"'I enlisted in the French section of the United Nations forces... We were sent to the chaos in the Middle East - you know, when Europe was establishing the Befehl there.'" (6, p. 87)
"Poor Middle East, Befehl withdrawn, chaos loose, fanaticism a tide rising higher for every day that passed...." (10, p. 133)
The world is interconnected but conflictive. Is order here established at the expense of chaos elsewhere? Do military interventions alleviate or exacerbate chaos? Do they generate resentments that intensify already existing fanaticisms? Is chaos loose because Befehl was withdrawn or because of Befehl? Should human reactions to conflict be compared to natural processes? (Tides are cyclical and predictable whereas human reactions differ with circumstances.)
Questions for a future history and for now.
41 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe it is sometimes necessary to use force. And that some people SHOULD be killed, like Osama bin Laden. What's needed are leaders who know how to use force intelligently. And we are sure as heck not seeing that from "Josip"!!!!!!
Biden's disastrous press conference yesterday merely confirmed, yet again, both his senescent incompetence and my contempt for him!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Should Osama and his associates not have been arrested and brought to trial?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I take a harder, perhaps more "Grotian" view of such scum. As Hugo Grotius wrote of pirates, Osama and his hencemen had made themselves the enemies of all civilized peoples. Such creatures can be rightly hunted down and killed wherever and whenever found.
And, yes, I know civilized nations can find it profitable to assist terrorists, to weaken enemies and rivals. The activities of Russia and China comes to mind!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But would the prosecution of individuals not have been more appropriate than war on a country?
Do other major powers support terrorists and/or repressive regimes?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, if that country was aiding and abetting terrorists, as the first Taliban regime was doing in Afghanistan before 2001.
Of course! Recall how I mentioned China and Russia. And I would include Iran as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Did the Taliban get started because the US backed them against the Russians in Afghanistan? Maybe Afghanistan would have been better or at least less bad without any foreign interventions?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not quite. The Taliban began as ONE of the factions which arose to combat the Soviets after the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979. I think the US supplied more than one of them besides the old Taliban
It might have been better if the USSR had not invaded Afghanistan. Impossible to say what would have happened if it had not.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Was it not the British that intervened in Afghanistan first?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
How far back are we supposed to go? Here you refer to the three wars fought by the British Raj in Afghanistan. If I'm recalling correctly, a big problem were Afghan raiders sweeping over the borders to kill, loot, rape, kidnap, etc.
Stirling's novel THE PESHAWAR LANCERS begins with something precisely similar: an Angrezi Raj army returning from a punitive expedition to Afghanistan to punish such raids.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I was trying to get away from the apparent idea that all wrong moves in international affairs were made by Russia, China or Muslims. I checked and confirmed that the British were the first power to intervene in Afghanistan but you have traced that back further to Afghan raiders. The question becomes whether the British response was sufficient to deal with this problem or merely exacerbated problems longer term.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would say yes, keeping in mind what Captain King or his Sikh comrade said in THE PESHAWAR LANCERS, a punitive expedition might at least discourage Afghan raiders and attacks for 15 or 20 years. Sometimes all you can do is buy time.
And a modern day equivalent would be terrorist organizations again being able to use Afghanistan as a base for staging attacks! The US State Department was forced to contradict "Josip's" false claim about al Qaeda no longer being in Afghanistan. I fully expect Jihadist terrorists to again be plotting attacks from Afghanistan because of "Josip's" folly!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But did the British merely send a punitive expedition or meddle further?
Paul.
Afghanistan was a bone of contention between Russia and the British during the 19th century -- "the Great Game" as it was called at the time.
The Russians were afraid that if the British became dominant in Afghanistan, they would meddle in the Central Asian states the Russians were in the process of incorporating into the Russian Empire; the British were afraid the Russians would use Afghanistan as a corridor or base for an invasion and/or subversion of British India.
Both were probably being paranoid.
The British government usually didn't -want- to interfere in Central Asia, however unhappy they were over the Russians dominating it, because it was just too difficult, costly and risky.
And invading Afghanistan on the way to India hasn't worked very often -- though Alexander the Great, Babur, and Nadir Shah all did manage to pull it off.
The British invaded Afghanistan twice, the first time in the 1830's to try and put an exiled king back on his throne so he'd be reliably anti-Russian. That did not, to put it mildly, work out well (FLASHMAN describes it rather well.)
The second time was in the 1870's to (oversimplification) place a diplomatic mission in Kabul to provide warning if the Russians meddled there, and then for revenge when the Afghans killed the diplomats and their bodyguards.
And the Raj fought a defensive war against a very ill-judged Afghan attack in 1919; that ended when RAF bombers hit Kabul, and the Emir's hareem boiled out into the street in panic, causing a massive loss of face.
From the 1870's through to the first world war, Afghanistan was more or less a friendly neutral and in 1906-8 the Russians acknowledged that it was part of the British sphere, as part of a general settlement of their disputes in Asia, when Britain became a backer of the Franco-Russian Entente against Germany.
That was basically all the Raj wanted -- for Afghanistan not to allow Russian or other foreigners in, no railway concessions or anything of that sort. The British didn't want to -run- Afghanistan, because it wasn't worth the cost of doing so, the Afghans being so bloody-minded and xenophobic and having no interest in 'progress'.
The government in Kabul didn't really even pretend to control the frontier Pushtun/Pathan tribes, who were inveterate bandits and raiders, so occasionally a punitive expedition was necessary -- march over the border, kill anyone who tried to stop you, burn some villages and cut down their fruit trees and steal their livestock, then withdraw.
(In the British-Indian army, the slang term for this was "butcher and bolt".)
That kept the tribes quiet... until the memory wore off, or some mad mullah got them frothing against the infiden, whereupon the whole thing had to be done again.
That and political officers bribing and intriguing to set them against each other, and so forth.
The headmaster of my school in Nairobi had been in the British Indian army and involved in a couple of punitive missions on the NW Frontier of British India and told us about them in the 60's (he was in his 90's then).
Very much as Kipling described, except bloodier. Pathans tend to be good fighters but treacherous and inveterately given to feuds and banditry; you bash them over the head now and then to keep it from getting out of hand, but it's a condition to be managed rather than a problem to be solved.
Kipling (usually) left out the bits about sewing captured Pathan raiders into pigskins, stuffing a lump of pork down their throats and then burying them alive or staking them out in the sun to die by inches as the pigskins contracted, which was SOP.
Mr Stirling,
Thank you and good grief!
In general, I am strongly disinclined to accept any suggestion that all of "our" foreign interventions were wholly benign whereas all of our (current) enemy's interventions were wholly malign but I am hampered by not having read all of this stuff so the details elude me.
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: You have responded to Paul's comments far more ably and in far more detail than I would have done. I basically had in mind what you said.
Btw, I have heard of Pakistani political officers, successors of those the Raj posted at the Afghan border, doing exactly what you said: bribing and intriguing among the border tribes and clans--to keep them from raiding into Pakistan. Nothing has changed!
Paul: And I'm more inclined than not to disagree! What really bothers me is how INEFFECTUAL so many of the interventions by the US has been. Not enough hard headed realpolitik and far too much woolly minded sentimentalism.
In 2001, after overthrowing the Taliban and (temporarily) crushing al Qaeda the US might have tried restoring the exiled Afghan king and having a new gov't headed by him and a council of anti Taliban war lords taking over. And we could have asked only two things of them: keep out the jihadists and keep out the Russians and Chinese. In return for some money and military support. Iow, declare victory and leave.
It's glaringly obvious the course the US chose instead, of trying to build a new, modern, tolerably democratic nation has failed. It's also obvious, IMO, that "Josip's" bungling will give the US no choice but to go back into Afghanistan after Jihadists start attacking the US and other Western nations from that country. And next it's going to be much harder and bloodier!
Thank you, "Josip"!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Military support of warlords might have served US interests but not the interests of the people of Afghanistan. Medical aid would do the latter.
And surely any further meddling can only make things worse? A great power that declared and implemented a policy of not imposing its will elsewhere in the world would thereby not inspire future generations of freedom fighters/terrorists to act against it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And, as a American, the interests of the US has to come FIRST. But, I would have had no objection to the US, if it had followed what I had outlined above, using some of that support for opening a school of medicine.
Meddling is GOING to happen no matter what. First by jihadists eager to come back. Next by a Russia and China eager to profit from the humiliation of the US. A RESPONSIBLE great power simply allow its enemies and rivals advancing their ambitions unchecked.
Sometimes, many problems can only be managed, not solved.
Ad astra! Sean
Drat! I meant to write above: "A RESPONSIBLE great power simply CANNOT allow its enemies and rivals advancing their ambitions unchecked."
Sean
Sean,
As a human being, human well-being comes first. If a country is invaded and counter-invaded, then my sympathies are with any of the locals who say, "A plague on both your houses! If you come to help, then you are welcome. Otherwise, stay out!" Invasions inspire resistance and some of that resistance becomes terrorism.
Paul.
