[Wellsy]

The ball has been dropped.
Ripping off a bandaid and getting a painful, inevitable, task out of the way; is fine when it’s just between you and the bandaid. Abandoning the mess you created and leaving tens of thousands of your dependents to the tender mercies of murderous religious fruitcakes, long before the weaning process is complete? Not fine.

That's a good way of putting it.  Although it seems to be the universal view that the US has mishandled the withdrawal,  it seems strange to exclusively blame Biden. It is after all, Trumps policy, except that he'd have done it in May instead.  I'd argue it represents a wider political failure of the powers (the UK and the US) to think about their future in foreign policy because they've been myopically obsessed with domestic politics for years,  often pouring concentration into piffling issues which governments should not be wasting their time on; Raab, for example seemed to have plenty of time to go on TV to criticise England players taking the knee, but not so much for Afghanistan. 

If he wanted to comment on football,  shouldn't we boycott the Qatar world cup,  as they also host the closest thing that the Taliban have to an official base in Doha.

Realistically most nations should be boycotting that WC but none of them will.

[Wellsy]

Apparently when the US forces at Bagram left during the night, they switched off the power... leaving the ANA guards outside standing in the fucking darkness with no idea what was going on, and with no radio contact with the base command cos they'd all left. It took the guard posts two hours to realise that the base had been emptied and they had no back-up, no security etc.

Morale in the ANA was very low recently I wonder why.

Hold on, the members of the ANA were presumably Afghans, right? Men brought up in the "graveyard of empires", a world of violence and fighting, capable of destroying superpower armies whilst wearing only pyjamas and sandals (or more realistically the sons and grandsons of men capable of underdressed asymmetric warfare, but grant me some poetic licence here).

Now are we saying these mighty warriors failed because it was dark?

I'm saying that the US withdrew from that base in the middle of the night without informing their allies, and in fact it was looted before the ANA even got there, and that's pretty dire and pathetic of them. A lot more ANA guys have died bravely fighting the Taliban than NATO guys have, and the US didn't even do a flag handover ceremony, didn't even tell them they were leaving, just nothing. When you leave the allies who guarded your base stood outside with all the floodlights suddenly turning off because you hold them in such contempt you didn't think or bother to actually say "btw we are leaving" then I feel like that's shameful to say the least.

[Oldmanmatt]

Apparently when the US forces at Bagram left during the night, they switched off the power... leaving the ANA guards outside standing in the fucking darkness with no idea what was going on, and with no radio contact with the base command cos they'd all left. It took the guard posts two hours to realise that the base had been emptied and they had no back-up, no security etc.

Morale in the ANA was very low recently I wonder why.

Hold on, the members of the ANA were presumably Afghans, right? Men brought up in the "graveyard of empires", a world of violence and fighting, capable of destroying superpower armies whilst wearing only pyjamas and sandals (or more realistically the sons and grandsons of men capable of underdressed asymmetric warfare, but grant me some poetic licence here).

Now are we saying these mighty warriors failed because it was dark?

I'm saying that the US withdrew from that base in the middle of the night without informing their allies, and in fact it was looted before the ANA even got there, and that's pretty dire and pathetic of them. A lot more ANA guys have died bravely fighting the Taliban than NATO guys have, and the US didn't even do a flag handover ceremony, didn't even tell them they were leaving, just nothing. When you leave the allies who guarded your base stood outside with all the floodlights suddenly turning off because you hold them in such contempt you didn't think or bother to actually say "btw we are leaving" then I feel like that's shameful to say the least.

It isn’t much of a surprise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/afghan-security-forces-capabilities/2021/08/15/052a45e2-fdc7-11eb-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F346abb3%2F611a90b09d2fda2f47f76c1a%2F59728dacade4e21a847fa816%2F9%2F68%2F611a90b09d2fda2f47f76c1a&fbclid=IwAR1HDPrknVS6UmPdUdR4cEM1qI4f9vwuZJVx4HR5g96bO19IRWIOriSRC40

[TobyD]

Apparently when the US forces at Bagram left during the night, they switched off the power... leaving the ANA guards outside standing in the fucking darkness with no idea what was going on, and with no radio contact with the base command cos they'd all left. It took the guard posts two hours to realise that the base had been emptied and they had no back-up, no security etc.

Morale in the ANA was very low recently I wonder why.

Hold on, the members of the ANA were presumably Afghans, right? Men brought up in the "graveyard of empires", a world of violence and fighting, capable of destroying superpower armies whilst wearing only pyjamas and sandals (or more realistically the sons and grandsons of men capable of underdressed asymmetric warfare, but grant me some poetic licence here).

Now are we saying these mighty warriors failed because it was dark?

I'm saying that the US withdrew from that base in the middle of the night without informing their allies, and in fact it was looted before the ANA even got there, and that's pretty dire and pathetic of them. A lot more ANA guys have died bravely fighting the Taliban than NATO guys have, and the US didn't even do a flag handover ceremony, didn't even tell them they were leaving, just nothing. When you leave the allies who guarded your base stood outside with all the floodlights suddenly turning off because you hold them in such contempt you didn't think or bother to actually say "btw we are leaving" then I feel like that's shameful to say the least.

If that's what happened, that's shameful. I wasn't really trying to stick up for Biden above; more to say that it's rank opportunism for the Republicans to make out as though it'd have been all rosy if they were in power. I'm sure Mitch McConnell will try however.

Pretty much as shameful was the kneejerk UKHO response that they didn't want any Afghan refugees given special consideration as it might sent out the wrong message to other migrants, as reported in the Sunday Times. They clearly wanted to make it clear that the UK isn't a humane country.

[Oldmanmatt]

Apparently when the US forces at Bagram left during the night, they switched off the power... leaving the ANA guards outside standing in the fucking darkness with no idea what was going on, and with no radio contact with the base command cos they'd all left. It took the guard posts two hours to realise that the base had been emptied and they had no back-up, no security etc.

Morale in the ANA was very low recently I wonder why.

Hold on, the members of the ANA were presumably Afghans, right? Men brought up in the "graveyard of empires", a world of violence and fighting, capable of destroying superpower armies whilst wearing only pyjamas and sandals (or more realistically the sons and grandsons of men capable of underdressed asymmetric warfare, but grant me some poetic licence here).

Now are we saying these mighty warriors failed because it was dark?

I'm saying that the US withdrew from that base in the middle of the night without informing their allies, and in fact it was looted before the ANA even got there, and that's pretty dire and pathetic of them. A lot more ANA guys have died bravely fighting the Taliban than NATO guys have, and the US didn't even do a flag handover ceremony, didn't even tell them they were leaving, just nothing. When you leave the allies who guarded your base stood outside with all the floodlights suddenly turning off because you hold them in such contempt you didn't think or bother to actually say "btw we are leaving" then I feel like that's shameful to say the least.

If that's what happened, that's shameful. I wasn't really trying to stick up for Biden above; more to say that it's rank opportunism for the Republicans to make out as though it'd have been all rosy if they were in power. I'm sure Mitch McConnell will try however.

Pretty much as shameful was the kneejerk UKHO response that they didn't want any Afghan refugees given special consideration as it might sent out the wrong message to other migrants, as reported in the Sunday Times. They clearly wanted to make it clear that the UK isn't a humane country.

If you delve into any comments sections that accompany any one of the various social media posting of refugees loaded into (or falling off) aeroplanes, it’s quite apparent that many, many, Brits really are not “humane” or, possibly, even human.

It’s worth following the links in the WP article above. It’s clear that this should have been foreseen and that the intelligence services were certainly aware of it’s likelihood and reporting such.
It’s clear they were aware since the Feb 2020 deal was signed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/15/afghanistan-military-collapse-taliban/

[Nigel]

"The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan took us by surprise" - everyone at the apex of the Western powers.

Really?? Can I reduce my taxes by the percentage that goes on the intelligence services & Ministry of War then please? 20 years there and billions of UK pounds and this is the best they can come up with.

Suspect there's a vast amount of Americans feeling similar about their $2 trillion dollar investment. 2001 - Taliban in control. 20 years of US blood and treasure to 2021 and....Taliban in control. Not least the military personnel from the front line. There will of course by a very few Americans in the "nation destroying" and also "nation building" trade who took receipt of most of that $2tn who are laughing whatever happens.

$88bn of that went on equipping and training a 300,000 strong modern army and air force with modern US planes / weaponry. These were meant to fight an 80,000 strong bunch of backward peasants with AK47s, pick ups, no air support, and no money, never mind $88bn! One of these sides overwhelmed the other completely, taking over a country of 38 million people largely bloodlessly, and in a matter of weeks. It appears not much actual fighting went on, which is frankly not a bad thing, given that the end result was evidently inevitable.

That's a good way of putting it.  seems strange to exclusively blame Biden. It is after all, Trumps policy, except that he'd have done it in May instead.

Trump's deal was to withdraw troops in exchange for the Taliban not hosting Al-Qaeda and generally being nicer. The Afghan govt were not signatories. That points to the US presumption that upon withdrawal the Taliban will take control. That was the US strategy under Trump. Could Biden have reversed this policy? Yes absolutely. He didn't. Though yes he tinkered with the timings / tactics. So, are we surprised the Taliban took control? That seems to be the agreed deal, and it has happened largely peacefully - cf any western takeover of a country for comparison. The speed of the takeover is a detail.

Will it actually happen? The Taliban rhetoric so far matches the deal. In terms of actions time will tell. I suspect the Taliban are not daft and will not invite another US invasion or any variety of trouble by hosting Al-Qaeda. They are probably being similarly advised by other countries too i.e. Russia & China, upon whose support they will be relying in future.

