Valley-ism
| Tue Oct. 27, 2009 9:31 AM PDT
The Washington Post has a big story today about Matthew Hoh, a former Marine who served in Iraq and then joined the Foreign Service earlier this year to work in Afghanistan. He resigned last month after becoming disillusioned with the war.
First off, here's the basic timeline of Hoh's service:
He arrived in Zabul following two months in a civilian staff job at the military brigade headquarters in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan. It was in Jalalabad that his doubts started to form....By the time Hoh arrived at the U.S. military-run provincial reconstruction team (PRT) in the Zabul capital of Qalat [in July], he said, "I already had a lot of frustration. But I knew at that point, the new administration was . . . going to do things differently. So I thought I'd give it another chance."
I confess that this makes me a little skeptical about the whole story. Hoh "already had a lot of frustration" after two months? And he quit two months after that? Unless Hoh is the fastest learner on the planet, that really doesn't seem like enough time to get very far up the learning curve.
Still, everybody the Post talked to has a ton of respect for the guy, and his critique is pretty simple and specific:
Hoh was assigned to research the response to a question asked by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during an April visit. Mullen wanted to know why the U.S. military had been operating for years in the Korengal Valley, an isolated spot near Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan where a number of Americans had been killed. Hoh concluded that there was no good reason. The people of Korengal didn't want them; the insurgency appeared to have arrived in strength only after the Americans did, and the battle between the two forces had achieved only a bloody stalemate.
Korengal and other areas, he said, taught him "how localized the insurgency was. I didn't realize that a group in this valley here has no connection with an insurgent group two kilometers away." Hundreds, maybe thousands, of groups across Afghanistan, he decided, had few ideological ties to the Taliban but took its money to fight the foreign intruders and maintain their own local power bases.
"That's really what kind of shook me," he said. "I thought it was more nationalistic. But it's localism. I would call it valley-ism."
Hmmm. Afghanistan was a tribal region in the 90s too, but the Taliban still managed to take over a pretty big chunk of the country and provide al-Qaeda with an operating base. Valleyism won't necessarily keep that from happening again.
Still, Hoh's evaluation is pretty orthodox. I basically think he's right, and apparently so does Richard Holbrooke, who told the Post, "I agreed with much of his analysis." What's less clear is what he thinks we ought to do about it. So I'd be interested in hearing more from serious Afghanistan bloggers and analysts: Is Hoh right? And if so, what's the answer?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Seems pretty obvious to me...
Submitted by Wagster on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 10:04 AM PDT.
Just outbid the Taliban. Heck, our occupation costs more than the entire Afghani GDP. Hire our enemies... that's the real lesson of Iraq, not the perverse notion that COIN can turn things around on a dime.
How much, or what sort of
Submitted by tpx on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT.
How much, or what sort of bribe, would you be willing to accept to become a Sunni Muslim living under Sharia law? Afghans understand your answer.
Christian law is imposed on Afghanistan, not offered as a gift
Submitted by tpx on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 7:37 AM PDT.
If 'we' allow Afghans to govern themselves, they will choose the Taliban to rule. Refusing access to a faction that represents a major population demographic cannot be considered a democratic value, even for an American Christian. If Afghans were allowed to vote to eliminate the militant occupiers, a super majority would vote for immediate execution of the policy. Afghans want Sharia, 'we,' our military rulers, refuse to let them govern themselves. The western corporate controllers of Afghanistan do not ask Afghans if they want to live under their Christian based law, they impose that law with military might.
not about Aghanistan, but it resonates
Submitted by tpx on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 8:38 AM PDT.
As Václav Havel wrote, “A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accoutrements of mass civilization, who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his own personal survival, is a demoralized person. The [post-totalitarian] system depends on this demoralization, deepens it, is in fact a projection of it into society. Living within the truth, as humanity’s revolt against an enforced position, is, on the contrary, an attempt to regain control over one’s own sense of responsibility.”
unfortunately bribes aren't enough
Submitted by kahner77 (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 12:50 PM PDT.
The limiting factor is how long do we plan to stay and how ruthless in punishing those who don't want to accept the bribes. The Taliban live in afghanistan and will happily kill people who oppose them. Now of course we kill many thousands, but there is a limit to our willingness to kill non-conforming civilians willy-nilly. But the real factor is that we're eventually leaving and money alone without a physical military presence will not maintain control.
