Both Sides, Now
You put a rifle in his hand;
You sent him far away,
You shouted, "Hip, hooray!"
But look at him today!
--Remember My Forgotten Man (1933)
_________________
Isn't it strange that in 1979 the U.S. cheered for and sponsored the Taliban and the seminal al-Qaeda in the Russian-Afghanistan War?
Strange that the Soviet Union and the U.S. had roughly the same agenda, which was and is secularism and the parity of women, and the suppression of Islamic radicalism, yet we saw fit to oppose them. Why did the U.S. oppose the Soviet invasion?
Why do the American people support the U.S.'s invasion and continued war in Afghanistan? Why do the Afghan people continue to fight U.S. aggression? Is it the same reason they fought the Soviets?
So 30 years ago U.S. policy was to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan, whose objectives were in sync with those of the U.S. today. The terrorist's objectives were also the same -- evict foreign powers. The same enemy that fought the Soviets fight us today, but back then we supported the Afghans with funds, training and materiel, and best of all, Stinger missiles and safe haven in Pakistan.
Now bogged down in the same war, the only question that arises is: Do idiots run the U.S.? Are the Departments of Defense, State and Central Intelligence Agency so myopic and uncreative as to do a complete flip-flop in 30 years? What is gained and what is lost by such vacillation?
Which brings us to the present situation in tribal regions of Pakistan. The threat destabilizing the region was created, aimed, cocked and armed by shortsighted U.S. policy. Do U.S. policymakers create these cock-ups on purpose just to have something to do, or are they just clueless?
There are a lot of questions here. The entire Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) seems one big question mark.
Strange that the Soviet Union and the U.S. had roughly the same agenda, which was and is secularism and the parity of women, and the suppression of Islamic radicalism, yet we saw fit to oppose them. Why did the U.S. oppose the Soviet invasion?
Why do the American people support the U.S.'s invasion and continued war in Afghanistan? Why do the Afghan people continue to fight U.S. aggression? Is it the same reason they fought the Soviets?
So 30 years ago U.S. policy was to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan, whose objectives were in sync with those of the U.S. today. The terrorist's objectives were also the same -- evict foreign powers. The same enemy that fought the Soviets fight us today, but back then we supported the Afghans with funds, training and materiel, and best of all, Stinger missiles and safe haven in Pakistan.
Now bogged down in the same war, the only question that arises is: Do idiots run the U.S.? Are the Departments of Defense, State and Central Intelligence Agency so myopic and uncreative as to do a complete flip-flop in 30 years? What is gained and what is lost by such vacillation?
Which brings us to the present situation in tribal regions of Pakistan. The threat destabilizing the region was created, aimed, cocked and armed by shortsighted U.S. policy. Do U.S. policymakers create these cock-ups on purpose just to have something to do, or are they just clueless?
There are a lot of questions here. The entire Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) seems one big question mark.
Labels: afghanistan, consequences of phony war on terror, PWOT, russo-afghan war
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:11 PM
22 Comments:
"Do U.S. policymakers create these cock-ups on purpose just to have something to do, or are they just clueless?"
Vorkers of the Vorld's Vork expands to fill the time alloted to complete it, Tovarich Jim.
one thing i have noticed is that to the degree we prevail in any particular case, it is attributable to brute force and robust resources..... not necessarily our strategic brilliance.
again, we are missing some pretty clear lessons of history. the ancient world was full of "proxy" wars where the main antagonists were unable, or unwilling to meet each other in an open force on force confrontation and did so, instead, through the funding and arming of proxies.
one of the most adroit political actions occurred during the pelloponnesian war where persia backed first sparta, then athens, then the renegade from sparta and athens, alcibiades, then finally, the "victor" sparta. in reality, it was the persians who gained everything they ever wanted from the greeks (an end to greek support of persian client cities who rebelled, free trade in the east med, aid in the suppressian of piracy) but were unable to attain through invasion.
even with all of that the period of success was brief. the persian blowback consisted of philip of macedon, and later, his son, alexander. without the persian intervention in athens and sparta, the subsequent rise of thebes, and then macedonia would probably never happened. thebes would have remained significant for agriculture, but reliant on athens or sparta for both trade and protection. in the absense of a militarily dominant sparta and a trading giant in athens the thebans began to develop their own channels in both. epaminondas ruined sparta's military legend over the course of a summer. he ruined them so utterly that alexander, when unifying greece didn't even bother to send an embassy. he presumed spartan capitulation.
caesar had the same problem of blowback in gaul. he curried favor with the remi (today's belgium), using them as both auxilliary infantry, but also as the main force of cavalry (roman cavalry was always a hit or miss operation, rather than ride to the hottest part of the fight ala alexander, the romans utilized mounted infantry where the horses provided rapid deployment for a dismounted fight).
later, it was the remi who provided the biggest challenge to caesar's conquest when they provided vercingetorix with his first and most loyal support.
history is rife with blowbacks. the u.s. army used the paiute and the crow to suppress the plains nations, only to have to fight them both after they had obtained an understanding of current tactical doctrine and gotten the newest and most modern weapons.
nelson miles prevented a white mountain apache blowback, he simply interred most of his apache scouts with the chiricauhua he used the white mountain troops to hunt.
yeah, it was ruthless. maybe needlessly so. it sure fucking worked. it might have been the only thing that would have worked.
Fasteddiez,
Spasiba, tovarisch!
Ghost Dansing and MB are in line.
MB, thank you for the excellent overview on the use of proxies and blowback.
The original invasion of the sovereign "nation" of Afghanistan was set in motion to prove a point. Then has just continued running down the same tracks it started on. The military bureaucracy is doing what it was last told; there has been no one minding the war to tell them different.
From the beginning there was no clear objective so we haven't reached it and the war continues.
As to the Soviet question, whatever they did was wrong; whatever we do is right. So whatever they do, we have to oppose them until they retreat.
When we do the same thing, it is for the Good Guys and how could any nation resist our charm?
We're doomed in this one.
Normally I enjoy reading your blog, but in this post I find you've made many ahistorical comparisons.
First, the Taliban did not exist in 1979. Furthermore, the Taliban's leadership today were minor players during the anti-Soviet jihad - most of the principle groups that we supported back then oppose the Taliban today. Even the organization Mullah Omar fought for under the Soviet occupation is a legitimate political party today. The same enemy that fought the Soviets are not fighting us today - some of them are, most are not.
Second, the Soviets did not have the same agenda we do today. The Soviets invaded to stage a coup to replace what they felt was an unreliable and possibly disloyal ally. It wasn't about secularism or women's rights, it was about preserving a Soviet client state. In that regard the Soviet intent was similar to the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia decades earlier.
Whatever the wisdom of our invasion, occupation and continued involvement in Afghanistan, it is simply not the other side of the Soviet war coin.
Andy:
"I hardly knew ye!"
Is this the same Andy from the old Intel Dump gang, who now contributes to Abu M?
If so, Hi.
Lisa: Puzhalsta!
Andy,
Good to hear from you. The Soviets wanted a secular society in Afghanistan, a client state, as you say. The U.S. objective is the same, except we say, "ally".
The Soviet rationale for invading was more legit than the U.S's, as it is within their sphere of influence. So you;re right, our war is not the flip side; our intention lacks legitimacy.
Strike the word "Taliban" but keep "seminal al=Qaeda." The sponsorship of the Mujahadeen opened the floodgates and demonstrated that western armies can be defeated by insurgents. It is now our cross to bear.
My point is that a communist Afghanistan would have engendered equality for all of its citizens, unlike a Taliban-sponsored Afghanistan. The U.S. used the weasel excuse of liberating women, which is far from what has happened under our watch. Still, the choice is theirs, whichever way you go.
I will readdress this issue in a future post after regrouping, rereading and reconsolidating.
Fast,
Yep, that's me! Hope you are doing well!
Ranger,
Thanks for the response.
On your first point, IMO there is a big difference between Soviet secularism, the secularism we practice here in the US and the nominal secularism of the current Afghan government.
Secondly, I disagree the Soviet rationale was more legitimate. While I can certainly understand the Soviet (and Russian before that) desire for influence and control of Afghanistan, responding to an attack is more legitimate IMO. We can maybe argue over the details about what form our response should have been, but I think invasion was a completely legitimate response.
On al Qaeda and the Taliban, we bear some of that cross, but certainly not all of it. We were one player supporting the resistance and a it's a little-known fact that more money came from others (mainly the Saudis) than the US. An even greater mistake, IMO, was washing our hands of the entire thing in the early 1990's after the Soviet withdrawal.
Finally, I disagree that communist Afghanistan would have brought equality since it didn't even bring equality to the Soviet Union. Regardless, the Soviets weren't the least interested in promoting equality in Afghanistan - they were interested in compelling submission through violence and threats of violence.
Thanks again and I look forward to reading that future post.
Andy,
The "response" to the attack was essentially complete by December 2001. Everything afterward was pure imperialism (albeit smothered in good intentions).
Ael,
Imperialism - really? What exactly does Afghanistan have for us to exploit?
Andy--
Oil pipeline routes. And opium.
And large quantities of copper.
Andy,
Soviet secularism is indeed different than that of the US, BUT it's much less dangerous than Terrorism which is our new boogeyman. Now since we don't have the Soviets as enemies we try to manufacture badmen, like Iran, Venezuela,Taliban etc.
But my keypoint is that terrorism was not a problem in communist countries. It's something developed as a result of our actions. NOW THAT IS OUR CROSS.
Yes the Saudis financed the resistance in the Russo war to a greater extent than did the US.
They did so as cooperation with US policy.
I really don't care about democracy and equality in AFGH/IRQ because it isn't gonna happen. The point that we will make them freer than would the Russians is irrelevant to me. The only concern I have in theater is the safety of America and this war is not enhancing that factor.
The invasion of AFGH was not proportional nor realistic, IMO.
The threat to America is not external, as I see it. If we fall as a nation, it'll be an implosion and not an explosion. You've probably noticed, we're almost there.
Yes, I promise to readdress this in a future post since there is obviously a need to clarify the issue. Thanks for your comments.
jim
Well, if what some wild-eyed folks say is true -- the biggest drug dealers are governments -- maybe its really all about control of the poppy fields ...GSJ
"Yes, I promise to readdress this in a future post since there is obviously a need to clarify the issue. Thanks for your comments."
Ranger, I'm not so sure you need to clarify the issue after this:
"The invasion of AFGH was not proportional nor realistic, IMO.
"The threat to America is not external, as I see it. If we fall as a nation, it'll be an implosion and not an explosion. You've probably noticed, we're almost there."
This is really the crux of the matter. I agree with Andy in that the punitive expedition a la Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates was warranted and satisfied even the most stringent "just war" criteria. Lending credence to this is the overwhelmingly favorable reaction from all continents and even from Muslim nations in Arabia.
Nah, the invasion (I prefer punitive expedition) is a no-brainer. It's the aftermath that's killed us. Our political leaders took a good idea, squared it and came up with dogshit.
And that's where we stand now: Warm, stinking, nasty dogshit. That's what Afghanistan is. Nothing more, nothing less. Why on earth our "leaders" believed it important for us to stick around is unfathomable. If you accept the predicate lies, which many of us never did, you can almost understand Iraq, especially in view of the fact that Iraq actually has strategic value, not to mention a well educated populace. Afghanistan is Stone Age. It's for good reason that it's where empires go to die.
There will be no happy ending in Afghanistan. We are pissing money and lives away by thinking that we'll somehow turn history around. And one must wonder just why Afghanistan is now the fulcrum when it's clear that the real problems lie in Pakistan and other untouchable Muslim nations. Why Afghanistan? The Taliban? Bad dudes, you bet, but are they really our problem? I note that Obama has mentioned a dialog with Taliban elements. Good. From a great power standpoint, why would we care if the Taliban run Afghanistan? We shouldn't, not if we put them on notice that if they aid AQ or anyone else in causing us grief, we'll be back. The lot of the Afghan people is not our problem. We don't do anything for Africans; why Afghans?
I agree with Ranger (and accordingly disagree with Andy) about the Soviets having had more legitimacy in Afghanistan than we do with our continued presence. An essential element of the old great game is things such as our Monroe doctrine, i.e., spheres of influence, or buffer zones if you will. We have no business in having a continuing presence in Afghanistan; what we're supposed to be doing is talking turkey to Russia, China and even Iran about the dangers inherent in allowing Afghanistan to be an irritant to us. We should be focusing on Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Proxy wars can be useful to great powers that adeptly exploit the stupidity of another power. The Soviets and Chinese did it to us in Vietnam; we did it to the Soviets in Afghanistan, who, in their defense, were merely trying to control an unruly part of what they viewed as their empire. We and the Chinese did the unforgivable by shedding massive quantities of our own blood and treasure for "allies." The Chinese learned; we apparently have not learned.
Not only are we venal and corrupt, as evidenced by our current financial situation, we are stupid. One wonders how long a stupid great power can remain "great." Ranger is absolutely right in assessing our gravest threat to be internal. In a world full of sharks, we look more and more like the sperm whale, the largest animal on the planet, but still easy prey for the sharks.
Publius,
Thanks for the supporting viewpoint.I, however ,will research AFGH/RUSS war for purely historical data.I've read several books on the topic but feel a need to go further.However this effort has nothing to do with the present cock up that's the PWOT, it's purely historical interest.Even if we think we're farting perfume in AFGH/IRQ it still smells to those of us allergic to perfume.
My position,and by extension your clarification remains steadfast. My position varies from yours in only one detail- I do not accept the legitimacy of a punitve or any kind of invasion by US forces.There were several options available to adequately address the threat-and there still are.War is not the answer, especially a reactive feel good iladvised war.
The Barbary pirates are not a good example- hell let's use the historical example of the Mexican War and invade Mexico to solve our drug problems. Using typical logic that's probably next on the agenda.
The Barbary analogy doesn't work for me b/c we've now got international law and organisations to address such concerns between nations.We must strive not to be simplistic in our thinking-and that's exactly what we do as a nation.Everything is simplistic thinking and we swallow it without a burp.God help us.
I'm not an America Firster ala 1930-1939 but to me it's obvious that we are walking the wrong trail, and guys like us know that a rear march is often a correct course of action.Whatever we must focus on saving our own sorry asses before we are totally overrun.It just seems so obvious to me that it distresses me just thinking about it.My favorite question is -Why did the Army train us to think and then expect us to turn off our brains and swallow crap?
This is what distinguishes our readers and commentors-we just won't do it even if they try to tube it down our throats.
jim
Old Bogus, Ael,
So, if I understand you right, the reason we stay in Afghanistan is either: Oil pipelines, Opium or Copper or all three?
Ranger, Publius,
I don't see America's problem as one so much of an "internal threat" but of a country that has lost its way and is divided over its role in the world. America reached the top of the hill and doesn't quite know where to go next.
I also agree that the terrorist threat has been overemphasized, but I'm not really surprised either, coming on the heels of the Cold War. The overwrought fear caused by 9/11 is quickly fading to a reasonable level IMO.
On the subject of Afghanistan, I want to make it clear that I don't think the nation-building enterprise we're currently engaged in will succeed. The best that could be achieved, IMO, is a country like Pakistan, where most of the country is run on a colonial basis and not as a true, sovereign nation.
On the other hand, I don't think abandonment is wise either. That is a road we've already been down and that didn't work out too well. We might be able to conduct periodic punitive expeditions should a significant threat again emanate from Afghanistan, but that strategy did not work too well for us previously either.
So, if not those two, then what? I think there are a range of options between those extremes, especially if our goal remains a negative one - to prevent the establishment of hostile safe-havens within Afghanistan. Col. Pat Lang, for example, advocates for a tribal solution and that's certainly one option that makes sense to me.
So I'm looking forward to what President Obama's strategy review will say. I'm hopeful that it will be a realistic and responsible policy as his Iraq policy has been. We'll see.
Andy,
Your last cmt. included the word -HOPEFUL.
The entire US policy in the last 8 years is contingent on that non-operational word. Hopeful is a feel-good concept.
If sending more troops causes you to be hopeful then I must wonder why it fills me with dread?
I do not consider this to be America's problem; it should be dealt with by the Afghanis. The solution you say Lang fronts is an old and obvious one, and tribes do not a democracy make. Same as it ever was.
jim
Ranger,
When dealing with politicians "hopeful" is about as positive an attitude as I can achieve.
For the record, I've never said that sending more US troops to Afghanistan is a good idea. It might be as part of a sound strategy, but a sound strategy is something we don't have currently. Without a coherent strategy, it's difficult to evaluate any potential COA.
Also, I never suggested that a tribal-based strategy will bring "democracy." It's simply an alternative to extremist positions that the ignorant TV pundits tout - "victory" or GTFO, neither of which is viable IMO.
Regardless, in a place like Afghanistan, less is often more at the end of the day, but that goes against our American mindset unfortunately.
Concerning the comments about the invasion of Afghanistan being a response to something.... My understanding is that the US government asked the Taliban government to hand over bin-Laden and the leaders of al-Queda as those responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks. And that the Taliban responded that they would if the US government would show evidence that bin-Laden and al-Queda were responsible for the attacks. The US government said "fuck you" and invaded. If anyone can show that this is not what happened please feel free to do so. Giving this I can't say that the initial invasion was justified. Seems as though it would have made a lot more sense to give the Taliban the evidence and have bin-Laden and al-Queda captured by the Taliban. If only there had been that damnable evidence.
Terrible,
That is a common misconception. The Taliban said they might let UBL be tried by the Taliban or possibly in some other Islamic court if they were first provided evidence proving his guilt. That much is true.
What's not as well known is that the US was in secret negotiations with the Taliban through most of the 1990's, primarily on UBL (especially beginning in 1998). The Taliban was provided evidence after the East Africa bombings which they rejected. Even UBL's public and taped statements claiming credit not only for those bombings, but for many others as well, were not good enough for the Taliban. The Taliban also rejected at that time turning UBL over to either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for an "islamic" trial.
Unsurprisingly, the US was not willing to play that familiar and fruitless game again after 9/11, especially since it was made perfectly clear that the US would hold the Taliban responsible for attacks made by UBL. Despite this and the direct offers of negotiations that could lead to diplomatic recognition, the Taliban were either unable or unwilling to check UBL's activities which included a number of attempted attacks, some of which were successful between 1998 and 2001.
So at the end of the day, the Taliban claims after the 9/11 attacks were viewed as empty promises.
Post a Comment
<< Home