Afghanistan Is Saying Goodbye

When will we get the message? We don't belong there. Many of our soldiers are either Christian zealots, or clueless about the Muslim society in which they're posted. They shouldn't be dying there.

Long ago, in India, there were a bunch of boys, playing a chase game in one of the large markets in Ahmadabad, in Gujarat. Some of the boys were Hindu; others were Muslim. One of the Hindu boys, running through a tiny Muslim bookseller's stall, accidentally knocked a Quran off a shelf; it fell to the ground. That simple mishap started Hindu-Muslim riots that lasted for weeks, and resulted in over a thousand dead.

Muslims in Ahmadabad are urban sophisticates compared to Muslims in Afghanistan. Islam, unfortunately, has never had a Reformation, so its culture is more like the era of the Catholic Inquisition, at the cusp of Europe's modern era, when The Faith was under siege by the Protestant Reformation. In Islam, the besiegers are secular westernizers, and maybe, missionizing Protestants, like American soldiers.

That is the context: the Quran is hallowed by Muslim believers the way the Bible was treated in Medieval Christian Europe, the way the Talmud was viewed in Medieval Judaism. Is it any wonder that Americans are being killed for the intentional burning of many Qurans on a refuse pile outside America's largest, most notorious prison for Afghan terror suspects?

Yes, intentional. Generals and our President have tried to apologize, and have tried to mollify, by claiming the burning was a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake: the burning was intentional. Terror suspects, to communicate with each other, had written notes in the Qurans, according to early accounts. They had also used them to promulgate jihadist messages. In a war like this, the Qurans had to be destroyed.

American soldiers burning the Qurans may or may not have known that they shouldn't broadcast what they were doing, but it's hard to conceal burning sacks of Qurans, when you have Afghans working with you.

Two Americans, working in the inner sanctum of the Interior Ministry, advisors to the Afghan security forces at the highest level, were shot dead by Afghans, probably incensed by the burning Qurans. Other Americans, more exposed, have also been killed. If Americans can be shot behind Interior's layers of security, there is nowhere they can be safe if Afghans are present. So, Americans are confined to their bases. There are riots, protests and killings all over Afghanistan.

So, what does that tell us but: we don't belong there. We never did. The Soviets discovered the same thing in the 1980's, helped, ironically, by our allies, the mujahedeen, who have transmogrified into our enemies: the Taliban.

Afghanistan was the end of the Soviet Empire; it could well be the end of the American Empire, as well. Can we withdraw gracefully, the way the British did after their second try in 1880, or will we be driven out like the Soviets?

Afghan President's Brother

“If they let Ahmed Wali (Karzai) stay in power, it means they are not serious about governance,” said a diplomat in Kabul. [New York Times: 3/31/10]

The Afghan President's brother reportedly controls almost everything in Kandahar, the southern Afghan province that the US is poised to "clear and hold" with a large influx of troops: US, NATO and Afghan.

Ahmed Wali is the most important businessman in the area, and he has used his connection to the President well. He seizes land the Americans want to use--so they have to lease it from him; he controls armed groups that patrol the city; he pays off the Taliban to protect his lands and shipments. While the Taliban controls behind the scenes, Ahmed Wali insures that his businesses flourish. He stole the election in Kandahar for his brother. He even, reportedly, launders drug money for the Taliban, as well as for himself.

The greatest reason for the Afghan government's inability to combat the Taliban is that Afghans perceive it as irretrievably corrupt, reportedly one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Ahmed Wali is Exhibit A.

As American troops assemble to drive the Taliban out of Kandahar, many independent advisors, from NGO's to NATO, probably including US diplomats, have urged that Ahmed Wali must go--if the US is serious about "holding," i.e. bringing in an Afghan government that wins the loyalty of the people.

But Ahmed Wali is the President's brother. He also, reportedly, has been useful to the CIA. He's one of those manipulators of power, who are able to land on their feet, regardless of who holds the whip. Ahmed Wali is going to stay.

Earlier, after the assault on Marjah, in Helmand province, McClatchy reported that the "returning" Afghan government (the governor had hardly ever set foot in Marjah) was universally despised and distrusted as corrupt.

So, this is a pattern. The US is not "serious about governance."

What does this say about the vaunted "counter-insurgency" strategy, which supposedly aims to put effective government in place to counter the insurgency, to attract Afghans' loyalty?

Despite Obama's hurried, secret visit to Karzai, when he reportedly lectured Karzai on getting rid of corruption, that's not going to happen.

The US can win all the battles--while accidentally killing more civilians--but this is no way to beat an insurgency. All we are doing is spending lives (Afghan and American) and money ($1 million per soldier/marine per year), boosting the earnings of defense contractors and making some parts of Afghanistan safe--for Chinese investment--temporarily.

The US lost Vietnam, despite winning all the battles, because its client government was hopeless: the Vietminh/Vietcong offered a better alternative.

Karzai thumbs his nose at the US, even inviting Iran's Ahmadinejad to dinner to spite us.

Afghanistan is "déjà-vue all over again." The only question is: when will the empire collapse?