Afghanistan: Eight Years On & No Direction Home
Thursday, 29. October 2009
We went to Washington to help launch the Afghan American Women’s Association established in honor of a lifetime of humanitarian achievements by Sima Wali. We came away with a clear picture that the women of Afghanistan will continue to have a strong, clear and uncompromising voice in Washington. In listening to the women of this Afghan/American partnership two things were clear: 1. No matter what happens with American foreign policy, Afghan/American women are not going back to the depredations visited upon them by a political system maddened by greed and its dreams of conquest. 2. Afghan/American women will no longer be fooled by politicians who promise democracy and reconstruction but deliver warlordism and corruption.
Our visit was also a chance to update first hand what was new and different in the administration’s AfPak policy from what had gone before. Washington has spent a lot of money in Afghanistan. American soldiers and civilians are dying there. October of this year has been the worst on record. But the debate, anchored as it is in Washington’s needs and perceptions and not Afghanistan’s, continues to circle the most critical issues without ever landing on solutions that might bring on a satisfactory close.
The U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan for eight years. But 9 months into the new administration Washington continues to plow along with a losing game plan and an absence of understanding about the nature of the war, how to end it, or even how to fight it.
The biggest part of the problem that Washington faces is Washington itself. It is now clearer than ever that Washington’s current policy derives from a military agenda and not a civilian one. In fact it may now be impossible for Washington to return to a government orchestrated strategy of nation-building anywhere after thirty years of privatized foreign policy and military buildup that favored profit driven development schemes at the expense of civil society. An entire industry now exists to lobby against any efforts to reverse the trend, change the status quo or even to make private contractors accountable for the taxpayer money they receive. A new book by Allison Stanger, titled “One Nation Under Contract,” outlines the dimensions of a problem where the private sector has become a “shadow government” operating outside the law with billions of federal dollars, but little to no accountability for how or where the money is spent.
At the Pentagon the problem runs even deeper. The national security state built up during the cold war was designed to protect the US and the west from a Soviet threat. The perceptions created to convey the illusions of strength and invulnerability became a substitute reality to which all others defaulted. Over time, “cold” war became a new normal, rarely challenged by that other normal called reality. But at its core, the new normal was an illusion, based on a phony war and supported by the communal belief that it was better than the cost and terror of a real war that would actually be fought and perhaps lost.
The post cold war national security state on which America’s approach to Afghanistan is based never returned to reality once the cold war was over. In fact, the illusion had so enraptured those in power; they could neither foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union nor accept its demise. But Washington’s blind faith in the new normal disguised its flawed character and as the Clinton and Bush administrations built upon its illusory strength, the stage was set for failure.
That failure has finally occurred in Afghanistan and the consequences will be devastating yet Washington continues along in a dreamlike haze, narrowing the argument to simplistic Vietnam era clichés while the world moves on without it. According to well informed sources, the administration has pushed Hamid Karzai for the run-off election in the belief that it will legitimize his rule in order that General McChrystal can get his troops to go on fighting. What this ignores is that a corrupt, incompetent government stacked with Tajik warlords is abhorrent to everyone in Afghanistan – Pashtun and Tajik alike.
Washington’s current policy may lead to outright civil war between the majority Pashtun population and the remnants of the so-called Northern Alliance of Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek tribes. Whether this is intended as an intentional prelude to partitioning Afghanistan and redrawing the map of Central Asia remains to be seen. But whatever the end result of Washington’s apparent confusion over policy in Afghanistan, it will have little success until the Afghan people and the population of Pakistan’s Western territories are brought politically into the decision making. Empowering the people of the region to seek positive change would disempower the Taliban and change the game. President Obama still has the credibility to do that, but his window of opportunity is closing fast.
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, a husband and wife team, began their experience in Afghanistan when they were the first American journalists to acquire permission to enter behind Soviet lines in 1981 for CBS News and produced a documentary, Afghanistan Between Three Worlds, for PBS. In 1983 they returned to Kabul with Harvard Negotiation project director Roger Fisher for ABC Nightline and contributed to the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour. They continued to research, write and lecture about the long-term run-up that led to the US invasion of Afghanistan. They are featured in an award winning documentary by Samira Goetschel. Titled, Our own Private Bin Laden which traces the creation of the Osama bin Laden mythology in Afghanistan and how that mythology has been used to maintain the “war on terror” approach of the Bush administration. Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story published by City Lights, January 2009 chronicles their three-decade-focus on Afghanistan and the media.
Dennis Says:
“Washington’s current policy may lead to outright civil war between the majority Pashtun population and the remnants of the so-called Northern Alliance of Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek tribes”.
This is what we did in Iraq between factions that previously lived together in peace. Not surprising this tactic would be used again to keep the conflict going. Anything to help the Military Industrial Complex keep pumping out expensive weapons and programs. When WWII ended they needed and created the Cold War. With that gone, the War on Terror became the new dog and pony show. What happens when that fizzles out? Will it be time to trot out the alien invasion scare that Ronald Reagon talked about?
My question is how do we empower the people of the region? What could we suggest to the President who still has the credibility to do it. Is there a win/win there, and could he even overcome the greed of the Corpratocracy?
Thanks for this piece Sibel!
Dennis
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Dennis: Thanks for the comment. All good questions. Liz Gould & Paul Fitzgerald will be checking the comments in the next 2-3 days, and we’ll get to hear their take/suggestions…
Metem Says:
On what could be done . . . I heard a story years ago. I can’t remember the woman’s name but there was a woman and her husband who were pro-democracy activists in Afghanistan back in the 70′s. They were at, I believe, the university in Kabul. When we started funding the Mujahideen one of the people who became a leader of the movement was a classmate of theirs who was known around the school for throwing acid in the faces of women/girls who weren’t dressed ‘properly’. Again, can’t remember the man’s name. Anyway years later she’s being interviewed from Pakistan where she had to flee to, her husband had long ago been killed, and she said “If I’d had just half the money he got (the acid thrower) from the US think of the things I could have done.” One thing we might try is supporting people who actually believe in democracy and human rights etc.
If your not familiar with her you should look up Malalai Joya. She was, first, part of the Loya Jirga when she was barely 24 and then elected to the parliament multiple times in Afghanistan. She’s famous for having, multiple times, called out the warlords in parliament to their faces. To which the response was to openly threaten her with death and rape right there in parliament. She’s even been physically attacked in parliament and has been kicked out multiple times for referring to the warlords past crimes and ‘stirring up trouble’. She’s sometimes called ‘the bravest woman in the world’. Maybe we should try seeking out and supporting people like her. [BTW she's currently on a book tour of the North-East (New York, DC, Boston, etc.) and the West Coast (San fran, Los Angeles, etc.)] But of course that would leave the big problem of what to do with the warlords. Still using people like her to build up civil society while keeping the warlords placated and then hoping to make a transition down the road might be possible. But I’m just and observer really. What do I know?
Ishmael Says:
The lesson I’m drawing from the Taliban attacks of the past few months in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is this:
The Taliban control the tempo of the fighting and can strike key targets at will. Whether it’s the UN guest house, the Pakistani Army HQ or the Chief intelligence officer of the Karzai government. They control the engagements and all NATO troops can do is react. Meanwhile, Predator drone attacks kill more civilians than jihadists, further inflaming the very people we’re trying to win over. For what purpose? To what end? Thirty years of war have devastated the functional indiginous governmental structures of Afghanistan as power politics have prevented any real attempts at fostering a civil society, leaving only extremism, death and slaughter in their wake. The stated goal of preventing the reestablishment of terrorist training camps in the area is illusory. What good will that do if those camps are merely reestablished in Somalia or Sudan or any of the other failed states/wild regions on the planet? We can no longer afford either foreign adventurism or being World Cop. Bring all our troops home from everywhere now. Use the money and manpower we pour down the drain in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to secure our own ports, inspect every container of cargo coming into this country and end our dependance on foreign oil and energy.
Jade Says:
Dennis, IMO, we empower the Afghans by getting the eff out of their country. There was a very good open letter to President Obama in the Nation not too long ago that really went into a lot of the problems we face in Afghanistan in detail.
As Paul and Elizabeth allude to in their piece here, Washington is failing to take the Afghan sentiment into consideration here… the Afghans don’t just think that Karzai is a US-puppet; they’re infuriated that we’re promising democracy and peace and then giving them the choice of only warlordism and corruption. The truth is that where the runoff elections and structure of their society are concerned, Afghans are very much on the side of the Taliban. And you know what, if I was an Afghan, I would be, too. Listen to a real Democracy activist speak of the situation in Afghanistan. The people there want us out.
One thing that the Taliban is good at, as the Nation piece mentions, is combating the drug trade. If we get out, they can clean up at least a little bit of the corruption, and the Afghans can decide how they want to rebuild their country.
Jade Says:
Matem, I missed your comment. Malalai Joya was recently interviewed by Amy Goodman. I linked to it in my last comment.
Kingfisher Says:
“When we started funding the Mujahideen one of the people who became a leader of the movement was a classmate of theirs who was known around the school for throwing acid in the faces of women/girls who weren’t dressed ‘properly’. Again, can’t remember the man’s name…..and she said “If I’d had just half the money he got (the acid thrower) from the US think of the things I could have done.”
@Metem,
The man is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. And no, she couldn’t have killed communists like could.
“Still using people like her to build up civil society while keeping the warlords placated and then hoping to make a transition down the road might be possible.”
Maybe. But more likely a cadre of western-trained Afghans to build up “civil society” will be viewed with contempt as part of a conceited effort by the west to impose its values….which would have some degree of truth to it.
The Afghans have their way of life and culture, and it will progress at their choosing. We would be better served working on their own level, village by village. We will be surprised at the “progress” of their society, as we help them to meet their basic needs.
Want a bridge or school? Ok, we can help with that; we will pay for materials but the community is going to build it, because we don’t know how Afghan bridges and schools are made.
The Afghan people have their own dreams of what they want their society to blossom into. We can help them along to do it on their own terms and effort. Humans do not value things that they are just given, be it value systems, schools or hospitals, they value things when they put effort into them.
But I’m just and observer really. What do I know?
I have mentioned it many times before, but I cannot help but sing its praise. Read Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea.
KF
Ry Says:
I just don’t have enough faith in the government to believe that it is even trying to resolve any conflicts or “win” the war. The stated goals and the actual goals are quite different. Conflict equals cash for the MIC. The only thing liberated in Afghanistan was heroin. A healthy drug trade just means a health source of cash to create a healthy black market weapons trade. Perpetual war is perpetual conflict. That’s how it is in Afghanistan and how it is in Iraq. It’s page right out of Oded Yinon. From 1982 he wrote:
“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.”
That’s exactly what we did. It was almost like the US took direct marching orders from Israel. But when you understand what Israel really is, (a cash cow for the MIC) there is no tail waging the dog or dog wagging a tail. It’s just a marriage of overlapping monetary interests. Religious fanaticism is always ripe for making conflicts. And with Israel you get the extra bonus of a combined religion and race card to throw down any time you need to ward off critics with hyper sensitive name calling.
“Washington’s current policy may lead to outright civil war between the majority Pashtun population and the remnants of the so-called Northern Alliance of Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek tribes. Whether this is intended as an intentional prelude to partitioning Afghanistan and redrawing the map of Central Asia remains to be seen. But whatever the end result of Washington’s apparent confusion over policy in Afghanistan, it will have little success until the Afghan people and the population of Pakistan’s Western territories are brought politically into the decision making.”
PNAC also wrote about war with Afghanistan in 2000 in a paper called Afghan vortex. It’s much like the plan for Iraq. Divide and conquer in limbo, always leave low level conflict on a slow burn. I agree with you on the direction on this Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, but I wouldn’t say the Washington is “confused” or “mistaken” about what they are doing. Sure everything they are doing is wrong. (wrong if you assume the goal is to make things right and honor justice and peace.) But it’s intentional. They flat out admit it in their own Machiavellian policy papers. They state how what they are doing would benefit who, and what to pass it off as to the public. It’s all a big game for them. Washington is basically a rent-a-government to major industries most involved in defense, drugs (legal and illegal), construction, and logistics, who use the government like a personal ATM machine. And the government through central banks uses it’s populous like an ATM machine. Steal from the many to feed the billionaires and at the extra price of killing foreigners. That’s US policy and has been since the days of Killing American Indians.
Ry Says:
I meant to say “perpetual war is perpetual profit” above.
Kingfisher Says:
@Ish,
“Predator drone attacks kill more civilians than jihadists, further inflaming the very people we’re trying to win over. For what purpose? To what end?”
The drone attacks in Pakistan have destroyed significant AQ and Pakistani Taliban targets; the attacks take the initiative away from the enemy and disrupt their operations, while sewing discord and terror within their ranks. The deaths of non-combatants have counter balanced that success. To that end drone strikes are a tactic not a strategy, however the strikes are being used in lieu of a strategy.
“…secure our own ports, inspect every container of cargo coming into this country and end our dependance on foreign oil and energy.”
I wish we could, but it is just not possible without a radical change in the American way of life (to which some would say is a good-thing).
KF
Jade Says:
KF – It was reported recently that the reason the Pakistanis are allowing us to conduct drone attacks is because we’ve agreed to take out some of Pakistan’s own targets. Seems to me that we need to know more about this program. Are we assassinating people for no reason? Could the people we’re killing be captured and put through a court process? Are we breaking international laws? We need to think more about the strategy of using drones and what it means for all of us.
Kingfisher Says:
“KF – It was reported recently that the reason the Pakistanis are allowing us to conduct drone attacks is because we’ve agreed to take out some of Pakistan’s own targets.”
The Pakistani’s nominate a lot of the targets.
“Are we assassinating people for no reason?”
We are assassinating them because they are leadership or value targets in AQ and the Taliban.
“Could the people we’re killing be captured and put through a court process?”
This is Waziristan we are dealing with, not Sweden. The government of Pakistan has little to no control over the area, and raids or capture missions by US special operations forces have an even more destabilizing effect then drone attacks.
“Are we breaking international laws?”
Maybe, but probably not. Again, we are dealing with Wazaristan.
“We need to think more about the strategy of using drones and what it means for all of us.”
Drone attacks are not a strategy, they are tactic, and are only effective if encompassed into a broader strategy. The Obama administration has not decided on a strategy yet.
KF
Metem Says:
@ KF
Yeah, I realize that the perception of our arrogant interference might pose a problem. But Joya has been continually re-elected in her province. She’s very popular with the people there. I’m sure it would be looked upon more favorably than what we’re doing. And when I said we should fund these people to help them build up ‘civil society’ I had in mind schools and stuff too. In fact I had in mind infrastructure as well but I guess technically ‘civil society’ doesn’t really include that. I was waiting for you to mention the “Three cups of Tea” thing. I totally agree. But I see backing people who are Afghan and are pro-human rights at least and preferably populist in some form or another as an extension of that.
I thought it might have been Hekmatyar, but I certainly never meant to imply that she could have ‘killed soviets like him’. I’m implying that drawing the Soviets into a war may not necessarily have been the only way to go with our foreign interventions if we have to make them.
As for the drones in some cases I’m sure we’ve probably killed Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters but there have also been people who were paid by the CIA to place micro-chip tracking devices near the houses of such fighters who latter confessed that because they didn’t know where any were they just scattered them around randomly. I think they’re doing more harm than good.
Kingfisher Says:
“…but there have also been people who were paid by the CIA to place micro-chip tracking devices near the houses of such fighters who latter confessed that because they didn’t know where any were they just scattered them around randomly.”
And by ‘people’ you mean a 19 year old’s “confession” in a video released by the Taliban, right? Because that’s where it comes from. In that same video he is executed at the end of it.
ZicaTanka Says:
May I just say that I love this place?
