At Large
The Old Afghan Waltz
The “new” Obama policy has been a loser for 150 years.
“Getting in line” and “getting with the program” are old expressions in the Pentagon. The Navy version is to be “on board.” You’ve got to get in line or be on board if you expect to “get ahead” at the good old DoD. In regard to war fighting in Afghanistan, the current program with which everyone is supposed to get in line is that paying off the Taliban with a starting offer of $500 million in an international program (mostly U.S. taxpayer derived) will turn the tide of their jihad.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because a similar program was suggested by President Hamid Karzai in September 2008. And this recommendation had followed the expulsion months before in 2007 of the acting head of the EU mission to Kabul, the Irishman, Michael Semple, and the British UN official, Mervin Patterson.
Both of these men had traveled in Taliban areas speaking with local tribal leaders about what it would take to win over the insurgents. Unfortunately they did not follow the strict guidelines of whom to talk to and what to talk about set down by the governor of Helmand Province. Obviously they were “out of line” and soon they were out of the country. But they had started the ball rolling in regard to compensation and reconstruction and had paid the price of getting out front of the politics.
Actually the commander of British forces in Helmand, Brigadier Andrew Mackay, had instructed his men in a classified brief along the same lines in October 2007 to the effect that: “Great Britain’s long association with Afghanistan has shown that we got ourselves into this country by forming tribal alliances. Equally we will get ourselves out, over time, by forming tribal alliances that support the government of Afghanistan.”
Later in December of 2007 London newspapers carried an important quote from a purposely anonymous Foreign Office official: “We are going to have to sit down and do business with people whom we don’t like, and who don’t like us,” he was reported as saying. General Stanley McChrystal, who was so openly pessimistic last summer, appears now to have accepted this over two-year-old advice.
The U.S. commander now strikes a more optimistic tone in support of the White House’s “new” plan to participate in the multi-hundred million dollar cash and civil integration program aimed at buying or renting the acquiescence of various Taliban fighting groups in an effort to “do business with these people whom we may not like…” Isn’t this just part of the old Army game? SecDef gets his marching orders from the President, and Gates passes the word to McChrystal who all of a sudden feels better about our military chances against the Taliban. The general accomplishes this even though his original bottom line request for more troops was halved after months of Administration dithering.
It might even work, especially with a few of the already warmed up Taliban leaders such as the former prime minister, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The latter has known American intelligence operators and the support they can offer since his days as a mujahadin leader against the Soviets. The problem is that tough old Hekmatyar hates his fellow Pushtun, Hamid Karzai, and certainly doesn’t want to be a part of any success that might accrue to the newly “reelected” Afghan president. But then everything in Afghanistan is possible — and impossible.
One of the major issues in buying off the Taliban is the reaction of the fighters from the non-Pushtun north — those Tajiks, Hazaris, Uzbeks and other smaller groupings that formed the Northern Alliance. What do they get out of this new payday? They have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of easily agreeing to this giveaway to the same people they have been counted on to kill during the past eight-plus years. Nonetheless, they too have been urged to “get with the new program.” Not as easily persuaded as the career-committed officers of the Pentagon, the Northern leaders have been promised they also would participate in any new treasure hunt.
The promises of big money aside, the indications are that none of this distribution of largesse will work unless the pressure is increased on the Taliban. In recognition of this need, an unprecedented winter campaign has been launched against the Taliban sanctuary of Marjah in central Helmand. Estimates of over 1,000 insurgents are said to be holed-up in their winter quarters in this drug transport hub. Thousands of U.S. Marines, accompanied by small detachments of the Afghan Army, along with several crack British Guards regiments, are attacking in a combined movement to trap the Taliban forces.
Of course the Taliban leadership knows exactly what this strategy portends. If they follow past historical trends — going back to the days of British India — they’ll put up a stiff fight, lengthen out financial negotiations, and in the end take the money and await future political developments. This has been the pattern of the Pushtun for 150 years and there is no reason for them to change.
So goes the big “new” strategy of the Obama administration for which the Pentagon is now lining up. As a three-tour Airborne colonel said just last week, “And what would you suggest?” Hmmm!
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/12/the-old-afghan-waltz
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ballard| 2.12.10 @ 7:41AM
Buy support? Yeah right. When will our lame brain leadership, military and civilian, realize this fool's adventure in Afghanistan is a waste. They hate us. Loyalty is to family and tribe, not any pie in sky, jam tomorrow election process or promise of democracy. We cannot change a culture with bribes. Quit spending taxpayers money and sacrificing lives for an exercise in futility.
Copyleft| 2.12.10 @ 8:11AM
Agreed. Obama's decision to continue Bush's failed policies in these areas are one more reason why the label "leftist" really doesn't apply to him.
Troll Watch| 2.12.10 @ 9:35AM
President Obama said what he was going to do and the left supported him. This was the good war for the Democratic Party. It was really just part of their anti-Bush rhetoric. Ralph Nader was available and I really believe he would have got us out of Afghanistan but the left went with their heart. The left is a big part of the problem. Ralph Nader or somebody like him will be available again in 2012. He is the left's best bet. I hope they stick to their guns so to speak.
Warrior | 2.12.10 @ 11:33AM
You are correct. He's not a traditional leftist, he's gone further left than that. He's gone so far that maybe he should be Obama 359 (can't quite get straight enough to make it all the way to 360 even with all his spinning).
Alan Brooks| 2.13.10 @ 5:02PM
It was the Soviets who started this war, by invading Ashcanistan in '79. But now that the Soviet Union is dissolved the Russians can't be held accountable.
How convenient.
LiveFreeOrDie| 2.14.10 @ 6:12PM
"Obama's decision to continue Bush's failed policies in these areas are one more reason why the label "leftist" really doesn't apply to him."
Can I nominate this quote for some kind of prize? Most ignorant comment of the month or something like that. Give me a break you ridiculous buffoon!
JimH| 2.12.10 @ 8:24AM
Always remember, the bigger your stick the smaller the carrot has to be.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.12.10 @ 9:30AM
" ... In regard to war fighting in Afghanistan, the
current program with which everyone is supposed to get in line is that paying off the Taliban with a starting offer of $500 million in an international program (mostly U.S. taxpayer derived) will turn the tide of their jihad...."
What - surreal realpolitik logic - is this?
What would fallen US service personnel get out
of this prospective arrangement - in memorial?
Another black wall in DC?
To think that a street organizer as Resident of
The Peoples White House - and as 'commander'
in grief - entertains a policy of dealing with
the anti-freedom murderous dregs of Afghanistan is ipso facto monstrous! But then again 'closet babies' fates were - equally monstrously - entertained by the this mortal ones' moral sensitivities!
All hail our conquering - Nero!
Burn baby - burn! You unfortunate non-Americans! That's life - that's what singers and guitar strumming people say.
BTW, Where are the voices of American feminists as to the predictably inexorable renewed chatteling of Afghanistan-ese women - to the tender mercies of Taliban barbarians - via a fruition per the military 'wisdom' of cadet BHOs' politically-reined military?
Dumb, phony, baloney, cows!
Of a kind womens' solidarity blather!
Only, behind US military lines!
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 11:53AM
The American Spectator : The Old Afghan Waltz | Afghanistan Today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim Woodward| 2.12.10 @ 12:11PM
Just a thought. If history is a guide, the last army to unify Afghanistan in any meaningful way was Alexanders c.300B.C or so.
Alan Brooks| 2.13.10 @ 7:33PM
The last army to DISunify Ashcanistan was the Red Army. That matters yet as the Soviets whelped the jihadists of 9-11:
the Soviets had to be driven out-- what else could be done?
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 1:32PM
Latest African American Art Work Auctions | The African Art Store links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 2:11PM
The American Spectator : The Old Afghan Waltz | afghanistan News Station links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thom| 2.12.10 @ 5:19PM
Let’s see. $500,000,000 in the first year will double the per capita GDP of 625,000 Afghans to a little better than Haiti or about $1600.00 per person. Or it will buy an AK47, 2000 rounds of ammo, grenades, clothing, web gear for 500,000 Taliban fighters. Since there aren’t even remotely that many Taliban it stands to reason that a force of say 50,000 fighters might be pretty well armed after all is said and done. Will they take the money, sure.
After we declare victory as we did in Southeast Asia over 35 years ago and leave, the current $800.00 per capita income Afghan will be faced with the best equipped Taliban force imaginable and we will have armed them in one way or the other.
Such “protection schemes or bribes” only work when the money keeps flowing and such extortion schemes always end up demanding more and more. The Taliban already gets millions from their supporters around the world so this is a win-win situation for them but Afghanistan will fall just as surely as if we simply pulled up and left now. You either kill these people in larger numbers now or watch them return Afghanistan to a jihadist training camp in a few short years from now. These people aren’t the MOB that can be bought off or played against one another with a few dollars. They have a larger purpose for which far too many simply don’t want to accept.
streetfighter| 2.13.10 @ 1:34PM
Very well said Thom. I agree completely.
Al Adab| 2.12.10 @ 6:19PM
Seems there may be a reason why central asia was never controlled by Alexander, The Persians, The Chinese or others. Sogdiana, Ferghana oh yeah prime real estate.
Liquidate the Talib and the other bandit organizations and leave the nationals to their own devices. Nation building should have disappeared with Wilson in 1919.
Tom MacKay| 2.12.10 @ 7:17PM
In plain words, we are not of their religion so we must pay for protection. Obama, when this country was young nations paid a bribe to the pirates in Tripoli. The U.S. sent the marines.
For us or any nation to pay this bribe would be an insult to their country and all the veterans that served there. If we pay that bribe then we can truely say, they died in vain.
sariyan| 2.13.10 @ 5:09AM
I don't think that this is for weddings. I think you are talking about crocheting, perhaps try crafts section.
UpChuck.Liberals| 2.13.10 @ 12:52PM
Getting this guy and others to talk is easy, take them bungie jumping, in a chopper. Real long bungie, then start high and keep going down until he either talks or goes splat. Torture, yep. Do I give a damn, nope.
Pingback| 2.13.10 @ 4:02PM
Santa Cruz County Investors Think Local – Santa Cruz News | Santa Cruz County CA Real links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Leeonious| 2.13.10 @ 6:25PM
War is hell.
Level the GD place.
As Barry Goldwater repeated decades later when asked what he would have done to N. Vietnam had he beat LBJ, "BOMB THEM BACK TO THE STONE AGE". Realistically the civilians arer quite practiced at getting the hell out of the way. Harsh but tre. Instead we enabled these animals time to IED and INTIMIDATE the shitski out of the people in order to not OFFEND ANYBODY..
500 million in Bribe money would go a helluva lot further helping the tribal populace rebuild from primitive infrastructural MUDHUTS to a viable social architecture wouldn't one think??? Bucketload better than their HEROIN trafficking WARLORDS would ever provide.
GD does not a single politician learn a thing from history? Russia wasn't in possession of the awesome firepower we ca lay o these medieval MOFOS. Remember the poor bastards crawling out of the trenches in IRAQ following the month long B-52 CARPET BOMBING.
Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 10:50AM
What is lost in all this discussion whether here or at DOD is that we're dealing with people stuck in an 8th or 9th Century mindset who possess 20th Century weapons. Maybe a study of how less than 150,000 Brits held onto India for about 200 years would be useful. Maybe there are lessons to be learned. They dealt with hundreds of languages and a potload of tribal and ethnic divisions by means of alliances and a divide and conquer strategy.
Charles Stevens| 2.14.10 @ 5:24PM
Not only is Obama's policy a loser for the reasons mentioned in the essay, but in addition with its announcement he simultaneously decreed its ending in 2011. This will have the following effects by the end of next year:
1) the Taliban can simply bide their time until then
2) Afghanistan to be in worse shape than now
3) our pullout will look hasty and confused a la Vietnam
4) Obama will have the perfect fait accompli to throw to the public as to why he's pulling out.
Criticism is easy, but solutions are harder to come by... here's my two cents:
Divide Afghanistan into two geopolitical entities, one for the Northern Alliance tribes, and one for the southern Pushtuns & etc. Don't call them "northern" or "southern" Afghanistan, since this would only inflame later attempts to reunite them. Instead, call the northern country Afghanistan, and call the southern one 'Pushtunistan' or some such. Throw most of our support to the north, and assist them in creating their own army, economy, government (including Kabul), and lines of defense as fast as possible. Make the southern country a problematic search & destroy zone, with perhaps additional use of clear & hold for one major population area. The purpose here is simply to allow time for the northern country to be viable.
This approach is based on history, since the Northern Alliance was decently unified and relatively successful in holding out against both the Russians and the Taliban (until Massoud was assassinated). We have a chance for success with the north, but attempting to prop up the whole south as well, particularly when two-faced Pakistan is such a basket-case safe haven, is impossible.
Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.12.11 @ 11:11PM
is good