October 29, 2009 05:35 AM UTC

The Karzai Brothers and FM 3-24: Year IX

• 0 Comments
• by: JO

( – promoted by Barron X)

Today’s revelation by the Times ( https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10… ) that the CIA has long been funding the brother of Afghan Pres. Hamid Karzai–said brother reputed to be tied to heroin trafficking–for services including the recruitment of “forces” under the CIA’s direction in the Kandahar region raises a mega-question about the Afghan policy now under review at the White House.

Presumably the appointment of Stanley McChrystal to lead the military effort in Afghanistan was recognition, at rather long last, that the conflict in Afghanistan is a counter-insurgency war and needs to be fought as such.  

Not coincidentally, of course, McChrystal’s boss, David Petreus, is coauthor of Army Field Manuel 3-24 (2006), the “new” guide to fighting such conflicts. I say “new” because some critics argue that the manual is based on lessons drawn from earlier insurgent conflicts, including China, Malaya, and Indonesia, and that Afghanistan and Iraq represent a new iteration. However, one key underlying point of FM 3-24 is that counter insurgent conflicts are above all political conflicts in which military actions are just a part of a successful strategy that must include a credible central government, which means rooting out corruption and establishing customer-friendly relations with the citizenry. Absent these, the military effort is doomed, at the very least, to perpetual Sisyphean efforts. Exhibit A: Afghanistan.

It’s not too hard to imagine what sort of “forces” Brother Karzai is recruiting, and how they’re used. Persuasion doesn’t sound like it’s at the top of their arms list. More to the point, we now learn that an agency of the U.S. government is closely linked to a shady character reputed to be in the heroin trade, while with the other hand we’re trying to persuade Afghan poppy farms to plant something else that pays a fraction! Do the various hands of the U.S. government know what the others are doing? Is the CIA under control? Under whose control?

More sobering, this revelation comes atop proof, as good as it gets, that the Afghan election was entirely tainted by profound corruption, e.g. thousands of ballots from “precincts” returned with identical markings for Karzai, not even folded.

So the question arises: IF we really don’t have a credible Afghan government to uphold that pillar of an anti-insurgency after eight bloody years, and if we are knee-deep in the corrupt aspects of that government, then what in bloody hell are we doing risking the lives of American soldiers in that Gold-forsaken place? Why are we not cutting a deal with the Taliban: Hand over bin Laden and we’ll go home; refuse and we’ll bomb living shit out of Pashtunistan until we’re pretty goddamned sure bin Laden is dust. And good luck to the boys in Islamabad; get your eyes off India and see if you can control territory you claim to be yours.

As I type this, I’m watching a member of the United States military, surrounded by her fellow warriors, sing God Bless America at the 7th inning break of Game One of the World Series in the new Yankee Stadium. Cut-away shots of the flag, the Statue of Liberty. And a strong emotion arises: If our government, including and perhaps most especially the Central F’ing Intelligence Agency, can’t support our troops, then those troops need to be brought home to see Game 2 while the rest of us get busy putting the American house in order before launching into an effort to sell other nations how to organize their affairs.

There are dangers is over-simplifying the complex. There are equal dangers is over-complicating the basic.