So many read this as "the situation was hopeless", but it is in fact an indictment of the US, which has more money than the Taliban and could have run this playbook in reverse under competent leadership. Having corruptible soldiers should be good news for a wealthy occupier.https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1426976247003983882 …
-
Show this thread
-
The fact that local leaders in Afghanistan switch sides based on how the wind is blowing is something the United States could have made great use of in 2001. Instead they decided there could be no deals with the Taliban, and so here we are.
4 replies 1 retweet 36 likesShow this thread -
The fact that the US poured so much money in to Afghanistan to be stolen instead of used to bribe the right people, and that the even this stolen money was stolen by locals rather than US generals, is our true national humiliation.
3 replies 5 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
I don't think it's possible for a state in the US position to know *who* to bribe or how to bribe them. The knowledge gap simply too wide. In that situation, the very best possible is a relatively efficient local partner who runs the money for you and only steals some of it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Right, I don't mean cut US treasury checks directly to mayors and heads of family. Do it the time-tested way. But certainly don't say "no" when everybody asks to switch sides and be on your team at the outset.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.