The taliban operates like the mafia in Afghanistan. They go from provincial village to village, effectively saying "Hey, nice village you have here...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it"
They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter.
In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen. The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts.
The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business.
The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most lucrative parts of the government.
It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them. But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may have helped the situation.
> When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen.
9/11 hijackers were mostly well educated, middle-class Saudi Arabians. Not Taliban, as you seem to imply.
If anything, what could be argued is that Afghanistan lacking a national police force makes it easy for terrorist groups to establish military training camps there. But that's a whole different thing.
Not even, it makes it easy for warlords to train militias, not for terrorists.
Terrorists rarely need combat skills as we think about them. Terrorist training is more about pushing the button - which is all religious, or maybe playing flight-sims and practicing with a knife. They do this in living rooms and garages.
Local warlords though, need places to train troops live ammo, firing RPGs and mortars, practicing attacking and defending against other large local foes.
Not that they shouldn't be stopped - that's a valid question - but we went in after international terrorists, shot local warlords, and claimed victory.
(In the process, killing enough people unjustly to cause much of a generation to have real reason to hate us.)
The fundamental problem with the government is that in the name of expediency we put people who hated the Taliban in charge and called it a democracy. Then when they maintained their power by openly stealing elections, we didn't call their bluff because we were trying to pretend that they are an independent country. The example that everyone sees is corruption starting at the top, and flowing all of the way down.
Now we're trying to declare victory and leave. But the existing kleptocracy can't stand. Everyone knows it. We just don't want to keep dying for no purpose. And the kleptocracy is only seeking to steal as much as they can before they lose power.
More specifically, we put the "Northern Alliance" in power. These are essentially drug lords with roots in the North of country. Thus the narco-economy has been operating in spades since they have come to power. This creates a situation where foreign aid and illicit drugs are the only real sources of money.
Just checking, but you do know that the Taliban and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 or any major international terrorism? Al Qaeda on other had is a different beast, but although they were operating in Afganistan for a time, they are nothing like the loose Mafia you describe.
A decent job has been done of removing Al Qaeda, but the only way to change a country like Afghanistan is to stop sending millions over there in cash from international drug money. The war on drugs helped fund this situation. And doesn't seem to be helping to bring a resolution yet at great cost to them and us.
the only way to change a country like Afghanistan is to stop sending millions over there in cash from international drug money. The war on drugs helped fund this situation. And doesn't seem to be helping to bring a resolution yet at great cost to them and us.
The drug trade is a big problem in Afghanistan, but isn't the root cause of the problems there (Indeed, since it's pretty close to the only functioning export industry it may well be a good thing for the farmers).
No-one has ever successfully imposed any system of government on Afghanistan. That reflects deeper causes than the war on drugs.
I'm not sure if Afghanistan /needs/ a government - but regardless, the war on drugs allows criminal elements to profit from the power vacuum.
You rightly state it's a functioning export industry - but the de-facto criminalisation of that industry is the issue. We either need to find ways of either buying the stock for legal uses, or helping people transition to other cash crops. But the industry is supported with 1st world drug users money - and until we address the way our citizens are part of the problem, the problem will remain, or simply move to the next lawless frontier.
You say that like its a bad thing - an imposed government is the problem. A representative government is required. The corrupt system that is currently in place is hardly an asset.
Maybe it says that Afghanistan's border is a pile of western-motivated political crap and the country shouldn't be.
Hell, Quebec wants out of Canada and we generally all get along fairly well. Imagine how we'd feel if all the provinces felt the same and were actively and brutally fighting. Why are we trying to hold this mess together?
We've got this manifest destiny thing like we've got to make 1946's border permanent.
> The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians.
No. The reason it hasn't worked is because it's a total lie.
Afghanistan wasn't invaded to help it, or to stop terrorists, it was invaded for oil, handy bases near countries we need to remain "allies", etc.
> [The US response to the taliban was to send] marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban.
Roughly, yes. And had this been done for the reasons stated, at any of the times various segments of the population and world-wide humanitarian groups had asked for it, you'd have been saviors.
But that wasn't the goal or you'd have done it that way - not in freak-out mode.
The "failed state" in Afghanistan is the one you're building. Unwanted, known criminals, ruling over a set of borders nobody feels attached to.
Afghanistan is not a major oil producer. There are large estimated reserves there, but they are not tapped. (And indeed the main contract to develop fields there was signed by the Chinese.)
However Iraq looks exactly like you said. And indeed the initial name for the invasion plan was Operation Iraqi Liberation. But there seems to have been a power struggle between the neocons in the Bush administration (open up the taps, crash the world market, see the economy take off) and the people from the oil reserves (shut the taps off, see the price skyrocket, make oil countries happy). The latter contingent included Condoleezza Rice (Chevron named an oil tanker after her), Dick Cheney (former CEO of Haliburton), and George Bush himself who had worked in the oil industry, and been bailed out by Saudi Arabian family friends.
Unsurprisingly the oil industry won that political fight.
> You seem to have confused Afghanistan with Iraq. Afghanistan is not a major oil producer.
It's about keeping oil flowing - at least being extracted if not sold. But yes in Afghanistan that is currently more pipelines than oil-wells. The TAPI pipeline for instance is proposed to move huge amount of Turkmeni oil through Afghanistan.
> indeed the main contract to develop fields there was signed by the Chinese.
Sure. Why not? The goal is to keep oil flowing now, not (rationally) hoarded. Anything other than leaving it in the ground is fine,
But anyways - the point wasn't that 100% of the reason was oil, because the ability to use their airspace, have lasting bases, etc, is also of huge value. My point was that the official reasons were specifically untrue - almost zero utility came pursing from the stated reasons for the invasions - Bin Laden and WMDs (in Iraq). Mainly, of course, because both reasons were essentially fictions.
> ... and the people from the oil reserves (shut the taps off, see the price skyrocket ...
I think ultimately they had roughly the same desires for Iraqi oil: get it the hell out of Iraqi/neighboring soil as quickly as possible before the inconvenient locals have anything to say about it. Even if they have to "share" with them
And then, yes some people want to play it smart and hoard to watch the prices rise. But none of them wanted an economic meltdown so their policy isn't going to be to stop selling oil, but to stop selling their oil and make the other guy sell his. Having the USA (and select allies) being the last ones with oil is the winning position for both factions (as you describe it) of the Bush government - they merely differed on mid-game strategy.
They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter.
In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen. The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts.
The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business.
The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most lucrative parts of the government.
It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them. But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may have helped the situation.