Is Afghanistan really impossible to conquer?

[Hassan_Ishtiaq]

Both Maurya and Mughals kept Afghanistan under their direct control for more than 100 years each. Sikhs and the British controlled Afghanistan indirectly.

You must have pulled this "fact" out of your rear end.

And the funny thing is (which you didn't care mention), the Afghan defeated the British in all three wars, meanwhile the Sikhs capitulated to the very British and offered very little resistance.

The Afghans have only one weakness which is that when they aren't fighting a foreigner they are fighting amongst themselves. That is what led to the downfall of the Durrani Empire.

Considerable Part of afghanistan was controlled directly especially Kyber paktunawa (afghans call it pashtunistan) thanks to the valiant efforts of the Great Commander Hari Singh Nalwa.Today pakistan has that part thanks to hari singh nalwa and ranjit singh ji.It is also said that Afghans wear salwar khameez due to fearsome wrath of hari singh nalwa's sikh troops till today.(source:wali of Swat)

British controlled afghanistan somewhat by proxy,though not fully.

"Considerable part" , you didn't even control 25% of Afghanistan.

Sikh "empire" (more like kingdom):

Afghan Empire:

 

[scorpionx]

And thats the crux of it

The people are hardy and aggressive and do not like foreign occupiers
The Land is harsh and the terrain difficult
Historically there has not really been anything in Afghanistan worth occupying, Afghanistan has not really been a destination, more a stop on the way
Whilst im sure there were riches to obtain, other places were better e.g Persia, India

In combination, many people tried to occupy Afghanistan but the combination of the above made it pointless

Afghanistan's importance does not lay beneath it's barren, deserted rocky expanses. Rather it's geographical position raised it's strategic importance when Central Asia became the playing arena for the great game in eighteenth century. That is why the Russians,the British and the Persians always wanted a regime of their own interest in Kabul and still this situation has remained quite unchanged.

 

[livingdead]

The Mughals exercised very limited control of Afghanistan and the adjoining parts of KP as well.
Afghanic people of Mauryan times were quite different and alot nicer thanks to buddhism and even when the Mauryas were quite strong areas of it had started falling to the western side.
The british were annhilated trying to invade Afghanistan. Sikhs never made it to the mainland ,neither had any influence over it although they did exploit Pakhtun rivalries

current afganistan is possible the weakest in history.. even neighbouring pakistan can rule afganistan... but not everybody want to pay the price because running afganistan is a false economy (unless you are into drugs).
Keeping druglords on your side and giving them their own fiefdom to rule so that they will keep their mouth shut is an effective way to rule afganistan.

 

[EyanKhan]

current afganistan is possible the weakest in history.. even neighbouring pakistan can rule afganistan... but not everybody want to pay the price because running afganistan is a false economy (unless you are into drugs).
Keeping druglords on your side and giving them their own fiefdom to rule so that they will keep their mouth shut is an effective way to rule afganistan.

there is another side to it , which has been seen all through out history is that currently they are fighting within themselves , if Pakistan or any other country tries to go there you simply give them a common enemy and then the middle man will join the party not by the order of some druglord but simply by "Ghairat"(loose term for manhood/bravery) .
The druglords themselves are had to manage as everyone considers himself to be a warlord and an overlord ,simply they don't like being ruled over.
Afghanistan though extremely hard can be indeed conquered but keeping it under control is just a whole other story.
Keeping all this in mind controlling them from a side/distance seems like a better option. Quite simply don't give the impression that they are being ruled so the "Ghairat" card doesn't come into play.

 

[joekrish]

The Answer is a question
Why does anybody want to rule Afghanistan?

 

[F117]

The Answer is a question
Why does anybody want to rule Afghanistan?

To prevent the enemy from ruling it, and also to keep it as a buffer state (Russia-British India). That has been the unfortunate history of Afghanistan.

 

[Saiful Islam]

Both Maurya and Mughals kept Afghanistan under their direct control for more than 100 years each. Sikhs and the British controlled Afghanistan indirectly.

Try to control the Afghans today, Russians failed, America have failed. Can't these super powers handle simple mountain men? And don't give me that bakwaas about '4 Sikhs VS 40,000 Afghans' lol.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Try to control the Afghans today, Russians failed, America have failed. Can't these super powers handle simple mountain men? And don't give me that bakwaas about '4 Sikhs VS 40,000 Afghans' lol.

Afghanistan is not worth conquering; that is what it is all about.

 

[LordTyrannus]

Try to control the Afghans today, Russians failed, America have failed. Can't these super powers handle simple mountain men? And don't give me that bakwaas about '4 Sikhs VS 40,000 Afghans' lol.

Simple Mountain men with multimillion dollar STINGERS.

 

[Saiful Islam]

Afghanistan is not worth conquering; that is what it is all about.

Of course it is worth conquering, there is still lots of untapped mineral resources.

 

[LordTyrannus]

Of course it is worth conquering, there is still lots of untapped mineral resources.

This is a myth. Did anyone ever had a proove for this claim? The Afghan mountains are not realy a good place for mining.

 

[harpoon]

Try to control the Afghans today, Russians failed, America have failed. Can't these super powers handle simple mountain men? And don't give me that bakwaas about '4 Sikhs VS 40,000 Afghans' lol.

Russia failed due to American Support and America failed due to political correctness.

 

[LordTyrannus]

Russia failed due to American Support and America failed due to political correctness.

They were very political correct while urinating on dead Afghanis.

USA is sooo correct.

 

[harpoon]

They were very political correct while urinating on dead Afghanis.

USA is sooo correct.

In war sh*t happens but all said and done, American intervention in Afghanisthan costed much less lives on both sides of the conflict when compared to the Soviet one ....One cannot deny that.

I saw a documentary of Afghan War of 1980s, in which the Soviet tactics was explained. The Mi- Hinds would roam the Afghan countryside, killing anyone who uses unauthorized roads. If they were not doing that, Hinds will rain death and destruction of Afghan villages suspected of anti- Soviet activites ...they would then be followed by tanks and APCs who would run over anyone left alive. Such was the brutality of the Soviet War in Afghanisthan.....Compared to that American intervention in Afghanisthan is nothing more than walk in the park.

 

[vsdave2302]

Afghanistan is more of a sort of different ethinic groups dominating different areas rather than a nation. With whom would you fight? and to whom would you defeat? Some will support you some will be against you. Who are supporting today will turn out to be enemy tomorrow. How would you fight?

And most importsnat of all is for what will you fight?