The Afghanistan Papers

[Puppycow]

The Washington Post recently won a three-year court battle to make public secret government documents about the war. This is being compared to the Pentagon Papers regarding the Vietnam war.

At war with the truth
The Afghanistan Papers A secret history of the war

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

Since 2001, the Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development have spent or appropriated between $934 billion and $978 billion, according to an inflation-adjusted estimate calculated by Neta Crawford, a political science professor and co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University.

Those figures do not include money spent by other agencies such as the CIA and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for medical care for wounded veterans.

“What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?” Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer for Bush and Obama, told government interviewers. He added, “After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.”

The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.

You can think of at this way: at some point early on, they must have realized that the war was unwinnable.

Even though we couldn't win, we could still sort of prevent the Taliban from winning at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. The goal is only to maintain a sort of perpetual stalemate. We can't win, but neither can they as long as we stay there and keep pouring more billions into it. It's clear to me that there's little reason to remain there now, other than some kind of national pride. We hate to admit that we failed.

Most Americans have kind of forgotten about the war, in the sense that it isn't really front page news anymore. News is still reported, but it's buried in the obscure sections of the notional newspaper. Unlike Vietnam, it can drag on indefinitely because the public doesn't care about it all that much. Nobody is being drafted to fight the war, it's all volunteers. And it's all being paid for with debt payable at some indefinite point in the future (since the government just finances its debt with more debt, it isn't clear when, if ever, the bill will actually come due). So nothing to really get worked up about, since it doesn't affect most people's lives directly.

Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public. They said it was common at military headquarters in Kabul — and at the White House — to distort statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case.

“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” Bob Crowley, an Army colonel who served as a senior counterinsurgency adviser to U.S. military commanders in 2013 and 2014, told government interviewers. “Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.”

John Sopko, the head of the federal agency that conducted the interviews, acknowledged to The Post that the documents show “the American people have constantly been lied to.”

 

[Craig4]

In a sane world, this would have been much bigger news. However, I suspect that most people just assumed that we were being lied to.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's a bit of a strange issue. I'm not really sure that many people really believed that the war was going well as it groaned on and on for nearly 2 decades. Exposing the lie doesn't really change the broader situation that the war is an abject failure that no one cares enough about to end.

We have professional military with 100% volunteers. All our fighting takes place in far flung corners of the world. For most Americans, it's pretty easy to ignore, so ignore it we have.

Compared to Vietnam, I think the big difference is volunteer vs drafted soldiers. Would there have been nearly as much pressure to end the Vietnam war had it only been fought with professional, volunteer soldiers? If you give the American public the option to not be personally impacted by military adventurism overseas, many will just not worry about it.

 

[Craig4]

One wonders why military and political leaders bothered to lie when the truth was perfectly obvious. Res Ipsa Loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. If things were going well, we would not be there for nearly 20 years.

 

[ahhell]

In a sane world, this would have been much bigger news. However, I suspect that most people just assumed that we were being lied to.

This, it merely confirms what everyone new.

It's a bit of a strange issue. I'm not really sure that many people really believed that the war was going well as it groaned on and on for nearly 2 decades. Exposing the lie doesn't really change the broader situation that the war is an abject failure that no one cares enough about to end.

We have professional military with 100% volunteers. All our fighting takes place in far flung corners of the world. For most Americans, it's pretty easy to ignore, so ignore it we have.

Compared to Vietnam, I think the big difference is volunteer vs drafted soldiers. Would there have been nearly as much pressure to end the Vietnam war had it only been fought with professional, volunteer soldiers? If you give the American public the option to not be personally impacted by military adventurism overseas, many will just not worry about it.

The volunteer military and relatively low number of dead casualties. Soldiers are probably more likely to die in car accidents than be wounded in combat.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm sticking with just calling it "Bush's Folly".

 

[crescent]

The volunteer military and relatively low number of dead casualties.

That, and I think a lot of people remember how the Taliban was viewed before we invaded, even before 9/11. Blowing up the Buddha statues at Bamyan, stoning people to death in football stadiums, forcing women to wear burkas and basically stripping women of all rights altogether. There was very, very strong pressure to do something, anything, even before the September 11 attacks.

