This is a MUST READ about Afghanistan by Grantcart - who gave me permission [View All]

[cliffordu]

to post it here. Grantcart was in vietnam after the war helping settle refugees...The man has knowledge of the Vietnam aftermath that only someone with boots on the ground can have,....

And he was a civilian, not a grunt. Wandering around postwar vietnam without a weapon makes me laugh. The bravery inherent in that is off the hook far enough to be hilarious.

Anyway, here is the best fucking reasons for staying in Afghanistan I can think of

Take it away, Grantcart:

Unable to participate in the various threads on Afghanistan due to travel and time constraints below are some concerns I have on the complex nature of the President's decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. Its a long rant, you probably don't want to read it all but I apprecieate the chance to vent a little.


An odd wind is blowing in the blogosphere of the left, Afghanistan is now seen as a purely ideological and simple decision:


"Leave now and end the War."


Well wars don't end. Fighting can end. The United States can end its involvement, but war continues. This war in Afghanistan did not start in 2002 but in the 1980's, it is a direct extension of the upheavals that the Soviet interference and invasion brought to Afghanistan. An abrupt departure doesn't stop or diminish the suffering or the collateral damage.

I am reminded of King Sihanouk who returned to Cambodia to become the figure head of state with the Khmer Rouge in 1975. It looked so simple as he beckoned Cambodians living overseas to return to help rebuild Cambodia. Hundreds did, including dozens of his own relatives. Virtually all of them died in the chaos that has become known as 'The Killing Fields'. Lofty rhetoric does not equate with happy endings.

The President speaks of "finishing the job" and I find that somewhat unfortunate. The war in South East Asia is not finished. Agent Orange continues, land mines in Cambodia continue and millions of families continue to carry the scars of that war. Conflicts continue to burn but I understand him to mean finishing the job of helping Afghanistan stabilize and defend itself.



Some have appointed themselves "high bishops" of the left and have made some of the following pronouncements from on high:


"There is only one position that any person on the left can have on Afghanistan."

"Afghanistan is like Vietnam."

"Afghanistan and Iraq were both evil wars from the beginning."

"The Afghans never have had a central government and have never left the 15th century."

"Obama has moved so far to the right that he has lost me."


Maybe like you I find myself in an unusual position in reading attacks from the left on the President's perceived position on Afghanistan. Having been against almost all of the armed conflicts the country has engaged in during my lifetime I find my default position to be reluctant to agree to any armed conflict, but I am not a pacifist and sometimes war can significantly reduce human suffering. Imagine how paradoxical it was to be in Phanat Nikom Transit Camp (this camp would become the United States largest modern 'Ellis Island' as the last pre airport stop for hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian refugees) in 1980.




If you stood in the Vietnamese side where you would be talking with Vietnamese who were pushed out of Vietnam because of their Chinese ethnicity you would find the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) demonic. If you wandered over to the Khmer side where they were able to flee the Khmer Rouge then the SRV was seen as angelic.

In the same vein I consider the Afghanistan question to be a very difficult and complex issue.

For that reason it will be lengthy but at least I can get it off my chest.



1) Answering the President's critics.
2) The strategic issues
3) Questions I hope the President will answer



1) Answering the President's critics

I am glad that people in the Democratic Party are not naturally enthusiastic about war and want to question it. There are some substantive voices that ask well thought out questions in an effective way with relevent research (bigtree is one example).

That type of criticism of the President, unfortunately, is a minority of the voluminous rants against the President from the left. Many times there are so many factual mistakes in the interlocutor's argument that it is simply too much of a waste of time to try and clear up obvious factual inaccuracies and then try to discuss the elements of the logic of the argument.

Here are 5 common attacks that one can frequently hear:


I) "There is only one position that anyone on the left can have on Afghanistan"

I have been told this by several "self appointed bishops of the leftist orthodoxy".

The problem with this is that leaving Afghanistan doesn't end anything except direct involvement of American troops at this time.

This argument is based on the premise that "Afghanistan no longer is of any strategic interest to the United States". This argument was most strongly put forth by Matthew Hoh when he resigned his position as a "Senior Civilian Representative" and can be read here:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/Resigna...

Mr. Hoh's argument that the initial reason for invading Afghanistan is no longer valid, that Al Queda is no longer using Afghanistan as a major training and staging location, and that if they attempted to return with visible infrastructure they could easily be dispatched with Predator and missile attacks.

This part of the argument is 100% correct. What Mr. Hoh and the "Bishops" have not addressed are other strategic concerns that now exist. Simply because the original reason for going to Afghanistan has been eliminated does not mean that no other reason now exists. Those other reasons are discussed below.

