[yawaworht1978]

No way to impose any sort of external order there. Russia was there, US/UK and half NATO have been there, the insurgent groups have financing via drugs and God knows what else(look at Colombia how much drug financed groups can hold back progress). All the foreign forces have done plenty of damage and lost credibility. Looking back, what in the world made Russia go there in the first place and then the USA? Why is this matter not settled yet?

This has gone past many administrations and advisors, and yielded nothing.

Does anyone know if the Taliban actually have some sort of popular support there or only by fringe groups?

[MeinBlutIstBlau]

It's obviously an islamic dominated country, and by the fact that the military and government fell so quickly, it's as if everyone knew the US would leave and everyone secretly actually wanted the Taliban. Us westerners like to look at "The Taliban" as some evil anti-women hate group but what most woke westerners are too scared to bring up is that this is Islam in it's barest of forms. Especially among illiterate peoples. The Taliban has ridiculous support and has had it for the longest time primarily because many people want the sort of religious regime. While us enlightened democratic types like to think democracy is so great, it actually makes change very difficult. Especially essential change such as controlling the local petty lords that essentially enslave people in perpetual bondage like serfs. The only way you can do away with that is an even more powerful authority higher than them that people can support. If some man with a turban and thousands of men with AK-74's need to tell you Allah does not approve of enslaving Muslims, guess what, you're gonna be hard pressed to fight back when all other lords are gonna be fearing for themselves too.

Too many pampered Americans like to think we can solve all problems by petitioning the government and talking. Vocal ignorant influencers love to believe we can solve all problems peacefully at all times and all situations are the same because they grew up in a nice little suburb. In reality globally, it only uniquely works in cultures where that has been integral to the establishment of the actual nation. I mean South Korea and much of Central and South America has been governed by Military Juntas for decades and they have become far more freer than any place that was given democracy outright like Afghanistan and Iraq. The tight grip and control on people is meant to get them adjusted to the new way of life. As time progresses, reforms occur to ensure stability and people don't go rioting in the streets to establish another government that totally undermines all the work done to ensure the system continues.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

You don't have to say it in such culture war-y terms, or to sound so reactionary. It stands to reason that the average Afghan may hate and fear the Taliban, but hate and fear the invading Westerners even more.

Besides, it's a repeating leitmotif of history that whenever a foreign power invades a far-away land, they find the locals more preoccupied with their internecine power struggle. It happened in the Crusades and in the conquest of Peru and Mexico by the Conquistadores. It has probably happened in every major empire-building campaign before and since. The locals fight the invaders only to the extent that the foreigners interfere with the locals' plans, and often the locals attempt to use the invaders as pawns (often only to find to their great dismay that the "pawns" then turn around and take their king- as famously happened with Moctezuma and Atahualpa).

[Veen]

> the average Afghan may hate and fear the Taliban, but hate and fear the invading Westerners even more.

It's more that they hate the corrupt Afghan government the U.S. was propping up. From what I've read, the Taliban is predictably corrupt and somewhat fair, provided you aren't a woman or gay and they don't find a reason to kill you. You pay one bribe for whatever you want to achieve at that moment and get a receipt that other Taliban people honor.

The U.S.-supported Afghan government was unpredictably corrupt and very greedy—you had to bribe every policeman, soldier, checkpoint guard, and official you came into contact with. Both options suck but one sucks less, and, for most Afghans trying to live their lives, that matters more than airy ideals about democratic liberalism and sexual equality.

[watwut]

> Us westerners like to look at > "The Taliban" as some evil anti-women hate group but what most woke westerners are too scared to bring up is that this is Islam in it's barest of forms. Especially among illiterate peoples. The Taliban has ridiculous support and has had it for the longest time primarily because many people want the sort of religious regime

Those are not mutually exclusive. You write about it as if there was contradiction and they somehow were not women hating as proven by them being religious.

They are exactly that. Besides, misogyny and authoritarianism/violence are related almost everywhere.

[MeinBlutIstBlau]

The world may be 2021, but their lifestyle is still that of hundreds of years earlier. If western ideology is correct, why not let them sort it themselves out and get to the point where we are? My problem is most westerners love to criticize anything less free than themselves, but don't take a step back and realize we shouldn't be criticizing. What we consider unjust they may not. We tried banning dolphin fishing internationally even though many asian countries have eaten them for centuries. All because we think dolphins are nice animals. But who the hell are we to tell some other cultures, their value system is inferior to ours?

