Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Reality of War in Afghanistan
Despite their differences over how to pursue the US war in Iraq, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama both want to send more American troops to Afghanistan. Both are wrong. History cries out to them, but they are not listening.
Both candidates would do well to gaze for a moment on a painting by the British artist Elizabeth Butler called "Remnants of an Army." It depicts the lone survivor of a 15,000-strong British column that sought to march through 150 kilometers of hostile Afghan territory in 1842. His gaunt, defeated figure is a timeless reminder of what happens to foreign armies that try to subdue Afghanistan.
The McCain-Obama approach to Afghanistan, like much of US policy toward the Middle East and Central Asia, is based on emotion rather than realism. Emotion leads many Americans to want to punish perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. They see war against the Taliban as a way to do it. Suggesting that victory over the Taliban is impossible, and that the United States can only hope for peace in Afghanistan through compromise with Taliban leaders, has been taken as near-treason.
This knee-jerk response ignores the pattern of fluid loyalties that has been part of Afghan tribal life for centuries. Alliances shift as interests change. Warlords who support the Taliban are not necessarily enemies of the United States. If they are today, they need not be tomorrow.
In recent weeks, this elemental truth has begun to reshape debate over Western policy toward Afghanistan. Warlords on both sides met quietly in Saudi Arabia. The Afghan defense minister called for a "political settlement with the Taliban." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would not go that far, but said he might ultimately be open to "reconciliation as part of the political outcome."
Gates, however, struck a delusionary note of "can-do" cheeriness by repeating the McCain-Obama mantra: More US troops can pacify Afghanistan. Speaking days after a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States was caught in a "downward spiral" there, Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run."
In fact, long-run success in Afghanistan - defined as an acceptable level of violence and assurance that Afghan territory will not be used for attacks against other countries - will only be possible with fewer foreign troops on the ground, not more.
A relentless series of US attacks in Afghanistan has produced "collateral damage" in the form of hundreds of civilian deaths, which alienate the very Afghans the West needs. As long as the campaign continues, recruits will pour into Taliban ranks. It is no accident that the Taliban has mushroomed since the current bombing campaign began. It allows the Taliban to claim the mantle of resistance to a foreign occupier. In Afghanistan, there is none more sacred.
The US war in Afghanistan also serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. It is attracting a new stream of foreign fighters into the region. A few years ago, these jihadists went to Iraq to fight the Great Satan. Now they see the United States escalating its war in Afghanistan and neighboring regions of Pakistan, and are flocking there instead.
Even if the United States de-escalates its war in Afghanistan, the country will not be stable as long as the poppy trade provides huge sums of money for violent militants. Eradicating poppies is like eradicating the Taliban: a great idea but not achievable. Instead of waging endless spray-and-burn campaigns that alienate ordinary Afghans, the United States should allow planting to proceed unmolested, and then buy the entire crop. Some could be turned into morphine for medical use, and the rest destroyed. The Afghan poppy crop is worth an estimated $4 billion per year. That sum would be better spent putting cash into the pockets of Afghan peasants than firing missiles into their villages.
Deploying more US troops in Afghanistan will intensify this highly dangerous conflict, not calm it. Compromise with Al Qaeda would be both unimaginable and morally repugnant, but the Taliban is a different force. Skillful negotiation among clan leaders, based on a genuine willingness to compromise, holds the best hope for Afghanistan. It is an approach based on reality, not emotion.
33 Comments so far
Show Allsierra7
Maybe we can spend a few billion to develop a "biofuel" from the poppies!!
Wouldn't that take care of the problem?
Yeah, then we'd really have a war on our hands with the major oil companies raising their own armies (not satisfied with the job our own US Army is doing) and killing more innocents.
We are truly a nation gone mad!
I was wondering when someone would point out what a black hole Afghanistan is, and has been, since time immemorial. Obama's pandering to our bloodlust and though he may have to to get elected, I hope he doesn't do much more than that. There are some magnificent warriors in our armed forces who would volunteer to go there in search of Bin Laden but that should be the extent of our commitment.
“The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain’t so.” ~~ Mark Twain.
While Kinzer has accurately related the today's friend, tomorrow's enemy nature of politics in Afghanistan; he (along with most Western media) left out a very important context, the tribal and ethnic nature of the place. The Taliban are an exclusively Pashtun organization, and the current conflict is well on the way to turning the that ethnic group (where blood feuds, clan warfare, & honor killings are rife) as their allies and supporters. Once that is achieved, they plan to simply repeat history and conquer the rest of the country and treat Afghanistan's other ethnicities (Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks, & Kirgiz) as second class citizens at best, genocide fodder at worst. They may or may not allow foreign entities like Al Queda into Afghanistan again (if I was one of their leaders, the rewards from doing so would have to enormous, as previous hospitality cost them dearly). Therefore, the best that the West can do at this point is to make sure those whom have a lot to lose should the Taliban ever take power again have as many means as possible to act as counter-weight to the Muslim fundamentalist nut bag followers of Mullah Omar. The time for foreign troops on the ground and in the air in Afghanistan has passed, as Dubya, Cheney, & Co. pissed away any possible gain in the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.
The point is missed. Pay the Afghans to grow the heroin crops? No problem. Destroy it after using for medical purposes, wrong! Just give the heroin left over free of charge to the junkies. That would take away the profit element and much reduce the crimes associated with obtaining this crap. The junkies will always take this rubbish anyway so make it easy for em. Everyone is a winner. The Afghan farmers who grow the stuff. The processors who can be controlled even to pay taxes, Oh my! Then the end users get the freebies. Other spin offs. No need to fight a war so no soldiers necessary. Neat solution.
If Afghanistan is destined to be the graveyard of empires, then so be it.
The world of man is a strange beast.
John McCain and Barack Obama both want to send more American troops to Afghanistan. Both are wrong.
-true, but how else do you pursue imperialism and global domination?
...is based on emotion rather than realism.
-I disagree, I think it's based on making profits for the MIC and Big Oil, and a desire to sound "tough", they aren't stupid
"...Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run."
-by the way, Obama's top national security adviser, Richard Danzig, praised Bush's Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, saying that many of his policies “are things that Senator Obama agrees with and I agree with.”
Compromise with Al Qaeda would be both unimaginable and morally repugnant,
-maybe so but the role of the US in the region is equally morally repugnant
In fact, long-run success in Afghanistan - defined as an acceptable level of violence...
-and of course, the US, not the Afghans, will be the judge of that
the United States should allow planting to proceed unmolested,
-the US should just get the hell out and stop trying to tell everybody else how to run their country
And for every Afghan death a whole new family of "terrorists" is created. Why cannot our idiotic government understand this?
-- EKATON --
Like the Hydra of ancient myths, How was that challenge solved again?
is there a better solution/
"relentless series of US attacks in Afghanistan has produced
"collateral damage" in the form of hundreds of civilian deaths,"
I have not seen an estimate of Afghani deaths. But an honest
one is not going to be just in the hundreds.
As independent journalist Nir Rosen, who had spent time in Afghanistan while traveling with the Taliban, stated on Democracy Now! today, that what the United States should ideally do is to immediately withdraw its troops from that country and begin negotiating with the Taliban as soon as possible. Having an occupying force remain in that country indefinitely will only make the local citizenry, despite what Condoleeza Rice claims, continue to fear and hate the United States. Unfortunately, it appears that the last thing that the agent of hope would do if elected president is to offer the Afghans any hope by removing American forces from that beleaguered country anytime in the near future.
This article misses the answer to the question most average Joe and Jane readers will be asking "So what do we do to solve the Afghan mess?" The fact is we the taxpayers have been funding the Taliban for years if not decades and it's still going on with no peep from anyone. Just telling us to withdraw the troops isn't enough. You have to add to it the fact that we must STOP wasting tax payer money on military occupations in that country and just about the rest of the countries. The author should be taking some lessons from RALPH NADER.
By all means buy the whole crop. But if you destroy it the addicts won't get their stuff from there and someone else will provide it. Buy the crop for pain medication and also to provide the users. That will put an end to crime to get the stuff and get the criminal providers out of the business. Wasn't it the same with prohibition?..........................lizard
Um, I thought an early Taliban policy was to destroy the opium trade in Afghanistan, which they had successfully done and maintained through 2001. In this respect, the Taliban had done the world a favor.
It has only been recently that the Taliban have turned to the poppy crop as a means of raising money. Kinda like a bake sale to save your country.
If we negotiated with the Taliban and gave them the reigns to the country, I suspect that they would again eliminate Afghanistan's poppy industry.
the u.s. doesn't really give a damn whether or not the drug biz exists; they only care with regard to who is making profits off it (themselves or others).
anyway, when you put it that way, it sounds like U.S. intervention actually stimulated the opium trade! which I suppose they did...
A National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States is caught in a "downward spiral" there.
Nonsense! The United States is the instigator and cause of the "downward spiral" of Afghanistan.
"Compromise with Al Qaeda would be both unimaginable and morally repugnant, but the Taliban is a different force." How true.
Harken back briefly to those frenzied, rabid flag-waving weeks that immediately followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon New York and the Pentagon, when Congress gave George W. Bush blank check authority to use all military force the Commander in Chief deemed necessary to bring the perps to justice, including launching an attack upon any regime, anywhere, that harbored the evil doers.
While Dick Cheney growled ominously to the press about "taking the gloves off" and "going over to the dark side", as Donald Rumsfeld warmed up the engines of the B-52's on Guam and Diego Garcia for bombing runs over the Hindu kush and most Americans awaited breathlessly, US Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a stark ultimatum to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, using Pakistan as diplomatic intermediary: hand over Osama bin Laden, Zwahiri, and oust the rest of the Al Qaeda network present from your soil, or else America shall bomb you camel jockeys back into the Stone Age if that's what it takes to bring about regime change.
All of the beltway foreign policy experts and cable TV pundits were certain that the White House was simply going through the necessary motions. There was simply no way that a Muslim fundamentalist jihadi fruitcake like Mullah Omar would ever withdraw traditional Afghan hospitality from his wealthy soul mate buddy Osama.
War was inevitable. Brute force was all these heathen could ever understand.
But surprize! Mullah Omar responded on behalf of the Taliban government in a remarkably conciliatory manner: yes, Osama was here and yes, Afghanistan would indeed send Osama and Zwahiri away - delivered into the custody of a "neutral Muslim state", there to face whatever fate Allah might have in store. War could be avoided, and justice perhaps eventually done.
The White House abruptly rejected this completely unexpected extended olive branch, declaring the Bush administration was not going to get involved in any sort of "lengthy negotiations" with rogue regimes like the Taliban. To emphasize the point, Mullah Omar's name was immediately added to George W's "Wanted Dead or Alive" international poster gallery alongside that of bin Laden, with a million dollar bounty on Omar's head. So much for diplomacy, extradition, the rule of law, whatever.
Those of us who picketed and protested against the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 feared the Bushies planned to duplicate the stupidity of the Russians when they tried to occupy Afghanistan in the 1980's (like the British before them, and Alexander the Great even before the Brits). No doubt because Iraq was already the primary designated target for the global war on terror, the B-52 raids were accompanied by a comparatively small special forces ground presence instead, with a heavy emphasis upon CIA walking around money spred among various Afghan tribes to turn their loyalties against the Taliban regime.
Measured by the standards of a quick fall of the Taliban regime in Kabul and its replacement by Hamid Karzai, the CIA's tribal bribery tactic worked spectacularly well. Bin Laden, Zwahiri, and Mullah Omar however all vanished with scarcely a trace into the Pakistani northwest territory region. Thus, real mission defintely not accomplished.
Kinzer is correct that the rapidly deteriorating NATO occupation presence in Afghanistan has morphed into a pattern starkly reminiscent of the Red Army's earlier quagmire. What should not be overlooked is that once upon a time - for a few days in the fall of 2001 anyway - there existed a genuine window of opportunity in Afghanistan to choose nonviolence over violence, soft power rather than raw militarism, a creative use of international law instead of opting for a post-911 bloodletting catharsis.
Tragically, the Bushies (and a majority of the American public, following the lead of the American media) chose war. That's what my wise old uncle used to call "thinking with your little head".
Maybe it's still not too late for that process to be reversed.
Bill from Saginaw
let's add this to the discussion of afghanistan:
karzai, the prime minister who is recognized by no one in country as anything other than the leading family of the now raging heroin trade
here's a link to a ny times article on this turd and his family and their heroin business:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp
as well as being a loyal cia mole for 25 years
most americans don't know that the dow is the money laundering system for illegal drug money
when the taliban was in power in afghanistan they shut the drug trade down and the dow dipped 3000 points
american war dogs send in the military - heroin is back at all time highs in terms of crop volume and the dow resumes the money laundering and all is well
plus you stick a few pipelines in there
americans suck, their country sucks and the world is sick of your death machine and hatred of life
fuck off
cheers, b
While I agree with your assessment, I'd like to point out that not all Americans are idiots (though it may often seem that way).
Unfortunately, America is strongly polarized; many (most?) of us abhor the way our Government and leaders no-longer respect other nations or the rule-of-law. Short of outright rebellion (something we fear greatly), we are trying to turn things around with the only bloodless tool at our disposal: Democratic Elections. We admit that this is largely flawed in a plutocratic society where not everyone has an equal voice. We are still tuning this experiment in democracy, which is made complicated by disparate beliefs of our people that come from many different countries and cultures, and also the siren's lure of capitalism that through greed draws out the worst in people.
Please have patience and understanding. We may be imperfect, but we are working on it.
One interesting thing the article missed is that the number of troops that the USSR deployed to Afghanistan in the 80s. We have not deployed even a third of the number of forces that the Sov's did, (even if the numbers that Obama/Mcsame have proposed wouldn't be half of what the Sov's sent) and yet both claim that they can 'win' against the Taliban with what was not a sufficent force 30 years ago. Can the yanks and nato be as barbaric as the sov's were, yes we could. Will that barbarity work against a people that have already suffered what the Afghans have suffered? No, not a chance. Negotiate with the Taliban, send real cops to deal with the terrorists.
The difference between the two is that McCain wants to re-invade and bomb Afghanistan while Obama wants to go talk to them and take some troops along for emphasis. No candidate can win an election unless he or she vows to get Bin-Laden. There is a clear difference between the candidates. One is an intelligent liberal achiever, the other another mediocre conservative plutocrat.
In a country run by conservative jingoists, militarists, exceptionalists, disaster capitalists, bible thumpers and Zionists, war is the norm not the exception. Conservatives can't govern. If we want peace, it's time to elect a liberal. The one Republicans say is the most liberal Senator. As if being a warmongering war profiteering conservative is better than being a peaceful, egalitarian liberal.
The obvious solution for the poppy trade is to legalize drugs, counsel and treat addicts that want to get off drugs. It works well in other countries.
Religious conservatives don't want drug legalization because they're making money off federal anti-drug programs and because drug prohibition gives them authority to run our lives.
Politicians don't want drug legalization because they use fear of drugs in campaigns to scare people into voting for them.
Big Pharma, Big Booze and Big Tobacco want to exclude the competition so they bribe politicians to keep other drugs illegal.
Police, judges, banks, attorneys, bureaucrats, private prisons, drug cartels, gangs, and others don't want to end drug prohibition and have their cash cow taken away.
Conservatives don't want one of their best excuses for invading other countries, testing their new weapons, stealing their resources, destroying other cultures and signing the country over to multinationals, removed.
People here have been so frightened by years of Reefer Madness that they are knee-jerk opposed to the best solution, drug legalization.
"The difference between the two is that McCain wants to re-invade and bomb Afghanistan while Obama wants to go talk to them and take some troops along for emphasis". May you be right.
Joe
Jclientelle
That statement is simply incorrect. You seem to be somehow reassured and comforted by the fact that Obama wishes "... to take some troops along for emphasis." What in the world is that supposed to mean? What Obama has said is that he wishes to redeploy US forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, approximately 10,000 of them, in order to kill and maim and cripple more brown people who live in Afghanistan. That is not talking to them; on the contrary, that is sending more American soldiers to slaughter more innocent brown people for no justifiable reason whatsoever. Not exactly the talk one would expect from an [alleged] antiwar candidate which simply demonstrates that while McCain is more overt in his hawkishness Obama is a more insidious and "humanitarian" warmonger.
I totally disagree with Obama that more troops should go to Afghanistan. My comment was about longing for talks or any peaceful approach to our fellow countries. Actually I don't think we belong there at all.
I expressed my feelings about this initiative in commentary on other articles, one of which seems to have disappeared from the archives.
Published on Thursday, October 9, 2008 by Agence France Presse
Afghanistan Conflict Rapidly Worsening: US Report
You can still access the article by doing a search on "naive troops" within Common Dreams. It is somewhere on the server, but not in the articles index.
Joe
I agree with you wholeheartedly in regard to the poppy agriculture.
I respectully diasgree on your subsequent points.
Obama does NOT want to simply send some troops there for talks. He is catering to the portion of the U.S. that is pissed that Bush didn't carry on with the initial invasion of Afghanistan. A'la OBL. Obama's proposed plan leaves the majority of troops in Iraq - or merely shuffled across the border to Pakistan or Afghanistan - TO CONTINUE THE WAR.
When we compare the corporate interests of both Obama and McCain, "surprisingly" they are the same damn thing!
If you can dispute me on that, please do so.
I thought I did.
I don't and won't use cocaine or methamphetamine or any other stimulant other than caffeine, heroin or morphine or any other opiates, ecstasy, LSD or any other "psychedelic, tobacco or alcohol. However, I DO like to smoke a bit of "pot" once in awhile. Marijuana has proven to be far less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, and recent studies even suggest that it may even have some anti-cancer properties. The two most dangerous drugs used in this country measured by the illness and damage they cause are of course tobacco and alcohol, and they are legal. Marijuana has been accused of being a "gateway drug". Well, so are tobacco and alcohol. Prohibition will not work. Except that, in the context above, prohibition DOES work because it supports, as stated, religious conservatives, politicians, big pharma, big booze, big tobacco, police, judges, banks, attorneys, bureaucrats, private prisons, drug cartels, gangs, and others sucking at the teats of that cash cow.
-- EKATON --
While I agree with you, I humbly suggest that the most vile of all drugs that has been legalized, and is responsible for more deaths and illness than all the other drugs combined is .... sugar.
Think about it. Sugar (or its evil twin, high-fructose corn syrup) is in almost all processed food. It leads to heart disease, obesity, and is highly addictive. The crown jewel of the British Empire was sugar, not tea, and wars fought, countries invaded. The US slave industry was predicated on finding serfs that could work the cane fields (cotton came much later).
Excellent point! While usually thought of as a food, sugar is nothing but empty calories, and is definitely an addictive and psychoactive drug! Well put.
-- EKATON --
The truth of this article is so obvious-- but I wish it stressed Russian history in Afghanistan along with British history. On the other hand people have mentioned both before, and no one listened very much. That McCain, Obama and Gates have not gotten the message-- all three-- is deplorable. And this is a good argument for third parties in the debates. Nader could blow both McCain and Obama away on this point in a single minute. Nader really might become president then if they remained stubborn and wouldn't smarten up!
Barak Obama-- please-- it's time for self-review of your Afghan policy.
Bush and McSame and so many others like them aren't ever going to revise anything significant in their lives-- they wouldn't know how, but you-- you could.
I may not understand quite why I feel so strongly on this subject other maybe than that I spent time in Afghanistan in the 1960's and don't want to see the world blow up. There was this huge bazaar in Kabul (ten miles long? or was that New Delhi or both places?). You could buy or sell ANYTHING. Brits were selling Land Rovers they drove out from London. They'd conduct tours-- usually four girls to go with the deal-making driver, and they'd maybe get shot at once in Iraq. After the driver sold the car he would come out even or with a profit. I was headed south so I sold my father's overcoat. It was a real broken up or "pixilated" place-- sort of like the Morocco of Casa Blanca, the film. There were SO MANY deals going on all the time, every day, among everybody, and I doubt this has changed. I just don't see how any government force can organize such a place, especially Americans with their reputation for shooting the wrong people and lack of language and extra-cultural skills and their two left feet. And what the hell are we doing trying to organize other countries at this point of benightedness in our history anyway? And what money would we use? China's? Think, fellas!
The perceptions in this article are very good, and dare I say it, INTELLIGENT?
We don't listen to Paul Krugman and then he wins the Nobel Prize. We've got to re-learn respect for intelligence. We've got to listen to bright people. We've got to know who they are. AND THEN LISTEN TO THEM!
And who is Obama's trusted advisor on Afganistan - only the mastermind behind the Russian occupation!
Neither presidential candidate really means what he says. They just want to posture as a tough guy for macho American voters. They are currently negotiating with the terrorists in Afghanistan.
There’s, however a small difference between the two negotiating terrorist groups: One is a super power terrorist.
Well written, simple, common sense explanation of the obvious. Unfortunately neither McCain or Obama will pay attention because they take their order form the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Common sense is not one of their options.