Overall another foreign adventure gone tits-up. As usual no-one involved will suffer even the mildest cross-word or hard question, but "lessons will be learnt". Largely because as expected our elected representatives were almost as one in voting for the invasion in the first place. The 13 exceptions you can probably guess - think "student politics".

[TobyD]

It is, to present a counter argument, very easy to criticize all intervention in foreign policy. However, we have left Syria and Yemen to it and they're huge humanitarian disasters. Obviously, Afghanistan doesn't seem to have gone well, but it's hard to ignore what an awful lot of troops who've been there say which is that they did a lot of good and gave an opportunity to a generation of Afghan people, especially women.
 I'm not trying to argue that it's a success, but I also don't think intervention of any kind is wrong. I don't know what the answer is though.

[BrutusTheBear]

Nigel_ 'think student politics'?  The implication being that being opposed to violent intervention is what? A less than serious or mature position to hold?
 I despise this portrayal... if anything those that think they can somehow impose their morality and superior way of life upon others around the world through the barrel of gun are extremely immature in their thinking. 
The idea that we are somehow 'better' is absurd, speak to anyone with a disability in this country and ask them about humane treatment.  Whilst we're all looking the other way at the dispicable behaviour of other states our own country is quietly engaged in it's own humanitarian disaster.

[Nigel]

It is, to present a counter argument, very easy to criticize all intervention in foreign policy.

Nice euphemism! An intervention in foreign policy, I would argue, might be withdrawing an ambassador, say. You will recall that this involved bombing the place, invading it, and occupying it for 20 years while fighting the very people who we have now left in charge. All to kill a Saudi Arabian man allegedly camping in the hills, who sent other Saudi Arabian men flying to the US. Who promptly moved a very short distance to US ally Pakistan, to a nice big house next to a military base.

Obviously, Afghanistan doesn't seem to have gone well, but it's hard to ignore what an awful lot of troops who've been there say which is that they did a lot of good and gave an opportunity to a generation of Afghan people, especially women.

Equally it is hard to ignore that we can come up with all sorts of post-hoc justifications for these violent disasters. No doubt we did do some good, I don't deny it. If you can remember back to 2001 the justification for the "intervention" was definitively NOT to send women to school. That is not a justification for war yet AFAIK? Otherwise some of our allies should start sweating! This is changing the goalposts. The original motivation / strategy was as I say above.

[TobyD]

 On a domestic UK issue, namely the tenure of the Met Police Commissioner, I spotted this in The Times this morning:
"Home Office sources said there was no clear candidate and so an extension for Dick was looking likely, although no final decision has been made."
Perhaps their subs are all on holiday?

[Nigel]

Brutus - respectfully you have missed the sarcasm! I attempted to denote that with the quotation marks. Obviously it failed - the perils of the internet! Sorry...

My intention was to highlight that usually those opposing these violent ventures are always in the tiny minority, usually on the left, and criticised as "not adult" / "student politics" / "not patriotic" / "foreign subversives" / "rebels" etc. After much loss of life, national wealth, and opportunity cost to direct resources to more productive endeavours, they usually turn out to have been right. Again.

[Johnny Brown]

I read it as 'and these are the ones dismissed as such' rather than an endorsement of that label. But then I do know you.

[jwi]

... meanwhile, in France there is very little opposition to the fact that the French military fighting insurgencies and small wars all over the Sahel, often on behalf of quite questionable governments. Even though Macron has promised to decrease the French military presence in the Sahel to around 2500-3000 soldiers, there is currently no plan, and no hope for a complete withdrawal. Fighting wars in Sahel is usually presented as a way to secure French borders and for domestic safety.

[TobyD]

it is hard to ignore that we can come up with all sorts of post-hoc justifications for these violent disasters. No doubt we did do some good, I don't deny it. If you can remember back to 2001 the justification for the "intervention" was definitively NOT to send women to school. That is not a justification for war yet AFAIK?

But the idea that you can impose a 2021 perspective on the actions of 2001 isn't reasonable. I'm not arguing, as I have said before that the intervention was a success, and the withdrawal is clearly a total debacle.
But the idea that it would have been an option to do nothing after the September 11 attacks isn't really credible, especially if Al Qaeda had launched another attack, emboldened by Western inaction. It was effective in dispersing the network of training camps Al Qaeda had and noone can know if we might have had further similar attacks otherwise.
However, the situation is now completely different as a terrorist group now just needs people with access to the internet to radicalise individuals to carry out lone wolf attacks, not a network of training camps. No amount of military intervention can prevent that, and it now looks like an anachronism. This wasn't the case in 2001.

The troops who've been in Afghanistan certainly seem to say that an awful lot of what they were doing was extremely valuable and I'm willing to take them at their word on that. The political management of their withdrawal by our government and the US is obviously a complete disaster though.

