Afghanistan Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Why Who
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Here Is The Plan
   Next Article → LEADERSHIP: MiG Manufacturer Worth Pennies

September 25, 2009: One vital Taliban goal is to convince the rest of the world that Afghanistan is an unsafe place for foreigners. That's nothing new. The region has always been awash in outlaws and bandits. The only law, in most of the country, is tribal custom. And that can change at the whim of whatever strongman is running things in an area you are travelling through.

Running Afghanistan has always been all about getting the tribes to get along. That isn't happening now because several back the Taliban (which draw their manpower from all over the south), and several more back drug lords (and the enormous wealth that goes with that). Most of the tribes are content to back the government, as long as they have something to show for it. Everyone wants to get paid, and there are frequent squabbles over what constitutes a "fair share." The vast majority of Afghans can agree on keeping the Taliban from controlling the government once more. Foreigners tend to keep missing that, but the Taliban are well hated by the majority of tribes, and individual Afghans. The Taliban have already demonstrated, a decade ago, how they would run things.  Despite Taliban promises to clean up their act the second time around, few believe it. That's because the Taliban are currently using terror and mass murder to coerce cooperation. The Taliban know how to make a mess, not clean up one.

The current Afghan government has made itself unpopular for a number of reasons. First, there is the ancient problem of not giving each faction what they believe they deserve. The government controls a lot of money (mostly foreign aid), and every tribe and war lord believes their deserve more than they are actually getting. Then there is the growing number of government officials bribed by the drug gangs, or becoming partners with them. In most of Afghanistan, there is no drug production, and the locals want no part of the heroin and opium. That's because Afghanistan, and its neighbors have a growing addict problem. Afghanistan is now the main source of the world heroin and opium supply. While most is smuggled out to more lucrative foreign markets (Persian Gulf, Europe and North America), some of it is sold off to the locals at bargain prices. The Taliban tolerated this in the 1990s (even as they persecuted addicts and local suppliers), and they tolerate it now. No one expects the Taliban to control the drug trade, but the government says it will, and doesn't. Finally, there's the recent presidential elections where, by current count, about a quarter of the votes were the result of government sponsored fraud. This makes the government another bunch of warlords, with no moral standing. Just another bunch of thugs, ruling by force, fraud and deception. The Taliban use this reality to demoralize those who still seek an alternative to another round of Taliban tyranny. And the Taliban have dropped all pretense of being anything but a bunch terrorists. They regularly use assassination, kidnapping and beatings to compel obedience and cooperation. So far this year, they have made about a hundred assassination attempts against government and tribal leaders. About half these attempts have succeeded, and many prominent Afghans have fled the country, or refused to participate in the government, because of it.

Despite the success of the Pakistani Army across the border, pro-Taliban tribes still control large areas. The Pakistani generals want the tribal leaders to allow the government to control the borders, but not run them. This is the compromise works that over there, but still allows Islamic terrorists to hide in obscure areas of the tribal territories. The Pakistani forces are not fighting to destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban, but to stop these radicals from making war on the Pakistani government. But the NATO forces in Afghanistan want Pakistan to stop being a refuge for Islamic terrorists, and this is not likely to happen. The Pakistani's will settle for a peace that will leave their side of the border a hiding place for Islamic terrorists. Thus the continued war against terrorist leaders in Pakistan, using a growing intelligence network, and UAVs firing missiles at the terrorist leaders when they are located. This has been remarkably successful, at least judging by how terrorized the terrorist leaders are.

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan want to increase the local military to 240,000 (three times its current size) and the national police to 160,000 (an increase of 73 percent). That's difficult to do, when most of the potential recruits are illiterate and commanders (particularly of police) have a tendency to turn their willing subordinates into uniformed bandits. Army and police commanders are easy to bribe, and only reliable when they want to be. It takes decades of effort to change this.

Iran is becoming a growing problem in western Afghanistan, where Iran has long been a large influence (and for many centuries actually ruled that area). The Iranian al Quds force (which specializes in supporting pro-Iranian terrorism in other Moslem nations) has been supplying weapons and other assistance to some Taliban factions there. Quds did the same sort of thing in Iraq, were several Quds officials were captured. This was very embarrassing for Iran, and apparently Quds are under orders to not let that happen in Afghanistan. Thus the Quds activities are low key, and growing slowly. Iran wants to be in a position to take advantage of any chaos in western Afghanistan, perhaps including the establishment of a breakaway, pro-Iran, satellite state .

The senior American commanders in Afghanistan include many with long Special Forces experience. What they face in Afghanistan is very familiar. The U.S. has successfully handled such situations many times in the last two centuries. And the plan takes advantage of Taliban weaknesses, and Afghan history. The Taliban are vulnerable because most of their gunmen are mercenaries. While these guys tend to believe in the Taliban goal of a religious dictatorship, most Afghans want nothing to do with this. But the Taliban have the cash to arm and pay these, largely young, unemployed and adventurous, men to go out and terrorize Afghans into cooperating. So the plan is to go after the money. The key Taliban financier is the drug gangs, and they operate in a small portion of the country (centered on Kandahar province). An additional 40,000 U.S. troops are believed sufficient to sit on enough of the population in heroin country, while mobile forces chase down and kill the key drug gang leaders and operatives. The Taliban will fight to resist this, as they know that, without the drug gang money, one of their other sources of income (extortion payments and outright theft) will largely disappear. In the last two decades, the heroin trade has already been chased out of Burma and Pakistan. That will leave the Taliban with contributions from fans in the region and overseas. But that will dry up once those supporters note the disappearance of the other income streams. At that point, the Taliban will be worse off than they were in early 2002, for at least then, they had many refuges in Pakistan. But lots of those hiding places are no longer as hospitable as they once were. Thus if the Taliban lose the drug money, they risk losing everything.

After that, a much expanded army and police force would try to reduce the rural crime (banditry, blood feuds and raiding) that has plagued the area for thousands of years. Many Afghans would like to see this happen, but making it so requires some serious attitude adjustment. The Special Forces officers know this, and see a chance of success. If Afghanistan is ever to climb out of the poverty and chaos, it will have to clean up the countryside crime problem, and allow economic progress. But, mainly, the U.S. is only interested in Afghanistan not being a base area for international terrorists. Same deal with the tribal territories in Pakistan. Not achieving this goal is not acceptable, because counter-terror operations continue to encounter too many people who leaned essential skills in training facilities that can only exist in regions that provide refuge for terrorists. This kind of security can be achieved by simply paying off the Afghan leadership (corrupt or not), but first you have to get rid of the competition (the drug gangs).

Next Article → LEADERSHIP: MiG Manufacturer Worth Pennies
  
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
esmoore5       9/25/2009 12:12:15 PM
"Afghanistan is now the main source of the world heroin and opium supply. While most is smuggled out to more lucrative foreign markets (Persian Gulf, Europe and North America), some of it is sold off to the locals at bargain prices." According to: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-heroin25-2009sep25,0,2349140.story The world's top consumer of Heroin is Russia.
 
Quote    Reply

kerravon       9/26/2009 2:36:22 AM
"Finally, there's the recent presidential elections where, by current count, about a quarter of the votes were the result of government sponsored fraud. This makes the government another bunch of warlords, with no moral standing. Just another bunch of thugs, ruling by force, fraud and deception."
 
I think that is way over the top.  No-one is saying that Afghanistan's democracy is perfect, but it's nothing remotely like rule by force.  You really think that ballot fraud is the only thing that prevented Abdullah from winning the elections?  The very fact that there are multiple people to choose from, with different opinions, and that the elections are very real which is why ballot-stuffing would be done in the first place, and the fact that people are allowed to accuse the government of such things in the first place, and that there is an investigation at all, and that opinion polls are fairly supportive of their government, show that Afghanistan is far from that description. True thugs squash all forms of dissent.
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       9/26/2009 2:33:49 PM
Those tribal laws (I guess there are as many as tribes) probably contribute to inefficiency of Afghan National Police. Any police force would find difficult to enforce or just observe two or more conflicting legal systems in the same time. I don't believe that it needs to be that way. Current authorities avoided to make the same mistake that Soviet puppet government did in 1979, when they tried to change everything overnight.  Far as I know, current Afghan  Constitution  includes many traditional Afghan and Islamic elements.  Constitution and country laws were brought through democratic procedure, so, it is reasonable to say that there exists an agreement about them.
 
Alternative legal systems exist, probably, because  government failed to enforce the legitimate one. They probably failed because they applied double standards, one set of rules for themselves and the other for the rest. For example, I've read an article in which Afghan citizen complains that somebody else lives in his house while he is homeless, and the intruder is influential enough  to keep the house. Strict enforcement of laws in such situation would probably lead to open rebellion of non-privileged part of the population. 
 
Additional troops would probably do the job, but one feels that it is unjustified to put people on the ground just because someone else (Karzai & co.) screwed up, and still keeps screwing. Afghanistan is not Iraq. While Iraqi state was fighting for survival, Afghans had much better situation couple of years ago, but the government ruined it. It is reasonable to assume that troops could improve the situation, but it might deteriorate again, once the troops leave. Current bunch of gangsters might be rooted out, just to be replaced with another one. I often disagree with current US administration, but they might be right about Afghanistan this time. Troop increase might not be sufficient, some political solution must be found first.

DG

 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       9/26/2009 2:45:54 PM
all, and that opinion polls are fairly supportive of their government, show that Afghanistan is far from that


Opinion polls might be misleading. I am not sure what is the situation along ethnic lines of division, but Karzai is Pushtun, while Abdullah is Tajik. Pushtuns are majority in Afghanistan. They might support "their man" in polls despite the fact that they might not be satisfied with his  performance. There is a similar situation in Bosnia.

DG
 
Quote    Reply

kerravon       9/26/2009 6:01:07 PM


all, and that opinion polls are fairly supportive of their government, show that Afghanistan is far from that







Opinion polls might be misleading. I am not sure what is the situation along ethnic lines of division, but Karzai is Pushtun, while Abdullah is Tajik. Pushtuns are majority in Afghanistan. They might support "their man" in polls despite the fact that they might not be satisfied with his  performance. There is a similar situation in Bosnia.


Which still leads us to the same conclusion - if Karzai isn't the preferred (note - preferred, not perfect) candidate for the Afghan people, then who is?  The Pashtuns aren't likely to vote for the Tajik Abdullah from the Northern Alliance.  I've got nothing against him myself.  In an imperfect world, Karzai is the democratically-elected choice of the Afghan people, and far from a bunch of thugs ruling by force.  I sincerely don't believe that Abdullah is the true choice of the Afghan people and that fraud is the only thing that stopped him getting elected.
 
I also doubt that Abdullah's policies are going to be much different from Karzai's.
 
BTW, I actually like both of those guys and don't care which of them wins.  Although for the purposes of militarily defeating the Taliban, it's probably safer to have a Pashtun ruling.
 
 
Quote    Reply

kerravon       9/27/2009 3:49:56 AM


all, and that opinion polls are fairly supportive of their government, show that Afghanistan is far from that







Opinion polls might be misleading. I am not sure what is the situation along ethnic lines of division, but Karzai is Pushtun, while Abdullah is Tajik. Pushtuns are majority in Afghanistan. They might support "their man" in polls despite the fact that they might not be satisfied with his  performance. There is a similar situation in Bosnia.


Which still leads us to the same conclusion - if Karzai isn't the preferred (note - preferred, not perfect) candidate for the Afghan people, then who is?  The Pashtuns aren't likely to vote for the Tajik Abdullah from the Northern Alliance.  I've got nothing against him myself.  In an imperfect world, Karzai is the democratically-elected choice of the Afghan people, and far from a bunch of thugs ruling by force.  I sincerely don't believe that Abdullah is the true choice of the Afghan people and that fraud is the only thing that stopped him getting elected.
 
I also doubt that Abdullah's policies are going to be much different from Karzai's.
 
BTW, I actually like both of those guys and don't care which of them wins.  Although for the purposes of militarily defeating the Taliban, it's probably safer to have a Pashtun ruling.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       10/4/2009 12:30:14 PM
Additional troops would probably do the job, but one feels that it is unjustified to put people on the ground just because someone else (Karzai & co.) screwed up, and still keeps screwing. Afghanistan is not Iraq. While Iraqi state was fighting for survival, Afghans had much better situation couple of years ago, but the government ruined it. It is reasonable to assume that troops could improve the situation, but it might deteriorate again, once the troops leave. Current bunch of gangsters might be rooted out, just to be replaced with another one. I often disagree with current US administration, but they might be right about Afghanistan this time. Troop increase might not be sufficient, some political solution must be found first.

This is exactly the argument that was debated regarding Iraq in 2006-07.  The critical problem in Iraq was lack of security and the same argument against sending "Surge" troops into Iraq was made citing a lack of a political solution.  Probably no political solution in Afghanistan will settle the drug gang/Taliban issue unless an outside force - U.S. - can act as an impartial arbiter/enforcer as was done in Iraq.  As in Iraq, the Afghan government is unable to provide security because of political differences and more importantly because of lack of capability.  The tribes may have to be assimilated in a federal manner and act like the states do in the U.S. Leaving a strong drug gang/Taliban presence to flourish while pursuing an UAV strategy against al Qaeda and the Taliban is insufficient to achieve a relatively stable Afghanistan and reduce future threats to the U.S. The U.S. administration is trying to get by on the cheap and we will end up paying a higher price in the end.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    IMHO   10/14/2009 5:05:02 PM
Guerrilla warfare depends on the presence of a positive feedback loop which uses military force at a local level to insinuate a quasi shadow government while intimidating, suborning, or eliminating legitimate government at a local level which will thereby support the collection and development of intelligence resources which in turn further supports the expansion of the military campaign against the central government and the revolutionary footprint/ basis of support.  The guerrilla force will also from time to time actually encourage the propping up of corrupt and ineffective elements of the central government in order to serve as a distorted basis of comparison to the local population and/or as a conduit of intelligence development.

 
It is the elimination/ interruption of this feedback loop at the local level by whatever means necessary and obviating the re-establishment of this capability from reoccuring that needs to be the goal of the counter guerrilla.  Sound local government is indeed a great benefit to government forces but cannot really be established in the absence of security or established in spite of local conditions.  From time to time it may be the case what seems to be a relatively stable island of central government control may indeed be a case of the aforementioned intimidated or fully suborned (or just someone playing both sides of the fence; perhaps for the sake of their own community safety) entity.  This is why in my opinion a robust intelligence capability is essential in this type of warfare.

The implimentation of such guerrilla strategies over a wide area under somewhat different tribal conditions may indicate the active participation of a foreign government agency.  On the other hand its not like the Afghans haven't done this before.  Its probably a little (?) of both.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    In addition   10/16/2009 11:55:35 AM
I'd like to say that if we are able for the most part to permanently disable the ability of our adversaries to maintain this feedback loop (or make the cost of re-establishing it prohibitively too high) than we may be said to have achieved something that may be called victory in a COIN war.  It may be the case that the exact form of this will be different for different valleys and tribes all about eastern and southern Afghanistan but IMHO it could still be characterized as victory. 
 
Also within the present situation we have what I guess could be said to be approximately a corps in Afghanistan.  But working from little enclaves within the tribal areas of Pakistan Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the command and control of what appears to be a central entity  have insinuated and re-established themselves in many areas they formerly were evicted from.  Why; because we haven't been fighting correctly.  Gen McChrystal means to change that.  Make no mistake the elements within the rouge elements of the ISI and Al Qaeda, as they said prior to 9/11, mean to make Pakistan and Afghanistan into one Nuclear Islamic Emirate and that would be a disaster for the region and probably the world.  If they are allowed to undermine still larger areas of Afghanistan they could surely use this to intern undermine the Punjab and with it Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply