>They pissed off too many people too quickly >the Taliban was militarily beaten and only resurged when US troops left, the ANA was a black hole of corruption and ghost soldiers
Because Isis is a sunni, virulently anti-shia insurgency in a county that's 65% shia.
Insurgencies only work when you can blend into the population to avoid being bombed to shit by the hostile power. Whenever IA retook a town, the villagers would immediately rat out all the ISIS/ISIS supporters. You couldn't just blend back in like Taliban.
I'm in no way an expert on the topic, but from what I understand, what we think of as "The Taliban" is a lot of local, self-governing groups with deep ties and roots to the people in the areas they control. For a country with a tribal history as deep as Afghanistan's this made Taliban rule a more natural extension of how they've already administered themselves for thousands of years. ISIS followed a model more like the Crusader states (ironically), which wasn't accepted by the locals as readily.
And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful. They kicked out Al Qaeda and are now ruling over a 'country' that is really just a collection of tribes with too much infighting to bother others much.
Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government. That meant rural areas didn't mind the Taliban shadow rule, and when push came to shove the Taliban could bring forth more effective paramilitary fighting units than the government could.
ISIS by contrast was a minority Sunni insurgency that chimped out and got everyone pissed off at them, so they had no legitimacy, and in the post Arab spring of shit loads of rival groups having at it, everyone wad trying to kill ISIS.
>Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government.
People never believe me, but this is indeed true. Religious nutjobs. But compared to the government they were actually capable of ruling and governing.
>a 'country' that is really just a collection of tribes with too much infighting to bother others much.
but they were invited to a global economic summit
are you telling me that they dont have an impact on global economics? and dont say poppy/heroin thats too easy
I'm in no way an expert on the topic, but from what I understand, what we think of as "The Taliban" is a lot of local, self-governing groups with deep ties and roots to the people in the areas they control. For a country with a tribal history as deep as Afghanistan's this made Taliban rule a more natural extension of how they've already administered themselves for thousands of years. ISIS followed a model more like the Crusader states (ironically), which wasn't accepted by the locals as readily.
These two. The 'taliban' can be pretty much anyone in the region with local authority, with millennia of shit to fling. ISIS is more like those crazy religious groups in Mali. Enough people like them to give them a lot of military power, but they're absolute shit at governing/living under.
>And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful.
Admitiddly in the sense that they "moderated" to the local acceptable social norms of rural Afghans, instead of the extra religious nuttery they tried to impose after the Soviet backed government fell .
Though I'd argue they're more pragmatic than peaceful persay. Such as not fricking with the US evacuation. They wanted the US and Afghans friendly to US gone, and that's what the US evacuation was doing. It's notable that it was ISIS nutjobs who thought suicide bombing Kabul airport did anything useful for them.
The main difference between the IEA in the late 90s to early 2000s and later on was that the IEA lifted their ban on visual-generating technology like TVs and monitors. That was a utopianism that should have never been implemented in the first place.
As for AQ, they are overwhelmingly Salafist, especially outside the AfPak region. Their ideological beliefs were never going to be implemented in Afghanistan because the Taliban are NOT Salafi, so once there were wars in West Asia and Africa, that's where they began to concentrate since they could actually promote and implement their revisionist beliefs and insanity there.
Because Isis is a sunni, virulently anti-shia insurgency in a county that's 65% shia.
Insurgencies only work when you can blend into the population to avoid being bombed to shit by the hostile power. Whenever IA retook a town, the villagers would immediately rat out all the ISIS/ISIS supporters. You couldn't just blend back in like Taliban.
Not exactly. The Sunni insurgency, across the theological spectrum, had success in the 2000s up until Zarqawi died and then ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) formed and they immediately demanded Bayah (allegiance) from rival Sunni groups for their LARP state and began fighting them.
This led to many Sunni insurgents either retiring or forming Sahwa ("Awakening") militias which became allied with the US since now their primary enemy became Daesh. Notice how US casualty rates fell off a cliff after Daesh formed (picrel).
What ISIS did in Syria was a repeat of what they did in Iraq in the late 2000s. It's also what Al-Shabab did in Somalia in the late 2000s which was pursuing total hegemony and monopoly of power. AQ Central's critiques of ISIS in in the mid 2010s made them look like hypocrites since ISI and Shabab had done the same thing earlier but AQ never had a problem with it.
>And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful
Take it back
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/afghan-women-bankers-forced-roles-taliban-takes-control-2021-08-13/
And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful. They kicked out Al Qaeda and are now ruling over a 'country' that is really just a collection of tribes with too much infighting to bother others much.
[...] >Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government.
People never believe me, but this is indeed true. Religious nutjobs. But compared to the government they were actually capable of ruling and governing.
They really aren't more moderate or peaceful, and there's no indication they stopped hosting al Qaeda. They probably just wont let AQ launch another 9/11 from their territory. People have also accepted them as a better alternative to ISIS-K.
The biggest difference now is that the Taliban have a better grasp on international relations and are making it so certain countries want them in power, essentially giving the Chinese economic concessions and reassuring Pakistan they are the most stable governing party on the frontier. So you might think they are more moderate because the international community will have less of a gripe and you will hear less of them.
>They probably just wont let AQ launch another 9/11 from their territory
9/11 was launched by Saidi Arabia intel service using EU territory. Frick off arabian wieners sucker.
In 2001, Taliban were also willing to cooperate to hand over Bin Laden. They requested that America provide evidence of Bin Laden's role in the attacks and that air attacks stop. I don't know the whole background, but Bush declined any negotiation.
Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government. That meant rural areas didn't mind the Taliban shadow rule, and when push came to shove the Taliban could bring forth more effective paramilitary fighting units than the government could.
ISIS by contrast was a minority Sunni insurgency that chimped out and got everyone pissed off at them, so they had no legitimacy, and in the post Arab spring of shit loads of rival groups having at it, everyone wad trying to kill ISIS.
This. While the west made a big deal about piling hate on the Taliban, the fact is that the locals didn't really hate them very much, or at the very least hated them less than than the corrupt-as-frick Afgan government. They weren't the real enemy as far as the people there were concerned, they got support because people wanted the Afgan gov out.
On the other hand, everyone fricking hated ISIS, perhaps nobody more than the people who's land ISIS occupied. Everybody wanted them gone, they received no support from anywhere.
And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful. They kicked out Al Qaeda and are now ruling over a 'country' that is really just a collection of tribes with too much infighting to bother others much.
[...] >Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government.
People never believe me, but this is indeed true. Religious nutjobs. But compared to the government they were actually capable of ruling and governing.
>perhaps nobody more than the people who's land ISIS occupied
Wrong, ISIS expanded so quickly because sunni villages and tribes welcomed and joined them. ISIS is what muslims actually want, see: Saudi Arabia, functionally has the exact same laws ISIS-held areas had.
Oh rly? Why have they flopped so hard in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines and the Sahel so hard then? Hmm, can't be that there's other factors at play unique to each battlefield.
And remind me again, did Sunnis across all political lines not fight ISIS in Syria?
they tried to be the new kid in school but were from out of town so no one knew them besides some homeless brat that set the other kids cats on fire and stole their lunch from them and then said god told them its fine why are YOU acting weird.
Aside from the reasons stated by anons who know what they're talking about, the reason for a layman like me is that the Taliban seemed less extreme than ISIS. I really do believe that it might be a part of why the Taliban was more successful. Yes, the Taliban were also horrible, but aside from some reports, their terror acts weren't as present in the media as ISIS was. So I also believe the support from non-arab countries to fight ISIS more than the Taliban might also come from ISIS basically being the annoying tik tok equivalent of a terror cell, while the Taliban was on that silent, sigma grindset. At least it seems like that, I'm not an expert.
Taliban: >Friendly relations with Pakistan (Pakis hate Paki-Taliban, like Afghan-Taliban, despite the difference being amorphous) >Hostile relations with Iran prior to US invasion, then enemy of my enemy is my friend >Central Asians don't really give a shit just don't want it exported to their territory and they can't/won't/don't wanna invade. >Internally focused revolutionary movement.
