Wounded and Left on Afghanistan's Plains

"When you're wounded and left,
On Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out,
To cut up your remains,
Just roll on your rifle,
And blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd,
Like a soldier." - Rudyard Kipling

Just looking at a map of Afghanistan is a scary experience. It's easy to see how a bunch of peasants with small arms managed to keep the Russians bogged down for ten years.

Open Afghanistan Map

We recently heard that Colin Powell has been strong-arming the President of Pakistan. He's apparently asked for permission to overfly Pakistan on the way to Afghanistan, and will possibly be asking for permission to base ground troops there. If he gets everything he wants, we'll probably start by bombing Afghanistan back to rubble. The problem is that the Russians tried that for ten years and it didn't work. Every day they'd bomb, and every night the guerillas would come down out of the hills and shoot up their troops.

I don't think America is going to nearly that patient. I imagine us building up a large force of troops in Pakistan sometime in the next few months. If the Pakistanis don't want us to do that we'll probably land Marines on their beaches and conquer them too. Either way, lets just deal with Afghanistan today... Lets assume that by one means or another we station a million men in northern Pakistan. Now we've got two problems.

The first problem is that China borders Pakistan. Their reaction to a million American troops next door will be unhappy to say the least. Imagine how our government would react if some other nation stationed a million troops in Mexico or Canada, and you understand why China is one of the few countries on earth which has not pledged it's support to America in our time of crisis. Would they declare war if we station troops in Pakistan? I don't think that would surprise anyone, but it's more likely they'd simply ship guns, ammo, and supplies into Afghanistan. Iran, which borders Afghanistan on the west might do the same thing, and sympathizers in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which borders Afghanistan on the north might do the same thing.

The second and possibly far worse problem is that of fighting in Afghanistan. You see, this isn't desert warfare. What the American army (or allied army) would be dealing with is a series of little roads through the mountains. Two railroads lead to Afghanistan from Pakistan's capital, Islambad. One goes through Peshawar and stops at Landi Kotal at the Afghani border. The other railroad goes as far as Thal, then stops. From there a road heads west for about thirty kilometers then splits. One branch of the road goes directly to Afghanistan via the town of Khowst, then heads onward to the provincial capital at Gardeyz. The other road goes north through the Pakistani town of Parachinar then also heads to Gardeyz.

A four hundred or so kilometers southwest there's another road heading from Pakistan into the Afghani interior. This one is also a railroad heading northwest from Quetta and heading northwest until it stops at the border town of Chaman. In some ways this route is a little better. It is only mountainous on one side, and it looks like an easier route. However, it is considerably longer than the of the routes from Peshawar or Thal

These roads are all little two lane roads (some of them are even dirt roads) that go through high mountain passes. Like I said, this isn't desert warfare. In desert warfare armies have a chance to maneuver around their enemies. The terrain is relatively level, there's not much cover, one has very little trouble with radio communications, and an army has a reasonable chance to spot its enemies while they're still miles away. Relatively speaking, desert warfare is easy.

Mountain warfare is hard. What we're discussing here is the kind of warfare where troops move through two hundred kilometers of hostile terrain on a narrow road. Along most of its rout, the road is at the bottom of a series of valleys and passes. This means the enemy almost always has the high ground. They can take a couple of shots at your troops, disappear behind a tree, and lead the soldiers you send after them into an ambush. The enemy can plant explosives in slopes or cliffs above the road to create avalanches, set fires secure in the knowledge of how the wind can be expected to blow at that time of year... There are a thousand little tricks to successful guerilla warfare, and the Afghans know them all.

The other route is conceivably even worse. It goes through Iran. It wouldn't surprise anyone to hear a representative of the US government claim that Iran helped sponsor this terrorist act. At that point we might just conquer Iran first, then enter Afghanistan via its western border. The logistical issues alone are nightmarish.

It's also possible to come in through the north via countries like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan - you know, the heavily Muslim countries that border Russia. That route is worse too. Lastly, one thin arm of Afghanistan reachs between Tajikistan and Pakistan to touch China. There is nothing resembling a decent road.

When the army finally got to Kabul, they'd discover that the enemy had faded into the hills. Guess what. Afghanistan is mostly mountains. At that point the Afghans, who've been fighting everyone who's ever been stupid enough to invade Afghanistan for the last thousand years with the same basic strategy, (and practicing on each other when there's no invader to be fought) will happily let an invading army sit in Kabul thinking they've accomplished something. Then at night they'll come down from the hills, blow up a couple jeeps, shoot some soldiers and head back into the hills. They'll keep doing the same thing for ten, twenty, thirty years if they have to.

Then there's the quality of the Afghan soldier. Every trip a village child takes into the forest to gather firewood, each time the child takes the goats up to the high pastures, every time they go to the river to fetch water, they're learning woodcraft and becoming intimately familiar with the intricate network of trails that leads from village to pasture to stream to isolated hut. There are no real roads and no maps. The average twelve-year-old probably has better outdoor survival skills than most commandos. Then there's the fighting itself. In Afghanistan it's ongoing. Some of the men we'd be fighting have been guerrilla warriors for twenty years or more. Compared to Afghanistan, Vietnam was a kindergarten.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who say that George Bush wanted a war. However, I don't think that this was the war he wanted. Invading Afghanistan is known to the world's military planners as the foolish move, the one campaign you hope and pray you'll never be called upon to undertake.

This analysis leads to some interesting possibilities for opposing the war or lessening its impact.

As I've stated previously, I don't think there's much room right now for a straightforward anti-war campaign. Chances are that such a campaign would simply be ignored, or possibly backfire on the anti-globalization movement as a whole. However, there are some subtler alternatives to such a campaign which I believe have a chance of success.

One alternative is a subtle campaign of simple discouragement. Make sure everyone knows just how hard it would be to fight in Afghanistan. People who choose this path might discuss the issue loudly in bars and coffee houses, and also write to the newspapers, broadcasting corporations, radio stations, and of course politicians. Another ideas is to put an analysis such as this on one side of the page and a discussion of how Bin Laden was trained by the CIA on another and stuff them into newspaper racks.

Another alternative, for the theatrical among you, is to do the whole "Brutus is an Honorable Man" thing. Take a really, really rabid pro-war stance. Get loud about how about how great it would be for the American soldier to test himself against the stalwart, twenty year veterans of the Russian wars, the high altitude, the inclement weather, the guerilla warfare that the Afghans start mastering in their cradles. Wax eloquent about the joys of patrolling a ridgeline at 14,000 feet at midnight in the dead of winter - really makes a man of you!! Discuss the uselessness of technology against a skilled jungle fighter as a way to sharpen a young soldiers wits. Phrase all the horrors of an Afghani campaign as joys and advantages and watch the crowd of pro-war demonstrators walk home with dejected looks on their faces. The ultimage expression of this would be a leftist pro-war demonstration where the participants hold forth on the glories of dying from a sucking chest wound for America.

Help the truth of just how hard it is to campaign in Afghanistan really hit home across America. Once Americans are aware of what they really face then it might be politically possible to either argue against the war as a million American families realize just what horrors their loved ones will be sent into, or as seems safer from an overall political standpoint, to argue for a war with limited objectives and strict guidelines.

Alex

I'm not dissecting your piece with an MRI but I applaud your intent.

Consider sending your effort to the White House.

I think that you would make a great policy analysist in an Administration if we can survive shrub.

We in the Movement For Democracy no doubt must be resislent to the US's sabre-rattling, war-mongering rage which competes with the pious, self-righteous, wearing-religion-on-your-sleeve, venting of grief over the very real loss of life.

If only the US population had the good sense to see that the home-grown groups whose seemingly unilateral action only shared affinity with bin Laden were allowed and nudged by the CIA with gaping holes in security. Then the flag-waving patriotism would be properly directed against the parties responsible: the Bush junta and the CIA.

So I empathsize with and I am deeply disheartened and saddened by the amounts of people showing the flag. People's hearts are intending to show solidarity with the families whom loved ones were lost to the horrific destruction but since there's nazi influence and control in charge of the US government, what people are asking for is not what they're going to receive from the US government.

This is Bush's war but not the war of his chosing. The difficulty and perhaps impossibility of closing the current twenty-five or so of Pandora's boxes (sleeping cells in the US and around the world) added to the task of perhaps having nuclear exchanges with Pakistan and China in the process of ferreting out bin Laden should not be left to the western equivalent of the Taliban aka the Bush unelected junta. But people's brains recoil and shrink from comprending the vast scope and scale of the doom we are approaching.

A free people who claim to be a democracy deserve to have free and fair elections, leaders who do not represent religious zealots and corporations (for corporations are not given rights in the US Constitution) and the will and intellect to discern the difference.

The US is mourning but for not nearly all the right reasons.

Very usefull analysis of the on the ground situation; but I think the antiwar strategy is all wrong. I really believe that their is much room for an anti-war movement to take hold, perhaps its the circles I move in but I have not overheard one "bomb those fuckers back into the stone age comment on the streets."

I think its really important to remember that a flag does not automatically translate into a supporter of world war three. As someone mentioned today, an antiwar movement can bring out the best of what is "america." Liberty and justice for all. With ever more compassion and understanding, the anti-globalization movement can make amazing inroads by listening, talking and sharing ideas with respect and a desire to engage.

I do think that an anti-war position is a very moral position. I also think that it's practical as well given that whoever did this has to know that we would go to war, and has to have readied a response for that contingency - in fact, may be counting on it to lure our armed forces into some kind of trap.

However, I think that the anti-war position has several weaknesses.

First of all, I just don't think it has the slightest chance of success. Taking such a position might make you feel better, but it is a distraction from other issues which you might address successfully.

Second, if the attack does nothing but derail the anti-globalization movement, turning it into an anti-war movement, the corporate right has won the real battle. This war is, after all, nothing but a symptom of globalization.

Third, at this point it is very easy for the corporate right to attack an anti-war movement as treasonous and expect the vast majority of Americans to buy that propaganda. If that view is carried to its extreme, an anti-war protester could wind up in jail for a very long time, and be unable to do anything positive for his/her society.

Fourth, I think that the view of the anti-war movement as treasonous could easily be used to smear the anti-globalization movement as treasonous. Once that view has become common, the battle against globalization could well be lost.

All these possibilities for attacking the movement will come naturally to the corporate state.

At the very least, in my humble opinion, anti-war and anti-globalization movements should be carefully compartmentalized. No-one at an anti-globalization action should carry an anti-war sign or express an anti-war sentiment. No one at an anti-war action should discuss the issue of globalization.

Thanks,

Alex

Stick to policy analysis.

The Movement is far more potent and pervasive than you or the syllogisms with which you employ a disingenuous effort to dissuade people from the truth about the fact of the total absence of Democracy in the US.

Imagine trying to handle a TV reporter at an anit-globalization rally. You're carrying an anti-war sign. The conversation goes something like this:

ACTIVIST: (In anti-war mode) We don't think that war accomplishes anything.

SMILING CORPORATE DRONE: It sounds like you don't think we should take action against these terrorists.

ACTIVIST: The problem is that these people are hungry, homeless, and oppressed. They should be fed, their lands should be returned, and they should get the full civil rights to which any human is entitled.

SMILING CORPORATE DRONE: So you're saying we should appease these murderers who killed five thousand of your countrymen. (Turns to camera) There you have it folks, the real face of the anti-globalization movement. (activist stutters in the background.)



Or try it this way:

This activist realizes that the situation has changed. She's not willing to touch the anti-war issue with a ten foot pole.

ACTIVIST: The recent deaths of thousands of loyal American servicemen in Afganistan are George Bush's fault. (The smart activist talks nice about the troops so George II looks mean.)

SMILING CORPORATE DRONE: How can you be so unsupportive of the President at a time like this?

ACTIVIST: He and his father both did a terrible job of handling the Middle East. Their unwillingness to force Israel into a real settlement with the Arabs made the deaths of thousands of American youth inevitable. (Note that the smart activist doesn't use words like negotiate, which would have left him/her open to charges of appeasement and hasn't said anything nasty about the Democrats - sadly, we may need them later.)

SMILING CORPORATE DRONE: So you're saying that we should force other countries to negotiate with -

ACTIVIST: (Interrupting - note that this doesn't let the Drone make his turn toward the camera and editorialize) No, I'm saying that after the murderers are punished, and their sponsors destroyed, we should make sure the poor, landless people these terrorists pretend to represent are treated fairly.

This segment might or might not be broadcast, but at least the activist in question hasn't let him/herself be drawn into making statements the reporter can misconstrue.

Reality:

ACTIVIST: (In anti-war mode) We believe that the war-mongering is a smokescreen for the real terrorists.

SMILING CORPORATE DRONE: It sounds like you don't think we should take action against these terrorists.

ACTIVIST: The problem is that the Bush-led US supreme court appointed the Executive - which is unconstitutional and show criminal treason on the part of the Court's actions. bush has no mandate and is not a duly elected, legitimate President. Bush does not the legitmate authority to act on behalf of the US people.

SMILING CORPORATE DRONE: So you're saying the issue is the case of an illegitimately installed Executive acting outside the Constitution. (Turns to camera) There you have it folks, the real face of the anti-war movement.