"Thoughts on Afghanistan" Topic

By the Greek general Thucydides, in his work, "The History of the Peloponnesian War"

"It is useless to attack men who could not be controlled even if conquered, while failure would leave us in an even worse position."

And Rudyard Kipling, "Arithmetic on the Frontier"

A GREAT and glorious thing it is
To learn, for seven years or so,
The Lord knows what of that and this,
Ere reckoned fit to face the foe -
The flying bullet down the Pass,
That whistles clear: "All flesh is grass."

Three hundred pounds per annum spent
On making brain and body meeter
For all the murderous intent
Comprised in "villainous saltpetre".
And after?- Ask the Yusufzaies
What comes of all our 'ologies.

A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

No proposition Euclid wrote
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow.
Strike hard who cares – shoot straight who can
The odds are on the cheaper man.

One sword-knot stolen from the camp
Will pay for all the school expenses
Of any Kurrum Valley scamp
Who knows no word of moods and tenses,
But, being blessed with perfect sight,
Picks off our messmates left and right.

With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem.
The troopships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.

It's easy to conquer Afghanistan. Controlling it is the problem.
Sadly "leaders" never bother to read history.

Maybe we have reached "The End of History", not as Fukuyama intended, but meaning that nobody bothers to study it anymore.

Afghanistan is merely a place where optimism goes to die.

The reality that is learned and forgotten there, as well as in other places in the world (don't think of lines on a map demonstrating that a "nation" exists), is that one cannot build a nation out of tribes, clans and gangs. Nothing unites the assorted people in Afghanistan, so why could a nation be created there.

And Afghanistan is not alone – just because a group of old guys in a room in Paris drew a line around a place and gave it a name doesn't make it a country – Somalia, Iraq and Libya spring to mind

I agree with Thuycidides, Kipling and the OFM. Alexander had the best plan: beat the key guys, marry the best looking woman in the area and get the heck out!

Jeez! I'm in good company!

This is how country maps are drawn.
YouTube link

John – So true, so true!

Jim

And Afghanistan is not alone – just because a group of old guys in a room in Paris drew a line around a place and gave it a name doesn't make it a country – Somalia, Iraq and Libya spring to mind

Well said.

The US especially has developed a particular delusion that is best summed up by a quote from Full Metal Jacket: " inside every non-American there is a non-American trying to get out."

Thus the assumption is that with a little bit of military intervention and a few drone strikes, the locals will get down and build western style liberal democracies.

The Taliban will have no trouble controlling the place.

Very frustrating to think about. We went in with clear eyes and a solid purpose: get OBL and get rid of AL Qaeda using local warlords. A few SF guys, a lot of money, and all OK. Then we started nation building, and it all went to poo-poo.

Senator George Aiken (R Vt) once said about Vietnam, "We don't we just declare victory and leave?"
It should have applied once Obama (Yes! Him!) killed OBL.
Sadly, wisdom hasn't been part of ANY nation's foreign policy since Bismarck.

What was the movie where an 80 year old Lloyd Bridges (He did his own stunts!) rappelled down from … something… to have a light saber duel with Saddam Hussein? Now THAT'S foreign policy!

America has a little delusion called "American exceptionalism" ie the notion that USA is somehow special and has a preordained destiny to show the world the right way to live."

It is this evangelical attitude that drives American mistakes such as not withdrawing from Afghanistan and elsewhere sooner or assuming it can change ancient cultures that predate America buy hundreds if not thousands of years.

I wouldn't say that's what most Americans consider to be "American exceptionalism". It is, unfortunately, what our politicians believe, to everyone's detriment.

Stryberg,

When I say America, I am referring to the political and public service classes and the institutions they are part of.

We, the people, generally just go along with whatever they feed us and our opinions don't count for much, even in democracies.

<qAmerica has a little delusion called "American exceptionalism" ie the notion that USA is somehow special and has a preordained destiny to show the world the right way to live."

We'd get in less trouble if we stuck to just showing the world from here.

Well said Oberlindes.

The problem from the beginning, and it's a common one, is that the goals were ill defined, and shifting. We went in to get OBL and his minions because the Taliban gave him shelter; that was the original goal. When we nailed OBL we missed a real opportunity to declare victory and get out. We went for nation building…a mistake. We don't have the resources or patience to do nation building.

The Mongols didn't have much trouble conquering and holding the area but then again most modern day nations (quite rightly) would never go as far as the Mongols where prepared to go. (Taken from Wiki but you get the idea)

"After Genghis Khan returned to Mongolia, there was a rebellion in the region of Helmand which was brutally put down by his son and successor, Ogedei Khan, who put all male residents of Ghazni and Helmand to the sword in 1222; the women were enslaved and sold."

After UBL was eliminated … we should have left. Killing as many Taliban, AQ, [ISIS wasn't there yet, IIRC ?] etc., as we could on the way out.

As already mentioned and commented on –

And Afghanistan is not alone – just because a group of old guys in a room in Paris drew a line around a place and gave it a name doesn't make it a country – Somalia, Iraq and Libya spring to mind

Yes after WWI, Euro politicians divide up the Ottoman-Turk Empire, etc., to suit them. Some of those shortsighted self serving decisions made by long dead Euro leadership still haunt us to this day, it seems, IMO …

Of course some of the decisions made over the past 60 or so years by the USA was no better.

We'd get in less trouble if we stuck to just showing the world from here.

Agreed but for the past decade or so … that may not look like the example we'd want to put in the front display window. Leadership & media are factors as well, for better or worse, IMO But I'm far from an "expert" … but anymore who is ? Beside some here I guess … 🤩😆

While we are getting out of Afghanistan, we should let Iraq go it's own way. Then bring the troops home from Germany, let the Europeans pay for their own defense.

All good ideas and it looks we are going to be leaving Iraq. Yes, NATO should pick up their own tab, but that looks like that is not going to happen anytime soon based on the current situation. But I think we should still have a presence in Europe, Poland, etc., just in case … But I could be wrong ?

The problem with promising to defend Poland is that you're kind of morally obligated to defend Poland.
Read history.

That is very true … and besides it annoys/upsets Putin having US/UK/NATO troops that close to his border.

And Poland is such a striking example of democracy right now that it would be worth the death of thousands of US service members? Along with Hungary?

As far as I know, Russia has no, even hypothetical, claims to Poland. I can still understand the concerns about the Baltic countries. But what has Poland to do with it?

Parts of Poland where part of the Russian empire from the 18th century onwards and the Soviets invade Poland three times in the 20th century. Even if you discount those "claims" since when does not having a claim ever stopped men like Putin?

But I think we should still have a presence in Europe, Poland, etc., just in case

Why?

EU as a whole is bigger and much richer than America. It could afford a military the size of USA with a lower percentage of GDP!

Europe actively pursues greater economic ties with Russia eg Nordstream 2.

Poland itself is inconsistent on its own defence (it's main purpose is a local jobs creation network with all that inbuilt corruption and waste).

Are you really willing to sacrifice thousands of American kids lives to protect people that won't defend themselves and do lucrative deals with your enemies?

----

Incidentally the countries potentially opposing the rise of China (mainly Australia, Japan and possibly South Korea) are looking at investing in defence yet US permanent troops basing in Asia hasn't changed in 20+ years.

Eg USAF maintains 6 fighter squadrons in Europe plus rotations (3 in UK, 1 in Germany, 2 in Italy). These include 3 F-16, 1 F-15C/D and 2 with long range F-15E Strike Eagles.
There's near permanent rotations of US jets from stateside squadrons in Romania (whose airforce still relies mainly on 30+ Mig-21 as well as a 17 40 year old F-16s they just brought) and Baltics as well as exercises.

It maintains 8 fighter squadrons in north west Pacific. 4 of those squadrons are based in Korea, other 4 are in Japan. These include 1 A-10, 5 F-16C/D and 2 F-15C/D. There are no long range F-15E Strike Eagle units in NW Asia despite the obvious benefits of such aircraft in an Asian environment compared to short range F-16s (good for North Korea but there are also 2 F-16 units in Japan).

So despite greater threat to US interests in north western Asia and the much bigger geographic area, PACAF has only 2 squadrons more than USAFE (and half of the PACAF north west fleet is tied up in Korea). There are also far fewer rotations of USAF fighter squadrons in Asia and those that do don't go past Guam which is over 2,600 km away from Japan!

Nominally PACAF has 3 squadrons of F-22s and are forming 2 of F-35s but these are assigned to defence of Hawaii (1 small squadron of F-22s) and Alaska (2 full size F-22 and 2 F-35) in a war would probably be retained in those areas.

One could say USN maintains strength including a dedicated carrier in NW Asia as well but note US nearly always has at least one carrier in Persian Gulf or Mediterranean or at least the Atlantic (which is smaller than Pacific so naval forces can be more responsive).

It could afford a military the size of USA with a lower percentage of GDP!

But it won't …

Thus the question: why should USA guarantee European defence?

Yes … that is the rub. Isn't it …

Afghan airforce heavily taxed:

link

No surprise there …

From Military.com

link

link