ISIS: >Piss off Assad >Piss off Jordan royally >Piss off Turks >Piss off Kurds >Naturally enemy #1 with Shia Iraq and Iran >Only friend in the region is literally Israel and Saudis. >Export focused revolutionary movement.
If you want every country to join together to frick your shit up you become an export-focused revolutionary movement. The entire system quo gets conniptions and panic attacks if they see the threat of a revolutionary movement (See 1848, see 1791, US was an exception because it's across the pond so who gives a shit)
ISIS lost the plot with the Management of Savagery while the Taliban embodied it from their genesis in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery It's functionally the accellerationism espoused by /misc/ but with actual capacity to follow it up more than just on the internet. ISIS never rose past the savage point, Taliban went harsh but 'fair'.
Commit atrocity after atrocity to the point where Al-Quaeda, Israel, Syria, Kurds, Turks, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States are all willing to cooperate against you.
Hell, in Afghanistan Americans wouldn't interfere with Taliban activities as long as they were directed at ISIS-K.
second part is actually fairly true, same with the opium drug cartels that would fight off some of the extremists. was an odd situation during deployment
Not enough geographic hideaways and chokepoints
The Taliban could run away into the mountains and cross the border into Pakistan, neither of which were available to ISIS
>taliban is basically tribal guys from backward villages hating the kabul government, and somehow managing to have better administration than kabul >ISIS is guys who came out of nowhere, fighting while high on drugs, and only deeds of note was posting horrific atrocities on internet, basically Fallout raiders
Turns out that Afghanistan's terrain is a lot more suitable for insurgent action. Also ISIS trying to fight like a modern conventional army out in the open field and in countries with stronger national identities than Afghanistan didn't help either.
The Taliban was mostly fighting for their own homes and villages. They lived there to begin with, so staying holed up waiting for the Americans to get bored just meant going on with their lives. Meanwhile the Islamic state was a whole mess of random foreign jihadists and completely unhinged or suicidal empathizers flooding over a destitute desert with little leadership, all the while making enemies of everyone on the planet
Taliban were pretty much isolationists, ISIS tried to declare war on the entire Muslim and non Muslim world, not the smartest strategy for the Middle East.
This, and this ultimatly irritated a leader of Middle East country that know the way to deal with terrorism. In this case, it was Al-Assad, who stopped the progression of ISIS. There always a man like him everytime there a situation like this.
They also somehow have the Hezbollah against them, which is the only non-gov organization capable of running a chimical attack. So it was less probable that succeed like Talibans did.
ISIS are comically evil Sunni Salafist extremists who came mostly from abroad starting shit in Shia areas, making enemies of absolutely everybody.
Taleban are a confederation of Central Asian tribes trying to keep the power balance in their homeland steady.
Leaving the Taleban be is in many ways a lesser evil. They have no designs other than maintaining their way of doing things. ISIS explicitly sought world domination, and they thought that being complete shitheels was the way to do it.
The whole reason Afghanistan fell to the Taliban is the moment the US finally began packing it's bags their military collapsed. USAF ramped up bombing campaigns to support the ANA and everything but we'd have had to cease withdrawal and redeploy to stop it because of how bad the ANA actually was. All those Taliban fighters that fled to Pakistan because the US was really effective at killing them otherwise immediately came back. Taliban "success" was because they ran out the clock. They learned "the only winning move is not to play" and applied it until the US left the table. The number of determined fighters in the Taliban GREATLY outweighed the number of professional competent soldiers in the ANA. The US redeploying would have been one of the most unpopular decisions that could have been made, I'd argue the Saigon 2.0 it became was better politically.
Iraqi military didn't crumble like the ANA did and this was a major part of it. If they had it probably would have resulted in another invasion because of how batshit ISIS was. Iraq had a hard time at first before relatively getting their shit together and once they did ISIS was screwed there. ISIS also pissed off basically everyone in the region who still had the USAF in their speed dial, they picked a fight with every competent military in the region as well as the US and friends and even Russia.