[seankenny]

No doubt we did do some good, I don't deny it. If you can remember back to 2001 the justification for the "intervention" was definitively NOT to send women to school. That is not a justification for war yet AFAIK? Otherwise some of our allies should start sweating! This is changing the goalposts. The original motivation / strategy was as I say above.

Well, we have the text of Blair's speech to the Labour Party conference in October 2001, which he gave a week before the invasion of Afghanistan:

"Look for a moment at the Taliban regime. It is undemocratic. That goes without saying.

"There is no sport allowed, or television or photography. No art or culture is permitted. All other faiths, all other interpretations of Islam are ruthlessly suppressed. Those who practice their faith are imprisoned. Women are treated in a way almost too revolting to be credible. First driven out of university; girls not allowed to go to school; no legal rights; unable to go out of doors without a man. Those that disobey are stoned.

"There is now no contact permitted with western agencies, even those delivering food. The people live in abject poverty. It is a regime founded on fear and funded on the drugs trade....

"To the Afghan people we make this commitment. The conflict will not be the end. We will not walk away, as the outside world has done so many times before.

"If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broad-based, that unites all ethnic groups, and that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is your present existence.

"And, more than ever now, with every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition so that inside and outside Afghanistan, the refugees, millions on the move even before September 11, are given shelter, food and help during the winter months."

To me that looks pretty close to saying that improving the lot of Afghan women was, if not a reason for invading, a desired outcome of doing so.

Blair also argues in this speech that the international community should have intervened in Rwanda in 1994. Doing so would undoubtedly have been difficult, expensive and violent. Question for all the far left wingers on here - should that have happened?

[SA Chris]

Are they all just going to ignore the crisis in Haiti, and spend a few days kicking the Afghanistan political football around parliament for a few days?

Edit - I see some support has now been promised.

[seankenny]

My intention was to highlight that usually those opposing these violent ventures are always in the tiny minority, usually on the left, and criticised as "not adult" / "student politics" / "not patriotic" / "foreign subversives" / "rebels" etc. After much loss of life, national wealth, and opportunity cost to direct resources to more productive endeavours, they usually turn out to have been right. Again.

I visited Afghanistan in 2001 when it was under the control of the Taliban. In the twenty years since I've visited several very poor countries suffering conflict or humanitarian crises and despite what I've seen, the state of Afghanistan back then continues to haunt me. I only went to Jalalabad and Kabul so can't pretend to have had a broad view of the country, but even so I think most people struggle to comprehend how absolutely fucked it was. In the 150 mile journey from Pakistan to Kabul there was barely 50 yards of paved, unshelled road remaining. You'd drive past limbless men begging by the side of the road, the victims of the extensive minefields. In the countryside every building within 50 metres of the road was a ruin, as the Soviets had carpet bombed them to remove places for snipers. In Jalalabad I remember walking across a bridge and when a cart passed by the bridge vibrated, there were holes in the pavement and you could see the river below. Everything was in pieces. I stayed in a hotel there and if you wanted to turn the light on, you took two wires coming out of the wall that had been pared down to the metal and shaped into hooks, and put the hooks together.

We're talking about a country too poor and decrepit to afford light switches.

Unfortunately I don't have many pictures of the trip as photography was illegal under the Taliban and they were kind of scary. Driving from Jalalabad to Kabul, the taxi driver had a Bollywood tape in his glovebox, the Talibs at a checkpoint found it, pulled him from the car and started roughing him up. Obviously I didn't talk to any women because I didn't see any women, but I'd spoken to women activists in Peshawar and they were having a truly awful time.

I was lucky enough to visit Afghanistan again in 2008, to Kabul and then the rural north east, accompanying a photographer. (The trip produced this picture: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/20/alixandra-fazzina-best-photograph-afghan-mother-breastfeeding) Kabul was a different city, there was reconstruction, women on the streets, lighting, people were clearly just better off. Out in the countryside things were still pretty grim, but there were actual clinics for pregnant women which just hadn't existed before. One woman told me how previously she'd given birth in winter onto a mud floor in an unheated room with six foot snowdrifts outside. Just brutal conditions, and whilst things are still bad (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?contextual=region&locations=AF) they were improving.

Now I'm not saying the western intervention was perfect by any means. It has been very violent. There have been huge problems with injecting so much money into such a basket case of a country. Building a state has also enabled massive corruption. We empowered many of the worst people in Afghan society, to the point that US soldiers were told *not* to intervene in cases where commanders had been sexually abusing boys. It turns out that perhaps 20 years was not enough time to create anything like a well-functioning country.

