Afghanistan: "The Mother of Vicious Circles"
Afghanistan (originally called Qandahar) has long been known as either ‘The graveyard of empires” or “Where empires go to die.” Long before it was known as “Afghanistan,” Alexander the Great wrested the land from the Achaemenid (Ah-KEE-meh-ned) Persian Empire, only to lose it to the Seleucids who in turn were defeated by the Mauryans (from India) and eventually ended up under the control of the Greco-Bactrians. Jump to the early 13th century an history records that Genghis Kahn and his Mongols, were tossed aside by Tamerlane and the Mughal Empire. At various times Afghanistan has been invaded by the Sikhs (1837-38), Brits (1838-42 [First Anglo-Afghan War], 1878-1880 [Second Anglo-Afghan War] and 1919); the Soviet Union (1979-1989) and most recently, of course, The United States and NATO (“Operation Enduring Freedom” - 2001-2021). Somewhere along the line historians, noting that what all these invading empires had in common was that they had all been swept away into the dustbin of history . . . that there was a causal connection between Afghanistan and their demise; i.e. those Empires which attack, invade or take over Afghanistan are ultimately signing their own death warrants.
This is not necessarily true: while the Persian, Maurya, Mongol, Mughali and Soviet Empires may no longer exist as such, the Iranians, Indians, Greeks, Turks and Russians still do. And while the United States is in the midst a host of difficult challenges – both external and internal - its power and prestige is far from marching off to history’s bone yard. And while many agree with the long-forgotten wag who originally gave Afghanistan the moniker “The graveyard of empires,” I greatly prefer the New York Time’s columnist Maureen Dowd’s epithet . . . “The mother of vicious circles.” By this she means - and I agree - that going into Afghanistan and doing battle there is far, far easier than getting the hell out. This is what history teaches again and again.
We are, of course, in the midst of this vicious circle today. President Biden’s recent announcement that he would have the overwhelming majority of U.S. and Coalition troops out of Afghanistan by September 11, 2021 (the 20th anniversary of the single-worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil) has quickly made military “experts” out of mere opinion-makers and forgetful finger-pointers out of partisan politicians. The fact that the Taliban have taken back the entire country in just a matter of days has forced Afghani President Ashraf Ghani’s flight from his embattled country, and left millions of Afghanis running after jet planes taking off from the tarmac at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport, hoping to escape the terror that has already begun. To many - myself included - it is incomprehensible that Afghani government forces (for whom the U.S. and her allies spent far more $90 billion training and even more equipping) has quickly fallen like a wash-line of damp clothes.
Leading politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed disagreement with the administration’s plan:
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a moderate New Hampshire Democrat who backed the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq nearly two decades ago, recently criticized President Biden, arguing his decision could embolden the Taliban to further destabilize the country. She was, of course, correct.
Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the former third-ranking Republican in the House and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, blasted the policy shift as a capitulation. “Wars don’t end when one side abandons the fight,” she said in a statement that echoed her father’s hawkish rhetoric in selling the wars at the start. “Withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11 will only embolden the very jihadists who attacked our homeland on that day 20 years ago.”
In an op-ed published on Fox News on Friday, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), said the situation in Afghanistan was “. . . heartbreaking and infuriating. The Taliban are barreling towards seizing control of the country and could very well take Kabul before the 20th anniversary of September 11th. In their wake, Al Qaeda is poised to come roaring back and attack America, once again,” Waltz wrote. (I rather doubt this last sentence; we have as much to fear from QAnon as from Al Qaeda.)
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a potential presidential candidate in 2024, attacked Biden on Friday over Afghanistan and critical race theory, a favorite issue of conservatives. “It’s clear President Biden and his Department of Defense have been more concerned with critical race theory and other woke policies than planning an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan,” Cotton tweeted.
It seems like many Republicans are secretly glad that the Taliban have quickly seized 24 of Afghanistan’s 36 provincial capitals, made their way to Kabul and forced President Ghani, his family and top aides to flee to Tajikistan. How could this be? Do they find joy in so much bloodshed? In seeing women and girls banned from attending school, driving cars, using cell phones or listening to music? Maybe yes, maybe no; one can never tell what any group’s most religious radicals will support. But aside from that - and all the murdering and raping going on - they find it heartwarming that they can pile on President Biden and the Democrats . . . scoring points with their “base” as they state their case for both the 2022 and 2024 elections. They seem to forget that not too long before the 2020 election, then President Donald Trump stunned the Pentagon by announcing that he would get all American troops out of Afghanistan before the end of the year:
Then too, few seem to remember that the Taliban first rose to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s; that it was formed by guerrilla fighters who drove out Soviet forces in the previous decade; that they had the help of both the CIA and Pakistani intelligence services. In the fall of 1996, the Taliban seized Kabul and declared the country an Islamic emirate. Taliban rule was brutal and repressive. It instituted the most severe form of shariah law imaginable. Women had virtually no rights; they were barred from education and forced to wear clothing that completely covered them. Music and other forms of media were banned.
The Taliban’s ideology was similar to that of its counterpart al-Qaeda, though its interests were limited to ruling just Afghanistan. In exchange for help fighting groups aligned with the nation’s government, Taliban leaders harbored Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A U.S.-led coalition ousted the regime later that year. The Taliban quickly grew. From whence their funding? For the most part, its funding came from a variety of sources: some money comes from the opium trade and drug dealing, or other crimes such as smuggling. The group taxes and extorts farms and other businesses. Militants are sometimes involved in kidnapping for ransom. The group also gets donations from a wide array of benefactors who support its cause or view it as a useful asset, experts say.
Many politicians, pundits and foreign policy/diplomatic experts are accusing the Biden Administration of conducting a rushed, poorly planned, and chaotic withdrawal. In the main, I agree with these critics. But then again, those who criticize have provided no answers as to what U.S. and Coalition forces should have done. One must take into account that any administration, any arms, any invading force from Alexander the Great to George W. Bush would have suffered the same consequences. This is a tough, largely tribal part of the world that can withstand almost anything. It is, to say, in Maureen Dowd’s pity expression, the “Mother of the vicious circle.”
I truly wish I had an answer and a bushel-basket full of suggestions as to how to eliminate the Taliban and restore Afghanistan to the sort of place it was before Tamerlane or Genghis Kahn. But I cannot . . . nor can anyone in Foggy Bottom, the Pentagon, at NATO headquarters, or on Capitol Hill.
Knowing and understanding history may be a start. Understanding what, at base, the goals of the Taliban are, may be useful. But, it seems to me, turning on one another and using our failures (or lack of long-term success) as political tools for the next election is the worst thing one can do when facing the most vicious of all historic circles.
Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone