Kabul under Curfew after Anti-US, anti-Karzai Riots
14 Dead, over 100 Wounded
50 Killed in US Airstrike
"We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore, to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq."
- George W. Bush
The Bush administration is in the midst of "imperial overstretch" on a grand scale. Taking on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, convincing Pakistan to change its policies, and reconstructing Afghanistan would have been a tough enough job. It might not have been possible even with the investment of enormous resources and personnel. Afghanistan is large and rugged and desperately poor. Bad characters are still hiding out in the region, who have proved that they can reach into the United States and hit the Pentagon itself.
Instead of doing the job, Bush ran off to Iraq almost immediately. Even as our brave troops were being killed at Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan in spring of 2002, Centcom commander Tommy Franks was telling a visiting Senator Bob Graham that the US "was no longer engaged in a war in Afghanistan" or words to that effect, and that military and intelligence personnel were being deployed to Iraq. The US troops in Afghanistan would have been shocked and disturbed to discover that in the Centcom commander's mind, they were no longer his priority and no longer even at war! As for money, Iraq has hogged the lion's share. What has been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan is piddling.
Bush's Iraq imbroglio, or "Bush's Furnace," as history might well call his trillion-dollar purchase, has sucked up money and resources on a vast scale and left US personnel in Central and South Asia to struggle along on the cheap. Afghanistan defeated the British Empire in its heyday twice, and is not an enterprise that can be accomplished without significant resources. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Monday's riots in Kabul, in which altogether 14 died and over 100 were wounded and during which thousands thronged the streets chanting "Death to America", also produced violent attacks and gunfire throughout the city, with hotel windows being sprayed with machine gun fire. The protests were sparked by a traffic accident. But they have other roots.
The US military presence in Afghanistan has quietly been pumped up from 19,000 to 23,000 troops.
A fresh US airstrike in Helmand killed some 50 Afghans on Monday Over 400 Afghans have been killed by US bombing and military actions in only the past two weeks. While most of these are Pushtun nativist guerrillas (coded by the US as "Taliban"), some have demonstrably been innocent civilians. (Taliban are, properly speaking, mostly Afghan orphans and displaced youths who got their education in neo-Deobandi seminaries in Pakistan and were backed by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. It is not clear that those now fighting the US in southern Afghanistan are actually in the main Taliban in this technical sense.)
Whoever they are, the Pushtun guerrillas have been waging a very effective terror campaign in the countryside around Qandahar, and have launched a fierce series of spring offensives. They wounded 5 Canadian troops on Monday, something US mass media anchors somehow have trouble getting past their lips. (Another 5 had been wounded last week, and several Canadian and French troops have been killed, not to mention US troops.)
A recent US airstrike that killed 16 children, women and noncombatant men provoked an enormous outcry in Afghanistan, and sparked President Hamid Karzai to begin a presidential inquiry into it.
While most anti-US actions in Afghanistan come from the Pushtun ethnic group, these Kabul protests, which paralyzed the capital and resulted in the imposition of a curfew, heavily involved Tajiks. Kabul is a largely Tajik city, and the Tajiks mostly hated the Taliban with a passion, and many high officials in the Karzai government have been Tajik. So they haven't been as upset with the US invasion and presence as have been many Pushtuns, especially those Pushtuns who either supported the Taliban or just can't abide foreign troops in their country (who have moreover installed the Tajiks in power . . .) The demonstrators Monday carried posters of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Tajik leader of the Northern Alliance who had played a major role in expelling Soviet troops in the late 1980s and then fought the Taliban tenaciously before being assassinated shortly before September 11, 2001. Significant numbers of Tajiks are clearly now turning against the US, and that is a very bad sign indeed. Al-Hayat's Jamal Ismail in Islamabad suggests that some of the Tajik discontent derives from the way Karzai has eased out Northern Alliance Tajik leaders such as Marshal Muhammad Fahim and former cabinet minister Yunus Qanuni, reducing Tajik dominance of the government in the name of ethnic diversity (and of mitigating Pushtun anger over the imbalance). There have also been attempts to limit the Tajik presence in the new Afghan Army, which is some 60,000 strong (some sources say 80,000). The CIA factbook says that Pushtuns are 42 % of the population and Tajiks 27 %. Pushtuns have usually supplied the top rulers.