Much of this has been covered very well by Adam Tooze here, helpfully including some stats on the Soviet time which are worth ingesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/adam-toozes-chartbook-29-afghanistans

Clearly things were going backwards before the summer of 2021 and it's hard to feel hopeful for the future. But when I read posts from left wingers saying we should have put money into "more productive" endeavours, I'm struggling to think of something less worthy of our attention than the ruined place Afghanistan was in 2001. What, from a left wing point of view, could be more productive than stopping women in childbirth bleeding out onto mud-strewn floors? (If you think other countries with similarly terrible maternal mortality rates would have soaked up that money better, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

If we'd have followed the path advocated by the far left, we'd never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place and it would just have limped on as it had been for years. We've finally done what the Stop the War guys want, ie leave, and it's so popular with Afghans that some are willing to cling onto a plane's fusilage to avoid it, and die trying.

[Oldmanmatt]

My intention was to highlight that usually those opposing these violent ventures are always in the tiny minority, usually on the left, and criticised as "not adult" / "student politics" / "not patriotic" / "foreign subversives" / "rebels" etc. After much loss of life, national wealth, and opportunity cost to direct resources to more productive endeavours, they usually turn out to have been right. Again.

I visited Afghanistan in 2001 when it was under the control of the Taliban. In the twenty years since I've visited several very poor countries suffering conflict or humanitarian crises and despite what I've seen, the state of Afghanistan back then continues to haunt me. I only went to Jalalabad and Kabul so can't pretend to have had a broad view of the country, but even so I think most people struggle to comprehend how absolutely fucked it was. In the 150 mile journey from Pakistan to Kabul there was barely 50 yards of paved, unshelled road remaining. You'd drive past limbless men begging by the side of the road, the victims of the extensive minefields. In the countryside every building within 50 metres of the road was a ruin, as the Soviets had carpet bombed them to remove places for snipers. In Jalalabad I remember walking across a bridge and when a cart passed by the bridge vibrated, there were holes in the pavement and you could see the river below. Everything was in pieces. I stayed in a hotel there and if you wanted to turn the light on, you took two wires coming out of the wall that had been pared down to the metal and shaped into hooks, and put the hooks together.

We're talking about a country too poor and decrepit to afford light switches.

Unfortunately I don't have many pictures of the trip as photography was illegal under the Taliban and they were kind of scary. Driving from Jalalabad to Kabul, the taxi driver had a Bollywood tape in his glovebox, the Talibs at a checkpoint found it, pulled him from the car and started roughing him up. Obviously I didn't talk to any women because I didn't see any women, but I'd spoken to women activists in Peshawar and they were having a truly awful time.

I was lucky enough to visit Afghanistan again in 2008, to Kabul and then the rural north east, accompanying a photographer. (The trip produced this picture: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/20/alixandra-fazzina-best-photograph-afghan-mother-breastfeeding) Kabul was a different city, there was reconstruction, women on the streets, lighting, people were clearly just better off. Out in the countryside things were still pretty grim, but there were actual clinics for pregnant women which just hadn't existed before. One woman told me how previously she'd given birth in winter onto a mud floor in an unheated room with six foot snowdrifts outside. Just brutal conditions, and whilst things are still bad (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?contextual=region&locations=AF) they were improving.

Now I'm not saying the western intervention was perfect by any means. It has been very violent. There have been huge problems with injecting so much money into such a basket case of a country. Building a state has also enabled massive corruption. We empowered many of the worst people in Afghan society, to the point that US soldiers were told *not* to intervene in cases where commanders had been sexually abusing boys. It turns out that perhaps 20 years was not enough time to create anything like a well-functioning country.

Much of this has been covered very well by Adam Tooze here, helpfully including some stats on the Soviet time which are worth ingesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/adam-toozes-chartbook-29-afghanistans

Clearly things were going backwards before the summer of 2021 and it's hard to feel hopeful for the future. But when I read posts from left wingers saying we should have put money into "more productive" endeavours, I'm struggling to think of something less worthy of our attention than the ruined place Afghanistan was in 2001. What, from a left wing point of view, could be more productive than stopping women in childbirth bleeding out onto mud-strewn floors? (If you think other countries with similarly terrible maternal mortality rates would have soaked up that money better, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

If we'd have followed the path advocated by the far left, we'd never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place and it would just have limped on as it had been for years. We've finally done what the Stop the War guys want, ie leave, and it's so popular with Afghans that some are willing to cling onto a plane's fusilage to avoid it, and die trying.

I feel like this should be printed in most of todays papers.

[TobyD]

I visited Afghanistan in 2001 when it was under the control of the Taliban. ...
...
 We've finally done what the Stop the War guys want, ie leave, and it's so popular with Afghans that some are willing to cling onto a plane's fusilage to avoid it, and die trying.

That's a great account Sean. Really appreciated reading that  It seems to reflect what many of the soldiers say who've served there. It's complicated, messy and imperfect, but the troop presence in Afghanistan did an awful lot of good. I listened to this on Afghan history:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5kQcWXvgCoMmWInMxfGMwQ?si=mez-pzbkQMmoswq7ADGQwQ&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1

Apparently the practice of abuse of young boys has been commonplace in some castes of Afghan society for a long time, and it was part of the reason for the rise of the Taliban, who might leave the boys alone but treat anyone female even worse, if that's possible.

[ummagumma]

My intention was to highlight that usually those opposing these violent ventures are always in the tiny minority, usually on the left, and criticised as "not adult" / "student politics" / "not patriotic" / "foreign subversives" / "rebels" etc. After much loss of life, national wealth, and opportunity cost to direct resources to more productive endeavours, they usually turn out to have been right. Again.

I visited Afghanistan in 2001 when it was under the control of the Taliban. In the twenty years since I've visited several very poor countries suffering conflict or humanitarian crises and despite what I've seen, the state of Afghanistan back then continues to haunt me. I only went to Jalalabad and Kabul so can't pretend to have had a broad view of the country, but even so I think most people struggle to comprehend how absolutely fucked it was. In the 150 mile journey from Pakistan to Kabul there was barely 50 yards of paved, unshelled road remaining. You'd drive past limbless men begging by the side of the road, the victims of the extensive minefields. In the countryside every building within 50 metres of the road was a ruin, as the Soviets had carpet bombed them to remove places for snipers. In Jalalabad I remember walking across a bridge and when a cart passed by the bridge vibrated, there were holes in the pavement and you could see the river below. Everything was in pieces. I stayed in a hotel there and if you wanted to turn the light on, you took two wires coming out of the wall that had been pared down to the metal and shaped into hooks, and put the hooks together.

We're talking about a country too poor and decrepit to afford light switches.

Unfortunately I don't have many pictures of the trip as photography was illegal under the Taliban and they were kind of scary. Driving from Jalalabad to Kabul, the taxi driver had a Bollywood tape in his glovebox, the Talibs at a checkpoint found it, pulled him from the car and started roughing him up. Obviously I didn't talk to any women because I didn't see any women, but I'd spoken to women activists in Peshawar and they were having a truly awful time.

I was lucky enough to visit Afghanistan again in 2008, to Kabul and then the rural north east, accompanying a photographer. (The trip produced this picture: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/20/alixandra-fazzina-best-photograph-afghan-mother-breastfeeding) Kabul was a different city, there was reconstruction, women on the streets, lighting, people were clearly just better off. Out in the countryside things were still pretty grim, but there were actual clinics for pregnant women which just hadn't existed before. One woman told me how previously she'd given birth in winter onto a mud floor in an unheated room with six foot snowdrifts outside. Just brutal conditions, and whilst things are still bad (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?contextual=region&locations=AF) they were improving.

Now I'm not saying the western intervention was perfect by any means. It has been very violent. There have been huge problems with injecting so much money into such a basket case of a country. Building a state has also enabled massive corruption. We empowered many of the worst people in Afghan society, to the point that US soldiers were told *not* to intervene in cases where commanders had been sexually abusing boys. It turns out that perhaps 20 years was not enough time to create anything like a well-functioning country.

Much of this has been covered very well by Adam Tooze here, helpfully including some stats on the Soviet time which are worth ingesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/adam-toozes-chartbook-29-afghanistans

Clearly things were going backwards before the summer of 2021 and it's hard to feel hopeful for the future. But when I read posts from left wingers saying we should have put money into "more productive" endeavours, I'm struggling to think of something less worthy of our attention than the ruined place Afghanistan was in 2001. What, from a left wing point of view, could be more productive than stopping women in childbirth bleeding out onto mud-strewn floors? (If you think other countries with similarly terrible maternal mortality rates would have soaked up that money better, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

If we'd have followed the path advocated by the far left, we'd never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place and it would just have limped on as it had been for years. We've finally done what the Stop the War guys want, ie leave, and it's so popular with Afghans that some are willing to cling onto a plane's fusilage to avoid it, and die trying.

I feel like this should be printed in most of todays papers.

True. Interesting on the ground perspective. Maybe the go/no go dichotomy has various shades of grey that would have been better. A minimum US presence supporting Afghan army with backup air support could have maintained the stalemate. It is secondary also a useful base for the US in the region and monitoring terrorism. A lot of pros and cons no doubt ... nearly anything is better than that playing out with Biden's 'strategy'. And this current route makes the US look weak, allies confidence losing, and most importantly a step back to the ways of old as outlined by Sean's post... plus the retaliation punishment beating on its own populous and other human rights violations for bad measure. 

[TobyD]

My intention was to highlight that usually those opposing these violent ventures are always in the tiny minority, usually on the left, and criticised as "not adult" / "student politics" / "not patriotic" / "foreign subversives" / "rebels" etc. After much loss of life, national wealth, and opportunity cost to direct resources to more productive endeavours, they usually turn out to have been right. Again.

I visited Afghanistan in 2001 when it was under the control of the Taliban. In the twenty years since I've visited several very poor countries suffering conflict or humanitarian crises and despite what I've seen, the state of Afghanistan back then continues to haunt me. I only went to Jalalabad and Kabul so can't pretend to have had a broad view of the country, but even so I think most people struggle to comprehend how absolutely fucked it was. In the 150 mile journey from Pakistan to Kabul there was barely 50 yards of paved, unshelled road remaining. You'd drive past limbless men begging by the side of the road, the victims of the extensive minefields. In the countryside every building within 50 metres of the road was a ruin, as the Soviets had carpet bombed them to remove places for snipers. In Jalalabad I remember walking across a bridge and when a cart passed by the bridge vibrated, there were holes in the pavement and you could see the river below. Everything was in pieces. I stayed in a hotel there and if you wanted to turn the light on, you took two wires coming out of the wall that had been pared down to the metal and shaped into hooks, and put the hooks together.

We're talking about a country too poor and decrepit to afford light switches.

Unfortunately I don't have many pictures of the trip as photography was illegal under the Taliban and they were kind of scary. Driving from Jalalabad to Kabul, the taxi driver had a Bollywood tape in his glovebox, the Talibs at a checkpoint found it, pulled him from the car and started roughing him up. Obviously I didn't talk to any women because I didn't see any women, but I'd spoken to women activists in Peshawar and they were having a truly awful time.

I was lucky enough to visit Afghanistan again in 2008, to Kabul and then the rural north east, accompanying a photographer. (The trip produced this picture: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/20/alixandra-fazzina-best-photograph-afghan-mother-breastfeeding) Kabul was a different city, there was reconstruction, women on the streets, lighting, people were clearly just better off. Out in the countryside things were still pretty grim, but there were actual clinics for pregnant women which just hadn't existed before. One woman told me how previously she'd given birth in winter onto a mud floor in an unheated room with six foot snowdrifts outside. Just brutal conditions, and whilst things are still bad (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?contextual=region&locations=AF) they were improving.

Now I'm not saying the western intervention was perfect by any means. It has been very violent. There have been huge problems with injecting so much money into such a basket case of a country. Building a state has also enabled massive corruption. We empowered many of the worst people in Afghan society, to the point that US soldiers were told *not* to intervene in cases where commanders had been sexually abusing boys. It turns out that perhaps 20 years was not enough time to create anything like a well-functioning country.

Much of this has been covered very well by Adam Tooze here, helpfully including some stats on the Soviet time which are worth ingesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/adam-toozes-chartbook-29-afghanistans

Clearly things were going backwards before the summer of 2021 and it's hard to feel hopeful for the future. But when I read posts from left wingers saying we should have put money into "more productive" endeavours, I'm struggling to think of something less worthy of our attention than the ruined place Afghanistan was in 2001. What, from a left wing point of view, could be more productive than stopping women in childbirth bleeding out onto mud-strewn floors? (If you think other countries with similarly terrible maternal mortality rates would have soaked up that money better, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

If we'd have followed the path advocated by the far left, we'd never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place and it would just have limped on as it had been for years. We've finally done what the Stop the War guys want, ie leave, and it's so popular with Afghans that some are willing to cling onto a plane's fusilage to avoid it, and die trying.

I feel like this should be printed in most of todays papers.

True. Interesting on the ground perspective. Maybe the go/no go dichotomy has various shades of grey that would have been better. A minimum US presence supporting Afghan army with backup air support could have maintained the stalemate. It is secondary also a useful base for the US in the region and monitoring terrorism. A lot of pros and cons no doubt ... nearly anything is better than that playing out with Biden's 'strategy'. And this current route makes the US look weak, allies confidence losing, and most importantly a step back to the ways of old as outlined by Sean's post... plus the retaliation punishment beating on its own populous and other human rights violations for bad measure. 

Biden's 'strategy ' has clearly been awful for Afghanistan,  and makes him look incompetent to the rest of the world; but apparently polls in the US showed more than 70% approval for the withdrawal.  I suspect he's more worried about the mid term election than with the probable reality that a couple of thousand US troops in Afghanistan not engaged in combat was a minimal expenditure to stabilise a country. 

[mrjonathanr]

I have just emailed my MP asking her to speak in favour of granting asylum to the interpreters and security staff we have abandoned in Kabul. Much good may it do: she has a 100% record in Hansard of voting with the government. At least she knows what her constituents think of the current spineless response to the crisis.

[TobyD]

 For being foreign secretary,  Dominic Raab has a salary of over £70,000. He couldn't be bothered to make a phone call last week as part of his job.

I wonder how many NHS staff had leave cancelled during the pandemic or indeed during  annual winter pressures,  and said nah, I think I'll go to a beach in the Mediterranean instead?

[mrjonathanr]

That call was to arrange asylum for people who have helped the UK and will be fearing for their lives now. It never took place because he refused it. People will die as a consequence.

[ummagumma]

My intention was to highlight that usually those opposing these violent ventures are always in the tiny minority, usually on the left, and criticised as "not adult" / "student politics" / "not patriotic" / "foreign subversives" / "rebels" etc. After much loss of life, national wealth, and opportunity cost to direct resources to more productive endeavours, they usually turn out to have been right. Again.

I visited Afghanistan in 2001 when it was under the control of the Taliban. In the twenty years since I've visited several very poor countries suffering conflict or humanitarian crises and despite what I've seen, the state of Afghanistan back then continues to haunt me. I only went to Jalalabad and Kabul so can't pretend to have had a broad view of the country, but even so I think most people struggle to comprehend how absolutely fucked it was. In the 150 mile journey from Pakistan to Kabul there was barely 50 yards of paved, unshelled road remaining. You'd drive past limbless men begging by the side of the road, the victims of the extensive minefields. In the countryside every building within 50 metres of the road was a ruin, as the Soviets had carpet bombed them to remove places for snipers. In Jalalabad I remember walking across a bridge and when a cart passed by the bridge vibrated, there were holes in the pavement and you could see the river below. Everything was in pieces. I stayed in a hotel there and if you wanted to turn the light on, you took two wires coming out of the wall that had been pared down to the metal and shaped into hooks, and put the hooks together.

We're talking about a country too poor and decrepit to afford light switches.

Unfortunately I don't have many pictures of the trip as photography was illegal under the Taliban and they were kind of scary. Driving from Jalalabad to Kabul, the taxi driver had a Bollywood tape in his glovebox, the Talibs at a checkpoint found it, pulled him from the car and started roughing him up. Obviously I didn't talk to any women because I didn't see any women, but I'd spoken to women activists in Peshawar and they were having a truly awful time.

I was lucky enough to visit Afghanistan again in 2008, to Kabul and then the rural north east, accompanying a photographer. (The trip produced this picture: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/20/alixandra-fazzina-best-photograph-afghan-mother-breastfeeding) Kabul was a different city, there was reconstruction, women on the streets, lighting, people were clearly just better off. Out in the countryside things were still pretty grim, but there were actual clinics for pregnant women which just hadn't existed before. One woman told me how previously she'd given birth in winter onto a mud floor in an unheated room with six foot snowdrifts outside. Just brutal conditions, and whilst things are still bad (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?contextual=region&locations=AF) they were improving.

Now I'm not saying the western intervention was perfect by any means. It has been very violent. There have been huge problems with injecting so much money into such a basket case of a country. Building a state has also enabled massive corruption. We empowered many of the worst people in Afghan society, to the point that US soldiers were told *not* to intervene in cases where commanders had been sexually abusing boys. It turns out that perhaps 20 years was not enough time to create anything like a well-functioning country.

Much of this has been covered very well by Adam Tooze here, helpfully including some stats on the Soviet time which are worth ingesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/adam-toozes-chartbook-29-afghanistans

Clearly things were going backwards before the summer of 2021 and it's hard to feel hopeful for the future. But when I read posts from left wingers saying we should have put money into "more productive" endeavours, I'm struggling to think of something less worthy of our attention than the ruined place Afghanistan was in 2001. What, from a left wing point of view, could be more productive than stopping women in childbirth bleeding out onto mud-strewn floors? (If you think other countries with similarly terrible maternal mortality rates would have soaked up that money better, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

If we'd have followed the path advocated by the far left, we'd never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place and it would just have limped on as it had been for years. We've finally done what the Stop the War guys want, ie leave, and it's so popular with Afghans that some are willing to cling onto a plane's fusilage to avoid it, and die trying.

I feel like this should be printed in most of todays papers.

True. Interesting on the ground perspective. Maybe the go/no go dichotomy has various shades of grey that would have been better. A minimum US presence supporting Afghan army with backup air support could have maintained the stalemate. It is secondary also a useful base for the US in the region and monitoring terrorism. A lot of pros and cons no doubt ... nearly anything is better than that playing out with Biden's 'strategy'. And this current route makes the US look weak, allies confidence losing, and most importantly a step back to the ways of old as outlined by Sean's post... plus the retaliation punishment beating on its own populous and other human rights violations for bad measure. 

Biden's 'strategy ' has clearly been awful for Afghanistan,  and makes him look incompetent to the rest of the world; but apparently polls in the US showed more than 70% approval for the withdrawal.  I suspect he's more worried about the mid term election than with the probable reality that a couple of thousand US troops in Afghanistan not engaged in combat was a minimal expenditure to stabilise a country.

One can 'withdraw' and leave a skeleton presence like Syria, hell even still in Europe, S Korea, and Japan to this day. As mentioned before, it isn't that he withdrew, it is how he withdrew and endangered lives of Americans civilians and diplomats, allies, and the regular Afghan people.

Biden approval is slipping fast unsurprisingly https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Democrats should be worried. If Biden withdrew to win approval from the public for political/election purposes that has backfired hard.

Rank and file Democrats must be questioning his foreign policy and national political credentials + capabilities.