Where else can a person get this kind of downright tight news and opinion? Where else? Even the comments here are mainly hearty, thanks to some knowledgeable folks who can’t leave it alone.
I, myself, have come to respect especially the comments of KingFisher. Although I still have some points of contention with him regarding [please refer to his comment about the line between conspiracy and incompetence], I can’t stand to not openly appreciate his involvement here. Thank you, KF.
It’s time for another round of financial support, y’all. It’s not too soon. Let’s all of us kick it in RIGHT NOW and see what we can get from the Sibel-vetted, fact-finding, fascist-ass-kicking group of people that we have become. LET’S ROLL!
Metem Says:
OK, so I screwed up on that little detail. I’ll take your word on that, sounds familiar. But, I brought it up as something illustrative of what we all know already. The drone strikes are inefficient in the sense that they have a high ‘collateral damage’ to target ratio. So the point stands anyway.
Besides I’d be more surprised to find out it didn’t have some truth to it than that it did.
And while we’re at it what do you care that they killed this 19 year old? I mean isn’t that good for us as Americans since it’s bad publicity for them?
Kingfisher Says:
“And while we’re at it what do you care that they killed this 19 year old? I mean isn’t that good for us as Americans since it’s bad publicity for them?”
No. I don’t think it is bad publicity for them. I think it was an incredibly effective propaganda video / information operation by the Taliban. That ‘confession’ has disseminated the idea that informants are randomly throwing devices around leading to random house’s being blown up. It was even picked up halfway around the world by you an educated and well informed individual, such as yourself.
“The drone strikes are inefficient in the sense that they have a high ‘collateral damage’ to target ratio. So the point stands anyway.”
Yes, non-combatants have been killed. Comparatively speaking though, drone attacks do not have a high collateral damage to target ratio. Attacks by manned aircraft with smartbombs are much worse; they take out entire city blocks and neighborhoods. The counterproductive effects they have had in Iraq and Afghanistan has been immense – ground forces have pushed very hard for less powerful smartbombs, to the point where sometimes they are just filled with concrete.
“Besides I’d be more surprised to find out it didn’t have some truth to it than that it did.”
I am sure there was some degree of truth to it. But organizations learn from mistakes, and practices that lead to errors are improved.
Kingfisher Says:
“I, myself, have come to respect especially the comments of KingFisher. Although I still have some points of contention with him regarding [please refer to his comment about the line between conspiracy and incompetence], I can’t stand to not openly appreciate his involvement here. Thank you, KF.”
Thanks for the kind words Zika. About the comment, look, there are many people in the mainstream-media that are just incompetent, lazy, or lack the requisite knowledge and intelligence needed to understand what they are covering. So I find it very hard to see them complicit in grand conspiracies. The financial media though, well that’s another beast…
KF
Kingfisher Says:
@Paul and Elizabeth,
Afghanistan due to its geography has historically been a buffer state between great powers, and as such been condemned to legacy of liquid war. Would partition along ethnic lines really be such a bad thing for the people who currently live there? I am aware of the implications of it for other players, but in terms of the well being of the people – what would be benefits and/or costs for them?
Thanks,
KF
T Says:
When the stress really gets to you, just think of this new phrase from yours truly. (And the copyright is in the works
):
Save time
Save money
Save your sanity
Turn off the MSM
(You’ll thank me later)
Metem Says:
@KF
Agreed on the point about the manned aircraft probably having a worse collateral damage ratio when single strikes are compared. I guess what bothers me is that because the drones are so low risk on our side there seems to be much less caution in their use and so the number of strikes and thus the overall collateral damage is huge.
Kingfisher Says:
@Metem,
That is an understandable concern, but I believe it is misplaced.
The primary role for drones is the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance mission. They can stay up in the air for hours watching the same area with amazing sensors. Precisely because they are low risk it allows us to be more cautious and more discriminating in our use of force. It is more akin to sniper waiting in the trees for hours just to get that single perfect shot.
This is not to say that the risk asymmetry you observe is without concern. It is a major topic of debate among strategists, ethicists, and others.