.
.
.
Brzezinski on the endless Afghan quagmire:
Interviewed by Josh Rushing of al-Jazeera.
Brzezinski with a Pakistani military officer in the early 1980's.
..
.
The architect of the policy to fund the Fundamentalist Islamic Afghan resistance groups, aka Mujaheddin via Pakistan's military from July 1979 with presidential approval, against the Communist Kabul government in Afghanistan which had just come into power in 1978, and backed by the Soviet Union, gives a short significant interview.
.
The primary purpose of Operation Cyclone which may seem odd on the surface (Capitalist Liberal Democratic America backing Islamic fundamentalists) was to 1) Defeat a Soviet backed Satellite state. 2) Draw the Soviet Union into a military quagmire, which consequently depletes its resources, and thus weakens the state......the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 had a little to do with the 9 year Afghan adventure by the Soviet Union. 3) Revenge for Vietnam, whose primary military backer with advisers was the Soviet Union.
.
.......So the man who has focused on the area for 30 odd years, quite pertinently, as national security adviser to President Carter initially, certainly knows what he is talking about, without all the emotional attachment of working in that field now, and the attendant vested interests, or political interests. Note the language is quite sober and precise, without relying on the crutch of sensationalism, trying to appeal to emotion.......like...."We are 45 minutes away from a Iraqi WMD attack against America."........."If we don't fight them over there, we'd have to fight them over here."
.
What does he have to say on the matter?
at 15 seconds into interview......."We want a POL--I--TICALLY acceptable outcome.......We want a POL--I--TICALLY acceptable outcome..... something we can live with; in terms of our national interests. Its something in my judgment obtainable, in the regional context, and it is something specifically which reduces the risks posed to us by "al-Qaeda"."
.
(America can achieve its objectives in Afghanistan, which I must surmise includes a friendly local Afghan central government that is competent, effective governance wise, not corrupt, is security wise cohesive and can hold its own against the Taliban, backed by effective state institutions.....so that America does not have to be there for ever.
.
However this cannot be achieved with the present installed puppet regime of Hamid Karzai of UNICOL, with his brother in the background as the biggest drugs runner in the country, and his VP is no better. If "American occupied" South Korea with 37,000 American soldiers can have competent government why not Afghanistan? If "American occupied" Japan with 50,000 American soldiers can have competent government why not Afghanistan? If "American occupied" Germany with 70,000 American soldiers can have competent government why not Afghanistan?
.
.........we hope in answering such a question we don't fall back on racist, religiously biased answers to provide an explanation for our current set of problems in Afghanistan (casual racism is OK over dinner within the intimacy of friends and family, but not as a serious state policy)....It will be great for America's image if it can prove that despite being Israel's butt buddy number one, it can manage and effectively run a Muslim country with rationality, with a modicum of good intentions (doesn't have to be outright love) and fairness.
.
A failed state generates armed groups whether with criminal intentions or political intentions, and it is within this failed state scenario it is said that groups like "al-Qaeda" thrive, as had happened during the Afghan civil war of 1991--1996. You can have failed states under foreign military occupation as with the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia and South Vietnam.............or China under Japanese occupation. The condition of a occupied state depends primarily on the intentions and activities of the superior occupation force with military power......and not on the puppets they install.)
Josh Rushing: "Do you think a full blown counter-insurgency effort could actually work? Would you see Western style democracy version in Afghanistan..........."
Brzezinski: starts laughing........"Well excuse me for laughing but the combination of the two I just find bizarre; and its so ahistorical (goes against historical experience and facts).....a foreign occupation tends to mobilize opposition (from the locals), and the more intense and large scale it is, the larger the (local) opposition becomes...........therefore when we talk about counter-insurgency we have to feed into the equation, how will the people in that country react at some point.........if we become the principle mechanism for the counter-insurgency. In other words if Afghans are fighting the Taliban, counter-insurgency can succeed. If we are fighting the Taliban (as has been the case for the last 8 years) the chances are if we give 40,000 more troops for counter-insurgency against the existing levels of the Taliban, and a year from now we may be fighting Taliban levels which are 25% higher. Then we have to send more troops in...etc etc"
.
I disagree with Brzezinski on the issue of democracy. For me it is a universal gift which ALL societies can benefit from and learn to accept to different degrees depending on their level of economic development and education level.
But he is right on the military issue.......in October 2001, America succeeded in Afghanistan against 40,000---50,000 Taliban and Arab Afghanis ("al-Qaeda") with some special forces, and the Northern Alliance......after the victory it was augmented to 9,000 troops by December 2001..........and now swollen to 70,000 (Obama has already promised 21,000 more after initially coming to office......in my opinion a hasty decision). The Americans are backed by 35,000 NATO....so 100,000 occupation forces + 200,000 Afghan government military, and paramilitary forces + 50,000 tribal militia loyal to the warlords on the government side ..............VERSES about 10,000 Taliban regular fighters. If there is STILL a problem now after 8 years of occupation in Afghanistan, then it is political problem of mismanagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, AND not a military problem.
.
Once it is identified as a political problem and possibly even a socio-economic problem then the correct solutions using the relevant experts can be applied.
.
Obama has a duty to look at the Afghan problem through a different lens, and apply solutions which are markedly different than those of his predecessor, both for ideological reasons and for practical reasons. In all events he must not be painted into a corner prematurely with certain actions and decisions which tie his hands policy wise, and reduce his ability to maneuver in this critical area.......more troops, more casualties, more costs, more media uproar and criticism to do something usually more drastic, in the future.
.
He can wait.....and according to Senator John Kerry no major policy decisions should be made whilst the Afghan elections are on-going.
Josh Rushing: "Could a further build-up (of troops) in Afghanistan lead to this being Obama's Vietnam?"
Brzezinski: "Well...If you pursue wrong policies (from the Bush era), you can call it Obama's Vietnam or you can call it anything else, or it might be quite new, but it will still be pretty bad.......When we went into Afghanistan eight years ago to over throw the Taliban, after 9/11, we did it largely with some airforce; 300 special forces, and Afghans who were enthusiastically on our side, because they viewed us as the people who helped them against the Soviets.......we overthrew the Taliban quickly, and now eight years later we have 60,000 American troops, and our military commanders are telling us that we are not winning....what does that tell you?
.
"Where is the resistance? Obviously from the Taliban, but Afghans who increasing identify themselves with something which they were pleased to see overthrown eight years ago; that is a bad trend"
.
Some what paradoxical that the very strategy Brzezinski had devised against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in order to weaken the Soviet Union, and revenge Vietnam.....is being foolishly pursued textbook style by the Pentagon...along the same failed path.
Clearly Karzai, his team of international drug smugglers, his Pentagon handlers with the other foreign advisers aren't doing their job adequately. We often focus on the failure of Afghanistan on the Afghans themselves......oh these people are primitive, from the stone age you know....blah blah...blah ...which supposedly explains why Afghanistan is a failed state number 7 from the bottom...but what if 90% of the reason for this failure after 8 years of occupation was primarily because of the occupation forces themselves?
.
In all events Karzai needs to be got rid of, and new Afghan players brought in, who are more effective, AND who are given more responsibility. I don't think power sharing with the Taliban is the correct solution, that will be a sign of failure, and if enough Afghan are still disgruntled with the occupation they will fight, regardless of the orders of Mullah Omer.....realistically can't see him sitting in the Afghan cabinet under a coalition/national unity government anyway.
.
Josh Rushing: "Does it look to you like a similar trend the Soviet Union followed in Afghanistan?"
Brzezinski: "Oh, I've been saying that for the last three years. I've been saying that the Soviets went into Afghanistan on the erroneous assumption that using Communists; Afghan Communists from the big cities; they could create a Communist society in Afghanistan....and they discovered within a year that they were viewed as universal enemies. Well we are to some extent the same based on whether we view as Western Afghans, democratic Afghans, or even imposing elections on them for which they are not prepared....and eight years after our involvement we are beginning to discover that its rough going, so I think it is high time we draw some lessons from it. And those lessons should not involve the mechanical transfer to Afghanistan our own experience, or our own values, our own political system. I am baffled why we preceded with these elections.....based on the American model of polling stations, candidates, debates.....and now perhaps even a run off election....why not a Jirga which is a traditional way Afghans elect their leaders......why impose this mechanism?"
.
(America primarily did not go into Afghanistan with the intention of nation building.
Is there a comprehensive policy paper from the State Department which in minute detail states how Afghan society will be transformed into a modern function democracy?
.....no I don't think so.....what America is doing is going through the motions of democracy window dressing, BUT is not investing realistically and earnestly, where it matters, which would indicate to us that they are serious about creating a truly democratic society in Afghanistan............To this end 95% of American expenditure in Afghanistan is spent on the military....and war...and "counter-insurgency".......and the result of this American expenditure is quite obvious for all to see........and the Afghans living in the country know this to be the fact.......The Americans aren't spending on infrastructure, roads, bridges, canals, public buildings, schools, hospitals, factories, dams, power stations, warehouses........etc etc......The greatest and best contributions to Afghan infrastructure is being carried out by India and Iran.....NOT the USA.
.
However this bit of Bush II legacy does not have to continue. All Obama has to do is create a realistic and comprehensive marshal plan for Afghanistan, which is fully monitored and followed through.....SPENDING CONSTRUCTIVELY ON THE AFGHAN PEOPLE, which Americans can be proud off.......long after they have left the country.
.
To do that you don't need more military, but more investments into the Afghan people. You don't need 100,000 occupation forces and the defense expenditure of $65 billion....or is it actually $80 billion annually......or is the actual annual military expenditure on Afghanistan ....$100 billion.....fighting ...what?.............10,000 tribesmen armed with AK-47.
.
This is a sham and yet another Pentagon scam...and hopefully Obama can turn this around with his set of new policies viz Afghanistan.
