Afghanistan

[Zetetic]

For some women and girls, yes, and certainly insofar as they're likely to see a reversal and possibly retribution now in some places.

No, this doesn't mean that I think the invasion was a great idea or that withdrawal was a terrible one

[Zetetic]

I'm not a big fan of Saudi Arabia, if that's a concern.

[Alberon]

Some wondering in the press if China is going to have a go now, maybe not with weapons but with money.

Apparently the terrorist organisations after fixating on the West for decades is turning to look China's way, especially with the latter's persecution of the Uyghurs and the two countries share a border. China even complained about the US's abrupt withdrawl.

Whatever happens now only one thing is certain - it'll be shit for the citizens of Afghanistan.

[steve98]

Hard to believe, not that long ago, things weren't so bad for Kabul women

[Retinend]

The argument is that if the US et al withdraw, it's going to be a godforsaken fascistic hell, especially for women and girls. Female judges and journalists are being shot dead in front of their families. BUT has occupation really made it that much better?

Can you honestly say that the rights of women didn't improve post-2001, compared with Taliban rule in 1996-2001? These women that the Taliban are assassinating wouldn't have had the opportunity to be lawyers and judges, had the Taliban been in charge all this time.

I think people ITT are conceptualizing the Taliban as part of the climate, or something. They're bullies with a fascist (totalitarian) ideology, who thrive on the havoc that they themselves cause. The people who support them are either fuelled by murderous hatred, or are experiencing a sort of Stockholm syndrome because their villages are "looked after" as part of the Taliban network and family connections.

This is the current president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani: https://www.ted.com/talks/ashraf_ghani_how_to_rebuild_a_broken_state

He doesn't really fit the profile of a US-backed vassal state dictator, who couldn't give a shit about his own people.

What's more, the US-supported government before him (2001-2014) was led by a political islamist who appeased the Taliban by calling them "brothers", and asking that they see sense and renounce terrorism/ enter electoral politics. Everything has been tried, but groups like the Taliban, ISIS, Al-Quaeda are religious death cults who wouldn't even know how to do politics in the suit-and-tie way.

[imitationleather]

Yeah I don't get why we're sneering at the idea that the Taliban being back in control is very bad news for women and girls in Afghanistan? Am I missing something?

[Zetetic]

. Everything has been tried, but groups like the Taliban, ISIS, Al-Quaeda are religious death cults who wouldn't even know how to do politics in the suit-and-tie way.

I don't think you can really claim this of "the Taliban" since one of the methods they've used to survive and obtain US draw down and withdrawal has been suit-and-tie politics.

[robhug]

its obviously going to be bad for the women and girls in Afghanistan but look at the positives its going to absolutely brilliant for all those afghan men who the taliban are indiscriminately killing

[chveik]

Can you honestly say that the rights of women didn't improve post-2001, compared with Taliban rule in 1996-2001? These women that the Taliban are assassinating wouldn't have had the opportunity to be lawyers and judges, had the Taliban been in charge all this time.

that's all well and good but how could you really know how things would have turned without western ingerence? maybe the people of afghanistan would have gotten rid of them on their own, without some other country bombing their towns and syphonning their ressources?

[Fambo Number Mive]

Johnson holding an emergency COBRA meeting on Afghanistan right now.

...Ms Nandy, Labour's shadow foreign secretary, told BBC Radio 4's World At One programme there was "far more" the UK could do to support the people of Afghanistan.

And she warned the government that cross-party MPs could push to recall Parliament to hold the government to account if it did not show a clear strategy.

Ms Nandy said that people in the country felt "abandoned" and were looking to the US and UK for "a level of leadership".

"At the moment that is just not happening - we haven't seen anything of the foreign secretary over the last few weeks. We haven't seen anything from the prime minister and it's time that the government needs to come out of hiding and step up and start trying to resolve this," she said...

Could the UN help at all?

Labour should say that we should not go into Afghanistan again and it was a mistake the first time but they recognise the oppressive nature of the Taliban, and that the government needs to reverse its bigoted policies on refugees and help feed the starving people of Afghanistan. We should be taking as many refugees and asylum seekers from Afghanistan as possible. There are things we can do to help without starting another war.

[Retinend]

I don't think you can really claim this of "the Taliban" since one of the methods they've used to survive and obtain US draw down and withdrawal has been suit-and-tie politics.

Fair point. Not suit-and-tie politics as anything more than a façade, though.  Not peaceful suit-and-tie politics as Hamid Karzai envisaged the Taliban evolving into.

that's all well and good but how could you really know how things would have turned without western ingerence? maybe the people of afghanistan would have gotten rid of them on their own, without some other country bombing their towns and syphonning their ressources?

That's the timeline I'd like to be living in - and I don't mean that sarcastically. I'm not a neo-con, and I don't think Afghanistan should have been invaded in retaliation for 9/11.

[gilbertharding]

Has anyone else noticed the slightly different way people seem to be pronouncing the word 'Taliban' nowadays?

[danwho9]

Labour should say that we should not go into Afghanistan again and it was a mistake the first time but they recognise the oppressive nature of the Taliban, and that the government needs to reverse its bigoted policies on refugees and help feed the starving people of Afghanistan. We should be taking as many refugees and asylum seekers from Afghanistan as possible. There are things we can do to help without starting another war.

