> Frankly what should be done is giving aid to the remaining Republican resistance groups. But seems politicians are too cowardly to do that.
I don't know if that really is that case, as there might be some covert support still provided to internal resistance groups in Afghanistan. But, overtly funding a resistance group would be a pretty bold move after leaving the country and seeing the Taliban easily take over, and it would undoubtedly be met with international condemnation for continuing to stoke instability and war in Afghanistan. I mean, let's be real here, even just on reddit, how many smug comments about "U.S.-funded terrorists" would you imagine seeing on any given thread? Moreover, overtly funding a resistance would only serve to give the Taliban more legitimacy, because that's where the Taliban thrives -- in fighting a foreign enemy. Now they've been largely denied that boogeyman, they're in shambles.
successful_nothing t1_j9ur6lp wrote
Reply to comment by burningphoenix77888 in Report says donors ‘turning away’ from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by burningphoenix77888
> Frankly what should be done is giving aid to the remaining Republican resistance groups. But seems politicians are too cowardly to do that.
I don't know if that really is that case, as there might be some covert support still provided to internal resistance groups in Afghanistan. But, overtly funding a resistance group would be a pretty bold move after leaving the country and seeing the Taliban easily take over, and it would undoubtedly be met with international condemnation for continuing to stoke instability and war in Afghanistan. I mean, let's be real here, even just on reddit, how many smug comments about "U.S.-funded terrorists" would you imagine seeing on any given thread? Moreover, overtly funding a resistance would only serve to give the Taliban more legitimacy, because that's where the Taliban thrives -- in fighting a foreign enemy. Now they've been largely denied that boogeyman, they're in shambles.