What's new

Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?

Piper

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Country
United States
Location
United States
Afghanistan war: Just what was the point? - CNN.com

Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?


It is worse in Afghanistan now than I ever could have imagined. And I was a pessimist.

Fatigue was always going to be the decider. Western fatigue with the horrors their troops saw, and with the violence inflicted daily on Afghans themselves. The fatigue of the financial cost, where a power station that was barely ever switched on cost Uncle Sam a third of a billion dollars.

And the other fatigue -- the one felt by the Taliban -- mostly distinguished by its absence; they felt only the tirelessness of their cause.

Sometimes the occasional jolt reminds the world that the war is still ongoing. The conflict, begun initially to oust the Taliban that sheltered al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., has cost the lives of more than 3,500 Coalition service members and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians.

This week, Afghan troops, after months of fury at poor supplies and low morale, fell back from two vital positions in the volatile Helmand province. It leaves Lashkar Gah and Sangin as the major strongholds the government still holds, and a sense of foreboding that the opium-rich southern region will eventually entirely belong to the Taliban.

The war also moved back into focus three weeks ago with the death of Wasil Ahmad. Wasil learned firearms and commanded a unit of anti-Taliban fighters briefly, before Taliban gunmen on a motorbike mowed him down as he bought food for his mother and siblings. Wasil was just 11 years old.

Known as the "graveyard of empires,"Afghanistan has a reputation for humiliating would-be conquerors. Both the Soviets, in the 1980s, and the British, during the 19th century, were forced to beat bloody retreats from Afghanistan, deprived of what looked, on paper, to be easy victories

Time has changed the definition of what people nowadays call an "empire," but not this perception. The U.S. military liked to feel wise as they repeated the maxim that they had the "fancy watch, but the Taliban had the time." In truth, the American watch ran out of batteries, leaving the Taliban owning both the aphorism and the clock.

The rise of the Taliban before 9/11 owed much to the country's ethnic divides. In the civil war that followed the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, Pashtun forces swept in from the south, towards the capital Kabul, and pushed the Tajiks back to the north.

The U.S. special forces harnessed the losing side in that civil war, and other purchasable warlords, to oust the Taliban from Kabul. There they installed the smooth and charismatic Hamid Karzai as president, who battled through the country's myriad complexities to bring it together. Bin Laden was on the run; so was the Taliban, some of them hiding in Pakistan. For a little while.

Time passed. The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. The Taliban found its feet again. The U.S. began to get mired in Iraq. The insurgency picked up. The Afghan government started losing ground. By 2008, it was a full-on emergency and the U.S. realized -- even from the liberal anti-war perch of President Barack Obama -- that this was the "just war" that it must fight.

For about three years, there was intense focus. First came the surge. Up to 100,000 U.S. troops (as part of a NATO force) at one point, pressing into the darkest Taliban valleys. Holding ground -- spending millions every month to maintain a presence in tiny dusty villages in faraway places like Kandahar to show the insurgency the U.S. had the resolve.

But it was never going to last. In fact, that was always an advertised part of the plan: the U.S. and NATO would hold the land for a few years -- until they thought the Afghan troops were ready -- and then they would pull out. The Taliban had to hope the Afghans wouldn't be ready, and just wait. It seems they did.

Secondly, came the budgets:$110 billion spent in the largest reconstruction effort in U.S. history. Some new roads that made life in some towns viable again, but also buildings that always stood empty, and an injection of cash into Kabul so unrealistic, unprecedented and absurd that the cost of living became almost reckless.

At one point the World Bank suggested more than 90% of Afghanistan's total budget was aid-dependent. (I got a very quick call from the U.S. Embassy telling me this wasn't true -- no alternative figure was offered). Housing for Afghans became more expensive -- some rents have now dropped by almost half. From behind the concrete blast walls where foreigners mainly lived, a (small) can of black market Heineken at one point cost $10. America had no shortage of cash, just a shortage of viable ways to spend it, resulting in some daft projects and a brief pocket of total imbalance in the Afghan economy.

