This Is What Winning Looks Like – Afghanistan War Diary

http://www.vice.com/vice-news/this-is-what-winning-looks-like-full-length

by yk • 13 years ago

254 193 13 years ago

dfc7• 13 years ago

If you liked this video you might also like:

* Armadillo[1] a documentary about a group of Danish soldiers deployed to Helmland. Armadillo is right up there with Restrepo in my opinion.

* The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan[2] if you are curious about the bacha bazi boys.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_%28film%29

[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/

rdl19• 13 years ago

Restrepo is also pretty amazing in its own right.

My absolute favorite work about the whole war in Afghanistan is First In (http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-Afg...) which is how the entire war should have been fought: A CIA man, a couple ODAs (~20 US Army Special Forces soldiers), an old ex-Soviet helicopter, and $30mm in $100 bills, and victory in 2 months. I sent a copy to weev in prison, will be interesting to see what he thinks :)

Helpful_Bunny3• 13 years ago

That's kind of you, but horribly naive.

Being validated by prison staff as an associate of a prison gang or being in possession of questionable reading material can land an inmate in the SHU for an indefinite amount of time. The UN says more than 15 days in solitary confinement is considered torture. SHU prisoners at Pelican Bay spend an average of 7.5 years there. In 2005 (last released statistics) there were over 80,000 inmates held in solitary confinement in the US. This inhumane treatment is a clear violation of the 8th amendment and must be changed.

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary...

Wise up a little bit, the USG doesn't play nice, and weev has already been subject to "special attention" due to not grokking the simple fact that he is totally powerless in the system now.

The More You Know.

dfc7• 13 years ago

Restrepo was already at the top of my lists with the book, photo book and movie, but after Hetherington died it has ascended to a special place all its own.

I liked First In, but I also read Jawbreaker and I have trouble separating the two in my mind. I don't remember the order that I read them in but even as I was reading the second book I was often unsure if I was rereading the first book or reading the second. The experience was not that unlike reading any of the Robert's Ridge books. There is a report from the Army War College that I have been meaning to read but I have lost the citation.

If you like reading about A-Teams the non fiction "Lions of Kandahar" was an exciting read. But my favorite book on the subject is a work of fiction: The Degüello. If you have not read it I highly recommend it.

As far as winning the war goes we could not win the AfPak war by only winning in Afghanistan. No amount of effort is going to keep my lawn weed free as long as my neighbor's lawn is a forest of dandelions.

subsystem3• 13 years ago

Restrepo nor Armadillo really stuck with me. I'll admit I've seen way too many of these kinds of documentaries, even to the point of not being able to tell them apart. The PBS ones are quite good. Two that stands out of the top of my head is Blood and Dust and Bulletproof Salesman, the later being mostly about Iraq.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/09/2... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186201/

dfc7• 13 years ago

I think the nature of PBS's regulatory environment makes it tough for them to "tell a true war story," to borrow Wolf's words. This was even apparent in their re-airing of Armadillo, the version that was broadcast on the same channel as Sesame Street was different than the bluray/dvd version.

pstadler• 13 years ago

No End in Sight[1] is my favorite.

A documentary about the Iraq occupation starting in 2003. It's a sad story - no room for heroes - as the iraqi people lost everything.

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/

dfc7• 13 years ago

This thread is about afghanistan.

jmadsen• 13 years ago

Vice is nothing but quality. Wish more people were aware of them, and the really wide variety of excellent documentaries they produce

rdl19• 13 years ago

They had a video team at the Bitcoin conference; talked to the producer and expressed how amazed I am at their consistently high quality.

Usually when I see news about something I know a lot about (say, the Jalalabad region weapons manufacturers, or the PI underground arms people), I'm full of wtf. But everything I've seen from Vice to date has been "oh, yes, that's exactly how it is" or "I wish I could have gone over there and seen that".

skore6• 13 years ago

> Vice is nothing but quality.

I agree that they have lots and lots of quality stuff, but they also have a quality control problem for good parts of their portfolio. The great ones offset the bad ones by leaps and bounds, for sure. But for every documentary like this one, there seem to be a couple hipsterish driveltaries that I close after a few minutes.

Sure, I suppose you cannot break new ground without landing some misses and sure, it's not like everything has to be mindblowing and perfect or even deeply valuable. But some of these misses make me wonder how anybody ever thought they were a good idea in the first place.

I think Vice has an aversion to "self censor", trying to get as much stuff out there as they can simply for the heck of it and as a means to retain credibility - and I applaud them for that. But it's not as black and white and doesn't help when your expectation of quality gets rather deeply disappointed at times. It's a form of brand dilution that might become a problem in the future.

subsystem3• 13 years ago

A lot of their ealier stuff was more 'spectacular' than insightful. It wasn't just the style either, it really was lacking in quality.

negrit2• 13 years ago

I was thinking the same thing until I watched a documentary about France's Toughest Rappers. And unfortunately I know very well the rape scene and this documentary was nothing but a big joke: Lies, bullshit, ...

So know I'm a bit suspicious.

rdl19• 13 years ago

I wonder which producer did it. They have a lot of independence, so they are probably pretty inconsistent.

namdnay• 13 years ago

I hope you're referring to the "rap scene"..

Yeah that documentary was slightly exploitative: "oh look, let's send a cute young girl into the ghetto and film a bunch of knuckleheads trying to get in her pants!" Then again, nothing too different from the usual late night TV "documentaries" about the police/the ghettos/the jet-set..

twentysix• 13 years ago

Not all of them. Watch this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYglCDgpu0

It might just change your mind.

skore6• 13 years ago

I voiced my criticism of Vices QC in another post, but I actually enjoyed that particular documentary. I can appreciate Hamilton as pure oddball fun (despite a vocal fry that can make heads explode). What's actually problematic are things like this[0]. Not to mention the sometimes-ok, most-times-(well, the few times I checked to be sure)-god-awful "oh look at us rascal cooks being all alternative, cool and hip with our outlandish exploits" Munchies.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmk3kSvxBEQ

moconnor• 13 years ago

The material in this piece appears to have been part of a BBC panorama documentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21547542 - the BBC refer to Ben Anderson as a "BBC panorama reporter". On the other hand, in his AMA he refers to himself as a "filmmaker for VICE."

Regardless on who produced the documentary, Vice should still get credit for curating and hosting it like this.

geon• 13 years ago

> Vice is nothing but quality.

There are exceptions. This video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s ) was ridiculously bad. Like one commenter on Reddit put it;

> That was like watching ignorant children play with fire indoors.

baggers• 13 years ago

> Vice is nothing but quality <

Like their waragi episode, where they spent a few scant minutes on the topic of the endemic drinking problem (which is very prevalent) and the entire rest filming drunk people and trying the brew themselves... oh and they sent a person that couldn't pronounce the name of the drink properly. Well done Vice. Quality

morganwilde• 13 years ago

This is unbelievable... I mean what can be done when everyone is just high as f and just basically trippin all day. Afganistan is OK with how things are now, it seems, so I guess the only relevant take away from this, just leave the country ASAP with as few expenditures and casualties as possible.

rdl19• 13 years ago

I'd also make sure the Afghans who helped us get out (which is part of the pending comprehensive immigration bill), and that any Afghans who are actually sane are considered fairly for education/refugee status/etc. in the west. But really, Afghanistan itself is essentially doomed, and GTFO is the only way to go.

IsaacL• 13 years ago

Random theory I have (hopefully some HN-ers with actual military knowledge can weigh in): modern militaries need less technology and more manpower. It seems since I was a kid politicians have been saying that armed forces should become smaller and more high-tech. That means less bodies sent home in coffins and also more contracts for BAE Systems, so it's a popular message.

