The "gains" in Iraq are "fragile and reversible". But ".... Afghanistan may now come to overshadow even that bitter and costly conflict," is how Paul Rogers ends one of his articles on Afghanistan.
Over 1000 years ago, for some centuries, the Arabs were militarily invincible. In any war or battle between them and any European power, it was a forgone conclusion that the Arabs would win. At that time there appeared a saying which has persisted to this day: "La'dat al tho'ban - wala harb al Afghan."
Translation: "Better the bite of a venomous snake, than an Afghan war."
In spite of Western superior chnology and self-agrandizement, I have seen nothing that contradicts this wisdom after seven years of war.
HI Cherif. Nice to hear from you again.
However, what a load of old tosh.
"Arabs" from many areas in the ME have backed the wrong side in almost every conflict in the last 100 years and have suffered the consequences. You could argue that wars never end in some way, but in in any reasonable meaning of the words winning and losing, arabs have lost numerous wars involving the west. The Ottoman empire is not what it was or perhaps you hadn't noticed.
Afghanistan is a different matter and it is more to do with its size and terrain that makes it a problem. It is particularly suited to irregular warfare and therefore it is not easy to control by conventional forces. In reality I am not sure that any country is unless the great mass of the people wish it so, or they are defeated to an extent that is unacceptable when the aim is to, at least nominally, to benefit them.
Hi englishman, nice to hear from you too.
However, I don't understand what your posting has to do with mine.
The ancient Arab saying is authentic.
It emerged at a time when Arab armies were the most powerful, a long time ago.
So far, no foreign invaders have successfully pacified Afghanistan. (I remember an entire British army was wiped out and the Russians fled, while the current invasion so far looks to be in trouble). So the proverb is still valid, which is interesting.
British and other losses will continue in Afghanistan and now, for the first time in colonial history, Britain is threatened at home.
So what are you talking about?
You then change the subject. Europe imposed nationalism on the Arabs and created a bunch of artificial sovereign nation states, mostly designed to help keep them weak, divide and rule.
Arab nationalism tried to emulate Western methods and failed to defeat or sucessfully resist authentic Western armies (not surprising). Arab nationalism has failed and populations have turned to Islam, which is quite a different ball game.
I have to admit, I slightly misread your post. I read it that you were saying that arabs had not lost a war in 1000 years. :-)
I must stop speed reading!
I surmise you did have some intention of associating the arab successes of 1000 years ago with the fighting in Afghanistan however, and I see little relation here. The arabs of 1000 years ago had the advantage of knowing their terrain and having better horsemanship and were more advanced in the disciplines of battle. Military technology played a part then too.
Afghanistan is not likely to be taken by force, so I think the proverb has merit.
Hi englishman,
My post must be really opaque. What I meant was to use the proverb to add the Arabs to the list of would be conquerers - for example the British and the Russians - who were (and others are now) being exasperated by Afghanistan. So, a fearless Arab conquerer a thousand years go would rather be bitten by a venomous snake than go fight there.
To make matters worse for today's would be colonizers, fiercely religious Arabs and non-Arab Muslims are now fighting with the Afghans against the "infidel invaders."
mr cherif
when first i read u post, i think directly i understand that u have something that the west did wrong when invade afganistan and it is not picnic
may be as iam an arab and know about proverb as a culture , but for mr englishman it is totally difficult for him.
i think may be US administration before invading afganistan better that it hears this proverb as not to get this wors scinario for all humanbeings
Cherif, it was I who misread it, not any especial opacity. I don't think I misread your implications though as I think Abdulksaida read them in a similar way.
Abdulksaida, I think everybody knows that Afghanistan is not a place to take on local people in any sort of war, even the USA. I would like to know what would be a viable and realistic alternative. It certainly was used for training Al Qaida and other terrorist organisations. It was a divided country, with a mix of a majority of ordinary moderate people wishing to continue their lives, with groups of Taliban militants who wished to impose their own views, religious, political and economic, on the populous, and who did so with extreme violence. All this funded by the profits from illegal drug production.
I cannot imagine a scenario where the USA could not have taken some action following 9/11. I notice you use the phrase "would be colonizers" Cherif. There is really no intent to colonise Afghanistan as far as I can see. The forces that are there are international and the only interest is in seeing that Afghanistan is not used as a base from which the rest of the world can be threatened. That this effort is not succeeding is because there is not the will to put in the military forces and the money that is really needed. Do you see Afghanistan improving for the general populace if left to the Taliban?
englishman
you want an alternative to what happen in afganistan and do u think now what is happining is better than before, i think by US intervention and the others , now become worst for all and if US only know who was the real murder , and not revenge from the whole country it would be better.
now plant of heroin and other drugs are more than before, at least Taliban prohibited those deadly drugs and now becasue of more poverty of people they are trading with it and the poison is go to the whole world.
There was many alternatives which be better first of all diplomacy and respect the other people and how they have their culture and not invading them .
now i think the people may be like taliban more than before especially after one of men of other party rape a girl and becasue he is from power , he escaped and they want taliban again to take revenge.
i know that is a simple explanation , but nobody likes any forign authority to invade them even if they are not correct according to others scale.
Hello Abdulksaida,
Long time we have not communicated. Hope you are well.
Yes, I see you understand what I meant, since you already knew the proverb. Englishman understands it too now, and he made some important points. I will try to respond to him, as you have.
I agree with much of what you say, Abdulksaida. It seems to me also that invasion and occupation of another country rarely works, even if the motives are well intentioned. It is impossible to control an army so that the behaviour of everyone in it is beyond reproach. The inevitable errors of judgement or illegal action can, and are, used easily by those who can call upon nationalism and tribalism to recruit as defenders of their national territory, even when their goals can be much less in the interests of the majority of people who live there.
