Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Taleban faction ditches Kandahar, reneges on surrender agreement.
January 24, 2002 7:43 PM   Subscribe

Taleban faction ditches Kandahar, reneges on surrender agreement. My only question is, why were these people not disarmed, or was this some sort of "Munich Pact" surrender agreement?
posted by insomnyuk (8 comments total)

 
You might as well ask why the whole country hasn't been disarmed yet... this is not a group that we "had" that suddenly "got away," it's a group that fled Kandahar over a month ago and was just hanging out in the mountains until this search and destroy crew of ours rolled through and sparked some resistance. I like the part about US forces killing 15 of them and only suffering one injured foot. Just one foot.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:03 PM on January 24, 2002


How does someone "disappear" with 450 tanks and vehicles? Is David Copperfield leading this army?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:15 PM on January 24, 2002


How does someone "disappear" with 450 tanks and vehicles?

Apparently, the problem was not with knowing about or seeing the heavy military equipment. The Sherzai aide quoted in the article says, "They took with them 450 tanks and vehicles, rocket-propelled grenades, machine-guns and rifles. At present, the Americans do not want to use force, as they are spread among the local people..."
posted by Zurishaddai at 8:32 PM on January 24, 2002


I say now that Al-Qaeda (the U.S.'s supposed objective) is gone from Afghanistan, we get the hell out of there before civil war breaks out.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:34 PM on January 24, 2002


Make sure you read that sentence correctly. They took 450 vehicles. Some of those were tanks.

Almost certainly most of them were beat-up pickup trucks. It doesn't mean they have 450 tanks; the Taliban didn't have that many even before combat started in October.

Insomnyuk, if we do what you say, why would anyone ever trust us again?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:00 PM on January 24, 2002


Get the hell out before civil war breaks out or get the hell out so that civil war breaks out?
posted by vbfg at 4:10 AM on January 25, 2002


OK, what's the party line for beating up on America today? I didn't get the newsletter. Is it excessive interference in local affairs or will it instead be craven abandonment of Afghan people to depredations of warlords?
posted by dhartung at 4:51 AM on January 25, 2002


> if we do what you say, why would anyone ever trust us
> again?

I take your point, SDB, but can you name anyone who trusts us now? As the man said, nations don't have permanent friends or permanent enemies, just permanent interests.
posted by jfuller at 10:19 AM on January 25, 2002


« Older Was Enron a cult?...  |  Missing school bus found near ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments