What's new

The US Has Already Lost The Afghanistan War

ref:Why West Lost Afghan War | The Diplomat

Why West Lost Afghan WarJuly 01, 2010


The former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit says the US-led coalition has already lost the war in Afghanistan. A shake-up in military leadership won't change that.
michael-scheuer.jpg

By Michael Scheuer
talibans-335x222.jpg

Recent events surrounding Afghanistan shouldn’t confuse anyone, as the reality of the situation still lies in one simple statement: The US-NATO coalition has lost a war its political leaders never meant, or knew how, to win.
‘Winning’ in Afghanistan was never anything more than killing Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, as many of their fighters and civilian supporters as possible and then getting out immediately with the full knowledge that—as Mao said long ago—insurgencies always rebuild and the process might need to be repeated.

The best and most appropriate response to al-Qaeda’s September 11 raid, then, would have been a unilateral US punitive expedition that inflicted massive death and destruction on the enemy and delivered a clear warning to Islamists not to pick fights with the United States. Indeed, many Islamists expected this response, which is why they poured vitriol on bin Laden and expected the US military to set back their movement a decade, if it did not destroy it completely.

Faced with this criticism, bin Laden simply said ‘wait,’ adding (in paraphrase) that the Americans and their allies can’t stomach casualties, that they won’t use their full military power and will unite Afghans by trying to Westernize them via popular elections, installing women’s rights, dismantling tribalism, introducing secularism and establishing NGO-backed bars and whorehouses in Kabul. Bin Laden was right; it seems he is, among other things, a keen student of the West’s past nation-building operations.

Since June 1, the parade of incompetents crossing the Afghan stage is stunning: Gen. Stanley McChrystal, US President Barack Obama, Gen. David Petraeus, Afghan President Hamid Karzai—the list is long. McChrystal, saddled with a dead-end strategy devised by David Kilcullen, John Nagl and other counterinsurgency ‘experts,’ gave access to himself and his staff to Rolling Stone, long among the most anti-military US journals.

For his trouble and indiscreet words, McChrystal was fired by Obama—who, with his senior advisers, merit all the negative things said about them—and replaced by that purveyor of military snake oil, Gen. Petraeus. Even as the transitory success of the Iraq ‘surge’ is unravelling, Petraeus takes the Afghan command saying everything is okay (within a week the Pentagon’s media machine was telling Congress and Western publics that the ‘Afghan war is on track.’)

While this has played out, Hamid Karzai reportedly met with Sirajuddin Haqqani—a major Afghan insurgent leader—and prepared to surrender under the guise of creating a coalition regime. For all his failures and fabulously corrupt relatives, Karzai can easily solve the dilemma the West can’t even frame accurately: Question: What does the Taliban and its allies want? Answer: Power. So Karzai is talking to Haqqani, and probably Taliban leaders, to see if there’s a governing arrangement that will give him a role in post-NATO Afghanistan and doesn’t lead to his execution after the last NATO trooper leaves. The chance of this is near nil, however, and so Karzai and his family will have to step up the pace of their alleged thievery and get ready for an early exit that leaves the West holding the bag.

And as these parties circle the Afghan drain, Lindsay Graham, a much but inexplicably respected Republican senator from South Carolina, said: ‘This is a chance to start over completely [in Afghanistan].’ At the start of the US Civil War it was said South Carolina’s fatal flaw was that it’s too small to be a nation and too big to be an insane asylum. Sen. Graham has reconfirmed this truism.

After nine years, it is utterly impossible to restart Western policy in Afghanistan. Too many Afghans are dead; too many Afghans and non-Afghan Muslims have joined the Taliban-led insurgency; too much pro-Taliban money is pouring into Afghanistan from wealthy donors on the Arabian Peninsula and across the Muslim world; too much Western funding has been stolen and sent abroad by Karzai’s cronies; too much popular support for the war in the West has been squandered; too many U.S.-NATO troops are dead or maimed; too much has been done by the West to push Pakistan toward the abyss by demanding its military do Western dirty work; and too much time has been wasted on counterinsurgency theories and policies that avoid killing the enemy and his civilian supporters. The one thing the West ‘can start over completely’ is a revision of the plans for withdrawal that moves up the departure date.

The bottom line is that the United States and NATO stand defeated in Afghanistan. Under McChrystal, Petraeus, or Obama himself the counterinsurgency strategy now being flogged has been intellectually bankrupt from its inception. No better proof of this can be found than the fact that the part of the policy meant to address the Afghans’ ‘quality of life’ has been a substantial success.

There are 3 million-plus more Afghan children in school today than in 2001; more electricity and potable water are available; many roads and irrigation systems have been rebuilt; and more primary health care is being delivered. Kilcullen, Nagl and their colleagues argued that such success would prompt the Afghans to turn away from the Taliban’s religiosity and nationalism and isolate that purportedly small force from a population swelling with delight and loyalty to Karzai because of material improvements. In short, a social science-powered, mini-New Deal in Afghanistan would win with minimal use of US-NATO military power because Afghans would joyfully jettison God and country for better teeth and smoother roads.

Well, no such thing occurred. As the trend line for these accomplishments rose, the positive trend line for the Taliban-led insurgency rose faster. The once southern-Afghanistan-based insurgency spread across the nation; the Taliban and its allies struck in Kabul at their pleasure; and the large military/social-work operation to clear insurgents from Marjah District in Helmand Province—framed as the test case to validate US-NATO strategy—became, in McChrystal’s words, an endless, ‘bleeding ulcer’ as the Taliban has gradually reasserted control there.

The enraging and unifying impact on Afghans of the US-NATO occupation of the country; Western support for the unrepresentative and corrupt Kabul regime; and the secularizing campaign by Western governmental agencies and NGOs has not and will never be negated by purer water and more refrigeration. The Afghans will appreciate and pocket the material improvements even as more of them take up arms to drive out occupiers they perceive as the enemies of God and Afghanistan. Western leaders should have recalled they’re not fighting Westerners, for whom more ice cubes and tetanus shots might have been enough to give up their faith.

A year after Obama outlined this new strategy at West Point it lay in shreds and tatters: the Taliban, et. al are more powerful and geographically dispersed, and the Afghan people are no less Islamic or nationalistic. The ever-present avenging angel of history ignored is exacting its pound of flesh and is still hungry. And the bin Laden-inspired Islamists are nearing victory over the world’s last superpower, a win that will have a galvanizing anti-US impact in the Islamic world by showing Muslims the impossible is possible.

The tragedy of this reality is that it would have taken no highly classified intelligence data or deeply penetrating brain power to predict its occurrence. A week’s reading at the local library about the occupations of Afghanistan by Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviet Union shows each empire was sooner or later defeated and evicted—Alexander lasted longest because he built Greek colonies—by the most basic Afghan trait which has been transparently and overwhelmingly dominant since the 4th century B.C.: Afghans refuse to tolerate foreign occupation and rule.

Reading history’s lessons also would have shown that the one foreigner who had the most successful strategy for Afghanistan was Genghis Khan. He killed all the Afghan fighters and their families he encountered, built mountains of their skulls to remind Afghans that Mongols are not to be trifled with and then got his army out of the country to India as quickly as possible. George W. Bush had the chance to play Genghis for about a year but didn’t. Instead, he and his clone Obama defied history to try to win the love of Afghans and international applause. In the end, both men earned and richly merited what we see today—abject Western defeat.
Michael Scheuer is the author of ‘Imperial Hubris’ and former chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station.
 
I guess the Afgan war is life and death situation for US/NATO as well as for Afghan Talibanz......
I guess US/NATO shold not runaway from the battlefield.....we wanna see the more interesting part coming up, the open/clear victory by the helpless Afghan Taliban/Mujahideenz........Insha-Allah........:)
 
US has already lost war in Afghanistan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Won the "war" a while ago (destroyed the government and ran out Alquaida). The problem is using troops as cops. Not thier job. Let the Afghans deal with that.

You need to wake up as well as most Americans (stop being fed/brainwashed from the US media). the afghanistan war has been shambles. US/NATO have won tactical battles but have lost the overall WAR. its no point winning small battles and then lose the entire war.

Also we need get rid of this 'bravado' feeling - what did you expect?? the worlds most powerful military (US) and the most powerful military alliance (NATO) despite all the sophisticated hardware and specialist training were not able to subjugate/destroy a 'rag-tag' militia. It is embarrassing......10 bloody years of conflict which is costing billions/trillions and no real achievement.

wake up, there is no shame to cry....the Afghan war has been a disaster... and the future consequences do not look good....thanks to the right wing neo-cons and christian/zionist fundamentalism which is destroying the USA. Historically it looks like the slow 'death' of an empire - all because of arrogance and greed.:butcher:
 
We are NOT empire-builders!

Maybe you didn't read the rest of my post. Hold the land till the Afghans were able to hold it and guard it themselves. Hold it till they were able enough to face the Taliban themselves. The US did not go into Afghanistan just to drive the Talibs away from Kabul but to create an environment where they would not be able to sustain and flourish and come back into the power. As of today, the Talibans have not been defeated but are being negotiated with and you still think that you won the war. Silly you.
 
US is concerned about exterminating the Taliban. Other than that, everything else is secondary.

Dear readers,

Is not Afghanistan’s future much brighter now that its land and people are free from Taliban rule? Afghanistan, long suppressed under the brutal Taliban regime, is beginning to prosper because the hard work of Afghan, US and NATO forces leads the nation toward recovery and independence. A nation once crumbling under the Taliban dictatorship is beginning to allow its citizens a better quality of life. There are more economic and educational opportunities than there ever were under the Taliban. The drawdown of our troops ensures that Afghanistan continues its progression toward security transition and independence. Our phased drawdown from Iraq provides us with a perfect example of what the future holds for Afghanistan. Though the baseless rumors regarding our efforts in Afghanistan continue, facts determine the truth. Please read the following link to see for yourself:

U.S. Central Command | Progress in Afghanistan Highlighted by Business Growth, Job Creation and New Infrastructure Projects

CDR Bill Speaks,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command
 
it is the history of Afghanistan that no foreigner force win the war
1st Alexander loss
2nd British loss
3rd USSR loss
now its time for America
waka waka America
i read about Vietnam war that USA defeat from poor Vietnamese
but i see American defeat by my eyes

in veitnam they lost too, technically US has won no war, US is not the type of country and americans not the type of people to make an empire
 
You need to wake up as well as most Americans (stop being fed/brainwashed from the US media). the afghanistan war has been shambles. US/NATO have won tactical battles but have lost the overall WAR. its no point winning small battles and then lose the entire war.

Also we need get rid of this 'bravado' feeling - what did you expect?? the worlds most powerful military (US) and the most powerful military alliance (NATO) despite all the sophisticated hardware and specialist training were not able to subjugate/destroy a 'rag-tag' militia. It is embarrassing......10 bloody years of conflict which is costing billions/trillions and no real achievement.

wake up, there is no shame to cry....the Afghan war has been a disaster... and the future consequences do not look good....thanks to the right wing neo-cons and christian/zionist fundamentalism which is destroying the USA. Historically it looks like the slow 'death' of an empire - all because of arrogance and greed.:butcher:

Yes! these are the real inhuman/evil/Luciferianz trying to mass murder the innocent pplz of the poor countries around the world , to rob them of their resources for their never ending greed.........:what:
 
Inshallah the Mujahedeen will punish them and kick them out of the country as losers, no one mass with the Pashtuns.
US are Liers and are the real Terrorist here.
 
If USA lost the war, then who won it?
Taliban?
And how did they win this war?
by hiding in the mountains and making small children suicide bombers?
WOW

USA got into their house, killed majority of them and still killing. But if these Talibani losers are not showing up and hiding then what the one can do?

If hiding is winning war, then WOW
They are not hiding, they have killed like over 3000 US solidiers and over 300 UK alone
No need to get angry my friend. Even I can use some good words like you did in your 1st statement, but my upbringing doesn't allow me. Besides we're all having a civilised (if you know what that means) conversation here.

Looks like you're badly hurt of my post about Taliban. Ask your Taliban to show up and fight a real war rather than hiding, then we can decide who's the winner. Don't give me this gorilla and mujahidin logic.

If you think that hiding in the mountains is winning war then I can't tell you anything. And don't even reply as you don't have that level.
What process have US and NATO done in the pass 10 years??..nothing


look Major Ram, you just stay in mumbai city and watch Bollywood,just dance,Sa RE GA MA PA, Saas baho etc etc..
You don't know whats going on here.
 
it is the history of Afghanistan that no foreigner force win the war
1st Alexander loss
2nd British loss
3rd USSR loss
now its time for America
waka waka America
i read about Vietnam war that USA defeat from poor Vietnamese
but i see American defeat by my eyes


Your history knowledge is Good but little weak..


As they say Little knowledge is dangerouis thing...Let me make it clear..


Read about Hari singh Nalwa.. Sikh general and the Empire under him.


here is a good start...Let the light be there


Conquering Afghanistan: What the West can learn from India | Folks Magazine
 
If USA lost the war, then who won it?
Taliban?
And how did they win this war?
by hiding in the mountains and making small children suicide bombers?
WOW

USA got into their house, killed majority of them and still killing. But if these Talibani losers are not showing up and hiding then what the one can do?

If hiding is winning war, then WOW

Your history knowledge is Good but little weak..


As they say Little knowledge is dangerouis thing...Let me make it clear..


Read about Hari singh Nalwa.. Sikh general and the Empire under him.


here is a good start...Let the light be there


Conquering Afghanistan: What the West can learn from India | Folks Magazine

Hari Singh Nalwa didn't took over Afghanistan, he want as far as jamrud and got killed then, he didn't really conqure Afghanistan
 
Your history knowledge is Good but little weak..


As they say Little knowledge is dangerouis thing...Let me make it clear..


Read about Hari singh Nalwa.. Sikh general and the Empire under him.


here is a good start...Let the light be there


Conquering Afghanistan: What the West can learn from India | Folks Magazine

Sikhs didn't even conquer 50% of the Afghan empire lol and your joking here that india conquered Afghanistan :rofl:, india wasn't even official country until 1947.

Afghan Empire

map1772.jpg



Sikh Empire (more like Kingdom)
20101127090402!Sikh_Empire.JPG


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sikh_Empire.JPG
 
Back
Top Bottom