Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Afghanistan: 'Absence of Success on Virtually Every Level'
In Afghanistan, “victory” came early -- with the U.S. invasion of 2001. Only then did the trouble begin.
www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons" width="250" height="354" />By Swarm see source images [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Ever since the U.S. occupation managed to revive the Taliban, one of the least popular of popular movements in memory, the official talk, year after year, has been of modest “progress,” of limited “success,” of enemy advances “blunted,” of “corners” provisionally turned. And always such talk has been accompanied by grim on-the-ground reports of gross corruption, fixed elections, massive desertions from the Afghan army and police, “ghost” soldiers, and the like.
Year after year, ever more American and NATO money has been poured into the training of a security force so humongous that, given the impoverished Afghan government, it will largely be owned and paid for by Washington until hell freezes over (or until it disintegrates) -- $11 billion in 2011 and a similar figure for 2012. And year after year, there appear stories like the recent one from Reuters that began: “Only 1 percent of Afghan police and soldiers are capable of operating independently, a top U.S. commander said on Wednesday, raising further doubts about whether Afghan forces will be able to take on a still-potent insurgency as the West withdraws.” And year after year, the response to such dismal news is to pour in yet more money and advisors.
In the meantime, Afghans in army or police uniforms have been blowing away those advisors in startling numbers and with a regularity for which there is no precedent in modern times. (You might have to reach back to the Sepoy Mutiny in British India of the nineteenth century to find a similar sense of loathing resulting in similarly bloody acts.) And year after year, these killings are publicly termed “isolated incidents” of little significance by American and NATO officials -- even when the Afghan perpetrator of the bloodiest of them, who reportedly simply wanted to “kill Americans,” is given a public funeral at which 1,500 of his countrymen appeared as mourners.
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to pursue a war in which its supply lines, thousands of miles long, are dependent on the good will of two edgy “allies,” Russia and Pakistan. At the moment, with the cheaper Pakistani routes to Afghanistan cut off by that country’s government (in anger over an incident in which 24 of their troops were killed by American cross-border air strikes), it’s estimated that the cost of resupplying U.S. troops there has risen six-fold. Keep in mind that, before that route was shut down, a single gallon of fuel for U.S. troops cost at least $400!
Admittedly, just behind the scenes, the latest intelligence assessments might be far gloomier than the official talk. A December 2011 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, for instance, suggested that the war was “mired in stalemate” and that the Afghan government might not survive an American and NATO withdrawal. But it’s rare that the ranks of the military are broken publicly by a straight-talking truth-teller. This has just happened and it's been bracing. After a year in Afghanistan spending time with (and patrolling with) U.S. troops, as well as consulting Afghan military officers and local officials, Lt. Col. Daniel Davis published a breathtakingly blunt, whistleblowing piece in Armed Forces Journal. It stated baldly that, in Afghanistan, the emperor was naked. (“What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground... I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress. Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.”)
Given all this, here’s what remains doggedly remarkable, as Nick Turse reports in the latest post in his TomDispatch series on the changing face of empire (supported by Lannan Foundation): the U.S. military continues to build in Afghanistan as if modest progress were indeed the byword, limited success a reality, and corners still there to be decisively turned -- if not by a giant army of occupation, then by drones and special operations forces. Go figure.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...





7 Comments so far
Show AllThis incisive article concerning American imperialism simply leaves no doubt to the question posed by a bumper sticker which could be seen on a vehicle:
"Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam?"
This article mentions Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another article today is about Iraq.
Another about Iran.
Shall we protest them all, separately? I suggest yet again that everything is DAFT, and using the word DAFT is something that you can do anywhere, anytime.
I make this suggestion because I read so many articles of woe, such as this one. And I ask, Where are the solutions?
Occupy language. The US being in Afghanistan is DAFT, so is being in Iraq and Yemen and and and.
Anybody who mongers for war is DAFT. Anybody who calls for more war is DAFT.
Their sanity is in question. War is insane, yes?
That's what's being done with our tax money and that of future generations (since so much, if not all, of the moneys for this criminal enterprise are being borrowed)!
As long as we don't rebel against this state of affairs, we'll be suckers!
In Afghanistan: 'Absence of success on virtually every level'. No Tom, not on every level, Afghanistan has been very,very successful if you are an evil war profiteer ( like the people that build and profit from Drones ) or a drug lord. They have been very successful and have virtually made billions of $ off of the war in Afghanistan!
i look at the word "success" and i have to wonder at the true meaning, as opposed to the usage here. clearly, the meaning is intended to relate to military success - to capturing and killing and intimidating and controling and prevailing and creating awe and wonder and subservience and enslavement for a whole region forever. that seems to be the assumed context those perpetrating this cruel hoax of a policy are using. for which there is no agreed upon measurement as to what it looks like. we must just have faith that "we'll know it when we see it."
the truth is that this meaning of success is rediculous because it is virtually impossible to achieve. and yet it is the one routinely trotted out to lend credibility to the massively hopelessly stupid defenders of the indefensible.
they do not have the capacity - in heart or mind - to grasp the concept of success. it entirely eludes them. what would that actually look like?
an end to the militarization, the imperium-based rationale for interventions foreign and domestic. policies and actions that promoted peace because they were coming from a paradigm of peace.
It is unfortunate that the Afghan people will be subjected to the brutality of Taliban rule again but it is clear that the US can't do anything to prevent it, short of staying there forever -- which is not an option.
Strong well-organized indigenous leadership might be able to unite Afghans against the Taliban. This is possible but not likely to succeed given the Pakistani support of the Taliban and financing that flows to them from other Muslim states.
Afghans that returned from exile to rebuild Afghanistan are fleeing the country again in fear of what is to come when the Americans leave.
It's a sad situation.
The United States will never stop terrorizing the world without being defeated so badly by another power hopefully sometime in the future. They have such a stupid population completely drugged out on sports and religion plus an effective system of internal propaganda pushed by a thoroughly corrupt media that can whip up 80 percent support in a very short time for any massacre the president, the congress and the pentagon wish to start.