AFGHANISTAN: RIDING THE ROLLER COASTER FROM HELL

It is very hard to write anything...the pain is very deep...for ALL sides.  

There are NO heroes, no victors in this roller coaster ride from hell. Over FORTY years. I still remember clear as day when we heard to the East of the Soviets landing in Kabul. A dark period began.

Despite the Great Bear's history vis-s-vis Central Asia (of conquest and control), not once did the Afghans I came to know ever consider the odds against them. Not once. They believed. They would never stop fighting until all foreigners left.

These are a hard people. Hardened by the terrain; hardened by an incredibly difficult life; hardened by the Hobbesian zero sum way of life. And, most importantly, hardened by their deep faith in God. Everything is ultimately about their faith and their --primarily tribal-- way of life. Loyalty is to God, family, clan, tribe and then the nation. In that order. 

So now the Taliban --whose founders Mullah Muhammad Omar Hotaki and Abdul Ghani Akhund aka Mullah Ghani Barader were mujahedin who fought the Soviets in the 80s-- are back. 

The Taliban have a small window of opportunity to rule differently this time. To move away from their draconian (even by Pushtunwali standards) record and to actually work towards a more inclusive tolerant society. 

But "tolerant" is a relative term in these specific circumstances. One knows for a fact that some behaviors and ways (acceptable in the West) will never be tolerated in this tribal culture. Nor should one expect these Pushtun tribal men to continue with existing "women's rights" courtesy of western meddlers.  That won't happen. Not a chance. But a twig that doesn't bend, breaks. For too long, "female rights" in Afghanistan have been authored by Western feminists and their Afghan counterparts. These ambitions have been too much, too soon. And thus they never gain widespread societal legitimacy to become embedded societal norms. Second, some of these aspirations have frankly been controversial and detrimental to social cohesion.

So, when we talk about "female rights" in Afghanistan moving forward, we have to situate this discourse within the culture at hand. So what can one hope for from the "Taliban"? 

That Afghan females will be allowed to get an education (albeit in segregated schools) in proper attire; that females will be allowed to seek "respectable" employment; that widows with no male family members are allowed to leave their homes to seek respectable employment in order to feed their families, without the Taliban or some other badmash whipping them for doing so. That females continue to have full access to proper medical care. That the Taliban middle managers/leadership keeps a tight control over their rank and file and forbid forced marriages (haram in Shariah) and other nefarious action(s). That they administer justice irrespective of ethnicity or affiliation as honest brokers. That they weed out endemic corruption, even if it requires draconian measures in the short term (to include elimination of widespread poppy cultivation), and rein in the inevitable temptation towards ill gain amongst their own senior ranks. A tall order.

What one can surmise will probably happen is best kept to oneself. 

The Taliban leadership, like all "conquerors" before them ultimately aspire to legitimacy in the eyes of fellow Afghans. Illegitimate regimes can only hold onto the reins of power through ongoing tyrannical measures.  In such a culture, perception is legitimacy. And without legitimacy (a hard coin to earn in such a society), the Taliban will be seen as just a continuation of the same old saga of corruption and misery.

If the Taliban want their second chance on the roller coaster ride, and want to actually legitimize their conquest, they will have to prove to their fellow countrymen, and to the world at large, that they will abide by their amnesty for all, and will stop the killing and bloodshed that has gone on for over forty years. 

Problem: one whole generation has grown up in cities like Kabul, with its swollen population of millions,  in almost surreal schizophrenic circumstances. On smartphones with access to the outside world, many of this generation will have an impossible time understanding, let alone abiding by, a "medievalist" worldview. This is where it will get tricky fast. And, the risk of bloodshed is real.

It will be interesting to see what role the Russians and the Chinese will play in these unfolding events involving civil society. 

The wild card is Pakistan.

Sadly, the feared (and respected) America of yore is now just a hollow shell. The fact that the Taliban have promised Moscow that "not a hair on a Russian diplomat's head will be touched," and the Russian Foreign Ministry declared that its Kabul Embassy would remain open at "full capacity;" while the acting American Ambassador hightailed it out of town over a week ago encapsulates that we, Americans, are up shit creek. 

If history is any judge, Afghanistan may prove to be the graveyard of "Empires." Last time it was the Soviet Union, whose demise followed in the wake of their exit from Afghanistan. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself. 

However, with our shameful, perplexing, un-choreographed Afghan exit, whose long term repercussions may be wide ranging, all bets are off.

Below is a earlier post on this blog on Afghanistan:

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

ON AFGHANISTAN: A SINISTER WASHINGTON BOONDOGGLE

The Washington Post article ("At War With The Truth") made me cry. The truth is always the first casualty, but not the worst. It's the lives (generally young) and limbs lost, that evokes a deep and unrelenting sadness. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

Excerpt:

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.


This expose did not come as a surprise to most Americans. Certainly not to me --someone with an intimate connection to the place and its bloody past. 

Afghanistan.  Forty years. 40. So many dead. All sides. All ages. Afghan. Soviets. Pakistanis. Americans. So much blood shed. For what? TO WHAT END? 

DEATH, more death. Unrelenting violence.

Maimed children (the lucky ones) begging on the streets with huge smiles on their faces....grateful for life. Widows in their black burkas searching for their loved ones. Smiling Soviet troops waving from their vehicles on their way to their deaths. Mujahedin with their Lee Enfields and AK-47s smiling and nodding their goodbyes as they trudge towards their deaths. Some with roses in their hair and tawiz (amulets) around their necks. Young Marines in a culture brief eager to avenge 9/11.

Haunting smiles. Haunting faces. Everywhere. All sides. EVERYONE was/is impacted. There are no "innocents" here. Except the children. And the young gullible fighters following orders (lawful and unlawful).

Afghanistan. It's like a scab. That keeps getting picked at, never to heal. 

The PTSD. No one was/is immune. Not the Soviets, nor the Americans, nor especially the Afghan people who've borne the brunt of it. Forty years. 

Quote: "Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action, according to Defense Department figures." 

How do George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice et al live with themselves with so much blood on their hands? NONE of them with a sibling or child in these unending wars.

How do you confess/admit to the American people (to the grief stricken mothers) that these post 9/11 American casualties were in vain? That, all along, it was a boondoggle, concocted in Washington, for such nefarious reasons that any rapid, and clear, revelations of what transpired, and continues to transpire, might just shock the American public at large to rise up from their long slumber to challenge the embedded tyranny of what has lately been labeled "the Deep State." 

The American Revolution was fought over stamp taxes. Today, we the American people are not under a foreign yoke. But we are under the boot of an insidious "class" of individuals (forget the party labels) whose self interest can be classified as "treasonous." Furthermore, these traitors have all sorts of convoluted foreign "connections" due to a fatal flaw in our political system, which allows foreign money to flow into the coffers of our political class.

Back to the Afghan quagmire. Afghanistan was NEVER "winnable." Whatever that means. Hell, a military logistician at the rank of corporal, taking a quick look at Afghanistan's topography and location alone, would've rendered a "no go" verdict on any long term military commitment. 

The reason for invading Afghanistan --albeit under the draconian medieval Taliban-- were flimsy at best. 9/11 wasn't an Afghan attack. The mullahs in Kabul had NOTHING to gain from such an act of war against the globe's Super Power. 

Their distrusted Arab guest, Osama bin Laden --who was hoisted upon them by their external paymasters, the Saudis and the Pakistanis-- approved the Pakistani Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's scheme to strike America. Bin Laden hightailed it out of Afghanistan by the end of 2001 to Pakistan. Along with Zawahiri, he ended up in the bosom of the Pakistan Army for "safekeeping" at the behest of the Saudis. 

So many what ifs of history... one in particular stands out: What if Bush junior instead of publicly shaming Mullah Omar had behind the scenes quietly reached out to him through intermediaries? To work out some sort of an exchange, wherein Mullah Omar handed over his guest for tangible benefits without any fingerprints or evidence of such a transaction that would threaten his position and have him lose public face/honor. Perhaps the Bush administration never really sought OBL after all given the Bush family's close Saudi ties.

Meanwhile our troops spent almost TWO DECADES on a wild goose chase. On missions that had little tactical utility in the long run because of a nonexistent strategy. Sure there were efforts at "strategy" but, due to the inevitable mission creep, the effort to hunt down OBL continued to morph until the end result (today) is something absurd: nation building along the lines of a "western democracy."

The fanatically xenophobic Taliban (even by traditionally xenophobic Afghan standards) weren't our enemy. Not "Taliban Central." At that juncture --prior to our sending troops to overthrow the Taliban-- not even the CIA's former ally, Jallaluddin Haqqani, had any ill intent towards our homeland. While there was no love lost for the American 'infidel,' they didn't care for meddling foreigners, even the so-called Muslim brothers. Our boots on the ground (conventional vice surgical strike) was the game changer. It was akin to entering the worst hornet's nest imaginable. Setting aside our natural inclination to dislike such seemingly medieval entities, the reality was/is (to the best of my current knowledge) that the Taliban had no global aspirations. None. They just wanted to be left alone to oversee their "lovely" Emirate. 

George Bush had another agenda. Iraq was the actual prize. Afghanistan was supposed to be the entry point to Iraq and, more specifically, Saddam Hussein, who was in Bush's cross hairs for reasons one can speculate over. 

Which inevitably brings us to the events of 9/11. After all, to this very day, having our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan is in order to prevent another 9/11. So goes the stale mantra of our "policymakers."  

Who was behind 9/11? 
The profile of the 19 hijackers (Arabs) and the mastermind/leadership (Pakistani -KSM and Saudi, OBL) has zero Afghans. True OBL was plotting in Afghanistan under the very noses of his hosts, the Taliban. But Mullah Omar was betrayed by OBL and the Paks.

Yet, Washington gave the Saudis and the Paks a free pass. Worse, the Pakistan Army (PAIC or Pakistan Army Industrial Complex) were given billions in essence to host bin Laden and his merry band of terrorists. 

Reading the findings, the interviews, I weep for those heroic volunteers in our military who've died or been maimed in our endless wars "on terror." RIP.

President Donald Trump was elected precisely because he was an outsider who promised to bring our troops home. One can hope that the endless wars can be brought to an end and the proper focus can prevail on limiting/controlling ACCESS to our HOMELAND via visas and the border. 

ON AFGHANISTAN: US APPROACH CIRCA 2017 FOR NSI TEAM

 Given the dire current events in Afghanistan, decided to post my feedback circa 2017 on US's ongoing debacle in Afghanistan. 

Here is the original link to "expert" feedback:

https://nsiteam.com/social/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/R4-Q10-Approach-to-Afghanistan_final.pdf

Comments on the US Approach to Afghanistan by Shireen Khan Burki, Ph.D. 

First, with all due respect to the powers that be, what exactly is the strategic mission of the United States vis-a-vis Afghanistan? Judging from the current quagmire, there has never been a coherent policy based on a long term view or perspective. This is not an anomaly either as, I believe, our policy(ies) since the 1980s in Afghanistan (during the Soviet occupation) and Pakistan (under General Zia ul Haq et al) were poorly thought out, and rather short-sighted, which backfired on us. 

Now to address this two pronged question, let’s start with the “benefits” of our fifteen year “presence” in Afghanistan for the United States. There are none. Not for the people of the United States. The beneficiaries of American largesse have primarily been a certain segment of the Afghan populace (the elite and the warlords/drug mafia), and the Pakistani State (in the provision of massive U.S. “aid” to a “critical” ally in the so-called “War on Terror”). For the majority of Afghan people, the removal of a brutal and misogynistic regime (led by Mullah Mohammad Omar Hotaki) was a welcomed event. The influx of US monies has trickled down to the masses. Quality of life has improved in stark comparison to the Taliban years. 

However, circa 2017, there’s an almost déjà vu sense of foreboding amongst Afghans across ethnic lines (Afghanistan’s turbulent history seems cyclical which inevitably lends itself to hedging bets for the sake of survival) as they witness a NATO drawdown. The original U.S. mission had a clear goal: to kill or capture the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. Fair enough. Osama bin Laden is dead. Mullah Omar is too. Both, I might add, died in the bosom of Pakistan. Ayman al Zawahiri is likely comfortably ensconced and cared for there as well, though probably no longer in one of their cantonments. Although, given the chutzpah of the Pakistanis (especially the military), one shouldn’t be surprised if he’s still lurking fairly close to a military cantonment. 

Which begs the question: Who and where is the enemy? Given the original mission circa 2001 (to kill or capture the mastermind/perpetrators of 9/11), we never gave Mullah Omar –who played no role in Al Qaeda’s operation—a behind-the-scenes, face-saving way to hand over his Arab “guest(s).” Publicly cornered, Mullah Omar’s nang/honor demanded he stand his ground and fulfill his obligation of nanawati (asylum) for OBL as much as he despised/distrusted OBL and his ilk. Had we handled this differently from the outset, the outcome would’ve been far more palatable than the one we face today. 

Once the Taliban regime was overthrown, the United States should’ve declared fait accompli and departed from the region in 2004 once elections were held, and our perceived (by the Afghans, and eerily reminiscent of Imperial Britain’s reviled Shah Shuja) puppet, Hamid Karzai, was installed. We failed to listen to Afghans from across the political and social spectrum at the Bonn Conference, when they clamored in one voice (a historic first) for the reinstatement of Muhammad Zahir Shah as Amir or King in a Constitutional Monarchy. A move which would’ve done so much on so many levels for a people recovering from decades of war and violence. 

It would have tamed the centrifugal forces, and been a nightmare for their nemesis across the Durand Line, which has worked hard to undermine Afghanistan’s sovereignty with a deceptive “Strategic Depth” argument that rings hollow. Yes, I’m talking about Pakistan. And this trajectory began in the 1980s. Current security conditions in Afghanistan continue to deteriorate. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is far from a cohesive force. There is resentment that the officer corps is dominated by non-Pashtuns. The Pashtuns have always prided themselves on being the “top dog” and don’t take kindly to playing second fiddle. Reliance on non-Pashtuns as foot soldiers, especially in the Kandaks deployed to Pashtun majority regions in the east and south has led to widespread resentment and distrust. 

Worse, it has contributed to the opposition “Taliban” recruitment efforts for the “insurgency.” The “Taliban” (a catch all phrase which includes warlords, drug mafia, adventurers, mercenaries etc.) have regained lost ground as the Afghan central “government” controls just over 50% of its so-called sovereign territory. That statistic alone should give room for pause vis-à-vis any critical cost-benefit analysis of a continued conventional U.S. military presence. 

Which addresses the second question, basically, moving forward what should U.S. policy look like? First, strategically speaking, we have to accept that due to what has, in our foreign policy approaches, become an unfortunate norm of “mission creep” (with disastrous consequences), we’ve lost any face-saving way to exit Afghanistan gracefully. If it’s any consolation, we weren’t the first. The British Empire during its zenith was humiliated in two back to back Anglo Afghan Wars of 1839-1842 and 1878-1880 due to hubris and an overconfidence camouflaging incompetence. Not to mention the Soviet Union’s debacle based on a misreading (premature?) of unfolding events in Afghanistan and their own “domino theory” vis-à-vis an “Islamist” threat to their interests in neighboring satellite states. A familiar pattern. 

Superpowers seem to gravitate towards conquering Afghanistan starting with Alexander the Great and exhibit a degree of optimism in their ability to accomplish the mission that fails to consider a myriad of factors starting with the two most basic elements: the terrain and a xenophobic warrior populace. The business of “nation building” is herculean in the best of circumstances. Afghanistan is essentially a fourth world state. Fourth. World. But with an overconfidence bordering on insanity, we --the United States-- thought in a few short years we could build a robust democratic Republic in a failed state run like it belonged in medieval times under the Taliban; with little or any infrastructure to speak of, let alone a cohesive populace. 

While one can admire such optimism it has, in my opinion, come at too high a cost, especially when we consider lives and limbs lost to what end? The argument that if we pull out as the Soviets did, Afghanistan will become a safe haven for those who plot the next 9/11 rings hollow as the metastasized global threat from Muslim terrorists (muharribun) has plenty of sanctuaries for those who plot the next strike. Known and unknown. Some right under our own very noses in the West i.e., on our own home turf. The Afghans have a right to be peeved at the US’s interventionist approach/response in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 given the facts. 

The problem has never been Afghanistan. The problem has been, and is, our “staunchest” ally Pakistan (and its benefactors). The country where Al Qaeda originated; where the Pakistani mastermind (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) planned 9/11; where Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri sought, and found, sanctuary after 9/11; and where the current Al Qaeda Emir –Zawahiri— continues to find safe harbor. 

Bottom line: For certain Afghans our presence has been a Godsend. We are a cash cow which bolsters an expanding endemic culture of corruption within limited circles at the expense of the larger populace. We need to take a cold hard look at how our continued "nation building" and military presence is beneficial to American interests (short and long term). Afghans will need to fix their own country. And we need to hold Pakistan accountable for providing a safe haven for Al Qaeda and its ideologues; and for being the global ideological nexus of contemporary Islamic terrorism. 

ON AFGHANISTAN: LEADERSHIP, STATE LEGITIMACY, AND THE TALIBAN CIRCA 2021

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

USMC General Smedley Butler,1933

Afghanistan is a mess. Many --who dismissed its tragic history-- are shocked. Shocked that Kandahar, Herat, and Lashkar Gah have fallen to the Taliban, and it seems Kabul will soon be in their hands too. 

The cottage industry of Western "Afghan experts," with their bizarre, and overly complex, power points and articles, which advocated for intricate Western economic, and social, interventions over the decades, were always about themselves and their own pockets. Not the Afghan people. And, not the American people i.e. our volunteer forces who lost their limbs and/or lives.

Had these "experts" in our government and Washington "think tanks" taken the time to read about past foreign interventions into the "Land of the Unconquerable", the lesson learned would've been crystal clear: without a legitimate leader in charge of a legitimate governmental system that was decentralized, the end result would be chaos and conflict among vying ethnic, social and tribal entities.

Treating the slick Afghans as naive fools, or children, who needed to be "taught" how to run their civil society, and be "inclusive" (aka gender equality), and "modern," and "democratic" reeked of mirror imaging and, frankly, Western hubris. Something the Soviets tried (to "communize" a deeply religious and traditional society) and failed miserably at.

The blame, however, is widespread. 

First, and ultimately, the Afghans themselves are responsible for the dismal state of affairs within their own border. That they greedily (like parasites) relied on foreign baksheesh (charity) and hand holding for two decades is a stain on their nang (honor) in a honor based society, especially amongst the tribal Pushtuns, wherein one would kill one's own mother if need be to restore the family or clan's nang. 

This is a deeply traditional tribal/ethnic zero sum culture in a nutshell. Zero sum. What the Taliban "offer" (perception wise), to the populace (well, the Pushtuns at least), is a return to national sovereignty, to justice, to one's traditional way of life at a time when the country as a whole is experiencing various degrees of schizophrenia. What do I mean?

Put yourselves in an Afghan shoes. In a very short time, since 2001, Afghan society went from a more or less 16th century way of life (with the sporadic exception of some "modern" conveniences in the cities) due to the complete destruction of civil society and infrastructure since the time of the Soviet occupation, to an overnight transformation. Now most Afghans have access to phones and thus access to the outside world like never before. Females and minorities A "transformation" thanks to the trillions of American tax payer dollars ($2.4 is the low figure bandied about IMO to avoid Americans heading to DC to exert their 2nd Amendment privileges over the enormous corruption of our governmental officials, not to mention that of their Afghan counterparts).

 Sure, in 20 years there is now a whole generation of Afghan males that know nothing else but foreign meddling masquerading as Western "nation building to address America's 'war on terror'." 

But there are enough Afghan males who remember the pre-2001 Taliban period with nostalgia, notwithstanding many of the Taliban's excesses, especially towards women. The twenty year presence of kuffar (infidel) military forces in their villages and towns was a serious affront to their carefully cultivated nang, and to their historical narrative of being "unconquerable." It was a source of tremendous sharm (shame) in a patriarchal male dominated society. Tremendous shame of an infidel military that included females! Frankly, for Afghans, any foreign military is an "infidel" one for this is a xenophobic warrior culture.

 Western aid workers et al were so fixated of bringing immediate "equality" to Afghanistan. A land where, circa 2001, women weren't even allowed to leave their homes without a relative male escort and then had to be fully enveloped in their burkas to do so or face severe public lashings. Enough of these "aid" workers were genuine in their endeavors to help Afghan's females. But what most failed to appreciate is Afghanistan was/is one of the most male oriented societies in the world. Seeking to