15 Reasons Benjamin Barber Knows Nothing About Afghanistan

Ghengis Khan and his men look on as defeated Persian Prince Jalaluddin prepares to launch with his horse off a 30 foot cliff, into the Indus River. When his men wanted to follow suit, Khan held them back, saying, "Such sons should have a father."

Make no mistake, withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan, before the country is strong enough to defend itself, would not result in peace for the Afghan people. It would result in a repeat of the horrors of the 1990s, when, according to Human Rights Watch, over 400,000 Afghans were killed.

Recently, Benjamin Barber published an editorial entitled 15 REASONS WHY WE CAN’T WIN IN AFGHANISTAN. I want to thank him for neatly putting in one convenient place so many of the common distortions and lies propagated by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (“ISI”) to encourage the United States and our allies to abandon the Afghan people, who have suffered grievously for well over 30 years at the hands of various ISI sponsored criminals.

Below in italics are his jingoistic “15 Reasons,” thoroughly refuted, point by point.

1. There is no “Afghanistan,” only an inchoate collection of warring tribes, factions and clans.

First of all, Afghanistan was organized as a nation-state in 1747, more than 30 years before the American colonies won their independence from Great Britain; and 200 years prior to the establishment of Pakistan (by Great Britain).

There are several reasons why Pakistan promotes this blatant lie. Fundamentally, it is Pakistan which is only barely a nation. Afghanistan came into being when a group of elders from around the country got together in what Afghans call a “jirga” (council) and chose a king from among the group. At that time, the Indian subcontinent was under the colonial control of Britain, which, over the following 150 years, exerted constant military pressure on India’s western boundary, pushing more and more deeply across the Afghan frontier. Finally, in 1893, Sir Mortimer Durand negotiated a treaty with the Emir of Afghanistan, establishing what has come to be known as the Durand Line. The Durand Line was so arbitrarily drawn that it not only divides large swaths of Pashtun and Baloch ethnic regions, it actually runs through the middle of towns and even properties. There are actually places along the border where it is possible to each lunch in Pakistan and go to the loo in Afghanistan. In establishing the Durand Line, Britain lopped off a large chunk of Afghanistan, dividing the Pashtun region nearly in half. When the British were leaving India in 1947, the Afghans began to eagerly assert that it was time for reunification of their country. Instead, Pakistan was created.

Pakistan is primarily comprised of four ethnic regions: Punjab in the northeast; Sindh in the southeast; the Pakhtunkhwa (Pashtun lands) in the northwest; and Balochistan in the southwest. For centuries, the Pashtun and Baloch peoples have been fighting against Punjabi domination of their lands, yet that is exactly the situation in which the British left them. Punjabis are the largest ethnic population in Pakistan. More importantly, Punjabis dominate the military in this country where the military is the government.

Because there have been Pashtun and Baloch separatist movements in Pakistan since the creation of Pakistan, and since many of Pakistan’s Pashtun are inclined towards reunification with their brethren in Afghanistan, ISI believes that, in order to keep its territory from fracturing down the middle (the Indus River), it must keep Afghanistan either unstable or under Pakistani control.

Therefore, in classic red herring style, ISI promotes the notion that Afghanistan is only barely a country, in order to divert attention from Pakistan’s own inherent instability.

2. To the extent there is an “Afghanistan,” its government is deeply corrupt and unable to control its own divided country.

Much of the current leadership of Afghanistan (including President Hamid Karzai) is actually controlled by ISI for the very reasons described above. Afghan leaders who do not avail themselves of Pakistan’s corrupting influence, and who refuse to go along with the plan to keep their country unstable, get threatened, are accused of the very corruption they oppose or are simply assassinated. Unfortunately, the US and NATO, who are largely responsible for having empowered corrupt leaders such as the Karzais, Gul Afgha Shirzai and Abdul Rasul Sayaf, did not come to understand this dynamic until fairly recently.