Is Keith actually anti-war or has Labour just returned to its 'yes we made mistakes but it was justified' position it hammered home pre-Corbyn?

[Fambo Number Mive]

He marched against Iraq in 2003 but of course Labour is full of people who moved from the left to the Blarite/Brownite right. I'm not sure what he thinks, I imagine he might say "Hang on, we're coming up with a policy of whether we should invade Afghanistan again."

"No Keith, you can't set up a focus group in Kabul." one of his aides will say.

"OK, is there a local think tank I can talk to?"

[Kankurette]

Yeah I don't get why we're sneering at the idea that the Taliban being back in control is very bad news for women and girls in Afghanistan? Am I missing something?

No, I'm not. Afghanistan is such a mess that I can't see things getting better whether the US pull out or not. And I'm terrified of the consequences of the Taliban getting into power. Call me a gender reductionist or whatever. And yes, I'm aware Afghanistan isn't exactly peachy for men either.

[poo]

Gut wrenching to see this happen.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Can you honestly say that the rights of women didn't improve post-2001, compared with Taliban rule in 1996-2001?

It's disingenuous to force the topic of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan through this binary. Just as 'would you rather Saddam was in charge' would be re. Iraq.

The questions is whether 100,000+ deaths, suicide bombing campaigns, military occupation, pitched battles ending in withdrawal and total defeat for the occupation at a cost of trillions was worth what was temporarily gained. It can't be argued. If you look at the last 70 years history of Afghanistan rights for women have ultimately become eroded every time following the latest foreign intervention even when those interfering have had a shred of noble intentions.

Why won't these people Christians and Atheists have tormented and brutalised and pillaged for decades just transition peacefully to a secular democracy with equal rights for women?

[The Culture Bunker]

Some wondering in the press if China is going to have a go now, maybe not with weapons but with money.

Apparently the terrorist organisations after fixating on the West for decades is turning to look China's way, especially with the latter's persecution of the Uyghurs and the two countries share a border. China even complained about the US's abrupt withdrawl.

Whatever happens now only one thing is certain - it'll be shit for the citizens of Afghanistan.

Is there anything in Afghanistan that China would want to make it worthwhile for them?

I'm not even sure terrorist attacks on their own land would make them that bothered about sending troops in. They may well just round up more Chinese Muslims and throw them in camps and call it a "preventative measure".

[monkfromhavana]

The only way to solve this is to let the Taliban take charge, but ensure that anyone who wants to leave gets safely taken out under the auspices of the UN and relocated to a safer country with guarantees of welfare and a decent standard of living and access to resources.

Then ring the country with UN forces, enforce sanctions and stop aid.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Let's not pretend that the US invaded Afghanistan in order to liberate Afghan women. They went in there because that's where Bin Laden was supposed to be and they couldn't invade Iraq (which was what they really wanted) and ignore Afghanistan.

[Sebastian Cobb]

It seems like the Soviet Union's attempts to assimilate Afghanistan probably centred women's, well not rights so much, but some semblance of something closer to equality (not saying the SU actually managed this anywhere) more than whatever it was America/UK were trying to achieve.

[Retinend]

Let's not pretend that the US invaded Afghanistan in order to liberate Afghan women.

No one in the thread has said this. The silly claim being criticised was "occupation hasn't really made it that much better for Afghan women" (Kankurette)

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

No one in the thread has said this. The silly claim being criticised was "occupation hasn't really made it that much better for Afghan women" (Kankurette)

The point is that it's irrelevant. Afghanistan wasn't invaded to improve the lives of its citizens. Happy coincidence if it did. War is never good for civilian women.

[Buelligan]

Absolutely.

that's all well and good but how could you really know how things would have turned without western ingerence? maybe the people of afghanistan would have gotten rid of them on their own, without some other country bombing their towns and syphonning their ressources?

Absolutely this.  Especially as it always ends in the little people getting a total fucking, every, every, time.   We only seem to care when the oppressed are sitting on a load of shit our masters want to control.  I'm with Star Trek all the way on this. 

[Retinend]

The point is that it's irrelevant. Afghanistan wasn't invaded to improve the lives of its citizens.

No one argued that was the case.

Someone was, however, arguing that there is no difference between Ashraf Ghani's current government and the Taliban for women.

[Buelligan]

And surely, that's the point Poirot was making - outsiders dabbled for their own greedy reasons, women, many people,  now worse off.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

And surely, that's the point Poirot was making - outsiders dabbled for their own greedy reasons, women, many people,  now worse off.

Exactly. I'm concerned that there are people (none here) out there who would seek to spin the entire mess as "but we were helping the women in this terrible savage country, how could you abandon the women, VIRTUE SIGNALLING INTENSIFIES" when that was never the reason for the invasion.

[chveik]

i can definitely see the democrats and their relays in the media trying to spin it that way

[Kankurette]

No one argued that was the case.

Someone was, however, arguing that there is no difference between Ashraf Ghani's current government and the Taliban for women.

Bollocks I said that. Poirot put it better than I could.

I never said I thought the US invaded to liberate women - when have the US ever cared about human rights when invading countries?

[dissolute ocelot]

Just need to legalise heroin and opium and grow it in Europe and North America. The Taliban are funded by opium money, just as their opponents were funded by corruptly-disbursed western money coming in through other, more official channels.