Afghanistan: The Indispensable Nation?

Now, it is all about Afghanistan.

In testimony before Congress today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates labeled Afghanistan as America's "greatest military challenge." Meanwhile, last week, there was considerable brouhaha over a liberal group's stand against U.S. military escalation in Afghanistan. It was talked about as a big story -- the left, again, seemed to be the vanguard for public opinion, pushing the envelope with an extreme position that could ultimately emerge as the mainstream view?

But this would suggest that there is a consensus about the need to prevail in Afghanistan. I missed that national debate.

It might be more helpful to ask just how it is that U.S. public opinion decided the war in Iraq was something Washington could walk away from, but Afghanistan, as the original nurturing ground of Al Qaeda, had to be definitively won. When -- but also why -- was this supposed consensus reached?

Granted, at the start of the 2008 presidential campaign, withdrawal from Iraq was the essential issue. It was Sen. Barack Obama's stand on withdrawal that successfully set him apart from most other candidates -- most notably the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From the first, the young Illinois state senator spoke out against the war. This was a war of choice, he noted, a preventive action against a nation that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and 9-11 -- no matter how often the Bush administration asserted this link. It was a sideshow of the "war on terror" that somehow filled the center ring.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan, which had been the proper focus of America's attention immediately after Sept. 11, slid out of sight. The U.S. gaze had drifted southward -- and so bin Laden had escaped capture, the Taliban had regained a foothold, the warlords clenched tighter control and the heroin trade boomed.

But this grave wrong, the argument went, would be righted once Washington got the hell out of Iraq. The troop surge in Iraq had dangerously stretched the U.S. military capacity. But once withdrawal started, these subsequent cascading errors could be addressed. The needed American troops could at last be sent into Afghanistan, and the correct focus be restored.

But why is this the correct focus? Who decided that America had to "win" Afghanistan in order to prevail in the war of terror?

No occupying power, from Alexander the Great through czarist Russia, the British Empire and the Soviet Union, has been able to exercise full control in Afghanistan. When did this become Washington's essential, its indispensable aim?

When invading Afghanistan was first discussed, this historical fact had been part of the discussion. But it was one of many points lost amid the fog of war.

Last spring, Thomas Powers, who has been thinking about war and conflict for more than 30 years, wrote a terrific piece for The New York Review of Books that made this argument. In talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, he said that the latter was "an even more intractable problem."

Powers wrote:

What is remarkable about the situation in Afghanistan -- even astonishing -- is that the Americans, after watching 100,000 Russians fight Afghans at great expense with no success for nine years, have signed on for a dose of the same. ... The Russians walked into Kabul with ease, as invaders of Afghanistan invariably do, but after that it was mounting trouble all the way. The Russians paid a substantial price for thinking they could "win" if they stuck to it -- a still-hidden number of dead soldiers, probably exceeding 20,000, and perhaps five times that number of seriously wounded; loss of 500 aircraft, including 350 helicopters; huge quantities of other equipment destroyed....

Shrugging off the lessons of history is the preface to disaster in Afghanistan. The Afghans seem so weak -- an impoverished people living in mudbrick houses making a hardscrabble living; shepherds, farmers and nomads answering to feudal lords ruling tiny villages connected by dirt tracks over rocky mountain passes. How tough can it be to whip these skinny men in rags and occupy their country?

So why must Afghanistan be America's "greatest military challenge?" Why is the war on terror now all about Afghanistan?

Capturing bin Laden, who is supposedly lurking in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, is one thing, but looking to subdue a nation that, over centuries, has not yielded to outside power seems a fool's errand.

And if the new president is one thing, he is the opposite of a fool.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

Blogger poses a question:" Who decided that America had to "win" Afghanistan in order to prevail in the war of terror?"
Answer: The world.
U.N. Security Council Resolutions
1267-"demands the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden, poses a series sanctions against Taliban-controlled territory.

1333- "Repeats demand that the Taliban turn over bin Laden and imposes further measures on their territory pending concurrence with the demand."

1386- "Determining that the situation in Afghanistan constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfill its mandate."

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Primary-Resources/Detail/?ots591=69F57A17-24D2-527C-4F3B-B63B07201CA1&lng=en&ord520=grp2&id=21611

I hope this answered your question.

[MagisterLudi]

1."Why is the war on terror now all about Afghanistan?"
Because it has ALWAYS been about A-stan. Before Bush took his misguided detour to Iraq.

2.One must be extremely careful about making irresponsible claims about " lessons of history."
As one historian stated, the only thing Vietnam war taught is the consequence of a war against Vietnam during the middle of 20th Century.

[vakibs]

In fact, the Taliban would not have formed a government in Kabul if not for the covert support of the Pakistani army. They don't have any respect or following amongst the local population. Recent elections in NWFP have seen secular Awami National Party (who are descendents of the Khudai-khidmatgar movement) sweeping the polls. The same thing is true in Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan falls for Islamists, that means it has been arranged for by the outsiders (Pakistanis). If Afghanistan is left to Afghans (very difficult to happen considering the juiciness of their territory), their country will turn into a model democracy in no time.

[vakibs]

Jeff Karger

Afghanistan is one of the world's most ancient republics, right alongside ancient Greece. Megasthenes has specifically mentioned the word "demokratia" with regards to the social structure in these lands. Even today, the principles of egalitarianism and communal discourse are vital in the Afghan politics. All villages and towns hold councils known as "jirgahs" to take decisions.

The fact is these people have democracy in their veins, much more so than any Europeans save the Greeks.

These people have also had one of the most towering leaders of modern times : Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Bacha Khan) who ranks right up there along with Mahatma Gandhi. His followers have built a grassroots movement based on secularism, democracy and egalitarianism. After the partition of India, these followers (called Khudai khid-matgars) were decimated by Pakistan under state orders .. For example, please read about Babrra massacre.

Pakistan has nurtured violent Islamists to keep Pashtun/Afghan nationalism under check (otherwise the NWFP would either declare independence or join their brothers in Afghanistan). The USA has directly helped Pakistan in nurturing violent Islamists - by sending loads of weapons and money. This has served American geopolitical objectives at that time. To hell with the aspirations of Afghan people.

[reliant1]

the democracy of Athens was not something anyone alive today would care to live under....just saying.

A republic? An ancient republic? Democracy in their veins? Puhleeze.

It became a single, political entity with the reign of Ahmed Shah Durrani, who in 1747 founded the monarchy that ruled the country until 1973.

.

[MagisterLudi]

vakibs posted: "Pakistan has nurtured violent Islamists... The USA has directly helped Pakistan in nurturing violent Islamists"
Ok, fine.
And NOW US and others decided to dismantle whatever Taliban and Al Qaeda structures exist.
And your problem with dismantling of Taliban and Al Qaeda is ...?

[Jeff Karger]

How 'bout if the rest of the world leaves Afghanistan alone for its OWN people to work out their OWN destiny without foreign interference for once??

Cause the Taliban will come back into power, and we don't like the Taliban??

Guess what?

The American People wouldn't like foreign countries coming and imposing illegitimate leaders and government systems on them either.

Didja know that there's people in this world who DON'T want western style "democracies"??

[MagisterLudi]

Cause the Taliban will come back into power, and we don't like the Taliban??

Afghan people have seen Taliban regime and wish to take no part of it again.
Taliban can come back only because they're ruthless that other Afghan groups.
Not because Taliban is more popular.
I doubt that burning schools and murdering women for attempting to get education is all that popular among ordinary Afghans.
Is it?

[sully664]

I am glad you included the sentence "the Taliban had regained a foothold, the warlords clenched tighter control and the heroin trade boomed."
However, I wish you mention that it was the US and NATO that freed said warlords after the invasion. Also, it was the Taliban who destroyed the heroin crop at the end of 2000. Drug money funds black ops as well as Wall Street. We need people like you Ms. Silver to give us this information. We need truth.

[overd0g1]

Has any non-occupying power been able to?

[kimleehan]

One of the comments I read yesturday, " leave Iraq and go to Afghanistan, do what you have to do, but bring me the head of Osama Bin Laden." That says it all for me, thats how I feel. Thats the way I felt on 9-11-01 and thats how I feel today.

[freddiefreeloader]

That works for me too, cut off his head wrap his body in a pig skin and bury it some were in the mountains.

[RossalGondamer]

Better yet,

- pay a large sum of taxpayer money for the corn which fattens that hog. ADM will skin it, Haliburton will ship it, and a recently pink-slipped US 'volunteer' will field apply the casing.

Huge win - team america.

[mergina]

I thought we were going there to DESTROY BIN LADEN and his followers, destroy the Taliban and insure that their wretched 'woman hating ways' were put to an end FINALLY, then help them rebuild and get out.

[chocolatecity]

I actually thought Sec. Gates assessment of Afghanistan was very sober. I didn't hear anything about exporting democracy or spreading freedom. I heard a realistic view of a terrorist state where the Taliban is strong and they are still hiding Al Queda.

[bayside]

We obviously have to find another way to deal with people we dont agree with and at times mind our own business so we can solve the problem a more peaceful way.. This killing and war is neverending and does not work accept to bring more war..Behinds the scenes the rich and powerful are getting rich using us as fodder..Is Bin Ladan dead as many believe ? Remember bush is the one that told us bin Ladan did this to us,..We know about bush ability to tell the truth..

[RRoadrunner]

If we pull out of Iraq and Afganistan our unemployment would shoot through the roof. We must keep the defense industry afloat for the good of the country.....

[freddiefreeloader]

Not so, we were'nt in Iraq or afghanistan back in the 90s,and our economy was priety good. Russa was in Afghanistan and look what their economy was like,

[Luvial]

Remember what Rumsfeld said after 9-11 about invading Afghanistan, "There are no targets there!" and then advocated attacking Iraq. The Pentagon needs targets, they need wars. Imagine what would happen if peace broke out for twenty years in a row. The justification of the trillions in defense contracts and weapons systems would evaporate. The Pentagon needs to kill in order to stay alive. They have thousands of people developing plans and scenarios to attack every nation and group on earth. They will not allow a single tax dollar to be spent on developing plans for peace. Look at Iraq, the no fly zones liberated the Kurds years before the Shock and Awe disaster. Basra and the south of Iraq could have been liberated without killing anyone. The noose could then have been tightened on Anwar and Baghdad without all the violence and it would have preserved the civilian infrastructure. (Of course, it was US policy to suppress the pro-Iranian Shites in Basra at the time) There are peaceful alternative to mass murder, but the billions in propaganda for the military industrial complex has people believing the opposite.

[Stirner]

Uncle Sam enjoys going to war. Our nation has never stopped forcefully imposing itself upon the world. In William Williams work, EMPIRE AS A WAY OF LIFE (Oxford U., 1980), he cataloged 23 armed interventions by the United States into foreign countries (not declared wars!) between 1798-1827; 73 between 1831-1896; 40 between 1898-1919, and 19 between 1920-1941 -- he stopped his counting at that date. A national anthem that features "Bombs bursting in air" (and a recent Presidential Candidate who chanted "bomb, bomb, bomb") gives you an idea of how Uncle Sam is an international bully. He has become worse since becoming #1 in holding the most modern killing devices. Why war in Afghanistan? Uncle Sam says "Why not?".

[vakibs]

USAMA

Your analysis of central asian geopolitics is partially correct. But USA has no magnanimity to offer to India . All the goodies, it will keep itself. In fact, USA has been actively preventing India from reaching out to Afghanistan for the last 60 years, because it is deeply worried of Indian influence spreading into central Asia. This is the primary motivation why it supported Pakistan all these years.

About Muslims uniting under a single state, the age of religious theocracies has long ended. It is better if Muslims start thinking beyond the prism of Islam. Each ethnic group and linguistic nationality should first unite and form secular and democratic governments. The Arabs should unite into a single Arabia. Muslim unity is a non-starater, there are too many areas of conflict between Muslims of several regions. Moreover, religious states do not belong to the future.