On Sunday night, WikiLeaks.org released more than 91,000 classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan. Among the revelations is that the Taliban appears to have used portable heat-seeking missiles (in military parlance, MANPADS or man-portable air-defense systems) to shoot down U.S. helicopters. The bitter irony is that these are likely the very same weapons the U.S. supplied to the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s to use against Soviet helicopters. Can you say, "blowback"? But as my friend and fellow Antiwar.com columnist, Ivan Eland, points out, the leaked documents "didn’t reveal many new shocking truths about the U.S. military quagmire in Afghanistan. The facts on the ground have been well known publicly for some time – that the Taliban adversary is getting stronger and is being actively assisted by a faux ally (Pakistan) to whom the United States is shoveling billions, the Afghan government is corrupt, and the U.S. has killed civilians."
While there may not be any new news, both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the office of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have stated that the most significant revelations in these documents concern the scale of civilian casualties. According to data [pdf] compiled by the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNMA), pro-government forces (Afghan National Security Forces and international military forces) were responsible for 230 civilian deaths in 2006, 629 in 2007, 828 in 2008, and 596 in 2009. The good news is that the number of civilian deaths has gone down. Also, it’s important to know that anti-government forces accounted for nearly three times as many civilians killed (compared to 2007 when the ratio was almost 1-to-1 and 2008 when it was 1.4-to-1) – so the percentage of total civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces is also less. The Afghanistan NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) Safety Office (ANSO) reports that in the first quarter of this year there were 496 civilian fatalities, 118 of which are attributed to international military forces. Both UNMA and ANSO data show [pdf] that airstrikes are largely responsible for civilian deaths caused by pro-government/international military forces.
The bad news is that civilians continue to be killed by U.S. and other friendly forces. Indeed, right on the heels of the leaked documents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai asserted that up to 52 civilians had been killed by NATO rocket fire in southern Afghanistan (of course, NATO has disputed the claim). But isn’t this war? Yes. And it’s not like we’re intentionally targeting or trying to kill innocent civilians, right? Right (it’s not the moral equivalent of terrorists attacking a civilian target like the World Trade Center or insurgents using villagers as human shields). Plus aren’t civilian casualties an inevitable tragic consequence of war? Yes.
If the survival of the United States was at stake, we might not like but nonetheless have to accept those answers. But the conflict in Afghanistan is not a war of U.S. national survival. In other words, it is a war of choice (it may have initially been a war of necessity in the direct aftermath of 9/11, but that is no longer true – indeed, President Obama has made it his war of choice largely so he can’t be accused of being soft on national security as he draws down forces in Iraq). Yet the repercussions of Afghan civilian casualties have a direct effect on our national security. How so? Every civilian killed has a mother, father, brother, or sister. Every one of those or other surviving family members now has a strong reason to hate the United States. As such, that makes them more susceptible to recruitment and becoming terrorists.
According to Harvard Professor Steven Walt, who did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that the United States has killed some 288,000 Muslims over the past 30 years (compared to slightly more than 10,000 Americans killed by Muslims), "When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries – and sometimes for no good reason – you shouldn’t be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge." I’ve written about Walt’s calculation and analysis before so I won’t repeat myself, but civilian deaths matter. Especially when they are unnecessary for U.S. security.
Ultimately, what the WikiLeaks documents reinforce is that it’s long past time to get out of Afghanistan. The recent House vote on war funding indicates that Congress is beginning to lose patience with the war. The most recent request for continued war funding (about $33 billion for Afghanistan out of the total $59 billion) by the White House was passed 308-114 on Tuesday. Significantly, however, 102 Democrats voted "no" (three times more than the 32 who opposed a larger war funding bill in June 2009). And of the 12 Republicans who also voted "no" (which, with the exception of Ron Paul, would have been heresy in the Bush administration), perhaps freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (Utah) said it best: "If the reason we should stay in Afghanistan is because we are in Afghanistan then it is time to re-evaluate your position."
Read more by Charles V. Peña
- Cyberwar for Me but Not for Thee – June 14th, 2012
- You Cannot Be Serious, Redux – June 7th, 2012
- Stick a Fork in al-Qaeda – May 6th, 2012
- Coming to a Neighborhood Near You – March 30th, 2012
- WMDs Redux – February 26th, 2012
TonyC
July 30th, 2010 at 7:50 am
NO invader has ever won a war in Afghanistan, which is the graveyard of soldiers and of empires – has been for thousands of years and will continue to be for more thousands of years.
In our arrogance and stupidity, we remain at war in a country that did not threaten the U.S.; did not attack the U.S.; and has no strategic value to the U.S.
As to 'winning the war' and to 'getting the job done' – NO U.S. official at any level can even define what that all is?
As 'Rambo' was warned: "Beware the teeth of the tiger; the venom of the cobra; and the vengeance of the Afghan'.
drewhause
July 30th, 2010 at 8:42 am
We are in Afghanistan because we will destroy the Taliban.
Charles
Montaigne
July 30th, 2010 at 9:22 am
If so, what is the causal chain leading inevitably to terrorism aganist USA? An ideology of some sort, or simply certain individuals? If it is only certain individuals, it is wrong to attack whole population groups collectively. But w enever got any explanation at all, how some ideas lead to terrorism. Isn't terror a WAR STRATEGY? Used also by the US and also supported actively by them at many times and places?
Sp why not begin by rotting out terrorists from the USA? They INSPIRE people around the world to do the same! Torture, illegal killings, abuse of public property, acts of dishonest information dissemination. Get rid of those scoundrels, and thus clearly demonstrate to the world how a better society is really a possibility and can become reality!
ghouri
July 30th, 2010 at 9:38 am
In Koran there is a chapter Namely "Sure Saba" When prophet Haroon wrote a letter to her as a King to present herself or he will attack. She cxalled a meeting with her generals and asked for their advise they said we powerful and will fight them if they attack then she said I will go to Haroon (PUH) and settle the dispute because if the strange forces enter the cities, elderly, children, women and disabled persons will be killed and so many women will become widows and respected persons will disappear and will be killed.
These sentances of Quien Saba were so wise that Allah has given a permanent place in holy Koran and if we have a sense we can learn from that.
What the US has done for their madness they destoryed their own country no body knows how many americans have been and how many disabled and is a secret which will never come out.
One of my friends an Iraki says when a convey of 50 vehekils were destroyed only two americans died how?
If we still choose the way of peace then we will not be looser but to save what we can. I always say with this money which they have spend in war could buy every person even coming children but with war they lossed every thing. You can lie but who will believe you.
bogi666
July 30th, 2010 at 9:45 am
But I thought it was al quaeda operatives who were the 9/11 terrorists, trained in Hamburg and other locations other than Afghanistan. It's all so confusing, so says the USG, which makes it seems that the USG may be morphing organizations to confuse the mindlessness American public. Do you thunk?
1todd_sheen
July 30th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Being in Afghanistan is like being in paradise minus the peace plus bullets and bombs.
Todd
muggles
July 31st, 2010 at 5:53 pm
A slight correction to a factual error in a comment above, widely held. Foreign invaders have indeed "conquered" Afghanistan repeatedly, starting with Alexander the Great. Persians, Uzbeks, Mongols, British and Russians, among others substantially defeated local forces and occupied the handful of major towns and cities.
However this was the extent of "conquest" and with few exceptions all rural areas and villages were normally left undisturbed other than for transit or periodic raids for food or goods.
Within a few years or decades, in each case the conquerors were forced to abandon Afghan cities or in various ways merged with the local leadership/population. Or often were killed and driven out.
So Afghanistan can be conquered in a very limited fashion, as the US is currently doing. Other than holding major strongholds for transit to India, such invasions have been pointless. Even then, were failures within a short time frame, not worth the costs. After occupiers cease to maintain outright military control, all such occupations have been snuffed out by the Afghans.
This we will soon see again.
E. A. Costa
August 1st, 2010 at 5:40 pm
"Alexander the Great. Persians, Uzbeks, Mongols, British and Russians, among others substantially defeated local forces and occupied the handful of major towns and cities.
However this was the extent of 'conquest'…"
Exactly correct. This of course begs the meaning of "conquest" as acknowledged by the quotations.
Alexander, to begin with, was mainly passing through, and left several foundations behind, including, nicely enough, Kandahar.
The idea that Alexander's troops once they reached Afghanistan were mainly Macedonians and Greeks is also a misreading. Alexander by that time had numerous Persians and other Middle Easterners in his army.
For all that, however, there was a Macedonian core, with Greek patina, that, in his settlements and successor states, had vast influence over Afghanistan and its neighbors, including India culturally and for long centuries, even up to modern times.
There is also, from ethnological survivals, no question that some of the Afghan tribes are direct descendants of Alexander's men, and there may be be direct descendants of Alexander himself.
The genetic studies are very naive to date–they misread the history and don't know what markers to look for.
It also might be noted that of all invaders, Alexander may have been the most successful, and there are many references, some clearly apocryphal, but perhaps not all, that he considered Afghanistan a whole country of "Alexanders."
Another interesting aspect is that in Afghanistan the invaders who have been thrown back have inevitably been expelled despite being "superior" technically and militarily.
Part of this is the eternal verity in the motto of West Virginia, is it–"Montani semper liberi" or the Kurds' "Mountains are our only friends."
But the cultural aspect–of those cultures which successfully adapt to conditions other cultures find unlivable and thrive–is also pertinent.
E. A. Costa
August 1st, 2010 at 5:49 pm
That the US is thus even making a serious effort to "conquer" Afghanistan in very limited fashion, however, is debatable.
The US military, as in Vietnam, is too moronic to grasp even how to manage such a limited "conquest", in which, for example, petroleum-derived fuels, high explosive, air power and the rest make no noticeable dent.
Hilariously too, the "US" as an invader disdains local "food" and marriage alliances with the tribes.
Like the absurd British attempts at domination, the US efforts are among the most feeble known in recorded history.
Even the Soviets did better, and came closely to long-term influence, mainly because of their local allies.
Karzai is no naive Diem, for another thng, and is running circles around the American political and military dolts.
There will never be a "pipeline" or any other line of transport through Afghanistan without local control.
E. A. Costa
August 1st, 2010 at 10:54 am
Another hilarious aspect is that Homo technologicus Americanus, not Homo Afghanistanensis, is the subset that seems nowadays on the way to extinction, self inflicted.
E. A. Costa
August 1st, 2010 at 10:57 am
Apaprently the Latin word for "human being", parallel to the ancient Greek anthropos, always triggers Intense Debate contingent censorship.
Does H. technologicus Americanus pass then?
E. A. Costa
August 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Another interesting parallel is Xenophon's account of the Kurds, whom his Greek mercenary force encountered on the escape out of Persia.
Close reading suggests not much has changed in several millennia.
janeblakenship
August 4th, 2010 at 5:08 am
Were in Afghanistan because the US has nothing to play with their weapons.
Jane