Despite Bush administration pledges to reconstruct the country, only six percent of Afghans have access to electricity. Less than 20 percent have access to clean water. Although the gross domestic product has grown by 80 percent since the nadir of 2001, and may be $7 billion next year, most of that increase comes from the drug trade or from foreign assistance. (Some of the increase also comes from the end of a decade-long drought in the late 90s and early 00s, which had reduced the country's arable land by 50 percent. The coming of the rains again is good luck but nothing to do with policy). About half the economy of Afghanistan is generated by the poppy crop, which becomes opium and then heroin in Europe. Afghanistan produces 87 percent of the world's opium and heroin, and no other country comes close in its dedication of agricultural land to drug production (over 200,000 hectares).
The government lives on international welfare. Some 92 percent of Afghan government expenditures come from foreign assistance. The Afghan government is worse at collecting taxes than fourth world countries in subsaharan Africa. Unemployment remains at 35 percent. Unemployment is estimated to have been 25 percent in the US during the Great Depression.
The great danger is renewed Muslim radicalism and the reemergence of al-Qaeda, combined with a narco-terrorism that could make Colombia's FARC look like minor players.


14 Comments:
This is more curiosity than comment. Putting aside the fact that Afghanistan did not unify in any sense before the 1700s, I will refer loosely to the region known by that name.
This is a difficult, if not impossible region to control. The Brits and thr Russians failed in modern times.
Alexander was said to have conquered the region, but surely he moved through far too quickly to do any more than cause havoc. Darius held sway there, but surely was more engaged with his western adventures. Ghengis Khan, of all the ‘invaders’ seems to have made a strong impact on the region.
The question is; has any outside force really ‘controlled’ the whole region for any length of time? Surely there is a very strong lesson in the history of that area.
Oh, and thank you for your informative site.
Dear Professor Cole
I note that the New York Times is reporting today the deployment of extra troops to Western Iraq from the reserve in Kuwait. The headcount in Iraq is open to this kind of slight of hand.
This at the same time as the commanding general in Afghanistan is complaining bitterly about the restrictions placed on the missions of national contingents under his command by their national parliaments.
Helena Cobban comments on a piece by Ahmed Rashid in Todays Daily Telegraph.
It is instructive to note the interference of India, Pakistan and Iran in Afghanistan as they jockey for position in the area when the US withdraws.
The reluctance of national parliaments in the EU to commit their troops to Afghanistan is understandable. If the US don't have enough troops in the area to do much more than provide security in Kabul and mount heliborne raids, where is the logic of replacing US manpower with European manpower?
Afghanistan defeated the many divisions the Russians deployed so deploying a brigade or two is just asking for trouble.
On the other hand allowing uncontrolled cultivation of poppies and the setting up of supply chains to the streets of European cities needs to be stopped, before any more cheap heroin hits the streets.
So I suspect the key questions we need to be asking are
What is the mission in Afghanistan?
How many troops are needed to achieve it?
Can this number of troops be made available (unfettered by orders not to shoot anybody, even if they deserve it) , and from what source?
This might uncover the need to reestablish the draft in the US, before it gets finessed past the November elections
How much money is needed to stabilise the situation and can it be made available to people who can actually use it for the purpose for which it is intended?
A half hearted cosmetic deployment of a beefed up contingent to guard the airport and provide a bodyguard for President Karzai achieves nothing other than lay the seeds of another ten years of tragedy.
Juan,
I don't see why you are so supportive of the Afghan war/occupation. When the US bombed and occupied Afghanistan, it was already a poor and weak country devastated by years of wars. They were not in need of another one. Bombing the hell out of Afghanistan was only a vengeful act after 9/11. Terrorists and underground movements can't be fought using traditional war methods, which only harmed civilians. The actual situation is the best proof of that. What is the result ? hundreds of prisonners in the shameful prison of Guantanamo, who can't be brought to trial because for the most part they are just innocents or fighters resisting the US invasion and because out of despair in front of this situation the US tortured them. What was needed and justified were traditional intelligence work, not the down pouring of hundreds tons bombs. Inebriated by her so-called unmatched military power, the US entered in another war then, the Iraq war. Treating its allies like shit, she bullied all those who refused to go along with this new folly and these new war crimes, to a such a point that in order to calm those bushists, they accepted to provide troops for Afghanistan instead, especially the Germans (who had never sent any troops out of their country since WWII), the French and the Canadians).
During the early bombings of Afghanistan, I remember seeing a TV footage showing an interview with a former Russian general who had commanded in Afghanistan. He was certain that no other country/army could ever successfully occupy Afghanistan. He laughed out at the US naivety and said he wished them good luck, both because of the mountainous topography and because of the complicated political situation reigning between the different warlords. Clearly, the former USSR included many center Asiatic Republics and had much more experience with the mindset of people living in Central Asia. If with all their experience Russia failed, how could the US succeed ?
The US has become a dangerous preposterous and irresponsible ally who is drawing us, the EU countries, in military adventures which are destabilizing the whole world. But look, how powerless the US is at the same time : just invading two weak countries, both already devastated by numerous wars, is enough to overstretch her powerfull military. The US is a dangerous country for all the others, allies or not, because her economic power is rooted in the militaro-industrial complexe. We in the EU don't share your values anymore. We have already gone through colonization and are not ready to do it again, to invade other countries out of greed and we don't think our values should be imposed to the rest of the world. There are some values we are proud of, but if they are that good, they will spread to the rest of the world by themselves, not by mere military power.
Sure as hell's fires here comes another Bush failure. My childhood's erstwhile USS Staff Gallery defense policy comrade and USMC tactical consultant Bill Lind has been warning of this for sometime, most recently:
2/23/06 On War #153: Paking It In, by William S. Lind
The Other War By William S. Lind
The Battle That Wasn’t By William S. Lind
If the Saudis are "passing bricks" over the debacle in Iraq, you can be sure that Ole Busharaff needs no prunes to keep regular.
An excellent article once again. Thanks.
About poppy growing in Afghanistan. I think the world should accept that the Afghans will always grow poppy. The right solution is that the UN buys the crop and sells it to pharmaseutical companies. The companies will then turn the opium into morphine, which is currently in short supply in the world.
This solution would make Afghanistan more self-sufficient financially and also give pain patients the drugs they need.
What Are We Doing Here?
The extended botching of things in Afghanistan is just another example of W's penchant for doing the wrong thing, and doing it incompetently to boot.
There don't seem to be nearly enough troops to enforce a military solution (begging the question of whether such a thing is even possible), while the actions of the troops there are driving away supporters rather than attracting them.
Driving down poor kids while racing through the streets is right out of "Tale of Two Cities." Granted, W. probably bagged reading the book, or even the Classics Comics version, but Laura could explain it to him.
If it's really "unsafe at any speed" to drive around Kabul, it is time to leave. Period. Now.
Figure the rest out later. Some big guy will take over eventually, and will then be willing to cut a deal.
It's not clear what the troops are doing in Afghanistan, but it's clear what they are not doing: upsetting the opium-growers. With 200,000 hectares planted, nobody seems to be the obvious thing, mowing the plants down before they produce opium. 20,000 foreign troops, 60,000 domestic ones, each would only have to mow 1 to 10 hectares, and the problem would be gone for a year. Mowing machines would make it easier. Paying the farmers to mow or plow their own plot would even make it morally palatable, if the pay were enough to buy food for the year. Bet it would be a lot cheaper than paying those troops for the year.
Whatever the public story line about what is supposed to be the goal of having troops in Afghanistan, it is clear that things are nowhere close to the official story. The US and NATO should get their troops out now.
Whether we work out some form of aid is a question that can be addressed later.
In this case, it might be alright to move the troops south into Pakistan's waziristan, so long as they do plenty of damage en route. They should be careful they don't inconvenience W.'s biggest booster, Osama.
I have to agree with Christiane, I don't understand the almost "universal" support for the war on Afghanistan. If we had wanted to get Bin Laden "dead or alive", we would not have relied on war lords to do our bidding. We would have invaded like we did in Iraq, with everything we had. And the funny thing is, there, we probably would have had flowers thrown at our feet, instead we give billions of dollars to people no better than our "enemy", help them to win a war, and then we can't understand why the heroin traffic still exists?
So why is there so much support for this war, is it that people are blind to the fact that it was simply an act of revenge? Or is it worse, is it that most Americans feel justified in that revenge?
Remember the Bush "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan? The one that Democrats in Congress a couple years back had the momentary courage to note was nearly unfunded in the Bush Budget?
Afghanistan has received far less funds for reconstruction than almost all recent nation building efforts such as the former Yugoslavia, Haiti or East Timor
The Taleban's Second Coming (BBC)
"The Brits and thr Russians failed in modern times."
Yep-- that's if anything an understatement, and I'm talking about the Brits more than the Russians. The British waged the First Anglo-Afghan War from 1839-1842, trying to conquer Afghanistan and incorporate it into British India. But the Brits greatly underestimated the tenacity and ingenuity of the Ghilzai warriors (a subset of the Pashtun tribe), and they also failed to appreciate how well-armed the Pashtun were, thanks to the Russians who hated the British and wanted to kick them out of Central Asia. The Brits also managed to piss off the Afghans at every turn-- as in India, considered the Afghans to be "uncivilized darkies" whom they regarded with scorn.
So the Afghans defeated the British in some small battles from 1839, and then, as the British tried to retreat from Kabul in 1842 with almost 20,000 soldiers and camp followers (under the command of General William Elphinstone), the Ghilzai warriors (who were supporting Dost Mohammed, a bitter opponent of the British) killed almost every one of the British soldiers and camp followers, save for about a half-dozen prisoners and a certain Dr. William Brydon--
http://www.jmhare.com/history6.htm
http://tinyurl.com/p2u7m
http://tinyurl.com/rb7zn
http://tinyurl.com/ojyzo
http://tinyurl.com/q7ovu
The British, in a further fit of stupidity and frustration, then sacked an ancient bazaar in Kabul-- ironically the headquarters of their few friends in Afghanistan, thus succeeding in pissing off their erstwhile allies and accomplishing nothing. The British were thus driven out of Afghanistan totally, and when the Brits tried again in 1878-1880 and 1919, the British were defeated yet again.
One of my military history-buff friends, told me that when the Ghilzai warriors defeated the British in the First Anglo-Afghan War, it was in fact the worst British defeat of the entire Victorian period. The British had also been humiliated in Buenos Aires in 1806-07:
http://tinyurl.com/olaq5
and in Egypt, but these defeats didn't rival the scale of the disaster in Kabul. In fact, the British-- as was common in that day when White, Western armies were considered superior to those of the colonized "colored people"-- believed that they could never lose to a non-Western army. The Afghan defeat utterly humiliated them, and permanently shattered the British reputation for military supremacy against colonial opponents.
That defeat also had two other interesting side effects: 1. Many of the British-led soldiers in Afghanistan were from India, and the Indians were furious that the British had led thousands of them into such a catastrophe. This was apparently one of the reasons for the ire that spread throughout British India, and led to the catastrophic (for the British) Sepoy Rebellion against the British in 1857 and the radical changes in policies that resulted. Also, the British, remember, were fighting in China (the Opium Wars) at the same time as Afghanistan. After seizing Hong Kong and forcing open the port cities on the South China Sea, the British hoped to squeeze China from the west too, seizing Afghanistan and breaking up China's comparatively weak western domains so that the British could control the lucrative silk and other trade routes. But the British disaster in Afghanistan forestalled any such efforts. Thus, the British failure in Afghanistan had a big impact on both India and China.
"Alexander was said to have conquered the region, but surely he moved through far too quickly to do any more than cause havoc."
Alexander actually did conquer the Afghan region, though he had a rougher time of it than many other of his fights (albeit none of them cakewalks)-- not just the Afghan fighters, but the mountain passes were brutal. However, Alexander actually did obtain the fealty of the various tribes in the region and installed an administration there which actually persisted-- remember, the city of "Kandahar" is named after Alexander, and the Seleucid successors of Alexander retained control there. At that time, of course, the Afghan tribes weren't as organized and well-armed as when the British blundered in there, but then, nor did the Macedonians have as much of a technological advantage, so it's another indication of Alexander's military prowess. Still, you're basically right-- Alexander was moving too quickly and he didn't spend much time in Afghanistan, he was too focused on conquering northern India.
"Darius held sway there, but surely was more engaged with his western adventures."
True-- both Darius and Alexander did have authority in Afghanistan, but they were focused elsewhere.
"Ghengis Khan, of all the ‘invaders’ seems to have made a strong impact on the region."
Actually, if anything Genghis Khan seems to have had fairly little long-term impact in Afghanistan. He certainly did achieve military supremacy there (this was prior to his defeat at the hands of Jalal al-Din), but the problem is that the Mongols brought fairly little in culture and, while they did introduce an administration that was at least decently functioning, nonetheless the Mongols were themselves defeated badly within a few decades (the Mamluks smashed them in 1260 in Egypt, then the Japanese, Vietnamese, Javanese and the Chinese later), and their Central Asian Empire fell apart.
There was one more group of conquerors of Afghanistan which you've left out, who not only conquered the region but did have a tremendous lasting influence on the region, far more than any other invader, and are without doubt the most successful of the conquerors-- the Arabs. Other than Alexander, who did have some respectable success in Afghanistan, the Arabs were the only ones to both conquer and hold Afghanistan, and they did so in a much more integral and effective fashion than Alexander. During the Khorasan and Ghaznavid periods from the 7th century, the Afghan people became Muslim-- thus the Arabs not only effectively incorporated and administered Afghanistan, but introduced its most dominant cultural feature.
The Islamic faith also provided a cultural link for Afghanistan's otherwise separate peoples which helped in resistance later on. When the British were repeatedly humiliated in Afghanistan, calls by Muslims to expel the invaders from Muslim soil helped to provide a nationalistic basis for the resistance. This is also why so many of the fighters against the Soviets were from the Arab Middle East. This is also, of course, why a Muslim self-styled anti-colonialist fighter like Osama bin Laden, could set up shop in Afghanistan and use it as a base from which to launch kamikaze attacks on American soil, as retaliation for US sanctions against Iraq and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia (both Muslim countries). So some invaders of Afghanistan have been quite successful. The British and Russians were obviously defeated badly, while Alexander and especially the Arabs were quite successful.
Why Afghanistan?
An Egyptian led a mostly Saudi group in the 9/11 strike, which was planned in Germany and the United States, and financed by operators in the Arab countries.
Why not Afghanistan?
Actually, after so many decades of war, (centuries of war?), the "warlords" of Afghanistan are the only form of government, leadership or communication that exists outside urban areas. It will take decades of committed involvement to change that. If you really wanted to catch Bin Laden, you would absolutely HAVE to work with tribal leaders and warlords. If you don't understand that I would say you simply don't understand the political dynamics and realities of Afghanistan.
The US is failing today precisely because the Bush administration completely failed to develop any real understanding of Afghanistan or it's people before invading. But catching Bin Laden is neither here nor there as the US also had numerous opportunities for earnest rebuilding of Afghanistan after the disastrous war against Russia which Reagan and Bush Sr. escalated. Bush Jr. can also take some credit for escalating everything in general before 9/11 by sending Colin Powell in like a rabid dog to dismantle the Palestine peace process. Bush did this right after he was elected, also issuing provocative diplomatic statements as part of his American “tough guy” image. Would 9/11 have happened if we had avoided the mistakes after the Afghan-Russian war and then not elected Bush Jr.? We will never know, but here are some recent interesting statements about preventing terrorism from US Special Ops high command-
Maj. Gen. David Fridovich, the commander of U.S. Special Forces in the Pacific said-
"... military operations [in the Philippines] are only 15 percent of what needs to be done. The rest is humanitarian, like Army engineers helping rebuild schools and military doctors giving residents shots. U.S. aid workers have helped build bridges and roads."
"We think there is a model here that's worth showcasing. There's another way of doing business," Fridovich told reporters at the Pacific Area Special Operations Conference in Honolulu recently.
When asked if the Basilan (Philippines) experience was applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen. Bryan D. Brown, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, said every culture and situation was different, but many lessons could be learned.
"It's about working with the people, it's about building the infrastructure, it's about demonstrating good governance," Brown told reporters at the Hawaii conference. "It's about good medical care, it's about eliminating human suffering."
© 2006 The Associated Press. full story- http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PHILIPPINES_TERRORISM?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-05-31-05-26-47
if only fearless leader had considered our national history after going to Afghanistan: "One war at a time," said Lincoln.
Rick, I think your post actually leads to an argument in support for war in Afghanistan. An invasion with everything we had certainly would've been war in there. I suspect that the Bush administration was fixated on Iraq right from the start. To the point that when the September 11 attacks happened they went, "G------, now we have to worry about Afghanistan??" So they didn't push as hard into Afghanistan as they should've.
I think the "universal" support you allude to is support for confronting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Not support for how the Bush administration has actually conducted this war. Their great wrong is they haven't done enough and what they've done has been incompetent. The 100,000 troops in Iraq should be in Afghanistan instead, and never should've been sent anywhere else. Or better yet a UN or ISAF force of that size with a mandate to fight back against the Taliban and with a strong imperative to guard against war-crime activity and to respect local cultural sensitivies. And a comparably large investment in infrastructure reconstruction should go into Afghanistan at the same time. That's what I want to support.
Inkan1969, the case for war that I made was only if you believe that we in America have the right to tell people in other countries how they should live. What our government SHOULD have been concerned about was our national security, not our national pride. Attacking Afghanistan has not done anything to increase our security, I believe it has done the opposite.
We had a much better chance of catching Bin Laden (and doing REAL damage to his movement) by diplomatic means. People seem to forget that at the time, we had 99% of the world on our side.
Whether or not the Taliban were/are evil, they were not a military threat. And while we should talk all we can to convince them to change, convice them of what we believe to be right and good, they are the ones that have to change, it cannot be imposed on them by us. Democracy is not a gift, it has to be earned.
Post a Comment
<< Home