A simple rule of thumb for identifying who should not be governing Afghanistan would be to eliminate from consideration any Afghan leader who was based in Pakistan during the 1980s war against the Soviet Union. Far too many persons fitting that description lost their integrity to ISI influence at that time. This was evidenced in 1988, when Professor Sayed Majroo, director of the Afghan Information Service, published a survey taken among Afghans in the refugee camps in Pakistan. The survey demonstrated that less than 1% of the people polled wanted any of the Afghan mujahiddin faction leaders to govern their country after Soviet withdrawal. Assassination by ISI was Professor Majroo’s reward for publishing the will of his people.

3. President Karzai, our “ally” and the official representative of the “state” on whose behalf we fight, would prefer that we leave – at least when it comes to what he says for internal consumption.

As noted above, President Karzai is unduly influenced by Pakistan, which, as stated above, is dedicated to the policy that Afghanistan must be kept either, weak and unstable or under Pakistani control. This policy is misleadingly known as “strategic depth.” It is misleading, because it implies that Pakistan only wants to control Afghanistan out of fear of an Indian invasion. India has not invaded since 1972. Therefore, “strategic depth” is pure bupkis. At any rate, Karzai’s reputed (according to Barber) desire for the US and NATO to withdraw is far more indicative of ISI’s desires than those of the Afghan people.

4. Not that it matters what he thinks since the President of Afghanistan is for all practical purposes little more than the Mayor of Kabul – and that’s on good days.

This simple statement, which is patently untrue, describes a complex situation influenced by not only Pakistan and the corrupt Afghan warlords it controls, but also Karzai’s ability, to the extent he is interested, to effect change and nurture development in his country, a process which was hamstrung during the Bush years by the profound inadequacy of the security/military and development support being provided by the international community. What’s more, the United States owes this support to the Afghans, because we enabled Pakistan’s demolition of their country during the 1980s and 90s. According to journalist Selig Harrison and former UN Special Envoy Diego Cordovez, the Soviet Union began expressing its desire to withdraw from Afghanistan as early as 1981. It was American support for the Islamic fundamentalist militias (a/k/a Charlie Wilson’s “freedom fighters,” and predecessors to the Taliban) organized by Pakistan, which prevented them from doing so.

5. The only thing that unites this otherwise disintegral non-state is that the fractious tribes that despise one another hate foreigners even more.

This is simply Pakistani propaganda, similar to what was already refuted in Item No. 1. Its purpose is to convince the world that Afghanistan is not much of a country, and Afghans would be better off under Pakistani dominion.

The most deeply despised foreigners in Afghanistan are the Taliban. Sit with Afghans for three cups, or even three-quarters of a cup of tea, and you will hear them chant over and over, “They’re from Pakistan! They’re from Pakistan! The Taliban are from Pakistan!”

6. Foreign forces, whatever their intentions, will always be seen as occupiers and hence, the enemy.

In the autumn of 2009, a group of women traveled to Afghanistan as part of a trip organized by the well-known anti-war group, Code Pink. Simply put, every Afghan woman with whom they met expressed the firm belief that US/NATO forces were the only thing standing between them and the abject misery of life under the Taliban. Much to their astonishment, the women on that Code Pink trip came home with a very different perspective than what they had anticipated.

Make no mistake, a premature exit of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan will not result in peace for the Afghan people. It will result in a repeat of the horrors of the 1990s. It boggles the mind that people who generally take pride in their sense of compassion, have not only succumbed to mass amnesia, but also seem completely immune to the vivid reminders of that period as demonstrated by the Taliban upon the people of Pakistan’s Swat Valley over the past year.

7. Ghengis Khan, the British and the Russians all tried to “win” in Afghanistan, and they all failed; it would be an exaggeration to say their futile attempts brought down three empires… or would it?

This sort of sloppy scholarship is simply inexcusable from someone with Mr. Barber’s credentials. It is utter nonsense that Afghanistan has never been conquered. It was conquered by the Greeks under Alexander, who named the land Ariana (the name of Afghanistan’s national airline). It was conquered by the Persians, the Mongols, the Moghuls, the Tartars and … the British.

Ghengis Khan conquered Afghanistan, which remained part of the Mongol Empire for approximately 150 years, after which it was conquered by Tamerlane.

Most importantly, the Durand Treaty of 1893 made official Great Britain’s conquest of over half of Afghanistan’s Pashtun ethnic region.

However, the US is not trying to “win” or conquer Afghanistan. The mission of our military is to stabilize the country and assist in reconstruction, with the goal of leaving it strong enough to once again defend itself against the ongoing threat from its neighbor, Pakistan.

The purpose of the oft repeated propaganda, that Afghanistan has never been conquered, is simply to inspire a defeatist attitude; i.e., nobody’s ever succeeded there, so we might as well give up and go home; thus leaving the path clear for Pakistan’s minions to resume their pattern of scorching Afghan earth.

8. You can’t win wars when you’re killing civilians, yet in Afghanistan where the boundary between combatants and civilians is blurred you necessarily are killing a great many civilians a lot of the time.

While there have been many tragic mistakes committed by the US and our NATO allies, the numbers speak for themselves. Between the fall of the Communist government in 1992 and the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Human Rights Watch estimates that over 400,000 Afghan civilians were killed. Not to diminish the loss to their families and communities, but since 2001, less than 16,000 civilians have been killed. Afghans consistently express the fear that if the US and NATO leave before Afghanistan can defend itself, the 400,000 figure will be greatly exceeded.

Upon taking command in the summer of 2009, General Stanley McChrystal issued new rules of engagement, whereby US and NATO soldiers were ordered to hold fire if pursuit of the enemy put civilians at risk. This policy reduced by 28% the number of civilian deaths caused by western forces in 2009.

Moreover, Barber’s statement that “the boundary between combatants and civilians is blurred” promotes the impression that the Taliban is a native movement. It is not. The Taliban is a Pakistani paramilitary force. Every soldier serving in Afghanistan knows that the Taliban come from Pakistan and go home to Pakistan.

The Taliban is not even a Pashtun movement. There are people spreading the notion that, because they are Pashtun, the separatists in Pakistan support the Taliban. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2003, the Taliban has assassinated hundreds of Pashtun tribal leaders in Pakistan and destroyed hundreds of schools in the Pakhtunkhwa, so that families have no choice but to send their sons to JUI madrassahs, i.e., Taliban training centers. In the past year, they have busied themselves blowing up bazaars in the region and even the UN Food Program. This is a direct assault on Pashtun women and children, and no one makes friends with a group that targets their children.

9. Occupying places where Muslims live (and where they die at your hand) will always been (sic) seen as a war against Islam rather than a war against terrorism.

Again, Afghans do not view us as conquerors, but rather, defenders.

10. You can’t make people free at the barrel of gun.

This is a cute slogan, but it’s absurd.

11. There is no better way to create terrorism than to make war on Muslims in the name of fighting wars against terrorism.

The US and NATO are not creating the terrorists. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are doing that. The Saudis provide the funds. Pakistan provides the weapons and training.

12. America can’t save the world, and risks losing what is best in America when it tries.

This head-in-the-sand statement is not only heartless, it ignores the fact that, since the invention of the passenger jet, isolationism is simply not possible.

13. Military force and overwhelming firepower applied from the outside are more likely to undermine than sustain the development of democracy inside a developing country.

The military force being applied to undermine democracy in Afghanistan is coming from Pakistan, not the United States.

14. Al Qaeda is not Afghanistan and it is not the Taliban either; it is a malevolent NGO and winning Afghanistan or defeating the Taliban cannot vanquish al Qaeda.

Though this statement is true, it is demonstrative of the severe shortcomings of Mr. Barber’s memory. If Afghanistan is not properly defended and restored to some semblance of national health, then it will be overrun, once again, by the Taliban, which is sympathetic to the global pan-Islamist goals of Al Qaeda. That is how Afghanistan became a safe haven for Al Qaeda and a spawning ground for global terrorism in the first place.

15. We can’t pay for questionable wars abroad and afford justice and economic recovery at home and trying to do so is likely to lead to losing the war and undermining justice.

The United States provided the cash, weapons and training utilized by Pakistan in its destruction of Afghanistan during the 1980s and 1990s. We, therefore, have a duty to rebuild and defend that country, until it is strong enough to defend itself. To Mr. Barber I say, yes we can… we must.

CHARLIE WILSON'S WHOPPER

Charlie Wilson - A More Fitting Epitaph

I COME NOT TO PRAISE WILSON, BUT TO BURY HIM

Most Americans’ image of Congressman Charles Nesbitt Wilson is based upon the book and/or movie, CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR. According to both of these sources, when Congressman Wilson first became involved in crafting U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, he was living on $700 a week.

The documentary evidence paints a very different picture.

We all know that it was blonde bombshell Joanne Herring (played by Julia Roberts in the film) who recruited Wilson to the “cause of the Afghans.” However, it would really be more accurate to state that Mrs. Herring, as Honorary Consul for Pakistan, actually recruited Charlie Wilson to the “cause of the Pakistanis.”

What is the “Cause of the Pakistanis?”

Since the mid-1970s it has been Pakistan’s policy (not the Soviets’) to destabilize Afghanistan and destroy its infrastructure by training, paying, supplying and deploying Islamic fundamentalist guerillas to keep Afghanistan too weak to assert re-negotiation of the 1600 mile border between the two nations, known as the Durand Line. The Durand Line, is named for Sir Mortimer Durand, who arbitrarily drew it on a map in 1893, dividing the Pashtun and Baloch ethnic regions and cutting Afghanistan off from the sea. The people who live along this line do not recognize it, and have been fighting separatist rebellions against the Punjabi dominated Pakistani government since the formation of Pakistan in 1947. If the Pashtuns and Balochi peoples ever achieve their goal of independence or repatriation into Afghanistan, Pakistan stands to lose everything west of the Indus River, in other words, over half of its territory. Though logical, their endless pursuit of the destruction of Afghanistan is nonetheless diabolical.

Follow the Bouncing Drill Bit

In 1978, Joanne Herring, then married to Robert R. Herring, the founder of Houston Natural Gas (later known as ENRON), was offered the position of Honorary Consul for Pakistan to the United States. Mrs. Herring told me that the government of Pakistan first asked her husband to accept the position, but when he declined and recommended her instead, they accepted her, because, as she put it, “They hemmed and hawed, and I’m sure they thought, what can we do? We don’t want to offend this man, because we hope that he might drill for oil in our country.” Coincidentally, also in 1978, two American oil companies, Occidental Petroleum and Union Texas Petroleum, received permission to explore for oil in Pakistan. They had each been granted a 30% share in their Pakistan concession, with Pakistan’s national company, OGDC, holding the remaining 40%. In 1981 Union Texas made its first big strike and Oxy’s first Pakistan well came in shortly thereafter. The Pakistan Army courteously agreed to truck the crude from the field to the refinery in Karachi.

Senator Humphrey and the Burning Question of
Pakistani Control of Distribution

It’s commonly known that the United States agreed to let Pakistan control distribution of U.S. assistance to the Afghan Resistance during the 1980s to hide our hand and avoid sparking World War III with the Soviet Union. This policy was known as “plausible deniability.” One member of Congress who was very involved with our support for the Afghans was Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, Ret.). Senator Humphrey called the “plausible deniability” strategy “silly”, because anyone who cared knew that the Americans were backing the Afghan Resistance. In fact, he stated that, throughout the 1980s, he and other members of Congress were “constantly lobbying, importuning, the White House and the CIA to take more direct control” of the distribution of U.S. assistance to the Afghans, rather than continuing to allow Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (“ISI”) to control it. According to Senator Humphrey, members of Congress were well informed that the factions receiving the lion’s share of American largesse were consistently guilty of killing more Afghans than Soviets.

Senator Humphrey’s statement begs the question: If members of both houses of Congress, and from both parties (Wilson was a Democrat), were lobbying the White House to change the policy of allowing Pakistan to control distribution of U.S. assistance, why did the Reagan Administration persist in allowing Pakistan to control distribution of our military, financial and humanitarian aid to the Afghans?

