Center for a New American Security

Sounds like a good read. But I wonder was Afghanistan, during these periods, 'pacified' by an outside power or was it the choice of a home-rule government? I don't know that they 'desire conflict,' but I do wonder what level of order we can effectively impose upon them.

yeah when your boss was in new york debating that idiot ralph peters, peters maintained this silly assertion, saying that afghanistan isnt a country, only an accident of where other countries' borders end, and he repeated the usual myths about a land of primitive savages at war with each other. unfortunately none of the other debaters refuted him

David Kilcullen on the warlike nature of the Pashtuns:

"The martial character of Pashtun tribes is something of a cliched stereotype, though it is rarely remarked on in contemporary conflict literature(where most analysts rightly tend to focus on the war-weariness of Afghans after decades of conflict). Still, over the years the warlike nature of Afghans has become very evident to me, over the course of repeated activities and operations in A-stan between tours in Iraq and visits to other war zones.

At the risk of reinforcing cultural stereotypes I would be remiss if I failed to record my observation that while the Iraqi insurgents I encountered liked to win, and they certainly enjoyed killing people who could not hit back, they did not particularly like to fight. They didn’t exactly dislike fighting, and would do so willingly in protection of relatives or hope of plunder or profit, but it was a rare Iraqi insurgent who loved the fight itself. The Afghan insurgents and former insurgents I have encountered do love the fight: they like to win, and are certainly not averse to killing, but what they really love is the fight, the jang (battle), for its own sake. For example, the local farmers in Uruzgan who took part in the Taliban ambush I described at the beginning of this chapter did so not because they supported the Taliban politically or hated the Coalition but for reasons of honor, adventure and love of the fight"

History is interesting, but we draw lessons from it according to out needs. Pakistan and even modern India are no more historically stable countries than Afghanistan is. The same could be said of practically every other country in the world. The real question is if the current state CAN be stabliized or not? can it be "left alone" or not? What are the alternatives and what is the road from here to there, wherever "there" may be?
My assertion (and in this email, its an assertion, not a detailed argument) is that stabilizing the current Afghan borders is doable mostly because all the alternatives are worse. Who will decide where new borders are going to be?
I am also going to assert that there is no hope in hell of "leaving the afghans alone". I think one can make a good argument that the United States should leave the place ASAP, but not under any kind of illusion about the peace and goodwill that will subsequently prevail. IF the US stays for years and makes a very serious effort at all levels (which will be expensive and difficult) they CAN do the entire region a favor and stabilize Afghanistan. They may not have the will, the ability or the resources (I think in more or less that order). If the US leaves, then all the regional powers will duke it out until the last afghan.
I agree that the Afghans are "warlike" and enjoy the fight and the adventure. But that applies on all sides. IF the ANA is ever trained and equipped to the same level as the Indian or Pakistani army, they would beat the shit out of both. Thats my last assertion of the afternoon...got to run.

Sounds to me like it was a “peaceful” time due mostly to Afghans running Afghanistan in the way they wanted it run, absent foreign interference.

Abu is right on this one, I've personally talked to several Afghans who fled the country directly after the 1978-1979 period. The general level of infrastructure and wealth was on a steady, if slow, upward climb from at least 1950 onwards.

Again, go read Ghost Wars for a good review of what happened next. Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were thrilled that the Soviets had been 'lured' into invading Afghanistan, weren't they?

It's true that Casey and the Republican neocons wanted to prosecute a covert war against the Soviets, for many reasons - and those Afghani 'freedom fighters' that met with Reagan in the George Washington Room of the White House eventually formed the nucleus of the Taliban. Right from the beginning, they were heavily supported by Saudi oil money, a phenomenon that continues up to the present day, according to the current GAO report - not very widely reported, but then, that's explained by the massive Saudi investments in U.S. banks and media corporations.

There's a chapter in Baer's book, "Sleeping with the Devil" about that aspect of the situation, titled "Saudi Arabia - Washington's 401(k) Plan" - very interesting reading, almost as interesting as the banned book "Forbidden Truth" on the Taliban-Unocal pipeline politics of the late 1990s, as well as the financial/charity webs that Osama bin Laden used to extract funds from the Saudi Royals.

Want a personal history factoid here? In California's Central Valley in the mid-1980s, bricks of Afghani hash were circulating, marked with a gold foil stamp - except the money was probably going to finance the freedom fighters, not the Soviets. That was the era of looking the other way while insurgencies generated cash via drug traffiking - same deal in Vietnam, and I've spoken with pilots from the Bay Area who were offered lucrative jobs flying "loads" in and out of Laos in small planes, aka, heroin.

However, it now seems that the main source of Taliban funding is not from heroin sales, but rather from American petrodollars delivered to Saudi Arabia and siphoned off by pro-al Qaeda Saudi citizens for delivery to Afghanistan... recall this?

TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists, By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: Wednesday, January 8, 2003, NYT

(Note that ABC refused to air these ads)

""This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."

Funny how that GAO report has hit a wall of silence, isn't it? On the one hand, you want to defeat the terrorists - and on the other, you want to keep your major oil supplier/client state happy & intact.

Same old bull - despite 9/11, at that.

With all that's come out concerning oil, who's funding what front and who really hold the purse strings in wars.... It's funny to see how something as simple as painting a jet in Cowboy colors gets some headlines. "Ego"...remember that word.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/75666.html

Now some of you may say: "Well...he is a cowboys fan...so what. Many people buy hummers too they can't afford or didn't earn and decorate them in cowboy colors (or any other sport team they support)...so what!"

But I ask, what if he didn't just paint his plane in these colors and he actually owned part of the Cowboys Franchise??? Then what? Do you think people would be upset? Do you think Texans / Cowboys fans would feel deceived?

It's much bigger than just painting a jet. Would love to see a truthful audit of the Cowboys Franchise conducted, but that will never happen. Unless someone from DOJ feels the need to scratch and find out.

Lots of stuff goes on behind the scenes, American's never see. Like Louis J. Freeh vacationing at Bandar's house in Aspen...among many other things.

ego - your consciousness of your own identity, one's image of oneself....etc.. list goes on and on...

Think about it.

The most warlike and dangerous tribe still at large (Germans and Brits having largely been pacified) are American Southerners. Clearly Texans, Virginians and Alabamans armed with Apaches, F-16s, M1s, and Barretts make Zulus, Apaches and Afridis look like choir boys when it comes to mass destruction. Whether they can also be turned into multi-cultural policeman is another matter.

If that nonsense keeps you up at night, go for it.

Personally, I'm "tiring" of superficial attempts to continuously find new ways to rationalize an awful strategy and mission.

Radio Discussion with Prof. M. Nazif Shahrani, One of the Few Real Experts on Afghanistan's History, Politics, Cultures, & Languages

What a curious way to read that book. Hmmmm.