Understanding Afghanistan enough to leave

As the death toll for British troops in Afghanistan passes their losses in Iraq, Matthew Parris of the Times writes a piece that explains brilliantly why we are wasting their lives.

If someone could actually define the mission there, it might help, but with all the woolly misdirection from politicians married to the inevitable historical and tribal realities, one despairs.

"Sometimes, you have to listen to the mountains.” This was quoted to us journalists in Kabul by Brigadier-General Walter Givehan of the US Forces in Afghanistan, with pride. He uses it as part of his mission statement: a reminder, he said, always to be alert to one’s environment and ready to hear the lessons it may teach.

So, as you shake your head in sorrow at the British soldiers killed there, read a story from the mountains: the jagged brown ridges of Oruzgan, a province adjoining Helmand where I’ve been spending time in a Dutch-Australian military base, Camp Holland. My Australian colleague Brendan Nicholson, of the Melbourne Age, and I heard about the story, and did some digging.

Bear with my tale. Its very intricacy is important. This is the story of three men: Jan Mohamed Khan, Rozi Khan and Mohamed Daoud. The two Khans are not related.

It is time to "Listen to the mountains". The only reason to have been there at all was to capture/kill Bin Laden & Company. The rest is a waste of treasure, lives, and time. Get out, now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

It is time to "Listen to the mountains". The only reason to have been there at all was to capture/kill Bin Laden & Company. The rest is a waste of treasure, lives, and time. Get out, now.

---

Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

As the death toll for British troops in Afghanistan passes their losses in Iraq, Matthew Parris of the Times writes a piece that explains brilliantly why we are wasting their lives.

If someone could actually define the mission there, it might help, but with all the woolly misdirection from politicians married to the inevitable historical and tribal realities, one despairs.

"Sometimes, you have to listen to the mountains.” This was quoted to us journalists in Kabul by Brigadier-General Walter Givehan of the US Forces in Afghanistan, with pride. He uses it as part of his mission statement: a reminder, he said, always to be alert to one’s environment and ready to hear the lessons it may teach.

So, as you shake your head in sorrow at the British soldiers killed there, read a story from the mountains: the jagged brown ridges of Oruzgan, a province adjoining Helmand where I’ve been spending time in a Dutch-Australian military base, Camp Holland. My Australian colleague Brendan Nicholson, of the Melbourne Age, and I heard about the story, and did some digging.

Bear with my tale. Its very intricacy is important. This is the story of three men: Jan Mohamed Khan, Rozi Khan and Mohamed Daoud. The two Khans are not related.

---

Banquo, this story seems painful simple and not at all indicative of the possibility of victory or defeat. The Americans did not listen to the mountains, had they done so they would have known that Jan Mohamed Khan was a traitor and not to be trusted. Had they realised this they would have rejected his information and the six chiefs would still have their rightful wealth, power and position.

The Americans seem to court men of dubious moral character because they are more likely to lean towards their democratic and secular agenda; rather than men of honour who might actually hold the country together after they leave.

Jan Mohamed lacked hnour, he should never have been indulged, he should have been shunned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Banquo, this story seems painful simple and not at all indicative of the possibility of victory or defeat. The Americans did not listen to the mountains, had they done so they would have known that Jan Mohamed Khan was a traitor and not to be trusted. Had they realised this they would have rejected his information and the six chiefs would still have their rightful wealth, power and position.

The Americans seem to court men of dubious moral character because they are more likely to lean towards their democratic and secular agenda; rather than men of honour who might actually hold the country together after they leave.

Jan Mohamed lacked hnour, he should never have been indulged, he should have been shunned.

---

The point is that this was one complex story in a country riddled with such. The Americans couldn't possibly have made the right call - no-one from outside could. (Probably no-one outside each tiny regional tribe). The apparent attempt at nation-building is utterly doomed because Afghanistan is not and never will be a nation in the sense that the West thinks of the concept.

The "man of honour" in that story got himself killed, almost certainly in a set-up. Karzai is a crook so of course he is going to back other crooks that he understands. (He's not exactly a poster child for a "democratic and secular agenda" either).

None of this can be reduced to a simple plan of action - other than to accept we cannot understand or influence their world and we should leave.

Going just fine, what exactly is going wrong. Iraq is doing fine, Afghanistan is still a desert below Russia, there is revolution in Iran, what's not to like.

The weak kneed wobbling their knees. No fight is ever worth it with this mentality.

I fret to think what the US would look like if you were in charge during the American Revolution or when nearly all of Europe was occupied when you give up a patch of desert because of a relatively low casualty rate. How about when the South Seceeded? Man, imagine your opposition.

Keep our military active and practiced, even if it costs. The benefits long term will outweigh the cost.

The purpose of going into Afghanistan was to end its status as a terrorism bakery. We've done that to large swathes of the country and are in the process of doing it to other parts. The agenda is there, the force is there and we are doing it. Pressure has finally come from pakistan and land fertile for insurgency is caught in a vice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The point is that this was one complex story in a country riddled with such. The Americans couldn't possibly have made the right call - no-one from outside could. (Probably no-one outside each tiny regional tribe). The apparent attempt at nation-building is utterly doomed because Afghanistan is not and never will be a nation in the sense that the West thinks of the concept.

---

There are more than just "Western" nations. Building a country with relatively just and fair leaders. Even if we do not agree with their beliefs they might be people we can deal with.

Quote:

---

The "man of honour" in that story got himself killed, almost certainly in a set-up. Karzai is a crook so of course he is going to back other crooks that he understands. (He's not exactly a poster child for a "democratic and secular agenda" either).

---

So the Americans put a crook in charge because they didn't want a King, that's Iraq and Iran all over again.

Quote:

---

None of this can be reduced to a simple plan of action - other than to accept we cannot understand or influence their world and we should leave.

---

I think that's defeatest, and frankly wrong. The major problem seems to be a severe lack of intelligence. JMK had betrayed his allies and fought for the Talaban, but the Americans took his word over the loyal chiefs, either because he was "in" with the President, or because they failed to recognise or inquire into the history between these men.

The actual situation seems reasonably explicable, it's just decidedly medieval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Keep our military active and practiced, even if it costs. The benefits long term will outweigh the cost.

---

Yes. And aggressive at that.

If people really believe the Taliban with their control of what is just about the sole heroin provider of the world isn't a threat, they need a shrink specialized in progressive personality disorder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The weak kneed wobbling their knees. No fight is ever worth it with this mentality.

I fret to think what the US would look like if you were in charge during the American Revolution or when nearly all of Europe was occupied when you give up a patch of desert because of a relatively low casualty rate. How about when the South Seceeded? Man, imagine your opposition.

Keep our military active and practiced, even if it costs. The benefits long term will outweigh the cost.

The purpose of going into Afghanistan was to end its status as a terrorism bakery. We've done that to large swathes of the country and are in the process of doing it to other parts. The agenda is there, the force is there and we are doing it. Pressure has finally come from pakistan and land fertile for insurgency is caught in a vice.

---

I like the idea someone suggested of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Taleban and the other power bases in Afghanistan, and having agreed areas where the fighting could take place. They'd be able to govern their territories without undue pressure from us, while having someone to unite against, while we'd have somewhere and someone against whom to exercise our military, without too much side splash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I like the idea someone suggested of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Taleban and the other power bases in Afghanistan, and having agreed areas where the fighting could take place. They'd be able to govern their territories without undue pressure from us, while having someone to unite against, while we'd have somewhere and someone against whom to exercise our military, without too much side splash.

---

No agreements with Taleban. Period. If Taleban leaders want to break away from the organization we can make deals with them. The organization is an entity to be destroyed without exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I like the idea someone suggested of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Taleban and the other power bases in Afghanistan, and having agreed areas where the fighting could take place.

---

Why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

No agreements with Taleban. Period. If Taleban leaders want to break away from the organization we can make deals with them. The organization is an entity to be destroyed without exception.

---

Which is kind of part of the problem we're currently facing. Utterly destroying the Taleban will only be possible with the support of Pakistan, and significant parts of the Pakistan government support the Taleban - indeed, not only the Taleban, but the zealotry of the Taleban. The political objective you describe won't be possible without similarly dealing with Pakistan, and they're too dangerous to mess with. And no, the greatest danger isn't this Pakistani government. The greatest danger is what will probably come after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Which is kind of part of the problem we're currently facing. Utterly destroying the Taleban will only be possible with the support of Pakistan, and significant parts of the Pakistan government support the Taleban - indeed, not only the Taleban, but the zealotry of the Taleban. The political objective you describe won't be possible without similarly dealing with Pakistan, and they're too dangerous to mess with. And no, the greatest danger isn't this Pakistani government. The greatest danger is what will probably come after.

---

Yes but denying them acces to drugmoney so they can buy arms is loco? Rather large budget for those solemnly swearing to be up to no good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yes but denying them acces to drugmoney so they can buy arms is loco? Rather large budget for those solemnly swearing to be up to no good.

---

They need the drugmoney to pay for the war against us. Before we stormed in, they were effective suppressors of the opium economy. Lessen the pressure on them to keep up the arms race, strike up and maintain communication channels with them so we can reach some kind of mutually acceptable accommodations on political issues, then carry on a low intensity war in agreed areas where we won't inconvenience anyone else overmuch. They'll have someone to shoot at, but we're not going to significantly threaten them, so they're happy, while we can keep something of a lid on things, while having somewhere to practice making war, so we're happy. Keep this up long enough, and we can eventually cut out the Pakistani middleman, as the Talebani won't need them for support since we're no longer threatening them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

They need the drugmoney to pay for the war against us.

---

It has kinda been there for a while you know, the golden triangle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It has kinda been there for a while you know, the golden triangle.

---

Newyorker

The Taliban instituted a strict Islamist policy against the opium trade during the final years of their regime, and by the time of their overthrow they had virtually eliminated it. But now, Lieutenant General Mohammad Daud-Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy minister of the interior for counter-narcotics, told me, “there has been a coalition between the Taliban and the opium smugglers. This year, they have set up a commission to tax the harvest.” In return, he said, the Taliban had offered opium farmers protection from the government’s eradication efforts. The switch in strategy has an obvious logic: it provides opium money for the Taliban to sustain itself and helps it to win over the farming communities.

From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003

Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.

Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.

has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

It is time to "Listen to the mountains". The only reason to have been there at all was to capture/kill Bin Laden & Company.

---

Yes. But.

The but is the notion that as soon as the troops leave, the Taleban will move back in and start plotting 9/11's again. So the troops stayed until a stable and democratic Afghanistan without Taleban could be formed. This standard was set too high.

As we are now slowly giving up on the illusion of leaving behind a democratic Afghanistan, the question becomes: what is the lowest standard of people we are willing to deal with that can form some kind of stable Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.

---

Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran. :wall: There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran. :wall: There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.

---

i think tribalism plays a huge part in whether it fails or not. Afghanistan is probably one of the best places to see tribalism in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Newyorker

The Taliban instituted a strict Islamist policy against the opium trade during the final years of their regime, and by the time of their overthrow they had virtually eliminated it. But now, Lieutenant General Mohammad Daud-Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy minister of the interior for counter-narcotics, told me, “there has been a coalition between the Taliban and the opium smugglers. This year, they have set up a commission to tax the harvest.” In return, he said, the Taliban had offered opium farmers protection from the government’s eradication efforts. The switch in strategy has an obvious logic: it provides opium money for the Taliban to sustain itself and helps it to win over the farming communities.

From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003

Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.

Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.

---

One link would do to slap me around

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes. But.

The but is the notion that as soon as the troops leave, the Taleban will move back in and start plotting 9/11's again. So the troops stayed until a stable and democratic Afghanistan without Taleban could be formed. This standard was set too high.

As we are now slowly giving up on the illusion of leaving behind a democratic Afghanistan, the question becomes: what is the lowest standard of people we are willing to deal with that can form some kind of stable Afghanistan?

---

We're looking at things the wrong way. The biggest danger in the region isn't Afghanistan, but Pakistan. Instead of using Pakistan to help solve Afghanistan, we should be looking to use Afghanistan to solve Pakistan. Get some kind of agreement with the Talebani nuts so they can be secure in their independence, without depending on the Pakistani nuts for survival. The danger might be that the Pakistani nuts might turn their attention again to Kashmir if they have no outlet to the north, but my impression is that they're drawing strength from the threat to the Pashtun, and undermining Pakistan's democratic base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?


CBR

---

Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?

---

Indeed. It's practically a paradise. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.

---

Perhaps because it's not a video game and the bodies are not those of computer sprites? I've lost comrades in war, but wars with a purpose. I fume (freaking out is not something one tends to) at the loss of any soldier for no point.

I'm ready to be convinced by a clear mission statement, a battle plan and measurable milestones for this nation-building operation. So far, in the face of contrary evidence, all I've seen is ad hominems and vague platitudes that all will be well.

Pannonian is doing his usual good job of focussing us on the realpolitik. There is a problem, in that Afghanistan is not a nation in any sense that we understand it, and the Taleban is also somewhat borderless. The Taleban utilise the one unifying factor in that region, militant Islam. This is not a weapon available to NATO. Pakistan is indeed the key to that strand.

Warlordism and tribalism characterises much of the region and the "power" structure of the Taleban - and has done for hundreds of years. It is not a single enemy. This is the point the article was trying to make. Developing a centralised government structure based from Kabul is doomed to failure without imperial levels of troops - and probably not even then (the Russians tried this and came unstuck).

Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?

---

:bow:

Aims of the war:

• To fix a country which has been "broken" for over 500 years, possibly never functioned.
• To get those that caused 9/11... and avoid Saudi Arabia and that most were Saudis.
• To increase safety and try to forget that 7/7 was mainly due to protests about the wars.
• Get Bin Laden as if this will suddenly "win" the conflict

Methods:

• Boots on the ground! Not as many as the commanders want, but surely quality overcomes quantity?
• Not enough helicopters - we'll borrow them when needed
• Inadequate vehicles. We're getting new ones that have thicker armour. Fingers crossed they'll not build bigger bombs...
• Winning hearts and minds by building infrastructure, and
• ... by spraying crops, drone attacks and apologies for killing civilians
• An American led, mainly Christian white leaning force in a Middle Eastern / Islamic state - but NOT a Crusade, OK?
• Capture, hold, build, media take pictures with smiling locals, leave, Taliban bomb. Repeat until budget runs out.

So, as can be seen, we are not aiming to return to a previous state, but trying to build one. We have no clear idea of how to do this and don't have enough men to achieve it - if we knew what "it" was.
I realise the cost in human life is compared to most wars is low. However, the ratio of injured to killed is probably higher than ever.

But lives are being lost in a country with no strategic value as is a vast amount of money. Fanatics all over the world are having a causus belli.

If the vast resources (or even a fraction thereof) which are being squandered were used for containment we'd be just as safe. There are still nutters with plans to blow up parts of the UK, so the war isn't stopping this.

Another war that the UK in very different times went into with the phrase "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!"

To update: "we've not the ships, we've not the men and no money too!"

The UK needs to emulate countries such as Australia who are used to not being a big fish, and structure our ambitions and armed forces accordingly.

Our "special relationship" started in WW2 when America bankrupted us. Apparently to continue it we need to continue to throw money and lives at whatever moronic war they embark on.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Indeed. It's practically a paradise. :dizzy2:

---

If you want a warzone and newly built democracy to be a paradise then I can understand your disappointment.

The main reason why so little has happened for 7 years is that a certain US president thought a two front war was twice as good as a one front war.

Now that USA finally has the troops we see NATO is moving forward.

Currently both the army as well as police forces are expanding and being trained. It is of course a big project that will take time and effort.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us...tary.html?_r=1

I know Danish police officers are participating in the police training and part of that consists of basic stuff like teaching them not to take bribes and acting to help the population instead of just being abusive brutes. In other words a change in culture that will not happen in a few months.

So I really doubt any can provide you with specific time tables except that it looks like a few more years. That of course does not mean losses will stay as high as they have been the last few weeks. Removing the Taliban power base in Afghanistan should go a long way.


CBR

The goal is to build up an Afghan government that is not anti-western and wich is eventually capable of sustaining itself without our help. If we leave now it will turn into a second Somalia; a country in anarchy that will be periodically bombed and invaded by other powers to prevent their trouble from crossing the borders. With that in mind I support my country's involvement in Afghanistan.