Back to that Bouncing Drill Bit

According to Mrs. Herring, she went to Afghanistan shortly after the Soviet invasion, where she was so horrified by the atrocities she witnessed, and so impressed by the brave determination of the Afghan freedom fighters, that, upon her return to the “free world,” she worked feverishly to recruit her powerful friends in Washington to the noble cause of the Afghans. We have all been saturated with the story of how, inspired solely by their desire to evict the evil communist empire from Afghanistan, Joanne Herring, Charlie Wilson and their friends at the CIA defeated the Soviet Union and brought an end to the Cold War.

Provocatively, one of Mrs. Herring’s first statements to me when we sat down for her interview was, “We turned to Charlie [Wilson], cuz he was an old friend of the oil business.”

Later in her interview for this documentary, Mrs. Herring told about how, shortly before George H.W. Bush’s inauguration as Vice President, her late husband arranged for a meeting between her and Mr. Bush. She stated that their meeting, which was supposed to be for only 15 minutes, actually lasted for two hours, during which time Mr. Bush was very polite, and didn’t say anything. Then, a few days later, at a party in her honor, her lifelong friend, James A. Baker, III (Ronald Reagan’s new Chief of Staff), took her by the arm and confided, “We’re gonna give ‘em a lot of good stuff!”

Wilson + Supron = Wilson + Union Texas

As mentioned above, in both the book and movie, CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR, we are told that Mr. Wilson was living on $700 a week. However, his 1981 Financial Disclosures show that, as of May 1982, he was holding between $100,000 to $250,000 worth of shares in an oil company called Supron, which he had purchased in March and September of 1981. On $700 a week? That’s a man who knows how to stretch a penny! Coincidentally, in April of 1982, Union Texas Petroleum purchased a controlling interest in Supron, and in October of that year, Congressman Wilson made his first official visit to Pakistan. Owning a plump stake in Pakistan’s oil business could not fail but to heighten the good Congressman’s sympathy towards the Pakistani point of view. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former oil & gas lobbyist explained to us, “That was how it was done.” The depth of the Wilson-Pakistan friendship was in further evidenced when, upon retiring from Congress in 1996, Wilson promptly became a high paid lobbyist for Pakistan, to the tune of over $300,000 per year.

The same former lobbyist told how James A. Baker, III completely controlled all information received by President Reagan. He described how, anytime the President was speaking with someone who might impart information contrary to Baker’s preference, either by phone or in person, Mr. Baker interrupted the President’s conversation.

And what about the venerable Mr. Baker? James A. Baker, III’s 1981 Financial Disclosures reveal that, on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in January of 1981, his new Chief of Staff took the time to sell his daughter’s shares in Occidental Petroleum. Occidental was, and is, a publicly traded company, while its Pakistan partner, Union Texas, was still privately held at that time. Though far from incriminating, the timing of that particular stock sale at least merits a raised eyebrow. However, the 1981 Standard & Poor’s Directory shows that Baker Botts (founded by James A. Baker, III’s great-grandfather) was the primary law firm for Union Texas Petroleum Corp. According to a former SEC investigator, Baker Botts is among a handful of powerful Houston law firms which establish corporations to serve the purposes of the members of the firm – a format which is precisely opposite to the traditional legal-business relationship.

Joanne Herring and Charlie Wilson have been celebrated as the heroes of Afghanistan, but the Afghan people see them in a different light. After a studio screening of CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR, when asked by the producers what he thought of the movie, one Afghan gentleman replied, “That asshole destroyed my country.” But then, that’s what the Pakistanis were paying him for.

AFGHANISTAN EQUALS BOSNIA

PREMATURE MILITARY WITHDRAWAL EQUALS CIVILIAN CATASTROPHE

Lately there is a loud chorus among pundits, proclaiming Afghanistan to be the new Viet Nam. Well, it’s not. While the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan is certainly unique, it bears a great deal of resemblance to the former Yugoslavia. It is oh so easy to chant “Troops Out!” But the chanters have no clue the devastating consequences which would result if their wish were to become reality. It is critical to understand the dynamics of this situation, because if U.S. and NATO military forces withdraw from Afghanistan before that country has had a real chance to recover from decades of war, hundred of thousands of Bosnians Afghan civilians will be killed.