II) "Afghanistan is like Vietnam"

Really? Mullah Omar is like Ho Chi Minh? There is a substantial group of people outside the Taliban that are naturally allies like the Viet Cong were to the North Vietnamese?

Well first lets see how well we understand Vietnam

Here is a test on some key facts about Vietnam. Which statement about Vietnam is not true?


a) Vietnam is the only country to have defeated the United States military.

b) After the Americans left and the country was unified the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam were unified and able to concentrate on domestic issues without worrying about war.

c) The "Tet Offensive" was a military disaster for the United States

d) Picture of Americans assisting people leaving the US Embassy in Saigon.




Answers at the end.

With so much misunderstanding about what happened it makes any comparison with Afghanistan highly problematic. If you were going to make any comparisons, however, you could make a much better comparison between the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge. The North Vietnamese were highly urban and were fighting a multi century battle for national independence. The Khmer Rouge were not very bright rural thugs who wanted to return their country to a non existent ancient time of paradise. If any group is likely to eventually repeat the KR insane policy of emptying out the cities and returning its population to the idyllic pre electricity past it is the Taliban.

Of course any comparison has to be superficial at best, but frankly if the Taliban were an organized dictatorship that was committed to national independence and modernizing the country I would gladly hand the country to them and work on seducing them back in 20 years like we have with the Vietnamese.

III) "Afghanistan and Iraq were both evil wars from the beginning."

Like most revisionist history you don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Taliban were in open support of a long campaign of terrorist attacks by Al Queda. The offered sanctuary, logistics and infrastructure to their allies.

The more aggravating part of this argument is however is that it seriously diminishes the real treachery of Bush/Cheney in instigating a war of aggression in Iraq by implying that all wars are equally bad.


IV) "The Afghans never have had a central government and have never left the 15th century."

Some comments have gone even further, almost to the point of racism in diminishing the value of Afghans as a people. The fact is that Kabul not only had an effective central government but that it was one of the most liberal in Central Asia. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

Basically from 1919 to 1973 it was a beacon of gender equality. It is true that the topography limited the effectiveness of the central government in highly remote areas, but that was and is still true in Pakistan, India and China.

V) "Obama has moved so far to the right that I can no longer support him"

Candidate Obama was very precise in his language and in most cases he is carrying out the policies that he said he would and this holds true in Afghanistan. The policies of candidate Obama including engaging in diplomatic overtures to Iran and North Korea were all considered "too reckless" during the Democratic Party primaries.

The reality is that there is an endemic narcissism in the left. We don't like to be apart of a disciplined political operation that marches to orders and gets results. We want to preen in our own ideological sun, illuminating others. To a degree we are all guilty of this, we come from that part of society that loves the pursuit of knowledge and wants to challenge orthodoxy, even our own. The ritual bashing of Obama has reached a point reflexive ideological one ups manship that pushes its practitioners to higher and higher levels of condescension of the President. Sometimes it requires that the gag reflex must be 'disabled' in order to read the comments.


2) The Strategic Issues

As Mr. Hoh has noted the initial strategic reason for being there is no longer operative. The new situation does pose some strategic issues that are even more important than the original one.


a) Pakistan/India stability.

Many people understand that sectors of Pakistan security have tolerated the Taliban because of sympathy to their common religious beliefs. The primary reason that some in the Pakistan military support the Taliban is because they know that they would be defeated in a conventional war with India and use the Taliban as a proxy in an asymmetrical strategy to keep India off balance. Al Queda desperately wants to ignite a full out conflict between India and Pakistan. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai has generated a growing consensus in Pakistan that the Taliban now represent a threat to the security and need to be contained. For the first time we are seeing coordinated campaigns with Pakistan assisting.

b) The Development of Afghanistan as a Narco-State.

While unlikely to be providers of training camps for Al Queda, the Taliban could provide Al Queda with a source of income that would replace the money lost by efforts to cut it off from its middle east support. This could provide substantial support for many low boiling terrorist actions that continue to export terror around the world. Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq there are many ongoing terrorist campaigns that aim at innocent civilians around the world. Indonesia is one and Thailand is another. More than 3,000 Thai civilians have been killed (more than died on 9/11). Many of these were minor civil servants and teachers who were shot by killers on motorcycles while they walked home from work.

Russia is now experiencing an epidemic of heroin abuse:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-f...



This is not a small problem, it helps reinforce the power of organized crime in Russia. It could significantly destabilize Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-f...

It's just one small sign of a vast hidden epidemic of heroin use that Russian officials and civil society groups say threatens the very existence of the nation. "It's a threat to our national security, our society, and our civilization itself," said Viktor Ivanov, Russia's top drugs official, at a meeting with reporters recently. He estimated that there are more than two million drug addicts in Russia, which amounts to one addict for every 50 Russians of working age, a level that is up to eight times higher than in EU countries.

Most of these people are addicted to heroin which transits from Afghanistan, through central Asia, and across the long and porous border from Kazakhstan into Russia. There are people addicted to heroin across Russia's 11 time-zones, and the country's anti-drugs body says that Russia now uses more heroin than any other country in the world.

c) Collateral Damage




Many people have a rather naive understanding of collateral damage. It is right to be concerned about the collateral damage of dozens of civilians who die as a result of a misdirected bomb. The real collateral damage is when a new dictatorship takes over and engages in ethnic cleansing and ideological purging that results in hundreds of thousands of refugees and tens of thousands of deaths (Vietnam and the former Yugoslavia) or when a regime takes over a brutal utopian restructuring of society (Cambodia).

Pulling out troops doesn't eliminate our responsibility for what comes next.


3) Questions I hope the President will answer.

a) The Afghan National Army has, by many sources, shown significant improvement and even has significant Pashtun numbers. Unfortunately it does not seem to be drawing many from the Pashtun South. What is going to be done to increase Pashtun from the South? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d81_1217794548 What can be done to double the size of the ANA in two years?

b) The Afghan Police have become the achilles heal of nation building. It needs radical restructuring or it could undue everything that the Army is doing. http://www.rawa.org/police-3.htm

c) Gen. Chrystal's emphasis on improving security for the average Afghan sounds laudable but, like here security means nothing if people don't have jobs and an income. The US should only be involved in increasing Afghan security in areas that it is also bringing real improvements in the quality of life; roads, electrification and jobs. How are we going to improve the quality of life for the average Afghan that we are protecting. Security without a quality of life simply breeds resentment.

d) Don't let the DEA mindset dictate Opium interdiction. It is preferable to let the farmers grow the opium and buy it back from them, putting them back to work at something they know, and then buying the product legally than going in and destroying their crops. In Thailand the Thai government followed the DEA's instructions for years with limited results until if started a program to let the farmers grow opium and then weaned them off of it by buying their crops but insisting that each year a slightly higher percentage of other crops were planted. Price subsidies helped farmers make a decent living off of other crops and they voluntarily stopped opium production.

Forcible opium eradication doesn't eradicate opium but it does create permanent enemies as hardworking farmers see their years income go up in smoke.

e) Seal the Pakistan/Afghan border. With Pakistan help and use of the Predators we should be able to eliminate, especially in winter, non authorized transit between the two countries.

f) Make this fight a fight of Afghans against the foreign fighters of Al Queda and the Taliban. Reports are that 4,000 foreign fighters now fight for the Taliban http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/10/world/main537... Having a realistic but firm exit strategy will assist in painting the Taliban as an increasing Pashtun exclusive force that must rely on foreign support.

I look forward to the President's address and his continuing ability to command a deep understanding of the important issues.

If you made it this far I thank you for letting me share my rant, I will be travelling so most likely won't be able to join in any discussion that follows.







Answers to the Vietnam Quiz

a) The United States military left Vietnam in 1973, the North started what is now called "The Ho Chi Minh Offensive" in 1975. General Giap has written on the point "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim" http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/magazine/giap-remembe... There is no society on earth that would sustain a million military casualties in a stalemate that would consider that a 'military victory'.

b) Well this statement is wrong on all points. After the war the North Vietnamese purged the Viet Cong and eliminated them, considering them ideologically impure, and then invaded Cambodia and took over the government there, and then they were invaded by China in a massive Sino-Vietnamese War (also called the Third Indochina War). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

c) The Tet Offensive was a public relations disaster for the US but it was a military disaster for the Viet Cong. After the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong were left completely exposed and 30,000 Vietnamese militia were killed. Some people speculate that the North deliberately withheld their promised support because they wanted the Viet Cong eliminated militarily so that when the country was eventually reunified they would only have Viet Cong politicos to deal with.

d) The most iconic photo of Vietnam in April 1975 is almost universally labeled as Vietnamese leaving the US Embassy. It was not. In what was considered the worst kept secret of the war, dependents of CIA employees were instructed to go to several pick up points as soon as they heard Bing Crosby singing "I am dreaming of a White Christmas". This picture is one of those CIA evacuations at the Pittman apartments.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.gu...