RSS
An ill-judged attempt to find out who is to blame for failing to predict the swift victory of the Taliban and the disintegration of Afghan government forces is masking the most significant strategic lessons of the Afghan war.
Turning points in history usually come by surprise because, if the powers-that-be of the day could see those turning points coming at them, they would take steps to avoid them. Governments and the public like to believe that there is more inevitability in history than there really is. Unexpected events of great significance, such as the fall of France in 1940, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 were followed by inquiries into why experts did not foresee them.
These investigations dig down deep in search of root causes of historic change and always find them. But, as Lord Northcliffe said, one “should never lose one’s sense of the superficial”. Key ingredients in important historic developments may be decisions and actions occurring that could easily have gone the other way. For instance, there were long-standing reasons for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990, but none of these would have mattered if the Iraqi leader had changed his mind at the last minute.
I argued for a decade that the Afghan government was a floating wreck and that it was its unpopularity and fragility, and not the strength of the Taliban, that was the driving force of events. Yet, unsatisfactory though this situation was, it could have gone on for a long time had not Donald Trump signed an extraordinarily one-sided US withdrawal agreement with the Taliban in February 2020. And even this might not have produced the final debacle, had Joe Biden not decided for domestic political motives to grandstand in his speech on 14 April this year confirming the American departure before the 9/11 anniversary.
He said correctly that the Afghan regime provided too rotten a branch for the US to sit on forever – and then decided to jump up and down on the very same branch and not expect it to snap. The details of just how everything fell apart on the night, and how this could have been avoided, is being venomously debated, but a far more important lesson is that the American way of war is dysfunctional and automatically generates failure.
Claims that the US might have prevented the return of the Taliban, if it had not been diverted by the Iraq war, or devoted too much time to “nation building” in Afghanistan, should be dismissed as the self-regarding nonsense that it is. Between 2001 and 2021, US administrations invariably acted in their own domestic political interests when it came to Afghanistan, these interests seldom coinciding with those of ordinary Afghans.
A curious fact is that the US had won the war by the early months of 2002, at which time the US-backed forces had overthrown the Taliban and al-Qaeda had left the country for Pakistan. But the White House continued the “war on terror” even in the absence of terrorists because of its strong appeal as a slogan and a policy to a US public badly bruised by the shock of 9/11. US forces brought back and supported old warlords, whose blood-soaked banditry between 1992 and 1996 had given birth to the Taliban by way of reaction. Big and small-time Afghan-style mafiosi used American support to win power and money, often denouncing their rivals as secret Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters.
How this process discredited the anti-Taliban forces and produced the Taliban’s return is explained in Anand Gopal’s brilliant and detailed book, No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban and the War through Afghan Eyes. Based on copious interviewing, it convincingly describes how US military intervention first helped get rid of the Taliban but then replaced them with predatory local bosses who denounced as “terrorists” anybody who stood in their way.
Many in impoverished Pashtun southern Afghanistan, once the heartland of the Taliban, were glad to see the back of them, hoping that US intervention meant democratic elections and economic aid. Disillusionment began early when non-political or anti-Taliban farmers were whisked off to mistreatment and confinement in Bagram airport and Guantanamo. Among many examples, Gopal relates how in one area, “US forces assaulted the school and the governor’s house in January 2002, wiping out most of the district’s pro-US leadership in a single night.”
Such “mistakes” were integral to the way in which the US helped rejuvenate the Taliban over two decades by using assault teams to stage night raids and airpower at all times, their targets often chosen by faulty and partisan intelligence.
I was in Herat in eastern Afghanistan in 2014 writing about three villages in Farrar province bombed by the US air force, which had killed 117 villagers, 61 of them children, after the local police had called in an airstrike. Though there were cavernous bomb craters 15 feet deep, a US spokesperson initially claimed that the slaughter had been caused by Taliban tossing grenades into houses.
These atrocities grew worse in recent years as the US withdrew its ground troops and relied more on “night raids”, often carried out by US-organised Afghan assault units that were effectively death squads. The number of US troops might drop, but not the quantity of bombs and missiles being used.
Predictably, the motives for young men joining the Taliban in recent years were two-fold according to local reports and they had nothing to do with fundamentalist Islam. Fighters said that they had joined up because of the killing or injuring of civilians by airstrikes and night raids, and because of US backing for tribes and ethnic groups hostile to them.
The bottom line is that at vast expense – the figure ranges between $1 trillion and $2.3 trillion over 20 years, depending on how it is calculated – Washington has devised a method of fighting wars that makes sure they will never end. US airpower may have killed many Taliban, but it has recruited many more.
The US kept its own military casualties down by using drones and airstrikes whose targeting relied on difficult-to-interpret satellite images and dubious local informants. Appropriately, one of the last direct military actions by the US at Kabul airport was a drone strike aimed at suicide bombers, which killed 10 civilians including seven children.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Indeed, I hear you. Well said.