The Durand Line

Understanding the Durand Line is fundamental to understanding the Af/Pak region. In 1893, Sir Mortimer Durand drew a line on a map which cut the nation of Afghanistan in half, along with cutting it off from its coast along the Arabian Sea. Prior to that time, Afghanistan actually extended east of the Indus River, which now runs down the center of Pakistan, a nation created in 1947. From the Afghan point of view, the Durand Line Treaty became null and void when the British left India. Great Britain saw things differently. Instead, Pakistan was established.

In a nutshell, Pakistan is the story, Afghanistan is the result.

Pakistan is the Unwilling Alliance of Four Ethnic Groups
Pakistan is primarily comprised of four ethnic regions: Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Pashtunistan (which is subdivided into the Northwest Frontier Province ["NWFP"] and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas ["FATA"] including North and South Waziristan. The largest ethnic group are the Punjabis. Pakistan is basically an oligarchy ruled by 22 Punjabi families. The Punjabis also dominate the military of Pakistan, which is sometimes described as "an army with a country," rather than the other way around, it is that pervasive in the daily lives of Pakistanis.

Ages before there was such a thing as the British Empire, Pashtun and Balochi tribesmen fought against Punjabi domination. Yet, Punjabi domination is exactly the legacy that the British left them in 1947.

The Durand Line (the 1,600 mile border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) divides both the Pashtun and Balochi ethnic regions. The people who live along the border don't recognize it, partly because it was so arbitrarily drawn that it not only runs down the middle of towns, it cuts through the middle of properties. One old Afghan hand told me, "There are places along the border where you can eat lunch in Pakistan, and then go to the loo in Afghanistan." Because of the Durand Line and their longstanding resistance to Punjabi domination, the Pashtun, Balochi and Sindhi peoples have been fighting separatist rebellions since Pakistan was created. This is the most significant fact which is not reported in the news. Understanding it helps to reveal the patterns in the chaos of the region.

The Taliban is a Pakistani Paramilitary Organization, NOT a Pashtun Movement
Because of these separatist rebellions, and the fact that two of these groups have brethren on the Afghan side of the border, with whom they long to unite, the Punjabi elite of Pakistan have for over three and a half decades acted on the belief that Afghanistan must be kept unstable and/or under their control. They began recruiting and training Islamic (and Maoist) rebels in 1972 and sending them in to terrorize and destabilize Afghanistan, in order to keep the Afghans too preoccupied to assert re-negotiation of the Durand Line. The mujahiddin were part of this, and in 1994 Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency ("ISI") organized the Taliban for the same purpose. The Taliban are not a Pashtun movement. They are a Pakistani paramilitary group. They receive their training, funding, weapons and supplies from the government of Pakistan.

Additionally, Pakistan uses the Taliban to suppress the Pashtun and Balochi separatist movements. What you never hear on the news, but which I have learned by speaking with Pashtuns, is that the Pakistan Army is not fighting either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Rather, the Army works with both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and another group called Hezb-e-Islami Hekmatyar ("HIG") to suppress the separatists. The Pakistan government is very careful to keep this information out of the news, because it would cause an international uproar and bring an end to the enormous financial and military assistance from the U.S. which it has long enjoyed. Next time you read a news story about conditions in Pakistan, check the source. It will invariably be a government official. But Pakistan also controls the news by simply murdering journalists who threaten to broadcast the truth. Daniel Pearl was kidnapped two days before he was to leave the country, and ISI has a particularly nasty habit of assassinating Afghan journalists.

Afghanistan Equals Bosnia -- Punjab Equals Serbia and the Bush Administration’s Bad Math
Because of this situation wherein one ethnic group controls the military and uses it to oppress the other ethnic groups of the region, Af/Pak bears great similarity to the former Yugoslavia, with Punjab standing in for Serbia, while the Pashtun and Balochi regions, along with most of Afghanistan, can be seen as stand ins for Bosnia and Kosovo. Afghanistan is nothing at all like Viet Nam. It is like Bosnia.

The comparison to Bosnia is particularly apt when evaluating the U.S./NATO military mission. Peace and security were successfully restored to Bosnia with a ratio of 1 soldier for every 50 civilians. Under the Bush Administration, every 1 American soldier in Afghanistan was responsible for about 400 civilians. 1/50 worked. 1/400 is obviously impossible, and was clearly a recipe for failure from the outset. The surge which President Obama just announced will bring the ratio down to 1/200. What is clear to the soldiers, but misunderstood by the “Troops Out!” camp, is that a large army is actually safer than a small one. Which sounds safer: walking into a biker bar alone, or walking into a biker bar with half a dozen friends? The same is true in a combat zone.

The Bush Administration Screwed Up Afghanistan on Purpose
Another recipe for failure in Afghanistan can be seen in the Bush Administration purposefully allowing the leadership of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be airlifted out of Kunduz and later to walk across the border into Pakistan from nearby Tora Bora. American Special Forces working with the Northern Alliance had succeeded in encircling the enemy in the town of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan in November of 2001. They were ordered to stand down while Pakistan was given permission to airlift out the enemy's leaders. This event became known as the Evil Airlift. What was not widely reported was the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership included many Pakistan Army officers.

As previously mentioned, from the point of view of Pakistan's rulers, Afghanistan must be kept unstable in order to prevent Pakistan from falling apart. There are solutions. Afghanistan has expressed a willingness to accept the Durand Line as the border. However, that doesn't settle the internal issues in Pakistan. The Punjabis have long been robbing the other provinces of their natural resources (primarily oil, gas and copper), without sharing an appropriate amount of the national treasure with those regions. The Pashtuns, Balochis and Sindhis might be less inclined to fight for their independence if they were allowed greater control over their natural resources, and greater autonomy.

The Soviet Union Was Lured into a Trap
Pakistan created the mujahiddin to destabilize Afghanistan. This began during the 1970s. When Zbigniew Brzezinski was President Carter's National Security Adviser, he suggested that, if the United States provided additional funds and weapons to Pakistan's Islamic (and Maoist) pawns in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union would very likely intervene to quell the situation. Unfortunately for the Afghans, Brzezinski was right.

Pakistan insisted on controlling distribution of U.S. assistance to the Afghan mujahiddin during the 1980s, and as a method of further ensuring instability in Afghanistan, never allowed the Afghan resistance to coalesce around a single organization. Rather, ISI organized the Afghans mujahiddin into seven parties, all based in Pakistan, and ordered the commanders of its favorite party, HIG, to attack their Afghan allies whenever they encountered them inside Afghanistan. Thus the stage was set for these seven factions to compete for power in a brutal civil war as soon as the Soviets left Afghanistan. Divide and conquer.

The Consequences of Military Failure for the Afghan People

It is well known that over one million Afghans died during the 1980s war with the Soviet Union. What has not been reported is that, from the fall of the Afghan communist government in 1992 to the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, over 400,000 Afghan civilians were killed.

Circumstances are ripe for a repeat of the 1990s holocaust. American and NATO soldiers are standing between the civilians of Afghanistan and another slaughter. I speak regularly with Afghans all over the world, and they all believe that if the US/NATO withdraw militarily before Afghanistan has recovered enough to defend itself from Pakistan's ongoing aggression, the civilian casualty rate will exceed 400,000.

The United States bears a great deal of responsibility for the destruction of Afghanistan during the 1980s and 1990s. We have a duty to help Afghans rebuild their country and to defend them against their enemy whom we have long enabled.

I will save the stories of how the CIA created Al Qaeda, ISI created the Taliban, Pakistan used its oil fields to influence American policymakers and the long long list of reconstruction fake outs from the past eight years for another day. Suffice it to say, when President Obama says that this is not year eight of the Afghan war, but rather Year One, he is correct.