THE GHOSTS OF VIETNAM HAUNT WASHINGTON
NEW YORK September 22, 2009
As this column predicted a month ago, Afghanistan’s much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce. The election was as phony and meaningless as US run elections in Vietnam in the 1970’s.
  
Meanwhile, the American general running the Afghan War, Stanley McChrystal,  just shockingly  warned that the US risks being beaten by lightly-armed Taliban tribesmen in spite of his 107,000 western soldiers, B1 heavy bombers, F-15’s, F-16’s, F-18’s, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance. 
 
McChrystal’s news is a bombshell. Washington has spent  some $250 billion in Afghanistan  since 2001. Each time the US sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over  55% of the country.     
 
Now, US commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more US troops  - after President Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there.   Shades of Vietnam-style `mission creep.’ America’s NATO allies have seen the writing on the wall in Kabul and are trying to disengage their troop contingents without infuriating Washington.
 
The Director of US National Intelligence just revealed  for the first time that Washington’s 16 intelligence agencies spent an astounding US $75 billion last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people in intelligence work. The highest previous estimate was $30 billion. The truth has shocked many Americans.     
 
In spite of this mammoth expenditure and army of agents, embarrassingly, the US still can’t find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years and offering rewards of up to $50 million. Washington now fears Taliban will launch a Vietnam-style Tet surprise offensive against major Afghan cities.
 
Last week, in a wildly overdue observation, Pentagon chief Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress, “we must rapidly build the Afghan Army and police.” Did it really take the Pentagon eight years to come up with this basic idea?
 
The US record in foreign army-building is not encouraging. Remember “Vietnamization?” That was the Pentagon’s effort to build a South Vietnamese Army that could stand on its own, without US air cover, supplies, and `advisors.’ In early 1975, it collapsed and ran. Now we hear in Washington calls for `Afghanization.’  
 
Any student of Imperialism 101 knows that after invading a resource-rich or strategic nation you immediately put a local stooge in power, use disaffected minorities to run the government(divide and conquer), and build a native mercenary army. Such troops, commanded by white officers, were called  “sepoys” in the British Indian Army and “askaris” in British East Africa.
 
America’s attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000   have failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt Western-installed government in Kabul.  CIA’s 74,000 “contractors” (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable. The Afghan police are little better than uniformed bandits.
 
But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism.  Many of the US-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and traitors.  These US-paid troops also know they will face death when the US and its western  allies eventually quit Afghanistan.   
 
The Soviets had a much better understanding of Afghanistan than the American military, which one senior British general recently called,  `culturally ignorant.’   Moscow built an Afghan government army of around 240,000 men. Many were loyal Communists. They sometimes fought well, as I experienced in combat against them near Jalalabad. But, in the end, they smelled defeat and crumbled. The Soviet-backed strongman, Najibullah, was castrated and slowly hanged from a crane.
 
The current Afghan Army and police, like the post-Saddam Iraqi Army, is led by white officers – in this case, Americans designated “trainers” or “advisors.” Its ranks are heavily infiltrated by Taliban supporters, as was the case during the Soviet occupation. Every new American search and destroy mission in Afghanistan is telegraphed well in advance to Taliban and its nationalist allies.      
 
Afghanistan keeps giving me déjà vu back to the old British Indian Raj, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, “Drums,” “Lives of a Bengal Lancer,” and “Kim.” The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style.  
 
In the end, Britain’s imperial army in Afghanistan was whipped and fled for its life. Every British schoolchild knows Lady Butler memorable and terrifying painting of the lone British survivor escaping from Afghanistan: `The Retreat from Kabul.’
30
 
copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
 
  
 
Market Socialist
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:05 PM
This propsed escalation in hostilities with the addition of more troops and the expansion of this ‘war on terror’ into Pakistan is very reminiscient of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The result will yeild the same sort of effect for the US. However, this result is also some 40 years after Vietnam. The US’s position in the world financially was a bit sounder that it is today.
Fredoun Maroufi
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:45 PM
When it comes to Afganistan, the only resolution for US to get out of there safley is to get the tribal leadres which have been managing the country for centuries involved and let them find find a resolution to theproblem. Ofcourse they see US and allies troops as invaders of the country that make it difficult. Sending more troops by US to Afganistan is just adding more fuel to the fire and will neversolve the problem. Let's hope with Stanley McChrystal's recent report Obama will realize the dept of the hole they are in in Afganistan and stop sending more troops and come with a realistic and more practical way to address Afganistan's issue.
rayyan
Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:14 AM
In Iraq ,the US managed to sideline the Sunni-Baathist resistance(insurgency according to the US) by relying on Shiite death squads that used to terrorize the Sunni populations that supported the resistance fighters.As a result,the Sunnis found themselves fighting on many fronts.They were batteling the Americans,the Shiite Militias and death squads,the Shiite controled police and national gurads,and the Iranian Intelligence forces.So they decided to halt their operations against the Americans and cut a deal with them.Hence the "Awaking movements" were born.These movements were hailed as a success story of the famed "Surge startegy".This startegy that the Americans adopted in Iraq relied on Shiite traitors and collaborators who used to target Sunni Populations that supported the resistance against the American invadors.The mastermind behind this tactic was the CIA bigshot John Negroponte who oversaw similar operations in Central America.In Iraq ,the Shiites number 50% plus of the population.In Afghanistan,such startegy will never work.