That all works well (very well) when you're invading countries. Doesn't work so well when you decide you need to build a new country out of the ruins. Maybe we'd do better if instead of spending billions on flying robot assassins to fight tribal hill-farmers, we simply enlisted more humans to take command.

The only other option I can see is to start running the American empire British-style - they ran very efficient colonies by exploiting existing tribal divisions, usually by recruiting some existing elite as their colonial administrators. Not trying to implement democracy in tribal regions that don't yet have stable institutions or the rule of law would probably also help.

skore6• 13 years ago

> modern militaries need less technology and more manpower

An interesting thought! One of the most interesting conclusions I drew from this documentary is that the Afghan Military needs both - more technology and more manpower. But the trouble, as shown, is that you need the intelligence to handle so much manpower, the social contracts to retain that manpower and the education to handle that technology.

So what you're saying about the balance might be an interesting point for the US military might work for them, but it doesn't even start to help out with the Afghan forces.

As for going "British-style" - I think that stuff simply doesn't work in the modern, connected world. British colonialism took advantage of isolation and division. Doesn't work so well if the country you invade is reasonably well connected globally.

rdl19• 13 years ago

The US has a really bad track record of picking local partners. Mostly because during the Cold War, the "good" local people were more innately socialist, which the Communists exploited, so we got stuck with some pretty horrible people (either ineffective or outright evil) by default.

I don't believe it's feasible to occupy a medium sized country which actively resists using modern militaries. It's certainly not worth it. I'd just focus on keeping a limited presence to rain death from above (like we do in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) or via limited JSOC strikes (Somalia, Afghanistan before 2007 or so, etc.), and then using armed but civilian organizations to interface with the populace and government.

In a place like Somalia or Afghanistan, foreign organizations should run important infrastructure and logistics services for the local government and population, with the cost subsidized by international donors. i.e. a local Afghan should be able to buy electricity at 0.10/KwH, sell their pomegranates at the world price, and have clean water, Internet, cellphones, etc., without any other focus on building the government (since that's probably hopeless). The organization providing that infrastructure needs self-defense capability, but you don't need much beyond what Blackwater had to do this.

EliRivers• 13 years ago

Well, that depends on what kind of operations armed forces are for. The opposite conclusion can be drawn from Operation Unified Protector, the NATO mission in Libya. Very, very few humans deployed into Libya. High-tech operations involving aircraft from carriers and airstrips in Italy supporting locals on the ground, with a set of naval vessels providing maritime support (embargo enforcement, some mine-hunting capability and no-fly-zone enforcement, as I recall). Afghanistan and Iraq were anomalous in terms of the kind of war (or rather, the kind of post-war) the most warlike nations (USA, UK and chums) expect to fight nowadays.

The appetite for that kind of nation-building has shrunk considerably following the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan.

VLM3• 13 years ago

I was in the .mil until right before 9/11, like I got my final honorable discharge papers in dec 2000. So I'm older, but not totally ancient (like, say, my grandfather who flew B-17s and B-24s in WWII). And I also have a cousin who did peace corps time in one of the South African townships in the early 80s. My cousin and I are, um, kind of different in outlook, lifestyle, equipment, training, attitude... The fundamental problem is sending the army to do the peace corps job. Even worse, the same army that did the "pacification".

A simple analogy is if you ordered a navy destroyer crew and my army ordnance company to swap jobs, it end up as a hilariously ineffective reality TV show (Hmm, this might actually lure in viewers...). Something even more extreme like assigning an infantry platoon to peace corps work is going to be even more of an epic fail.

There is another interesting issue that the peace corps is not supposed to accomplish any major long term changes. So if they had a mission there, with the same results, they'd be considered to be doing "great". The S.A. township my cousin served in, remains a morass of poverty and crime and ignorance, maybe a little better than it would otherwise be, but no one has any crazy illusions that his 2 year term or whatever it was would result in the township turning into "leave it to beaver"-ville. On the other hand its considered a military disaster to spend decades basically accomplishing nothing. So you need a perspective change. For a bunch of soldiers doing someone else's job, they're about as successful as the correct set of workers would be.

Interestingly to the best of my knowledge the peace corps still considers hand chalk to be appropriate technology. If you want to do nationbuilding you send in guys with chalkboards and excellent native language skills and maybe some special technical skills (or maybe not).

yk• 13 years ago

Probably, there is a old TED talk by Thomas Barnett [1], where he argues quite similarly. He argues, that one needs a force for projection of force and a force for stabilizing the country. And because of the tension between trying to be as small as possible, when defeating the opponents army, and the need for boots on the ground for defeating insurgents these two need very different organizational structures.

[1]http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_... (Hope the link works, I have somehow managed to break the TED site...)

rickdale• 13 years ago

I always feel like no matter how well a journalist covers Afghanistan, its only a small slice of the pie, for everything that is going on over there. And that is not to discredit the journalists, they do a great job, there is just so much going on over there, you gotta pick and choose your stories.

For me, one of the greatest tragedies in Afghanistan as a result from the US war is the drug addict problem over ther. I haven't studied the issue in a couple of years, but I remember looking at pictures and statistics of heroin addicts in Afghanistan. As the war destroyed their country citizens turned to drugs and so did leaders, but the latter did so for money. The citizens literally have nothing better to do. And thats not to say they weren't poppy farmers before the war, they were, the majority were just not heroin abusers.

In 2008 I took a seminar about the Afghanistan War, premised on the question, is Afghanistan a failed state? In a room with 12 reasonably bright American students we all were able to point out terrific errors that were causing some big issues. I remember reading that 70-80 percent of the trained Afghani police force was just signed up to get a paycheck. They never showed up for duty or anything.

I do a lot of thinking about Afghanistan, because the situation is unique, yet historically predictable. In my opinion, its hard for me and Americans maybe all westerners, to understand Afghanistan and the people there; and its just as difficult for the people in Afghanistan to understand our way of life, and how to assimilate to what we were setting up.

At present count, 3 people from my high school class have died fighting in Afghanistan, and 5 counting the year ahead of me (0 of my college mates, point for another story..). And this is what counts for me. I like to think that because the situation is complex and can get confusing, the best way to gain an understanding is to study individual stories, stuff that usually gets hidden behind the larger scene.

From the research I have done, the majority of Afghans want peace to the point where they would accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the continued war. Its confusing, but it just shows the war really needs to end.

rdl19• 13 years ago

How did anyone argue "Afghanistan is not a failed state", other than the "it was never a state, so it didn't fail, it just never won" (although in the monarchy it was OK in certain parts, for about a decade).

LekkoscPiwa6• 13 years ago

Afghanistan was a modern state (and do research instead of simple downvote) as recently as 1960s. They had women studying at Universities, they had modern hospitals, you name it.

War radicalized the society. Put them back in stoneage. They have had wars for the past 30-40 years.

USSR death started with Afghanistan. USA death will start with it too. The place is a graveyard of Empires.

VLM3• 13 years ago

May not like hearing it, but the argument is usually a backhanded slap against (radical?) Islam.

Consider if you give a religious exception to "widespread violation of human rights" at least as we'd describe human rights, or consider ethnic cleansing and purifying the faith as a feature not a bug. You pretty quickly start running out of reasons to consider the country a failed state, so I guess a lack of checked checkboxes means it must not be a member of the group.

The backhanded part is assuming Islamic country = Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia aka failed state. Carefully ignoring Muslim majority, or at least lots of Muslims, such as, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, UAE, France, UK, Indonesia, none of which are paradise on earth but then again not anywhere near societal collapse, at least not right now.