That is what I'm getting at. These systems have been around longer than westerners have been able to argue about them. And they will definitely be here to stay. Also, in a decentralized and failing state that is Afghanistan, a theological junta wouldn't be so bad for them now seeing as it's a structure many know. Injustices happen everywhere worldwide. The system the Taliban is reinforcing (yet again...) is hardly something as unethical as a corrupt and failing democracy where women can't even trust the law to protect them.

[watwut]

> The world may be 2021, but their lifestyle is still that of hundreds of years earlier.

First of all, Afghanistan was not always Taliban country. There was huge amount of people living completely different lifestyle - women in miniskirts were normal. Until invasion of Russian armies in the process of exporting communism and eventual victory of Taliban via arms.

> If western ideology is correct, why not let them sort it themselves out and get to the point where we are?

This is not fight of ideologies, but of violence. Second, this is an odd theory of history in which "right" ideology wins and nothing in history confirms that. As good feel this theory is, it is not how world works.

> Also, in a decentralized and failing state that is Afghanistan, a theological junta wouldn't be so bad for them now seeing as it's a structure many know.

This is not theological junta tho.

> Injustices happen everywhere worldwide. The system the Taliban is reinforcing (yet again...) is hardly something as unethical as a corrupt and failing democracy where women can't even trust the law to protect them.

It is hard to parse this. Injustices happen everywhere, some places more then others. Some places are more cruel and unjust than others. Taliban is among those more oppressive and unjust.

> where women can't even trust the law to protect them.

Women have better protection ... pretty much everywhere else. For instance, forced marriages to taliban fighters are still a thing, for instance. It is absurd how you minimize level of violence and basically slavery half population is subject of.

Just because Americans failed to achieve goals does not mean that Taliban is not as cruel, injust or oppressive toward half of population as it is. Pretending otherwise might make you feel better, but it does not make it reality.

[acjohnson55]

I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure power there is fragmented, hierarchical, and transactional. Popular support does not figure in. According to Wikipedia, "As estimated by the CIA World Factbook, 26% of the population was urbanized as of 2020. This is one of the lowest figures in the world."

It's probably a fair bet that the urbanized population does not support the Taliban, but they can't stand alone. The warlords and Taliban want control over the largest city, and Kabul depends on the countryside. Think about the urban-rural cultural divide in the US, but imagine that rural people vastly outnumbered urban and that there was no central monopoly on violent force.

Another interesting question is why should the Taliban be stronger than any other potential leadership group? I suspect this comes down to their past success, their connections to Pakistan, and their appeal to international fighters.

[xh-dude]

There is an argument that the ‘stay and tolerate the corruption for another generation’ strategy would eventually outlast native “Taliban” resistance - this is the path the U.S. was on, fairly explicitly since 2010 or so. In a realist framing, this is something that deserved more careful consideration before, and also now, in the aftermath.

Look at the outcomes for Karzai and Ghani as an indicator - I don’t know that ‘popular support’ is something to attribute to the Taliban but we ought to entertain the notion that the framing of Afghanistan for domestic consumption in the U.S. distorts a useful, realist analysis. How could we arrive at the current state of things if, outside of Kabul, the dynamics were as simple as painting a target on the Taliban?

[nickff]

The Taliban are power-hungry and ruthless, while their external (Pakistan/ISI & China) supporters don't mind it.

In an battle between kindness and ruthlessness, (especially where the former is less committed than the latter,) the ruthless will always win. Put another way, if you had one side giving you aid (food/medicine) in exchange for support, and the other (credibly) threatening to kill you for disloyalty, what would you do? You'd probably feign support for the former, and never betray the latter.

[captain_price7]

> if you had one side giving you aid (food/medicine) in exchange for support

I'm afraid you have an awfully rosy version of what life was like for an average rural afghan under American rule.

Here are some links to get started-

- https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-to...

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-af...

- https://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/world/01/12/12/outr...

[nickff]

I've left out a lot of detail, because I was writing a comment, not a treatise. I also left out how the Taliban fighters routinely raped the widows and children of their opponents, as well as the Taliban's horrific history of brutality.

In addition to all of these atrocities, there are a number of outliers, such as those you pointed out.