Afghanistan

[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

[al Roumi]

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.

[Watchman]

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...

[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.

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.

[Ibrahim]

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.

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).

[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)

[The Wizard]

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.

[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

[rotorgun]

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.

[King Kurt]

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.

[Centurion1]

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.....

[John the Mad]

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.

[Centurion1]

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.

[John the Mad]

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.

[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.

[Azathoth]

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

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.

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.

[John the Mad]

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).