The Sunni Pashtuns make roughly 65% of the Afghani population.Their Pashtun brothers live in the tribal regions of Pakistan.Together, they number around 40 million souls.They are very Strict Sunni Muslims and the number of Pashtuns who are willing to die while resisting the American and NATO occupations is in the thousands.There is no similar collaborator force that can terrorize "Pashtunistan".The Shiite Hazara,the TajikS,the Uzbeks are no match for the Taliban.They make only 35% of the population and inhabit the northen regions.Most of the resistance is taking place in the Pastun controled southern regions of Afghanistan.The Americans have to do the fighting by themselves.Once they put "boots on the ground" and engage the Taliban in face-to-face, close range battles,they loose their technological advantage
and become at an equal footing with the Taliban.100,000 or even 500,000 soldiers will not be enough to subdue the rebelious Pashtuns.Fighting will drag on for many more years until the Americans get frustrated and are forced to pack their bags and leave.
robespierre
Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:58 PM
During the Vietnam war we were told repeatedly of the 'Domino Effect', whereby if Vietnam fell, the rest of Southeast Asia would become communist. It turned out in retrospect to be absolute rubbish. Now we are being told that if we do not defeat the Taliban, then Afghanistan will become a base for Al Qaeda to launch attacks on the west.
Afghanistan is a primitive medieval country, where for centuries the men have wanted to kill each other, in tribal conflicts. They have been deflected from this by our presence there, and in fact we have been a unifying force for them to resist. Let us get out now, and let the Afghanis get back to doing what they do best: killing each other.
k
Friday, September 25, 2009 12:52 PM
Mr. Margolis,

Thanks for painting a very realistic picture.

Why are the Americans really in Afghanistan? donald Rumsfeld said soemthing to the effect that Afghanistan is a target poor country. Dirt poor people and their mud hovels (other than Opium) are the only assets this country has.

First, they killed (according to their own sources) over a million people, made a million widows and 5 million orphans, all to get at 1 person in Iraq.

Now it's Afghanistan. If you ask anyone in the Muslim world, there is a lot of sceptism on 2 accounts:

Could people sitting in Caves really have hijacked the planes and blown up the world Trade Centre and technology being what it is now, is it still possible (despite a $50 million reward), Bin Laden and Mullah Umar have not been found yet ...............

Remember Aimal Kansi - the man who shot 2 CIA Agents and then ran off and hid in Pakistan? How long did it take to find him?

Arif Reza
Saturday, September 26, 2009 2:55 AM
It is a wonderful article with thoughtful insight. What makes the article more vivid is parallelism with similar historic conflict. The outcome of the current Afghan conflict looks so apparent after going
through the analogy coupled with regional/cultural components.
Arif Reza
Saturday, September 26, 2009 2:57 AM
It is a wonderful article with thoughtful insight. What makes the article more vivid is parallelism with similar historic conflict. The outcome of the current Afghan conflict looks so apparent after going
through the analogy coupled with regional/cultural components.
sheba69
Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:37 AM
What makes my heart ache is why in the world we do not learn from history. Or is it mandatory for the richest nation on earth to spend billion of dollars, extreme bloodletting,destruction of infrastructure and daily livelihood of people who make a living out of bare 1 or 2 dollars a day to prove a point that the clock has not stopped for Osama bin Laden. They even choose to honor the commander of the ship that shot a civilian Iranian aircraft out of the skies, but create a ruckus over the sick and dying Lockerbie bomber going home to die. How sick power and money can make out of people or is it the Govt that Obama promised to correct. The $250 billion spent to build roads,bridges,hospitals,schools ect, would have kept the tale bans working at the projects and US could expect a FedEx delivery of those they seek in the ends of justice.
Dik
Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:36 PM
Can anyone enlightem me about the causes of 9-11 (sincere question)?
addley
Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:49 PM
The key issues driving world events:

* Peak Oil: -- We've embarked on the beginning of the last days of the age of oil. Planet Earth has reached the PEAK in oil production. World oil and gas supply is running out decades earlier than originally forecast. THIS is the catalyst.

"To an extent unrivaled by any other nation on earth, the United States is addicted to oil."

* Truth and Lies of 9/11: -- The official story: the theory that 19 'suicide' hijackers, most of whom couldn't fly Cessna's and of which half are still alive, conspired to pull off an assault that military pilots stated on the record couldn't have been done by crack fighter pilots. Remarkably, there has been blind acceptance of this story, yet the US government has
offered no proof whatsoever that bin Laden was behind these attacks.

"The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.

[This report, expresses credulity that] the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand (former top US Pentagon arms salesman under the Ford and Carter administrations) said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order."

* War on Terror: -- False-flag terrorism - governments orchestrate terrorist attacks to be carried out on their own soil and place blame elsewhere in order to strike fear in the population and to create a "public enemy". This creates a "circle up the wagons" sentiment in the population, which with the cry of 'terrorism', the government can exploit in acceptance for
restrictions of civil rights and to provide public support for their political agenda.

British Member of Parliament, Michael Meacher, September 6, 2003 -- "This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination. The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies."

"He who owns the oil will own the world."

sheba69
Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:47 PM
Thank you Addley for the sum up which needs no rocket scientist to put together. But what are we going to do with naive and shameless people standing up at the Security Council damning Iran and drawing lines on the sand, whilst not a whisper is raised when the same offenses against humanity are carried out by Israel. What moral courage does these admonitions carry or adhered to, when it comes out of a cat who is scarred stiff and powerless by the mouse.
There are currently 11 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category