Aghanistan: Lessons from History
There's an article in Foreign Policy this week about the real lessons of Afghanistan's history. Contrary to received wisdom, argues Christian Caryl, Afghanistan has not generally been the graveyard of empires; the idea that great and arrogant powers are doomed inherently to wreck themselves on Afghan soil is based upon a series of myths:
One of those myths, for example, is that Afghanistan is inherently unconquerable thanks to the fierceness of its inhabitants and the formidable nature of its terrain. But this isn't at all borne out by the history. "Until 1840 Afghanistan was better known as a 'highway of conquest' rather than the 'graveyard of empires,'" Barfield points out. "For 2,500 years it was always part of somebody's empire, beginning with the Persian Empire in the fifth century B.C."
After the Persians it was Alexander the Great's turn. Some contend that Alexander met his match in the Afghans, since it was an Afghan archer who wounded him in the heel, ushering in a series of misfortunes that would end with the great conqueror's death. Ask anyone who believes this is why Greek coins keep cropping up in Afghan soil today -- in fact, Alexander's successors managed to keep the place under their control for another 200 years. Not too shabby, really. And there were plenty of empires that came after, thanks to Afghanistan's centrality to world trade in the era before European ocean fleets put an end to the Silk Road's transportation monopoly.
What about the popular accounts that insist, awe-struck, that even Genghis Khan was humbled by the Afghans? Poppycock, says Barfield. Genghis had "no trouble at all overrunning the place," and his descendants would build wide-ranging kingdoms using Afghanistan as a base. Timur (know to most of us as Tamerlane) ultimately shifted the capital of his empire from provincial Samarkand to cosmopolitan Herat, evidence of the role command over Afghanistan played in his calculations. Babur, who is buried in Kabul, used Afghanistan to launch his conquest of a sizable chunk of India and establish centuries of Muslim rule. Afghans seemed pretty happy to go along.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with Afghan history easily to be able to evaluate this argument. Are any of you? Does it sound right?
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
Good morning, Claire.
The history offered by Caryl is fine as far as it goes. Dr. Hanson has made the same argument right here at Ricochet that Afghanistan is not inherently unconquerable. But I'm not sure that an historical perspective alone is enough to justify this claim. Conditions change over time.
I live in a part of the US that resembles Afghanistan in terms of topography, climate, terrain and vegetation. In fact, my landscaped property is loaded with plant species native to Afghanistan. Let me offer a comparison by way of rebuttal.
The Spanish starting in 1540 had little trouble conquering the Rio Grande valley north of El Paso. The region was thinly settled by native peoples. Best estimates indicate that perhaps 40,000 people lived dispersed in villages across an area that includes present day New Mexico, Arizona, and southern Colorado. And yet Spain conquered the region with armies that rarely if ever amounted to more than 200 men. I probably need to research my numbers a little more thoroughly, but I'm confident that the ratios I'm presenting are fair.
More . . .
Jun '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
It's true that the native peoples of the Rio Grande valley lacked things available to Afghan tribesmen. Most notably iron weapons and domestic animals. The latter is not insignificant. Cardenas reported that the average Hopi was a minuscule creature not much taller than 4 1/2 feet and weighing in at 80 to 90 pounds (due to lack of animal protein we now know). Not exactly the most robust sort of warrior. But what I'm suggesting here is that Afghanistan might have been easily conquered and held in ancient times due to its sparse population. It's just a hypothesis; I would need to do some significant research.
Conditions change. Today Afghanistan is a nation of 17 million. That's a population base magnitudes larger than what was available to field an army in ancient times. And to conquer and hold is not the same as the far more difficult task of nation building.
I could be completely wrong. I'm just suggesting that historical analysis alone might not be a sufficient reason for the claim that Afghanistan can and will be pacified. We need to consider other factors, like demographics, technology, and ideology (Islam). Food for thought . . .
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
He's not arguing that the history suggests Afghanistan will be pacified. Only that those who say it never has been are wrong.
Jun '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
I would disagree with you, Paules, on the insignificance of the latter as that would include the horse. Without the horse these people had a very limited range in which to hunt and gather, and that would have no small impact on their physical stature. Also, exposure to domestic animals made us hardier in our abilitiy as a species to resist diseases. Animals are one of the principal transmission vectors of germs, and exposure to animals allowed Western man to develop a much stronger immune system than that found in native Americans.
Jun '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
Paules: I apologize, I misread your comment. My fault for posting before awakening.
Jun '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
It can be done, but can it be done without the kind of pervasive ruthlessness that makes Americans cringe? The Russians were ruthless enough, but not pervasive enough.
Jul '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
Having spent a couple of months in Afghanistan in 1971, tend to agree that it is not unconquerable. However, conquering and occupying are different than converting a country and its people to your particular point of view. Turning Afghanistan into anything resembling a democracy is a pipe dream. These people are Muslims, very orthodox Muslims. If you read Andrew McCarthy's piece on NRO which I consider a very accurate description of the goals of Islam it should be plain that democracy is not in their make-up. This is a country of tribal people who relate to their tribe and only see themselves as a nation when opposed by an invader. They will unite under Islam which to them is their nation. We are infidels. We will always be infidels in their eyes. I, truthfully, do not understand what our government hopes to achieve. We will never own Afghanistan, nor will they ever see Americans any differently than do the Saudis, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and every other Muslim Arab state. They are very pragmatic, maybe we should be too. How many Americans need to die there before we let them have their sandlot.
May '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
No one is talking about US democracy. And there are virtually no third world countries that do things the way we do- nor do Taiwan or the Republic of Korea, for that matter.
The problem is that this is a situation that takes time. Not instant application of more-rubble-less-trouble. And Western democracies that have a surfeit of demagogic politicians and a short attention span tend not to be very good about the patience that long term projects require.
We need to announce that we are staying until we are sure that the Taliban can't come back. Period. Then put all the current military resources into putting Hekmatyar and Haqqani out of business.
Aug '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
I would also like to point out that all the current fighting is being done in a fairly small chunk of the country. And the only reason that fighting has gone on this long is support from Pakistan and Iran. If we pack up and abandon the Afghans to their fate again, we'll have to go back again and it will be worse.
The root of our problem is that while our enemies respect our prowess on the battlefield at the face to face level, they have contempt for our way of life and believe we have no will to win. They know that they can win by simply not losing, and that we hamper our own capability to fight them with needlessly restictive Rules Of Engagement. They know we won't engage them behind their human shields, thus ensuring the continued use of the tactic.
We have the ability to win, the question is do we have the will to win?
Jul '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
Do we really have the ability to win or is it simply digging a hole in loose sand. People get the government they deserve. The American Revolution was aided by the French. Had we not been ready for the assumption of our own governance or had we not the will to fight and win, our revolution would have collapsed. We spent, in total, nearly 30 years in Vietnam attempting to secure a democratic government (if you start with the Truman administration). The entire time was spent doing what we are doing in Afghanistan. The Afghans defeated the Russians with our aid, but not because they wanted us to join them. They wanted the Russians out, plain and simple. Now they want us out. The problem is and always has been attempting to defeat what is essentially a indigenous force supported by a percentage of the population large enough to keep them in sheep and nan. I believe that the members of the Taliban who are fighting against us believe that they are patriots fighting for the "freedom" of their country. Would you give up the struggle if you were in their place?
Jul '10
Re: Aghanistan: Lessons from History
I am not speaking in terms of moral relativism. I am speaking as one who spent time there and knew at least some of the people. They love their land. They love their religion. In that regard they are no different than we are. Keep in mind that old Muslim concept, The enemy of my enemy is my friend. When it is Christian against Muslim whose side do you think an Afghan is going to choose?