>Iraqi military didn't crumble like the ANA did
homie you what? Iraqi poistions collapsed in 2014 against ISIS. ISIS took one city after other and Iraqi military run away in absolute horror when they heard about ISIS approaching (it's nice to have satanic reputation). Only thing that saved Iraq was return of US who threw in their bombing might with full force. It would be equavent if US in Ahganistan during middle of leaving said "just kidding it was just a feint" and bombed advanced Taliban forces with everything they got.
Total collapse like the ANA is different from temporary collapse followed by unfricking your shit like Iraq. And we DID bomb the frick out of the Taliban. Still need boots on the ground to actually take back territory and hunt down insurgents.
The Taliban are a lot more pragmatic and calculating than ISIS, despite being pretty batshit. The Taliban are currently leveraging Afghanistan's resources and their security apparatus to get political support from Pakistan and China. ISIS didn't have anything to give anybody nor did they want to, they just sold shit on the black market.
The Taliban also had more organic support because they also utilize Pashtun nationalism whereas ISIS was purely a religious identity that shunned any extra-religious affiliations, which is why at its height it was full of foreign fighters. Many of these people had no connection to the region so they just left when they got bored or saw the writing on the wall. ISIS also did a good job of temprarily unifying opposing factions in Iraq and Syria as well as Russia, the US, and Iran for a time.
ISIS leadership clearly did and does not have a good grasp on politics, they acted like bad movie villains and just stated they wanted to conquer the whole world and destroy cultures from the get go. Declaring war on the whole world and actively destroying the culture of territories you conquer is rarely a winning strategy.
>ISIS >Israeli sponsored group of degenerate morons who were told they could be absolved of all their sins and go to heaven if they die martyrs >Taliban >glorious mountain warriors of God who have been fighters for generations and start by physically removing the types of people who would become ISIS
I don't know OP you tell me.
Waged war on all fronts, pissing off every single one of their neighbors and the world at large.
>They pissed off too many people too quickly
>the Taliban was militarily beaten and only resurged when US troops left, the ANA was a black hole of corruption and ghost soldiers
They tried to fight a conventional war instead of hiding for 20 years waiting for NATO to leave.
bump
Because Isis is a sunni, virulently anti-shia insurgency in a county that's 65% shia.
Insurgencies only work when you can blend into the population to avoid being bombed to shit by the hostile power. Whenever IA retook a town, the villagers would immediately rat out all the ISIS/ISIS supporters. You couldn't just blend back in like Taliban.
95% of the red area is literal sand
ISIS is mostly Arabs
Taliban, Central Asians.
I'm in no way an expert on the topic, but from what I understand, what we think of as "The Taliban" is a lot of local, self-governing groups with deep ties and roots to the people in the areas they control. For a country with a tribal history as deep as Afghanistan's this made Taliban rule a more natural extension of how they've already administered themselves for thousands of years. ISIS followed a model more like the Crusader states (ironically), which wasn't accepted by the locals as readily.
This.
And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful. They kicked out Al Qaeda and are now ruling over a 'country' that is really just a collection of tribes with too much infighting to bother others much.
>Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government.
People never believe me, but this is indeed true. Religious nutjobs. But compared to the government they were actually capable of ruling and governing.
>a 'country' that is really just a collection of tribes with too much infighting to bother others much.
but they were invited to a global economic summit
are you telling me that they dont have an impact on global economics? and dont say poppy/heroin thats too easy
You're joking, but they also export rose oil and stuff to the west. All the rose stuff for women from your local pharmacy? Secretly from Afghanistan.
These two. The 'taliban' can be pretty much anyone in the region with local authority, with millennia of shit to fling. ISIS is more like those crazy religious groups in Mali. Enough people like them to give them a lot of military power, but they're absolute shit at governing/living under.
>And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful.
Admitiddly in the sense that they "moderated" to the local acceptable social norms of rural Afghans, instead of the extra religious nuttery they tried to impose after the Soviet backed government fell .
