1.300 US soldiers arrive in Afghanistan. US drums up the war economy (military industrial complex). US invades Iraq. Once thats done, you still have many soldiers you dont know what to do with - so roughly half of them go to Afghanistan as well.

Afghanistan is of strategic importance to russian border security, and for pretty much nothing else.

And how the effort to hunt down taliban in Afghanistan went, I pretty much described. Yes, you hunted 'some thing' in Afghanistan. Created more taliban as a result. And the Bin Laden ultimately was in another castle.

Now - if you only were after Bin Laden, you track him via intelligence means. Why do you drum up a war economy for that purpose? Also the US would never have done that for Afghanistan alone. It wouldnt have payed financially. So once you've got your big army (recruitment efforts), you also need to do something with it that makes sense - for someone. Otherwise, empty spending.

edit: Troop numbers in Afghanistan (over time): https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/i...vasion-2020-taliban-deal-200229142658305.html

edit: Sorry for Iraq/n typos, corrected where possible.

edit2: While 9/11 no doubt was a traumatic event for the US as a whole, and something unimaginable at the time (attack on your soil), ultimately 3000 people died (equivalent to people dying in the US from falling down stairs each year), and maybe even more people as a result of the emergency/cleanup efforts (asbestos). If as a result you drum up an active army of 180.000 US troops that can be deployed in war efforts all over the world, you have to do something with them that makes more than just 'public relations'/'symbolic' sense. Or you simply don't do it. During the entire process, there should be enough people to tell whoever is in charge, that invading Afghanistan with an army of 100.000 makes exactly no sense.
The whole thing has its own dynamic, and gets its own entire internal logic. And Afghanistan didn't feature in it very prominently.

Hence - also this measly report for when war comes to an end in Afghanistan (that there was no 'we win' narrative to be had also didn't help).

Remember 'mission accomplished' (end of major combat operations in Iraq) in comparison.

edit 3: There even is a version of this, where Bin Ladens terrorism efforts worked. As a result (not as a direct result, but as a result of what followed), the US became more isolationist, less interested in playing world police, less interested in the middle east. Weary of war. Now Bin Laden was pretty much a weird psycho, and was used by local interests to fork over family money - which is not exactly a great strategic mind in action. And there were a boatload of other factors that are more directly responsible for the US retraction from the middle east, as a nation happening. So the correlation is small. But there is an internal logic to terrorism, and it always baits overreaction on part of a government, that can not achieve what people (in terror) wan't them to. Terrorism is about trying to provoke system change. So it creates loose/loose scenarios for governments. Luckily the US also had Iraq and they 'won' there.


----------



## Retinal_FAILURE (Mar 2, 2020)

key word from OP was, "could"


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 2, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> A deal like this is the best result you're going to get.



yep. somewhat amusing to see those who oppose the President griping now that he's not obliterating the enemy at all/any cost and instead is trying to find a way to get us the fuck out of there. Give peace a chance, you warmongers.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> You literally only went there, so people wouldnt ask, why you invaded Iraq after 911 all the time.


More like our troops had no fucking clue what the mission was supposed to be in either Afghanistan or Iraq.  Neither did anybody else, of course.  Gotta love Republican planning and foresight.  The spectacular failure of the "war on terror" can only maybe be matched by the failures of the "war on drugs."  Then again, I suppose either is preferable to the war on literacy and critical thinking that the right-wing is waging now.


----------



## notimp (Mar 2, 2020)

Well you wouldnt ever beat 'terror' nor would you ever beat 'drugs' by fighting them (on a battlefield). Obviously.

So you set different goals. 

(War on drugs in the US failed earlier in a spectacular fashion.  You started to shoot down planes, then routes diverted to (through) mexico. Great success..  (*sarcasm*) The whole prison population thing came later. But all of that is hindsight is 20/20)

In Iraq, you put in a hardliner into the commanding position after you successfully invaded, that managed to alienate 40% of the country(s elite) in (what felt like) three days. Therefore the businesses arrangements that came after weren't as successful as expected (China got oil concessions), and the country less stable a result.

There is no guarantee in these things playing out in a certain way. (You have to win over populations. You do that by stabilizing them politically and then producing a boom (edit: if they have natural resources), that also lets you benefit through economic arrangements.) Iraq is still projected to boom economically, so something there worked. 

Also, with that you are then stabilizing a region. (But then Syria got a little out of control..)


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 3, 2020)

In normal circumstances, I'd be cautiously optimistic. But let's be honest here: this is like an arsonist proudly proclaiming he put out a fire. Because case in point: the US's foreign policy's a downright disaster:
-the North Korean situation is at best at the same level as it was, but at the very least "equally bad as it was"
-China: started fine before Don got in office, but is now a huge-ass trade war
-the Syrian region: disorganized retreat, meaning Kurdish allies got downright betrayed.
-Iran: withdrawal of the nuclear treaty and  assassination of Soleimani from nowhere
-Russia: the meddling in the US election isn't even properly acknowledged (meaning: US intelligence gets downright ignored)
-the Israel-Palestine conflict: downright one-sided, meaning that the situation is more tense than it ever was
-at best a lukewarm handling of EU and navo...which is an eufemism for "downright insulting"
-Mexican border: taxpayer's money get used for stupid walls and inhumane separation policies

So...you're telling me that the government responsible for all these disasters (and I might be missing a few) is able to make a deal in the US's longest war? Right...and Santa Claus is real.


----------



## notimp (Mar 3, 2020)

There is a logic to it though. Again, the US is now energy independant (for about 50 years), and picking and choosing new allies. They are still the 'protectorate power' at sea.

They have trade deals with Japan and India, which means, their role is to keep China at bay - which you do partly through economic warfare, because chinas dependance on foreign currency is so high (they have to import pretty much all of their energy), and their growth is investment driven, and time llimited (demography).

You basically cut ties with europe because you dont need them anymore, and russia isnt viewed as a real threat by many people dabling in geopolitics these days.

You pick away the UK to undermine europes economic power, you try to instigate in the france (good demographic)/germany relationship, not too much, but just enough.

And all the while you are restructuring trade relationships with Japan, Canada and South Korea (make them pay more), while bringing the likes of India and Mexico into the fold (young, growing populations, that will be consumption driven for the next decades).

What more do you need?

Again, the whole 'world police' for free (the price of the world backup currency (so unlimited credit)) thing is over. You didn't like the outcome in the middle east? Well, you've already moved on, and nobody else quite can.

I cant tell you how often you hear 'europe has to find its own foreign policy voice' these days... You are basically judging americas performance from an old perspective. Get with the times. 

(That indias prime minister Modi always has that worried look on his face during Trumps india speeches, because no one genuinely believes that emotional ties come out of it, and and the same time, everyone is play trying real hard, and the Donald is enjoying his 100.000 people welcome - is only an asset, if anything for you. And that the TV reporters mention that the presidents limousine is called "the beast" and is "believed by many to be the safest vehicle in the world" more than once, only has me smirk these days - great to manipulate TV viewers sentiments. At the same time both countries celebrate their democracy (just not when it comes to independence of media, it seems. (Because who needs it, when Trump has twitter - really.)

And those poor shmuks that still want a wall built? They are idiots. Nobody cares about them. They can be lead to the voting booths, or the recruitment offices using fairytales. Just charge them emotionally through instagram or tiktok.


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2020)

Yeah, slight problem... (Washington Post Exclusive)


(You have to follow stories for a longer time, not just when they are making headlines. What youtuber will fill that role for you?)


----------



## kublai (Mar 9, 2020)

Good now maybe we can concentrate on video games instead of fighting each other.


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2020)

kublai said:


> Good now maybe we can concentrate on video games instead of fighting each other.


I'm not fighting. Are you?

Watch the video. This is the Washington Post correcting the public historic record, years after the fact.

If you think that thats an issue for you as a society, you have me puzzled.

(This is no Assange, that you can torture in the UK for several years, just because he has no institutional backing. This is literally your institutions telling the public - yeah, about that.... We lied. Every political party wants and needs that (on the big historic events), its literally the only corrective left you have in those matters.

The point is, that as a journalistic outlet of high renown, you mostly only can do that years after the fact. (And also are better off if you handle it that way (not that important as an argument).))


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 10, 2020)

An enemy who can withstand the invasion of two super powers over decades might be the legitimate ruler of that country.


----------

