Afghanistan

I think something fascinating is Afghanistans history of resisting conquerors. From Alexander To America they have fought back. This is NOT to become a political discussion please, simply a historical overview of why Afghanistan is the way it is.


My Reasons
1. They are idependent mountain people
2. They have never been a unified society and chafe under overlords
3. They have a natural fighting spirit.
4 They are the crossroads between east and west
5. Their Environment is perfect for guerrilla warfare

It is an interesting question, although what might be more so is why on earth Afghanistan has, time and again, been fought over by external powers.

Baring recent "political reasons", its strategic location (n4 from the above list) is probably the only reason I can think of.

As to why there has always been such resistance, i'm afraid that except for n5, i think your points are a bit vague or insubstantial. It's also a large country with a low population density, so "garrison" forces have to be relatively numerous to control it. Anything they don't control can be basicaly exploited by resistance/guerilla groups.

What we now call "Afghanistan" is actually largely the highland regions. But those mountains do sit right next to one of the most historically important intracontinental traffic chokepoints in Eurasia, as well as the Indus valley. Which obviously made them *very* interesting to anyone with territorial ambitions regarding either, if only to "secure a flank" so to speak.

The hitch being, it's arid mountains and highlands and full of pugnacious tribes. There have been very few empires *ever* that have actually been capable of subduing such regions; they're just too difficult terrain and too favouring of the intractable locals. Even the Persians and Romans only too often found themselves quite incapable of doing much about troublesome mountain peoples, other than bribing them to behave themselves and hiring them as mercs so they had better things to do than raid the surrounding lowlands.

In Europe for example the mountains were eventually tamed as the byproduct of socioeconomic developements in the plains below; in Central Asia this process had only barely gotten started before Cold War proxy wars and the falling out of the progressive governement in Kabul had with the independent-minded and traditionalist hill tribes kind of put a buzzkill on the whole thing...

The peoples of this region have always seemed to have a history of resistance to change, and an almost obsessive reluctance to compromise. The splintered tribal nature of their culture is also a factor in being able to agree on any meaningful reforms. It was surprising to me when I looked up their history on Wikipedia, that there were periods that outsiders, such as the Persians, Greeks, and the Seleucids, to say nothing of the British or Russians, could have ruled in Afghanistan. The only thing that unites them is Islam.

I don't know what makes them so warlike, except that the difficulty of living in such a hostile environment must breed a toughness and stoicism that enhances their fighting attitudes. They are also patient, and realize that any foreigners will soon tire of dealing with how hard a job it is to succeed with a seeming endless task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

The peoples of this region have always seemed to have a history of resistance to change, and an almost obsessive reluctance to compromise. The splintered tribal nature of their culture is also a factor in being able to agree on any meaningful reforms. It was surprising to me when I looked up their history on Wikipedia, that there were periods that outsiders, such as the Persians, Greeks, and the Seleucids, to say nothing of the British or Russians, could have ruled in Afghanistan. The only thing that unites them is Islam.

---

and even then Islam doesn't help, seeing as how the tribes will still fight wach other at the drop of a hat. :shrug:

I suspect that when it comes down to it, Afghanis are the way they are because they are isolated geographically, in the sense that they live in a mountainous and difficult piece of real estate, surrounded by powerful neighbors. I've seen the same independent mindedness, quarralsome nature, and warlike behavior in other peoples in a similar place. just look at the ancient greeks, or illyrians, or Caledonians ("scottish" britons).

Its true that hill peoples are traditionally pugnacious. A contemporary example i can think of right at the moment is the Hmong people of Vietnam. They have an amazing history of opression because they refused to bow down to overlords (china, vietnam, thailand, Siberian tribes)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I think something fascinating is Afghanistans history of resisting conquerors. From Alexander To America they have fought back. This is NOT to become a political discussion please, simply a historical overview of why Afghanistan is the way it is.