Sean:if you want ‘inept’, try the First Afghan War.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: except your simplistic view is not BEING BORNE out in Afghanistan. We see thousands of Afghans desperately trying to flee the Taliban. I am sure they would far rather the US and "Josip" the Bungler had not been so inept, to use Stirling's word. I continue to disagree with you.
Mr. Stirling: I did read a bit about the first Anglo/Indian Afghan War! And that only ONE survivor of that Anglo/Indian army staggered back over the border.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course many want to escape the Taliban. The country is divided and continued conflict divides it further. Why is the Taliban so strong? Many must have flocked to it in response to what was happening while foreign troops were present. Why did the Afghan government and army melt away? How long could they have been propped up and at what expense in terms of continued suffering and alienation? Things are bad and more of the same will make them worse.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe the basic mistake of the US in 2001 and afterwards lay in trying a primitive, barbaric, even savage country into a modern, up to date, tolerably democratic country. Among peoples with nothing in their history and cultures on which such things could be built. Unless the US was willing to kill and destroy everyone and everything and start over from scratch. Since it was not, the chaos resulting from "Josip's" blundering was all too predictable.
We need to have no illusions about the Taliban. They are thugs, goons, murderers, tyrants. They are not in the least liberators or freedom fighters. The only ideas they have relating to society and politics are the worst ideas in Islam taken to their most rigidly literal extremes.
I think it would have been far better if the US had been content to restore the king in 2001, presiding over a council of anti Taliban war lords and then leave. As discussed in an earlier comment.
Ad astra!
Sean,
And I don't like the idea of supporting war lords. There will be some people who have joined the Taliban in the belief that they are freedom fighters. Of course the Taliban also include thugs and murderers like, I suppose, every other armed group that has ever been supported and/or opposed by imperialist interests from outside a country.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And sometimes the only half way tolerable alternative possible is rule by war lords. I agree with Stirling that some problems can't be solved, only managed. And after about thirty years or more of existence, I don't believe any of the Taliban can be called an honest "freedom fighter." At most, some might be sincerely fanatical Muslims. And we both know how cruel fanatics can be!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you don't know all the Taliban! Their numbers have grown, enabling them to take over. I think that resentment of the occupation has swelled their numbers and there will be all kinds of people among them.
Paul.
It may be that the only immediate foreseeable future in a country is war lord rule but first other countries need not support the war lords and secondly the Afghan people themselves are capable of resisting as they did to the Communist Party dictatorship.
Kaor, Paul!
Their so called "numbers" are growing because many Afghans are trying to placate the Taliban. Not because they really BELIEVE those thugs are any good. Your assessment is naive and unrealistic.
You can bet Russia and China and Iran does not give a damn about the Afghans, only on how best to profit from this catastrophe. And I also expect some tribes in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But their numbers have grown enough for them to take over the country and for the army and government to disintegrate before them! Of course other Afghans will fight the Taliban. The conflict will continue.
Does the US give a damn about the Afghans?
Paul.
The Taliban are a nasty set of murderous reactionary bastards. They have a lot of support in Afghanistan because a lot of Afghans are nasty reactionary bastards (and by the evidence, always have been). That's why the place is a noxious hellhole.
There's really no need to parse it much further.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Merely an increase in their numbers does not mean the Taliban are good people, which these scum are not.
Yes, the US did give a damn about the Afghans! Merely by trying to bring about reform, modernization, the rule of law, etc., shows the US gave many damns about the Afghans. And the desperate efforts by so many thousands of Afghans to escape Taliban tyranny includes many who, however imperfectly, responded to and desired those reforms. Those who fail to escape face only death at Taliban hands.
Mr. Stirling: Absolutely! The Taliban are vile, murderous, reactionary swine bastards!*
Ad astra! Sean
*Apologies to the pigs! They are vastly better than the Taliban!
Oh, they are not good people. That seems to settle the matter! - except that I still hope for some forces of resistance to tyranny from within Afghanistan itself.
Kaor, Paul!
Which, because of "Josip's" bungling, is not going to happen quickly or easily. And not before, very likely, hundreds of thousands die either violently or of the famines which always accompanies chaos and collapse.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Neither quickly nor easily. Agreed. (In fact, it's bloody awful, isn't it?)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Too true. CATASTROPHIC, in all senses of that word. Thank you, "Josip"!
Ad astra! Sean
As an aside -- this may not be the proper forum -- there was no need for a withdrawal. The situation as it settled down over the last decade required a modest garrison of a few battalions and some special forces, and supporting air power.
