Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Afghanistan Misery

There seems to be plenty of blame and finger-pointing to go around about the US exit from Afghanistan.  One recurring theme has been that the Afghan soldiers don't care enough to fight for their own country.  It turns out that things aren't that simple. There is an interesting article from Politico by Anatol Leiven explaining why Afghan forces quickly laid down their arms.  

From the article:


"In the winter of 1989, as a journalist for the Times of London, I accompanied a group of mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province. At one point, a fortified military post became visible on the other side of a valley. As we got closer, the flag flying above it also became visible — the flag of the Afghan Communist state, which the mujahedeen were fighting to overthrow. “Isn’t that a government post?” I asked my interpreter. “Yes,” he replied. “Can’t they see us?” I asked. “Yes,” he replied. “Shouldn’t we hide?” I squeaked. “No, no, don’t worry,” he replied reassuringly. “We have an arrangement.”

"I remembered this episode three years later, when the Communist state eventually fell to the mujahedeen; six years later, as the Taliban swept across much of Afghanistan; and again this week, as the country collapses in the face of another Taliban assault. Such “arrangements” — in which opposing factions agree not to fight, or even to trade soldiers in exchange for safe passage — are critical to understanding why the Afghan army today has collapsed so quickly (and, for the most part, without violence). The same was true when the Communist state collapsed in 1992, and the practice persisted in many places as the Taliban advanced later in the 1990s."

"This dense web of relationships and negotiated arrangements between forces on opposite sides is often opaque to outsiders. Over the past 20 years, U.S. military and intelligence services have generally either not understood or chosen to ignore this dynamic as they sought to paint an optimistic picture of American efforts to build a strong, loyal Afghan army. Hence the Biden administration’s expectation that there would be what during the Vietnam War was called a “decent interval” between U.S. departure and the state’s collapse."

"While the coming months and years will reveal what the U.S. government did and didn’t know about the state of Afghan security forces prior to U.S. withdrawal, the speed of the collapse was predictable. That the U.S. government could not foresee — or, perhaps, refused to admit — that beleaguered Afghan forces would continue a long-standing practice of cutting deals with the Taliban illustrates precisely the same naivete with which America has prosecuted the Afghanistan war for years."

"The central feature of the past several weeks in Afghanistan has not been fighting. It has been negotiations between the Taliban and Afghan forces, sometimes brokered by local elders. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported “a breathtaking series of negotiated surrenders by government forces” that resulted from more than a year of deal-making between the Taliban and rural leaders."

"...One of the key things discussed at such meetings is business, and the business very often involves heroin. When I was traveling in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, it was an open secret that local mujahedeen groups and government units had deals to share the local heroin trade. By all accounts, the same has held between Taliban and government forces since 2001."

"The power of kinship led to a common arrangement whereby extended families have protected themselves by sending one son to fight with the government army or police (for pay) and another son to fight with the Taliban. This has been a strategy in many civil wars, for example, among English noble families in the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. It means that at a given point, one of the sons can desert and return home without fearing persecution by the winning side."

"These arrangements also serve practical purposes. It is often not possible for guerrilla forces to hold any significant number of prisoners of war. Small numbers might be held for ransom, but most ordinary soldiers are let go, enlisted in the guerrillas’ own ranks or killed."

"Thus, as in medieval Europe, Afghanistan has a tradition to which the Taliban have adhered closely — and which helps explain the speed of their success. The Taliban will summon an enemy garrison to surrender, either at once or after the first assaults. If it does so, the men can either join the besiegers or return home with their personal weapons. To kill them would be seen as shameful. On the other hand, a garrison that fought it out could expect no quarter, a very strong incentive to surrender in good time."

"...after the USSR collapsed and Soviet aid ended in December 1991, there was very little fighting. Government commanders, starting with Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum (who since 2001 has been on the American side, illustrating the fluidity of Afghan allegiances), either took their men over to the mujahedeen, fled or went home — and were allowed to do so by the victors. Kabul was captured intact by the mujahedeen in 1992, as it is being captured by the Taliban now. In the later 1990s, while in some areas the Taliban faced strong resistance, elsewhere enemy garrisons also surrendered without a fight and in many cases joined the Taliban."

"...Afghan society has been described to me as a “permanent conversation.” Alliances shift, and people, families and tribes make rational calculations based on the risk they face. This is not to suggest that Afghans who made such decisions are to blame for doing what they felt to be in their self-interest. The point is that America’s commanders and officials either completely failed to understand these aspects of Afghan reality or failed to report them honestly to U.S. administrations, Congress and the general public."

And from Michael Sean Winter's article in NCR today:  "Intelligence experts may have known this outcome was likely, but the average American was taken aback by the suddenness of the Taliban's ability to take control of all of Afghanistan. I certainly hoped that the young women attending schools in the capital city would be able to do so for some time, protected in Kabul at least by the government's well-trained and well-armed troops. Instead, we all watched in horror as they sent messages of fear and dread to the outside world, waiting for their hopes to be crushed."

"Or worse. Last month in the provinces of Badakhshan and Takhar, Taliban commanders demanded the names of girls over the age of 15 and widows under the age of 45 who were eligible to be given to Taliban fighters. Sexual slavery on a mass scale is too horrible to contemplate but it is real and it is about to get much, much worse."

We could have, should have, done better, especially with an exit strategy. But the bottom line was that it wasn't our country, and it took a huge amount of hubris to imagine that we could change basic reality there.


9 comments:

  1. "...Afghan society has been described to me as a “permanent conversation.” Alliances shift, and people, families and tribes make rational calculations based on the risk they face.

    Like the colonial powers we thought we could turn a geographically bounded area into a nation state when in fact how things work there is the old fashioned way through networks of families and tribes and long standing traditions, alliances, etc.

    In order for an army to defend a nation, you have to have a nation state, which is a set of rules and laws which are more important than tribal and family relationships. When the West pours money and goods into such a country they really don't replace these relationships. They may exert some control over these relationship but only as long as the money and goods continue to flow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing I don't understand is that incident where people were hanging on to a plane which was taking off, and fell off to their deaths. Don't airports have security, even ones under stressful conditions? The plane shouldn't have been allowed to take off until the people on the exterior were removed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hubris in these situations is like cataracts in the eyes. I can be highly educated and still not know how a Talisman thinks. Maybe there are ways to improve the lot of women over there without dropping bombs. Dropping bombs certainly doesn't work. I did not want this war from the outset. Maybe because I remember Vietnam. Did everyone else forget?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you autocorrect, for changing "Taliban" to "Talisman". What would we do without ye?

      Delete
  4. Hi, Stanley. I have been feeling all week that it’s the fall of Saigon all over again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Anne. I feel caught in a cycle. I'm afraid that the lessons of Vietnam were erased by a series of escalating "splendid little wars" culminating in the twin disasters of the 21st century Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Chris Hedges says every empire thinks it's different from those that collapsed before which, of course, becomes a necessary component of the process of its own destruction.

      Delete
  5. Yeah, Vietnam. Deja vu all over again. I am reading commentary that we have stayed in Korea for 70 years, couldn't we just keep on staying in Afghanistan? For the women and girls, you know. The situation is terrible for them, but it's terrible for everybody. I don't think the situation for women and girls there can be changed substantially until their whole society changes. We thought we could change it, but obviously that didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I fantasize about an alternate history. Where a president says that a great evil has been perpetrated on 9/11 and we will cancel out that evil by doing a greater good. We will help the people of Haiti recover from their earthquake and establish a better standard of living. What would that cost, 100B USD? A savings of 900B USD. And world prestige you couldn't believe.

    ReplyDelete