My Reasons
1. They are idependent mountain people
2. They have never been a unified society and chafe under overlords
3. They have a natural fighting spirit.
4 They are the crossroads between east and west
5. Their Environment is perfect for guerrilla warfare

---

They've been conquered as many times as they've remained independent, really. Think of Alexander, the Bactrian Kingdom, the Indo-Greeks, the Hephtalites, various Persian dynasties, the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphates, the Ghaznavids, the Timurids, the Uzbeks... the list goes on. In fact, I bet if you compared this record to that of some European regions or countries (or East Asian ones), Afghanistan has been subject to foreign overlords a lot more than many places. Of course, you can wonder how well ancient statesmen were able to keep the hillmen living there under control after their armies moved on. Usually it came down to nominal acknowledgement of foreign control and some tribute, and little more.

As Watchman said, comes with the business of lying astride the crossroads of several important trade routes.

Well as an example alexander himself had trouble keeping the afghanis under control while he himself was in charge. I would say its not difficult to invade its maintaining power once you are there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Its true that hill peoples are traditionally pugnacious. A contemporary example i can think of right at the moment is the Hmong people of Vietnam. They have an amazing history of opression because they refused to bow down to overlords (china, vietnam, thailand, Siberian tribes)

---

bah, the Hmong don't compare to the sfaneti (I probably missplelled their name) people of Georgia (the former USSR republic); they start fights with each other/others for the dumbest of reasons, and until the 1980's-90's some were still wearing chainmail to prevent assasination by dagger. I still remember a feud that started because a pig crossed from one man's poperty to another. last I heard, it was still going on, and has gone on for 40 years (back in 2003-4).

sfeneti sounds familiar for some reason.... Ha, they just sound like highlanders stuck back in the middle ages (like they fit in medieval Scotland). The hmong were once located in China. Then the Chinese asked them to bow the knee. They started fighting CHINA. They lost. So they just left everything they had and moved south, hows that for stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Well as an example alexander himself had trouble keeping the afghanis under control while he himself was in charge. I would say its not difficult to invade its maintaining power once you are there

---

Indeed. The Macedonians had to fight a three year campaign to subdue the region, known as Bactria then. It was the longest, most brutal, and deadliest operation of his entire conquest. For brutality, the only exception might have been his sieges of Tyre and Gaza, but those were of relatively short duration, and neither required such a large garrison after Alexander moved on. The area was vital to him though, as without securing his lines of communication, there was no way he could have gone on into the Hindu Kush and India. It took his marriage to Roxanna, the Sogdian princess to finally seal the bargain. There were several revolts after the main army moved east, but these were put down with extreme prejudice by the garrisons.

Strength is respected by the Afghans. Tribal societies work on the "strong man" principle, and these guys make machismo seem like something that effeminate men practice.

I wonder if a lot of this history is related to its strategic position. This often means that 2 - or more - powers have interest in the area and so the power attempting to rule Afganistan has to fight against a resistance being supported from outside the country. For the Brits in the 19th century it was the Russians, when the Russians invaded it was the US and Pakistan, when it was the Taliban it was the US and when it was the US it was elements of the Muslim world. It would be interesting to see if the periods of stability in Afgan history relate to times when one country was dominant and there was no other country interested in the region or in a position to influence events.

Undoubtedly the terrian and the Afgans themselves make it easier for the forces of rebellion, but the way to overcome these internal divisions is always political in the long term, so the presence of external interests who can stoke the political fires means that a strong, sustainable system of rule is unlikely.

Thats a good point of view. It really presents a fresh view of what might be happening. so youre saying that if a nation invades to improve the Afghanis way of life and government they will only help to destroy it because of the inherent nature of Afghanistan and neighboring nations? Interesting.....

