Robert Fisk: This strategy has been tried before – without success
"They shoot Russians," the young paratrooper told me. It was cold. We had come across his unit, the Soviet 105th Airborne Division, near Charikar, north of Kabul, and he was holding out a bandaged hand. Blood seeped through, staining the sleeve of his battledress. He was just a teenager with fair hair and blue eyes. Beside us a Soviet transport lorry, its rear section blown to pieces by a mine – yes, an "improvised explosive device", though we didn't call it that yet – lay upended in a ditch. In pain, the young man raised his hand to the mountain-tops where a Soviet helicopter was circling. Could I ever have imagined that Messers Bush and Blair would have landed us in the same sepulchre of armies almost three decades later? Or that a young black American president would do exactly what the Russians did all those years ago?
Within weeks, we would see the Soviet Army securing Kabul and the largest cities of Afghanistan, abandoning the vast areas of mountain and desert to the "terrorists", insisting that they could support a secular, uncorrupt government in the capital and give security to the people. By the spring of 1980, I was watching the Soviet military stage a "surge". Sound familiar? The Russians announced new training for the Afghan army. Sound familiar? Only 60 per cent of the force was following orders at the time. Yes, it does sound familiar.
Victor Sebestyen, who has researched a book about the fall of the Soviet empire, has written at length of those frozen days after the Russian army stormed into Afghanistan just after Christmas of 1979. He quotes General Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of the Soviet armed forces, addressing the Soviet Politburo in 1986. "There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another. Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centres, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize."
As Sebestyen points out, Gen Akhromeyev demanded extra troops – or the war in Afghanistan would continue "for a very, very long time". And how's this for a quotation from, say, a British or US commander in Helmand today? "Our soldiers are not to blame. They've fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills." Yes, of course, this was Gen Akhromeyev in 1986.
I watched the tragedy play out in those bleak early months of 1980. In Kandahar, the people cried "Allahu Akbar" from the rooftops and on the roads outside the city, I met the insurgents – the Taliban of their time – bombing the Soviet convoys.
North of Jalalabad, they even stopped my bus with red roses in the muzzles of their Kalashnikovs, ordering Communist students from the vehicle. I didn't care to dwell on their fate. No different, I guess, than that of pro-government Afghan students caught by the Taliban today. Outside the city, I was told that the "mujahedin" – President Ronald Reagan's favourite "freedom fighters" – had destroyed a school because it was educating girls. Too true. The headmaster and his wife – after they had been burned – were hanging from a tree.
Afghans approached us with strange stories. Political prisoners were being taken from the country and tortured inside the Soviet Union. Secret rendition. In Kandahar, a shopkeeper, an educated man in his fifties who wore both a European sweater and an Afghan turban, approached me in the street. I still have the notes of my interview.
"Every day the government says that food prices are coming down," he said. "Every day we are told that things are getting better thanks to the cooperation of the Soviet Union. But it is not true. Do you realise that the government cannot even control the roads? Fuck them. They only hold on to the cities." The "mujahedin" infested Helmand province and crossed and recrossed the Pakistani border, just as they do today. A Soviet Mig fighter-bomber even crossed the frontier in early 1980 to attack the guerrillas. The Pakistani government – and the United States, of course – condemned this as a flagrant breach of Pakistan's sovereignty. Well, tell that to the young Americans who control the unmanned Predators so often crossing the border today to attack the guerrillas.
In Moscow almost a quarter of a century later, I went to meet the former Russian occupiers of Afghanistan. Some were now addicted to drugs, others suffered from what we call stress disorder.
And on this historic day – when Barack Obama plunges ever deeper into chaos – let us remember the British retreat from Kabul and its destruction in 1842.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_o
Comments, none, let the history speak for itself.
Good to read your typical defeatist claptrap Mr Frisk. One assumes that based on your assumptions that the UK should have surrendered to Germany after Dunkirk, after all the Nazi's hadn't been beaten up to that point, so what was the point of carrying on?
Just because the Taliban have a strong track record of resistance doesn't mean they can't be beaten, it simply requires a coordinated response. Something alas this abortion of a Government can't even contemplate nevermind organise.
I'm just waiting for the day we witness some liberal looney sitting atop a Taliban anti-aircraft battery 'Jane Fonda style' bemoaning the capitalist oppressors desire to control the oil and opium trade blah, blah, blah!
But what are we doing in Afghanistan? The political case has been confused from the start. Was it just a response to 9/11 just because Bin Laden and his gang were supposedly hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan? Are we really on a mission to "civilise" Afghanistan? And do our actions really make out city streets safe from the odd desperate gang of terrorists?
One thing is for certain, Afghan armies are not camped on the other side of the Channel staring at the White Cliffs of Dover pending an invasion. The Afghans don't pose a credible threat to us so why are we fighting in their country? I cringe every time another British soldier pays the ultimate price. What a waste.
The late WW1 veteran Harry Patch said of war that it was "organised murder". As far as I'm concerned, war is never justified, though at times unavoidable. We paid for our ambivalent attitude to Hitler and his gang in the 1930s and survived only because of the English Channel and the Spitfire. By 1940 the threat to our nation was very real and immediate.
I return to my original point. What credible threat do Afghans pose to us? The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis, and the 7/7 terrorists were home-grown. Not an Afghan to be seen. So why are we fighting in Afghanistan? I'm confused, angry and want a clear explanation. From where I'm sat, this mission is just Imperialism by another name - a way keeping the "natives" in their place.
We don't need more troops. We need an exit strategy. I'm not hearing one just now. A disaster is in the making. Ask the Russians. They know all about Afghanistan and disaster.
Have you ever been to Calais proper? I'm a lorry driver, and let me assure you there are certainly Afghan armies camped on the other side of the channelr pending an invasion.
One lorry at a time!
Therefore the war in Afganistan is giving these Afgans a reason to come to our shores.Because we are there they can claim asylum here.As an EX foster carer I have seen an unbelievable amount of Afgans placed into the care of social services.
I fostered two that had been in a Taliban camp and left videos of our forces being blown up on my computer.
The Police did not press charges.
They went out of our house and left gas on unlit on stove but police did not press charges.
We do not foster any more because we want to foster children in need not Afgans that have the appearance and physic of adults.
Also the refugees are nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan
Good luck beating the Taliban, something armies over the centuries from Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Britain, and Soviets couldn't manage.
My guess is they'll simply bury their weapons for 18 months and grow some opium instead. America has the watches, but the Taliban has the time.
very soz, does happen occasionally.
Either copy and paste the URL off the page, then paste in the address bar, OR go to wiki and search on "Massacre of Elphinstone's Army". Do not click the link above, livejournal broke it.
zzz...
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Jewerly $20
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE sHIPPING
http://www.elivebuy.com
Now, White House wants Turkey to contribute 'intensely' in this bloody episode and when coffins start to land in towns and villages in Turkey Fundamental Islam and US hatred will be flourished.
On that basis, I await Frisk's analysis of the parralel's between Hannibal's invasion of Rome and the Allied invasions on Italy in 1943.
SS7
Regardless of the moral rights or wrongs of waging war in the narco-state Afghanistan, if one has to kill 80% or more of a population in order to 'win' a war, then the war either is deliberately entered into as a genoicide, or it should logically be abandoned.
Let the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly adopt a resolution which insists that all nations (even Saudi Arabia and China) must adopt fraud-proof elections. Then hold a fraud-proof election in Afghanistan before the Withdrawal. And allow the Taliban and others who are not puppets to contest that election.
If the Afghani people choose the Taliban then they must suffer Taliban rule for 4-5 years, until the next fraud-proof election, at which time they can kick them out of office. If their Taliban government were to wage war against America then the Afghanis would of course be obligated to pay the price.
The whole thing is terribly simple. What a shame that deeply entrenched vested interests make it seem that there is no solution to these relatively simple problems...
Mr Alex Weir, Baghdad and Harare
hmm, theres a massive problem with what youre saying because the people do not choose the taliban, and they certainly wouldnt get a chance to vote them out!
what a typical bit of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" nonsense from robert fisk. he only wants to see it one way! what about those farmers, doctors and teachers etc who will be persecuted by the taliban?!
However, there are very many countries around the world that practice policies that the West doesn't like and that contravene basic human rights (most of the Middle East, China, Russia, large chunks of South America, considerable chunks of Africa...), so by your logic we should be invading them as well in order to defend the "farmers, doctors and teachers". Can't be done.
Once people recognise that it can't be done, then the only logical step is to leave.
And Mr Obama got the Nobel Prize for PEACE, the poor boys is loosing his grip.
ps this is not me advocating the war in Iraq nor am i calling afghanistan necessary.
If only Blair had been able to show the same resiliance and independence of mind.
We are promoting terorism and the enemy is here.
The war in Afganistan is giving these Afgans a reason to come to our shores.Because we are there they can claim asylum here.As an EX foster carer I have seen an unbelievable amount of Afgans placed into the care of social services.If they claim to be under 16 they get every thing paid for and get placed into care.
I fostered two that had been in a Taliban camp and left videos of our forces being blown up on my computer.
The Police did not press charges.
They went out of our house and left gas on unlit on stove but police did not press charges.
We do not foster any more because we want to foster children in need not Afgans that have the appearance and physic of adults.
It looks like an appalling remake of the Vietn-Namese story where finally the power and responsibility were transfered to the Viet-Namese authorities whilst training and arming their "capable" army. Moreover, there was a constant flow of men and equipment from the North, but this time, in Afghanistan we mean, men and equipment flow from the South i.e.Pakistan.
As regards establishing a lasting "democratic" regime -or a semblance of it- in Afghanistan, let us admit that it is difficult to have a "clean" government paired up with a corresponding change in people's mentality.? Otherwise, it is nothing but one more doomed attempt with the inglorious objective of just adding a few months or years (2011 is now the heralded limit ?) to a government which is then likely to disappear if and when "they" come back.
This is written on the wall: no Gordon Brown's nor Obama's nice and almost convincing discourses succeed in hiding the brutality of a known-future. "If you ignore History, you are bound to commit the same mistakes" (Machiavel)
Maxim
If interested, you will know how to contact me through the medium you loathe. I trust that you understand that email, like any medium, it is only as abhorrent as those who use it.
Best Regards,
Stan
But what would be a succesful strategy to follow in Afghanistan?
There is no alternative to buffering our feeble attempts of reconstruction and aid by extending the areas under our control.
At least untill such time as the Afghan government forces can do this on their own.
Afghanistan started at 0 , the society is medieval, chaotic and lawless.
I don't believe we can change Afghanistan in 8 years or even 10 years.
THis is a generational conflict.
International forces will have to stay involved in Afghanistan for decades to come.
The only alternative I see is to try and get the neighboring countries more involved, China,Iran,Pakistan,Russia. They will have to remain at the very least well willing and sympathetic of the international forces efford in Afghanistan.If they don't want the operations to succeed the mission will most likely never succeed as they can keep supplying the anti government forces.
• Afghans don’t want Western style democracy (adult franchise) they live in tribes and their tribal elders represent the will of their people.
• Their traditional economy is trade, agriculture, drugs, crimes in the form of smuggling, kidnapping, murder and plundering at individual as well as tribal level by warlords.
• Extreme poverty and illiteracy has resulted in religious fanaticism with little understanding of any concept of Islam and their minds are under total control of equally ignorant Mullahs.
• A common Afghani has just no understanding of human values as seen by civilized world with little regard for human life. This is mainly due to their violent tribal culture and war torn society over last thirty years.
• Money is one the most powerful tool in afghan culture which can be used to purchase almost everything I mean everything.
• With blind religious following and concept of Jihad well entrenched in minds it is just not possible to win trust and popular support by a foreign force especially non-Muslim.
• Hostile elements in neighboring countries like Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan have enough capacity and interest to support insurgency to keep bleeding coalition forces. This capability can be further complemented by countries like Russia and China with conflicting interests in the region.
• Traditionally provinces of Afghanistan have remained semi-autonomous with limited control of Kabul. Moreover all the neighboring countries and India have their own interests and respective support groups within Afghanistan. Creating state organs like Parliament, Judiciary, Executive, Law Enforcement and Military seems a far-fetched idea and is most likely to fail.
So What should United States do?
• US should keep its prime objective in sight which is ‘to prevent any attack or threat to US and its allies from Afghani soil’ and forget about controlling the country through puppets like Hamid Karzai.
• Drop the idea of carving a democratic state on western lines out of fiercely practiced tribal culture of Afghanistan.
• Creating effective state organs in foreseeable future may not be possible however US can help putting in basic infrastructure in a year or two and then let the people of Afghanistan take care of their own fate.
• Reduce the US presence to few strongly held bases with minimum visibility of military uniforms to change public opinion of United States as an occupying force. Tribal elders should be purchased selectively and assisted through money to remain effective.
• US should establish an effective intelligence network in Afghanistan using its bases and purchasing informants. Response to the potential threats should be through surgical air strikes, drone attacks and if required even raids using Special Forces. Effectiveness of drones in tribal areas of Pakistan suggests expanding scope of its use. Threat of swift and potent retaliation coupled with destruction of last eight years should generally deter Afghanis from supporting terrorist elements.
• Efforts should be made to restrict the role of Afghanistan’s neighbors to enable Afghans to stand on their own feet. Push and enable Pakistan to counter threat from extremism.
• The most challenging yet rewarding task would be to improve literacy in masses thus reducing the influence of Madrassahs and Mullah. This is applicable to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Comprehensive strategy needs to be formulated to win hearts and minds of people without antagonizing them. It has to be a slow and long drawn process requiring lot of patience and skillful use of mass media and information technology. Option of investing on some popular TV channels and religious leaders should be actively pursued to add catalyst.
In the overall Cost-to-Benefit Analysis the aforementioned strategy will cost much less in terms of money and more importantly human lives besides being effective. There is no doubt whatsoever that the current Obama Strategy will fail and soon.
Afganistan's terrain and tribal peoples evokes the exciting times the Army had clearing the trans-Mississippi frontier on North America of the pesky Native Americans. Although the climate and terrain are not so similar, the Army also gained much valuable experience in controlling insurgents during its colonial years in the Philippines.
So why should US Army generals hesitate to undertake to civilize wild tribesmen in a country which seems so familiar from what they read in the textbooks they studied in history class?
President Obama is now totally out-of-touch with the real world because he lives in the "cone of silence" that the White House has become. Party crashers become the subject of Congressional Hearings. The foundations of the Republic shook when two unhomogenized people got into the same room with the President. And all they wanted to do was use the incident to get a paying job.
Priorities -- what are them?
Give me all your OIL!
How much OIL is worth a pint of blood?
As long as it's NOT my blood, than any means neccesary.
Just get me OIL! OIL! OIL!