Taliban Racing Towards Kabul From Multiple Sides

[Desprado]

Taliban just have to blockade kabul and surrounding districts, they may have ammo stored up but without food and water, they'll be hurtin' to surrender in a couple of weeks.

You forgot about airspace, boundaries, traveling etc.

It will be a invitation to kill.

 

[Clutch]

You want to lynch innocent people just because they're different?

Indians in Afghanistan are RAW terrorist and ISIS and TTP facilitators. All the terrorist attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan are due to these Indians in Afghanistan.

We still tuning to see so taliban fans hold your horses im all hope that the Afghani people prevail

Taliban are not made-up of Aliens... They are the Afghan people.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Taliban just have to blockade kabul and surrounding districts, they may have ammo stored up but without food and water, they'll be hurtin' to surrender in a couple of weeks.

That seems to be strategy. They are encircling all major cities. Air supplies cannot sustain cities for long.

 

[nangyale]

AFG and ghani ain't gonna give it so easily.

Don't believe anybody is willing to fight and die for A.Ghani (not Ahmadzai).
Yes for Dostum, Ismail Khan or maybe the younger Masoud.

There was an ideology behind Najib's government and some people were willing to kill and die for that. Same goes for the patronage and ethnicity based networks of the NA warlords.
But some one please tell me what this pretender Ghani stand for and why would anyone risk their's lives for it.

 

[Jungibaaz]

If the Taliban seriously threaten to topple the government, or if the government looks like it's about to collapse and run. This would not be a good outcome for us, nor anyone else.

The US might have withdrawn, but they've not entirely disengaged. Neither they, nor Iran, nor Russia, nor even Pakistan want a Taliban unitary government to seize power. Every single player prefers a more balanced settlement of one sort or another.

The US still could engage the Taliban using their carrier strike groups. Even now they have three carrier strike groups converging on the Gulf of Aden. They did strike Afghanistan in this way in 1998, when the Clinton administration targeted Osama. The Tomahawks flew out of the Arabian sea, through Pakistani airspace, and into Afghanistan. If the US so wishes, and if they are determined enough, and are willing to bear the pollical cost, they could force us to accommodate them once more. It's a highly improbably scenario, but it may follow if Kabul looks to fall.

To that end, every external power is trying to keep the Afghan government going, keep the Taliban from sweeping too easily. It's even within our interests to have the Taliban impeded a little bit so that we aren't blamed by everyone for allowing a Taliban regime to seize Kabul.

 

[nangyale]

To that end, every external power is trying to keep the Afghan government going, keep the Taliban from sweeping too easily. It's even within our interests to have the Taliban impeded a little bit so that we aren't blamed by everyone for allowing a Taliban regime to seize Kabul.

What can anybody and especially Pakistan do if the ANA is surrendering in droves?
Maybe Pakistan wish to save uncle Sam's face but does Iran, Russia and China want the same?

 

[Jungibaaz]

What can anybody and especially Pakistan do if the ANA is surrendering in droves?
Maybe Pakistan wish to save uncle Sam's face but does Iran, Russia and China want the same?

If there is nothing we can do, then we may see the US and other countries taking things into their hands.
Direct strikes, supporting the growth of new militias, civil war 3.0 with lots of foreign meddling.

 

[nangyale]

If there is nothing we can do, then we may see the US and other countries taking things into their hands.
Direct strikes, supporting the growth of new militias, civil war 3.0 with lots of foreign meddling.

The regional and especially bordering countries do not want warlordism to return to Afghanistan. The only power able to bring peace and stability to Afg is IEA.
The dynamics of 2021 are different from the dynamics of 2001. Of all the regional countries its only India which is trying to prolong the conflict. Everyone else is trying to get an understanding with IEA.
If Pakistan is unwilling to support the final push other are not so hesitant. The attack on Kunduz airport has all the hallmarks of Iranian modus operandi, if Iran help them neutralize ANA's Air support, then their fighting support will sape even faster.

 

[ziaulislam]

Dang...maximum 2 weeks and kabul could fall...thoughts?

Kabul will hold
There are going to b 4000 foreign troops there

Don't believe anybody is willing to fight and die for A.Ghani (not Ahmadzai).
Yes for Dostum, Ismail Khan or maybe the younger Masoud.

There was an ideology behind Najib's government and some people were willing to kill and die for that. Same goes for the patronage and ethnicity based networks of the NA warlords.
But some one please tell me what this pretender Ghani stand for and why would anyone risk their's lives for it.

Warlords have already taken up their respective terroties

Ghani represent the pay check

Hence expect all the anti talis warloards gathering underhim for money.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

If there is nothing we can do, then we may see the US and other countries taking things into their hands.
Direct strikes, supporting the growth of new militias, civil war 3.0 with lots of foreign meddling.

Well that would end all deals USA made with Taliban and bring things back to 2001 era. Even if USA could, it will not weaken or eliminate Taliban, as this group of ‘bearded individuals wielding guns’ is much much better than some other groups. From what I can sense from Joe Biden’s talk to media, only moral, diplomatic and material support will be provided to ANA. The rest has been left to ‘people of Afghanistan’.

The US still could engage the Taliban using their carrier strike groups. Even now they have three carrier strike groups converging on the Gulf of Aden. They did strike Afghanistan in this way in 1998, when the Clinton administration targeted Osama. The Tomahawks flew out of the Arabian sea, through Pakistani airspace, and into Afghanistan. If the US so wishes, and if they are determined enough, and are willing to bear the pollical cost, they could force us to accommodate them once more. It's a highly improbably scenario, but it may follow if Kabul looks to fall.

Some people are expecting way too much for the support that can be and will be provided in Afghan theater. The bombing campaign that happened in 2001 was after 911 and cannot be just repeated again.
Not every place is accessible and targetable from the air and you need ground troops to hold positions and provide targeting info and intel as well. If violence grows beyond a certain extent, Pakistan is well within its right to deny air and ground access to fighting parties.

To that end, every external power is trying to keep the Afghan government going, keep the Taliban from sweeping too easily. It's even within our interests to have the Taliban impeded a little bit so that we aren't blamed by everyone for allowing a Taliban regime to seize Kabul.

Maybe let the Afghans figure themselves out. I am pretty sure Chinese neighbors and all the powers in the world wanted a democratic and free govt in control in China instead of Mao’s revolution- but that didn’t matter much. Similarly if people of Afghanistan are in support of a certain direction, there is not much Iran China etc can or should do.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

Taliban knocking the doors of Kabul from Saigan district.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1415001522316857344

 

[Jungibaaz]

Some people are expecting way too much for the support that can be and will be provided in Afghan theater. The bombing campaign that happened in 2001 was after 911 and cannot be just repeated again.
Not every place is accessible and targetable from the air and you need ground troops to hold positions and provide targeting info and intel as well. If violence grows beyond a certain extent, Pakistan is well within its right to deny air and ground access to fighting parties.

We would be within our rights to, but that didn't stop them last time. When it comes to the US, might makes right. I don't want to see us accommodate them in any way. But the best way to avoid any possibility of that is to ensure things don't go south too quickly in Afghanistan, and that some viable alternative can be worked on before then.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

We would be within our rights to, but that didn't stop them last time. When it comes to the US, might makes right. I don't want to see us accommodate them in any way. But the best way to avoid any possibility of that is to ensure things don't go south too quickly in Afghanistan, and that some viable alternative can be worked on before then.

Well in 2001 USA still required Pakistans permission and support for access. Yes threats were made, but how much of it would actually have manifested no one knows, but the environment and rage of 9/11 cannot be overlooked. The situation is not 2001 or there is no catastrophe, like 9/11 that needs to be avenged. And plus this is not a unipolar world like 2001. No international laws or norms were broken even for 2001 invasion, if USA breaks it for Afghanistan then what will stop China breaking it for Hong Kong and Taiwan, and Russia in Europe as well? We could have even refused participation in 2001 if we had a democratic govt. As long as Pakistan keeps itself reasonably clear of conflict, there is no issues in maintaining neutrality.

You can also take a look at how many countries refused to support Iraq invasion as well. So again for Afghanistan you are making it sound like Pakistan will instantly face an invasion from NATO if Taliban come to power. And why only Pakistan will face an attack for its refusal, why cant they go through Iran? why not just attack Iran and kill two birds with one stone? An attack and invasion through Iran will actually be supported by regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Israel etc. So lets not get more scared than what we are supposed to.

The problems that Pakistan may face will be related to economic and military sanctions - that is where Pakistan will need good diplomatic maneuvering to avoid them. If we pass a resolution in parliament that we cannot support a foreign conflict or war, that will mitigate most of the threats and pressure from western bloc, unless Pakistan gets implicated directly which is different.

 

[Mujahid Memon]

You want to lynch innocent people just because they're different?

RAW is a terrorist organization

 

[CIA Mole]

If the Taliban seriously threaten to topple the government, or if the government looks like it's about to collapse and run. This would not be a good outcome for us, nor anyone else.

The US might have withdrawn, but they've not entirely disengaged. Neither they, nor Iran, nor Russia, nor even Pakistan want a Taliban unitary government to seize power. Every single player prefers a more balanced settlement of one sort or another.

The US still could engage the Taliban using their carrier strike groups. Even now they have three carrier strike groups converging on the Gulf of Aden. They did strike Afghanistan in this way in 1998, when the Clinton administration targeted Osama. The Tomahawks flew out of the Arabian sea, through Pakistani airspace, and into Afghanistan. If the US so wishes, and if they are determined enough, and are willing to bear the pollical cost, they could force us to accommodate them once more. It's a highly improbably scenario, but it may follow if Kabul looks to fall.

To that end, every external power is trying to keep the Afghan government going, keep the Taliban from sweeping too easily. It's even within our interests to have the Taliban impeded a little bit so that we aren't blamed by everyone for allowing a Taliban regime to seize Kabul.

so you want there to be a constant state of conflict?