Everything You Have Been Told About Afghanistan Is Wrong: The Three Great Fallacies

Is Barack Obama about to drive his Presidency into a bloody ditch strewn with corpses? The President is expected any day now to announce his decision about the future of the war in Afghanistan. He knows US and British troops have now been stationed in the hell-mouth of Helmand longer than the First and Second World Wars combined - yet the mutterings from the marble halls of Washington, DC, suggest he may order a troop escalation.

Obama has to decide now whether to side with the American people and the Afghan people calling for a rapid reduction in US force, or with a small military clique demanding a ramping-up of the conflict. The populations of both countries are in close agreement. The latest Washington Post poll shows that 51 per cent of Americans say the war is "not worth fighting" and that ending the foreign occupation will "reduce terrorism." Only 27 percent disagree. At the other end of the gun-barrel, 77 percent of Afghans in the latest BBC poll say the on-going US air strikes are "unacceptable," and the US troops should only remain if they are going to provide reconstruction assistance rather than bombs.

But there is another side: General Stanley McChrystal says that if he is given another 40,000 troops - on top of the current increase, which has pushed military levels above anything in the Bush years - he will "finally win" by "breaking the back" of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida.

How should Obama - and us, the watching world - figure out who is right? We have to start from a hard-headed acknowledgment. Every option from here entails a risk - to Afghan civilians, and to Americans and Europeans. It is not possible to achieve absolute safety. We can only try to figure out what would bring the least risk, and pursue it.

There is obviously a huge risk in sending an extra 40,000 machine-gun wielding troops into a country they don't understand to "clear" huge areas of insurgent fighters who look exactly like the civilian population, and establish "control" of places that have never been controlled by a central government at any point in their history.

Every military counter-insurgency strategy hits up against the probability that it will, in time, create more enemies than it kills. So you blow up a suspected Taliban site and kill two of their commanders - but you also kill 98 women and children, whose families are from that day determined to kill your men and drive them out of their country. Those aren't hypothetical numbers. They come from Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, who was General Petraeus' counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq. He says that US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qa'ida leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. He says: "That's a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It's not moral." It explains the apparent paradox that broke the US in Vietnam: the more "bad guys" you kill, the more you have to kill.

There is an even bigger danger than this. General Petraeus's strategy is to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan. When he succeeds, they run to Pakistan - where the nuclear bombs are.

To justify these risks, the proponents of the escalation need highly persuasive arguments to show how their strategy slashed other risks so dramatically that it outweighed these dangers. It's not inconceivable - but I found that, in fact, the case they give for escalating the war, or for continuing the occupation, is based on three premises that turn to Afghan dust on inspection.

Argument One: We need to deprive al-Qa'ida of military bases in Afghanistan, or they will use them to plot attacks against us, and we will face 9/11 redux.

In fact, virtually all the jihadi attacks against Western countries have been planned in those Western countries themselves, and required extremely limited technological capabilities or training. The 9/11 atrocities were planned in Hamburg and Florida by 19 Saudis who only needed to know how to use box-cutters and to crash a plane. The 7/7 suicide-murders were planned in Yorkshire by young British men who learned how to make bombs off the Internet. Only last week, a jihadi was arrested for plotting to blow up a skyscraper in that notorious jihadi base, Dallas, Texas. And on, and on.

In reality, there are almost no al-Qa'ida fighters in Afghanistan. That's not my view: it's that of General Jim Jones, the US National Security Advisor. He said recently there are 100 al-Qa'ida fighters in Afghanistan. That's worth repeating: there are 100 al-Qa'ida fighters in Afghanistan. Nor is that a sign that the war is working. The Taliban or warlords friendly to them already control 40 per cent of Afghanistan now, today. They can build all the "training camps" they want there - but they have only found a hundred fundamentalist thugs to staff them.

Even if - and this is highly unlikely - you could plug every hole in the Afghan state's authority and therefore make it possible to shut down every camp, there are a dozen other failed states they can scuttle off to the next day and pitch some more tents. Again, that's not my view. Leon Panetta, head of the CIA, says: "As we disrupt [al-Qa'ida], they will seek other safe havens. Somalia and Yemen are potential al-Qa'ida bases in the future." The US can't occupy every failed state in the world for decades - so why desperately try to plug one hole in a bath full of leaks, when the water will only seep out anyway?

There are plenty of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan - but they are a different matter to al-Qa'ida. The latest leaked US intelligence reports say, according to the Boston Globe, that 90 per cent of them are "a tribal, localised insurgency" who "see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power." They have "no goals" beyond Afghanistan's borders.

Argument Two: By staying, we are significantly improving Afghan human rights, especially for women.

This, for me, is the meatiest argument - and the most depressing. The Taliban are indeed one of the vilest forces in the world, imprisoning women in their homes and torturing them for the "crimes" of showing their faces, expressing their sexuality, or being raped. They keep trying to murder my friend Malalai Joya for the "crime" of being elected to parliament on a platform of treating women like human beings not cattle.

But as she told me last month: "Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords." Outside Kabul, vicious Taliban who enforce sharia law have merely been replaced by vicious warlords who enforce sharia law. "The situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women," she said. Any Afghan president - Karzai, or his opponents - will only ever in practice be the mayor of Kabul. Beyond is a sea of warlordism, as evil to women as Mullah Omar. That is not a difference worth fighting and dying for.

Argument Three: If we withdraw, it will be a great victory for al-Qa'ida. Re-energised, they will surge out across the world.

In fact, in November 2004, Osama bin Laden bragged to his followers: "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen [jihadi fighters] to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written "al-Qa'ida" in order to make generals race there, and we cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses - without their achieving anything of note!" These wars will, he said, boost al-Qa'ida recruitment across the world, and in time "bankrupt America." They walked right into his trap.

Yes, there is real risk in going - but it is dwarfed by the risk of staying. A bloody escalation in the war is more likely to fuel jihadism than thwart it. If Obama is serious about undermining this vile fanatical movement, it would be much wiser to take the hundreds of billions he is currently squandering on chasing after a hundred fighters in the Afghan mountains and redeploy it. Spend it instead on beefing up policing and intelligence, and on building a network of schools across Pakistan and other flash-points in the Muslim world, so parents there have an alternative to the fanatical madrassahs that churn out bin Laden-fodder. The American people will be far safer if the world sees them building schools for Muslim kids instead of dropping bombs on them.

He can explain - with his tongue dipped in amazing eloquence - that trying to defeat al-Qa'ida with hundreds of thousands of occupying troops and Predator jets is like trying to treat cancer with a blowtorch. Now, that really would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

You can follow Johann Hari on Twitter at http://twitter.com/johannhari101

He is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here . You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com

 

Follow Johann Hari on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johannhari101

Comments

[rascalofearth]

i am all about the girls for moral clarity. even if we free kabul those women will free thier country. but in real politik as long as the indians and pakistanis are not shooting at each other, not attacking the camps directly after mumbai was an amazing act of of restraint by the indian govt, and the fact that the pakistan army is attempting to gain control of the uncontrolled lands gives me enough hope to invest us blood and treasure. if india and pakistan are with us we can do great things for millions of people.

[sixchair]

Of course, this all boils down to protecting the Unocal pipeline, not about Al Qaeda, women's rights ot our security.

[sixchair]

This is spot on, well thought out and supported. What's amazing is it's such simple logic, based on knowledge that most of us possess. It's just our huge American ego getting in the way. Hubris.

[Gnrshrtd]

Let's talk jobs. Just speculatin­g...

How many 10's of thousands of reservists will come home to a jobless economy? (Their bosses may be willing to hold their jobs -> if the jobs still exist.) How many enlisted will decide not to re-up (who could blame them), and come home to find no work? The people who have paid the most, our troops, will be rewarded with unemployment.

Yes, I recognize the tragedy of civilian losses, as well. And, No, I am not advocating a position - I don't see any good options to recommend, the situation has become such a mess for everyone.

I just wonder if this variable is part of this decision equation.

[rbenjamin]

Johann Hari has it exactly right.

[TXfemmom]

Sometimes, they go on about how we create enemies when we go after Taliban leaders and the Taliban and get some civilians and how that makes their families our enemy. In all probability, the families of those people were Taliban or Taliban sympathizers anyway.

We hear Karzai scream bloody murder when NATO and U. S. forces kill civilians, which is highly regrettable and not our desire. He needs to be out there SCREAMING bloody murder when the Taliban IED blew up a civilian bus and killed all those people and they set off suicide car bombings that kill a hundred civilians and don't care who they kill.

I am not sure that Afghanistan can be a truly united, freedom-loving country. They have four thousand years of ethnic and tribal divisions and a from of Islam which is not cuddly at all. Perhaps, the only thing we need to do is make it perfectly, abundantly clear that if they harbour Al Qaeda and foreign fighters or send their people elsewhere to be suicide bombers, that we shall take some steps which will make them very, very sorry that they have done so, and after squeezing the Taliban and Al Qaeda and foreign fighters between our fighters and the Pakistan Army on their side, and killing as many as possible, we should concentrate on keeping Pakistan honoring their commitment to keep their border and country free of Al Qaeda as much as possible and get out of Afghanistan.

[rbenjamin]

The problem with your plan is in the execution, pun intended, and it's overall effectiveness. We kill Taliban soldiers by the dozens, but they have an inexhaustible supply of cheaply outfitted replacements.
We kill their leadership too, but subordinates are promoted from below. The very expensive United States military presence in Afghanistan is bogged down swatting a bunch of guys armed with rifles and high explosives. We've been at it for 8 years, yet the situation is bleaker than when we started. At what point do you say "hey, this isn't working?" Seems the enemy generals are better strategists than ours.

[rascalofearth]

no nation has an inexhaustible supply of troopers. focus on pakistan's progres and think anvil hammer on eveything in between. i think we can win by next fall

[kendraro]

Johann, I couldn't agree with you more. Let's hope Obama has the courage to do the right thing.

[PrairieView]

Obamabots have gone over the edge. Obama obviously has already decided to escalate the war in Afghanistan and create a civil war in Pakistan. Otherwise he would not send Sec Defense Gates and Gen. McCrystal to give speeches around the world supporting the policy change. Obama is just afraid to tell the world the bad news of his decision to keep the killing of muslims going full steam.

[Bacygirl]

This is the same argument I have made. This is a war that must be won by putting money and people into building up the infrastructure: modernizing the country, building schools and hospitals.

The Afghan war will be won by conquering hearts and heads through the feeding of bellies and minds.

That is what will make the people abandon al quaeda and the taliban.

[boner]

While I don't disagree with you, the last thing we can afford is to waste our tax dollars building up ANOTHER country's infrastructure, schools and hospitals. We can't afford to be that charitable.

It's sad how some people are so quick to pony up billions to fight battles half way across the world, but a stimulus package to address our own needs are seen as wasteful.

[Conservoprogressive]

I, too, agree with Bacygirl on principle(people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care), but we have our OWN failing infrastructure, schools that are a nightmare, hospitals going out of business, food pantries that can't keep up with demand, etc etc.
I also question just how "effective" we can be by helping the people. Which will make more of an impression, the nice GI who gives them help, or finding their neighbor's head on a pole in the morning? AQ and the Taliban will control them with fear.

[playon]

With Iraq winding down, the huge death vending machine that is the military-industrial complex needs this war to ramp up to keep the procurements and profits flowing.

[PrairieView]

Obama has not even stopped no-bid contracts that Democrats criticized Cheney/Bush for.

[rascalofearth]

excelelnt post

[ilse]

So what is the real reason republicans, Cheney, Condi Rice, General McChrystal and other war mongers want to stay and increase it to 40,000 more troops? Does this war have to do with the privileged few like war contractors and republicans making money on war. How much money is involved per soldier? The republicans are war mongers because war makes money and their scare tactics talk of terrorism is just that, scare tactics. This war on afghanistan has to do with making money and nothing to do with terrorism. Surely if terrorism was the issue, Bush and Cheney would have made a better effort during their 8 years in office.

[scampy123]

Yes exactly what i have said in previous posts but when do you think McCain and Cheney can say that the guys who knocked down the twin towers were from non democracies that are kept in power by the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

[tacevad]

how many of those "Support our troops-let them win"signs are spread throughout the United States.Wel­l I DO support our troops and in the words of President Obama "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." I have NEVER been told what the exact definition of "win" is. Has anyone else?It certainly sounds good though doesn't it ?let them WIN!. makes a poor soul feel good to know we can win! But what are we winning by giving our enemies whoever they may be yet more reasons to be our enemies?I know that there are "terrorists" out there,but the military solution has proven far too expensive and ineffective in handling this problem. The reason is that terrorism is NOT a military problem it is a problem to be handled by police and laws and courts in the same manner that vandalism is.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

Regarding winning, the administration spokesman on CSPAN said "we will know it when we see it" ... in other words he knows the public can't handle the truth.

[rascalofearth]

tomorrow the night President of the our United States will tell us the definition of win. god willing.

[foreignpolicywonk]

An interesting perspective.

Just read another interesting article, by the U.S.'s former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Robert Finn, on what's really going on over there. He's got a great perspective, having been on the inside of U.S.-Afgha­n relations.

http://blog.psaonline.org/2009/10/21/afghanistan-still-wrong-after-all-these-years/

[Cactusman]

A basic truth that always gets ignored by the corporatist state and its marginally-elected minions is that war breeds more war. ALWAYS. To expect otherwise is to expect that dogs give birth to kittens.

You create what you focus on. If you want war, conduct one. If you want peace, set policies that create peace. But to expect an apple tree to bear oranges is insanity!

Our so-called "War on Drugs" has brought us nothing but more drugs. The "War on Crime" brought more crime and criminals. Our "War on Terror" has brought us more terror. (Actually, it's brought far more terror to those overseas than to Americans.­) Whatever "War" the US has declared has ended up with more, and worse, amounts of whatever "War" was declared upon.

AIDS, poverty, communism, you name it. Throughout history, our militarized language and culture obsessed with winning and profits and economic growth regardless of cost has done little to create long-term health or success of human societies, both domestically and abroad.

America is at its best when it focuses on genuine human rights and moral leadership. The good that America has done in the world has been *in spite* of our wars, not *because* of them.

So what does the US corporate-fascist state want? The answer lies in what we've got. Like breeds like. The corporatists know this, but they do NOT want you to, lest you decide otherwise.

Obama can and should do better.