It is hard to imagine going back to that.

The war may not be winnable, but it is lose-able, and that's a bitter pill to swallow. If the Taliban resume control, there will, after a year or two or three, once again be enormous pressure for someone to do something, anything.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm sticking with just calling it "Bush's Folly".

To me, that's Iraq. Going into Afghanistan was at least somewhat justified. It was then bungled badly.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The Afghanistan war is now old enough to enlist and fight in the Afghanistan war. There will be soon a large crop of soldiers who weren't even born when it started.

 

[Thermal]

Not clear on what is being revealed here. Didn't we know it would be unwinnable after watching the USSR slog along? Wasn't the debate early on about how it would be a Quixotic waste of blood and money? I recall that conversation starting about thirty seconds after President Bush saying they had 48 hours to release the terrorists. What is new here?

 

[Doubt]

To me, that's Iraq. Going into Afghanistan was at least somewhat justified. It was then bungled badly.

When the whole thing started I figured we were not even going to try to overthrow the Taliban. I was expecting a lot of special operations troops sneaking around in the dark until they nailed the Al Quada leadership and then leave.

But then I thought Cheney was serious back during the Gulf War when he said we don't do nation building. Turns out he proved it right in the worst possible way. Two wars with no plans on what to do after the regime in place was gone.

Today there is still no idea how to end things in Afghanistan other than leaving with a signature on some paper and claiming either that we won or got "peace with honor".

A real negotiated settlement or an actual win are possible. But that requires a grand strategy and a realistic assessment of what it takes to win. There is no fast way to win. It takes time and a realization that you have to win over people or at least divide the opposition. Also, the time frame is measured in decades. Not a few months or a few years. None of that will happen if the military lies to itself about what it is doing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That, and I think a lot of people remember how the Taliban was viewed before we invaded, even before 9/11. Blowing up the Buddha statues at Bamyan, stoning people to death in football stadiums, forcing women to wear burkas and basically stripping women of all rights altogether. There was very, very strong pressure to do something, anything, even before the September 11 attacks.

It is hard to imagine going back to that.

The war may not be winnable, but it is lose-able, and that's a bitter pill to swallow. If the Taliban resume control, there will, after a year or two or three, once again be enormous pressure for someone to do something, anything.

Then the US should fight the taliban at their weakest and where the US is strongest. Give them a few years spent assembling a government and battalions and then destroy those in a few weeks.

 

[crescent]

Then the US should fight the taliban at their weakest and where the US is strongest. Give them a few years spent assembling a government and battalions and then destroy those in a few weeks.

That's not as crazy as it sounds. We got a lot of pressure to get out of Iraq. So we did. Then we came back, this time with better international and local understanding of why our presence there is still required.

So we do the same thing here. We pull out of Afghanistan. We blame the resultant mess on Pakistan, our "ally" that never stopped supporting the Afghan Taliban while simultaneously making scads of money off our need to ship military supplies through Pakistan. Use the resultant backlash against Pakistan to get them to work towards some sort of actual resolution of the situation.

 

[Planigale]

That, and I think a lot of people remember how the Taliban was viewed before we invaded, even before 9/11. Blowing up the Buddha statues at Bamyan, stoning people to death in football stadiums, forcing women to wear burkas and basically stripping women of all rights altogether. There was very, very strong pressure to do something, anything, even before the September 11 attacks.

It is hard to imagine going back to that.

The war may not be winnable, but it is lose-able, and that's a bitter pill to swallow. If the Taliban resume control, there will, after a year or two or three, once again be enormous pressure for someone to do something, anything.

OBL could probably claim a qualified win. Four thousand US deaths in Afghanistan (combining US military and civilian 'contractors'), 20,000 injuries a $1 trillion cost, Another 4,000 deaths in Iraq and 30,000 injuries, and another $1 trillion. (Ignoring the thousands of civilian deaths and loss of infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq). No evidence that the Taliban have been defeated. No evidence that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has been defeated (it may even be more widespread), or that human rights have improved. All this directly attributable to his actions. Has any other individual achieved such damage to the US? (Perhaps Hitler?)

