Will the Afghan Surge Succeed?

More than eight years after dismantling the Taliban, the United States is still mired in Afghanistan. Indeed, last October it launched a much-hyped ‘surge’ to prevent a second Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, not imminent yet, but eminently possible.

The first dismantling of the Taliban was a cakewalk.

In 2001, the United States quickly and decisively defeated the Taliban, killed, captured or scattered their fighters, and handed over the running of Afghanistan to their rivals, mostly Uzbeks and Tajiks from the Northern Alliance.

Unaware of Pashtoon history, American commentators were pleased at the smashing victory of their military, convinced that they had consigned the Taliban to history’s graveyard.

Instead, the Taliban came back from the dead. Within months of their near-total destruction, they had regained morale, regrouped, organized, trained, and returned to fight what they saw as a foreign occupation of their country. Slowly, tenaciously they continued to build on their gains, and by 2008 they were dreaming of taking back the country they had lost in 2001.

Could this really happen? That only time will tell, but prospects for the Taliban today look better than at any time since November 2001.

In 2001, the United States had captured Afghanistan with the loss of only twelve of its own troops. Last year it lost 316 soldiers, and the British lost another 108. The numbers speak for themselves.

The United States had occupied Afghanistan with 9000 troops. When Obama took office in January 2009, these numbers had climbed to 30,000. In October, US troop strength in Afghanistan had more than doubled. This does not include tens of thousands of foreign contractors and some 200,000 Afghan troops armed and trained by the Americans.

Yet, NATO could not deter the Taliban advance.

That is when President Obama ordered a troop surge. US troop strength will soon reach 100,000. At the same time, the United States is inviting Taliban fighters to defect in return for bribes. In tandem, President Karzai – for the umpteenth time – is offering amnesty to defecting Taliban fighters. So far, there have been no high-ranking defections.

Can the United States defeat these men – returned from the dead – it calls terrorists? It is a vital question. It should be, since the United States claims that if the Taliban come back, Afghanistan will again become a haven for Al-Qaida, their training ground and launching pad for future attacks against Western targets.

How did the Taliban stage this comeback?

Simply, the answer is: by finding strength in their handicaps. If you had compared the defeated Taliban in December 2001 to the Mujahidin in 1980, you would conclude that history had closed its books on them irrevocably.

The Mujahidin brought several advantages to their fight. All Afghan ethnicities opposed the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. They had financial, military and political support from all the Western powers. President Reagan honored them as freedom-fighters. They also had support from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran. In addition, tens of thousands of foreign fighters would join the Afghan Mujahidin.

In comparison, Taliban prospects looked quite dismal after their rout in November 2001. Nearly all the factors that favored the Mujahidin worked against the Taliban. Taliban support was confined mostly to one Afghan ethnicity, the Pashtoons. In the United States and its European allies, they faced a more formidable opponent than the Mujahidin did in the Soviet Union.

There was not a single Muslim country that could support the return of the Taliban: the US forbade it. Worst of all, the Pakistani military, partly for lucre and partly under US pressure, threw its forces against the Taliban. Under the circumstances, few Muslim fighters from outside Pakistan have joined the Taliban.

Their goose was cooked: or so it seemed.

Nevertheless, the Taliban defied these odds, and now, some eight years later, they have taken positions in nearly every Afghan province, with shadow governments in most of them. Is it possible to reverse the gains that Taliban have made in the face of nearly impossible odds?

What can the US do to weaken the Taliban? They have few vulnerabilities because the United States has been so effective in denying them any help from external sources. They have built their gains almost exclusively on their own strengths: and these are harder to take away.

What then are some of these strengths? Unlike the Mujahidin, the Afghan resistance against the United States is less fractious. The Taliban make up the bulk of the resistance. Other groups – led by Haqqani and Hekmatyaar – are much smaller. The Afghan resistance has a central leadership that the Mujahidin never had.

Unlike the Mujahidin, the Taliban do not have the technology to knock out the helicopters, drones or jets that attack them from the air. On the ground, however, they have technology the Mujahidin did not have. They have acquired suicide vests and, more importantly, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) developed by the resistance in Iraq. Indeed, the Taliban claim to have improved upon the IEDs they acquired from Iraq.

Notwithstanding their apparent lack of sophistication, the Taliban leadership have proved to be savvy in their use of videos, CDs, FM radio stations, and the internet to publicize their gains, build morale, and mobilize recruits.

Despite the satellites, drones, spies on the ground, and prize money for their capture, much of the Taliban leadership has evaded capture. In particular, Mulla Omar remains a ghost. He has not been seen or interviewed since 2001. Yet he remains in touch with his commanders through human couriers.

Afghanistan’s corrupt government is another Taliban asset. They have spawned a tiny class of Afghan nouveau riche battened by drug money, government contracts and cronyism. President Karzai implicates the US occupation in the blatant corruption of his own government.

It appears that there is little that the United States can do to neutralize these elusive advantages. Instead, it tries to blame and shift the burden of the war on Pakistan. It continues to pressure and bribe Pakistan’s rulers to mount full-scale military operations against the Taliban support network in Pakistan.

More and more, Pakistan’s military leaders have been caving under these pressures, escalating their wars against their own population. This has provoked a backlash. A new faction of the Taliban has emerged to launch deadly attacks against military and civilian targets in Pakistan. These attacks are destabilizing Pakistan. In turn, the US uses these attacks to push Pakistani rulers into greater capitulation to its demands.

In addition, President Obama has dramatically escalated drone attacks against the Taliban support network in Pakistan. In tandem, Pakistan too has been launching more massive air and ground attacks against their hideouts. However, none of this has deterred the escalating Taliban attacks against NATO and Afghan forces.

No one suggests that the Taliban can match the credentials of America’s freedom fighters in the late eighteenth century. The latter were committed to the proposition that all men are created equal, barring a few rarely mentioned exceptions. The Taliban are zealots and misogynists, but only a tad more so than the Mujahidin whom the West embraced as freedom fighters.

The West celebrated the Mujahidin’s victory over the Soviets. The same people, fighting under a different name, have now pushed the United States into a costly stalemate. Will the US prolong this stalemate, and push Pakistan too over the brink? Or will it accept the fait accompli the Taliban have created for them, accept its losses, and save itself from greater embarrassment in the future?

Once or twice, the United States has retreated from unwinnable wars and survived. It is likely that the ‘surge’ is primarily a political move to try to pass off the retreat from Afghanistan as another ‘mission accomplished.’ Let’s hope that this stratagem works somehow, because the alternative is likely to be much worse for all parties involved in this unwinnable war.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University, Boston. You may read this essay with footnotes and references in Real World Economics Review where it was first published. He is the author of Poverty from the Wealth of Nations (Palgrave-Macmillan: 2000) and Intimations of Ghalib (Orison Books: 2018). Read other articles by M. Shahid.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Max Shields said on March 10th, 2010 at 9:44am #

    US invasions all fail from the perspective of mission. That the chaos sowed by these eventually ends, as in Iraq to some extent, has nothing to do with US success in terms of mission. Who here can clearly state what the mission was/is in Iraq or is in Afghanistan? It’s nebulous at best.

    As long as the US continues as a full fleged empire it will have the propaganda machinery to make any claims it wants. Only a clear and utter defeat ends that. The US empire lost Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and now is on the same road regarding Afghanistan – we could ennumerate on the less visible invasion of Somalia and a number of others.

    Victory and Defeat are never terms uttered. As long as defeat can be muffled and obscured, the US propaganda never utters the words lost. Ill defined missions do have pathological exit strategies.

  2. bozh said on March 10th, 2010 at 10:37am #

    There are many successes for US in n.korea, vietnam, iraq, palestine, afgh’n, porto ricco, nicaragua and everywhere else; else US wld have not invaded all of these regions.Until recently, anyway, US was getting stronger.
    Whether it was so because of all these wars, i don’t know.
    In any case, no war had hurt US or, rather, the US that matters. Also, keep in mind that pols still say, God Bless America and believe in Greatness Of America; so successes are there. Or, so they believe?! Or merely say!? But, nevertheless, are part of the america that solely matters!

    Yes, the US that matters does sacrifice the people that don’t matter; these can be easily replaced by legal or illegal immigrants or by denial of right to work and thus obtain unemployed or unemployable people to ‘defend’ interests of the americans that solely matter.

    If u are an american that doesn’t matter, well, nothing matters!
    So, what i say doesn’t matter! I am also a nichevo. That’s russian, ithink, for nothing. I say eat and sleep and forget everything else; americans [nichevos] are not awakening for another century!

  3. kalidas said on March 10th, 2010 at 12:31pm #

    “Unlike the Mujahidin, the Taliban do not have the technology to knock out the helicopters, drones or jets that attack them from the air.”

    Not yet, but how long can the Russians, who are increasingly under duress from US/NATO, resist the temptation to scratch that itch?
    “The latter were committed to the proposition that all men are created equal barring a few rarely mentioned exceptions..”

    Yeah, well let’s mention a few. As in any color you want as long as it’s not white. Anyone who thinks these guys were talking about or even considered Indians (East and West), Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, black slaves or anyone excepting whites is confused, to put it mildly.
    Hell, they thought it was Godly and supremely advanced to halfheartedly include the likes of the Irish, Slavs, Italians and various other borderline whites in their grand announcements.

  4. dan e said on March 10th, 2010 at 2:42pm #

    Max says: “US invasions all fail from the perspective of mission.”
    The true mission of all these “war on terror”/PNAC era invasions only seems “nebulous” to those who buy into one version or another of the Zionist Snowjob. The “mission” has been defined in all cases by the Zionist Entity/ZPC in the US to consist of removing/destroying anything or anybody that might conceivably ever hinder the expansion of Zion-power and Zion-think.
    So what might seem like failure from the standpoint of US imperial interests looks like a roaring success in the eyes of those who actually determine US Foreign & Military policies.

  5. Max Shields said on March 10th, 2010 at 3:17pm #

    dan e you must explain how all the wars the US has involved itself in has paid off for the so-called ZPC.

    For every case of Zionist rationale there is a US energy or hegemonic counter rationale. And every Jewish surname becomes your thickening plot of who’s really doing who.

  6. bozh said on March 10th, 2010 at 5:34pm #

    In the bitter end, one cld even ask, Does i matter to natter: US wars are successes-failures? And isn’t that structure of language either-or or wrong-right structure; which seldom, if ever fits reality.
    And especially the reality of humans being part of an infinitely-valued nature; thus, we being also infinitely valued bwtn the two extremes: the best and the worst.

    US at its worst behavior, cld easily just nuke entire iran, pashtunland,iraq, china, cuba, venezuella into clouds of dust.
    So, one can see, badness of america that matters is relative to worst possible scenario. Either-Or rationalizing, not quite illuminating.

    But we all know that if present structures of society, education, governance remains, US history books wld show that US fought for democracy; preventing great perils and, of course, for liberation of joyas, naras, maras, and a jeniffer! tnx

  7. Rehmat said on March 11th, 2010 at 3:55am #

    Why Americans are in Afghanistan? Christopher Walker had reported in the TIMES magazine (June 19, 1998) that Israel had established links with the Mujahideen fighting Russian forces in 1991 and later with Talban. Eytan Bentsur, the director general of Israeli foreign ministry at that time confirmed that initial contacts had taken place beyween the Israeli diplomats and respresentatives of the Afghan rivals with the purpose of forging diplomatic ties regardless of which faction retain control of Kabul. The main purpose of Israel’s efforts to establish an intelligence network in Afghanistan in order to destablize neighboring Islamic Iran which Tel Aviv considers its arch-rival in the Middle East. Now the American occupied Afghanistan has provided a golden opportunity for Mossad to destablize all three Muslim countires (Pakistan, Islamic Iran and Afghanistan) with the help of CIA, Indian RAW and US-created Afghan intelligence RAMA.


  8. Stephanie said on March 11th, 2010 at 11:24am #

    I really know little about the reasons of most recent war in Afghanistan. I search beyond the corporate media trying to make sense of why we (Canadians, Americans, British etc) are in Afghanistan. What I discover is disturbing to me. Is it yet again greed that fuels this war?

    Many of you may have viewed this video and for those who have not, please take a few minutes. Information within is not common knowledge to most but to the informed it is.

    Why are we in Afghanistan? http://vimeo.com/8110343

  9. bozh said on March 11th, 2010 at 11:40am #

    as far as i can tell there is no reason nor reasons for war against afgh’n- only one cause: to obtain land and its riches.
    Every war, be assured, ever waged, had been waged solely for land. But, of course, the warlords wld never tell u that.
    So they give ‘reasons’. How many ‘reasons’ are given is dependent solely on human inventiveness to generate them.
    But once on that road, in principle, one can be on it forever? Both the fire and wars have just one cause! And that ends all other talk! tnx