BORCHGRAVES FALLACIOUS AFGHAN ASSESSMENT

1. BORCHGRAVES FALLACIOUS AFGHAN
ASSESSMENT
COMMENTS ON BORCHGRAVES ARTICLE
BY MAJOR AGHA H AMIN (RET) IN
ITALICS
DE BORCHGRAVEWash Times Dec 14 2010
Vietnam syndrome Obama must negotiate in
order to avoid a similar outcome
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
-
The Washington Times
6:03 p.m., Tuesday, December 14, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/14
/vietnam-syndrome/
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in
Afghanistan, speaks Monday with Afghan military
personnel during a tour of the U.S. run-Parwan
detention facility north of Kabul, Afghanistan.
(Associated Press)
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. and NATO
supremo in Afghanistan, is as well-versed in the
history of major post-world-war insurgencies as
anyone alive today. From Lawrence of Arabia to

2. Mao's and Tito's guerrilla triumphs to France's 16
years of defeats in Indochina and Algeria, Gen.
Petraeus knows it all - and then some.
Australia's world-famous guerrilla warfare expert,
Col. David Kilcullen ("The Accidental Guerrilla:
Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One" and
"Twenty-eight Articles: Fundamentals of Company-
Level Insurgency") has been by Gen. Petraeus' side
or on direct dial for almost 10 years.
As the senior COIN (Counter-Insurgency) adviser to
Gen. Petraeus, Col. Kilcullen made clear in many
think-tank talks that he was against the invasion of
Iraq from the get-go but stayed by the general's side
throughout his successful prosecution of the
insurgencies that followed. Gen. Petraeus was
promoted to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
commander in Oct. 2008.
Eighteen months later, he stepped down from
CENTCOM to take over the Afghan war command,
replacing the cashiered Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
There, too, Col. Kilcullen thought the U.S.-led
invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake. It was, he
said at the time "tailor-made" for Special Forces to
hunt down Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda
camps, separating them from Taliban. He also

3. remembered that Taliban leader Mullah
Mohammed Omar, in his first and only interview
with this reporter and United Press International's
South Asia consultant Ammar Turabi, three months
before Sept. 11, 2001, was already highly critical of
Osama bin Laden.
MULLA OMAR ALL ALONG HAS BEEN A
PAKISTANI PROXY AND NOT AN OSAMA BIN
LADEN MAN . HOWEVER BORCHGRAVES
LOGIC IS WRONG THAT USA OCCUPIED
AFGHANISTAN ONLY TO HUNT OBL.THE
9/11 WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT WHILE US
OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN WAS A US
STRATEGIC RESPONSE TO DOMINATE WEST
AND CENTRAL ASIA.THE US WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN AS FAR AS I HAVE STUDIED
IT WAS LITTLE ABOUT OSAMA BIN LADEN
AND MORE ABOUT CREATING A STRATEGIC
REDOUBT IN THE REGION.
THIS CAN BE DONE BY THE US BY JUST
RETAINING KABUL PARWAN NINGRAHAR
AND LAGHMAN PROVINCES AS A
STRATEGIC DAMPER WHILE
WITHDRAWING FROM SOUTH

4. AFGHANISTAN ALLOWING A TALIBAN
STATE AND ASSISTING THE NORTHERN
ALLIANCE IN CREATING A NORTH AFGHAN
INDEPENDENT STATE.THIS WOULD
REDUCE US FINANCIAL EXPENSES BY ONE
TENTH AND REMOVE THE VAST US TROOP
CONCENTRATION IN SOUTH AFGHANISTAN
WHICH IS JUST DOING SENTRY DUTY AND
HAS NO STRATEGIC OR EVEN MUCH
OPERATIONAL IMPACT ON THE WAR.

5. Mr. Turabi has received a message from Mullah
Omar that he now favors direct negotiations with
the United States.
Col. Kilcullen said at the time, "You don't invade
countries in pursuit of a few Islamic terrorists
and turn the whole population against you."
Afghans know only one thing about their
history: Sooner or later, the bloodied and
dispirited foreigner leaves; even the mighty Soviet
empire left on Feb. 15, 1989 - and the Berlin Wall
fell nine months later.
THE COLLAPSE OF USSR OR THE FALLING
OF BERLIN WALL HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH
AFGHANISTAN.IT HAD A FAR DEEPER
CONNECTION WITH USSRS INTERNAL
DYNAMICS BASED ON A BADLY MANAGED
ECONOMY AND MISMANAGEMENT.SO HERE
BORCHGRAVES ANALOGY IS FALLACIOUS.
Afghan "freedom fighters," armed and funded by
the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,
brought half a century of Cold War to an end.
This time, Gen. Petraeus thinks the 100,000 U.S.
troops and 9,000 Brits - the only ones out of 44
nations doing any fighting - are "drawing strength
from the enemy's weaknesses." The Taliban has

6. limited mobility; the allies, unlimited. But in
Afghanistan, asymmetrical warfare is action the
enemy launches and that NATO cannot or will not
take. Punishing a village by firing squad for
collaboration with the enemy is an effective Taliban
weapon, much as it was for the Viet Cong in
Vietnam 40 years ago.
While Gen. Petraeus' officers in the field and his
military and civilian chiefs in Washington
understand that it is Afghanistan's war to be fought
by Afghan soldiers, the sad truth is that their army is
still years away from being able to conduct its own
operations. The head of the Afghan army says the
army will require U.S. and NATO budgetary and
supply support for another "nine to 10"
years before they can hack it on their own. The
Afghan army is slated to grow from 93,000 to
134,000 by 2011. The next troop target is 325,000,
which would entail a budget of almost $1 billion.
The Afghan war effort as a whole is running at $150
billion a year. Cost estimates through 2014 range up
to half a trillion dollars. How long will Congress be
willing to sustain an increasingly unpopular war?

7. STATING THAT USA SHOULD JUST
NEGOTIATE WITH TALIBAN AND LEAVE IS
OVERSIMPLISTIC AND MYOPIC.WHAT
ABOUT AFGHANISTANS 50 % POPULATION
WHICH IS AGAINST TALIBAN AND WHO
TALIBAN REGARD AS SUB HUMANS
BECAUSE THEY ARE NON PASHTUN.IF THE
USA HAS TO QUIT IT SHOULD BE DIVIDE
AND QUIT RATHER THAN JUST QUIT .
When the last U.S. troops pulled out of Vietnam on
March 29, 1973, the South Vietnamese army, far
more sophisticated and battle-hardened than the
Afghans, fought on alone with U.S. military aid,
with distinction. Then, in late 1974, the U.S.
Congress, in its infinite wisdom, severed all further
military assistance to South Vietnam.
THE AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY IS FAR
POORLY TRAINED AND LED THAN THE
SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY SO HERE A
TOTAL US WITHDRAWAL MAY LEAD TO ITS
QUICK COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE
NORTHERN ALLIANCE CANNOT BE
EFFECTIVE WITHOUT FOREIGN
SUPPORT.EVEN THE TALIBAN

8. BORCHGRAVE ADMITS HAVE PAKISTANI
SUPPORT.
There is no guarantee this won't happen again.
Clever diplomacy at this stage would bring Pakistan
and China, both with common Afghan borders, and
Saudi Arabia, to sweeten the pot, into secret talks -
protected this time from WikiLeaks - to explore
a negotiated settlement with the Taliban's Mullah
Omar.
Last weekend, prominent academics, writers and
members of nongovernmental
organizations signed a joint letter addressed to
President Obama that called for a major change in
U.S. strategy. Among the 23 signatories, all Afghan
experts, are Scott Atran, anthropologist at the
University of Michigan and author of "Talking to the
Enemy"; Rupert Talbot Chetwynd, author of
"Yesterday's Enemy: Freedom Fighters or
Terrorists?"; Gilles Dorronsoro, a visiting scholar at
the Carnegie Endowment and author of "Revolution
Unending"; and David B. Edwards, Williams
College anthropologist, author of "Before Taliban:
Genealogies of the Afghan Jihad."

9. The joint letter to Mr. Obama made these key
points:
c The cost of the war is now more than $120 billion
per year for the U.S. alone. This is unsustainable in
the long run. The situation on the ground is much
worse than a year ago because the Taliban
insurgency has made progress across the country.
c With Pakistan's active support for the Taliban,
it is not realistic to bet on a military solution. The
military campaign is suppressing, locally and
temporarily, the symptoms of the disease, but it fails
to offer a cure.
NO WAR HAS A MILITARY SOLUTION BUT
HAS THE USA ATTEMPTED A POLITICAL
SOLUTION.WHY CANNOT AFGHANISTAN BE
DIVIDED IN THREE PARTS I.E A NORTHERN
ALLIANCE AFGHANISTAN IN THE NORTH , A
BALOCH AUTONOMOUS REGION IN THE
WEST AND A TALIBAN PASHTUN STATE IN
THE SOUTH ?

10. HOW HAS MR BORCHGRAVE SUDDENLY
AND GENEROUSLY DECIDED TO
SURRENDER 1OO % OF AFGHANISTAN TO
TALIBAN WHO PRESENTLY CONTROL SOME
50 % OF AFGHANISTAN.HAS BORCHGRAVE
NEVER VISITED NORTH AFGHANISTAN AND
DOES HE NOT KNOW THAT NO ONE IN
NORTH AFGHANISTAN WANTS THE
TALIBAN !
c It is time to implement an alternative
strategy that would enable the United States to exit

11. Afghanistan while safeguarding its legitimate
security interests. The Taliban's leadership has
indicated its willingness to negotiate, and it is in
our interests to talk to them.
BORCHGRAVE SEEMS TO BE A GREAT
FRIEND OF TALIBAN BUT HE FORGETS
ABOUT SOME 50 % OF AFGHANISTAN WHO
IS ANTI TALIB ? HOW CONVENIENT ! IF THE
USA ABANDONS THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE
THE RUSSIANS, IRANIANS AND INDIANS
WILL JUMP IN AND THE CIVIL WAR WILL
CONTINUE , WITH USA LOSING ALL GOOD
WILL IN NORTH AFGHANISTAN THAT IT
HAD CREATED SINCE 9/11.

12. c We ask you to sanction and support a direct
dialogue and negotiation with the Afghan
Taliban leadership residing in Pakistan.
AFGHANISTAN IS DIFFERENT FROM
NORTH VIETNAM IN THE SENSE THAT THE
TALIBAN ARE AN ETHNIC MOVEMENT
WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY OF
AFGHANISTANS NON PASHTUN
POPULATION AND SOME PASHTUNS SOME

13. 50 % OF AFGHANISTANS POPULATION ARE
DEADLY ANTI TALIBAN , AND AS
INTENSELY AS TALIBANS REGARD THEM AS
SUB HUMANS !
Lawrence of Arabia's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom,"
studied by Gen. Petraeus, doesn't appear to add
much to his quiver. Clearly, his confidence is not
shared by experts with long experience in
Afghanistan.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor-at-large of The
Washington Times and of United Press
International.