I agree in a way allowing the Taliban to become a government weakens it. They will have to have stable civilian bureaucracy, they will have to make compromises. Whilst they function as a religiously inspired resistance movement they will be very difficult to defeat, as a fixed government probably easier to overthrow. The US sometimes loses sights of its real strength, if the US lifted sanctions on Cuba or Iran, my guess is the government would crumble (relatively) quickly, whilst the US protects the Cubans and Iranians against corruption by US culture and economics it persists. If they allowed / encouraged US culture free access into a Taliban governed Afghanistan it would change (just as Saudi is having to change).

 

[Minoosh]

IIRC, the strong and weak parts of the Pentagon papers were the same thing. They were damning - if one had the patience to slog through 1,000 pages and came to to understand what the the military’s dry lingo was really saying. But that was a tall order. There was truth to be found but it was not going to be apparent without singleminded devotion and a commitment to know the truth.

I’m sure the Afghanistan papers are similar. There’s much to learn, but it will take a lot of dedication to master the material, if that’s even possible. Modern folks tend to demand soundbites. From a strictly American point of view, the carnage in Afghanistan is nowhere near that of the Vietnam War. If 100 U.S. troops were being killed each week in Afghanistan, the U.S. public would be up in arms. But from a regional viewpoint, the cascading geopolitical consequences could be many times worse than in Vietnam.

 

[dudalb]

To me, that's Iraq. Going into Afghanistan was at least somewhat justified. It was then bungled badly.

This, I think moving against aL Qaida and it's Taliaban supporters was inevitable and necessary after 9/11. But it was bungled, and one reason was the stupid Iraq invasion took away the military resources that could have possibly won the war in Afghanistan.
Problem is what do we do/ Let the Taliaban take over in Iraq? You know they will want revenger on the US, and will no doubt support Islamic Terrorist.It's the problem from hell. Bad to stay, bad to leave.

 

[dudalb]

Not clear on what is being revealed here. Didn't we know it would be unwinnable after watching the USSR slog along? Wasn't the debate early on about how it would be a Quixotic waste of blood and money? I recall that conversation starting about thirty seconds after President Bush saying they had 48 hours to release the terrorists. What is new here?

So we should have just turned the other cheek after 9/11?

 

[Thermal]

So we should have just turned the other cheek after 9/11?

I...I don't recall suggesting that turning the other cheek was the only other option.

There were a variety of options at our disposal, from turning the entire Middle East into a parking lot on down.

 

[Planigale]

This, I think moving against aL Qaida and it's Taliaban supporters was inevitable and necessary after 9/11. But it was bungled, and one reason was the stupid Iraq invasion took away the military resources that could have possibly won the war in Afghanistan.
Problem is what do we do/ Let the Taliaban take over in Iraq? You know they will want revenger on the US, and will no doubt support Islamic Terrorist.It's the problem from hell. Bad to stay, bad to leave.

The Taliban have no interest in taking over Iraq, they had no part to play in 9/11 and their interests are in establishing an Islamic state in Afghanistan. My guess is they are not much concerned with the US if the US is not interfering with the Taliban (and that would include not having sanctions that result in significant deaths - Iranian sanctions by preventing health care trade are causing many preventable Iranian deaths). Most Islamic countries do not have a significant level of international terrorism, most is internal, and much against what is regarded as heretical sects.

Most US terrorism is likewise internal. The industrial military complex has a vested interest in keeping people in a panic about Islamic terrorism, even the Islamic terrorism that does occur in the west is mostly internal.

 

[Oystein]

So we should have just turned the other cheek after 9/11?

Maybe could have been done quietly, covertly - just take out AQ. No war, just commando operations. Strike a deal with the Taliban: We'll leave you alone if you let us kick the crap out of AQ. We might even offer you some assistance if you go a little nicer with the women folks.