Maybe one way to phrase it is the vast majority of currently failed states are Islamic, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything because the vast majority of Islamic states (and/or states with lots of Muslims) are not currently failed states. Carefully ignoring the previous line is how to get in a backhanded slap against Islam.

panacea• 13 years ago

I honestly don't desire to belittle or discount your anecdotes, but equating failed state = drug abusing population seems problematic when you look around in the West.

smackay• 13 years ago

You have to think of it in terms of the nightmare that is unfolding in Mexico rather than recreational use of drugs by people who are otherwise able to support themselves with jobs.

guard-of-terra• 13 years ago

There is this recurring rumour that USA helps to deliver heroin from Afghanistan (and whereever) to Europe via their military bases. Particularly in Albania.

I don't know where it is coming from, but little doubt that USA intervention in Afghanistan leads to an increase of Heroin production there which then gets smuggled out.

Taliban needs to wage war and guns don't buy themselves.

ardit33• 13 years ago

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell to you.

kinkora• 13 years ago

Good story.

I've always thought that the situation in Afghanistan can be pretty much summarised in these pictures:

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5112c4a969beddd0720...

p/s: it shows the stark differences in Aghanistan from 1967 to 2007

rdl19• 13 years ago

I thought the Kandahar green belt stuff was "help this third-world country develop with the promise of the green revolution" showplace stuff from the west, not the organic state of Afghanistan overall in the 1960s, though. It was certainly otherwise far better back then, but my perception from people from Kandahar (who admittedly weren't really experts; expats who had left in the 1980s) was that it was sort of like Epcot Center or something which had fallen into disrepair.)

sultezdukes• 13 years ago

And so would have the majority of Americans back in 2001, but they wouldn't give up Bin Laden, so they paid the price.

drumdance• 13 years ago

And so did we.

graycat12• 13 years ago

> From the research I have done, the majority of Afghans want peace to the point where they would accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the continued war. Its confusing, but it just shows the war really needs to end.

As I looked at US efforts at essentially 'nation building', often on the other side of the world, to try to contribute to US national security, I came up with a simple observation:

In a country with a government and economy that function at all, there has to be and is a 'culture' with social structures, education, economic activity, leadership, laws, government, usually religion, etc. While such a culture has to exist, it may be very different from that in the US.

In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the 'culture' is heavily just Islam: Islam controls social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child rearing, the role of family, etc. Islam also controls most of education, much of the economic activity, essentially all the laws, the police, the justice system, the government, the foreign policy, and, of course, religion. We can toss in architecture, what people eat, and what they wear. Basically from how people dress, eat, work, etc., its all Islam. So, in an Islamic country, take away Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just chaos, e.g., criminals, gangs, civil war, etc. Net, in an Islamic country, for a government leader can have an Islamic king (e.g., Kuwait), Islamic strong man dictator (Saddam, Assad), or Islamic cleric (Iran). That's about it.

One can try to set up a Western, secular government in an Islamic country, but the leader will have no cultural foundation to stand on and, thus, will be trying to sell pie in the sky. Meanwhile the clerics will be working 24 x 7 to get their people up on their hind legs against the guy, and too soon he will lose, maybe his head.

For anything like US democracy, laws, police, secular government, freedom of religion, etc., just f'get about it. We need to understand: In the US, our 'culture' of democracy is much more than just our Constitution and elections. Instead, in addition, nearly all of us have 'bought into' a 'social contract' where we believe in, invest in, and trust in our democracy. So for most significant transgressions against the 'culture', the voters get indignant, outraged, incensed, infuriated, and up on their hind legs and vote! E.g., each member of the House has to stand for election each two years, which is darned short, and keeps him on a very short leash, and if he messes up then likely he's out'a there. To borrow from a Bond movie, getting caught in a motel room with a cheerleader does nicely.

Really the Islamic countries are about 500 years behind the history of Western Europe, e.g., when Western Europe was fighting wars of religion and starting to develop respect for humanism, individual freedom, secular government, and democracy. Moving ahead 500 years is not easy. The rivers of Europe ran red with blood for hundreds of years before we got to 'Western Civilization'. Europe has been the most effectively bloody place on the planet until finally it started to learn to live in peace, recently, hopefully.

Net, Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or cleric. Sorry 'bout that. We won't like such a 'culture': Some of the men use boys for sex. They marry off their daughters at age 7 or 13 or some such. They refuse to educate females. They use Islamic laws and justice. Islam runs essentially everything.

That's just the way it is. That's the reality. We need to face the reality. We don't like it. We see it as a 500 year out of date sh!tpit, and we are correct. Right, it sucks. We know that.

Then, facing that reality, we can look for how to get what we need, e.g., US national security, that is, to keep Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US.

Okay, then, that's what we really need, our real 'bottom line': Keep Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US. We need little or nothing more than that from Afghanistan. Can we get that? Sure. How? Two steps. Step 1. Put in place a bunch of INTEL. Step 2. Leave. [It took the US 12 years to figure this out?] If our INTEL tells us that they are starting to attack the US again, then level them, appropriate places plus some for good measure, from the air. Done.

What will happen after we leave? Mostly we don't give a sh!t. But I'd put my money on a government run by an Islamic cleric, e.g., the Taliban.

Now, US military, welcome home. Well done.

Yes, we can be sure that the Muslim clerics will get their people up on their hind legs shouting "Death to America". Sounds like a declaration of war to me for which some USAF guy in a container room in Nevada should push a button on a drone control and stop that stuff. But if all they do is shout, then we don't always have to push the button.

England was long smart enough to work effectively in that part of the world, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India, Burma, Singapore, etc., without getting all bent out of shape trying to bring English culture to those places.

The US needs to quit being so darned simplistic, wise up, learn from the English 150 years ago, update the lessons a little, use our drones, INTEL, etc., do the smart things, and quit bleeding the US white on absurd foreign adventures from just totally unrealistic, head in the sand, simplistic foreign policy nonsense. We will not get what we have wanted in Afghanistan. Instead we will wise up and get what we can and need or just go broke on nonsense.

What's it going to be US, wise up or go broke?

infinitone• 13 years ago

> For anything like US democracy, laws, police, secular government, freedom of religion, etc., just f'get about it.

Clearly you haven't read much history about Islam and can only see the world from what the US media feeds you. Somehow you've been led to think that US 'democracy' is the epitome of a civil world and if a nation is unlike it- then it is some dystopian society.

Islam had all of those things during its founding and up until the Mongols came- during its reign the most controversial land were once governed by peace and had all Christians/Jews/Muslims living side by side. To not cut too much from your time watching Fox News, here's a primer on history; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpcbfxtdoI8

Symmetry2• 13 years ago

The relation between Islam and society is actually a lot more complicated than that. Go to Pakistan and ask 10 Imams about honor killings[1]. Eight will hem and haw, one will say that it's against the Koran and needs to be stopped, and one will say it might be against the Koran but it's so important it needs to continue.

I do find the rules Muhammad laid down to have a lot of problems, but they were a big improvement over the existing traditions in the area and would be a big improvement over what people actually do in Afghanistan.

wnight9• 13 years ago

> Then, facing that reality, we can look for how to get what we need, e.g., US national security, that is, to keep Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the US.

This is just vapid bullshit. 9/11 was guys with knives. They had very little specialized training and needed less. You can't spot that from the air with drones, and it didn't need fields of poppies to fund.

There's one simple reason the USA is in the middle east - oil. Making sure it keeps flowing.

> Yes, we can be sure that the Muslim clerics will get their people up on their hind legs shouting "Death to America". Sounds like a declaration of war to me for which some USAF guy in a container room in Nevada should push a button on a drone control and stop that stuff. But if all they do is shout, then we don't always have to push the button.

So does some war-hawk talking about how we should push a button and end the outrage that we created with yet another bomb.

Maybe we should trade, the militant cleric for you, as some sort of reverse prisoner-of-war deal, to help keep the peace.

> The US needs to quit being so darned simplistic, wise up, [...], use our drones, INTEL, etc., do the smart things,

Or, you know, you could try for a foreign policy that didn't involve holding a gun to everyone's head.

Especially since you got too big for anyone to fight, and started picking on smaller enemies with less resources - meaning that everything is going to turn into guerrilla strikes against civilians, on both sides.

neebz3• 13 years ago

Have you ever been to an Islamic country ever? You just made up the whole history like a simplistic comic book story.

> In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the 'culture' is heavily just Islam: Islam controls social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child rearing, the role of family, etc.

I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs. There is a strong case that our marriage, sex etc. are more inclined towards traditional indian culture than islamic (e.g. second marriages or marrying a divorcee is a taboo in Pakistan while in fact is encouraged in Islam). There is so much diversity in our provinces on how they deal with women (e.g. in Punjab in rural areas, it is very common for women to have jobs, unlike in the Pashtuns) that your claim of sweeping all Islamic countries under one broom is laughable.

> We can toss in architecture, what people eat, and what they wear. Basically from how people dress, eat, work, etc., its all Islam. No it's not. Sorry that's just show your lack of research. Again the 'shalwar kameez' we wear here in Pakistan has more in common with Hindu lineage than Islam with the urban areas are totally jeans/suits. We have huge interest-based banks since forever where banks are a total no-no in Islam.

>Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or cleric

Not sure you can lump up kings with clerics and make an argument out of that. The only thing common between then is opportunist. They wanted to be on the throne and they might've used religion in some cases or maybe sheer power in other. In Pakistan, more than half of our history, we've been ruled by dictators but not once we got an Imam or a cleric.

dctoedt2• 13 years ago

> Step 1. Put in place a bunch of INTEL.

This sounds suspiciously like Step 2 of the South Park underpants-gnome meme; it detracts from other good points you make.

bokonist3• 13 years ago

"Really the Islamic countries are about 500 years behind the history of Western Europe... Moving ahead 500 years is not easy.Net, Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or cleric. Sorry 'bout that. We won't like such a 'culture': Some of the men use boys for sex."

Taliban-style regressive Islam is not 500 years old in Afghanistan, it is only a few decades old. Check out these pictures from Afghanistan in the 1960's: http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/01/28/podlich-afgh...

ryanmarsh• 13 years ago

tl;dr The ground truth is NOTHING like what you see in the MSM. I fought in Iraq as a paratrooper mostly in Baghdad from '04 to '05. While there I was really surprised by the reporting I saw. We had CNN in our hooch (paid Hadji to hook it up). We had satellite Internet (again paid Hadji for it) and I read the NY Times. The reporting there could not have been further from reality. We used to scratch our heads at the reporting each morning on the day prior in Baghdad. It was like they were reporting from a different planet. You should not be surprised that the ground truth is wildly different from what is being reported. My first briefing when I got on the ground in 2004 was that we were past a simple insurgency and now in a small scale civil war that we were trying to stop from becoming a full scale humanitarian crisis. I recall a lot of reporting and very brainy discussion about the insurgency at that time but I don't recall the civil war entering that discussion until late 2005 when I got back to the states. Keep in mind that in Afghanistan most of reporters don't go out without ISAF patrols because that would not be very safe, it was the same in Iraq. This drastically alters the story you get. On the flip side, I'm pleasantly surprised by the courage displayed by some of the PBS Frontline reporters and the places they've gone. I love Frontline. As they say, America isn't at war America is at the shopping mall. The US Army is at war.

graycat12• 13 years ago

> My first briefing when I got on the ground in 2004 was that we were past a simple insurgency and now in a small scale civil war that we were trying to stop from becoming a full scale humanitarian crisis.

That's what I thought, and I was always in the US and getting only US news. Moreover, earlier still, I believed the remarks reported from Saddam that the US occupation would have one heck of a time keeping the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds from having a civil war.

W claimed that, of course, the Iraqis could "govern themselves". Where'd George get that really strong funny stuff he was smoking?

Net, W failed to see what large fractions of common street thugs, one step higher lone criminals, low level gang leaders, various mid level opportunists, government officials, religious leaders, tribal leaders, the Iranians, and international trouble makers saw: W's defeat of Saddam without a serious effort at occupation had left Iraq plowed fertile ground for chaos.

znowi• 13 years ago

> its hard for me and Americans maybe all westerners, to understand Afghanistan and the people there

It's not hard at all. Country A invades country B. Wreaks havoc and assigns a puppet government. Army is in disarray, civilian life is disrupted. It doesn't take a "reasonably bright American student" to guess the conditions and sentiments of the local populace.

thelogos• 13 years ago

Does anyone else think it would be easier and less bloody to just get the Taliban addicted to heroine and subsidize their cost of living?

rdl19• 13 years ago

The Taliban were actually pretty hardcore counter-narcotics in the late 1990s, with western support. They only partnered with the narcotics industry after 9/11 when fighting the US.

VLM3• 13 years ago

I've heard this semi-seriously described as the "Turn Them Into Detroit" strategy, and arguably this is the long term strategy we've selected although in an unspoken manner. Follow the money. I'm talking long term as in over decades of occupation not long term as in next financial quarter.

I've also seen the same argument in reverse, if we cut back on social service payments, as seems economically inevitable in the long term, our own inner cities will rapidly look much like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. So if you want to see a realistic projection of "Detroit 2030", just look at "Somalia 2013".

LekkoscPiwa6• 13 years ago

Afghanistan: a graveyard of empires.

deevus• 13 years ago

Is there an easy way to download this video for later?

DanBC• 13 years ago

Legally? Not sure.

Illegally, a search for [panorama mission accomplished] probably returns relevant results.

subsystem3• 13 years ago

It's also available on youtube, just use something like youtube-dl.

venomsnake• 13 years ago

I think the problem is that the enemy changed the rules and the generals unlike the foot soldiers took a lot of time to understand it (if they even have). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-...

There are no military objectives or territory worth holding for them. Their goal is to just inflict as much pain as possible on the US troops knowing that they can outlast them. The US has army that can deal with any conventional threat (from which there are few) or properly defined objective, but seems unprepared for country occupation/building mission (and with good reason, the Army as a foreign policy tool is not wise).

powertower• 13 years ago

At first, as the movie started and one of the US troops was trying to teach those Afghan troops not to shit, eat, and clean themselves in the same spot, gauging by the response of the Afghan in-charge, I figured it was a pointless and insulting thing to do...

Than as I watched more of the movie, I realized that more than likely that Afghan group was doing exactly that - and there was probably some type of hazard going among them.

I'm about 30 minutes into the movie, and I really can't make sense of the buffoonery and self-destructive behavior displayed by the Afghan side. Is a product of nature, culture, situation ... what is it?

Though what I can make sense of, is why historically the only successful means of controlling and stabilizing that region of the world was -> strong-rule <- (like the Taliban's). Because it must of cut right through all that bullshit.

I'm not sure how the US troops must put up with all the crap.

cup• 13 years ago

Its the product of growing up in a destabalized war torn country. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to fight a proxy war with America. Most of the Afghan population since has had to etch our some kind of post-war anarhic life.

Is it no surprise that you think their lifestyles/societies are backwards when you write your comments from a first world country that hasnt seen occupation and invasion in however many years (assuming you're from a western country that is).

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

So, notes?

- Lots of people doing effectively nothing.

- Low morale.

- Ad-hoc training of Afghan army/police.

- Lack of national identity.

- Poor mobility.

- Lack of intelligence.

- Communication problems.

- No clear strategic objectives or clear plans to achieve desired processes

shn• 13 years ago

This is what winning looks like:

From this... http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-pop...

to this... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-opi...

bane7• 13 years ago

One of the major problems that occupying forces have had in Afghanistan is that modern military strategy fundamentally isn't designed for taking and holding ground. Outside of the bases in Afghanistan, there is not one square meter of ground that is "owned" by the coalition.

The approach seems to be that transient patrols, haphazardly driving around and visiting villages in giant bomb proof robot trucks, is a substitute for thousands of years old strategies of taking, holding and controlling territory. There's no front lines in the kind of conflict because that's how the new strategy has defined the conflict. The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War. After that it was endless insurgencies or hit-win-withdraw like in the first Iraq war.

This is opposed to the Taliban which can comfortably move into a village and live there 24/7, becoming "the villagers" as much as anybody who was there before. A robot truck driving up and asking "where are the non-villagers, where are the bad guys?" will get no answer because everybody is a villager, and the guy making bombs in the afternoons is a village elder the rest of the day. There are no bad guys.

Afghanistan isn't a failed state, it's an anti-state, its borders are a reflection of the borders of its neighbors -- extending only so far as they cared to and stopping when the terrain became too difficult to bother. Within this zone are several city-states and otherwise large stretches of lawless territory connected, but not held together, by a network of smugglers and local warlords. The coalition controls none of it save for perhaps the city-state of Kabul.

Of course the ability to take and control territory means lots and lots of manpower, which runs contrary to modern military thinking. This forces military leadership into a state of sustained denial that this or that alternate approach will be the one that opens up the opportunity for Afghanistan to develop into a real state. They're flummoxed that it isn't happening.

But there's sadly only one proven way to accomplish this goal, take, hold and control territory. Put in place a carefully controlled puppet dictator or similar for a couple decades, one who will build up strong institutions of government and industry. Then once these things are in place, kill him or his dynastic line off (or have a quiet democratic revolution) and have the people assume ownership of these institutions and industries. Sure if the timing of these things is off it fucks up and we end up with Iran. But if the timing is good we end up with South Korea.

PeterisP2• 13 years ago

There is no way how you can "take and hold ground" with tens of thousands of troops in a place populated with tens of millions.

Proper occupation can be and has been done many times in history, but it takes a force at least somewhat proportional to the population; which the west doesn't really want to afford.

bane7• 13 years ago

I agree, which is why perhaps military policy should be more like the first Iraq War. Go in, kick ass, withdraw, claim victory. Don't forget that there was incredible resistance to increasing the ground troop numbers across NATO nations.

Long protracted ground wars seem like something the West should give much more thought to going forward.

bokonist3• 13 years ago

Proper occupation can be and has been done many times in history, but it takes a force at least somewhat proportional to the population; which the west doesn't really want to afford.

Controlling a territory has been done many times with a very small force. The key is set up a hierarchy and have locals do the door-to-door ground work. Flying in the imperial marines to patrol every village street in backcountry Afghanistan is completely insane.

Historically, the way to control a territory is as follows: you go to each region and you find the local strongman with the best combination of reliability and strength available. You say: "We will support your control of this region, if you provide security and support our imperial policies [those policies could be anything, depending on the desires of the imperialist. It could be providing natural resources, converting people to a certain religion or even spreading woman's rights]. If you support our policies, you will otherwise have freedom to rule according to local custom. We will provide you money and resources. If you fail to support our policies, we will violently remove you."

Under such a policy, you do not need hundreds of thousands of imperial soldiers patrolling the lands, you just need enough soldiers to remove any local warlords that get out of line.

This raises the question: why hasn't the U.S. done the above? My theory is that the U.S. leadership are actually True Believers in democracy. The above method of rule makes it impossible to spread democracy, because the occupying power must choose the strongman - the locals cannot choose the leader via elections. Since the U.S. wishes to spread democracy, it cannot use this method of rule. Furthermore, such overt imperialism contradicts the U.S.'s founding myth as being born out of resistance to imperialism. Few states can overtly contradict their founding myths. So instead, the U.S. has chosen to maintain security with its own forces, so that the locals can have elections and choose local leaders, as part of a transition to democracy.

YZF2• 13 years ago

There are many historical examples where a smaller force has taken over large populations. You need some sort of military advantage to do that. Britain, Spain or going further back the Romans.

These involve components though that are unacceptable in modern warfare. e.g. the threat and execution of collective punishment against large populations. The smaller force doesn't need to subdue the entire population at once, just a chunk at a time.

For less extreme measures you would effectively need to put in place martial law and martial rule that governs every aspect of the populations' lives. In this case you need enough force on the ground all the time to enforce it and those forces are going to take losses in a guerilla warfare situation (e.g. the Russians in Afghanistan). Especially if someone is supporting the opposing side...

In Afghanistan it's a mix of issues:

1. The occupying force has low tolerance for casualties and is in defensive mode.

2. The population has a long history of overthrowing occupation and therefore assumes the same will happen here.

3. Everyone can see the lack of commitment for the occupying force. This is not a "win at all costs" situation.

4. The Taliban is supported by external entities fighting a proxy war.

5. The Taliban is, at least in theory, in a "win at all costs" mode.

bdunbar5• 13 years ago

> The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War.

Except for ..

Falkland Islands

Grenada

Desert Storm

OIF

bane7• 13 years ago

I'd definitely strike OIF from that list as it suffered from the same lack of ground control that OEF has and I'm not sure I'd count the Falklands or Grenada as a major military campaigns.

I specifically addressed Desert Storm (as the First Iraq War) as specifically a case where Western forces didn't hold territory. It was a hit, win and withdraw strategy and was over in what 100 hours? There was no ground held in the long term.

CleanedStar• 13 years ago

Grenada was a "major conflict"? Only if the entire US military versus a bunch of infighting leftists on a 344 square kilometer island with a population of less than 100,000 counts as a major conflict.

lobster_johnson3• 13 years ago

The Falklands are British. The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force.

Desert Storm: The US did not hold any ground for a long period of time. They defeated the Iraqi forces and withdrew.

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

popopje• 13 years ago

one of the major points made in the documentary is that the guy making bombs in the afternoon is one of the bad guys, but calling him out one way or the other is a terrible idea for your average village. the reason they aren't pointing out the bad guy is because as you say, that robot truck is going to leave that evening. you don't want the bad guy's friends to find out, and you don't want the robot truck to start firing.

bane7• 13 years ago

Furthermore, "find the bombmakers" is useless when the population of an entire village has been pressed into service in making bomb components like wooden pressure triggers. Thus the entire village are bombmakers.

nl7• 13 years ago

That is almost 100% false. For example, read the on-the-ground account in Junger's book War (and the related documentary Resprepo).

The whole aim of the Restrepo outpost was to control entry to the Korengal Valley, and take and hold control of the ground.

It kind of worked for a short period of time, but ultimately failed.

Nevertheless, the strategy was to gain control of the ground, then hand control over to local Afghan forces. There were some fairly significant failures in implementing that strategy though - not least that the government put in place to replace the Taliban was notably worse in many respects for the local population.

bane7• 13 years ago

"It kind of worked for a short period of time, but ultimately failed."

So it's almost 100% false, but actually correct?

ucee0545• 13 years ago

Except Iran was nothing like Afghanistan; it had democratic institutions that Iranians had been fighting to build since 1906.

And nobody "took" territory, Whitey arranged a coup d'etat. Which destroyed the Iranian democratic institutions.Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

If Whitey hadn't smashed them up, Iran's institutions might have been able to stand up to the religious loonies.

pekk3• 13 years ago

First, you do not have any hard evidence that this happened. Like most people making this claim and linking to Wikipedia, I doubt you even know the name of the primary source in which it was claimed - let alone that you have any way to corroborate the claim. Second, the purported event is separated from the Iranian revolution by several decades (53 to 79). Third, the Iranian revolution actually incorporated cooperation from ideologically diverse parties who were betrayed and liquidated by the subsequent leaders of the revolution. That liquidation was not the doing of the US by any stretch of the imagination - and certainly is not a direct result of anything that happened in 1953, even on your assumptions.

You are repeating a standard, oversimplified revisionist history which makes the US singlehandedly responsible for Iran's entire fate for all time, blatantly ignoring any other historical, regional or Iranian factor.

mtdewcmu2• 13 years ago

"The approach seems to be that transient patrols, haphazardly driving around and visiting villages in giant bomb proof robot trucks, is a substitute for thousands of years old strategies of taking, holding and controlling territory."

I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to get the Army to take and hold territory in Afghanistan, because that's the kind of thing that armies naturally do and they're good at. We've been un-training the Army in that respect, because we don't want the territory. We've always had one foot out the door.

It must be plainly obvious if you happen to be there that Afghanistan is not a good piece of real estate to invest in. The impression I get is like of a blighted neighborhood, perhaps like something you might find in the poorest part of the US, say, somewhere in the rust belt or the deep south. The comparison only goes so deep. But my point being that there are areas here at home that we can't save from decaying and becoming havens for criminals. Even if there was some price for which Afghanistan could be saved (gentrified?), it smells to us like a bad business deal and we have no intention of getting too deeply involved, not to the point that we can't get back out.

It's been obvious for a while that the Afghanistan mission hasn't been going well and it's equally obvious that, in spite of all that we have spent and done, we haven't literally exhausted everything we could try if we really, I mean really, wanted to. I've tried to imagine this scenario, where failure is truly not an option -- what might we try, then?

The biggest problem looks to be the economy, which looks like it's based on dead-ends like subsistence farming, and on criminal enterprise, like opium cultivation and trafficking in sex slaves. The most valuable resource Afghanistan has to offer foreigners, at present, is being a lawless no-man's land where crime goes unpunished. Afghanistan seems to hold little to reward investors, or any kind of business. In the failure-is-not-an-option case, the best strategy may be to basically create a welfare state and start sending out checks. A well-run welfare state apparatus would create a lot of good will and loyalty very fast, and start to free people from the survival-level concerns that drive them to ally with the Taliban. The bureaucracy involved would get people interacting with government and start to create a favorable impression of what government is, as well as provide jobs. Welfare checks could allow some people to get away from manual labor long enough to acquire education, and start to lay the groundwork for a self-sustaining economy. A direct infusion of money would provide the incentive to individuals to take our side and abandon the Taliban, which up till now has been missing. Of course, we'd also have to convince people of our intention to stay for the long term, but I have a feeling Afghans would be less inclined to doubt it if we actually started sending out checks.

I'm not saying this would ever happen, or even that I'm advocating for it. In the hypothetical scenario where nothing was off the table, it's my best guess as to what could work.

tibbon3• 13 years ago

I've never been in the military, so I'm sure there is a great deal that I don't understand- or worse, think I understand when I've got it backwards.

When I watch something like this, I'm absolutely blown away by how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers. Yet, how many years did it take for us to try to train troops in Iraq, and it sounds like they still just unloaded entire clips whenever they saw a rabbit in the desert.

When these countries turn over top leadership (Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt, etc) it feels that they completely lose all historical training/ability for the military and go back to square one. Complete anarchy. It sounds like a huge percentage of their people defect seemingly randomly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't feel like this happens (generally) in European countries when there is a massive leadership change. A post WW1 Germany was able to keep enough military knowledge/discipline together to be a seriously powerful force by WW2- and that certainly didn't have external forces in there trying their hardest to give them all the help possible. Post Russian Revolution USSR was quite a force to be reckoned with as well.

Why is it so damn hard to set up decent military training? Seems like a process we should understand by now, since we've put millions of young people through it. We (americans) initially setup West Point in the middle of a revolution and have been running it since (although it wasn't the United States Military Academy until 1802).

I'm absolutely certain it isn't because westerners are smarter, better, etc (we aren't)... but there is something seriously weird over there at the same time (malnutrition, lack of basic formal education system, cultural differences, too many generations of instability (maybe one generation works ok, but 3 breaks things seriously))

jilebedev• 13 years ago

>how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers

A country's military is a reflection of and limited by the society that spawns it. The USA can keep disciplined and ethical soldiers because it has never suffered civil unrest, never been invaded, enjoys prosperity, freedom, public law and justice. No such thing can be said of Afghanistan or Iraq. Moreover - the "10 weeks of BCT" is not "just" "10 weeks of BCT". There is a logistics and supply train several tho-- million pages long that creates those "just" 10 weeks. Consider the fact that humans are recruited. Recruiters need to be trained, fed, paid, and have offices. That costs money. Afghanistan has no money. Consider the fact that young men need to be transported from and to BCT: this requires roads free of IEDs, requires fuel for trucks, favourable economic conditions to produce or import buses. Consider the fact that a certain percentage of all military trainees quit before completing that training. This is accounted for and expected: there are 300 million humans in the USA and this is acceptable losses. Consider the fact that abiding by the laws of a nation and strict adherence to authority is something these "17/18" year olds have done for two decades by the time their military training is over. It is ingrained into their psyche to follow the law from the earliest age, in the most gentle of methods: by the witnessing of safety and prosperity of Americans abiding by the law. Consider an Afghani youth: what is ignrained into them is an invsion by Russia and now invasion by America. How confident in justice do you think they are? How inclined are they to respect authority? How confortable are they submitting to a national government?

A country's military is fundamentally a reflection of the society it spawns. Afghanistan is a failed state in every respect, for the last several decades, and as such it cannot muster a professional military despite the efforts of the US-led coalition.

tibbon3• 13 years ago

Thanks for the reply.

Toward the end of the doc, it digs a bit more into the 'why', which include many of your points.

I thought a while about the perspective of an Afghani youth vs those views of an American youth. Afghan youth probably realizes even more than the American one that they are simply pawns in the system and no one outside their families cares for them. The Afghani youth are likely illiterate by most standards, and it sounds like the soldiers keep absolutely terrible records accordingly. As much as we trash the American education system (which is flawed), we at least have a pretty decent baseline for education to create soldiers that can read/write/math.

Whereas the American youth probably thinks that they are fighting for their country and doing great good around the world, I'm not entirely sure that the Afghan youth would think of it that way. At best, they are fighting for a paycheck, a gun, and some temporary protection.

As you point out, the basic supply chain of infrastructure is lacking there. We've given them the tools such as solar panels (which they feature in the doc), but if something messes up they have no idea how to fix them. Corruption isn't a bad thing, its being smarter and probably closer to survival than anything. The motivation to stay and fight in a dangerous situation is exceedingly low; whereas an American soldier can at least hope for a memorial, benefits to their spouse, and honors if they are killed in action, there is certainly none of that for the Afghan youth.

I guess to top that off, we're all left holding the question of why we're over there at all. It didn't really make that much sense at first (didn't we learn from Vietnam?), and it makes even less sense now. Nationbuilding doesn't work. Never has, never will.

lostlogin6• 13 years ago

While the American army might be mostly disciplined and ethical, but there have been notable and terrible exceptions to this. The repercussions of these colossal lapses have been to further alienate a skeptical population of an occupied country. If your invading with a overriding mission statement that claims the moral high ground, scrutiny is going to be intense - the occupiers have been found wanting.

gwern2• 13 years ago

> I'm absolutely certain it isn't because westerners are smarter, better, etc (we aren't)... but there is something seriously weird over there at the same time (malnutrition, lack of basic formal education system, cultural differences, too many generations of instability (maybe one generation works ok, but 3 breaks things seriously))

I'm amused at how you can disclaim completely that Westerners might be smarter - perish the thought! - and then in the next breath suggest a major cause of that (lack of malnutrition) as the explanation.

tibbon3• 13 years ago

I guess that I'm saying we aren't inherently smarter (westerners have often thought about others around the world). Education, nutrition, healthcare, better mental health of course all contribute to better effective applicable intelligence.

pekk3• 13 years ago

The elephant in the room is that this isn't incompetence, it is motivation. These people don't fear or respect the US so what motivates them to do what the US wants? They will do just enough to collect the money being offered and then do what they want in the way they want. If they want to kill some Americans, defect or just desert then they will do it and what is really to stop them?

Germany started out with tons of world-class military men and they were not being trained or directed by a hated power, rather the opposite, they were working against hated outside powers. So no motivation problem there.

No training technique will substitute for motivation.

joering22• 13 years ago

Just so we are clear on one thing: the last war that US took a part of that was a war fought in the name of freedom was War War 2 that ended in 1945. Every single War after that date had nothing to do with Americans living on American soil being free, safe, or whatever. You had to have your brain removed to believe that invading Iraq or Afghanistan (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent, as a by-result of every military conflict) was necessary, because otherwise those nations and their people will come here and violate the US soil.

Both Iraq and Afghan war were carefully crafted by Military Industrial Complex from day one (first step: create problem, like in Iraq WMD's that were never found {glad there are some countries like Switzerland where they still prosecuted war criminals [1]}, step two: offer solution: offer piece by using force, step three: execute - by spending trillions of tax dollars), so you should understand war is nothing more than good business. Bloody but good. Stalin said one person killed that's a murder, millions is only a statistics, and that's how I believe those pulling strings can sleep at night. Oh by the way: as you remember those WMDs were never found (but sure they existed, okay?), but rest assured they moved them somewhere around, conveniently. Never mind 100,000 civilians dead (or some surveys shows 600k, or .. 1 million! [2]).

I have a respect for american soldiers, but I wish they were more educated on what they are really doing. They are NOT protecting american soil or fighting for their own country. Those are gone long time ago, as Chief in Command (President of the USA) is carefully following NATO orders, and US becomes a part of North American Union. Their action, whether successful or not, have nothing to do with us here being safe on american soil. Had they been educated they are just a tool in hands of few with access to the highest standing politicians that grab more tax money and give it into hands of Military Industrial Complex, they would have stopped participating in the war, knowing the real name of the game, like fighting for oil in Iraq.

Just some of my thoughts on this Memorial Day.

[1] http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-you-k...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

curiousDog• 13 years ago

Thank you for pointing this out! For a second there I couldn't understand how the American population is turning a blind eye to such a pointless war.

Also the new Start trek movie is oddly reminiscent to this. Although the taliban/iraq aren't nearly as powerful as the Klingons.

joering22• 13 years ago

Well, it doesn't matter whether they are turning blind eye or not. America's politics in not in people's hands, but in politician's hands that serve bigger cause (read: serve Military Industrial Complex).

The sad part is, is that not much is gonna change. There is STILL too much money to make off of war, and in case too many civilians stand up, you can always setup another 911, plane bombing (shoe-bomber), another stage shooting, etc, and it will shut everyone up, and open their wallets to even more money being given to MIC.

Its a really sad and disappointing situation.

genwin• 13 years ago

Search for: A new law signed by President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan requires Shiite women to ask their husband's permission before leaving the home and forces them to have sexual intercourse. ... Human rights activists say the new law grants even fewer rights to women than when the Islamist Taliban held sway.

gwgarry• 13 years ago

It was a stupid idea and a waste of time.

hooande• 13 years ago

The taliban operates like the mafia in Afghanistan. They go from provincial village to village, effectively saying "Hey, nice village you have here...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it"

They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter.

In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen. The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts.

The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business.

The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most lucrative parts of the government.

It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them. But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may have helped the situation.

btilly2• 13 years ago

It is worse than that.

The fundamental problem with the government is that in the name of expediency we put people who hated the Taliban in charge and called it a democracy. Then when they maintained their power by openly stealing elections, we didn't call their bluff because we were trying to pretend that they are an independent country. The example that everyone sees is corruption starting at the top, and flowing all of the way down.

Now we're trying to declare victory and leave. But the existing kleptocracy can't stand. Everyone knows it. We just don't want to keep dying for no purpose. And the kleptocracy is only seeking to steal as much as they can before they lose power.

joe_the_user• 13 years ago

More specifically, we put the "Northern Alliance" in power. These are essentially drug lords with roots in the North of country. Thus the narco-economy has been operating in spades since they have come to power. This creates a situation where foreign aid and illicit drugs are the only real sources of money.

See the palaces they construct:

http://trueslant.com/pjtobia/2009/07/12/narcotecture-a-photo...

lolcraft• 13 years ago

> When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen.

9/11 hijackers were mostly well educated, middle-class Saudi Arabians. Not Taliban, as you seem to imply.

If anything, what could be argued is that Afghanistan lacking a national police force makes it easy for terrorist groups to establish military training camps there. But that's a whole different thing.

wnight9• 13 years ago

Not even, it makes it easy for warlords to train militias, not for terrorists.

Terrorists rarely need combat skills as we think about them. Terrorist training is more about pushing the button - which is all religious, or maybe playing flight-sims and practicing with a knife. They do this in living rooms and garages.

Local warlords though, need places to train troops live ammo, firing RPGs and mortars, practicing attacking and defending against other large local foes.

Not that they shouldn't be stopped - that's a valid question - but we went in after international terrorists, shot local warlords, and claimed victory.

(In the process, killing enough people unjustly to cause much of a generation to have real reason to hate us.)

ljf2• 13 years ago

Just checking, but you do know that the Taliban and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 or any major international terrorism? Al Qaeda on other had is a different beast, but although they were operating in Afganistan for a time, they are nothing like the loose Mafia you describe.

A decent job has been done of removing Al Qaeda, but the only way to change a country like Afghanistan is to stop sending millions over there in cash from international drug money. The war on drugs helped fund this situation. And doesn't seem to be helping to bring a resolution yet at great cost to them and us.

nl7• 13 years ago

the only way to change a country like Afghanistan is to stop sending millions over there in cash from international drug money. The war on drugs helped fund this situation. And doesn't seem to be helping to bring a resolution yet at great cost to them and us.

The drug trade is a big problem in Afghanistan, but isn't the root cause of the problems there (Indeed, since it's pretty close to the only functioning export industry it may well be a good thing for the farmers).

No-one has ever successfully imposed any system of government on Afghanistan. That reflects deeper causes than the war on drugs.

wnight9• 13 years ago

> The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians.

No. The reason it hasn't worked is because it's a total lie.

Afghanistan wasn't invaded to help it, or to stop terrorists, it was invaded for oil, handy bases near countries we need to remain "allies", etc.

> [The US response to the taliban was to send] marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban.

Roughly, yes. And had this been done for the reasons stated, at any of the times various segments of the population and world-wide humanitarian groups had asked for it, you'd have been saviors.

But that wasn't the goal or you'd have done it that way - not in freak-out mode.

The "failed state" in Afghanistan is the one you're building. Unwanted, known criminals, ruling over a set of borders nobody feels attached to.

btilly2• 13 years ago

You seem to have confused Afghanistan with Iraq.

Afghanistan is not a major oil producer. There are large estimated reserves there, but they are not tapped. (And indeed the main contract to develop fields there was signed by the Chinese.)

However Iraq looks exactly like you said. And indeed the initial name for the invasion plan was Operation Iraqi Liberation. But there seems to have been a power struggle between the neocons in the Bush administration (open up the taps, crash the world market, see the economy take off) and the people from the oil reserves (shut the taps off, see the price skyrocket, make oil countries happy). The latter contingent included Condoleezza Rice (Chevron named an oil tanker after her), Dick Cheney (former CEO of Haliburton), and George Bush himself who had worked in the oil industry, and been bailed out by Saudi Arabian family friends.

Unsurprisingly the oil industry won that political fight.

gmays• 13 years ago

First off, I didn't watch the whole thing, I got sick of it. So, my comments aren't necessarily about the documentary, but to provide some perspective. The below are notes I took while reading in no particular order, so the argument is a bit disjointed. I spent a year as an embedded advisor in Afghanistan and just returned last month. Prior to that I was in Iraq for a year as an advisor in 2009.

Despite my feelings for the documentary, I commend the crew for the work they did. They did the best they could to report what they saw. However, they let preconceived notions and a minute slice of experience significantly influence their perspective. This is inevitable to some extent, but incredibly dangerous in this case. When it happens with a small news story, not such a big deal. But 99.9% of the population has no experience or knowledge on Afghanistan so their opinions and everything they know is based on what they read (yeah right) and what they watch (the preponderance). This gives those who report on Afghanistan great power, but also great responsibility. We can only hope those who consume this swill are more than sheep.

-There are ANP units of all levels of competency. The one we were with was stellar. Sure, others we worked with left much to be desired, but it wasn’t the norm. At times units farther away from the 'flagpole' have less supervision and fewer resources. They resort to what they're used to and what they need to do to survive, which is expected. Lord of the flies anyone? People tend to act that way in such environments, even in the US.

-The documentary was disappointing because it sought to show the Afghans in a bad light. It was unbalanced and failed to explain some of the cultural reasons behind some of the examples. Their culture is fundamentally different from ours and they do the best they can to survive in that environment. Service members are there for between 7-12 months, it's a sprint for us. They’ve been there and will be there for the long haul. In their past, how many nations have come and gone? What does such turmoil do to a culture, a nation, and its people?

-There is a significant focus on drug use, which is somewhat missing the point. How prevalent is drug use in the United States? If the US had the history of Afghanistan with a fledgling government and security forces, would it be any different? Our culture sees drug use differently than theirs. Our alcohol is their weed. Should a professional force be under the effects of substances while on duty? No, but let’s talk more about why things are the way they are. As the force professionalizes, these things will improve.

-Sangin, the region in most of the filming, is one of the worst parts of Afghanistan. What if we made a documentary about the worst parts of the US? The ghettos and slums, homeless, murders, drug use, etc. and named it “This is what America looks like.” The US documentaries on these issues pale in comparison to all of the positive coverage. All we see about Afghanistan are the shitty things. Not the progress, not the new schools or education, not the hard working people. When we do, it’s drowned out by the bad stuff.

-The same goes for corruption. We can't help but see corruption through our Western lens, but it's seen differently in Afghanistan. Think about how an Afghan documentary would talk about US alcohol consumption, fashion, sex, and other aspects of our culture? It'd probably sound quite similar. It’s almost impossible to think of it differently because we’ve had the luxury of structure, strong government, order, etc. in the land of plenty.

-I'm not an expert in Afghanistan, but the perspective in this documentary is unfair. Sure, some advisor teams were embedded with subpar units lead by completely corrupt, uninvolved commanders but this is not a representation of units or the government as a whole.

-Why does this documentary point out every wrong thing the Afghans do in the course of their day? What about the good things? I'm sure if I held a camera on any of us all day it'd be easy to pick us apart. It's an easy thing to do when you haven’t been the one struggling.

-During the year our Afghans made significant progress. They wanted to get better and they did. Now they have their own sustainable training programs and they're getting better all the time. Are they perfect? No. Do they still make mistakes? Yes.

-What was this documentary actually trying to achieve? The reporter is from the UK, what about the UK's history in Afghanistan. Let's talk about their losses in Afghanistan and the general sentiment towards Afghans. After spending some time at the MOB in Lashkar Gah, it's quite disappointing to see how Afghans (even our interpreters) are treated at times by British military personnel. Let's get a crew and film that. Are the UK forces bad? Not at all, they’re great, they’re our brothers and we rely heavily on each other. But if you’re filming 24/7 it’s easy to point out every time someone stumbles, because we all do it. At the very least, acknowledge your biases as a source of news.

-This documentary is one-sided. The unfortunate thing is that most people look for things that validate their existing arguments. I can only imagine the countless people nodding their heads watching the documentary who can't even find Afghanistan on a map and who've learned everything they know about Afghanistan through the news or shit documentaries like this.

I’m not an expert on Afghanistan and I am speaking from my experiences with multiple Afghan units from all pillars. In my time there I worked with units in Helmand and Nimroz provinces and spent some time in Kabul.

Is Afghanistan doomed? I don’t know. But I do know that encouraging negative sentiment based on minimal experience doesn’t help and it’s a betrayal of the trust people put in those who deliver their news. It’s also a disservice to every service member who’s spent time or gave their lives to make it work. We all do the best we can, but our ‘best’ correlates with what’s on the line. When you’re responsible for shaping opinions on significant issues like this, you need to do a better job of being balanced. Maybe I’m off here because I never watch the news and maybe this is the norm, but it’s disappointing nonetheless.

For more context on the Afghan people see this my post in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5557881 It's about interpreters in Afghanistan. Most of our interpreters were local Afghans. Some used to be (or easily could have been) Afghan police or Army. The Afghans are a great people who were just dealt a shitty hand.

Sven7• 13 years ago

I think what it shows is how complex the problem is. I really don't see it as an indictment of anyone.

erikpukinskis• 13 years ago

> First off, I didn't watch the whole thing

> It was unbalanced and failed to ...

How do you know what it failed to do? You didn't watch the whole thing.

bradfordarner• 13 years ago

This reminds me so much of being over there. This documentary does such a great job of showing the utter confusion and screwed up nature of fighting counter-insurgencies.

Every day is like choosing between different types of cancer. There is no 'winning' only seemingly less lethal varieties of the same disease. To make it worse, you are choosing which cancer to support through an intermediary, the interpreter. After a short time there you realize how much of a gap the language barrier is and how debilitating it is to not be able to build genuine relationships with your interlocuteur because you have to wait for the interpretation.

There is no 'solution' to Afghanistan and there is no 'winning'. People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went. Afghanistan is still the jungle and the strongest wins. That isn't going to change from one day to the next. At this point, warfare is all that they know. They've been at it for over 30 years.

Unfortunately, you walk away thinking that the only solution is to be the strongest.

wnight9• 13 years ago

> People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went.

Had we gone into Afghanistan in the 90s when various groups of locals were asking us to we might have fought about as much, in the end, but we'd have been there at the request of the people, actually building relationships, instead of continually rebuilding a failed-by-design state for some bullshit 9/11 excuse.

Bin Laden might still have happened because he wasn't depending on Afghanistan, or he might not have, because the allies could have had a better (good) reputation in the area negating much of the terrorist fervor.

But, I (one who criticizes our soldiers for war crimes) do recognize that we often, ultimately, bring some good to the survivors - hospitals, clean water, etc, and often stop many ongoing killings and other horrible practices. But never for the reasons we say we're there and only in doing things that perpetuate the cycle of war such as setting up dictators and selling critical resources and infrastructure.

Even if in their specific case any given soldier may save more lives than they cost, our war overall and our continued ability to wage it via the complicity of our soldiers, will cost far more lives in the end.

Refusing to fight for an unjust cause, or hurt without need, is a duty of all soldiers of modern civilized militaries. Sure, it realistically means jail for those who refuse - but it means death for their victims if they don't.

Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly not justified by 9/11 or implicated by any related evidence. By fighting for the USA and allies despite these lies, without the mandate of the people, soldiers are essentially pissing on the rule of law.

We're showing - through action not words - that no matter what they do we'll just make shit up and bomb them. Why do we expect them to expect anything else?

If our governments couldn't field the army unjustly, our peacekeeping might not only be welcome but might finally work.

crusso• 13 years ago

"Try to find a police chief who doesn't fuck young boys."

Ouch.

This Is What Winning Looks Like – Afghanistan War Diary

Related Stories