Five myths about the war in Afghanistan

[Robb]

Five myths about the war in Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year, and even officials supportive of the U.S. presence there acknowledge the challenges that remain. "People still need to understand there is some very hard fighting and very hard days ahead," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said during his trip to Afghanistan last week. But the conflict is not hopeless, nor it is eternal. If we want to develop realistic expectations about the war -- how it might unfold from here and when it could begin to wind down -- it would help to dispel some of the popular mythologies that have emerged about the Afghans, the enemy we're fighting and the U.S. commitment.

1. Afghans always hate and defeat their invaders.

The Afghans drove the British Empire out of their country in the 19th century and did the same to the Soviet Union in the 20th century. They do fight fiercely; many American troops who have been deployed both in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years have asserted that the Afghans are stronger natural fighters.

Yet, the people of Afghanistan do not despise foreigners. Despite downward trends in recent years, Afghans are far more accepting of an international presence in their country than are Iraqis, for example, who typically gave the U.S. presence approval ratings of 15 to 30 percent in the early years of the war in that country. Average U.S. favorability ratings in recent surveys in Afghanistan are around 50 percent, and according to polls from ABC, the BBC and the International Republican Institute, about two-thirds of Afghans recognize that they still need foreign help.

And before we mythologize the Afghan insurgency, it is worth remembering some history. In the 1980s, the United States, Saudi Arabia and others gave enormous financial and military assistance to the Afghan resistance movement that eventually forced the Soviets out. That group grew to about 250,000 in strength in the mid-1980s. But today, the Taliban and other resistance groups receive substantial help only from some elements in Pakistan -- and diminishing help at that -- and collectively, they number about 25,000 fighters....

Read More (Washington Post)....

Fair assessment on balance, even if I don't agree with some particulars.

[mmonk]

1. That articles reads as it were written by The Council On Foreign Relations.

[Robb]

3. And yet was co-authored by the president of Aid Afghanistan for Education.

That must be a surprise.

[EFerrari]

8. AAE is a project of USAID and its counterpart in Canada

"A bridging fund was provided by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency through BRAC Organization to cover April to July 2007. AAE has been recieving financial assistance from USAID through the Asia Foundation for its current programs."

http://www.aidafghanistan.net/donors.htm

[Robb]

11. "A project of USAID" is nonsense.

I might as well say it's a project of the UN Committee of New Canaan Connecticut.

[EFerrari]

19. How is is nonsense? These people were bankrolled by USAID.

[Robb]

21. They were also bankrolled by the UN Committee of New Canaan Connecticut.

It is however less fun to say so.

[EFerrari]

36. It would be interesting to see the books. n /t

[mmonk]

25. I don't know how that nullifies my comment.

Does this mean in your mind there are no connections or co-ordinated efforts between CFR, the Department of State, USAID, Aid Afghanistan for Education, ACBAR, the Department of Defense, commercial interests involved in the TAPI pipeline, Karzai, etc.? While we all can agree on the goals for Afghanistan for Education (which was barred from connections to the Ministry of Education under the Taliban) regarding education for Afghan women, I wouldn't dare to say that proves unbiased assessment nor doesn't bear any resemblance to pieces such as those written by people connected to CFR which are also part of USAID.

[Robb]

26. That's a big conspiracy net you've thrown there.

Sherjan, the co-author, was running underground schools for girls in Afghanistan two years before 9/11.

Implying she's a big oil shill is a touch shameless.

[mmonk]

27. You speak of a conspiracy theory I have not voiced.

There is the co-ordination. The links can be found all over the place. She did have to run underground schools for girls because, AS I STATED, the Taliban banned the organization from contact and connection from the Ministry of Education. There isn't any argument the Taliban did not favor education for girls. The fact all these organizations are coming together under co-ordinated effort is irrelevant to my observations on the piece.

[arcadian]

37. Conspiracy net?

You just don't like the fact that you're article has been called out as pro-war propaganda.

[Lerkfish]

4. good observation

it does, indeed.

[mmonk]

30. Thanks.

I get Foreign Affairs, their publication. I also know some of their "fellows" are connected to USAID and Afghanistan projects as well as being a think tank for the state department and politicians.

[NJmaverick]

41. and????

[mmonk]

66. And therefore, one person's fact is another person's propaganda.

[NJmaverick]

2. I hope everyone takes the time to read this well written factual article

it's important that opinions and positions be informed ones. Not only is this article refreshing in its reliance on facts, but it is written by people actually QUALIFIED to write about this subject.

[KG]

9. what facts?

it's an opinion piece, posted in the WP opinion section.

[NJmaverick]

13. The historical FACTS, the polling FACTS and various others

just because you don't like how the facts were interpreted doesn't give you a right to deny the facts.

[Robb]

14. It's an opinion piece.

Well-informed and on balance I agree with it, but it's still an opinion piece peppered with its own facts and little counterargument. Rather the point.

[NJmaverick]

16. Correct it was an opinion piece

what I think differentiates it is that it actually is a proper opinion piece that provides facts to support their opinions. Too often, especially from bloggers, you get belief or prejudice pieces posing as opinion pieces.

This is what I am referring to


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x18135

[KG]

15. i see, they are facts if they support your worldview.

got it. :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

17. No, I certainly don't work like you do

I don't discard facts that don't fit my world views (like you are doing on this thread).

[KG]

18. right. it's always the other guy that does that.

:eyes: too funny.

[NJmaverick]

33. Why are you deliberately ignoring your first post?

[arcadian]

38. It's propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda

propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda

[tabasco]

54. Repeating things over and over is a propaganda technique.

Is that all you got?

[Robb]

58. Zing

[EFerrari]

5. Geeze, Robb. Just the first section is enough to make your teeth hurt. lol

1. Afghans always hate and defeat their invaders.

The Afghans drove the British Empire out of their country in the 19th century and did the same to the Soviet Union in the 20th century. They do fight fiercely; many American troops who have been deployed both in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years have asserted that the Afghans are stronger natural fighters.

(Okay. Now here comes the pivot)

Yet, the people of Afghanistan do not despise foreigners.

(In fact the Afghans are known for being exceptionally hospitable to travelers and guests. But an invader is not a guest.)


Despite downward trends in recent years, Afghans are far more accepting of an international presence in their country than are Iraqis, for example, who typically gave the U.S. presence approval ratings of 15 to 30 percent in the early years of the war in that country. Average U.S. favorability ratings in recent surveys in Afghanistan are around 50 percent, and according to polls from ABC, the BBC and the International Republican Institute, about two-thirds of Afghans recognize that they still need foreign help.

(I'd like to see the data, especially if the IRI is in anyway involved. That's a right wing group that pushes corporate interests globally at any cost.)

And before we mythologize the Afghan insurgency, it is worth remembering some history. In the 1980s, the United States, Saudi Arabia and others gave enormous financial and military assistance to the Afghan resistance movement that eventually forced the Soviets out. That group grew to about 250,000 in strength in the mid-1980s. But today, the Taliban and other resistance groups receive substantial help only from some elements in Pakistan -- and diminishing help at that -- and collectively, they number about 25,000 fighters.

(This is a straw man. This bit only serves to pull the reaction, "we can't let some elements in Pakistan do more than we do", a way to distract from the fact that today we are dealing with the blowback of the last time our government thought messing with Afghanistan militarily was a good idea. This author is misremembering history or outright avoiding it.)

Finally, though U.S.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, today's international presence there does not amount to an invasion. Foreign forces are present at the invitation of the host government, which two-thirds of Afghans consider legitimate, if somewhat corrupt.

(This is a tautology. "Our puppet invited us there, so this wasn't an invasion" is the translation.)

* * *

#1 doesn't disprove that Afghans hate and defeat invaders. It tries to show that we are guests, not invadeers, which is patently false. I'm going to grab some coffee and put one foot on the floor before reading the rest so this "balance" doesn't spin me into a vortex. It's an interesting piece, though.

[KG]

6. replaces one mythology with another.

[EFerrari]

10. Looks like it. Brookings does a lot of framing for the State Department.

[Robb]

12. You are quick to condemn Brookings.

...Can you be so quick with Hassina Sherjan? Or did she miss a purity test question somewhere along the line? :eyes:

Edited to add: quick, go Google her. Surely she said something sometime we can throw her under the bus for.

[EFerrari]

20. I didn't throw her anywhere. I don't need to. Edit:

Just pointing out that both of these authors have a stake in the official line. And for that, this piece is very informative, seriously.

[Robb]

22. Sherjan's "stake" is in an Afghanistan where women aren't slaves.

Impugn her at risk of your own credibility.

[EFerrari]

23. Really? And yet RAWA was against the splurge.

Why you don't you read what the biggest real womans' group in Afghanistan says directly?

A troop surge can only magnify the crime against Afghanistan
If Barack Obama heralds an escalation of the war, he will betray his own message of hope and deepen my people's pain

By Malalai Joya

After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.

I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.

While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don't believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/11/30/a-troop-surge-can-only-magnify-the-crime-against-afghanistan.html

[Robb]

24. Oh, what big diversionary tactics you have.

All the better to derail the discussion, my dear.

You want to start a pissing match over which aid group does more for women? :rofl:

Absurd. You just don't like the message this time. Buck up and find an actual argument.

[EFerrari]

31. How is it a diversion to quote RAWA? How is that a derailment, either?

You were using this woman as some kind of evidence that the war on Afghanistan helps women. RAWA disagrees with you and my link speaks directly to your point AND to the purpose of having this lady co-author this apologia.

[Robb]

59. "Apologia?"

...And what exactly do you mean "having this lady co-author" it?

Your implications are all over the place. She is not a doormat/stooge/whatever you're implying, and it's absurd to suggest it.

You simply refuse the possibility someone like her, who knows what's going on in Afghanistan, might disagree with you.

You can slam half the authorship -- rightly -- so you ignore or minimize the significance of the other half... Tell me, what if she were the only name on the paper? With what methodology would you dismiss the opinion then?

I don't buy everything in the article. But the parts I don't buy, I'm listening to and reconsidering, because Sherjan's name is at the bottom. I'm no ideologue.

I know a lot about AfPak, have friends and former colleagues in the middle of things at the moment. But she's sat down with the fucking shura to help girls and women. She gets all the rope she wants.


Edited to remove the word "actually" from "knows what's going on in Afghanistan," because it suggests more than is appropriate.

[EFerrari]

61. People disagree with me all the time and I am frequently wrong.

That's not really a problem.

You know more about this lady than I do. But I question that she allowed her named to be hitched to O'Hanlon's. I question the funding of her NGO. And I question how much of this article she wrote when there is basically only 1 sentence in it about education.

To me, from my limited grasp of this situation, yes, it looks like she is being used.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

34. Who is Michael O'Hanlon?

Wiki entry:

Michael Edward O'Hanlon (born 1961) is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, specializing in defense and neoconservative foreign policy issues. He began his career as a budget analyst in the defense field.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Hanlon

Right Web entry:



last updated: May 20, 2007

* Brookings Institution: Senior Fellow
* Project for the New American Century: Letter Signatory

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/OHanlon_Michael

Source Watch entry:

Michael E. O'Hanlon is a "senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he specializes in U.S. defense strategy and budgeting, homeland security, Northeast Asian security, and humanitarian intervention. He is also adjunct professor at the public policy school of Columbia University, a visiting lecturer at Princeton University, and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations."<1>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_E._O%27Hanlon

(Good eye, mmonk)

[arcadian]

39. I don't care who she is.

The fact that you are promoting her is enough to tell me she is full shit.

[Robb]

57. Critical thinking skills working as well as ever.

:D

[mmonk]

28. Yes, the piece started off very badly and quite noticeably so.

And to give the impression Unocal spokes person and pipeline negotiator Karzai came from the people hurts the points the writer hoped to make.

[EFerrari]

35. Turns out one of the authoris is on the Council of Foreign Relations. O'Hanlon. n/t

[NJmaverick]

40. and????

[ShamelessHussy]

43. it's a wise practice to know the POV of any author - in this case a pro-war council

i always make it a point to emphasize that critical thinking technique to my students and children.

FYI

[NJmaverick]

44. I did some research on them and so nothing to indicate they are a "Pro-War Council"

how did you reach that conclusion?

[ShamelessHussy]

45. They are the most influential think-tank of pro-US imperial strategy since WWII

They see the world as a grand chess board, and think about how we can dominate it, including by use of force.

Here is a link to an excellent book on them and their history...

Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Brain-Trust-Council-Relations/dp/0595324266

[NJmaverick]

47. Can you give one example where they pushed for war?

[ShamelessHussy]

48. i just gave a whole book, but here is one from their site on why we MUST invade Iraq (2002)

Invasion the Only Realistic Option to Head Off the Threat from Iraq, Argues Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm

September 26, 2002
Council on Foreign Relations

New York, September 25, 2002 - To prevent the near certainty that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons, the United States has little choice but to invade Iraq, topple the regime, eradicate its weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild the country as a prosperous and stable society. So argues former NSC Persian Gulf Director and CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack in a new Council on Foreign Relations book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. This book is the most detailed and authoritative account yet on how and why this war must be fought.

Saddam’s propensity to miscalculate, his penchant for aggression, and his willingness to absorb horrific punishment will mean that the United States is likely to face a much worse conflict down the road, especially after Saddam has acquired nuclear weapons.

more...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/4869/invasion_the_only_realistic_option_to_head_off_the_threat_from_iraq_argues_kenneth_pollack_in_the_threatening_storm.html

and they have a long history of supporting our imperial war agenda.

[EFerrari]

49. Here's Greenwald on another OpEd from O'Hanlon in 2007

The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below)

Last Wednesday, I interviewed Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution regarding the trip he recently took to Iraq and the highly publicized Op-Ed in the New York Times about his trip, co-written with his Brookings colleague, Ken Pollack. The full transcript of the interview, which lasted roughly 50 minutes, can be read here.

O'Hanlon's answers, along with several other facts now known, demonstrate rather conclusively what a fraud this Op-Ed was, and even more so, the deceitfulness of the intense news coverage it generated. Most of the critical attention in the immediate aftermath of the media blitz focused on the misleading depiction of the pro-war Pollack and O'Hanlon as "critics of the administration." To his credit, O'Hanlon acknowledged (in my interview with him, though never in any of the media appearances he did) that many of the descriptions applied to him -- including Dick Cheney's claim that the Op-Ed was written by "critics of the war" -- were inaccurate:

First, I think that to an extent, at least, it's certainly fair to go over a person's record when that person themself is being held up as playing a certain role in the debate. So while I'm not entirely happy with some of the coverage I've received here and elsewhere, I agree with the basic premise: that if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment.

Indeed, as I documented previously and as he affirmed in the interview, O'Hanlon was, from the beginning, a boisterous supporter of the invasion of Iraq. While he debated what the optimal war strategy was, once it became clear exactly what strategy Bush would use, O'Hanlon believed -- and forcefully argued -- that George Bush was doing the right thing by invading Iraq:

As you rightly reported -- I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter.

He believed with virtual certainty that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and that that fact constituted the principal justification for the invasion. In February, 2003, O'Hanlon wrote -- in a column entitled "Time for War" -- that the "president was still convincing on his central point that the time for war is near" and decreed that "it is now time for multilateralists to support the president." Not a single one of the television interviews Pollack and O'Hanlon gave about their Op-Ed included any reference to the fact that they were both supporters of the war and of the Surge.

Throughout 2003 and into 2004, O'Hanlon supported not only the war, but also Bush and Rumsfeld's occupation strategy. And while he began to argue -- just as did Bill Kristol and his neoconservative comrades -- that improvements were needed in Iraq due to the need for more troops, there was never a point, and there still is none, where O'Hanlon argued for withdrawal of troops or a timetable for withdrawal (though in 2004, he argued for a decrease in troop numbers). Then, in 2005, he argued for troop increases. At the beginning of this year, O'Hanlon (and Pollack) supported George Bush's and Fred Kagan's Surge plan.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html

[EFerrari]

46. My training is in textual analysis.

Thousands of dollars to the UC Regents and I can spot a PNAC signer in four paragraphs.

lol

I've no interest in attacking the OP or the president's policies this morning although I disagree with them. This kind of piece interests me as just an artifact.

[timtom]

63. Does that mean Rhetoric - UC Berkeley?

[EFerrari]

67. LitCrit at the height of the theory wars of the early 90s.

:scared:

[NNN0LHI]

7. 15 to 30 percent of Americans would approve Attila the Hun if he got that black man out of their WH

What does that prove?

Don

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. The biggest myth is that it's a war against "terror".

What Obama has done has chosen sides in a civil war with many sides. He has chosen, like the soviets before him, to back the government in Kabul. Headed by a corrupt politician surrounded by warlords. Against whom, are arrayed not just "The Taliban" but other warlords and other insurgent groups.

The Soviets made the same mistake but we're smart enough, or bloodied enough, to face the facts of a lost "war" and got out.

Obama and Pentagon, stupidly cling to the notion that they can somehow, miraculously, maneuver something that they can call a "victory" out of this FUBAR of a conflict, and achieve "peace with honor" like Nixon did.

We lost. Get out. Get over it.

[arcadian]

42. Have you just taken it upon yourself to be an amplifier of US military adventurist propaganda?

You are quite the lay scholar when it comes to Afghanistan, but it seems you know very little. The fact that you're credentials are that you used to be against the Afghanistan war but now you are for it because of new information having been presented to you, speaks volumes. When did that transformation take place, it wasn't Janyuary 21, 2009 by any chance was it?

[Robb]

60. Careful, you might hurt my internet feelings.

"Lay scholar." I like it. Although it sadly doesn't mean what one would hope. :D

[Bigmack]

50. Let's just wait and see...

None of us seem to have any input in what's going to happen in Vietghanistan.... it's all just spinning from all sides.

Let's meet here two years from now. If it's a mess, one group of us gets to call the other assholes. Same the other way if it's all squared away.

If we have to parse the meaning of "mess" or the meaning of "squared away", let's pretend that "mess" means the Taliban are still fucking things up, and "squared away" means that the Taliban - or their descendants - aren't fucking things up.

[EFerrari]

51. Cool. And in the meantime, is it all right to ask why a NeoCon

is writing opinion pieces in the WaHo supporting Obama's Afghanistan policy? That's not spin. That's a pretty accurate description of the OpEd.

[Bigmack]

53. We also get to ...

count up the dead - American and Afghani - and add up the money spent there.

I know where I stand, but it doesn't seem to have any weight with the PTB.

[ShamelessHussy]

52. thats exactly what what we've been told for a decade

actually, that is always what we are told... just wait and see.

however, in this case, we have already seen a lot... so, to your point, now is a perfect time to chime in.

BTW: this is a place where folks gather to discuss current events, as well as historical... and it is ALL good.

:hi:

[frylock]

55. great job dissecting this crap, people..

knu

[EFerrari]

56. To be fair to Robb, he said in his OP that he didn't agree with the piece entirely.

Now I feel badly for not asking him to say more about what he agreed with and what he didn't agree with.

I'm glad he posted this piece because I never read the Waho and it helps to know what they're up to.


It's too bad these discussions have to get so mean.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. They forgot the biggest myth of all:

That the Mujahedin were "freedom fighters" defending their country from a Soviet invasion.

No, they were conservative hicks who were mad because the new Marxist government was going to ban the burqa and make their daughters go to school. The CIA began arming them in the summer of 1979 before the Soviets were invited in (yes, the Afghan government invited them in to help deal with the mujahedin).

Just think, if the CIA hadn't stuck its nose into that situation, Afghan women would be literate and unveiled, and Osama Bin Laden would be just another Saudi playboy.

[JCMach1]

64. But you forgot they are "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers..."

Or, at least said Saint Ronald Reagan (PBUH),,, :sarcasm:

[ConsAreLiars]

65. What a dumbass, biased, twisted deceptive piece of propaganda!

And anyone who is gullible or ignorant enough to believe any of it is just a sucker and a collaborator in the crimes being committed there.

First of all, the jackass equating of how Afghans regard foreigners who enter as guests with how the regard invading armies is ab out as stupidly nonsensical as the best of the Chimpy-Cheney BS about the brutal and unjust mass murders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although there is some basis for claiming that the leftist government chosen by the people of Afghanistan was, like leftist governments on other continents, only defeated because the US supported right-wing, fascist, monarchist or religious totalitarians and just purely and simply brutal and venal oppositions of any sort, that does not mean the Afghans will give up their right to self-determination and capitulate because the invaders are better armed and more brutal than the Brits or Greeks or Mongols.

The US has driven millions into refugee camps, killed millions more in its proxy war, driven millions more into internal camps, and yet they still fight.

Sometimes, no matter how great the evil committed by an occupying power, the will and capacity to resist will not be extinguished.