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
Bribing leaders to surrender is a different matter than bribing them to fight.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samth
That is true! And so you bribe the ones they are fighting to surrender.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
But the problem is the Taliban turned out not to be bribable in that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samth
They absolutely were, but it was a US policy choice to declare that off limits. It's also important to distinguish between local Taliban and the fanatics who came in from other countries.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Pinboard
The US decided that the Taliban was not acceptable as rulers of territory, not as recipients of bribes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They didn't allow the Taliban to switch sides during the initial US invasion, similar mistake to disbanding the Iraqi army.
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.