Debatable. In practice highlands "tame" readily enough once they become integrated into sufficiently advanced lowland economic systems; this is what by and large happened in Europe for example. The problem in Afghanistan is that there's no such system in the immediate vicinity; the country is surrounded by former Soviet -stans, Pakistan and the backwaters of Iran, few of which have any kind of real economic interest there; basically, it's the ass-end of nowhere in the middle of what are some of the armpits of the world.
I mean the Pakistanis haven't yet managed to sell the whole modernity deal to even the hill tribes on their side of the border - which isn't really very surprising given how poor their offering is.

Also it doesn't much help that before the Wahhabis got stomped by the Egyptians on the request of the Ottomans (for causing trouble in the holy places of Arabia and generally being arseholes) in early-mid 1800s they managed to export their ultra-traditionalist brand of Islam into the Hindu Kush...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I think something fascinating is Afghanistans history of resisting conquerors. From Alexander To America they have fought back. This is NOT to become a political discussion please, simply a historical overview of why Afghanistan is the way it is.


My Reasons
1. They are idependent mountain people
2. They have never been a unified society and chafe under overlords
3. They have a natural fighting spirit.
4 They are the crossroads between east and west
5. Their Environment is perfect for guerrilla warfare

---

Prelude:America did not invade Afghanistan to become a conquerer that being said:

1 and 2 answer themselves.Either its one or another not both.
3.No.They don't at least none more than other people.Look at how many Afghanis hate the Taliban/al-Queda and are too afraid to confront either.
4.Everyones at a crossroads between other societies.
5.Every enviroment is a perfect one for guerilla warfare.

Comparing one effort to another is disenginious as not all efforts are created equal.

The British had a couple of regiments destroyed..the Russians almost won Afghanistan using their conscript troops to occupy cities and their special forces as assault troops.Until another superpower provided the rebels wit modern arms.

American/Nato forces the book hasn't been written yet.Though it is interesting that they are going the opposite of trends in Vietnam.

During Vietnam there was a very succesful program of putting platoon sized units in local hamlets and villages to create a presence and to train locals to defend themselves and the powers that be abandoned that approach for a more conventional warfare one.

Afghanistan is switching from a conventional warfare approach to one focusing on small towns and villages and having a small number of troops to provide security and train locals.

Who knows though maybe it will end in disaster.Everything presents its own unique problems.

Quote:

---

Prelude:America did not invade Afghanistan to become a conquerer that being said:

1 and 2 answer themselves.Either its one or another not both.
3.No.They don't at least none more than other people.Look at how many Afghanis hate the Taliban/al-Queda and are too afraid to confront either.
4.Everyones at a crossroads between other societies.
5.Every enviroment is a perfect one for guerilla warfare.

Comparing one effort to another is disenginious as not all efforts are created equal.

The British had a couple of regiments destroyed..the Russians almost won Afghanistan using their conscript troops to occupy cities and their special forces as assault troops.Until another superpower provided the rebels wit modern arms.

American/Nato forces the book hasn't been written yet.Though it is interesting that they are going the opposite of trends in Vietnam.

During Vietnam there was a very succesful program of putting platoon sized units in local hamlets and villages to create a presence and to train locals to defend themselves and the powers that be abandoned that approach for a more conventional warfare one.

Afghanistan is switching from a conventional warfare approach to one focusing on small towns and villages and having a small number of troops to provide security and train locals.

Who knows though maybe it will end in disaster.Everything presents its own unique problems.

---

I didn't mean to classify Americans (myself) as conquerors. I support the war.

I believe the process you are thinking of is Vietnamization. it was introduced by Nixon as a process to help the South Vietnamese stand up for themselves. It had initial success. After the TET offensive (which hippies claimed as a victory for North Vietnam), the Viet Cong was shattered and the North Vietnamese conventional forces were severely weakened. So American commanders decided to switch back to conventional war. since we were fighting a limited war and not invading north Vietnam we were obviously at a disadvantage. Then Nixon initiated his heavy bombing. Which was a TOTAL success. Around the time of the withdrawal the north Vietnamese were literally writing up a peace proposition. Weak Americans back on the home front spelled the doom of the Vietnamese campaign. When you have scumbags spitting on returning soldiers and calling them baby killers you don't really have the best base of operations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I didn't mean to classify Americans (myself) as conquerors. I support the war.

I believe the process you are thinking of is Vietnamization. it was introduced by Nixon as a process to help the South Vietnamese stand up for themselves. It had initial success. After the TET offensive (which hippies claimed as a victory for North Vietnam), the Viet Cong was shattered and the North Vietnamese conventional forces were severely weakened. So American commanders decided to switch back to conventional war. since we were fighting a limited war and not invading north Vietnam we were obviously at a disadvantage. Then Nixon initiated his heavy bombing. Which was a TOTAL success. Around the time of the withdrawal the north Vietnamese were literally writing up a peace proposition. Weak Americans back on the home front spelled the doom of the Vietnamese campaign. When you have scumbags spitting on returning soldiers and calling them baby killers you don't really have the best base of operations.

---

Sorry i didn't mean offense.Whether one supports the war or not doesn't factor into my opinion.

The process i am thinking about wasn't vietminzation.It was a program carried out early in the war,around 65-67,by the USMC.It involved putting platoon sized units into hamlets and villages
training the locals while also exposing the US forces to their society.

Quite a succesfull program until Westmorland decided that a purely conventional approach was the key to success.

Tet was indeed a deathblow,coupled with Phoenix,to the viet cong,but it also helped in paving the way for northern domination of the south.Talking with my dad they never fought VC but only NVA units.

Reading Giap was like reading the ultimate monday morning quaterbacks account of a thursday night game.He made himself into an all knowing all seeing arbitor where every setback was planned as part of a greater whole and he was the genuis weaving together the threads.

I think where he becomes apparent is Khe Shan.He tries to turn it into a sideshow meant to take attention away from Tet,by his genious,when what he tried to do was pull another Dien Phen Phu.

I think Vietnam fell apart really because of the desire and motivation. In traditional terms America more than won the war. But since of the lack of home support the north Vietnamese achieved a resounding propaganda victory.

Quote:

---

5.Every enviroment is a perfect one for guerilla warfare.

---

:no:

Quote:

---

During Vietnam there was a very succesful program of putting platoon sized units in local hamlets and villages to create a presence and to train locals to defend themselves and the powers that be abandoned that approach for a more conventional warfare one.

---

It might have been successful if given more time and funding, but once they ended it most progress that had been made was quickly lost.

Quote:

---

I believe the process you are thinking of is Vietnamization. it was introduced by Nixon as a process to help the South Vietnamese stand up for themselves. It had initial success. After the TET offensive (which hippies claimed as a victory for North Vietnam), the Viet Cong was shattered and the North Vietnamese conventional forces were severely weakened. So American commanders decided to switch back to conventional war. since we were fighting a limited war and not invading north Vietnam we were obviously at a disadvantage. Then Nixon initiated his heavy bombing. Which was a TOTAL success. Around the time of the withdrawal the north Vietnamese were literally writing up a peace proposition. Weak Americans back on the home front spelled the doom of the Vietnamese campaign. When you have scumbags spitting on returning soldiers and calling them baby killers you don't really have the best base of operations.

---

Nixon's bombing had very little strategic effect, other than forcing the evacuation of the cities. There is no evidence that the Vietnamese were any more than inconvenienced by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I think Vietnam fell apart really because of the desire and motivation. In traditional terms America more than won the war. But since of the lack of home support the north Vietnamese achieved a resounding propaganda victory.

---

Tet was a huge victory for american and anti-communist forces and allies.Maybe the closest you could come to it was the destruction of a German army in Falaise.Yet the media treated it like a defeat which colored the opinion of people on the homefront.The media turned victory into defeat

Good news does not sell but bad news does.

A modern equivelant is how many major news sources rely upon local reporters saying how awesome the Taliban is,and print glowing stories on them,yet the proffesional armies of the west are in dissaray.

Ooh the Taliban is so sophisticated both politically and militarly..US and British troops are baby killers...Western troops are suprised because the taliban can carry out complicated attacks(meaning that their still way behind any western power but can carry out WWI and WWII infantry assaults).

Quote:

---

Tet was a huge victory for american and anti-communist forces and allies.Maybe the closest you could come to it was the destruction of a German army in Falaise.Yet the media treated it like a defeat which colored the opinion of people on the homefront.The media turned victory into defeat

Good news does not sell but bad news does.

A modern equivelant is how many major news sources rely upon local reporters saying how awesome the Taliban is,and print glowing stories on them,yet the proffesional armies of the west are in dissaray.

Ooh the Taliban is so sophisticated both politically and militarly..US and British troops are baby killers...Western troops are suprised because the taliban can carry out complicated attacks(meaning that their still way behind any western power but can carry out WWI and WWII infantry assaults).

---

all so true.......

It is pathetic that the American media is our enemies greatest weapon. I think at some point they realize it.

On the other hand, how else does one convince the American people to stand up and ask the politicians who start these wars to actually justify them. We are finally learning toask the president and congress to prove that the enemy is really our enemy. We are nowhere near the point of stopping foolish wars which only serve to hurt us in the long term, but it is an improvement over forty years ago when all the president had to say was "they are Commies" and we, the People, would say "Good enough for us, order the draft, raise taxes, and cut education budgets."

Just a little note. I am no pacifist. I think War is a perfectly legitimate tool of Government. However, I also know that most modern wars have generally lead to more trouble than gain for us as a nation. We have not taken war seriously enough in this nation for decades and the price has been high. Therefore, if I ever sound like I am anti-war, I am actually against that specific kind of war, not war in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

all so true.......

It is pathetic that the American media is our enemies greatest weapon. I think at some point they realize it.

---

Then maybe White House might one day actually stop screwing around and start trying to establish a working relationship with it so that it isn't automatically hostile to them on principle (excluding the partisan brown-tongues of course, but those are only friendly to *one* party period).

And maybe actually try to make a convincing case for their newest Big Idea rather than trying to get it sold on pure slogans and populism, a practice which has an unpleasant habit of coming to bite you in the ass down the road once people start figuring out you've been trying to feed them horse cakes.
*coughIraqWMDscough*

Also, PROTIP: smear campaigns against naysayers, skeptics and dissidents WILL backfire sooner or later.

Another amusing element of Modern American War policy is that the leaders think they cannot use certain kinds of arguments to convince people.

"We are going to invade Iraq because,

1.) We need to secure oil supplies for the future. This will keep gasoline cheap.

2.) China is now actively competing for all our sources of oil outside of the Middle East, so to help avoid conflict with China over oil in the next couple of decades, we must lay an iron claim to Iraqi oil.

3.) Saddam Hussein is a source of disruption, if not actual threat, in the region. His removal will make it easier for our foreign policy in the long term.

4.) If we occupy Iraq, Iran will be less likely to defy our demands. Perhaps we can even help accelerate the collapse of unfriendly regimes in the country which will help our oil concerns even more.

5.) With Iraq and Iran both effectively neutralized, we will have not only more clout in the Middle-East but also have more bargaining power with countries like Pakistan and Russia.

This is just a basic and rough list but the idea is that these are the kind of arguments used by the British government to justify its occupation and adminsitration of lands all over the globe that allowed Britain to be the superpower of the 19th-century. THe British people are really not that much different from our own today. The only real difference is that our politicians don't trust us enough to think that we would be swayed by sound logic. They think that we care more than we actually do. That is the true irony of American empire is that its leaders are so convinced that Americans are anti-imperialist that they don't realize just how pro-imperialist we really are.

The media is all to often these days far slanted to the left. The only other major news network is fox which is slanted to the right. I don;t care what some talking head thinks, i just want him to tell me the news and then let me make a decision, maybe let some experts on the issue to make their cases. I don't need them to "intercede" for me as an American citizen..... :wall:

Some good points of view have been advanced in this thread. I am in agreement with much that has been said about the Media being biased, but then I think the Major Networks are tools bought and paid for by the corporate/political machine. What British Mutt + Viking posted about how our American leaders have not managed to convey, what are the obvious strategic interests of the Persian Gulf region-sound reasons to take military action is true, although it does make us appear imperialistc. Afghanistan offers no such economic plums, excluding the oft referred to plan to run a oil pipeline there from the Caspian Sea oilfields-perhaps a chimera of a "pipe dream" in reality.

Of the two Gotterdamerungen we are engaged in, which do you all believe is the more moral cause? I think that any moral claim we may have had in Iraq has been made an hypocrisy by the shifting political reasons claimed thus far, acts of brutality and sadism by the alleged "liberators", the huge presence of civilian contractors making money hand over fist, and failure to make the war pay for itself by increased profits from Iraqi oil production.

In Afghanistan, our moral causus belli is much more defined-the elimination of Al Qaeda and its oppressive Taliban supporters. There is a real chance for the peoples' lives to be made better by a victory there. I am in full support of this, as it appeals to my American ideals. Iraq has always left me feeling somewhat ashamed-although I will do my duty as a soldier there if asked to. I guess I just feel more sympathetic with the brave people of Afghanistan, who are willing to fight for their freedom. Not so, I'm afraid with many of the Shiite dominated people of Iraq. They seem to lack the will. I just hope that we will have the will to stay until victory is acheived in Afghanistan-a task that may take generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

What British Mutt + Viking posted about how our American leaders have not managed to convey, what are the obvious strategic interests of the Persian Gulf region-sound reasons to take military action is true, although it does make us appear imperialistc.

---

Appear imperialistic?? :dizzy2:

The lack of awareness among Americans of how others perceive America is truly astounding. No offense to you Rotorgun.

The contrasts within the country are even more astounding. I find it amazing it all holds together, or even wants to!

That said, I know that there are enlightened and outward looking (not just predatorialy :beam:) people within the USA. I would be more frustrated as one of them on the inside than, as I am (not American) on the outside where I can do nothing...

Personally, I suspect Watchman has probably come closest to hitting the truth: I think Afghanistan has historically been so good at resisting conquest because it's *had* to be. While not being that important in & of itself, its location is such that it's attractive to would-be conquerors, and subsequently the Afghans have had a lot of practice resisting them over the centuries.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

That said, I know that there are enlightened and outward looking (not just predatorialy :beam:) people within the USA. I would be more frustrated as one of them on the inside than, as I am (not American) on the outside where I can do nothing...

---

Brother, you have no idea. Being an American and sitting where I do on the political/ideological spectrum, the eight years of the Bush dictatorship Administration was a very difficult time.

I can't see where this whole idea about Afghanistan being unconquerable comes from.

Afghanistan has been conquered many times, by various people, sometime for a short duration, sometime for decades. The fact that neither Russia nor the US could do it doesn't mean it has never been done.

The whole idea that this area could not be conquered or governed because of some natural fighting spirit or other similar idea is ridiculous. I'm not saying it's not backward, because Afghanistan is obviously a backward place and has been a backward place for quite a while (even when ruled by important empire, it never turned into another Irak or India).

Thing is, nowadays, ruling over this place would require a complete carpet bombing of the area and of its population. The whole Islam vs. the rest of the world thingy obviously plays a role into the recent soviet and american failures to do anything effective in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Appear imperialistic?? :dizzy2:

The lack of awareness among Americans of how others perceive America is truly astounding. No offense to you Rotorgun.

---

I know how the rest of the world perceives America - but that is for another thread.:dizzy2:

About Afghanistan, the reason it has never been subdued is because it hasn't been important enough for the empires to control - they didn't need it enough and got tired of the rebellions (or, they cut their losses because wars in Afghanistan were a huge resource drain).:yes: