Afghan Woes
Daniel Dravot: “Ask him who his enemies are, Billy Fish.”
Billy Fish: “Uttar say, ‘Enemies all around. The worst are the Bashkai. Always raiding and stealing our womens. And when we go to bathe, they are pissing in the river!”
Daniel Dravot: “Shocking state of affairs! You tell Uttar, we will help him defeat his enemies. He will be king of all he surveys from the highest point.”
Peachy Carnahan: “They will call him, ‘Uttar the Great.’”
Billy Fish: “Uttar say, he prefer ’Uttar the Terrible.’”
Daniel Dravot: “Uttar the Terrible it is then!”
It’s The Man Who Would Be King, greatest film ever made,* and as Karzai muddles through his election with the Taliban at his heels, it may be more relevant than ever. But Kipling fables, as well informed and full of insight as the great Raj scribbler was, don’t make a neat fit any more than the Vietnam analogies or the Soviet and Brit experiences in Afghanistan do. So here are some other thoughts on what Peachy and Danny would be dealing with today.
It’s as noisy as that Peshawar market scene that kicks off the flick:
Abu Muqawama says it’s bad when he’s the only one they can find in Washington to defend the Afghan war anymore, and admits he’s not exactly sure what we’re doing there, mainly because the Obama admin isn’t.
Hang on, Muq, you’re not alone. Washington Post editorial writers say why’s eveyone so eager to give up on what hasn’t been tried yet? That’s a really good question. Because, as the Post scribblers note, stopping fighting doesn’t equal ending the war, and none of the alternatives brought up so far do that.
Ralph Peters at NYPost wants a smaller footprint in Afghanistan just like the O admin, but says you don’t get that by sticking your head in the sand. Or by buying into the enemy’s argument.
Gian Gentile at Small Wars Journal, noting the loss of initiative, has an idea for regaining it. How about killing the enemy. Improved fire and manuever tactics. He notes it’s a critical part of any counterinsurgency strategy that is being increasingly put on the back burner as the admin seeks to fight war by other means.
Anthropologist of War Ronald Holt, a veteran of the Human Terrain program also writing at Small Wars Journal, weighs in with some detail on the other piece, how to tweak the warmer, fuzzier aspects of COIN operations in Afghanistan.
Thomas Rid, Kings of War, with a list of 10 things he thinks everyone should be able to agree on. Regardless, there are options, there are costs, there are benefits. There are upsides and downsides. It’s an investment calculation. He’s down on the previous corportate overlords … a little harshly if you ask me, seeing as they prevailed in Iraq and in the GWOT in their time … and wants to see a sober, measured assessment from the newbies. Good luck with that.
Former UK defense minister Malcom Rifkind at the Times of London: Deal with Karzai and the corruption. He needs us more than we need him. Militarily, it isn’t as bad as everyone seems to think. Back the Afghan Army and kill the enemy. (BTW, Malcolm, the US invasion was in 2001, not 1991.)
Here’s your obligatory Vietnam/LBJ comparison from Robert Scheer at SFChron. The appearance of the words “Vietnam,” “Lyndon Johnson” and ”quagmire” in the lede are the first clues that you aren’t going to get any useful information from this. Hang on, Peachy has something to say.
Pardon me while I fall down laughing. Ha, Ha, Ha.
Max Boot at WSJ brings the big picture, with some thoughts similar to my own the other day re Feingold and Will. Winning matters. Offshore was tried in the Clinton admin. The situation in Afghanistan is not as dire as the handwringing quagmire mongers would have you think, and the Taliban aren’t that popular. Boot brings us full circle this morning. Give McChrystal a chance, Obama. And take the muzzle off him. Like Peters said, you don’t get anywhere by telling your generals not to tell you what you don’t want to hear.
There are a lot of great “Man Who Would Be King” quotes to salt in here, about armies and tribes and kings and gods. But I like this one, Peachy Carnahan to a stunned Kipling, when Peachy’s brought Danny back from Kafiristan:
Keep looking at me. It helps to keep my soul from flying off.
* ”The Man Who Would Be King” was John Huston’s dream for years, which he had wanted to make with varying casts including Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, and Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Fortunately, by the time he got around to it, he settled on Sean Connery and Michael Cain, at a time when a greater realism had taken hold in cinematography.
It is based, of course, on Rudyard Kipling’s great short story, The Man Who Would Be King, which is based on any number of rogues great and small who populated his world, reportedly including James Brooke, the “white Raja” of Sarawak and American adventurer Josiah Harlan, whose exploits in Central Asia, along with those of other rogues and authorized agents, are detailed in another great book, Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia by Karl Ernest Meyer.
Topics: Afghanistan, Obama, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:44 am Comments (2) on Thursday, September 3, 2009
2 Responses to “Afghan Woes”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Jules, if you haven’t read “Peshawar Lancers” by S.M. Stirling, it’s worth a glance. What India would have looked like if the British had been forced to move there after the Northern Hemisphere got hit by a series of asteroids….
September 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
snelson134:
I thought “Peshawar Lancers” was a terrific read – very imaginative. I can’t imagine why he didn’t do a sequel.