As you know, I have a great distaste of nationalism and consider it a great evil in the world. I do not agree that national boundaries should be respected at any cost, but I would agree that, because of the ease by which nationalism, tribalism and racialism can be invoked in people, transgression into another land should be a last resort with consideration for the inevitable consequences. I suspect that it this last point that frequently gets forgotten.
I have no answer to what should be done. Maybe 10x the size of the international force and 10x the amount of money to help fund the individual villages to produce crops rather than poppies - make it more economic to be legal. I think pulling out will be bad for many of the ordinary people in Afghanistan and a return to a way of life that many would not like. What would you do?
hello mr cherif
thanks for u , iam now better than before thanks God
mr englishman
i think by normal sense and justice we have all not to encourage tribal and nationalism in its bad manners, when it will be with the aggressor against the victom . Even our prophet (pbuh) prohibited us from this and once 2 tribes was about to fight and each one flattering each other and prophet mohamed told them to leave that attitute as it gives a bad smell and it is rotten.
but what i want to say also , that by invasion of other culture and foreign one and by a bad reputation of US policy and others towards many conflicts in ME especially palestine and other muslim countries, so those simple people will not welcome those army even if they claim that they want to liberate them. You know those army have no trust as they never was with any of muslims issues in the past , so the ordinary people will not beleive them that they are coming for their benefits.
i hope their will not be conflict between cultures , but unfortunately i heard that in germany their was a trouble after performing a conference against islamist of the west and for building a mosque their.
In a normal sense , if i know that the other part dont like me and not only that but hate me before, so why i will go and invade that country and pretent that people will like me and say lies . If all of us are honest with ourselves and know the real roots of conflict and respect others, i dont think that would happen.
by the way , i also miss u posts mr englishman and i like them .
After the attack on 9/11 the USA determined that Al Qaida were responsible and that he was based in Afghanistan. Bush requested the Taliban authorities that Osama bin Laden be handed over to the USA but this was refused on the basis that he was a guest in Afghanistan and that there was no evidence against him. We now know that, by Osama bin Laden's own admission, that he was responsible and that the Taliban government aided him in this. It is difficult to see that given what had happened that Bush had much choice but to try to go after Osama and Al Qaida even if this meant fighting the Taliban too. It would not have been reasonable for him to just say "Oh, OK then. Sorry to bother you", would it?
Admittedly, the Taliban did then say they would try Osama in an Islamic court, but this offer was rejected. I wonder what the outcome of this would have been had it been accepted? The UAE and Saudi had previously withdrawn their recognition of the Taliban as a legal government of Afghanistan so I suspect that this belated offer was a last attempt to stave off the US attack. After the bombing started the Taliban again offered to hand over Osama to a third country if they were shown evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Again this offer was declined. Perhaps this should not have been. But, at this time, I am not sure whether the Taliban had the ability to delivered Osama anyway. It may have been thought of as a delaying tactic. I expect also that it was thought, with some justification, that the conditions in Afghanistan under Taliban rule would still be the same even if Osama were removed. Still I think that was an opportunity missed. As I said before, the problems that result from invasion into another land tend to be underestimated.
But this is history. What should the USA and her allies do now?
Admittedly, the Taliban did then say they would try Osama in an Islamic
court, but this offer was rejected. I wonder what the outcome of this
would have been had it been accepted?
The outcome would have been an acquittal, fairly obviously.
Nobody wants to colonize Afghanistan. There's no point to it, nothing there that anybody would possibly want, just a huge variety of headaches. The problem is that the attitude of "just leave it alone" that prevailed after the Russians were expelled ended up creating a haven for bin Laden, and we all know where that led.
Trying to manage Afghanistan is a miserable, thankless, profitless, and very nearly impossible job. The only thing worse would be not doing it.
That this effort is not succeeding is because there is not the will to
put in the military forces and the money that is really needed. Do you
see Afghanistan improving for the general populace if left to the
Taliban?
I'm not conviced that more military force and more money will necessarily help. More military force can easily create the impression of an occupation, and simply stimulate more resistance. The government's capacity to absorb and effectively use aid is already very questionable.
As a starting point, I think it needs to be accepted that this is an enterprise that will take 20-30 years minimum.
Steven, it also is no good for anyone, to have a force which struggles to take a region but then has not got sufficient people on the ground to hold it. There are villages which have changed hands several times; this is costly and demoralising for the international forces involved and sends the message to local people that they had better not commit themselves because it will not be seen in a good light when the Taliban arrive back to take control next week! You also can't solve this by maintaining smaller forces but distributed more thinly; this is militarilly disastrous.
However, I am conscious that a larger force usually means more incidents that can act as a "recruiting sergeant" for the Taliban. It is probably a matter of getting the balance right and only having very well disciplined and well trained forces there. Perhaps easier said than done.
I agree that the system of providing aid at present is poor. I don't get the impression that some of these issues have the best minds applied to them. I don't think just more of the same is the right answer. The strategy needs to change too. There seems no coherent strategy for dealing with local farmers growing poppies for drug production for example. Sometimes a local commander will burn their crops; others will turn a blind eye. This may be necessary pragmatism but it sends, at best, a confusing message. The problem is that often the local community depends on income from such production.
I agree that 20 - 30 years may well be the likely timescale.
It is probably a matter of getting the balance right and only having
very well disciplined and well trained forces there. Perhaps easier
said than done.
Exactly.
I'm not entirely happy with the way things have been done, but I'm also not entirely convinced that other tactics would have produced better results. I am entirely grateful that I'm not the one responsible for coming up with a solution.
salam mr cherif
i also agree of all what u wrote in this thread
Eid Mubarak to all
Post new comment