But: I don’t think that the US was ever serious about ‘conquering’ or ‘remaking’ Afghanistan. So I don’t think this was in any way a setback for the US elites, I can see this as going according to plan.
I think the main point of invading Afghanistan is that it was in fact pointless. We could sink limitless amounts of money into that pit, and politically connected defense contractors could reap massive profits (with a few pennies skimmed off by the locals), and there would be no blow-back for failure, because the place doesn’t matter.
Consider also that the Afghanis have the highest fertility rate outside of Africa. The population was about 20 million when the US invaded, and it’s about 40 million now. Forget the lies of Julian Simon and the Wall Street Journal: basically no nation larger than a city-state or without an open frontier has ever developed any sort of prosperity with such rapid population growth (remember, it’s not the numbers, it’s the rate of increase).
Surely the US government realized that the ‘investments’ made for ‘nation building’ were not even keeping up with population growth? How can you build a stable democratic friendly government when most people are just barely above starvation, and this hasn’t changed in 20 years? You can’t.
And then: the US pays massive aid to the Pakistanis, who then aid the Taliban, and the US looks the other way. The US must have known that the Afghani officers and installed politicians were totally corrupt and would flee at the first sign of danger. And our ‘loyal’ Afghani army, consisting of illiterate troops who only signed up for a chance at a paycheck, and who would shoot US soldiers in the back every chance they got? Is anyone surprised?
But now: using the propaganda cry of “we must save our loyal allies” the US is going to import unlimited Afghan refugees, no questions asked. Remember: Afghanistan can’t even feed its current population without external food imports, which have been shut off. And the population is set to double again to about 80 million in the next 20 years. Think of all our ‘loyal allies’ desperate to escape the evil Taliban (translation: miserable poverty) and be flown to the US! If the elites get their way, there will be an endless stream of cargo jets with 1,000 random Afghanis shoveled in like cattle (and eventually, probably a lot of Pakistanis as well, but who’s going to check?) flying to the US. More downwards pressure on wages; more upwards pressure on rents, really, what’s not to like?
My opinion: the US ‘failure’ in Afghanistan is not a bug, it’s a feature.
OK, maybe a bit far out but: the people in charge made lots of money, they paid no personal price, and they are set to make even more money. Objectively, is this failure?
Hot tip. Afghans resettled in Scotland poised to be the decider in future SNP referendum.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19555570.afghan-refugees-scotlands-councils-draw-plans-welcome-hundreds/
Currently the SNP is getting 50% of votes cast in Scotland a few thousand Afghan refugees voting SNP is all Sturgeon needs to destroy Anglo Scottish Union.
How can ANYONE suggest that the Fall of France in 1940 was NOT expected?? Anyone who studied the Fall of Poland in 1939 knew the German army had a new set if highly mobile tactics, and the German army had added new panzer and and motorized divisions over the winter
Frenchmen had been all for murdering Germans in their beds since before WW1. The Germans, on the other hand, had been trying DIPLOMATICALLY to adjust some of the many questionable border placements to no avail. Because French people HATED Germans as a people.
And so, having begun sorting out the international MESS that was 1939 Poland, the Germans tried to NEGOTIATE with the lunatics in Paris, who were of course being egged on by the Englanders.
A “Forever War” can’t be judged by real war standards. We needed some refreshing honesty, such as, “Now that osama is gone, we’re here for the minerals and poppies.”
We could’ve ended up selling minerals to red china and let Russia lease territory for a pipeline.
Instead, only defense contractors and the vermin in congress “won.”
The Norway campaign convinced much of the British General Staff that the Germans were going to overrun France. There’s a memo from Major Peter Fleming (Ian Fleming’s Brother) where he inspected the situation in Norway mid battle in situ and concluded the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were too hot to handle. His memo precipitated the parliamentary coup against Chamberlain among reservist officers who were also MPs.
Why would they vote SNP, if they bother to vote at all?
and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 were followed by inquiries into why experts did not foresee them.”
If collapse were predicted or even suspected by NSA or CIA would that would have been reflected in official document ? No. The vested interests of the institute itself prevent any corrective action. The suspicion would have been left as a foot note on the back of the 10th or the hundredth page or buried somewhere else .It would have never reached the Congress or the common folks . Now Congress is totally bought .It was not in 1970s . So now CIA can write but Congress would be pressurized or persuaded to ignore it by the CIA through CNN or Fox or WSJ or through Radio talk show .
America is divided along the lines of emotional stupidities, biased but false informations . Blame Trump or Biden even when they do desirable jobs just because they are programmed to hate other along religious faith – I mean party affiliations . Until people come out on the streets protesting (the way they show up right on cue to support Syrian opposition and rebel or to show exuberance on the killing of Osama at night makes it impossible that cowed and misinformed but angry people demonstrate .Because those demonstrations were encouraged or allowed or simply manufactured by the Power to be .That power wont allow any meaningful protests ) no change will even be contemplated .
One thing I have noticed – TV or media were more free in Bangladesh and Mynamar one time when the rulers /PM were not powerful . Jordan has more freedom of press than Saudi . BBC doesnt have the guts to criticize UK’s foreign crimes or war Same thing in India. Media was more powerful in 80s- 90s than it is now .Pakistani media has become more bold but it was not when Pakistani rulers had the full weight of USA behind it in 80s . Afghanistan media was quite scathing about the corruption in Ghani gov .
The media withstand pressure from Gov when the government is not despotic and not too powerful. it can criticize and expose corrupt business when business have not yet grown to be billion times wealthy compared to comm folks . Then either fear of despotic gov or collusion through bribing or them being on the payroll of the corrupt Government agencies or the business prevent the media to analyze the situations- whether it is economic or military or finances- with honesty, thoroughness, impartiality and according to the principle based on facts.
More adventures and more disasters cant be ruled out because the dinosaurs cant change and evolve at the drop of a dime though the dime has been falling for last 20 yrs .
Someone on another thread pointed out that victory and defeat are both undesirable outcomes to the defense manufacturers and contractors, who were receiving as much as $100 billion per year from the Afghan war. For them, the ideal situation is a “forever war”.
It took nearly 10 years to find and kill Osama Bin Laden, and during that long period of waiting, cynical people began to wonder whether he was worth more to the USA alive than dead. It turned out that they were not being cynical enough – with Al Qaeda vanquished and Bin Laden dead, the USA remained in Afghanistan for a further 10 years. For what? Women’s rights? I don’t believe it.
“My opinion: the US ‘failure’ in Afghanistan is not a bug, it’s a feature.”
I agree. They know what they are doing. And Biden has nothing to do with it.
Let’s discuss Uzbekistan and all its problems; women’s rights, stray dogs, refugees. Why don’t we spend billions of dollars a year to “stabilize” that nation? Because like Afghanistan, it is no importance to American security or trade.
Whoops. Wrong Stan. Not that it matters. They are all of no importance.
I’d like to visit the area and look through the Tarim Basin Mummy’s habitat and then visit the museum displays. Early Bronze Age whites who migrated through the area before other humans bothered to even look or make a living.
A small price to pay for 20 years of looting and laundering. Good thing they can pin the blame on their senile donkey.
There was no way to exit gracefully from that Potemkin village of an occupation.
There is a huge group in India that denies exactly what you said – early Bronze Age migration of Whites through the area.
Got to be huge, PM Modi’s party supports the “Indigenous Aryanism” and thus opposes the Aryan Invasion theory …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism
Depends who you’re fighting. It even worked really well to destroy the Taliban and they could have accepted a surrender and a handing over of all their weapons but US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has resembled a street thug immersed in an honour culture, it responds brutally to any slights and only accept total capitulation.
And Iraq wasn’t a failure. Nor was Libya. Nor was/is Syria. Nor will Lebanon be. All produced what they intended, the removal of cohesive political entities resistant to subjugation to Israel’s domination and the large-scale destruction of assets and political systems that might prove a check on Israel’s power. The chaos, death and destruction and ethnic/sectarian strife was the intended outcome.
The only problem with the military adventures was that they sullied the good name of said interventions so Syria is still being done by proxy with an encamped US/UK/Norwegian military base on Syrian soil hoping to suffer some casualties to justify a full invasion.
The US could 100% fulfill all it’s real objectives (Set by the Israeli nationalists who run the State Dept) with massive air strikes to destroy the Iranian military and economy/military industry along with the arming and encouraging of ethnic separatist militia’s in Iran’s non-Persian peripheries. It might try to occupy the country to set up a puppet regime with likely bloody destructive results but the failure to create any new stable puppet government along with constant bloody insurgent warfare is likely a more effective way to keep Iran from representing any threat to Israel than the creation of one anyway.
That’s a pretty incredible premise considering that so much of the epic literature of the Indo-Aryans is them bragging about invading the place and destroying all the great cities therein. You also have to explain why the Dravidians are in the South. Did they come by boat? From where? And how did they come to dominate so much territory?
The BJP are stupid.
Using thugocrats for “nation building” reminds me of Ngô Đình Diệm. He treated South Vietnam like a family business before he was removed.
Afghanistan can’t compare to the money contractors have made from manufactured tensions with Russia and China. Annual spending on defense is now around $754 billion from $305 billion in 2001.
It’s not failure. It’s Parkinson. Bureaucracies never solve problems. Bureaucracies MAINTAIN AND CREATE PROBLEMS. A war that constantly “fails” is a war that demands and justifies MORE BUDGET AND MORE WORKFORCE AND MORE POWER.