Though I'd argue they're more pragmatic than peaceful persay. Such as not fricking with the US evacuation. They wanted the US and Afghans friendly to US gone, and that's what the US evacuation was doing. It's notable that it was ISIS nutjobs who thought suicide bombing Kabul airport did anything useful for them.
The main difference between the IEA in the late 90s to early 2000s and later on was that the IEA lifted their ban on visual-generating technology like TVs and monitors. That was a utopianism that should have never been implemented in the first place.
As for AQ, they are overwhelmingly Salafist, especially outside the AfPak region. Their ideological beliefs were never going to be implemented in Afghanistan because the Taliban are NOT Salafi, so once there were wars in West Asia and Africa, that's where they began to concentrate since they could actually promote and implement their revisionist beliefs and insanity there.
Not exactly. The Sunni insurgency, across the theological spectrum, had success in the 2000s up until Zarqawi died and then ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) formed and they immediately demanded Bayah (allegiance) from rival Sunni groups for their LARP state and began fighting them.
This led to many Sunni insurgents either retiring or forming Sahwa ("Awakening") militias which became allied with the US since now their primary enemy became Daesh. Notice how US casualty rates fell off a cliff after Daesh formed (picrel).
What ISIS did in Syria was a repeat of what they did in Iraq in the late 2000s. It's also what Al-Shabab did in Somalia in the late 2000s which was pursuing total hegemony and monopoly of power. AQ Central's critiques of ISIS in in the mid 2010s made them look like hypocrites since ISI and Shabab had done the same thing earlier but AQ never had a problem with it.
>And the Taliban today are much more moderate and peaceful
Take it back
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/afghan-women-bankers-forced-roles-taliban-takes-control-2021-08-13/
They really aren't more moderate or peaceful, and there's no indication they stopped hosting al Qaeda. They probably just wont let AQ launch another 9/11 from their territory. People have also accepted them as a better alternative to ISIS-K.
The biggest difference now is that the Taliban have a better grasp on international relations and are making it so certain countries want them in power, essentially giving the Chinese economic concessions and reassuring Pakistan they are the most stable governing party on the frontier. So you might think they are more moderate because the international community will have less of a gripe and you will hear less of them.
>They probably just wont let AQ launch another 9/11 from their territory
9/11 was launched by Saidi Arabia intel service using EU territory. Frick off arabian wieners sucker.
In 2001, Taliban were also willing to cooperate to hand over Bin Laden. They requested that America provide evidence of Bin Laden's role in the attacks and that air attacks stop. I don't know the whole background, but Bush declined any negotiation.
Because despite being religious nut jobs, the Taliban at the end of the day were less corrupt and better administrators than the actual Afgan government. That meant rural areas didn't mind the Taliban shadow rule, and when push came to shove the Taliban could bring forth more effective paramilitary fighting units than the government could.
ISIS by contrast was a minority Sunni insurgency that chimped out and got everyone pissed off at them, so they had no legitimacy, and in the post Arab spring of shit loads of rival groups having at it, everyone wad trying to kill ISIS.
This. While the west made a big deal about piling hate on the Taliban, the fact is that the locals didn't really hate them very much, or at the very least hated them less than than the corrupt-as-frick Afgan government. They weren't the real enemy as far as the people there were concerned, they got support because people wanted the Afgan gov out.
On the other hand, everyone fricking hated ISIS, perhaps nobody more than the people who's land ISIS occupied. Everybody wanted them gone, they received no support from anywhere.
go back
Cry me a river
>perhaps nobody more than the people who's land ISIS occupied
Wrong, ISIS expanded so quickly because sunni villages and tribes welcomed and joined them. ISIS is what muslims actually want, see: Saudi Arabia, functionally has the exact same laws ISIS-held areas had.
Oh rly? Why have they flopped so hard in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines and the Sahel so hard then? Hmm, can't be that there's other factors at play unique to each battlefield.
And remind me again, did Sunnis across all political lines not fight ISIS in Syria?
Pissed off the entire world (except the gulf states and Israel) while fighting a conventional war with zero air power
Because I robbed them of their money
Wait they minted coins? Cool af.
Imagine what they will be worth to collectors. Interesting.
I have one of these, how much are they worth?
they tried to be the new kid in school but were from out of town so no one knew them besides some homeless brat that set the other kids cats on fire and stole their lunch from them and then said god told them its fine why are YOU acting weird.
That sounds Oddly specific anon.
Aside from the reasons stated by anons who know what they're talking about, the reason for a layman like me is that the Taliban seemed less extreme than ISIS. I really do believe that it might be a part of why the Taliban was more successful. Yes, the Taliban were also horrible, but aside from some reports, their terror acts weren't as present in the media as ISIS was. So I also believe the support from non-arab countries to fight ISIS more than the Taliban might also come from ISIS basically being the annoying tik tok equivalent of a terror cell, while the Taliban was on that silent, sigma grindset. At least it seems like that, I'm not an expert.
Taliban:
>Friendly relations with Pakistan (Pakis hate Paki-Taliban, like Afghan-Taliban, despite the difference being amorphous)
>Hostile relations with Iran prior to US invasion, then enemy of my enemy is my friend
>Central Asians don't really give a shit just don't want it exported to their territory and they can't/won't/don't wanna invade.
>Internally focused revolutionary movement.
ISIS:
>Piss off Assad
>Piss off Jordan royally
>Piss off Turks
>Piss off Kurds
>Naturally enemy #1 with Shia Iraq and Iran
>Only friend in the region is literally Israel and Saudis.
>Export focused revolutionary movement.
If you want every country to join together to frick your shit up you become an export-focused revolutionary movement. The entire system quo gets conniptions and panic attacks if they see the threat of a revolutionary movement (See 1848, see 1791, US was an exception because it's across the pond so who gives a shit)
ISIS lost the plot with the Management of Savagery while the Taliban embodied it from their genesis in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery It's functionally the accellerationism espoused by /misc/ but with actual capacity to follow it up more than just on the internet. ISIS never rose past the savage point, Taliban went harsh but 'fair'.
Commit atrocity after atrocity to the point where Al-Quaeda, Israel, Syria, Kurds, Turks, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States are all willing to cooperate against you.
Hell, in Afghanistan Americans wouldn't interfere with Taliban activities as long as they were directed at ISIS-K.
second part is actually fairly true, same with the opium drug cartels that would fight off some of the extremists. was an odd situation during deployment
>succeed like the Taliban
You mean US getting tried of slaughtering them in droves and babysitting nation thats stuck in bronze age?
Not enough geographic hideaways and chokepoints
The Taliban could run away into the mountains and cross the border into Pakistan, neither of which were available to ISIS
Way too extreme
Other countries care about Babylon. No one gives a shit about Afghanistan
Go on "opponents" and unmask all the compressed ones "[show]".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State
No navy
>taliban is basically tribal guys from backward villages hating the kabul government, and somehow managing to have better administration than kabul
>ISIS is guys who came out of nowhere, fighting while high on drugs, and only deeds of note was posting horrific atrocities on internet, basically Fallout raiders
Muslims tend to not be very fond of apocalyptic death cults created by the Mossad.
>the Taliban is an organic organization
ISIS is a Israeli mercenary brigade, kind of like BLM
Isis beheaded idf troops in a video called where to flee
isis was murikan proxy force to create narco state communist ypgistan
Turns out that Afghanistan's terrain is a lot more suitable for insurgent action. Also ISIS trying to fight like a modern conventional army out in the open field and in countries with stronger national identities than Afghanistan didn't help either.
The last time I was in Afghanistan other the the occasional Uyghur jihadi I was fighting pretty much exclusively ISIS.
the west didnt have rules of engagement.
so they would just herd them into concentrations, then drop 1000 tons of bombs on them.
The Taliban was mostly fighting for their own homes and villages. They lived there to begin with, so staying holed up waiting for the Americans to get bored just meant going on with their lives. Meanwhile the Islamic state was a whole mess of random foreign jihadists and completely unhinged or suicidal empathizers flooding over a destitute desert with little leadership, all the while making enemies of everyone on the planet
Taliban were pretty much isolationists, ISIS tried to declare war on the entire Muslim and non Muslim world, not the smartest strategy for the Middle East.
This, and this ultimatly irritated a leader of Middle East country that know the way to deal with terrorism. In this case, it was Al-Assad, who stopped the progression of ISIS. There always a man like him everytime there a situation like this.
They also somehow have the Hezbollah against them, which is the only non-gov organization capable of running a chimical attack. So it was less probable that succeed like Talibans did.
that they succeed*
Taliban is propped up by heroin money.
ISIS are comically evil Sunni Salafist extremists who came mostly from abroad starting shit in Shia areas, making enemies of absolutely everybody.
Taleban are a confederation of Central Asian tribes trying to keep the power balance in their homeland steady.
Leaving the Taleban be is in many ways a lesser evil. They have no designs other than maintaining their way of doing things. ISIS explicitly sought world domination, and they thought that being complete shitheels was the way to do it.
because the taliban are reasonable extremists and isis are fricking insane
ISIS didn't have neighboring invelnerable home base country armed with nukes (Pakistan).
The whole reason Afghanistan fell to the Taliban is the moment the US finally began packing it's bags their military collapsed. USAF ramped up bombing campaigns to support the ANA and everything but we'd have had to cease withdrawal and redeploy to stop it because of how bad the ANA actually was. All those Taliban fighters that fled to Pakistan because the US was really effective at killing them otherwise immediately came back. Taliban "success" was because they ran out the clock. They learned "the only winning move is not to play" and applied it until the US left the table. The number of determined fighters in the Taliban GREATLY outweighed the number of professional competent soldiers in the ANA. The US redeploying would have been one of the most unpopular decisions that could have been made, I'd argue the Saigon 2.0 it became was better politically.
Iraqi military didn't crumble like the ANA did and this was a major part of it. If they had it probably would have resulted in another invasion because of how batshit ISIS was. Iraq had a hard time at first before relatively getting their shit together and once they did ISIS was screwed there. ISIS also pissed off basically everyone in the region who still had the USAF in their speed dial, they picked a fight with every competent military in the region as well as the US and friends and even Russia.
>Iraqi military didn't crumble like the ANA did
homie you what? Iraqi poistions collapsed in 2014 against ISIS. ISIS took one city after other and Iraqi military run away in absolute horror when they heard about ISIS approaching (it's nice to have satanic reputation). Only thing that saved Iraq was return of US who threw in their bombing might with full force. It would be equavent if US in Ahganistan during middle of leaving said "just kidding it was just a feint" and bombed advanced Taliban forces with everything they got.
Total collapse like the ANA is different from temporary collapse followed by unfricking your shit like Iraq. And we DID bomb the frick out of the Taliban. Still need boots on the ground to actually take back territory and hunt down insurgents.
Unfricking iraqi shit was done by US AF. Without that help it was game over for Iraq.
The Taliban are a lot more pragmatic and calculating than ISIS, despite being pretty batshit. The Taliban are currently leveraging Afghanistan's resources and their security apparatus to get political support from Pakistan and China. ISIS didn't have anything to give anybody nor did they want to, they just sold shit on the black market.
The Taliban also had more organic support because they also utilize Pashtun nationalism whereas ISIS was purely a religious identity that shunned any extra-religious affiliations, which is why at its height it was full of foreign fighters. Many of these people had no connection to the region so they just left when they got bored or saw the writing on the wall. ISIS also did a good job of temprarily unifying opposing factions in Iraq and Syria as well as Russia, the US, and Iran for a time.
ISIS leadership clearly did and does not have a good grasp on politics, they acted like bad movie villains and just stated they wanted to conquer the whole world and destroy cultures from the get go. Declaring war on the whole world and actively destroying the culture of territories you conquer is rarely a winning strategy.
>ISIS
>Israeli sponsored group of degenerate morons who were told they could be absolved of all their sins and go to heaven if they die martyrs
>Taliban
>glorious mountain warriors of God who have been fighters for generations and start by physically removing the types of people who would become ISIS
I don't know OP you tell me.