The Taliban knew that if they tried to come down out of the hills and fight openly for territory we'd massacre them, so they usually didn't except for the odd probe.
The costs in money were moderate, and casualties light -- and if you enlist in time of war, you hand over your life to be used as an instrument of State policy. I speak as the son, grandson, and great-grandson of men who enlisted to fight for the British Empire.
So why change anything? Just keep doing the same thing decade after decade; it's producing a tolerable outcome and nothing else seemed likely to do so, which view was pellucidly right as has been demonstrated.
An exit strategy is a defeat strategy. Winning means you stay -- note that we have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea to this day.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. What you outlined is what I have been getting, piecemeal, from other sources. The US had put together a tolerable situation in Afghanistan which required only a light presence from the Americans. And might in time have led to something better.
Instead, "Josip," for some reason which makes no sense, threw all this, all we had gained in two decades of struggle, blood, and treasure, away! The results are catastrophic now and will be even more disastrous as the implications of this blundering fiasco sinks in.
Ad astra! Sean
Mr Stirling,
This is the proper forum for everything! At least, we have made it so.
Poul Anderson addressed every issue so we follow in his footsteps.
Paul.
Sean: "never attribute to conspiracy or malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity and incompetence".
Adding in "wishful thinking" to the "stupidity" category; humans are prone to it, and especially so when predicting the consequences of their actions. In fact, they have an immense capacity to sincerely believe that what they want to do will produce good results even if it's starkly evident that's fatuous nonsense.
(General Haig was prone to this in WW1 -- he kept predicting a collapse in German morale 'any day now' until 1918, when he was finally right, rather in the way a stopped clock is twice a day.)
This is why good staff schools teach "worst possible case analysis".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I don't believe in silly plots under every bed! Incompetence, stupidity, and wishful thinking has brought on far more disasters than malice and alleged conspiracies.* The horrendous blundering of "Josip" and the people around him is going to become a classic example of a catastrophe brought on by stupidity, incompetence, and wishful thinking.
I agree it's good that well run staff schools teach "worst possible case analysis." The problem with that being the politicians the military commanders and general staffs serve can be dangerously prone to preferring wishful thinking to hard headed, realistic analysis.
And "Josip" STILL keeps on blundering! I was stunned to learn he ordered that lists of the names of Americans in Taliban held territory and Afghans who worked for the US be TURNED OVER TO THE TALIBAN! Is the fool seriously expecting the Taliban NOT to kill those Afghans and at least be tempted to use those Americans as hostages?
Ad astra! Sean
*Some plots are real and might even change history. One example I've thought of being how the Black Hand of early 20th century Serbia plotted against Austria-Hungary. As we all know, the all too successful conspiracy to murder Archduke Francis Ferdinand had dire results for the entire world. Another example would be the plotting of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which led to Nine Eleven, and everything which flowed from that.
Kaor, Paul!
Many thanks, again, for the wide range of discussion you encourage here. And I agree the works of Poul Anderson addressed or gives us room for discussing almost any possible issues to be found.
I can think of several examples from Anderson's stories directly applicable to the truly horrendous blundering of "Josip." For example, the appalling chaos on the southern borders of the US, due to this terrible President's refusal to DEFEND them, reminded me of this text from the revised version of "Tiger By The Tail," after Cerdic mentioned the Alarri:
Flandry harked back. He had been a boy then, but he well remembered
news accounts of the fleets that swept across the marches with nuclear
fire and energy sword. The Battle of Mirzan had been touch and go for a
while, till a Navy task force smashed the gathered enemy strength. yet
it turned out that the Alarri were the victims of still another tribe,
who had overrun their planet and laid it under tribute. Such an incident
would scarcely had come to the notice of an indifferent Imperium, had
not one nation of the conquered refused to surrender but, instead,
boarded hordes into spacecraft and set forth in hopes of winning a new
home. (They expected the Empire would buy peace from them, payment to
be assistance in finding a planet they could colonize, preferably out-
side its borders. ...")
And I am still stunned by "Josip's" appalling decision to have lists of the names of Americans in Taliban held territory and Afghans working for the US turned over to the Taliban! Commander Max Abrams would be HORRIFIED, as this bit from Chapter 11 of ENSIGN FLANDRY shows when discussing the need for protecting one's sources in intelligence work: "Sure, this is a filthy game. But it has one point of practicality which is also a point of honor. You don't compromise your sources. You don't!" And those lists must include US Intelligence agents and Afghan agents working for them. And I have read of how outraged the professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency were by this IDIOTIC decision of "Josip"!
And yet more analogies from Anderson's works could be found, I'm sure!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment