Afghanistan is the Taliban is Afghanistan is the Taliban
It's wonderful to have a loud-mouth liberal like Alan Grayson in Washington, along with all the loud-mouth neo-cons and mush-mouth Democrats, but whoever increases knowledge increases sorrow, and Alan Grayson's grim analysis of Afghanistan is even grimmer than he thinks.
It's not a country; it's not even a place. It's just an empty place on the map. It's terra incognita. People who live there are a welter of different tribes, different language groups, different religious beliefs.All over the country you find different people who have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that we call them Afghans, and they don't even call themselves Afghans. They're Tajiks or they're Pashtuns, or they're Hazzaras or someone else. The things that hold them together are simply the things that we try to create artificially.
With all due respect, which is actually a lot, I have to say that Rep. Grayson has been addled by world-tourism, and when you spend just a few days or weeks or even a few months in very foreign countries like Afghanistan, it's easy to avoid understanding that you don't understand anything at all, and only if you're very, very lucky will you ever experience even one or two epiphanies of the obvious like a sudden realization that...
Afghanistan is the Taliban is Afghanistan is the Taliban.
Although the eternal tourist Alan Grayson ("I've been to 175 countries...") was probably right about Afghanistan in that blessed era when the Durrani and Barakzai dynasties were still enthroned in Kabul, and only an occasional coronation united so many feudal war-lords at the very same place and time, that happy isolation and mutual ignorance ended after the Soviet invasion in 1979, and hundreds of thousands of refugees from tribes which had never even heard of each other were suddenly united in refugee camps in Pakistan.
There was a melting pot like no other in the history of "Afghanistan," just a name on a map, or a series of names on a series of maps for thousands of years, but now a nation united for the first time in exile, Afghans and only Afghans, an enormous and almost undifferentiated mass deprived of all other identity except Afghanistan and Islam.
So the Russians went down under suicide insurgents with nothing to lose and American SAM's, and for a while the old war-lords reimposed the old isolated order in their obsolescent fiefdoms, but now and only now Afghanistan existed, at first only as a national consciousness, an emergent property of enormous refugee camps in Pakistan, but in the pure and simple light of that primitive consciousness, the old war-lord order was only a charade, a community-theatre costume drama mercilessly exposed the morning after, and when the first and only national army of Afghanistan, the Taliban appeared, the old feudal order evaporated.
Bourgeois democracy wasn't born in those stinking camps! If we wanted a bourgeois democracy in those stinking camps in Pakistan we could have bought them a bourgeois democracy with all the trimmings for half the price of a week of war!
But we wanted to pig out instead, in our great Reagan-era pig-out, and those same pigs are still running our country, and our senseless war in Afghanistan, which exists as a nation nowhere except where it began, in the minds of those miserable refugees in Pakistani camps, in the primitive Islam and primitive human connections of refugees, expressed with a blinding clarity by the Taliban.
Drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan?
You might just as well say...
Drive Afghanistan out of Afghanistan!
American pundits and generals will posture and predict for another few months or years, but our future in Afghanistan is exactly the same as Joan of Arc predicted for the English in France...
Tous les anglais seront chassés de la France, sauf ceux qui y mourront!
And mutatis mutandis my up-to-date translation is...
Every American will be driven out of Afghanistan, except those who die there.

















I remember watching the Taliban ride into Kabul on tanks, waving AK-47's and wearing neat and proper uniforms, and I asked my local experts, Afghan agricultural workers in the Central Valley, now constantly harassed by the FBI after peacefully sending their meager paychecks home to distant relations in Afghanistan for 40 years...
"Sayed, descendant of the Prophet, may peace be upon him, where did the Taliban get those tanks?"
"Scavenged from war-lords."
"And the guns and uniforms?"
"Scavenged from war-lords."
Sometimes an idea is more powerful than everything else, however much it may look like a very, very bad idea, from very, very far away.
October 12, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 12, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the official but magical thinking in Washington, the Pakistan ISI chose the Taliban as its Islamic militia in Afghanistan, and a few months later that same militia rode into Kabul with weapons mostly scavenged from local war-lords on the way.
That would be a very good trick, if anyone could do it, but the ISI and similar bogey-men never showed any signs of such a cosmic power before or after, and all sorts of organizations are always "choosing militias," but almost none of those militias ever arrive at the appropriate capital, and Western "observers" who only observe their own fantasy images of faraway nations have no idea why Taliban triumphed almost alone among so many militias which went nowhere.
October 12, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can read most of the real story of Obama's empty promises about Afghanistan in a current article on the NYTimes website...
And yes, Buckwheat, nine months in office is plenty of time for Obama to accomplish something.
October 12, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile more and more observers around the world slowly realize that "Hope and Change" meant instead "Bullshit and More Bullshit."
From Malta today...
October 12, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But while the chicken-hawk Obama prances around Washington making bullshit speechs, good people with a real commitment to Afghanistan beyond empty rhetoric continue to die on back roads in the middle of nowhere...
October 12, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now I officially re-open comments so the usual Obamabots can post bullshit excuses for the stinking con-man they adore.
October 12, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
fascinating how you made the two comments i saw earlier disagreeing with you magically disappear.
October 12, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is called "selective posting", and I fear it may become a new trend. My guess is the original post has been deleted (along with all the comments) and a new post put up in its stead, but with comments closed until 10:02 PM.
October 12, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
not cool
October 12, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Removed comment #1 copied from google's cache of the October 12, 2009, 3:44PM version of this post:
October 13, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Fred Moolten's post reporting the disappearance of his comment.
I don't see any difference at all in Ridgepole's post itself between the google cache version and this second version, either in text or format. I can only think of two reasons why he did what he did--to get a second chance at being visible, and not caring about the comments, or to intentionally delete the comments? He added a ton of comments of his own to the second version before anyone else commented, which tends to suggest the former (lots of comments on a thread might make someone click on it to check it out.)
October 13, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Removed comment #2 copied from google's cache of the October 12, 2009, 3:44PM version of this post:
The first of 3 comments on the earlier version was by Rutabaga Ridgepole himself (@3:53), and he reproduced it exactly on this version @ 9:18, after inserting another comment @ 9:16, so it's clear he knows how to copy comments if he wants to.
October 13, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once you give people a shared history, they start building a nation. Often, when the external threat is removed, power struggles result. The Taliban overplayed their hand after the Russians were tossed out and were tossed out with external help in their turn. Karzai is busy overplaying his own hand. We shall see.
As far as the women in Afghanistan are concerned tossing out the Taliban may be more like tossing the KKK out of the defeated South.
October 12, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With all due respect, which is actually a lot, I have to say that Rep. Grayson has been addled by world-tourism,"; I wonder rootie, does your neck ever snap with the switches that you make from one schizoid outlook to another? You can't show respect to an individual and then call that selfsame individual addled in the same sentence and expect anyone to take you seriously. See how that works?
And loads of fawning comments from yourself to yourself? It's a bad sign when you hear voices in your head, rootie; it's an even worse sign when you feel obliged to answer them.
October 13, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
For brantlamb, everything is always black or white, and the beautiful rainbow of reality that the rest of us see is invisible.
October 13, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how many minds you think you can read rootie, isn't it? A shame that the evidence doesn't bare that out.
October 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You probably meant "...bear that out." The dictionary is your friend.
That's what I meant by your black-or-white world-view, and I didn't have to read your mind, which is probably written in pidgin-English anyway.
October 13, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you removed comments, that's BS, bub.
This is a crazed rant, btw.
October 13, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't written for you.
October 13, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one thing, though, Rutabaga. After I read some of your comments, I wonder who you are and how old you are and whatnot. I know you are plenty smart, and creative, but there is some reason that you antagonize people purposefully, even those who sometimes reach out a hand to you. Like you will spit on someone, receive a bad reaction, and it just PROVES something to you. I wonder what the payoff is sometimes. Is there something satisfying about mean reactions to your meanness? We have a daughter with attachment disorder, and it is said that unnattached kids provoke negative reactions because a) that's what they're used to and b) at least shitstorms are predictably familiar.
The other thing I think about when I read some of the word-battles at the Cafe is how astounded I am by so much anger or rage, I always forget the difference in meanings. I used to get angrier than I do now; I think some of it has to do with experiencing Pain of the sort they say the Chinese have a word for: Pain that is so deep that no tears can come; pain that won't even let your body move, or a thought to come. Coming out of those times is a moment by moment experience; you pretend you have a life by doing some normal things until gradually you find tiny bits of meaning and comfort and solace somewhere. But for me, anyway, it burned out some of my rage.
I can't offer you any sunny scenarios of welcome or anything if you find it in you to change your way of communicating, but I for one will try. And those life-changing events are always potentially on our horizons. I send my goodwill to you. Today. Ain't guaranteeing about tomorrow. :-}
October 13, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In politics, bullshit kills."
October 13, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem sincere about wanting to stop the killing and to persuade people to seeing the issue from your perspective. So, and I ask this sincerely, do you really believe that you are more likely to persuade people about the bullshit being bullshit if you consistently insult them? Because if you really want to save lives and stop the killing, wouldn't you want to use the best possible approach of persuasion?
October 13, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta, I've come full circle on you. I once called you "evil." which was, in hindsight, nothing more than a defensive, facile way of saying that you scared the Bejesus out of me.
So let's talk on less hyperbolic terms.
Ruta, you are supersmart. AS you are genuinely insightful, and that combination is rarer than vegetables perfectly steamed, yet not overdone.
And so it is that overdone quality that I, and other admirers of you, wish to address.
Ruta, the pressure cooker had its day -- in an era in which the economy and the hopes of the people were on the upswing. The pressure cooker is diminished, now, found only in garage sales everywhere, because the possibility of explosion is just too alarming in the kitchens of now ubiquitously stressed-out, fraught persons. In consequence, we now nuke or saute, rather than pressure-cook, because one more melt-down, splattered on the ceiling, is more than we can currently bear.
Which is not to say that the subjects you raise, and the points you make about them are without merit.
Au contraire. Your merit is obvious. You are an idealist, Ruta, despite your cynicism, and many of us admire you for it.
Whisper and we will strain to hear every word you say. Really.
October 13, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0416/p06s10-wosc.html?page=1
There is most certainly an Afghan identity.
There is most certainly an Muslim identity.
There is most certainly not a uniform Taliban identity. This older article, which is more militant than the truth, bears out the rather shifting nature of what we erroneously label the Taliban.
In the average American Idol saturated mind, the following equation holds:
Taliban = Al Qaeda = Enemy
This equation was stretched to include Saddam and the Baathists, then the attempt was made to stretch this even further to include Persian Shia.
Of course, the endgame of the equation is all brown people must either prove their loyalty to the US of A in a Kafkaesque game enjoyed only by the perpetrators... or be declared an enemy combatant.
My gut reaction from my own research and my points of contact in Afghanistan (local and third country translators along with OEF veterans) is that Afghanistan is unified in proportion to the energy expended by its invaders. Even the popular myth that we should have taken the fight all the way into the caves and finished off AQ does not indicate that we would still not be facing a motley popular uprising funded by propaganda and opium.
There is no way to put the wrapper back on the pack of cigarettes. That is why I have stressed that as long as we are going to be there, we ought to transitioning away from what is truly creating the unstable nitro-basket in that region:
The Great Game of Drugs, Oil, and other Sundry Resources.
We either need to stop being stupid, or they're going to stop us.
Given what I have seen from Obama, expect a mild holding pattern that will drain the treasury enough to placate DiFi's husband until the inevitable breakdown forces him or his successor to either enact the next ur-fascist wave of GRUNCH government.
October 13, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just realized that I used either in my last sentence without establishing the dichotomy. Oops. I guess I should say that we either go ur-fascist GRUNCH (even further into the Platonic cave of hungry delusion) or wrench our heads from our collective asses and implement a sustainable, liberal, isolationist position.
I mean, look at the awesome alternative: California. A state that is a nation unto itself, with enough agriculture and resources to feed most of this nation, starving for lack of sane policy. How can we be transforming this cornucopia into the new third world? It blows my mind. Sheer unmitigated stupidity mixed with predator cunning. And patient zero is Ronald Reagan.
October 13, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the interesting comments, Zipper.
October 13, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought about you, Zipperupus, when I was reading the Times article also linked above.
My own minute by minute scorecard for Af-Pak is based on Milt Bearden's remark, "Kill one insurgent, create six more." The obvious way out of that sort of exponential insurgency is "Kill six more," and then 36, 216, 1296...
This was the Russian strategy in Afghanistan, and without Charlie Wilson's Stingers, they probably could have extinguished the chain reaction of revenge by exterminating clans down to the last infant, more or less like we won the "Indian Wars."
Meanwhile an awful lot of cousins and uncles and brothers and fathers and sons have a blood-grudge against us, and I can't imagine how creating alternative revenue for opium farmers is possible now, or any other large-scale re-organization of the whole mess, or any significant part of it, when nobody can travel anywhere without a big convoy.
And I don't rule out a relatively rapid deterioration of our situation in Afghanistan, and that's without deprecating the amazing quality of our combat personnel. Unit by unit, how the heck can we lose? But every unit is embedded somewhere in 30,000,000 Afghans, and there's a limit to what skill can accomplish against numbers, unless we go over to the Russian and Custer style of exponential extermination.
October 13, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that McChrystal used a variation of Bearden's remark when he discussed "COIN Math." It is pretty much a guarantee that unless the locals are on your side (which means they identify and parse the enemy FOR YOU), then the anger and frustration that comes from any insurgent death pretty much creates several more insurgents.
Hercules solved the hydra problem by cauterising the heads. In modern terms, that would mean genocide. Turn the region into glass. Of course, this turns an entire people with a history into a monster that needs to be cauterised.
My primary attitude is that we need to get the hell out of there and clean up our own house. The US reminds me of an alcoholic "Sunday Dad," who beats his kids Monday-Saturday but sings and claps the loudest in church.
But Sunday Dad can't quit cold turkey. So, I have resigned myself to promoting the least caustic strategy, one designed around the Afghan nation and peoples, while emphasizing that we have to put Sunday Dad into rehab.
October 13, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading that NYT article is an exercise in discernment. I know what the writer WANTS to say, and I can see where the editor curtailed the ambition. It is pretty obvious that whatever aid we send for the civilians is going to be swallowed by one or more friends or relatives of Karzai.
In Iraq, a lot of problems with maintaining a sizeable and law-abiding police force (such as it was) was paying the officers on a regular basis. The government only intermittently paid them... once we were done training and equipping them (which involved a regular paycheck) and they were released to the government, the money dried up. I can only imagine this problem metastasizing under a shitbrick like Karzai.
The cynic in me wants to increase troop levels for two years, then speedily withdraw them and let the locals fill the power vacuum and put Karzai's head on a pike. This would present the fig leaf of national security credentials that would allow the Dems to cynically rebut the even more cynical GOP.
Bottom line: we have to pull the plug on the military monster who, like the banks, is too big to fail. I just don't see that happening.
October 13, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an outstanding paragraph!
October 13, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your tireless efforts to bring Afghanistan into the TPM discussion in a hard-core way, Rootie. It is a hard-core subject. I think you need to work this material into something much more extended (essay? book with artwork? I don't know).
Have you ever seen Tony Kushner's play Homebody/Kabul? It's difficult (he rewrote it 17 times, last I heard), grueling (the entire first act is a half-hour-long monologue by the "homebody" character), and not for everyone, but you could handle it, no problem. :-)
That play is sort of what I mean when I say you need to extend this material about Afghanistan into something longer and creative. Blogging is too restrictive a medium for what you have to say.
October 13, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
17 rewrites? I rewrite comments on the blogs more than that!
My old-media aspirations are zero, gasket. It's all just a bunch of stuffy little closets, compared to the infinite cyberspace in which we now cavort.
October 13, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have said a cyberspace version of a "book with artwork." I honestly didn't mean old-media would be an appropriate format for you, Rootie, although I still think a "blog" format is too cramped for what you want to say. It's up to you to invent the format that combines your written and artistic material.
What I'm saying is sort of related to what wendy davis above is saying too, although she is looking at what you do from a psychological (and possibly spiritual) perspective, while I'm looking at it from a purely creative perspective. For example, I used to follow this guy's work, but he didn't succeed in transforming his blog into anything and appears to have abandoned it. (He is now a published author, however.)
Anyway, you should check out Kushner if you ever get the chance. He's a genius in his medium, and therefore not at all a waste of time.
October 13, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only job we have in Afghanistan is to get out.
October 13, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudabaga, Incredibly, the American people are coming around to understanding that there is no real real solution to the war in Afghanistan other than to just leave. Although, the Republicans still hold to their principles of sticking it out until an eventual victory. We all remember GW Bush's "event-horizon" theme for ending the war in Iraq. The silliest thing history has ever recorded.
We need to review history to know that many other would-be empires crossed the same mountains of Afghanistan and as the locals say: their mountain passes are the cememtery for foreign armies, and how can we not notice.
It all seems so stupid; we went into Afghanistan to put our boot in their ass, but it seems that our boots got stuck in the quicksand.
The only honorable exit from the war in both, Iraq and Afghanistan, is to leave quitely without any fanfare - less the world notices our historic and moronic mistake.
October 13, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for commenting, Joseph Chez.
I obviously agree with your main contention about a speedy withdrawal from our senseless wars, but I also believe that we still have time to leave behind a little something besides destruction, even though so many civilian projects have broken down because of deteriorating security.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, I favor projects at the village level, which don't have much juice behind them in Washington. No big contracts for big contributors!
My idea of a really useful American in Afghanistanwas Capt. Benjamin Sklaver, whom I mentioned above.
Before Capt Sklaver was killed on the road, his local water-purification projects had an excellent chance of leaving behind some real benefits for civilians now depending on polluted wells way out in the boonies.
What happens with those projects now? I don't know. It isn't a given that the army can find anybody to replace Capt. Sklaver, with his very special set of skills and commitment.
October 13, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink