The truth about Afghanistan 6

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”

These are extracts from an important article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis.

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. …

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground. …

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people….

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress. …

Afghans ostensibly in alliance with the international military forces against the Taliban are not just failing to win their putative war, but failing even to fight it.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency. …

On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier. …

I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.

“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”

As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.

“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”

According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.

The Afghan forces generally are hopelessly unreliable and incompetent.

To a man, the U.S. officers [in  a unit stationed in the Zharay district] told me they had nothing but contempt for the Afghan troops in their area …

Some of the information about how the war is being conducted seems not just senseless but crazily counter-productive, making a mockery of the entire war.

When a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. …

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.

He stresses that the US military command has a policy of deliberately misleading the American public.

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground. A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of this nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

These are lies that kill.

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? …

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. …  I am legally able to share [classified ,aterial] with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members. …

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid … in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price …

Or won at all, ever, at any price, as in Afghanistan –

… our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.

  • Jillian Becker


    We are not averse to hosting a verbal battle between Afghan tribes, and all opinions and facts are welcome. We ourselves are keen to learn more about Afghanistan. We only ask that abuse, ad hominem attacks, threats, swearing and cussing be left out – they never help to prove a case. 

    We ask this in your interest as much as your opponent’s.

  • Tibor

    No freedom of speech for America’s military leadership.  Or, is it appointment as reward for the brown nose?

  • George

    Not one of our troops lives or limbs is worth sacrificing in that  sh**hole  nation known as Afghanistan ( or anywhere else in the Middle East ) for that matter.   They are  NOT going to change their customary or political ways ( not anytime soon )  or reform their cultural practices because we go in there and give our lives and limbs .   I have seen American troops go into Muslim nations with the intent of liberating their societies from the tyranical and dictatorial regiemes only to see the regiemes replaced by yet another sharia law Muslim theocratic regieme or sharia dictator.      Many of our troops feel  like their sacrifices and efforts are in vain and we have yet to see these same nations adopt a constitution regarded as being a national Republic and a voting democracy and true freedom separate from the constraints and dictates of the Koran and sharia law.  Our troops can’t tell the terrorists from simple citizens since the terrorists blend in with them ( and sometimes hide behind them ) and are NOT uniformed goverment military fighters  and then when our troops engage in necessary armed action of self defense , they are either court martialed or falsely  accussed of attacking innocent citizens .  We have spent trillions of dollars in our military presense in the Middle East to help ungrateful people who still curse us or still regard us as the enemy. The practice of taqiiya is still as strong  as ever.    As one US military leader stated ——- ” We have the means to squash them but we do not have the will”    Actually we currently have no true top level strong leadership in the military or on Capital Hill.

    • Kourosh

      Afghanistan is a beautiful country and Afghans are some of the nicest people I’ ve ever met in my life, also Afghan women are incredibly beautiful, at least when they don’t have to wear those dumb “burkas” forced on them by Islamofascistist laws. Please do not hate Afghans or Afghanistan. The problem with Afghanistan is that it is a multiracial country, the most peaceful and beautiful people in Afghanistan are the Tajiks, they fought with America semi-successfully against the Taliban. The Pashtuns are a savage and tribal people, most Taliban are tribal Pashtuns or gulf Arabs. Hazaras while a Mongoloid people are also nice, they are known in Iran for being two-faced or criminals though.

      Please learn the difference, here are the wikipedia articles for the both:

      Tajiks: Noble people with good history.
      Pashtuns: Barbarians destroying Afghanistan.

      Let me also say that some of the most pro-American Afghan refugees I have ever met are Tajiks, this is because Tajiks are very educated people and come from a culture of excellence and nobility.


      • Jillian Becker

        I have followed your links and learnt about Tajiks and Pashtuns, and the great difference historically between them. You are an asset to this site, Kourosh. You educate us. 

        However, what you say makes no difference to our view of the war in Afghanistan. Bush was right to go there after 9/11 and thrash the Taliban. But then he should have come away, leaving a dire warning that he’d hit them even harder if necessary – and really meaning it. 

        But he kept on, and turned the US army into a troupe of social workers. He had a  weird dream of transforming Afghans – okay, let’s say Pashtuns – into American-style democrats. That dream was doomed to failure, and his efforts have resulted in ten years of wasted blood and treasure. And spirit. “An expense of spirit in a waste of shame.”

        As for the Afghan women, their plight is appalling. But there is nothing on earth Americans or anyone else can do to improve their lot. Some of them are trying to make things better for themselves. We wish them success, but cannot imagine how they’ll achieve it.

      • F19_89

        what kind of racist and biased comment is that, Tajiks are not the most noble or peacefull they are the same as the rest meybe worser, most of the time I heard news I always hear how women in the north the mainly tajik areas are raped forced to prostutution and are burned alive, Hazaras don’t have two faces they work hard and are honest peopel
        Amunalah Khan was a pashtun king who wanted to modernise the country and guess who where against him and who were the first to protest against him, you so beloved tajiks, also the mostly secular and democratic movements of the 60s 70s and 80s were led by pashtuns
         I guess you are tajik or Iranian your self thats way you say this rasict things. You peopel are known in asia for your superiority complex, you are like the nazi.