I don't see why not. Shoot,
Submitted by Sydney Carton on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 7:13 PM PDT.
I don't see why not. Shoot, that's the real lesson of Vietnam, according to Cecil Adams: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/717/would-vietnam-war-money-hav...
Advance rapidly toward home
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 10:14 AM PDT.
What's less clear is what he thinks we ought to do about it.
Perhaps we should follow Mr. Hoh's example and leave.
hearts and minds, not bullets and bombs
Submitted by nerd on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 10:21 AM PDT.
This is not so much a military campaign as one of winning hearts and minds. We need to be helping to build infrastructure, put schools in place, and improve the quality of life. Bullets and bombs don't do that.
Of course we need to improve the security situation, but that is temporary if we don't do the other things. When America first went in there was a lot of talk about improving things but very little money has been spent; and of course the administration took its eyes off of Afghanistan and focused on Iraq.
Pure military solutions won't work here. The sooner we realize that the better. People don't just learn democracy because they can vote. Can we 'win' there? I don't know. But we need to change our investments there or we certainly will fail.
"This is not so much a
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 11:27 AM PDT.
"This is not so much a military campaign as one of winning hearts and minds. We need to be helping to build infrastructure, put schools in place, and improve the quality of life. Bullets and bombs don't do that."
And to what end? WTF is with this endless American desperation to make the rest of the world love them?
Let's ignore the various practical issues involved in this policy of hearts and minds. Let's just ask the basic question --- WTF are you bothering?
If the US wants to spend money doing good, they can spend it all over the world. There is plenty of low-lying fruit in Africa. Or the US can spend it at home.
What exactly does buying the love of Afghanistan achieve? It's not going to change the US support of Israel, which means no affect on Palestine, which means no effect on the Arab world. It's not going to change the Pakistan-India dynamic. Afghanistan is of no strategic value (and even if it were, "strategic value" is a grossly over-rated concept).
Buying hearts and minds is nothing but "let's continue the current pointless exercise using new tactics", The question of importance is not what tactics to use, it is WTF IS THE DAMN GOAL?
First, ya gotta face reality
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 12:38 PM PDT.
MaynardHandley >"...WTF IS THE DAMN GOAL?"
Let me introduce you to Pepe Escobar who can explain it w/some context. Pipelineistan is the thing you need to remember. Yes, I know, you don't want to believe it is all that easy and grubby but it is when stripped of all the self serving propaganda. Black Gold, Texas Tea etc. And mind bogglin POWER, enough to give almost anyone a stiffie.
Watch the areas where the flying hot lead action gets hot and heavy since that is the route that the major players want the pipeline(s) to go. They usually follow the best route from a topographical perspective, much like railroads do when they can (the path of least resistance/lowest energy use etc). Which, strangely enough, often turn out to be the best/most used drug etc smuggling routes.
The New Great Game as some are labeling it. Remember the days of the Seven Sisters ? How about Mohammed Mosaddeq ? Does European demand and Russian natural gas supply ring a bell ? How about Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force ? It is all of a single complete picture. And it matters not if you believe it is reality or not, these things are what they are.
Wake up and smell the hydrocarbons my boy.
"If you don't deal with reality, reality will deal with you" - C.J. Campbell
The question of importance is not what tactics to use, it is WTF IS THE DAMN GOAL?
That is the big question, isn't it? The original reason for aiding rebel forces fighting the Taliban government after 9/11 was to take down a government that supported those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks.
The goal now, as I understand it, is to make sure the Taliban don't regain power and again provide support to terrorists. It's not an easy goal and will require determination to see it through.
Historically Afghanistan has been impossible to tame. If our goal isn't to make Afghanistan an unsuitable safe haven for terrorists or we don't have the will to stick it out we are better to leave, NOW.
Staying in Afghanistan to 'win' is an infinite sink hole of people and resources. What is the goal? I'd like to see that formally stated, too.
Americans have no intention of winning hearts and minds
Submitted by tpx on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT.
In order to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, Americans need to build mosques, destroy images of god, enforce Sharia law, make men grow beards and make women wear burkas. Americans have no intention of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan.
Taleban takeover ?
Submitted by RobertWaldmann on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 10:24 AM PDT.
I'm not an Afghanistan expert. However, I will put in a word for a view which I too consider orthodox re
"Afghanistan was a tribal region in the 90s too, but the Taliban still managed to take over a pretty big chunk of the country ..."
The rapid collapse of the Taliban supports the view that their "takeover" was a matter of obtaining the support of local warlords who had noticed which group had foreign support. This view was the basis of accurate predictions and not just ex post rationaizations. The local leaders in some valley may be willing to declare fealty to the ruler of Kabul, but that doesn't mean that they obey orders from Kabul.
Now, of course, the Taliban didn't need to have the sort of monopoly of armed power that a normal state has to provide al Qaeda with an operating base. Nor do they need it now either in Afghanistan or in Waziristan.
A big difference is that there are now armed predators flying around. If the US just kept bases for predators and left all valleys where predators don't need to land, would al Qaeda be much better off ?
This comment is totally unexpert and unoriginal too.
buy their opium, buy their hearts and minds
Submitted by cld (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 10:36 AM PDT.
Trying to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan is a loosing gambit.
Their hearts and minds are antagonistic to anything we might offer them.
I overheard Steve Clemons on CSPAN the other day say something like 'for the amount of money we're spending every month in Afghanistan we could just buy the place'.
Sure, but don't expect much.
What we might be able to buy is opium.
Why not guarantee them an opium price and buy it all? They won't want to ruffle our fleathers housing al-Qaeda if we're their best market.
embrace Taliban Village values
Submitted by tpx on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 11:10 AM PDT.
Afghans are as willing to adopt Christian Corporate values as much as Americans are willing to embrace Taliban Village values.
Although there are villages in Texas and Ohio that have embraced the values of their local mullahs, who preach the same kind of provincialism as the Taliban, they would rather die like Christians fighting lions than become Sunni Muslims in name.
Jeepers, Mr. Drum
Submitted by SqueakyRat (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 12:39 PM PDT.
What if I'm not Serious? Do I still get to play?
How much did the Taliban help al-Qaeda?
Submitted by GA-Sen Watcher (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 3:07 PM PDT.
"the Taliban still managed to take over a pretty big chunk of the country and provide al-Qaeda with an operating base"
Is there any evidence that al-Qaeda would have been less effective if it was in the same area under more traditional tribal instead of Taliban control?
Stock photos
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 4:08 PM PDT.
Okay Kevin, it's way past time to tell you to find a new stock photo to use for this type of story. I'm kind of really getting tired of seeing the Airborne Lone Ranger looking for Osama from 25,000 feet.
Feudalism is best for Afghanistan
Submitted by Steve Sailer (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 7:32 PM PDT.
Topographically, Afghanistan is so harsh that it's hard to rule centrally. The solution worked out in Europe a 1,000 years ago under similar conditions of crummy transport and isolation was feudalism. Feudalism is cheap and self-repairing and allowed some degree of freedom by moving to a more congenial location.
Make the warlords into hereditary dukes and earls, give them long-term incentives to improve their fiefdoms so their descendants will profit, give them a formal but not terribly strict tie of allegiance to a restored monarchy in Kabul.
The case of the most U-Boat Thousands of Feet timepieces is treated with PVD to achieve a black matte finish. The case back of the replica watches
replica watches
replica Hublot watches is screwed down with eight screws to keep the movement safe from water. Thanks to this and the screw-down crown, the watches are water-resistant to 100 meters.
cheap gucci shoes
Submitted by cheap gucci shoes (not verified) on Tue Nov. 10, 2009 4:47 PM PST.
cheap gucci shoes cheap gucci shoes discount gucci shoes discount gucci shoes gucci shoes on sale gucci shoes on sale gucci shoes discounted gucci shoes discounted gucci boots gucci boots cheap gucci boots cheap gucci boots gucci boots on sale gucci boots on sale discount gucci boots discount gucci boots gucci boots for sale gucci boots for sale street lighting street lighting buy wow gold buy wow gold cheap wow gold cheap wow gold your infomation i have read it is very help full for me.
Most of our Cheap UGGS for
Submitted by monaier (not verified) on Wed Nov. 11, 2009 7:59 AM PST.
Most of our Cheap UGGS for Sale are made of the genuine sheepskin from Australia.If you are looking for the tall boots,UGG Classic Mini Boots on Sale and UGG Ultra Tall Boots are your best choice.They are in double-faced sheepskin with the durable yet lightweight outsole.
