Did America just lose Afghanistan because of WhatsApp?
prestonbyrne.com
prestonbyrne.com
If you want to talk win and lose, we "lost" afghanistan in february 1989 when the soviets left and we promptly abandoned all the afghanis that helped us to assist in driving them out.
And they were the ones sheltering Bin Laden and from what I can gather the ISI - Pakistani intelligence is the ones funding Taliban.
It strikes me as very strange that the US hasn't pressured Pakistan more over the years and that it has accepted this behavior all this time.
Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, is very good at playing the game of "Boy it'd be a shame if this nuclear information/material were to fall into the hands of say, the iranians. Did you know we could really use some money for fighter jets to help defend us from india?"
There are no good options in this region.
While the issue is larger than whatsapp, this is an angle that's worth acknowledging and discussing -- An insurgent force used an American tech platform to take over a country, while a former President is banned from that service.
Regardless of what you think of the situation, this definitely falls into the category of "man bites dog".
Let's take a look at his credentials:
"Preston Byrne is a partner in the New York office of Anderson Kill. A corporate lawyer with extensive experience working with cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies, Preston is a member of the firm's Technology, Media and Distributed Systems group as well as its Corporate and Commercial Litigation Group. Preston writes and speaks about, and is quoted widely by print media on, technology law matters."
So this blogpost is basically giant hn comment. Any media outlet that "picked this up" would be laughed at. He actually quotes himself at the bottom of the article lol
Any decent journalism outfit should at least dig into that a little bit - perhaps reach out to Facebook and ask if they had noticed any of this. After all, this was the same company that didn't see anything unusual about American political ads being purchased in Rubles back in 2016.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/fall-of-saigon-vietnam-anni...
Almost same situation, trying to "save" people who do not want to be "saved"
Mind you, it's important to note that a lot of the people fleeing Afghanistan right now are absolutely right to do so because they risk execution under the incoming regime, and the West should grant them asylum. We can and should save individuals, even if "we" cannot "save" Afghanistan as a whole.
American taxpayers must be thrilled about this little trip.
It lost because it (by that I mean the U.S. public) never believed in the mission there (which never had much of a strategic rationale in the first place). And because the Taliban, despite enormous setbacks, never lost faith in theirs.
Yes the narrative is "complex" and there's also Pakistan, etc. But in a nutshell, that's what it boils down to.
I don't have to read this to know the answer is no.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
BBC’s The Briefing Room had a good podcast about this
“Who’s Supporting the Taliban”
However regressive the Taliban turns out to govern, they did everyone right by making this happen peacefully. I just worry all of that about all that Afghan Military equipment and training that they now possess. Is there a dead-man switch on the gear? With that kind of firepower I worry they would feel more empowered to behave in an extreme manner towards their people, knowing an outside or inside force dare not stand against them.
It's not unusual for Facebook to just ignore things like this. It's a popular platform for grooming children and Instagram is how people are buying drugs now. As far as I can tell effective moderation of these global platforms might be impossible (or unprofitable.)
I liked this interview where the commentator (Peter Bergen) talks about the symbolism of the USA pulling out. It didn't matter if they were doing nothing, just being there was enough even with limited troops https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/08/14/was-it-a-mistak...
Which this article plays too. The US left and the default became the Taliban, like a run on the bank.
The Taliban needed a free flowing network to get the run going, WhatsApp might have been it.
It's certainly an intelligence failure if WhatsApp wasn't considered in depth.
It's rather like how 1940 Russia couldn't talk about how Stalin spent the previous ten years purging the Soviet Army on German Intelligence's orders.
It'll all be disturbingly meta and recursively when this comment is voted down so y'all won't have to see all the things y'all won't talk about being talked about.
Biden: "America is back".
Throgold: "Back" where? In second place? As the Middle-East's hierodule?
- from the bookthetic: Dreams in Trumpistan - A field guide to navigating the United States of China in a post-COVID world.In reply to your above: Can you expoind on the idea that Afghan war was US-vs-Paki proxy war? I thought it was at least US-vs-China or US-vs-Russia or US-vs-Israel (weird...but)???
Should these people have been banned from Twitter and Whatsapp? Well, did they break any rules of the service or are we back to having the CIA hand them a list of enemies?
Moreover, did anyone even care enough?
The article does a good job of explaining exactly that. Sure other means of communication exist, but the fact that they Taliban put together an ad-hoc reporting system in zero time while running it all through American Servers that could be easily shut down but wasn’t points to either extreme incompetence or willful ignorance.