Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Are the Taliban?
The Afghan War Deciphered
Instead of government officials, men in muddied black turbans with assault rifles slung over their shoulders patrol the highway, checking for thieves and "spies." The charred carcass of a tanker, meant to deliver fuel to international forces further south, sits belly up on the roadside.
The police say they don't dare enter these districts, especially at night when the guerrillas rule the roads. In some parts of the country's south and east, these insurgents have even set up their own government, which they call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the name of the former Taliban government). They mete out justice in makeshift Sharia courts. They settle land disputes between villagers. They dictate the curricula in schools.
Just three years ago, the central government still controlled the provinces near Kabul. But years of mismanagement, rampant criminality, and mounting civilian casualties have led to a spectacular resurgence of the Taliban and other related groups. Today, the Islamic Emirate enjoys de facto control in large parts of the country's south and east. According to ACBAR, an umbrella organization representing more than 100 aid agencies, insurgent attacks have increased by 50% over the past year. Foreign soldiers are now dying at a higher rate here than in Iraq.
The burgeoning disaster is prompting the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai and international players to speak openly of negotiations with sections of the insurgency.
The New Nationalist Taliban
Who exactly are the Afghan insurgents? Every suicide attack and kidnapping is usually attributed to "the Taliban." In reality, however, the insurgency is far from monolithic. There are the shadowy, kohl-eyed mullahs and head-bobbing religious students, of course, but there are also erudite university students, poor, illiterate farmers, and veteran anti-Soviet commanders. The movement is a mélange of nationalists, Islamists, and bandits that fall uneasily into three or four main factions. The factions themselves are made up of competing commanders with differing ideologies and strategies, who nonetheless agree on one essential goal: kicking out the foreigners.
It wasn't always this way. When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in November 2001, Afghans celebrated the downfall of a reviled and discredited regime. "We felt like dancing in the streets," one Kabuli told me. As U.S.-backed forces marched into Kabul, the Afghan capital, remnants of the old Taliban regime split into three groups. The first, including many Kabul-based bureaucrats and functionaries, simply surrendered to the Americans; some even joined the Karzai government. The second, comprised of the movement's senior leadership, including its leader Mullah Omar, fled across the border into Pakistan, where they remain to this day. The third and largest group -- foot soldiers, local commanders, and provincial officials -- quietly melted into the landscape, returning to their farms and villages to wait and see which way the wind blew.
Meanwhile, the country was being carved up by warlords and criminals. On the brand-new highway connecting Kabul to Kandahar and Herat, built with millions of Washington's dollars, well-organized groups of bandits would regularly terrorize travelers. "[Once], thirty, maybe fifty criminals, some in police uniforms, stopped our bus and shot [out] our windows," Muhammadullah, the owner of a bus company that regularly uses the route, told me. "They searched our vehicle and stole everything from everyone." Criminal syndicates, often with government connections, organized kidnapping sprees in urban centers like the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar city. Often, those few who were caught would simply be released after the right palms were greased.
Onto this landscape of violence and criminality rode the Taliban again, promising law and order. The exiled leadership, based in Quetta, Pakistan, began reactivating its networks of fighters who had blended into the country's villages. They resurrected relationships with Pashtun tribes. (The insurgents, historically a predominantly Pashtun movement, still have very little influence among other Afghan minority ethnic groups like the Tajiks and Hezaras.) With funds from wealthy Arab donors and training from the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus, they were able to bring weapons and expertise into Pashtun villages.
In one village after another, they drove out the remaining minority of government sympathizers through intimidation and assassination. Then they won over the majority with promises of security and efficiency. The guerrillas implemented a harsh version of Sharia law, cutting off the hands of thieves and shooting adulterers. They were brutal, but they were also incorruptible. Justice no longer went to the highest bidder. "There's no crime any more, unlike before," said Abdul Halim, who lives in a district under Taliban control.
The insurgents conscripted fighters from the villages they operated in, often paying them $200 a month -- more than double the typical police salary. They adjudicated disputes between tribes and between landowners. They protected poppy fields from the eradication attempts of the central government and foreign armies -- a move that won them the support of poor farmers whose only stable income came from poppy cultivation. Areas under insurgent control were consigned to having neither reconstruction nor social services, but for rural villagers who had seen much foreign intervention and little economic progress under the Karzai government, this was hardly new.
At the same time, the Taliban's ideology began to undergo a transformation. "We are fighting to free our country from foreign domination," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told me over the phone. "The Indians fought for their independence against the British. Even the Americans once waged an insurgency to free their own country." This emerging nationalistic streak appealed to Pashtun villagers growing weary of the American and NATO presence.
The insurgents are also fighting to install a version of Sharia law in the country. Nonetheless, the famously puritanical guerrillas have moderated some of their most extreme doctrines, at least in principle. Last year, for instance, Mullah Omar issued an edict declaring music and parties -- banned in the Taliban's previous incarnation -- permissible. Some Taliban commanders have even started accepting the idea of girls' education. Certain hard-line leaders like the one-legged Mullah Daddullah, a man of legendary brutality (whose beheading binges at times reportedly proved too much even for Mullah Omar) were killed by international forces.
Meanwhile, a more pragmatic leadership started taking the reins. U.S. intelligence officers believe that day-to-day leadership of the movement is now actually in the hands of the politically savvy Mullah Brehadar, while Mullah Omar retains a largely figurehead position. Brehadar may be behind the push to moderate the movement's message in order to win greater support.
Even at the local level, some provincial Taliban officials are tempering older-style Taliban policies in order to win local hearts and minds. Three months ago in a district in Ghazni province, for instance, the insurgents ordered all schools closed. When tribal elders appealed to the Taliban's ruling religious council in the area, the religious judges reversed the decision and reopened the schools.
However, not all field commanders follow the injunctions against banning music and parties. In many Taliban-controlled districts such amusements are still outlawed, which points to the movement's decentralized nature. Local commanders often set their own policies and initiate attacks without direct orders from the Taliban leadership.
The result is a slippery movement that morphs from district to district. In some Taliban-controlled districts of Ghazni province, an Afghan caught working for a non-governmental organization (NGO) would meet certain death. In parts of neighboring Wardak province, however, where the insurgents are said to be more educated and understand the need for development, local NGOs can function with the guerrillas' permission.
The "Other" Talibans
Never short of guns and guerrillas, Afghanistan has proven fertile ground for a whole host of insurgent groups in addition to the Taliban.
Naqibullah, a university student with a sparse beard who spoke in soft, measured tones, was not quite 30 when we met. We were in the backseat of a parked dusty Corolla on a pockmarked road near Kabul University, where he studied medicine. Naqibullah (his nom de guerre) and his friends at the university are members of Hizb-i-Islami, an insurgent group led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and allied to the Taliban. His circle of friends meet regularly in the university's dorm rooms, discussing politics and watching DVD videos of recent attacks.
Over the past year, his circle has shrunk: Sadiq was arrested while attempting a suicide bombing. Wasim was killed when he tried to assemble a bomb at home. Fouad killed himself in a successful suicide attack on a U.S. base. "The Americans have their B-52s," Naqibullah explained. "Suicide attacks are our versions of B-52s." Like his friends, Naqibullah, too, had considered the possibility of becoming a "B-52." "But it would kill too many civilians," he told me. Besides, he had plans to use his education. He said, "I want to teach the uneducated Taliban."
For years Hizb-i-Islami fighters have had a reputation for being more educated and worldly than their Taliban counterparts, who are often illiterate farmers. Their leader, Hekmatyar, studied engineering at Kabul University in the 1970s, where he made a name of a sort for himself by hurling acid in the faces of unveiled women.
He established Hizb-i-Islami to counter growing Soviet influence in the country and, in the 1980s, his organization became one of the most extreme fundamentalist parties as well as the leading group fighting the Soviet occupation. Ruthless, powerful, and anti-communist, Hekmatyar proved a capable ally for Washington, which funneled millions of dollars and tons of weapons through the Pakistani ISI to his forces.
After the Soviet withdrawal, Hekmatyar and the other mujahedeen commanders turned their guns on each other, unleashing a devastating civil war from which Kabul, in particular, has yet to recover. One-legged Afghans, crippled by Hekmatyar's rockets, still roam the city's streets. However, he was unable to capture the capital and his Pakistani backers eventually abandoned him for a new, even more extreme Islamist force rising in the south: the Taliban.
Most Hizb-i-Islami commanders defected to the Taliban and Hekmatyar fled in disgrace to Iran, losing much of his support in the process. He remained in such low standing that he was among the few warlords not offered a place in the U.S.-backed government that formed after 2001.
This, after a fashion, was his good luck. When that government faltered, he found himself thrust back into the role of insurgent leader, where, playing on local frustrations in Pashtun communities just as the Taliban has, he slowly resurrected Hizb-i-Islami.
Today, the group is one of the fastest growing insurgent outfits in the country, according to Antonio Giustozzi, Afghan insurgency expert at the London School of Economics. Hizb-i-Islami maintains a strong presence in the provinces near Kabul and Pashtun pockets in the country's north and northeast. It assisted in a complex assassination attempt on President Karzai last spring and was behind a high-profile ambush that killed ten NATO soldiers this summer. Its guerrillas fight under the Taliban banner, although independently and with a separate command structure. Like the Taliban, its leaders see their task as restoring Afghan sovereignty as well as establishing an Islamic state in Afghanistan. Naqibullah explained, "The U.S. installed a puppet regime here. It was an affront to Islam, an injustice that all Afghans should rise up against."
The independent Islamic state that Hizb-i-Islami is fighting for would undoubtedly have Hekmatyar, not Mullah Omar, in command. But as during the anti-Soviet jihad, the settling of scores is largely being left to the future.
The Pakistani Nexus
Blowback abounds in Afghanistan. Erstwhile CIA hand Jalaluddin Haqqani heads yet a third insurgent network, this one based in Afghanistan's eastern border regions. During the anti-Soviet war, the U.S. gave Haqqani, now considered by many to be Washington's most redoubtable foe, millions of dollars, anti-aircraft missiles, and even tanks. Officials in Washington were so enamored with him that former congressman Charlie Wilson once called him "goodness personified."
Haqqani was an early advocate of the "Afghan Arabs," who, in the 1980s, flocked to Pakistan to join the jihad against the Soviet Union. He ran training camps for them and later developed close ties to al-Qaeda, which developed out of Afghan-Arab networks towards the end of the anti-Soviet war. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. tried desperately to bring him over to its side. However, Haqqani claimed that he couldn't countenance a foreign presence on Afghan soil and once again took up arms, aided by his longtime benefactors in Pakistan's ISI. He is said to have introduced suicide bombing to Afghanistan, a tactic unheard of there before 2001. Western intelligence officials pin the blame for most of the spectacular attacks in recent memory -- a massive car bomb that ripped apart the Indian embassy in July, for example -- on the Haqqani network, not the Taliban.
The Haqqanis command the lion's share of foreign fighters operating in the country and tend to be even more extreme than their Taliban counterparts. Unlike most of the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami, elements of the Haqqani network work closely with al-Qaeda. The network's leadership is most likely based in Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal areas, where it enjoys ISI protection.
Pakistan extends support to the Haqqanis on the understanding that the network will keep its holy war within Afghanistan's borders. Such agreements are necessary because, in recent years, Pakistan's longstanding policy of aiding Islamic militant groups has plunged the country into a devastating war within its own borders.
As Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants trickled into Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, Islamabad signed on to the Bush administration's Global War on Terror. It was a profitable venture: Washington delivered billions of dollars in aid and advanced weaponry to Pakistan's military government, all the while looking the other way as dictator Pervez Musharraf increased his vise-like grip on the country. In return, Islamabad targeted al-Qaeda militants, every few months parading a captured "high-ranking" leader before the news cameras, while leaving the Taliban leadership on its territory untouched.
While the Pakistani military establishment never completely eradicated al-Qaeda -- doing so might have stanched the flow of aid -- it kept up just enough pressure so that the Arab militants declared war on the government. By 2004, the Pakistani army had entered the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a semi-autonomous region populated by Pashtun tribes (where al-Qaeda fighters had taken refuge), in force for the first time in an attempt to root out the foreign militants.
Over the next few years, repeated Pakistani army incursions, along with a growing number of U.S. missile strikes (which sometimes killed civilians), enraged the local tribal populations. Small, tribal-based groups calling themselves "the Taliban" began to emerge; by 2007, there were at least 27 such groups active in the Pakistani borderlands. The guerrillas soon won control of areas in such tribal districts as North and South Waziristan, and began to act like a version of the 1990s Taliban redux: they banned music, beat liquor store owners, and prevented girls from attending school. While remaining independent of the Afghan Taliban, they also wholeheartedly supported them.
By the end of 2007, the various Pakistani Taliban groups had merged into a single outfit, the Tehrik-i-Taliban, under the command of an enigmatic 30-something guerrilla -- Baitullah Mehsud. Pakistani authorities blame Mehsud's group, usually referred to simply as the "Pakistani Taliban," for a string of major attacks, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Mehsud and his allies have strong links to al-Qaeda and continue to wage an on-again, off-again war against the Pakistani military. At the same time, some members of the Pakistani Taliban have filtered across the border to join their Afghan counterparts in the fight against the Americans.
Tehrik-i-Taliban proved surprisingly powerful, regularly routing Pakistani army units whose foot soldiers were loathe to fight their fellow countrymen. But almost as soon as Tehrik had emerged, fissures appeared. Not all Pakistani Taliban commanders were convinced of the efficacy of fighting a two-front war. Part of the movement, calling itself the "Local Taliban," adopted a different strategy, avoiding battles with the Pakistani military. In addition, a significant number of other Pakistani militant groups -- including many trained by the ISI to fight in Indian Kashmir -- now operate in the Pakistani borderlands, where they abstain from fighting the Pakistani government and focus their fire on the Americans in, or American supply lines into, Afghanistan.
The result of all this is a twisted skein of alliances and ceasefires in which Pakistan is fighting a war against al-Qaeda and one section of the Pakistani Taliban, while leaving another section, as well as other independent militant groups, free to go about their business. That business includes crossing the border into Afghanistan, where the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaeda, and independent fighters from the tribal regions and elsewhere add to the mix that has produced what one Western intelligence official terms a "rainbow coalition" arrayed against U.S. troops.
Living in a World of War
Despite such foreign connections, the Afghan rebellion remains mostly a homegrown affair. Foreign fighters -- especially al-Qaeda -- have little ideological influence on most of the insurgency, and most Afghans keep their distance from such outsiders. "Sometimes groups of foreigners speaking different languages walk past," Ghazni resident Fazel Wali recalls. "We never talk to them and they don't talk to us."
Al-Qaeda's vision of global jihad doesn't resonate in the rugged highlands and windswept deserts of southern Afghanistan. Instead, the major concern throughout much of the country is intensely local: personal safety.
In a world of endless war, with a predatory government, roving bandits, and Hellfire missiles, support goes to those who can bring security. In recent months, one of the most dangerous activities in Afghanistan has also been one of its most celebratory: the large, festive wedding parties that Afghans love so much. U.S. forces bombed such a party in July, killing 47. Then, in November, warplanes hit another wedding party, killing around 40. A couple of weeks later they hit an engagement party, killing three.
"We are starting to think that we shouldn't go out in large numbers or have public weddings," Abdullah Wali told me. Wali lives in a district of Ghazni Province where the insurgents have outlawed music and dance at such wedding parties. It's an austere life, but that doesn't stop Wali from wanting them back in power. Bland weddings, it seems, are better than no weddings at all.
- Posted in



27 Comments so far
Show AllThis piece should be mandatory reading for everyone concerned with Afghanistan (with follow-up reading about Puktanwali). Comprehensive, detailed understanding of the murkiness of Pashtun politics is all too rare in American media, especially how that ethnic group are a diverse bunch whom are rarely united (blood feuds, clan and tribal warfare are the norm), and how the Taliban's promise of order is compelling to a people toughened by generations of chaos. What remains extant though is that Taliban rule is not good news for the other peoples of Afghanistan: Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks, & Kirgiz. Whether or not they will forego conquering non-Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and instead focus on uniting all Pashtun lands (which would be bad, though deserved news for Pakistan, given the ISI's role as midwife to the Taliban).
www.wunderman-comics.com
Hamid Karzai is Jack Abramoff in a fancy green robe. Afghanistan is Dracula's castle where the sun never rises. Eventually, the U.S. and NATO will cobble together some agreement where the Taliban or whoever makes a paper promise not to allow the reestablishment of terrorist training camps in exchange for the foreigners getting out. Obama will declare victory. There will be the famous "decent interval" before al-Qaeda moves back into the country and then the whole insoluble mess starts up again.
bligh4
There is no reason on God's green earth why we should stay in Afghanistan one more day. There is no strategic reason, no economic reason ( and yes, I mean the moronic "we want it to build a pipeline"- when the billions spent on trying to pacify the place would not be replaced in a hundred years of pumping oil through a pipeline), no military reason, and no humanitarian reason to be there.
If the Afghans want to go back to the good old days of the Taliban, then so be it. I doubt the Taliban will fire up the terrorist training camps anytime soon-seeing as how it worked out the first time.
Did you actually read the piece you commented upon? It was about the Pashtun's, as the concept of Afghans is an artificial creation dating from "the Great Game" and has no basis in reality. Only the Pashtun's would welcome the Taliban, as the other 50% of the population made of Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks, & Kirgiz are not anxious for the return of the Taliban, who at best practiced discrimination, and worst, genocide, against non-Pashtun peoples (particularly the Hazaras).
www.wunderman-comics.com
Thank you Nate this is correct. Afghan minorities hate the Taliban as do Afghan women. The author is correct about one thing and that is that the War Lords are equally awful. Neither the War Lords or the Taliban are good for the Afghan people. Afghans deserve peace and security and a government free of corruption and accountable to the people.
dc: how do you see this happening??i have watched this for a long time and have not a clue.. what do you see as the steps?? have been a lot of places but not there and know an opinion without viewing is less than hopeless!!
ken
Ken the problem is I have no idea how to get to that point. Round up the warlords and put them on trial? That's what the Afghans want but can it be done? Create a greater Pushtunistan and give Kabul and the North to the minorities? But then Pakistan would be pissed and there's no guarentee the Pushtuns wouldn't try to conquer Kabul. Really I don't know either what the solution is. Its a messy place always has been. Afghans often switch sides themselves when its convenient and don't always stick by their own stances. Maybe just get out and let the Afghans resolve it themselves?
bligh4
Afghanistan was not an artificial creation of the "Great Game", it was a country dating at least from the mid 1700's. It has, however, been embroiled in civil war between the competing peoples practically ever since.
Nothing can be done for the country, short of total occupation.
The words "Afghanistan" and "country" do not belong together in the sense as it misunderstood by you. "The Great Game" established Afghanistan initially as a buffer state between Czarist Russia and the British Raj. The regime which you referenced, the Durrani Empire, was short lived (less than 100 years) and it's successor, the Barakzai's, lost hegemony to the Brits in the Anglo-Afghan Wars. Anyway you cut it, Afghanistan is an artificial creation (like Iraq and much of Africa) that does not match the facts on the ground.
Secondly, history has shown that the only outside powers capable of conquering & temporarily subduing Afghanistan were Alexander the Great & the Mongols (not at the same time).
As long as the Taliban are capable of uniting all Pashtun's under their banner, it is very dangerous for the rest of the world.
www.wunderman-comics.com
Now I get the picture. Taliban extremists forbid music & dance. NATO extremists forbid weddings.
What? Apparently, you don't know NATO, do you?
And what did Obama run on? Wait for it..... Pro-peace AND an escalation in Afghanistan and an invasion of Pakistan.
McCain's team would have been different but no less hawksih and imperialist.
Who Are the Taliban?!?
Excuse me?!?
They are the people who attacked us on 911.
Some of us said "WE WILL NEVER FORGET".
Some of us haven't.
Some of us have.
It was Al-Qaeda that "attacked" the U.S. on 911, not the Taliban.
Fine. Accomplices.
pretty good chance (maybe 60/40 in my mind) that us attacked us..
ken
And how were they accomplaces?
In October, 2001 Taliban leadership stated that they were willing to capture and deliver Bin Laden and any others involved to a an international venue for prosecution as soon as the US delivered indicting evidence.
Sounds reasonable to me.
The US never took up their offer and delivered evidence.
Why didn't the US take up their offer? With military action still an option if the Taliban failed to deliver, what did the US have to lose?
Well, they had something to lose - their imperialist arrogance!
Joe Hope, are you on Obama's payroll?
---USAn---
bligh4
The Taliban was in bed with Bin Laden and his bunch from the start. They ignored United Nations resolutions to turn BL over for prosecution for the embassy bombings, they provided him logistic support, and they allowed training camps to operate with impunity in their country. When the US demanded that they hand over BL or risk attack, they at first refused-then offered to try him in an "Islamic Court".
This while Bin Laden himself was taking credit for the attacks, saying that he thought the buildings would only collapse to the level the planes impacted with- and was surprised that they collapsed altogether.
To say that they were not accomplices ignores the plain facts of the matter.
"When the US demanded that they hand over BL or risk attack, they at
first refused-then offered to try him in an "Islamic Court""
Yes, but there is something missing from this story. That is just a
selective slice of reality with important bits missing.
The US created Taliban then offered to have him tried in the world court
in the Hague, which was refused. Now, why would the US not accept him
tried in the world court? Why would they not accept something fair and
honest? My theory, is that there is truth which would become exposed.
We would probably all get to find out that Cheney and the neocons had
dirty hands.
And then we need to remember that 24 hours before the destruction began
in earnest, the Taliban really got scared, and offered to hand him over
with no strings attached.
Personally, I think that one of the main reasons, apart from covering
up, was GWB not wanting to miss his chance for glory.
the 9-11ers also were trained in the state of Florida. that would make Jeb Bush an accomplice too by these arguments wouldn't it?
Some of us never learned who attacked us.
Some of us said "WE WILL NEVER FORGET BECAUSE WE NEVER BOTHERED TO ASK"
Some of us should take reading comprehension lessons.
The Taliban no more attacked the US on 911 than did The New York Yankees. It was a bunch of criminals from Saudi Arabia, members of OB Laden's loose network of criminal terrorists. Yes OBL operated in Afghanistan, where he and his crowd were not very popular with the population, but they had helped get rid of the USSR, so the Taliban was grateful.
But the Taliban had absolutely nothing to do with 911 and no reason whatever to do anything against the US.
You really ought to read a bit. Something intelligent.
Joe if you have bought in to the governments conspiracy theory called the 911 commission report, then you have already forgot because of your facile examination of the facts, as for me I WILL NEVER REST UNTIL THE REAL PERPETRATORS AND MURDERERS OF 911 our brought to justice.
I really don’t know what to believe anymore, but many people say that Mossad may be behind the whole 9/11 thing. Who knows?
The landlord of the WTC's, Joel Silverstein, insured the buildings aginst 'terror,' for billions with German insurers 3 months before the attacks. He has collected.
Israeli agents were apprehended after being seen filming and cheering the impacts on 9-11 from New Jersey. They were set up ahead of time to film. They have been released.
And it propelled the neo-Con WarDream forward, according to Walt and Mearsheimer this manifest Israeli interests. Absolutely.
Who knows? welllll.....Cheney for sure.
I'd like to preface this by saying that whoever says the territory dubbed "Afghanistan" is a country obviously knows nothing about the region or has acute cognitive dissonance. apart from the beautifully landscaped valleys' burgeoning opium crop, it is best described as a destitute hellhole. I'd say 5h1th0le but that would be a lie, since the scarce, precarious plumbing is limited to Kabul. just look at how ignorance plagues the US - now extrapolate that unenlightenment threefold, with the exacerbated rawness and indigence that smites a land riddled with over ten million landmines and the stark reality is that "Afghanistan" has no citizenry. Pummeled and bound by fear, hunger and superstition throughout all their lives, "Afghans" are too busy running from imported "defense" weaponry to give a f#@k about policy.
That said, lets remember that US-led corporate policy is responsible for poofing up hundreds of stooges like Pinochet, Reza Pahlevi, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
The Taliban were our friends when Moscow was vying for oil control in the region. They were our friends when Unocal and Halliburton were hustling an oil line contract in the region. At the time, Hamid Karzai was a Unocal advisor.
Just think what would happen if we just stopped funding warlords and stopped trying to steal other peoples' natural resources. "Afghanistan" would become a non-issue.
Gopal has this fully worked through. We lost this war in 2002, 2003 at the latest. It was over when we failed to provide the resources and support essential for Karzai to keep the warlords and thugs from taking key positions within his administration.
Now we're distrusted and despised as much or more than the Taliban. It's over. We can't win this any longer without taking on the Taliban and every other group's warlords at the same time. We'd have to go to war with the entire country to support a glorified municipal government in Kabul. That's pretty much what the Soviets tried.
You just don't get to screw this up forever. Even Petraeus has stated that counter-insurgency forces have a very short shelf life. In his words, you go big or go home. The time for going big was four years ago at least. Our shelf life has expired.