Thirdly came the leadership. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates fired the military commander of the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan ISAF, David McKiernan, in 2009 and replaced him with Stanley McChrystal, a special forces veteran.

McChrystal's bleak assessment of the war was damning enough to suggest the Green Beret knew the scope of the challenge. He had a plan -- and it was leaked quickly enough to back the White House into a corner that involved a large commitment of resources. It involved talking to Afghans, and winning them over. Troops would get out and meet people. For a moment, it seemed to work.

Then the bizarre happened. Eyjafjallajökull, a volcano in Iceland erupted in 2010, scattering ash into the atmosphere and grounding aircraft. McChrystal and his team were among those delayed, along with a Rolling Stone reporter. They spoke their minds, found themselves in print, and McChrystal was fired. From that point, the war felt like it changed.

David Petraeus swept in that year as McChrystal's successor -- a career general, mindful that the clock was ticking on the surge. The campaign focused on the message and that clock. Petraeus was succeeded by another Iraq veteran, John Allen, whose role was about cleaning up. The surge had almost worked, but been interrupted, caught short, and now America was leaving.

Between January and May 2012, every day seemed to bring a new calamity to the U.S. military presence. FromQurans burned apparently in error; to the corpses of Taliban fighters urinated onby Marines who filmed themselves as they did it; toa massacre by an American soldierin a Kandahar village. Even the most footsure NATO spokesman seemed to lose faith.

So what was achieved?

Well, at one point, al Qaeda was said to be in its mere hundreds in Afghanistan -- hiding away in the eastern hills. Bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan. A few thousand Afghans became absurdly rich on the U.S. presence. Far many more thousands (there is no real, reliable figure) died or were injured.

Women saw a brief moment when Western aid programs and ideals let them think about lives outside of the home, where they could flourish. (They still can think about that, but now risk more than ever brutal reprisals from conservatives). The West flooded the country with money and weapons to the point that it is now a land of warlords on steroids.

The Afghan army, briefly, swelled. But it could never hold the ground NATO did. NATO advisors would swear blind that you were wrong, that the ramshackle units you saw could defeat a hungry and angry local insurgency. But it became clear they were misinformed. That an inner malaise -- corruption -- would undo the Afghan National Security Forces, whose upkeep has cost the U.S. taxpayer well over $60 billion, and whose brave losses continue now at an unprecedented speed.

Two stories stick out of Afghans who are not where the West told them they would be. The first is Gulnaz, the woman who was raped, then jailed for adultery because her attacker was married, then told she would have to marry him. International pressure led to her release into a shelter for women, but three years later I found her living with her attacker, and married to him -- the only way Afghanistan's at times backwards world could find to reconcile the crime against her.

Second is Wahid. He commanded an Afghan army unit, fighting fiercely in Kunduz against the Taliban. They had little support, he alleged, even ammunition, and the dead bodies of their fallen comrades were left to rot in their besieged base. So he fled -- dodging bullets in Iran, taking the boat to Greece, and enduring tear gas near Hungary. He is exactly the sort of Afghan the West promised a future to and needed to stay where he was -- defending his country. We found him eating a muffin in a café in Munich, Germany.

Where are we now?

The dissent in the ranks of the Taliban has led to ISIS becoming a radical, brutal and attractive alternative to the country's disenfranchised youth, for whom the old insurgency isn't moving fast enough.

According to the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR -- the U.S. government's money watchdog there), the Taliban hold more territory now than at any time since 2001. There are about10,000 U.S. troops left, who can hunt extremists, but not hold territory. And it seems neither can the Afghan army at times. It is losing fast in Helmand. It lost Kunduz temporarily in October. If you suggested either of these losses were remotely possible two years ago, most NATO advisors would accuse you of mild insanity.

In terms of Western goals -- things are right back where they started: needing to keep Afghanistan free of extremists and a viable country for its people. Without that the result is thousands of refugees in Europe, and ISIS gets a new safe haven. What is left is a country where the West is discredited as unwilling to stay the course; where most fighters are meaner, better armed, and more chaotic than they were in 2001; and whose name causes opinion-formers in the West to try and change the subject.

It was dubbed the Just War, then the Forever War. Now many want it to be the Forgotten War.

But it is still a war, and the West owns a lot of it.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
  • upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    upload_2016-2-25_20-5-24.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 0
We were right and justified, in attacking the al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. We were justified in attacking the Taliban government that gave them aid and sanctuary. We were arrogant and wrong to think we were going to turn Afghanistan into some sort of western democracy. We should have been satisfied with clearing out as many terrorist forces as possible, killing Osama bin-Laden and his chief lieutenants, and then withdrawing with the full understanding that we may have to go back in periodically, if Afghanistan continued to be used as a base for those who would do us harm. "Nation building", on the other hand, simply did not and does not work in societies that have no history of true democratic values, individual rights, etc., as defined by the West. We were as naive and arrogant in Afghanistan as we were in Iraq and as we have been in our idiotic and misguided support for the so-called "Arab Spring", which has been an unmitigated disaster.

If it were up to me, we would have...

1. Never stayed in Afghanistan.

2. Never invaded Iraq.

3. Never green-lighted Mubarak's ouster in Egypt.

4. Never have intervened in Libya.

5. Would have stayed completely neutral in the Syrian civil war.
 
We were right and justified, in attacking the al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. We were justified in attacking the Taliban government that gave them aid and sanctuary. We were arrogant and wrong to think we were going to turn Afghanistan into some sort of western democracy. We should have been satisfied with clearing out as many terrorist forces as possible, killing Osama bin-Laden and his chief lieutenants, and then withdrawing with the full understanding that we may have to go back in periodically, if Afghanistan continued to be used as a base for those who would do us harm. "Nation building", on the other hand, simply did not and does not work in societies that have no history of true democratic values, individual rights, etc., as defined by the West. We were as naive and arrogant in Afghanistan as we were in Iraq and as we have been in our idiotic and misguided support for the so-called "Arab Spring", which has been an unmitigated disaster.

If it were up to me, we would have...

1. Never stayed in Afghanistan.

2. Never invaded Iraq.

3. Never green-lighted Mubarak's ouster in Egypt.

4. Never have intervened in Libya.

5. Would have stayed completely neutral in the Syrian civil war.

The lack of results in Afghanistan can be analysed 100 ways to kingdom come but the fact remains as long as Taliban have local sport and sanctuaries in neighbouring country who happens to be our ally the whole endeavour was doomed.

In the end we took out Bin Laden in Pakistan whereas our main beef was with him and Al Qaeda not Taliban. So that ends whatever little solace we had in invading Afghanistan.

As far as the reasoning for punitive measures go wherein we deter other countries from harbouring Anti American terrorists by the strength of our response in Afghanistan that may have held true if we had succeeded in destroying the Taliban to it's roots but as situation stands we are back where we started and in process made mortal enemies out of Taliban and handed them a propaganda win.

I don't like criticizing our hosts here on PDF but there country really screwed us. To be fair to them, it was to expected as Pakistan did not join our coalition willingly and had little choice in that matter. In addition our endeavour in Afghanistan created a lot of trouble in their country and they are still paying a heavy price.

In my opinion our GW1 strategy is the best. Utilize our air power to set the enemy back by decades, destroy all military infrastructure, cut off the head of the snake through covert action, buy off the rest. This may not satisfy the war monger in us but will be relatively bloodless and cheap option. Ground action is not warranted unless the enemy poses serious threat to National Security
 
The lack of results in Afghanistan can be analysed 100 ways to kingdom come but the fact remains as long as Taliban have local sport and sanctuaries in neighbouring country who happens to be our ally the whole endeavour was doomed.

In the end we took out Bin Laden in Pakistan whereas our main beef was with him and Al Qaeda not Taliban. So that ends whatever little solace we had in invading Afghanistan.

As far as the reasoning for punitive measures go wherein we deter other countries from harbouring Anti American terrorists by the strength of our response in Afghanistan that may have held true if we had succeeded in destroying the Taliban to it's roots but as situation stands we are back where we started and in process made mortal enemies out of Taliban and handed them a propaganda win.

I don't like criticizing our hosts here on PDF but there country really screwed us. To be fair to them, it was to expected as Pakistan did not join our coalition willingly and had little choice in that matter. In addition our endeavour in Afghanistan created a lot of trouble in their country and they are still paying a heavy price.

In my opinion our GW1 strategy is the best. Utilize our air power to set the enemy back by decades, destroy all military infrastructure, cut off the head of the snake through covert action, buy off the rest. This may not satisfy the war monger in us but will be relatively bloodless and cheap option. Ground action is not warranted unless the enemy poses serious threat to National Security
I agree with most of what you say and although I am generally, very pro-Pakistan, much of their history in this pre-dates 9/11 as does ours. We both bear a degree of responsibility in playing with fire in this. I also don't necessarily think we needed to have 'destroyed' the Taliban host of al-Qaeda, but it was certainly justified in attacking them whenever and wherever they were ensconced with al-Qaeda.

I think my more general point though is that our inability to safely withdraw from Afghanistan is part of the bigger problem I outlined in my points, that started with the end of the Cold War. We were like democratic Athens and the Delian League. Once victory was achieved in that war, we let our arrogance get the better of us and began to think we could re-make much of the troubled parts of the world, into our own image. Hubris, and hubris that has cost us dearly, as it has so much of South-West Asia and the Arab middle-east.
 
The invasion was honestly stupid - Taliban and Al-Qaeda already had frictions; but due to Pakthunwali or Pasthun code of Honor; the Taliban could not turn over Osama. Osama's location was already known and it would've taken one team of SOF to finish him right there and then. An invasion wasnt worth it - the war on terror, increased total number of 200 terrorists to over 100,000 and led to trillions of dollars in loss and up to a million casualties.

And like our Prophet (SAW) predicted, this group (terrorists) will never vanquish.
 
The invasion was honestly stupid - Taliban and Al-Qaeda already had frictions; but due to Pakthunwali or Pasthun code of Honor; the Taliban could not turn over Osama. Osama's location was already known and it would've taken one team of SOF to finish him right there and then. An invasion wasnt worth it - the war on terror, increased total number of 200 terrorists to over 100,000 and led to trillions of dollars in loss and up to a million casualties.

And like our Prophet (SAW) predicted, this group (terrorists) will never vanquish.
One team of SOF was NEVER going to do it anymore than it would for Pakistan's war on terror. What you say otherwise, may have truth to it but America was not going to just send in a couple of special ops teams in after over 3,000 of our citizens were murdered by al-Qaeda. Pakistan has certainly aggressively attacked the terrorists that kill their citizens. What country worth it's salt, wouldn't? We were and did, run them down like dogs in whatever country we found them, no matter how many years it took.
 
One team of SOF was NEVER going to do it anymore than it would for Pakistan's war on terror. What you say otherwise, may have truth to it but America was not going to just send in a couple of special ops teams in after over 3,000 of our citizens were murdered by al-Qaeda. Pakistan has certainly aggressively attacked the terrorists that kill their citizens. What country worth it's salt, wouldn't? We were and did, run them down like dogs in whatever country we found them, no matter how many years it took.
I'm an American my self, but I dont think that 3,000 lives are worth 1 million lives. Our casualties could have also been avoided - Pakistan was growing, developing and progressing fiercely - that was all halted by war on terror which led to over 80 billion dollars in loss for us, economic decay, billions of dollars worth of investments pulled out, our growth plunged down, we lost tens of thousands of citizens, we lost the support of the people and these wounds will still scar us - thousands of years after.

What did we get from that? Only 'do more' and 'aid'.

War on terror has only led to an increase in terror.
 
War on terror has only led to an increase in terror.
The problem though is how to respond. The belief that a few special ops teams will do the trick is simply naive. It would not have for the United States. It would never have done so for Pakistan. So then one is left with either responding with enough force, or one must be willing to emasculate oneself and be resigned to whatever the terrorist wish to do to you. No thank you! In the end, I don't care how long it takes or what effort it takes. Terrorist that attack us will know that American justice will catch up to them, no matter how long it takes, no matter what we must do. We can fight smarter, but fight we will, no matter how much force it takes. And as for it causing more terrorism, I think that is relative. American action against al-Qaeda has certainly diminished that organizations ability to launch anymore major attacks against us. As new terrorists groups arise, we will fight them too. We will never surrender to them.
 
USA war on terror has been both a blessing and a curse for Pakistan.
Curse due to the fact that we lost 60,000 lives and lost billions of dollars, while blessing in the sense that it has woken up the Pakistani nation which went into Qoma after 70s.
And now they know who is their friend who want to screw them by signing nuclear deals with countries and at the same time asking you to do more while sitting in their bunkers and controlling drones with remotes.Asking you to do more but will not sell you one outdated f-16
One kill your soldiers and will take 1 year to say a simple sorry

As new terrorists groups arise, we will fight them too. We will never surrender to them.
So when are you targeting Boko haram?
Or nigeria is not a strategic location so that dosen't count in American justice providing system?

As new terrorists groups arise, we will fight them too. We will never surrender to them.
North korea is a bigger threat to USA than alqaeda or any terrorist organization will ever be, so why is American justice providing system fails their? or is it the fact that US only fights where it knows it will win?
 
The doctrine of regime change with the help of rogue state actors have created Afghanistan. The biggest foreign policy failure of US as well as Pakistan is to embrace Saudis as partners.
 
Hmm... and China is "bad" because our disputes in the South China Sea involve ZERO bloodshed.

How America must laugh at us, for having bombs and cruise missiles but not actually using them to bomb other countries.
 
After the end of cold war the neocons of Bush administration envisioned a new cold war against the islamic world. The goal would be
1)Hunt down movements similar to that of Al Qaeda or Taliban even if they hadnt done anything against US(Al Shadaab, Boko Haram, Ansar al sharia etc)
2)Overthrow dictatoric regimes especially those that were hostile towards US(Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad etc)

Unfortunatelly US has done some big mistakes here.
First its well proved right now that when the west interferes to destroy these movements in the islamic world, they actually become even more powerful
Second the west underestimated the power of the muslim world
Thirdly the west has shown complete ignorance on certain things. Bush for example didnt know that in the muslim world exist sunnis and shias just some months before the Iraqi invasion.
 
It is worse in Afghanistan now than I ever could have imagined. And I was a pessimist.

Fatigue was always going to be the decider. Western fatigue with the horrors their troops saw, and with the violence inflicted daily on Afghans themselves. The fatigue of the financial cost, where a power station that was barely ever switched on cost Uncle Sam a third of a billion dollars.

And the other fatigue -- the one felt by the Taliban -- mostly distinguished by its absence; they felt only the tirelessness of their cause.

We were right and justified, in attacking the al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. We were justified in attacking the Taliban government that gave them aid and sanctuary.

what about the original afghan war that cia conducted against the socialist republic called 'democratic republic of afghanistan'??

this was another regime-change program against a socialist system by cia and the white house, run in this case by ronald reagan, and the cia created al-qaeda and then the taliban.

i must not fail to mention that the taliban does drugs business with the usa military and cia, and also that the taliban were airlifted in 2011 to the nato battlefields in libya and syria.

those people in the wtc towers died because of the policies of the usa government... if you must overthrow anyone, it is the white house. :)

We were arrogant and wrong to think we were going to turn Afghanistan into some sort of western democracy.

no, you are arrogant and wrong to think that the west actually has democracies. :)

what you have are capitalist multi-party dictatorships that promote male homosexuality and mindless consumerism and obsession with the cell phone... of course, there is the breeding of reactionaries from the fake-muslim creed for use as terrorist drones against muslim-majority socialist countries and there is the support to anti-human foreign movements like the hindutva-championing bjp party that now controls the indian central government.

He did come back to power, in the name of SISI. Ousting Mubarak was better for Egypt, it was the ousting of Morsi that turned Egypt to what it is.

but the people of egypt majorly rejected morsi and overthrew his ikhwaani terrorist government. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom