G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Afghanistan fight will only get tougher
By Eric Margolis
Created Apr 15 2007 - 10:41am
The death last Sunday of six Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan
reminds us of Santayana's famous maxim that those who fail to study history
are doomed to repeat it.
The soldiers were killed near Maiwand, a name meaning nothing to most
Westerners. But there, on July 27, 1880, during the bloody Second
Anglo-Afghan War, the British Empire suffered one of the worst defeats in
its colonial history.
Two years earlier the Raj (Britain's Indian Empire) had invaded Afghanistan
for a second time. The British put Afghan puppet rulers into power in Kabul
and Kandahar.
Ayub Khan, son of Afghanistan's former emir, rallied 12,000 Pashtun (or
Pathan) tribal warriors to fight an advancing British force whose mission
was, in London's words, to "liberate" Afghan tribes and bring them "the
light of Christian civilization." Today, the slogan is "promoting
democracy." The fierce Afghan tribal warriors routed the imperial force,
composed of British regulars, including the vaunted Grenadier Guards, and
Indian Sepoy troops, after a ferocious battle. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used a
British army doctor who fought at Maiwand as his model for Sherlock Holmes'
companion, Dr. Watson.
I recall this epic Afghan victory against British colonialism because
understanding today's war in Afghanistan requires proper historical context.
A century and a quarter after Maiwand, Pashtun warriors of southern
Afghanistan continue to resist another mighty world power and its allies,
who have been faithfully following the imperial strategy of the old British
Raj.
You dream it. We have it.
The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an "anti-terrorist"
mission and an effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a
noble campaign of "nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women's
rights." All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue.
What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the
strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people
who comprise half that nation's population. Another 15 million live just
across the border in Pakistan. What we call the "Taliban" is actually a
loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and
former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle.
ROSY REPORTS CONTRADICTED
Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis
Council, found the Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the
nation -- roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly
contradicted rosy reports of military success and "nation-building" from
Washington and NATO HQ.
This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000
interviews. "Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to
admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and
international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is
widespread." Senlis' study concurs with my own findings in South Asia that
Pakistan and India have independently concluded NATO will eventually be
defeated in Afghanistan and withdraw. The U.S., however, may stay on and
reinforce its 30,000 troops there because it cannot admit a second defeat
after the Iraq debacle.
The U.S. and NATO are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and they are
certainly not winning hearts and minds. They are fighting the world's
largest tribal people. The longer the Westerners stay and bomb villages, the
more resistance will grow. Such is the inevitable pattern of every guerrilla
war I have ever covered.
Western troops stuck in this nasty, $2-billion daily guerrilla conflict will
become increasingly brutalized, demoralized and violent. This is precisely
what happened to Afghanistan's second to latest invader, the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan's figurehead Hamid Karzai regime controls only the capitol. The
rest of the country is under the Taliban, or warlords who run the surging
narcotics trade that has made NATO the main defender of the world's leading
narco state.
If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not
defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do
better?
Those generals and politicians who claim this war will be won in a few short
years ought to study Maiwand.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Eric Margolis
Created Apr 15 2007 - 10:41am
The death last Sunday of six Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan
reminds us of Santayana's famous maxim that those who fail to study history
are doomed to repeat it.
The soldiers were killed near Maiwand, a name meaning nothing to most
Westerners. But there, on July 27, 1880, during the bloody Second
Anglo-Afghan War, the British Empire suffered one of the worst defeats in
its colonial history.
Two years earlier the Raj (Britain's Indian Empire) had invaded Afghanistan
for a second time. The British put Afghan puppet rulers into power in Kabul
and Kandahar.
Ayub Khan, son of Afghanistan's former emir, rallied 12,000 Pashtun (or
Pathan) tribal warriors to fight an advancing British force whose mission
was, in London's words, to "liberate" Afghan tribes and bring them "the
light of Christian civilization." Today, the slogan is "promoting
democracy." The fierce Afghan tribal warriors routed the imperial force,
composed of British regulars, including the vaunted Grenadier Guards, and
Indian Sepoy troops, after a ferocious battle. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used a
British army doctor who fought at Maiwand as his model for Sherlock Holmes'
companion, Dr. Watson.
I recall this epic Afghan victory against British colonialism because
understanding today's war in Afghanistan requires proper historical context.
A century and a quarter after Maiwand, Pashtun warriors of southern
Afghanistan continue to resist another mighty world power and its allies,
who have been faithfully following the imperial strategy of the old British
Raj.
You dream it. We have it.
The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an "anti-terrorist"
mission and an effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a
noble campaign of "nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women's
rights." All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue.
What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the
strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people
who comprise half that nation's population. Another 15 million live just
across the border in Pakistan. What we call the "Taliban" is actually a
loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and
former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle.
ROSY REPORTS CONTRADICTED
Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis
Council, found the Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the
nation -- roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly
contradicted rosy reports of military success and "nation-building" from
Washington and NATO HQ.
This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000
interviews. "Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to
admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and
international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is
widespread." Senlis' study concurs with my own findings in South Asia that
Pakistan and India have independently concluded NATO will eventually be
defeated in Afghanistan and withdraw. The U.S., however, may stay on and
reinforce its 30,000 troops there because it cannot admit a second defeat
after the Iraq debacle.
The U.S. and NATO are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and they are
certainly not winning hearts and minds. They are fighting the world's
largest tribal people. The longer the Westerners stay and bomb villages, the
more resistance will grow. Such is the inevitable pattern of every guerrilla
war I have ever covered.
Western troops stuck in this nasty, $2-billion daily guerrilla conflict will
become increasingly brutalized, demoralized and violent. This is precisely
what happened to Afghanistan's second to latest invader, the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan's figurehead Hamid Karzai regime controls only the capitol. The
rest of the country is under the Taliban, or warlords who run the surging
narcotics trade that has made NATO the main defender of the world's leading
narco state.
If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not
defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do
better?
Those generals and politicians who claim this war will be won in a few short
years ought to study Maiwand.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
