While watching the apparent "victory" over the Taliban, I started thinking about what the collapse of the Taliban really means about the political stability of Afghanistan.  I think that we are starting to see why Afghanistan was such a quagmire for British and Soviet forces.

The pace of political change in Afghanistan is nothing short of breathtaking.  This region, acclimated to years of warfare, has a civilian population that seems to change allegiances on a whim.  Whenever you see the former Soviet soldiers on T.V., the most important warning that they have for U.S. troops is to never consider an Afghan your friend.  We should definitely keep this in mind when dealing with the Northern Alliance.

There are reports that the civilians in Afghanistan are attacking the Taliban.  We also know that one of the major "accomplishments" of the Taliban was disarming the civilian population (what a surprise).  I really wonder if the civilians in Afghanistan are trying to take weapons from the Taliban to protect themselves from the Northern Alliance.  The things that I have seen on the Norther Alliance  indicate they are not that much nicer than the Taliban.

What happens when the Northern Alliance no longer feels it needs the airpower of the U.S.? I really wonder if they weren't sandbagging us (by holding back on their offensive) the whole time, hoping that a Taliban collapse of this kind might happen.  Perhaps they understood that if they appeared to have the upper hand the Afghan people would rise up and support who they thought would be the winner.

Even if the Northern Alliance stands with us, it seems only a matter of time before they are rejected by the population as cronies of a foreign power.  God help us if our troops are there when the political winds change again.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I think you're the kind of guy that can't accept a sunny day without searching for a dark cloud.

I hope that all of the American troops are outta there before there's any mood swing among the Afghani folks!

I mean we just came for Bin Laden and crew! Get him, and get out!

Eric The(Otherwise,TheUSIsBack'NationBuilding'-LookTHATUpInAnArmedServicesTrainingManual!)Hun[>]:)]

That sort of thing has been going on all over the world for a long, long time.  I imagine that there were quite a few Tories here who ran out to shout "God bless George Washington!" when they heard about Cornwallis' surrender. [;)]

AR15Gator, those who think the NA will be much better than the Taliban, must be smoking crack!

DaMan  

It should be fun to see the looks on everyone’s faces when it becomes obvious that the Iranian supported Shiites are the ones we just helped take over Afghanistan.  Since Iran is THE major player in terrorism, and bin Laden works directly for their councils, I wonder what the effect will be.  As far as I can tell, in order to follow through with our promise to fight terrorism, we will have to invade and overthrow the following countries: Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  There are others, but those are the big ones.  I am going to get the bandwagon out of the garage and put the “When is this going to end” banner on it.  Rumsfeld has already determined that Iraq is next.  Russia and the UK have explicitly said that they won’t support us in that.  Personally, I am looking forward to this era of unilateralism.  However, the bed-wetting sensitivity Nazi’s are still very influential.  It will be an interesting winter.

Doug_in_CO, I don't think the Iranian Shiites were inolved!  BUT, they ARE observing!

DaMan  

The Northern Alliance is primarily supported by Iran and Russia.  Iran almost went to war with the Taliban a few years ago specifically because the Taliban executed a number of advisors who were there to fight against the Taliban.  Since the Iranians have been actively supporting the Northern Alliance, and are the primary organizational force behind Islamic terrorism (especially bin Laden related), they have a very compelling interest in Afghanistan.  We can’t “win” this war without taking out Iran and the other countries I mentioned.  Let’s see if our leaders have the balls for that or not.

I really wonder what might prevent the Taliban from effectively arising as a new organization.  I heard a report that Pashtoon(sp?) tribesmen had armed themselves in Southern cites and warned the Northern Aliance (and anyone else) not to enter those cities.  It might become a difficult situation if these individuals were to interfere with the American operation there.

It is one thing to fight against the hard-line Taliban.  It might be quite another to fight against a group that the Islamic community perceived as civilians.  Russia's little misadventure comes to mind.

I think that this attitude that "Afghans will accept us because we are the good guys" is very dangerous.  Yet we have heard exactly this sentiment from many of our politicians.