Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 30, 2006
Losing In Afghanistan

There is serious trouble in Afghanistan and the western coalition is not winning:

"Over the last five or six weeks there have been various proven attacks mainly at night by the Taliban on that base, but I think it is fair to say this is the largest we have seen thus far," British spokesman Col. Chris Vernon told reporters in Kandahar.

The battle began hours after Taliban insurgents ambushed an Afghan supply convoy as it returned to the remote forward operating base late Tuesday, killing eight Afghan soldiers, Vernon said.

U.S. and British warplanes and helicopters were called in to provide air support and a Canadian quick reaction force was sent from Kandahar to the base, where a small contingent of American and Canadian soldiers are stationed with Afghan troops in the Sangin district of the volatile Helmand province.

Early Wednesday, the base came under a "significant Taliban attack," during which the Canadian and American soldiers were killed, Vernon said. At least five coalition troops were wounded, including three Canadians and an American, officials said.

Twelve Taliban militants also died in the fighting, while 20 others were killed after coalition aircraft and artillery fire forced them to flee into the desert.

Short recap:

There had been reconaissance probing by the Taliban. Then they shut down the supply lines by attacking a convoy. An attack was launched that killed an American and a Canadian and wounded another four westerners of the "small contingent" while wounding only one Afghan soldier?! The day was saved by emergency reenforcement from Kandahar and really massive air power:

In Afghanistan March 28, an Air Force B-52 Stratofortress, Predator, A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and Royal Air Force Harrier GR7s provided close air support to coalition troops in contact with enemy forces near Gereshk.

The Predator successfully launched two AGM-114 “Hellfire” precision-guided munitions against enemy forces. The GR7s successfully expended two MK-82 500-pound and one MK-83 1000-pound general-purpose bomb, along with one GBU-16 Enhanced Paveway II bomb and 23 rockets against enemy forces. The A-10s successfully fired 460 30mm cannon rounds, and expended one MK-82 500-pound general-purpose bomb and two GBU-12 Paveway II bombs against the target.

That is a total of 5.000 pounds of bombs, quite a bit of other ammunition and lots of money (one Hellfire missle is about $120,000) for some 20 dead "militants" – and don´t you dare to question that count.

The western coalition will get handed its ass in Afghanistan. For centuries that country has won against any occupation power. It may take a while, but either the drug lords, or the Taliban, not the western coalition, will win this fight.

From the sole interest of the west, a win for the Taliban might even be preferable. If they would come back with their "no drugs" policy, it would cut away some 90% of the world’s heroin.

Comments

“Afghanistan… where empires go to die”
If I’m not mistaken, Bush was a history major at Yale. But then a sense of history doesn’t seem to be his strong point, does it?

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 30 2006 17:03 utc | 1

I guess to our never-ending shame and horror, he’s earned his place in it.

Posted by: beq | Mar 30 2006 18:01 utc | 2

As far as I read the situation re. heroin in the press, UN reports, position papers, etc. – all questionable perhaps – the Taliban no drug policy (before the US invasion) was based both on religious/societal and commercial motives.
Commercial, because there was a glut (huge stores) and to make prices rise it was expedient to forbid, slash, destroy. In fact, it is said by many, the Taliban organised and controlled the drug trade, tightening it up, streamlining it, and making it more profitable. That may be an exageration, an outcome of unplanned mixed motives, some of them considered noble. Certainly, the Taliban were in liaison with the drugrlords, in fact the two categories are not easy to distinguish (for me.)
After the Americans took control, and now NATO, poppy cultivation flourished, because:
a) a “free market” (profit above all) atmosphere prevailed. Farmers can obtain loans (pre-harvest money) for only one crop. So they grow it. No bank (what banks?), organisation, or groups of individual will lend to farmers for anything else.
b) no central planning and no central control, and no (or little) outside funding to implement general schemes. Moves to eradicate poppy fields are thus a sop to the small pious donors, media photo ops for the Western Press. The Aghani farmers know this and collaborate – paid to pose, I read.
c) a need to avoid antagonising war-lords, or rather local sheiks in control of large swatches of territory. These get their funding without racketting the populace – from drugs. Their power and prestige may rest on old-style clannish contacts and hierarchy, partly too on threat, but the mainstay is huge influx of cash. From heroin. However, if angered, provoked, they have huge backup, as, like Mafia lords, they are keeping large numbers of people alive through their organisation. Tens of thousands of people (many soon starving if deprived of their one cash crop) will turn “taliban” at the drop of a hat –
d) Conspiracy sites make out that the trade is so lucractive that in fact Afgh. is in the grips of a drug war – with Afghanis, and the US (CIA, etc.) fighting for control of the poppy fields. The US has the bombs, but the ‘drug’ ‘war’ lords, the ‘taleb’ control the people on the ground. Low level warfare between the two simmers along and boils over from time to time. Both parties occasionally collaborate, when a win-win deal appears, or when a loose-loose situation must be scotched. The eradication of poppy crops, and so on, is window dressing for the West: both parties collaborate in it, as it does bring in some cash (e.g. NGOs who do good works, UN donations, etc.), saves their face, and keeps external experts away.

Posted by: Noisette | Mar 30 2006 18:52 utc | 3

argh .. loose should be lose, why do I make these stupid mistakes.

Posted by: Noisette | Mar 30 2006 18:58 utc | 4

Oh! ::
karzai has bought a new hat, spiffy –
mullah omar (remember him, binny’s side kick, an evil terrorist) decided not to stand in the last elections – would have been a bad move – as an outsider opponent he gets more tv time –
kabul now has prostitutes who have aids all over the streets – in the rich foreign quarter house prices have risen 500 to x % –
girls are admitted in schools – but don’t go because they have to care for family members who are sick or just because they are embarassed about not having shoes – the water is filthy – when it is there – no reconstruction, practically none at all – why reconstruct what you bombed in the first place? –
no more afghani wheat – it probably now costs the earth and comes from australia – dates, fruit, forget about it – average death age is about 40 – ever see an old geezer on TV wearing glasses – nope – afghanis can’t afford glasses and don’t live that long – sink into the gutter or die in the mountains, forget about it, it is fate –
quote – the babies born here, 7 of them, out of 13, all were strange, one had no arms and no ears – we think it has to do with the wars – the munitions – grandpa, a rare long time survivor says, they could have killed me but they didn’t, now it is my grandchildren who cannot live – hope is gone. the future no longer exists. they came, you know – they were looking for salesmen and women teachers – not one person was hired. my nephew has a telephone, he knows. baby mirah died while they were here. one person took a picture. we never got a picture.
Coda:
Thousands of soldiers from eight countries marched onto the runway for a sombre, heartfelt tribute to Costall, the 12th Canadian killed in Afghanistan since the war on terror was launched in 2001.
The 22-year-old from Edmonton – a husband and father of a one-year-old boy – was killed in action early Wednesday  during a firefight with Taliban forces.

link
What is the West fighting for?

Posted by: Noisette | Mar 30 2006 20:06 utc | 5

noisette
this situation, in afghanistan -will only get worse, a great deal worse
the empire has balkanised all the conflicts so war & peace are essentially the same thing
& developments, are in fact, the contrary, regressions into a convenient tribalism that serves the ulltimate & immediate needs of the empire

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 30 2006 22:56 utc | 6

@Noisette:

The West is fighting, perhaps, to prevent itself from ever having a calm moment of retrospection. Without war to distract us — and war is a potent distractor, even for those not fighting; see War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges for some ruminations on the subject — we would have to really think about our day-to-day lives and the mess we have made.

There was a Jules Pfeiffer cartoon years back featuring a man who sang all the time. He sings in the shower, he sings in the subway, he sings while he works. One day, someone comes up to him, presses a dime into his hand, and says “it must be wonderful to be so happy all the time.” His reply is: “who’s happy? I sing all day to keep from screaming.”

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Mar 31 2006 1:12 utc | 7

A couple of recent articles suggest that the US policy du jour is “nation smashing” — i.e. reducing the target area to something not recognisable as a functioning nation-state.
Not a Country Any More
Afghanistan As Empty Space: The perfect neocolonial state of the 21st century (in 4 parts)
Rather than reduce a defined nation-state to vassalage the approach seems to be to destroy it qua nation-state, leaving only an (ahem) Occupied Territory without political stability, defined borders, or civil infrastructure.

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 31 2006 5:07 utc | 8

no more afghani wheat – it probably now costs the earth and comes from australia
surely no one thinks this is just a coincidence now do they?
there are two ways to “create a market”. one is to offer a product that your neighbour genuinely needs and wants at an attractive price. the other is to burn your neighbour’s house down, trample his bread into the mud, piss in his well, and then sell him building materials, wheat, and water at whatever price you care to set.

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 31 2006 5:10 utc | 9

George Bush and American neocon policies are cracking the world apart like a boiled egg.
Yankee pride prevents a withdrawal and for the sake of the future, I hope Americans elect someone other than a republican next time – if it’s not too late already.
Why the insatiable need to run the world and insist that all nations should appreciate and enjoy the American Way?
The United States government loves to war. I can draw no other conclusions.
O Brother we’re in sooo deep

Posted by: O Brother | Mar 31 2006 6:21 utc | 10

Rather than reduce a defined nation-state to vassalage the approach seems to be to destroy it qua nation-state, leaving only an (ahem) Occupied Territory without political stability, defined borders, or civil infrastructure.
Today Afghanistan, tomorrow America. In Zbig’s new paper he talks of them working to drain the concept of sovereignty of all meaning…In the JackAss Party(aka Wall Street North Party) they assure the idiots who might vote for them that they won’t sell American infrastructure – roads, mass transit & something else – to Arabs. Which translates into English as they’ll oversee the Piratization of absolutely Everything in our nation to whoever the bloody fuck coughs up the cash… oh, ‘cept the Arabs…Defined Borders…well, they’re meeting in Mexico as I write w/Canadaian & Mexican Officials to wreck those…Stability…well, americans are like sheep so that might hold up for a few yrs…and yes, it’ll be an occupied by territory – occupied by xUSgov. military, just like Afghanistan…but, shit, folks can still perhaps read dailysoros & americablog for their 2 mins. of Hate Big Brother and to find out who to vote for…

Posted by: jj | Mar 31 2006 6:29 utc | 11

DeAnander wrote: A couple of recent articles suggest that the US policy du jour is “nation smashing” — i.e. reducing the target area to something not recognisable as a functioning nation-state.
this is exactly what bush et al mean when they talk of the need to level the playing field

Posted by: b real | Mar 31 2006 15:50 utc | 12

You are all right.
It is too horrible.

Posted by: Noisette | Apr 1 2006 8:34 utc | 13