By Peter Galuszka

On Feb. 15, 1989, I was standing amid reporters and people waving red flags and holding flowers at the northern end of a metal bridge linking Uzbekistan with Afghanistan. A row of Soviet BTR armored personnel carriers streamed home as their crews waved and smiled.

These were the last troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, where the nearly 10-year war had killed about 15,000 Soviet troops and 2 million civilians. The Soviet Foreign Ministry badly wanted foreign correspondents to record the last of the withdrawals.

They chartered a plane to take us from Moscow to Tashkent, the Uzbek capital. From there we went to a Soviet Air Force base where tough looking men loaded flares on the sides of gigantic cargo planes. They would shoot off the flares to distract U.S.-made Stinger missiles as they corkscrewed into Kabul.

Next on our trip was the small town of Termez where Russian helicopter gunships buzzed overhead. Near the bridge, was a parade ground covered with locals. I spoke with a teenage girl who said: “They’ve taken us out of school four times to practice this.”

The lesson was that Afghanistan is always going to be a remote quagmire. The British and Russian empires found that out in the 19th century and now the Americans are after a seemingly endless 18-year-long war that has left about 2,400 U.S. troops and more than 58,000 civilians dead.

This week, The Washington Post, is publishing a remarkable investigative series three years in the making that raises series questions about the U.S. effort. Clueless leaders knowing nothing about Afghanistan kept pushing action in the country over the course of three presidents.

The mission led to widespread corruption and waste as the CIA handed over bags full of money. Leaders said they wanted no nation building but that’s exactly what the U.S. tried and so far has failed to do.

The original idea had been to jump in with special forces and weed out Al Qaeda and their supporters after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They largely succeeded but Washington kept on with more troops and assistance. The Post estimates that the war will cost $1 trillion.

What’s the Virginia angle? Plenty. Virginia-based firms have profited enormously from the war, especially those near the Pentagon. Leading the list are Lockheed Martin, DynCorp., BAE Systems, General Dynamics, CACI and many others.

According to defense industry expert Loren Thompson, Northern Virginia “is often described as a place where the Internet was invented but today it looks increasingly like the center of the global military-industrial complex.”

Over the past 20 years, many firms have moved to Northern Virginia because of its proximity to the Pentagon and CIA and due to the pro-business climate. By contrast, Thompson noted in a 2010 article in Forbes that “Maryland’s political climate is distinctly less supportive of defense contractors.”

This is not to say that defense contractors are evil. But it is important to take stock of just what the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has meant and who profits from it.

History shows that Afghanistan can’t be converted to western democracy and capitalism and is best left alone unless there is a real threat.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

13 responses to “Rethinking Afghanistan”

  1. djrippert Avatar

    While Donald Trump used a different word I believe there are a lot of countries in the world that are quagmires. These are typified by long standing tribal / regional conflicts (going back centuries), militarized religious forces, no effective government, broken economies. Afghanistan is a quagmire and everybody knew that … well before 9/11. Somalia is and has been a quagmire – and everybody knew that before the ill-fated Battle of Mogadishu. Lebanon was a quagmire – and everybody knew that before the Marine barracks bombing. Syria is a quagmire. So, when Trump ordered US troops out I expected applause from the left and the right. But Trump Derangement Syndrome runs strong. Progressives just couldn’t choke down their bile long enough to agree that leaving a token force in a quagmire is a bad idea. We’re abandoning our dear friends the Kurds came the cry from the left. Quagmires always have some faction that decides to cozy up to the US. The Hmong in Vietnam for example. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is another example. American foreign policy can’t keep us in quagmires indefinitely because some faction likes us. It can’t be to semi-permanently deploy American forces as “trip wires”. The Marines in those barracks in Beirut were trip wires as were the Army Rangers in those Blackhawks over Mogadishu. Phenomenally brave warriors put into “no win” situations in quagmires by our incompetent government. As always, the politicians issued “thoughts and prayers” as the soldiers came back in flag draped coffins. Enough!

    Give Trump his due – unlike Bush II and Obama he actually ordered our soldiers out of a quagmire.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      It was never about Afghanistan or Iraq. Both were about containing Iran. Yet still both were pure and classic American hubris. The lessons of history do not apply to us!

  2. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    I enjoyed the movie about JFK and Bobbie stopping the Cuban military potential disaster. Dare we throw out the Eisenhower warning here … beware “the military industrial complex?”

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve. You are right. The soviet incursion was a lot about iran and the potential for spreading islamic terrorism into their central asian republcs. Not so sure what the deal was with the us and iraq. No wmds. We had backed saddam against iran in the 1980s. In afghanistan the special ops missions did work but they pushed terrorists into pakistan which is a big problem for ys.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    We have a long and continuing history of being “involved” with other country’s “affairs” including our allies thorough our intelligence activities.

    We do this ostensibly that we do not get isolated against evil throughout the world – that we keep it at bay and never let it get
    close to our shores. I don’t like it but there’s an undeniable reality to it whether one is a right-winger or a leftist in the USA.

    The truth is that we are afraid that other countries can incubate terrorists like the 9-11 folks and/or like Iran and Russia and China, dominate their neighbors and subjugate them as defacto client states which then spawn “nation-state” cyber attacks against us.

    It does not come at a low cost. We spend a large amount of our money for these activities and then claim we do not have enough left over for things like health care, education and high-speed rail which all other advanced economy nations do have – and they treat the same way in terms of funding/subsidies as they do what they consider necessary services like fire and police and similar. We see these things a “subsidized” and not legitimate expenditures for taxes.

    And in the process, because of cost, we have taken a penny-wise/pound-foolish piecemeal type approach to many domestic issues like education and health care where we say “we already spend/subsidize too much and more is not acceptable”… i.e. we already spend “too much” on education and health care.

    Now, we are unraveling as a society – politically – we hate each other more than we fear our real enemies. We are screwed up.

  5. So why is Afghanistan such a quagmire? “These are typified by long standing tribal / regional conflicts (going back centuries), militarized religious forces, no effective government, broken economies.” Well, that description covers a lot of territory including essentially every country in southern/southwestern Asia and northeastern Africa, including all the “-stans.” We only got involved to eliminate the Al Quaeda training ground — but then we had to go “fix” the social ills we found there. Is there something particularly pernicious about Islamic tribalism, particularly about its treatment of women, that makes us so unwilling to compromise with the Taliban and walk away? Not that Wahabbist Saudis treat women much better. But there’s no equivalent outrage, say, about the treatment of women in Christian Central America.

    1. djrippert Avatar

      Yes, there are a lot of quagmires. Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address:

      “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”

      Times have changed. I might modify Jefferson’s quote to ” … -entangling alliances with no quagmires.”

      Non-quagmire countries are already nations. Quagmire countries are not functional nations. Nation building already existing nations makes no sense.
      Nation building through force doesn’t work. Stop using US troops on futile nation building missions.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      You do make a good point and it’s disgusting but even in the West – we have a similar history in the past – we just got “civilized” on a faster timeframe – perhaps – arguably.

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Acbar. Afghanistan is so important because if its strategic location, moreso than the places you mention.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    in terms of places where the US is:

    800 military bases
    Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The Pax Americana has not been perfect, but the last 70 years have been remarkably stable considering 1) world history and 2) modern weaponry. Frankly the resulting wealth and population growth have much to do with some of our problems. If you really think CO2 is the axis of environmental evil a nice war to wipe out 30 percent of the population….Oh, that’s too Jonathan Swift!

      1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
        Jane Twitmyer

        Will you believe the DOD study …
        “Nearly half of US military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a new Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.”

        “Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the US Department of Defense (DoD).”

        “Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.

        Here is a list of some …ranked for Army and Air Force …
        Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz.
        Fort Irwin, Calif.
        Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
        Fort Bliss, Texas
        White Sands Missile Range, N.M.
        Camp Roberts, Calif.
        Hawthorne Army Depot, Nev.
        Tooele Army Depot, Utah
        Military Ocean Terminal Concord, Calif.
        Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colo.

        Air Force (ranked in decreasing vulnerability):
        Vandenberg AFB, Calif.
        Eglin AFB, Fla.
        Hurlburt Field, Fla.
        Patrick AFB, Fla.
        Joint Base Charleston, S.C.
        Dover, Dela.
        Homestead AFB, Fla.
        Macdill AFB, Fla.
        Tyndall AFB, Fla.
        Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.

        And here is the Navy and Marines unranked local
        Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, D.C.
        Washington Navy Yard, D.C.
        Naval Support Facility Indian Head, Md.
        Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.
        Naval Air Station Norfolk, Va.
        Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads, Va.
        Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads – Northwest Annex, Va./N.C.

        Marine Corps (unranked)
        Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.

Leave a Reply