Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAfghanistan Fight Will Only Get Tougher
The death last Sunday of six Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan reminds us of Santayana's famous maxim that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
The soldiers were killed near Maiwand, a name meaning nothing to most Westerners. But there, on July 27, 1880, during the bloody Second Anglo-Afghan War, the British Empire suffered one of the worst defeats in its colonial history.
Two years earlier the Raj (Britain's Indian Empire) had invaded Afghanistan for a second time. The British put Afghan puppet rulers into power in Kabul and Kandahar.
Ayub Khan, son of Afghanistan's former emir, rallied 12,000 Pashtun (or Pathan) tribal warriors to fight an advancing British force whose mission was, in London's words, to "liberate" Afghan tribes and bring them "the light of Christian civilization." Today, the slogan is "promoting democracy." The fierce Afghan tribal warriors routed the imperial force, composed of British regulars, including the vaunted Grenadier Guards, and Indian Sepoy troops, after a ferocious battle. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used a British army doctor who fought at Maiwand as his model for Sherlock Holmes' companion, Dr. Watson.
I recall this epic Afghan victory against British colonialism because understanding today's war in Afghanistan requires proper historical context. A century and a quarter after Maiwand, Pashtun warriors of southern Afghanistan continue to resist another mighty world power and its allies, who have been faithfully following the imperial strategy of the old British Raj.
The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an "anti-terrorist" mission and an effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a noble campaign of "nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women's rights." All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue.
What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people who comprise half that nation's population. Another 15 million live just across the border in Pakistan. What we call the "Taliban" is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle.
ROSY REPORTS CONTRADICTED
Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis Council, found the Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the nation -- roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly contradicted rosy reports of military success and "nation-building" from Washington and NATO HQ.
This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000 interviews. "Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread." Senlis' study concurs with my own findings in South Asia that Pakistan and India have independently concluded NATO will eventually be defeated in Afghanistan and withdraw. The U.S., however, may stay on and reinforce its 30,000 troops there because it cannot admit a second defeat after the Iraq debacle.
The U.S. and NATO are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and they are certainly not winning hearts and minds. They are fighting the world's largest tribal people. The longer the Westerners stay and bomb villages, the more resistance will grow. Such is the inevitable pattern of every guerrilla war I have ever covered.
Western troops stuck in this nasty, $2-billion daily guerrilla conflict will become increasingly brutalized, demoralized and violent. This is precisely what happened to Afghanistan's second to latest invader, the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan's figurehead Hamid Karzai regime controls only the capitol. The rest of the country is under the Taliban, or warlords who run the surging narcotics trade that has made NATO the main defender of the world's leading narco state.
If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?
Those generals and politicians who claim this war will be won in a few short years ought to study Maiwand.
margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com
© 2007 The Toronto Sun
6 Comments so far
Show AllPoet , you are so correct. Afghanistan, often called the crossroads of Central Asia, has had a turbulent history. During the 19th century, collision between the expanding British Empire in the subcontinent and czarist Russia significantly influenced Afghanistan in what was termed "The Great Game." British concern over Russian advances in Central Asia and growing influence in Persia culminated in two Anglo-Afghan wars. The first (1839-42) resulted not only in the destruction of a British army, but is remembered today as an example of the ferocity of Afghan resistance to foreign rule. The second Anglo-Afghan war (1878-80) was sparked by Amir Sher Ali's refusal to accept a British mission in Kabul. This conflict brought Amir Abdur Rahman to the Afghan throne. During his reign (1880-1901), the British and Russians officially established the boundaries of what would become modern Afghanistan. The British retained effective control over Kabul's foreign affairs.
Never in written history have the Afghans submitted to rule by a foreign power. They are indeed a fierce people. The talk of "civilized" people is irrelevant here. We must look at facts. What the facts show is that no county has ever been able to subdue these proud people.
My purpose isn't to write about what I would like to see the country of Afghanistan to become but to underline the fact that we are doomed to fail in our so called attempts to "free" the Afghan people. They are the only ones who will decide their future and their culture. By establishing a puppet regime in Kabul with a former executive of Unocal only serves to increase the people's doubts as to our true purpose in Afghanistan.
The tribes in Southern Afghanistan will win out in the long term. All for what I believe is the purpose of constructing a pipeline for oil across the nation. Chalk this up as one more failure of present US foreign policy.
The only way we could possibly "win" in Afghanistan would be to nuke it out of existence. It's a shame that today in Washington D.C. we have people considering such options to "win."
This is news that isn't it is just the confirmation of the predictable history of a predictable people.
China has always been able to swallow and smother would be conquereres by its sheer size. In Afghanistan, fierce no holds barred fighting has been raised to status of national pastime.
If it were possible to physically exterminate every Afghani tribesman, those moonscape hills would still bring forth more of the same. Why the rest of the world cannot leave these people and their opium alone is beyond me to understand.
Thanks Eric. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of history, half a brain (that would be me) and a touch of logic and critical analysis could have predicted what's happened, and can see what's to come. Still, it's helpful and insightful to obtain more background, especially context, from someone like yourself who's more knowledgeable, and experienced.
Thanks Mister. Write on!
Also, Steve Hammons raises an excellent question: Mistakes or Plans? Control of the Oil regions, and added bonuses like control of the opium regions are the obvious real motivations. The "war on terror" is utterly bogus. Any fool can see who the real terrorists are! But only the hateful, gluttonous fools won't admit the truth.
And overall, there's a nefarious, hateful global agenda, that of eliminating any resistance to the war lords, reducing populations, and ultimately controlling the planet and all that's in/on it.
The only thing that gives me hope these days is the sense that the Empire is in its last throes. Idealistic or not, that's how I feel.
or things get so heavy at home, money is simply not available (even on loan from nations more wisely investing in infrastructure and the long-term education of the young, the next generation) for these wars of "adventurism."
Unfortunately, it looks like US and other foreign forces may be in Afghanistan (and Iraq) for years to come.
The Afghanistan operation was botched by the immediate redeployment of troops and assets after the defeat of the Taliban for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The Bush-Cheney bunch were so intent on the Iraq invasion, they knew there was a "window of opportunity" after the Afghanistan operation looked so quick, easy and successful.
And, of course, there has been speculation that much of the reason for both operations was access to oil, among other things. Things to think about in regard to this:
"'Mistakes' or 'plans' in Iraq, War on Terror?"
PopulistAmerica.com
February 12, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/mistakes_or_plans_in_iraq_war_on_terror
I have been reading Eric's columns for over 15 years, and he has been remarkably prescient.
The Afghans are fierce warriors. Many imperialist nations have tried to take Afghanistan, but all have (eventually) lost and been kicked out in humiliation. NATO and the US will fare no better.
The US has repeatedly demonstrated in the last 15 years that superior military technology cannot win wars: Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. When will the US learn that the military doctrine of clear, hold and hang out does not work?