[afghanistan] why did no one read history

UPDATE: You might like to look at this excellent post on the issue as well.

A little plug for the Asia Times. In understanding things going on in the Arab/Asian world, this is always a good first step. Admittedly, many of the correspondents are not pro-US but if you weigh what they say against the US line, then the truth lies somewhere inbetween.

On the inevitable failure of the Afghan war, these have been some reasons given:

One, the seven-year war is in a stalemate and time favors the Taliban.

Two, the US is increasingly focused on the bailout of its economy, which leaves little scope both in terms of time and resources for Washington to indulge in the extravaganza of undertaking on its own open-ended wars in faraway badlands.

Three, the US is having a hard time persuading its allies to provide troops for the war effort and even faithful allies like Britain seem fatigued and appear uneasy about the US's war strategy.

Four, whatever little popular support the puppet regime in Kabul headed by Karzai enjoyed so far is fast declining, which makes the current setup unsustainable.

Five, the Taliban have gained habitation and name on the Afghan landscape and no amount of allegations regarding Pakistan's dubious role can hide the reality that the Taliban's support base is rapidly widening.

Six, the regional climate - growing instability in Pakistan, tensions in US-Russia relations, NATO's role, Iran's new assertiveness, including possible future support of the Afghan resistance - is steadily worsening and the need arises for the US to recalibrate the prevailing geopolitical alignments and shore up its political and strategic assets created during the 2001-2008 period from being eroded.

Add to this another article from 2006 and the picture is clearer:

General Boris Gromov, the charismatic Soviet commander who supervised the withdrawal in 1989, warned, "The Afghan resistance is, in my opinion, growing. Such behavior on the part of the intractable Afghans is to my mind understandable. It is conditioned by centuries of tradition, geography, climate and religion.

We saw over a period of many years how the country was torn apart by civil war ... But in the face of outside aggressions, Afghans have always put aside their differences and united. Evidently, the [US-led] coalition forces are also being seen as a threat to the nation."

The inability to earn respect and command authority plus the heavy visible dependence on day-to-day US support have rendered the Kabul setup ineffective. Alongside this, the Afghan malaise of nepotism, tribal affiliations and corruption has also led to bad governance. It is in this combination of circumstances that the Taliban have succeeded in staging a comeback.

Washington had its chance in 2001 of setting up alliances in such a way that the Taliban need never have captured people's hearts but they opted instead for a NATO intervention which did not understand local factors and thought it could bulldoze its way through.

That the Taliban's guerilla warfare is succeeding once again is surely testimony to how the locals view foreigners on their soil and Karzai in Kabul. It's a case of " first get rid of the foreigners in a war of attrition and then we can restart the traditional bloodletting amongst ourselves."

[Earlier article on the Taliban and NATO.]

There is a feeling in some quarters that Afghanistan II was both an answer to the American people following 911 and a training run for what is coming up 2012-18. The strategy should have been thought out far better, in order to maximize its chances. Hell, they actually had the Taliban down and then lost the window of opportunity in a series of gung ho moves, to which the opposition by anyone back home was fiercely attacked as unpatriotic.

How unpatriotic is it to wish for a clever strategy in order to attain one's objectives? This one has not been clever at all.