Taliban on verge of victory over NATO in Afghanistan: European diplomat admits 'this war is not winnable'

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

stalemate is victory?

A stalemate means status quo.

Taliban lost governing, how then can it be a stalemate victory for them ?

it costs Afghans nothing to fight the USA. they were a poor country before the invasion as it is. USA on the other hand needs to spend a fortune just to stay there and still not govern most of it. Taliban dont mind losing fighters, but USA cries when it loses one, then makes a movie about it (like American Sniper). so in the long run stalemate is good for Taliban, of course if USA left right now then it would be even better for Taliban and Pakistan. it was a stalemate in Vietnam which worked out well for the Viet Cong in the end. an army cant defeat a nation. it only conquer and hold it for a time. to defeat a nation you have to win over the people, and the Americans havent been able to do that in Afghanistan.

 

[Adonis]

Regardless Pakistan will always play the main role.

Doubtful of that. Times have changes and so is Taliban....If US + Gulf Islamic states tell them to tow their lines in return of huge investments, money and oil...they will ... as only religion cannot run a country neither it can sustain relation between countries for long.....

I guess Pakistan's mindset need to change now...for it's own good.

 

[crankthatskunk]

let me second guess "Biden Strategy" withdrawal of troops halted until peace is prevailed and Taliban attacks on Govt forces and NATO subsides considerably.

Biden orders Pakistan to "Do More".
Time tested formulae.

Trailer already played in the first batch of calls to Pakistan by new administration of Biden.

 

[waz]

Doubtful of that. Times have changes and so is Taliban....If US + Gulf Islamic states tell them to tow their lines in return of huge investments, money and oil...they will ... as only religion cannot run a country neither it can sustain relation between countries for long.....

I guess Pakistan's mindset need to change now...for it's own good.

You can be, but history and present day has shown otherwise.
The US? The Taliban literally just signed a deal and then went back to attacking targets up and down the country and consolidating their gains, yet you think a few deals will have them "tow" the line. No they won't and never have.
Gulf countries, which ones, Qatar will play a role. The UAE and Saudi ties are quiet, with only Saudi meeting here and there, that's with Pakistan playing a central role.
Yes Saudi have started/promised developments through the The Saudi Fund for Development, and that's ongoing as have many other nations.
Your stuff about religion running a country is obvious i.e. about sustaining it. But it also shows a poor understanding about how Afghanistan will be run in the future. The Taliban has insisted on religious laws as part of any power sharing agreement.
Pakistan's mindset, it doesn't need to change a thing as they have been providing a supporting role in the region, that's why it's part of the triangular group to bring about peace. No other nation is involved. The reasons are obvious and too numerous to state.

 

[Oldman1]

USA has also changed. Fighting for women's education is a noble cause but not a security priority for USA. Those funds could go to educating unemployed Americans or electricity for freezing Texans.

Definitely could use that money to winterize the electric grid.

it costs Afghans nothing to fight the USA. they were a poor country before the invasion as it is. USA on the other hand needs to spend a fortune just to stay there and still not govern most of it. Taliban dont mind losing fighters, but USA cries when it loses one, then makes a movie about it (like American Sniper). so in the long run stalemate is good for Taliban, of course if USA left right now then it would be even better for Taliban and Pakistan. it was a stalemate in Vietnam which worked out well for the Viet Cong in the end. an army cant defeat a nation. it only conquer and hold it for a time. to defeat a nation you have to win over the people, and the Americans havent been able to do that in Afghanistan.

Will there be a continued civil war in Afghanistan when the U.S. leaves? I remember the Taliban was fighting the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11 attacks when Osama assassinated Masood prior to WTC attacks to help the Taliban get the advantage of leaderless Northern Alliance.

 

[Itachi]

Mullah omar was asked how on earth will he face the might of super power US. He replied... With the might of the real super power and creator of everything. Today the so called super power is finding excuses to run away.

Exactly. A old man with a radio and a few thousand ak-47 wielding followers were able to rout 40+ Nations armed to the teeth....including the nuclear armed superpower.

Pakistan on the other hand with its own nuclear arsenal became, in crude use of words, a US bitch. The US not only bombed Afghanistan but Pakistan to show who's boss.

The Afghans defeated the rest of the world, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey & Saudi Arabia, all whom helped the US.

And then some people have the balls to say that Pakistan defeated the US with the help of the US.....LMAO. Afghans did most of the work, with the help of Allah of course.

You can be, but history and present day has shown otherwise.
The US? The Taliban literally just signed a deal and then went back to attacking targets up and down the country and consolidating their gains, yet you think a few deals will have them "tow" the line. No they won't and never have.

Pretty sure they're attacking the ANA with whom they haven't signed any agreements.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Pak has been enduring so much for the sake of Afganistan for some grand reasons:

• Afganistan is the "Heart of Asia"
• No peace/security in Kabul, Kndhahr, Kunduz, Jalalabad etc., no peace/security in Lahore, Peshawar, Karachi, Quetta etc.
• Afgansistan has to be secured from the clutches of the Indians at any cost, even it means killing the NDS/RAW thugs to the last scum
• The entire Ehli-i Kufr may fall at the feet of Pak, yet Afganistan isn't negotiable for the Pak Deep State/Nation

 

[mqur1963]

Doubtful of that. Times have changes and so is Taliban....If US + Gulf Islamic states tell them to tow their lines in return of huge investments, money and oil...they will ... as only religion cannot run a country neither it can sustain relation between countries for long.....

I guess Pakistan's mindset need to change now...for it's own good.

you are dead wrong

 

[CrazyZ]

stalemate is victory?

A stalemate means status quo.

Taliban lost governing, how then can it be a stalemate victory for them ?

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
– Sun Tzu.

In Vietnam USA won all the battles but lost the war. Tactical victories do not always equate to a strategic victory.

Taliban's stated goal is to resist a foreign invasion, if USA/NATO forces leave then they achieved their objective.....that means Victory. They were smart enough to keep their goals limited.

Kabul regime only really governs Kabul....even that is shaky. Kabul regime is just too corrupt and inept. If the USA had more capable friends in Kabul, Taliban would have been defeated long ago, IMO. The Kabul regime actively wants to keep the war and terrorism going so it can skim USA assistance funding. Ask yourself why 400k ANA and 100k NATO troops could not defeat the Taliban? Simple, because ANA commanders are more interested in skimming money then fighting.

"You have to know when to hold em and when to fold them. "
- unknown gambler

USA and NATO were too ambitious when setting the goals. Even if USA stays another 20 years it will not achieve its current goals with the current rulers in Kabul. Big cracks have emerged in the USA at home. Best for USA to cut its losses, IMO. Focus more precisely on counter terrorism, and that doesn't require a large visible presence in Afghanistan.

 

[Gangetic]

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
– Sun Tzu.

In Vietnam USA won all the battles but lost the war. Tactical victories do not always equate to a strategic victory.

Taliban's stated goal is to resist a foreign invasion, if USA/NATO forces leave then they achieved their objective.....that means Victory. They were smart enough to keep their goals limited.

Kabul regime only really governs Kabul....even that is shaky. Kabul regime is just too corrupt and inept. If the USA had more capable friends in Kabul, Taliban would have been defeated long ago, IMO. The Kabul regime actively wants to keep the war and terrorism going so it can skim USA assistance funding. Ask yourself why 400k ANA and 100k NATO troops could not defeat the Taliban? Simple, because ANA commanders are more interested in skimming money then fighting.

"You have to know when to hold em and when to fold them. "
- unknown gambler

USA and NATO were too ambitious when setting the goals. Even if USA stays another 20 years it will not achieve its current goals with the current rulers in Kabul. Big cracks have emerged in the USA at home. Best for USA to cut its losses, IMO. Focus more precisely on counter terrorism, and that doesn't require a large visible presence in Afghanistan.

These Kabuli politicians with dual foreign-citizenships have made millions from the war.

 

[CrazyZ]

These Kabuli politicians with dual foreign-citizenships have made millions from the war.

Elite enclaves in Kabul are doing better today then wealthy neighborhoods in Houston. That should speak for itself why the war in Afghanistan has continued this long and the negative impacts on the USA.

Kabuli politician (plenty of servants, heat, electricity, food and water)
vs

American politician (had to flee to Mexico because his kids were freezing since he had no heat, electricity, water....only food is instant ramen)

 

[CriticalThinker02]

Definitely could use that money to winterize the electric grid.

Will there be a continued civil war in Afghanistan when the U.S. leaves? I remember the Taliban was fighting the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11 attacks when Osama assassinated Masood prior to WTC attacks to help the Taliban get the advantage of leaderless Northern Alliance.

The Afghan Talibans victory against the northern alliance is inevitable, when 40+ western nations couldn't defeat them in the last two decades what makes you think the incompetent northern alliance would be able to do?, Pakistan had seen this reality years ago and when everyone else leaves it is us who have to live with the Talibans who are the future of Afghanistan, so it is imperative for us to have good relations with them, for the US this might mean nothing more than an ego contest but for us since we live here it is for our future always was and always has been, we will always take decisions that serves our vested interests and no one else's.

The US has repeatedly shown that it has no credibility at all, any promises they make can be over turned by the next president elect, previously was the Iran deal and now this, in the future any nation would take any policy decisions made by the US with a grain of salt.

 

[Dalit]

Time has come for the regional nations to team up and decide the course in Afghanistan. The Americans and their allies are clueless. It is far more important for Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia to cooperate and stabilize Afghanistan.

 

[Adonis]

you are dead wrong

Wow....that's sounds like you are Taliban's spokesperson.... How do you know mate?

 

[Oldman1]

The Afghan Talibans victory against the northern alliance is inevitable, when 40+ western nations couldn't defeat them in the last two decades what makes you think the incompetent northern alliance would be able to do?, Pakistan had seen this reality years ago and when everyone else leaves it is us who have to live with the Talibans who are the future of Afghanistan, so it is imperative for us to have good relations with them, for the US this might mean nothing more than an ego contest but for us since we live here it is for our future always was and always has been, we will always take decisions that serves our vested interests and no one else's.

The US has repeatedly shown that it has no credibility at all, any promises they make can be over turned by the next president elect, previously was the Iran deal and now this, in the future any nation would take any policy decisions made by the US with a grain of salt.

You believe they can defeat different tribes? I mean why didn't they defeat the Northern Alliance way earlier in the civil war?