Civil war fear as Afghan city falls to warlord

SOURCE

I predict nothing . . . but knowing that since the days of "Sikander" (Alexander the Great), the Afghans have been respecters of no man or government, nor their Armies.

For those with the time, on-line encyclopaedias to which one might subscribe can give a detailed history of that Nation of Sorrows--but i warn you that you will become tediously depressed at the constant bloodshed, the constant tribal chaos.

The current unpleasantness began in 1963--despite what one might assume from wathcing the evening news on the teevees. My aunt was an employee of the government working in Kabul in 1960-1, when the US gave the western-supported government an international airport. What she told me of living in Kabul always fascinated me. I've read sufficient of their history to be depressed at the mere mention of that blighted state's name.

CIVIL WAR FEAR
for a great read and outstanding analysis of that wonderful but somewhat troublesome part of our world, i recommend karl meyer's book THE DUST OF EMPIRE . i think he has done an outstanding job in helping me understand even better the near impossibility of conquering that part of the world - it's been tried many times before ... in vain and at great loss of life. how some western nations could slide into that morass i cannot understand. surely enough historians, geographers, travel-writers and yes, even military strategists and experienced soldiers have pointed out the dangers of becoming engaged in that part of the world. there are probably more people in the world that cannot read, than i ever imagined. ... not a nice thought at easter ! ... hbg p.s. our local public library purchased the book shortly after publication, and luckily i was first on the list

Meyer is good. I also like Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game, and Foreign Devils on the Silk Road.

Sigh -

Hamburger
Hamburger, an excellent book recommendation.

Before I moved from California to New Mexico in 2002, I gave away over 1,000 books, yet I still packed and brought 40 boxes of books (the vast majority non-fiction) with me to my new home.

You can imagine my frustration with president George W. Bush's life-long non-reading habit. Whether its because of dyslexia, lack of curiosity or laziness, it has tragically limited his knowledge of the world.

You may want to read my thoughts on the matter:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22501&highlight=&sid=8a489ba3dd190fa769bdd8f4c49d655d

BBB

bbb : that president bush is not a book-worm was probably well known; but what about all the other people in important government positions ? and tony blair, too ? i would have thought that he had a better grasp of conditions in the middle-east and surrounding areas. perhaps these people knew what the situation was only too well, but simply refused to acknowledge it ? misplaced pride ? hbg

Setanta: there are no "Afghans"

True, there are Pashtuns, etc....

Certainly, and my point is that the West has seemed never to have understood that. Currently, the troubles arise among the Uzbeks, and as they have resort to what McArthur disingenuously referred to as a "privileged sanctuary," that group in particular can be a source of endless strife.

It ought to be noted, and likely is ignored in Washington, London, Canberra, etc., that the deep divisions within both Iraq and Afghanistan mitigate against national unity government. For as long as the primary allegiance (and often the only allegiance) of the individual is the tribal leader or war lord, the process of political negotiation will never be more than an adversarial jockeying for position. Karzi (sp?) is simply and American puppet in the eyes of many, if not most of the people in Afghanistan--just another Shah Shuja . . .

Not sure that Iraq is at warlord stage, Set?????

I know there are clans, and religious divisions - but surely it is not in the same situation as Afghanistan?

Well, in speaking about Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are artificial constructs rather than nations, the difference between a tribal leader and a war lord is basically armament and ambition. The Taliban break the tribal mode, although Pathan, or Pushtun if you will (the majority ethnic source of the "Afghans," they have also been variously referred to as Pashtoon and Pashto, as well as the two most recently familiar terms i've already named), their focus was a Mao-like devotion to revolution, although theirs of course was as religious reactionaries, rather than dialectic materialists. At the end of the Russo-Afghan war, in about 1990 or -91, the Taliban acquired a good deal of the heavy equipment (armored vehicles and self-propelled artillery) which the Russians had given to their puppet regime. They then promptly acted as any war lord would--they drove on Kabul and asserted their authority. The Uzbek minority (which i believe is the largest minority) in the northeast can and have for more than a century, depended upon their ethnic cousins in what was the Russian Imperial Province, then Soviet Socialist Republic of, and now is just simply Uzbekistan. They can find sanctuary there, do some recruiting, and perhaps get some material aid, although slim. They had some armor and some small field artillery--but just sufficient to defend the narrow strip of the country into which they had retreated. They were in no position to challenge the armored might of the Taliban in the plains and hills "below" Mazar-i-Sharif. U.S. military might was thrown in on the side of the "Northern Alliance" (nice euphemism, it lets us continue to treat ethnic and tribal divisions as "invisible")--thus, we immediately gave the impression of "taking sides" in the old vendettas of tribe against tribe. The reference to Shah Shuja is to a British puppet, installed in power in Herat in 1837, and meant to supplant Dost Mohammed. Dost had a long and troubled career as on-again, off-again "Shah" of Afghanistan in the middle 19th century. Tribal leaders in the mountains, nowadays known as war lords, paid just as much respect to the throne as the throne was able to force upon them. That situation is not likely to change, and tribal leaders there today are justifiably suspicious of a "national" government propped up the the Americans and Europeans--after all, we are out to get them, or at least the object would be to put them out of the war lord business.

I don't suggest Iraq and Afghanistan are identical--in fact, Afghanistan's terrain exacerbates the problem of disarming a war lords "militia," while the numerous built-up areas of Iraq create a different kind of nightmare, with millions of Iraqis daily in the line of fire. However, it would be about as natural for the Kurds, the Arab Sunnis, and the Shi'ites to unite in brotherhood to form a stable democracy, as for the tribes of Afghanistan to do the same.

When Dost Mohammed sat uneasy thrones one hundred and fifty years ago, that "nation" was likely more chaotic and fragmented than today. But in the 1840's, the destruction of an English army was not a signal for the European world to project great military power into the area--and foreign ministers were formerly less in the grip of partisanship in pursuing their colonial ends. I just cringe at the vision of a nation such as mine lead to the killing fields with messianic vision and lip-service to righteous fervor. Those jokers really have no clue.

In centuries gone by but recent, any fighting between the three separate Turkish provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul was put down as quickly and ruthlessly as the Turks could manage. In centuries gone by but recent, the chaos which has always characterized the doomed attempt to create a polity in Afghanistan did not threaten the west directly. But history is neither static nor cyclical--basic equations remain, but the the factors inserted into the equation change. And have the nations of the West given due consideration to meddling into the clan and tribal strife of western Asia?

No, instead, the United States bankrolls Hussein in attacking the evil Persians, and the CIA trains Osama to run agents and set a financial and field support network.

As you sow . . .

Odd how each new imperial power seems to follow, seemingly lemming like, into the same morasses, no?

Ah, well, i could adopt a cynical pose, and suggest that blindness is an historical constant, but it isn't. A lack of a clear-cut goal can lead to disaster, as much as willful disregard of realities. When the British tried to project power into the Hindu Kush (the "Killer of Hindus"), their gaze was focused on Persia and Russia, and "the great game." They had none of what is called "an exit strategy" these days, and likely, didn't consider that they would be obliged by so many tribesmen to abandon the country. They actually did fairly well militarily, despite some debacles (the complete destruction of Elphinstone's army--1841? -42?--is the most famous example), but they also had the good sense to recognize eventually, that they couldn't control the country, and that this likely meant the Russians couldn't either.

It now seems that as U.S. troops, and troops from many nations, prepared to invade Afghanistan, the "leadership" had their eyes elsewhere, too . . . somewhere much further west. It seems they've overlooked a few things.

Do the former imperial powers have a certain responsibility in their old colonies? Or should they totally leave their old colonies alone? Does France have a certain responsibility in the Maghreb for example? Or Britain in Afghanistan? Belgium in Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda?

Only some months ago, the Indonesian foreign minister criticized the Netherlands - which was in power in Indonesia for 350 years, until 1949 - because the Netherlands had criticized Indonesian human rights. 'What does the Netherlands know about human rights?' he said. 'In the late 40's of the 20th century alone, Dutch soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in the Indonesian independence war. And did they ever apologize for that? How do they DARE to criticize us?' Although he did have a point with that - for what I know the Netherlands never officially apologized for their crimes in this old colony - I do not think that old colonies can always say: 'don't interfere, you have done enough here', because I do think that the old imperial powers have a certain responsibility in their old colonies. Many conflicts have their roots in the old colonial policies (for example: the making of the borders, putting several nations in one state) and I think the old imperial powers should take responsibility and do something about it.

Without being the old, imperial oppressor of course.

I see two problems with such an analysis as it applies to Afghanistan, and in general. The Brits never successfully colonized that country. Even with someone whom they found distasteful, such as Dost Mohammed, they were eventually obliged by circumstance to acknowledge his position. There truly is no "former colonial power" when one speaks of Afghanistan.

Another problem i have with it is that it ignores, in the case of Britian and France, at the least, the formal and informal ties which these nations have maintained with their former colonies. The British Commonwealth is an obvioius refutation. The French have continued to maintain close relations with their former African colonies, in those cases in which there was not outright antipathy from the local governments toward them. They have been engaged economically--and militarily when it seemed necessary--with many of the nations of Africa, and are likely to continue that engagement. I am certain that in Chad, at the least, they have a great residue of good will. The Chadean army kicked the Libyans ass when those idiots attempted to invade, but they could not have done it without the prompt offer of French aid, which was as promptly delivered as promised.

That's true Setanta, but my point in that case is: should Britain and France maintain this sort of responsibility? A lot of people see this as a sort of way at least to maintain some of the old imperial wishes, to influence the politics and way of life in these countries which is wanted in the eyes of Britain and France. Same way, people blame the old colonies for internal conflicts and instability in their countries, and that Britain and France aren't doing enough. Do Britain and France in that case have to take even MORE responsibility, or is it better to leave these countries alone?