Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Kabul under Curfew after Anti-US, anti-Karzai Riots
14 Dead, over 100 Wounded
50 Killed in US Airstrike


"We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore, to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq."
- George W. Bush


The Bush administration is in the midst of "imperial overstretch" on a grand scale. Taking on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, convincing Pakistan to change its policies, and reconstructing Afghanistan would have been a tough enough job. It might not have been possible even with the investment of enormous resources and personnel. Afghanistan is large and rugged and desperately poor. Bad characters are still hiding out in the region, who have proved that they can reach into the United States and hit the Pentagon itself.

Instead of doing the job, Bush ran off to Iraq almost immediately. Even as our brave troops were being killed at Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan in spring of 2002, Centcom commander Tommy Franks was telling a visiting Senator Bob Graham that the US "was no longer engaged in a war in Afghanistan" or words to that effect, and that military and intelligence personnel were being deployed to Iraq. The US troops in Afghanistan would have been shocked and disturbed to discover that in the Centcom commander's mind, they were no longer his priority and no longer even at war! As for money, Iraq has hogged the lion's share. What has been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan is piddling.

Bush's Iraq imbroglio, or "Bush's Furnace," as history might well call his trillion-dollar purchase, has sucked up money and resources on a vast scale and left US personnel in Central and South Asia to struggle along on the cheap. Afghanistan defeated the British Empire in its heyday twice, and is not an enterprise that can be accomplished without significant resources. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Monday's riots in Kabul, in which altogether 14 died and over 100 were wounded and during which thousands thronged the streets chanting "Death to America", also produced violent attacks and gunfire throughout the city, with hotel windows being sprayed with machine gun fire. The protests were sparked by a traffic accident. But they have other roots.

The US military presence in Afghanistan has quietly been pumped up from 19,000 to 23,000 troops.

A fresh US airstrike in Helmand killed some 50 Afghans on Monday Over 400 Afghans have been killed by US bombing and military actions in only the past two weeks. While most of these are Pushtun nativist guerrillas (coded by the US as "Taliban"), some have demonstrably been innocent civilians. (Taliban are, properly speaking, mostly Afghan orphans and displaced youths who got their education in neo-Deobandi seminaries in Pakistan and were backed by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. It is not clear that those now fighting the US in southern Afghanistan are actually in the main Taliban in this technical sense.)

Whoever they are, the Pushtun guerrillas have been waging a very effective terror campaign in the countryside around Qandahar, and have launched a fierce series of spring offensives. They wounded 5 Canadian troops on Monday, something US mass media anchors somehow have trouble getting past their lips. (Another 5 had been wounded last week, and several Canadian and French troops have been killed, not to mention US troops.)

A recent US airstrike that killed 16 children, women and noncombatant men provoked an enormous outcry in Afghanistan, and sparked President Hamid Karzai to begin a presidential inquiry into it.

While most anti-US actions in Afghanistan come from the Pushtun ethnic group, these Kabul protests, which paralyzed the capital and resulted in the imposition of a curfew, heavily involved Tajiks. Kabul is a largely Tajik city, and the Tajiks mostly hated the Taliban with a passion, and many high officials in the Karzai government have been Tajik. So they haven't been as upset with the US invasion and presence as have been many Pushtuns, especially those Pushtuns who either supported the Taliban or just can't abide foreign troops in their country (who have moreover installed the Tajiks in power . . .) The demonstrators Monday carried posters of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Tajik leader of the Northern Alliance who had played a major role in expelling Soviet troops in the late 1980s and then fought the Taliban tenaciously before being assassinated shortly before September 11, 2001. Significant numbers of Tajiks are clearly now turning against the US, and that is a very bad sign indeed. Al-Hayat's Jamal Ismail in Islamabad suggests that some of the Tajik discontent derives from the way Karzai has eased out Northern Alliance Tajik leaders such as Marshal Muhammad Fahim and former cabinet minister Yunus Qanuni, reducing Tajik dominance of the government in the name of ethnic diversity (and of mitigating Pushtun anger over the imbalance). There have also been attempts to limit the Tajik presence in the new Afghan Army, which is some 60,000 strong (some sources say 80,000). The CIA factbook says that Pushtuns are 42 % of the population and Tajiks 27 %. Pushtuns have usually supplied the top rulers.

Despite Bush administration pledges to reconstruct the country, only six percent of Afghans have access to electricity. Less than 20 percent have access to clean water. Although the gross domestic product has grown by 80 percent since the nadir of 2001, and may be $7 billion next year, most of that increase comes from the drug trade or from foreign assistance. (Some of the increase also comes from the end of a decade-long drought in the late 90s and early 00s, which had reduced the country's arable land by 50 percent. The coming of the rains again is good luck but nothing to do with policy). About half the economy of Afghanistan is generated by the poppy crop, which becomes opium and then heroin in Europe. Afghanistan produces 87 percent of the world's opium and heroin, and no other country comes close in its dedication of agricultural land to drug production (over 200,000 hectares).

The government lives on international welfare. Some 92 percent of Afghan government expenditures come from foreign assistance. The Afghan government is worse at collecting taxes than fourth world countries in subsaharan Africa. Unemployment remains at 35 percent. Unemployment is estimated to have been 25 percent in the US during the Great Depression.

The great danger is renewed Muslim radicalism and the reemergence of al-Qaeda, combined with a narco-terrorism that could make Colombia's FARC look like minor players.

3 Comments:

At 12:05 AM, Blogger Cartledge said...

This is more curiosity than comment. Putting aside the fact that Afghanistan did not unify in any sense before the 1700s, I will refer loosely to the region known by that name.
This is a difficult, if not impossible region to control. The Brits and thr Russians failed in modern times.
Alexander was said to have conquered the region, but surely he moved through far too quickly to do any more than cause havoc. Darius held sway there, but surely was more engaged with his western adventures. Ghengis Khan, of all the ‘invaders’ seems to have made a strong impact on the region.
The question is; has any outside force really ‘controlled’ the whole region for any length of time? Surely there is a very strong lesson in the history of that area.
Oh, and thank you for your informative site.

 
At 2:58 AM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dear Professor Cole

I note that the New York Times is reporting today the deployment of extra troops to Western Iraq from the reserve in Kuwait. The headcount in Iraq is open to this kind of slight of hand.

This at the same time as the commanding general in Afghanistan is complaining bitterly about the restrictions placed on the missions of national contingents under his command by their national parliaments.

Helena Cobban comments on a piece by Ahmed Rashid in Todays Daily Telegraph.

It is instructive to note the interference of India, Pakistan and Iran in Afghanistan as they jockey for position in the area when the US withdraws.

The reluctance of national parliaments in the EU to commit their troops to Afghanistan is understandable. If the US don't have enough troops in the area to do much more than provide security in Kabul and mount heliborne raids, where is the logic of replacing US manpower with European manpower?

Afghanistan defeated the many divisions the Russians deployed so deploying a brigade or two is just asking for trouble.

On the other hand allowing uncontrolled cultivation of poppies and the setting up of supply chains to the streets of European cities needs to be stopped, before any more cheap heroin hits the streets.

So I suspect the key questions we need to be asking are

What is the mission in Afghanistan?

How many troops are needed to achieve it?

Can this number of troops be made available (unfettered by orders not to shoot anybody, even if they deserve it) , and from what source?

This might uncover the need to reestablish the draft in the US, before it gets finessed past the November elections

How much money is needed to stabilise the situation and can it be made available to people who can actually use it for the purpose for which it is intended?

A half hearted cosmetic deployment of a beefed up contingent to guard the airport and provide a bodyguard for President Karzai achieves nothing other than lay the seeds of another ten years of tragedy.

 
At 4:51 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Juan,
I don't see why you are so supportive of the Afghan war/occupation. When the US bombed and occupied Afghanistan, it was already a poor and weak country devastated by years of wars. They were not in need of another one. Bombing the hell out of Afghanistan was only a vengeful act after 9/11. Terrorists and underground movements can't be fought using traditional war methods, which only harmed civilians. The actual situation is the best proof of that. What is the result ? hundreds of prisonners in the shameful prison of Guantanamo, who can't be brought to trial because for the most part they are just innocents or fighters resisting the US invasion and because out of despair in front of this situation the US tortured them. What was needed and justified were traditional intelligence work, not the down pouring of hundreds tons bombs. Inebriated by her so-called unmatched military power, the US entered in another war then, the Iraq war. Treating its allies like shit, she bullied all those who refused to go along with this new folly and these new war crimes, to a such a point that in order to calm those bushists, they accepted to provide troops for Afghanistan instead, especially the Germans (who had never sent any troops out of their country since WWII), the French and the Canadians).
During the early bombings of Afghanistan, I remember seeing a TV footage showing an interview with a former Russian general who had commanded in Afghanistan. He was certain that no other country/army could ever successfully occupy Afghanistan. He laughed out at the US naivety and said he wished them good luck, both because of the mountainous topography and because of the complicated political situation reigning between the different warlords. Clearly, the former USSR included many center Asiatic Republics and had much more experience with the mindset of people living in Central Asia. If with all their experience Russia failed, how could the US succeed ?
The US has become a dangerous preposterous and irresponsible ally who is drawing us, the EU countries, in military adventures which are destabilizing the whole world. But look, how powerless the US is at the same time : just invading two weak countries, both already devastated by numerous wars, is enough to overstretch her powerfull military. The US is a dangerous country for all the others, allies or not, because her economic power is rooted in the militaro-industrial complexe. We in the EU don't share your values anymore. We have already gone through colonization and are not ready to do it again, to invade other countries out of greed and we don't think our values should be imposed to the rest of the world. There are some values we are proud of, but if they are that good, they will spread to the rest of the world by themselves, not by mere military power.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home