Understanding Afghanistan enough to leave

[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.

[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.

[KukriKhan]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

[Vladimir]

June 2009 report to Congress.

I haven't read it yet.

We leave when we meet our objectives. Withdrawing when things get tough reeks of cowardice.

[rory_20_uk]

We leave when we meet our objectives. Withdrawing when things get tough reeks of cowardice.

Ah, the armchair general...

Considering there was precious cause for going into the country in the first place (if you want one person why not try special forces?) it is less cowardice, more that finally the morons are thinking "oh, perhaps pouring money and lives into this black hole isn't the answer..."

What are the objectives?

Getting Bin Laden?
Defeating the Taliban?
"Resurrecting" the state?
Instigating democracy?

The few who are mentioning what it is are tending to less lofty ideals by the casualty.

[seireikhaan]

June 2009 report to Congress.

I haven't read it yet.

Human rights remain a serious issue in the country. The Shi’a Personal Status Law, signed by President Karzai in March 2009, would have required Shi’a women to have their husband’s permission to leave the house and would have legalized marital rape. After international outcry and strong domestic protest, President Karzai put the law under review to ensure that it is in line with the Afghan constitution and suspended its enforcement.

What a gallant man that's in office.

[Incongruous]

The Pashtuns really wanted their King back, unfortunatley he was a bit to independent for the Coalition's taste, so we gave them Karzai. A nothing tribal leader who was getting paid by Big Oil prior to this appointment, I suspect he still is.

Now that the old King is dead, and things are not turning out how the idiots in charge thought they shuld, perhaps we should consder the young Pretender to the throne?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Pashtuns really wanted their King back, unfortunatley he was a bit to independent for the Coalition's taste, so we gave them Karzai. A nothing tribal leader who was getting paid by Big Oil prior to this appointment, I suspect he still is.

Now that the old King is dead, and things are not turning out how the idiots in charge thought they shuld, perhaps we should consder the young Pretender to the throne?

Much as this has the whiff of British Colonialism about it, it has to be said that the Americans in particular seem to prefer a Dictator to a King every time, refusing to allow Germany to capitulate in WWI is a great example of this shortsightedness.

Perhaps the Chiefs should be offered their King?

[Cronos Impera]

Afghanistan is a disaster because NATO is too proud to call for Russian help in the area. Russians and Afghan communists are the best partners for the coalition.
A mildly communist or Russian-influienced Afghanistan is better than 1000 coalition casualties.
The morale of the story here is that Americans shold always remain within thier sphere of influience and not stretch that baloon to much.

Surrender the goal of creating Amerika 2 and invite the Russians over for a Vodka buffet with appologies for the last Russian-Afghan War. 9/11 is the consequence of NATO vs. USSR secret wars and that strggle clearly created mutants (like the Taleban government). So NATO has to either accept Russian power or lose lives.

Russia is the ideal power to control Afghanistan. They've been fighting Moslem terrorists since the USSR and have much more skill in regards to Afghanistan. They also have the right geopolitical influience in the area to ensure a stable regime. Their anti-terrorism is eqal to that of the United States. They also have the right partnerships with Iran, Pakistan and Central Asian republics. The United States has none of this.

But the gas pipeline is too valuable to be given on a silver platter for the Bors-eaters.....so it's a matter of ego rather than anything else.

[Incongruous]

Much as this has the whiff of British Colonialism about it, it has to be said that the Americans in particular seem to prefer a Dictator to a King every time, refusing to allow Germany to capitulate in WWI is a great example of this shortsightedness.

Perhaps the Chiefs should be offered their King?

It's nothing of he sort, the old King was exactly whom we didn't want in power, he had ideas.
The Pashtuns wanted him, we should havegiven them him, now we should see if we can make do wth the heir apparent.

Either way, Karzai should be gotten rid of, he's a useless tosser.