Afghanistan Lessons

[Big Guy]

So NATO has formally ended its 13 year combat mission in Afghanistan. It seems fitting that the exact time of the flag lowering exercise and the location of the ceremony was held in an undisclosed location because of the threat posed by the Taliban.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/12/nato-job-done-afghanistan-2014123118638445294.html

So we declare victory again, start home as the enemy stands outside the gates waiting to take over.

Total score - about 3,400 NATO forces killed, tens of thousands injured. About 10,000 Afghan soldiers killed, tens of thousands wounded. About 25,000 Afghan civilians killed, hundreds of thousands injured and millions displaced.

The USA will be keeping 13,000 troops for up to two years for "training and advisory".

I guess that there are few people out there who consider this as a success. I do not.

At last report, the current government was in negotiations with the Taliban and Taliban fighters were being brought back from Pakistan for the next battle.

Have we learned anything from this "expedition"?

Edited December 31, 2014 by Big Guy

[On Guard for Thee]

Probably not but KBR made a shit load of money in the process, and that's what it's all about, after all.

[eyeball]

Have we learned anything from this "expedition"?

Yeah, quit following right-wing prescriptions for solving the world's problems. Doing so leads to disaster. Like religion, it just makes everything worse.

Edited December 31, 2014 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

Have we learned anything from this "expedition"?

Yes, modern Western democratic Governments do not have enough political capital for sustained, with self-imposed impediments, combat operations aimed at creation of a western-styled democratic society were none existed.....

[eyeball]

So maybe its right-wing perceptions about the world that is so mixed up? I mean, lefties pointed out the problem of sustaining the effort before it even got under way....amongst all the other reasons it was doomed from the start.

[On Guard for Thee]

Hey let's not knock the American military industrial complex. I made some good bucks from it and without it the US could fall flat on it's face.

[bush_cheney2004]

So maybe its right-wing perceptions about the world that is so mixed up? I mean, lefties pointed out the problem of sustaining the effort before it even got under way....amongst all the other reasons it was doomed from the start.

No...the lefties also "left" thousands of American troops and fighting machines in Germany, Japan, and Korea. They have been there for over 50 years. Just add Afghanistan and Iraq to the mix.

[Derek 2.0]

No...the lefties also "left" thousands of American troops and fighting machines in Germany, Japan, and Korea. They have been there for over 50 years. Just add Afghanistan and Iraq to the mix.

Indeed, after exerting untold brutality against said foes.....hearts and minds factored little when viewing ones enemy through a Norden bombsight....

[Peter F]

I don't think the political will was there for that sort of thing either..and even if it was it still wouldn't have worked. Terrorists can plot in Florida apartments if they wish. Unleashing the wests 'other arm' would have merely killed a hell-of-a-lot more people. Granted - some of them would have been terrorists.

[WIP]

Yes, modern Western democratic Governments do not have enough political capital for sustained, with self-imposed impediments, combat operations aimed at creation of a western-styled democratic society were none existed.....

Let's be honest about this - "regime change" is not, and never has been about promoting western-style democracy abroad! Otherwise, shouldn't they have started with Saudi Arabia?

The game is, and always has been about Neocolonialism. In the past, empires and despots were at least honest about their plans and intentions....nothing subtle about it! We're going to enslave you and your people, and plunder your land for wealth, because this god-forsaken place is too hot, and is too rife with malaria for any of us to want to settle here permanently! Otherwise we would have just ethnically cleansed you right out of this place and moved our people in....because God is on our side....we're the shining beacon of light on the hill, blah blah blah etc. etc. etc.

But, after WWII, the collapse of an indebted British Empire was superceded by a new American Empire, that worked in the background of useful tinpot dictators who served to rubberstamp whatever foreign interests desired: open the mines, set up plantations, exploit whatever you like....which was mostly raw materials in previous times, but now includes controlling all aspects of third world life...including privatizing health and social services....I won't go into detail, but if you poke around for the causes of the West African Ebola Epidemic spiraling out of control, your going to find the fingerprints of the IMF and World Bank!

What sets Afghanistan apart from other subjects of regime change, like Iraq and Libya, is Afghanistan has no value except for its strategic location. After prolonged drying out of the climate in this region (likely a product of global warming) there is nothing that will grow in most of Afghanistan except for opium poppies! And Afghanistan, being an agrarian society, after 13 years of U.S. occupation, the country is exactly where it was before the Taleban takeover: a corrupt national government that controls little more than the capital city, wealthy and corrupt local warlords running the drug business and an even greater dependency on foreign money to maintain the Afghan Army...for what it's worth!

So, what was the point? Damned if I know!

[WIP]

Hey let's not knock the American military industrial complex. I made some good bucks from it and without it the US could fall flat on it's face.

Like all empires of the past, the U.S. is either going to reach a point where it realizes that it cannot continue paying for the costs of increasing military expenses and associated costs of running an empire, or it won't....and it will collapse like a house of cards! It's not like there is a choice to maintain the status quo forever.

[On Guard for Thee]

Are you saying you can hear a fiddle playing? I can.

[WIP]

Are you saying you can hear a fiddle playing? I can.

Lately, I've been going back to reading about past empires, like Rome and more recent - the Austria-Hungarian Empire, who's collapse fed World War One. The patterns seem to be remarkably similar as empires rise, reach their peak - where everyone thinks they'll be around forever...friend or foe, and then all of a sudden.....poof! The only question is regarding the state of the world as it stands today - what sort of empires we will see rise up in its place. Maybe it will be one with spears and bow&arrows!

[Big Guy]

What I also find disappointing is that the Soviet Union was in there for 9 years, lost about 15,000 soldiers and had half a million injured. These were hardened Soviet troops and limped out of Afghanistan leaving rusting hulks of tanks. Yet, the West somehow thought that we were a lot smarter and a lot stronger so we would come out winners. You would think that there must be some military analysts in Washington, Ottawa or London who might have understood what was happening there.

I am afraid that it is the same military geniuses in those same capitals who have given the green light to this anti-ISIS strategy.

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

[dre]

Yes, modern Western democratic Governments do not have enough political capital for sustained, with self-imposed impediments, combat operations aimed at creation of a western-styled democratic society were none existed.....

Of course! We didnt need the failed GWOT to learn that though... Its obvious. No public is going to tolerate an open ended project that wastes trillions of their dollars without any benefit to that public what-so-ever.

Obviously governments are going to run out of "political capital" when they try to spend that capital on incredibly stupid, wasteful, and destructive things.

What we really learned is what we already knew before. There was pretty good consensus prior to 911 that nation building was just generally a bad idea, and cost prohibitive. We just needed a refresher.

[WIP]

What I also find disappointing is that the Soviet Union was in there for 9 years, lost about 15,000 soldiers and had half a million injured. These were hardened Soviet troops and limped out of Afghanistan leaving rusting hulks of tanks. Yet, the West somehow thought that we were a lot smarter and a lot stronger so we would come out winners. You would think that there must be some military analysts in Washington, Ottawa or London who might have understood what was happening there.

I am afraid that it is the same military geniuses in those same capitals who have given the green light to this anti-ISIS strategy.

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

And the Russians should have learned from England's example! History repeats because it sure seems to be subject that world leaders never have studied!

It's tragic, especially because back when I was young, I knew a few hippie backpackers who went out to see the world, and walked, hitch-hiked through Afghanistan on their way to Kashmir back in the 70's. Now, we're told that these people are savages and brainwashed Muslim extremists - who are itching for the opportunity to blow themselves up in the company of a few westerners! But, back then, there were thousands of weird teenage-20 year olds wandering through their country and provided meals and lodging by even the poorest peasant farmers along the way. The general principle was that a stranger was always welcome no matter where they were from or what language they spoke. But, after the wars and civil wars that started with the Soviet Invasion, all that changed in recent decades, and now their country is probably the most unliveable place on Earth.

[dre]

Yet, the West somehow thought that we were a lot smarter and a lot stronger so we would come out winners.

I am afraid that it is the same military geniuses in those same capitals who have given the green light to this anti-ISIS strategy.

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

I bet that if you had a little GPS locator on each of the 5 trillion dollars wasted in the GWOT, you would find that an awful lot of people DID come out "winners".

The biggest lesson here, is how fast a government will turn on its own people in reaction to events like 911. Never let a crisis go to waste they say, and people dumb with fear and anger are very easily parted from their money.

And the scary thing is that our enemies are smart enough to understand this... Binladen didn't need to defeat the US militarily... he knew that if he got the ball rolling the US government and private sector profiteers would do the REAL damage to the American people.

All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin Laden said

[Rue]

With due respect WIP it was not all roses. Violence against women, pedophilia, opium addiction were all prevalent. So was a corrupt government back then.

I do appreciate your point. I just mean to also extend the discussion and say Afghanistan has always been a forboding country. No one but no one won a war there. The Mujahadeen were too fierce and new the mountains too well.Not even the fabled Ghurkas on behalf of the British could do anything.

Its an ungovernable country. The mountains alone see to that.

I think Canadian soldiers are to be admired for trying to be part of an attempt to stabilize things. Do I think it a waste and futile- truthfully my opinon does not matter.

I think all that matters is soldiers who were there understand I respect them and if we in the West failed to change things-its because they were not meant to be not because the soldiers failed.

Of course it might be futile, naïve or even counter-productive and make things worse thinking we change certain societies and impose our own values. I get that.

Then again W, if I totally and absolutely believed that, then I also fear it could be a rationalization for doing nothing in the face of injustice or tyranny and enable future Hitlers.

Sure we can say the US should not have gone into Iraq but I believe it was necessary to take Hussein out after he gassed the Kurds.

There was a time we sent people oversees not to dictate and control but to help when asked to empower people to grow their own food and deal with disease or sewage or other such things. Surely that was and remains a noble deed and we should not mix up helping people to help themselves with trying to control people right? I just think its a very fine line sometimes.

I just also don't think ignoring ISIS will make it go away any more than I do with Putin.

I do believe Canada may have helped through its military in Afghanistan by maybe just maybe sewing the seeds of different ideas so that women and children will be treated better in the future in Afghanistan.

Is that naïve?

Maybe.

I just think we can never stop helping and looking to help is all I mean and if say we don't succeed it doesn't mean trying to help was wrong, just the methods or type of help were offering might have been inappropriate and we can learn from what did not work what will, next time.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Rue

[WIP]

With due respect WIP it was not all roses. Violence against women, pedophilia, opium addiction were all prevalent. So was a corrupt government back then. Hippies were too stoned to notice and that was the point,. Hippies were Western baby boomer children oblivious to where they travelled. They literally walked around in a stupor detached from reality seeing things through a haze of dope. They embraced opium and hash. Excuse me if I say their perception was off.

I do respect what you said but I challenge it for that reason and for that reason I tend to take more seriously the observations of not drugged out hippies looking for a high and thinking all was swell, but people who went overseas as nurses, doctors, social workers and in non profit organizations to try help with the effects of rampant disease and poverty.

Afghanistan back in the 70's, was a calm and relatively prosperous country in that region back then! Take a look at some of the pictures, or better still - talk to someone who is actually from that country! You weren't there, and neither were the bullshit Islamophobic bloggers and propagandists you take all of your information from! Just like the pot-growers in Mexico, and the farmers providing cocoa leaves in Columbia, the Afghan farmers were not opium addicts back then! The spread of drug addiction is mostly an urban phenomena, and has occurred very recently in all these countries, as the drug gangs decide to open domestic markets, if they can't get their products to America or Europe.

I have at least one first-hand source, since a new female coworker just happens to be from Afghanistan, though she grew up in the 80's, in the city of Kandahar when the U.S./Pakistan-sponsored guerillas were fighting against the Russians....so things weren't exactly calm back then! But, her husband, who I talked with on one occasion on the subject, is a little older, and does remember the time prior to the wars! Regardless of what countries they were from, the foreign invaders destroyed the country, and now the U.S. is bitching about the costs of having to pay for keeping a handle on the situation!

It still doesn't change the picture - that anyone from anywhere could wander along the roads of Afghanistan 40 years ago...and they were Muslims back then too! Today, you need armoured convoys, and that won't change any time in the near future.

[Derek 2.0]

These were hardened Soviet troops.......

Actually no, the majority of the Soviet troops used in Afghanistan were teenage (2-year contracted) conscripts comprised of ethnic minorities from throughout the Soviet Union, equipped with largely dated equipment and led by third tier officers (Those unfit for service in Europe and along the Chinese border).....The one advantage they did have, was compromised once the Americans started supplying Stinger MANPADS to the Mujahideen........even then, the Soviets maintained ground and won the majority of the actions in which they fought...........

The Soviet withdraw from Afghanistan was brought forth by the loss of political capital encompassed by Glasnost and the near total collapse of their economy due to the Reagan defense budgets of the 80s.......

Yet, the West somehow thought that we were a lot smarter and a lot stronger so we would come out winners. You would think that there must be some military analysts in Washington, Ottawa or London who might have understood what was happening there.

We are stronger and smarter, but to come out as "winners" required political leadership that desired to win, and in turn, gave clear direction and support to military leadership....

I am afraid that it is the same military geniuses in those same capitals who have given the green light to this anti-ISIS strategy.

In a Western Democracy, the military leadership is beholden to the elected Government.......which of course is a reflection of the populace.

Remember, when one points at another, there are three fingers pointing back at oneself........

[Rue]

First off good points WP so allow me to clarify some more.

There is no doubt that in the 1950's and 1960's Afghanistan was a far different state. However the average life expectancy in 1960 was 31.

With due respect, opium addiction has always been a phenomena in its society as have civil wars and an acceptance of sex with young men by old men and marriage of old men to very young girls.

Most women in Afghanistan were married off prior to 16.

Look I can appreciate at one point hippies could take a magic bus out of Turkey, drive through Afghanistan on their way to India and found it a nice place.

Certainly it was not as it was today as the old pictures indicate. I concede that.

However my point was the hippy generation was self focused, indulgent, stoned and would not have noticed certain things such as;

that in the 50's and 60's Afghanistan had major medical and social issues and wide spread poverty. They had no fuel. Most people were employed as struggling subsistence farmers and the thousands of years of water irrigation placed too much salt into the ground rendering it unforgiveable. The weather was not conducive to growth of food. It was too dry, too cold, and not enough water.Opium and cannabis was about all that could flourish.

People had goats and sheep but wealthy no. People had a hard life.it wasn't as quaint as some think it was. Yes it was not riddled by war.

The Soviets and Americans both assisted it and then the Soviets put in a communist government in the 70's and things changed drastically.

But the Taliban, the Soviets, they were no better then the Americans. We must remember Mujahadeen were Afghani, but Taliban included not just the Mujahadeen the old Afghanis but mercenary Muslim extremists from Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, on and on.

Anyways I do not debate you on the fact that int he 20's to 60's the government was far different. Women were educated. The burqa was not used.

Tribal elders ran their regions.

My point was long term irrigation and certain man made practices devastated the Afghani environment long before the 20's condemning it to subsistence farming and poverty. It was always a tough place to live in. The mountains offered a tough life. The valleys there were were full of salt and acid and an unforgiving muck,

That said, the British, The Russians, Pakistan, Iran, the West, they all made it far worse than in the 60's yes, but it was no bed of roses.

The reality is no on can conquer it and no one ever will. Its a no man's land between two strategic locations.

There is of course speculation it has huge lithium deposits that are worth a fortune but the physical features of the country make it unlikely anyone could carry out organized mining there.

The Russians saw it as a place to create a conduit pipeline to get oil through it and along to Syria and that of course never happened.

The American need to offset the Soviets there is history. In retrospect I am sure people today say it wasn't worth the West's involvement.

Hell even the comments I make about it being poor,etc., are in one sense unintended imperialist stereotypes I suppose.

All I know is I don't think any politician learned a thing from Afghanistan. . Politicians are hell bent on ignoring their mistakes.

I just hope the Canadians who were there left a positive influence.

[WIP]

Actually no, the majority of the Soviet troops used in Afghanistan were teenage (2-year contracted) conscripts comprised of ethnic minorities from throughout the Soviet Union, equipped with largely dated equipment and led by third tier officers (Those unfit for service in Europe and along the Chinese border).....The one advantage they did have, was compromised once the Americans started supplying Stinger MANPADS to the Mujahideen........even then, the Soviets maintained ground and won the majority of the actions in which they fought...........

The Soviet withdraw from Afghanistan was brought forth by the loss of political capital encompassed by Glasnost and the near total collapse of their economy due to the Reagan defense budgets of the 80s.......

We are stronger and smarter, but to come out as "winners" required political leadership that desired to win, and in turn, gave clear direction and support to military leadership....

In a Western Democracy, the military leadership is beholden to the elected Government.......which of course is a reflection of the populace.

Remember, when one points at another, there are three fingers pointing back at oneself........

But, the part you are forgetting here, is that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan looks almost exactly like the Soviet strategy to calm things down and maintain Afghanistan as a Soviet ally. The Soviets likely created this "Northern Alliance" in the first place, since much of the fight against the pro-Soviet Government fell along ethnic lines, and rather than a "Democracy vs. Communism" fight, it could have easily been described as a fight between the Pashtun majority in the south, and Uzbeks, Tadziks, and Kazakh's in the north......doesn't that sound familiar?

I would bet a large number of those Soviet conscripts you mentioned, were motivated to go and fight - because they were fighting on behalf of their own people who lived on the other side of political boundaries drawn up arbitrarily, and dividing and separating tribes and families......now, doesn't that sound familiar also!

The Soviets had no choice other than pull out, because their economy collapsed during its so called "Restructuring," that introduced Neoliberal capitalism and collapsed and sold off everything in the state economy that was of value. But, even if the Soviet Union had stayed together and kept functioning, they would not have been able to keep a lid on the situation in Afghanistan either! For much the same reasons that the U.S. has a crocodile by the jaws today and is afraid to let go.

After a brief time in the first year, when the majority of Pashtuns wanted an end to Taliban rule, the U.S and allies destroyed whatever goodwill they had by riding through the cities, rural farms and villages...busting down doors, occasionally shooting people suspected of being Taliban members; when the intelligent thing to do would have been to ignore most of the Taliban, and just go after whatever foreign Arab fighters were left in the country....since they would almost certainly be Al Qaeda.

But, after pissing off the locals, the Taliban...or what qualifies as Taliban now, is back at it again and shooting at them, and trying to overthrow the Government. And the situation will be back to the sectarian war that really took off during the Soviet Occupation and never really ended.

[Rue]

I too WP have a difficulty trying to distinguish American and Soviet policies in Afghanistan. The US claimed it went in as a reaction to Osama Ben Laden but once they went in they just picked up where the Russians left off.

Afghanistan was never going to be a prosperous or wealthy country by Western standards but I of course concede it was made much worse by the Soviet and US engagements.

[WIP]

However my point was the hippy generation was self focused, indulgent, stoned and would not have noticed certain things such as;

that in the 50's and 60's Afghanistan had major medical and social issues and wide spread poverty. They had no fuel. Most people were employed as struggling subsistence farmers and the thousands of years of water irrigation placed too much salt into the ground rendering it unforgiveable. The weather was not conducive to growth of food. It was too dry, too cold, and not enough water.Opium and cannabis was about all that could flourish.

They never grew cannabis there....if they do now, it's been a more recent development. I don't know how much opium poppies were grown at different periods in history, but widespread consumption among locals was not likely part of local daily life, except in the cities. Just like to Coca leaf growers in Columbia, it was something of value as trade for products they wanted and didn't make themselves.

I don't think there were any water irrigation projects prior to the members of JFK's Peace Corps who were sent over there to 'improve their lives.' An underlying point in this drama, which almost never mentioned, is that the climate has been gradually drying out in that region of eastern Iran, Afghanistan and southern Caucusus for decades. Just like East Africa, this region may be on the leading edge of climate change, and started showing changes in weather patterns earlier than most areas in the world....except for the Arctic of course.

It was always relatively dry, compared to more productive agrarian regions, but over the centuries, that also served to protect the people living in areas like this, because the most productive and richest lands are also of interest to foreign invaders and subject to being plundered. Afghanistan was never of interest throughout history, except for its strategic location of being the only overland route Persia - through the Himalayas and India. That is until the recent discovery of rich deposits of rare earth metals and minerals discovered in the eastern region...so, all bets are off now!

The life expectancy number you quoted - 31, is more likely the average life span, and not life expectancy. This is important to distinguish, because in most poorer regions of the world, in the days before antibiotics and the germ theory of disease became practiced, infant mortality numbers were very high, and many pregnant women died during childbirth and soon after, because of less-than-hygienic methods for childbirth. Even back a little more than 100 years ago, when my father was born on the South Gaspe shore of Quebec, it has been estimated that one out of every three children born did not live to see their fifth birthday because of lethal diseases etc.. But, historically, those who survived birth and early childhood had close to equal life expectancy as modern people do! And, they had better quality of life: less sickness, less dementia, almost no obesity or related 'lifestyle' diseases. Maybe it was sort of a 'survival of the fittest,' but, the people who ran the gauntlet and survived, were often healthy and fully mobile until near death.

This is a shocking fact to most people, because our health and medical establishments deliberately present a lot of misleading information about health and life expectancy. If it was a quality of life issue, it would be case closed on modernity: because most people today, who are living past age 70, are sicker and more debilitated - both mentally and physically than previous generations were! I can see evidence of this every weekend, when I go visit my almost-97 year old mother at her nursing home. She was living independently (maybe too independently!) until four years ago, when she had a fall and broke her hip, and has needed full time nursing care ever since then. What's shocking to me, is that...as our population ages, more and more younger people (60's and 70's) are coming in to her home requiring full time care also. The pressure on the facility and the staff....many have quit over the last 10 years, because they have more and more work and less time to get their jobs done, and are working longer and longer shifts. Add to that, that the numbers of residents with dementia is increasing disproportionately, and putting an even greater demand on nursing facilities, and the presentation of our quality of life improving because of new technologies, new medicines and overall progress - is either a myth or a fraud!

Those peasants in Afghanistan 50 to 100 years ago, were likely a lot more happy and satisfied with their lives than we are...let alone present Afghanis! For me, this explains the extravagant and unqualified hospitality that used to be the cultural norm there. If they weren't happy and were living miserable lives of drudgery, they would not have been so open and friendly to strange foreigners wandering along their roads...inviting them in to rest and have meals etc., and expecting no reward in return. In general, rural folk tend to be more hospitable and friendly to strangers than city-dwellers....though I'm not sure how friendly the average farmer or rancher would have been to hippies 40 or so years ago! Add to that, that for the Afghans, this would be a total culture shock, as these strange foreigners didn't even speak their language, so only the most rudimentary communication would have been possible. This is not the culture of people who are not happy and living in misery. It's funny how the pattern appears remarkably similar in other poorer regions of the world where cultural colonists have come in to 'bring them into the 20th century' and give them all the benefits of modernity!

Politicians are hell bent on ignoring their mistakes.

I just hope the Canadians who were there left a positive influence.

Unfortunately, from what I recall reading back before Harper became PM, the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan suffered few casualties...even though they were stationed right in the middle of Taliban Country - in Kandahar, and it was mostly because Chretien likely only sent the troops there as a concession for keeping our troops out of Iraq...much to the chagrin of Bush&Co. Apparently, the generals in charge, were told to be careful, get to know the place, and had a free hand when it came to any operations conducting searches or seizures. For that reason, the local Taliban or anti-government fighters, were ignoring Canadian troops and flagged convoys, and watching for Americans to shoot at.

But, all that ended when Colonel Harper took over and wanted more troops, and with tanks and heavy weapons over there, conducting the types of operations the Americans were doing. So, I doubt that by the time we left, that Canadian soldiers were seen in a much different light than U.S. soldiers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, Canada's JTF2 commandos were sent to Afghanistan early on as part of Task Force K-Bar in December 2001.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/04/25/canadas_elite_commandos_and_the_invasion_of_afghanistan.html