Thread: US loses war in Afghanistan, hands it back to Taliban

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has arrived in Doha to witness a US troop withdrawal deal that could end the war in Afghanistan.
Mr Pompeo arrived in Qatar's capital on a flight from Washington after refuelling in Germany.
The signing ceremony between the United States and Taliban Islamist militants is set to take place in Doha this afternoon.
The details of the deal have not been disclosed, but it is expected to set the terms of the US to start withdrawing the more than 12,000 troops it has in Afghanistan in return for commitments from the Taliban.
It carries with it hopes of a fall in violence in Afghanistan after decades of conflict and the opening of peace talks with the Afghan government, which was excluded from the direct US-Taliban negotiations.
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg is in Afghanistan for meetings with officials.
Mr Stoltenberg was to participate in a Kabul media conference later Saturday with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and US Defense Secretary Mark Esper, a NATO statement said.
He was also to meet the head of the US and NATO forces in the country, General Scott Miller, as well as other commanders of the alliance's training mission there.
Yesterday, US President Donald Trump urged the Afghan people to embrace a chance for a new future.
With a one-week ceasefire set as a condition for the pact holding firm, Mr Trump said that there is now a possibility of ending the nearly two-decade war in Afghanistan.
The commitments to be made in the Taliban agreement and the joint declaration are an "important step to a lasting peace" that could free Afghans from the threat of al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State group, Mr Trump said in a statement.
"If the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan live up to these commitments, we will have a powerful path forward to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home," he said.
Nevertheless, he added, "Ultimately it will be up to the people of Afghanistan to work out their future."
"We, therefore, urge the Afghan people to seize this opportunity for peace and a new future for their country."

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0229/1119332-taliban-afghanistan/

Soviet War in Afghanistan: The war began in December 1979, and lasted until February 1989. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and about 35,000 were wounded. About two million Afghan civilians were killed.

As of July 7, 2018, there have been 2,440 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,320 American servicemembers have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,720 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

all for naught...

I presume henceforth this will be known as the "Doha Peace Accords".


Paris Peace Accords signed - HISTORY

Originally Posted by bowie

Soviet War in Afghanistan: The war began in December 1979, and lasted until February 1989. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and about 35,000 were wounded. About two million Afghan civilians were killed.

As of July 7, 2018, there have been 2,440 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,320 American servicemembers have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,720 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

all for naught...

Well unless China fancies a crack, I think that should be it for Afghanistan invasions....

Well we weren't the first but we did last the longest. At least we didn't get beat as bad as you island monkeys did. Twice

In the 1842 Afghanistan Massacre, Only 1 British Soldier Survived

A British incursion into Afghanistan ended in disaster in 1842 when an entire British army, while retreating back to India, was massacred. Only a single survivor made it back to British-held territory. It was assumed the Afghans let him live to tell the story of what had happened.

The background to the shocking military disaster had been the constant geopolitical jockeying in southern Asia which eventually came to be called “The Great Game.” The British Empire, in the early 19th century, ruled India (through the East India Company), and the Russian Empire, to the north, was suspected of having its own designs on India.

The British wanted to conquer Afghanistan to prevent the Russians from invading southward through the mountainous regions into British India.

One of the earliest eruptions in this epic struggle was the First Anglo-Afghan War, which had its beginning in the late 1830s. To protect its holdings in India, the British had allied themselves with an Afghan ruler, Dost Mohammed.

He had united warring Afghan factions after seizing power in 1818 and seemed to be serving a useful purpose to the British. But in 1837, it became apparent that Dost Mohammed was beginning a flirtation with the Russians.

Britain Invades Afghanistan

The British resolved to invade Afghanistan, and the Army of the Indus, a formidable force of more than 20,000 British and Indian troops, set off from India for Afghanistan in late 1838. After difficult travel through the mountain passes, the British reached Kabul in April 1839. They marched unopposed into the Afghan capital city.

Dost Mohammed was toppled as the Afghan leader, and the British installed Shah Shuja, who had been driven from power decades earlier. The original plan was to withdraw all the British troops, but Shah Shuja’s hold on power was shaky, so two brigades of British troops had to remain in Kabul.

Along with the British Army were two major figures assigned to essentially guide the government of Shah Shuja, Sir William McNaghten and Sir Alexander Burnes. The men were two well-known and very experienced political officers. Burnes had lived in Kabul previously, and had written a book about his time there.

The British forces staying in Kabul could have moved into an ancient fortress overlooking the city, but Shah Shuja believed that would make it look like the British were in control. Instead, the British built a new cantonment, or base, that would prove difficult to defend. Sir Alexander Burnes, feeling quite confident, lived outside the cantonment, in a house in Kabul.

The Afghans Revolt

The Afghan population deeply resented the British troops. Tensions slowly escalated, and despite warnings from friendly Afghans that an uprising was inevitable, the British were unprepared in November 1841 when an insurrection broke out in Kabul.

A mob encircled the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The British diplomat tried to offer the crowd money to disburse, to no effect. The lightly defended residence was overrun. Burnes and his brother were both brutally murdered.

The British troops in the city were greatly outnumbered and unable to defend themselves properly, as the cantonment was encircled.

A truce was arranged in late November, and it seems the Afghans simply wanted the British to leave the country. But tensions escalated when the son of Dost Mohammed, Muhammad Akbar Khan, appeared in Kabul and took a harder line.

British Forced to Flee

Sir William McNaghten, who had been trying to negotiate a way out of the city, was murdered on December 23, 1841, reportedly by Muhammad Akbar Khan himself. The British, their situation hopeless, somehow managed to negotiate a treaty to leave Afghanistan.

On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. About 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul left the city. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away.

The retreat in the brutally cold weather took an immediate toll, and many died from exposure in the first days. And despite the treaty, the British column came under attack when it reached a mountain pass, the Khurd Kabul. The retreat became a massacre.

Slaughter in the Mountain Passes

A magazine based in Boston, the North American Review, published a remarkably extensive and timely account titled “The English in Afghanistan” six months later, in July 1842. It contained this vivid description:

"On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…

"The troops kept on, and awful scenes ensued. Without food, mangled and cut to pieces, each one caring only for himself, all subordination had fled; and the soldiers of the forty-fourth English regiment are reported to have knocked down their officers with the butts of their muskets.

"On the 13th of January, just seven days after the retreat commenced, one man, bloody and torn, mounted on a miserable pony, and pursued by horsemen, was seen riding furiously across the plains to Jellalabad. That was Dr. Brydon, the sole person to tell the tale of the passage of Khourd Caboul."

More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end, only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad.

The garrison there lit signal fires and sounded bugles to guide other British survivors to safety. But after several days they realized that Brydon would be the only one.

The legend of the sole survivor endured. In the 1870s, a British painter, Elizabeth Thompson, Lady Butler, produced a dramatic painting of a soldier on a dying horse said to be based on the story of Brydon. The painting, titled "Remnants of an Army," is in the collection of the Tate Gallery in London.

A Severe Blow to British Pride

The loss of so many troops to mountain tribesmen was, of course, a bitter humiliation for the British. With Kabul lost, a campaign was mounted to evacuate the rest of the British troops from garrisons in Afghanistan, and the British then withdrew from the country entirely.

And while popular legend held that Dr. Brydon was the only survivor from the horrific retreat from Kabul, some British troops and their wives had been taken hostage by Afghans and were later rescued and released. A few other survivors turned up over the years as well.

One account, in a history of Afghanistan by former British diplomat Sir Martin Ewans, contends that in the 1920s two elderly women in Kabul were introduced to British diplomats. Astoundingly, they had been on the retreat as babies. Their British parents had apparently been killed, but they had been rescued and brought up by Afghan families.

Massacre of British Army in Afghanistan in 1842

Yes but we didn't have "the most sophisticated war machine in the history of the world" (or whatever bollocks you trot out these days).

We had horses and blunderbusses.

For years, American officials have said that the peace process in Afghanistan must be Afghan-owned and Afghan-led.
But until now, the government in Kabul has not been involved in 18 months of talks between United States and the Taliban, who call it “an impotent and incapable governing system,” illegitimate and a US puppet.
The US-Taliban deal spells out the conditions for the withdrawal of US forces in exchange for counter-terrorism guarantees by the group. But it leaves many of the big questions on Afghanistan’s future to intra-Afghan talks that are due to follow 10 to 15 days after the signing of the Doha agreement.
Details of the intra-Afghan talks are vague. The Taliban said that any government official who does attend will be doing so in a private capacity, then invited the Kabul administration to put together a contact group. Those six Afghans, chosen by the Kabul government, are in Doha to meet the Taliban and set an agenda for intra-Afghan talks.
In advance of the start of talks with fellow Afghans, the Taliban appear to be trying to load the deck. In a video message on February 17, that was the first confirmation that the Taliban would sign the US deal, Abdul Salam Hanafi, a member of the Taliban’s media commission, said that intra-Afghan talks would begin once 5,000 Taliban prisoners had been released.
The Taliban have since clarified it would be an exchange — 5,000 Taliban prisoners for 1,000 Afghan security forces in Taliban custody.
Sediq Sediqqi, spokesman for President Ashraf Ghani, said the government had not agreed to the release of prisoners, and called the Taliban’s assertion a “media stunt promoting a false narrative”.
“I think it’s a very unrealistic expectation that you want 5,000 of your prisoners to be released immediately after you sign the agreement,” said parliamentarian Fawzia Koofi (pictured), who was forced to give up her dream of becoming a doctor when the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996.
“I think [the release] has to be over time with trust-building mechanisms. There has to be a vetting process of their cases and their files and what they have committed. The laws of Afghanistan should be respected,” she said.
The Taliban have not made clear what law they will respect as they move forward with negotiations. Many Afghans were outraged when it emerged last summer that the draft of the agreement due to be signed referred to their country as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. That is its name under Taliban rule, as opposed to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as it is currently known. Afghans feared it was a sign the Taliban want to go back to the way things were.
When they were in power, the Taliban imposed a strict Islamic system, banning music and pictures, forcing men to grow beards, preventing women from going outside on their own and denying them the right to education and work.
The big question among Afghans is whether the group has changed, “They should be part of the government, they are Afghans,” said Abdul Hadi, a twenty-something with a university education. “I think they will change when they come to our country.”
Others are more wary. Koofi was one of only two women who were part of an unofficial delegation that met with the Taliban in Doha while US talks were going on. She believes the Taliban is divided, that the political group in Doha has different beliefs to those fighting on the ground in Afghanistan.
“It will be very difficult to completely trust groups that are engaged heavily in violence,” she said. “They have been using guns as a means of raising their voice and we have been using our voice as a means of presenting our demands, so we are different and it will take a lot of effort to bring us together.”
The mechanism for the sort of unity Koofi speaks of will be the intra-Afghan talks.
One big point of leverage the government has is the Taliban prisoners in their custody. Orzala Nemat, who heads the Kabul think-tank the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, says the government should not release any prisoners before the negotiations.
“They will have to be released, but only after there is an agreement as a result of intra-Afghan dialogue about a ceasefire. If the Taliban declare a ceasefire and not just for a few days, but for a long term, then prisoners can be released.”
She agrees with Koofi that, even then, individual prisoners would have to be vetted to ensure anyone violent or dangerous is not freed.
It’s unclear whether military fighters are pressuring the Taliban’s political arm for the release. The Taliban, on their “Voice of Jihad” website, say the success of the February 22-29 reduction in violence, leading up to the signing, shows they are speaking as one.
The government cannot say the same. There is political division in Kabul in the wake of long-awaited results of September’s presidential elections. Ghani, the incumbent, was declared the winner. His rival Abdullah Abdullah called the vote fraudulent, proclaimed himself victorious and said he was going to set up a parallel government.
US pressure seems to have headed that off for now, but the two camps are at odds over who should be in the delegation that negotiates with the Taliban. Those divisions could put the government at a disadvantage.
“The early period of negotiations will be difficult because there’s still a lot of work to do in developing consensus-based positions on each side,” said Laurel Miller, the director of the International Crisis Group’s Asia programme. “Parties have not fully developed what negotiating positions they have. Nor what their initial positions would be.”
But the Taliban seems to know what it wants: first, a prisoner exchange, that much is clear. But then what?
“If it isn’t Afghan-led, there can be no real peace in Afghanistan,” said a senior Afghan official.
After the US-Taliban deal is signed, it will be the Afghans’ turn to talk to the Taliban. Finally, after 40 years of war, almost 20 with the Taliban, Afghans will have to decide their own fate.

https://www.thearticle.com/even-before-talks-with-fellow-afghans-start-a-taliban-demand

Snub, will tell you soon America has never lost a war.

I look forward to snivelling Mike Pompeous "Peace with Honor"speech.

Wonder if there going to get a share of the estimated $1 trillion worth of minerals? the Chinese have a good investment in there already.

Originally Posted by Chico

Wonder if there going to get a share of the estimated $1 trillion worth of minerals? the Chinese have a good investment in there already.

I expect the talitubbies will rub it in by spending the money on Russian arms.

Be interested to see the terms of the agreement. The Vietnam war peace accord included some substantial war reparations to be paid by the US. But of course, they never paid them.

Originally Posted by sabang

Be interested to see the terms of the agreement. The Vietnam war peace accord included some substantial war reparations to be paid by the US. But of course, they never paid them.

Why should they?

The North never kept their part of the bargain.

Added: I doubt the talitubbies will keep theirs.

What a pity the US failed to clean the mess they contributed to create (originally Islamic groups were provided with weapons by the US to fight the russians)...now US hope that the locals will finish cleaning the terrorist group issue. Best luck to them but concerning the US, meh...I don't worry for them, there are still countries to mess up...

Have to say point scoring over who lost less lives is a bit crass, lets also not forget the tally of Afghans who also lost their lives, many non-combatants.

I think the Tali know exactly how much an agreement with the US is worth arry. A handful of them are literate.'

Anyway, wot have the Afghans ever done for us? Well, there's Al Qaeda. And the kebabs are nice. Quite a few Afghani restaurants over here now, you know. Guess we can thank the American conquest for that.

Originally Posted by Farang Ky Ay

What a pity the US failed to clean the mess they contributed to create (originally Islamic groups were provided with weapons by the US to fight the russians)...now US hope that the locals will finish cleaning the terrorist group issue. Best luck to them but concerning the US, meh...I don't worry for them, there are still countries to mess up...

In which they conduct such activities on a continuous basis - historically.

The unnecessary expansion of empire to maintain the delusional state and culture.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

lets also not forget the tally of Afghans who also lost their lives, many non-combatants.

Many wedding parties over the years if I recall correctly? Between 2001-13 at least 8.

Originally Posted by HuangLao

In which they conduct such activities on a continuous basis - historically.

The unnecessary expansion of empire to maintain the delusional state and culture.

Blah blah fucking blah.

Deciduous jabberwocky.

Originally Posted by bowie

Soviet War in Afghanistan: The war began in December 1979, and lasted until February 1989. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and about 35,000 were wounded. About two million Afghan civilians were killed.

As of July 7, 2018, there have been 2,440 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,320 American servicemembers have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,720 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

all for naught...

The Soviets had a cause. Wondering what cause the U.S.A. have had?

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Many wedding parties over the years if I recall correctly? Between 2001-13 at least 8.

And to think, like Iran it was a fairly open society and tolerant until the hardline muzzies got a proper hold and terrorised everyone into strict adherence, Pakis going the same way. Unfortunately where Islam is the national religion it seems to be the end state for these countries. Sad really and all it seems to do is quash individual thought and progress.

Originally Posted by sabang

Be interested to see the terms of the agreement

19 years of development. That's not enough? Just hearing Pompeo live listing what everything has been achieved and accomplished, how many girls got education (perhaps free like in...?), etc.

My poor English did not allow me to follow fast enough to record all the good deeds...

^I assume you are being tongue in cheek?

I'm all for isolationism. Then and especially now. Sadly lost an old friend a few days ago. Not how I wanted to spend a Saturday off. On the bright side his two daughters will be taken care of.

Damned I was young when I worked with this guy. RIP little Jimmy.RIP.