20 ms·

This Is What Winning Looks Like – Afghanistan War Diary

254 points by yk 13y ago

dfc 13y ago
If you liked this video you might also like: * Armadillo[1] a documentary about a group of Danish soldiers deployed to Helmland. Armadillo is right up there with Restrepo in my opinion. * The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan[2] if you are curious about the bacha bazi boys. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_%28film%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_%28film%29 [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/
- rdl 13y ago
  Restrepo is also pretty amazing in its own right. My absolute favorite work about the whole war in Afghanistan is First In (http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-Afghanistan/dp/0345496612 http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-Afg...) which is how the entire war should have been fought: A CIA man, a couple ODAs (~20 US Army Special Forces soldiers), an old ex-Soviet helicopter, and $30mm in $100 bills, and victory in 2 months. I sent a copy to weev in prison, will be interesting to see what he thinks :)
  - Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
    That's kind of you, but horribly naive. Being validated by prison staff as an associate of a prison gang or being in possession of questionable reading material can land an inmate in the SHU for an indefinite amount of time. The UN says more than 15 days in solitary confinement is considered torture. SHU prisoners at Pelican Bay spend an average of 7.5 years there. In 2005 (last released statistics) there were over 80,000 inmates held in solitary confinement in the US. This inhumane treatment is a clear violation of the 8th amendment and must be changed. http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary-in-iran-nearly-broke-me-why-americas-prisons-are-worse/ http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary... Wise up a little bit, the USG doesn't play nice, and weev has already been subject to "special attention" due to not grokking the simple fact that he is totally powerless in the system now. The More You Know.
    - dfc 13y ago
      How is this questionable reading material? The book got through the CIA's publication review board and there was no funny business like there was with Operation Dark Heart. Today is the only day of the year that I watch sports (Go Cuse!) so I'm going to try my hardest to ignore that giant leap from >15 days in solitary is torture to everyone in solitary is being treated inhumanely.
      - Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
        It is questionable reading material based on the evaluation of the Prison authorities in his prison, not any other authority. If you cannot fathom how a book on CIA + Afghanistan + Black OPs could be twisted into "reading up on terrorism" you're incredibly naive, or know nothing about the types of books that have lead to solitary confinement in the US prison system. The latter is obviously the case: I'd urge you to do a little research some time into how the rule is abused. Biographies of Malcom X getting you in solitary, that sort of thing... As for "giant leap", I'd suggest: Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement by Stuart Grassian (25 yrs Harvard Medical school) for a quick over-sight into the issues. Journal of Law & Policy PDF: http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf Solitary confinement is one of the leading punishments that is currently used in the US Prison System. Weev has already made himself a "little unpopular" in his stay (less than 3 months: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/weev-soundcloud_n_3093315.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/weev-soundcloud_n_3...) and is on the fast track to learning the hard way. He has ~36 months remaining, less if he behaves and doesn't "troll them". Asking publicly about their financial data is not cute and not smart and will not go unnoticed. Enjoy your sports. Perhaps you should stick with the TeeVee, I was merely suggesting that people think before engaging with a totally foreign (to them) mindset, that of the authoritarian US penal system. Or, at the very least, do the barest minimum of Due Diligence. Do the research; you might get shock & awed out of your bubble. Lions, Tigers and Bears.
        dfc 13y ago
        I have some experience with cases of excessive force and I am fully aware of the level of discretion that the court affords to the professional judgement of corrections officers (admittedly restricted to NYCRR). I certainly am not under the impression that the metal bars delineate the good people from the bad people. My "TeeVee" time is long over and I have done a little research into how how reading a book can land one in solitary. I have not been able to find anything concrete. Most of the things that I have found are consistent with my experience with the NYCRR and everything that I have found is consistent with the Furnace case[1] from California (the most notable and recent case). From everything that I have read I have not been able to find any instances of solitary confinement solely due to reading a book. And certainly no instances of solitary confinement for reading a mass market book that is currently #19 in its category on amazon that the prisoner received via mail and therefore screened (where assessment is based on the individual receiving the book). Could you point me to some source material? Side Note: Why so passive aggressive with me or the parent comment? [1] In re Furnace (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 649
  - dfc 13y ago
    Restrepo was already at the top of my lists with the book, photo book and movie, but after Hetherington died it has ascended to a special place all its own. I liked First In, but I also read Jawbreaker and I have trouble separating the two in my mind. I don't remember the order that I read them in but even as I was reading the second book I was often unsure if I was rereading the first book or reading the second. The experience was not that unlike reading any of the Robert's Ridge books. There is a report from the Army War College that I have been meaning to read but I have lost the citation. If you like reading about A-Teams the non fiction "Lions of Kandahar" was an exciting read. But my favorite book on the subject is a work of fiction: The Degüello. If you have not read it I highly recommend it. As far as winning the war goes we could not win the AfPak war by only winning in Afghanistan. No amount of effort is going to keep my lawn weed free as long as my neighbor's lawn is a forest of dandelions.
    - rdl 13y ago
      My biggest problem with how we fought in Afghanistan was not allowing Army SF to do their doctrinal mission. I believe in the traditional SF model (mentoring indigenous forces for FID) more than the JSOC model (direct action, technical intelligence, big dollars). Indeed, Jawbreaker and First In were pretty similar (and Jawbreaker essentially covered time before and after First In, too). I haven't read LoK yet, it's on my list. Also never even heard of The Deguello; added, thanks. The TF Dagger book sucks, though.
- subsystem 13y ago
  Restrepo nor Armadillo really stuck with me. I'll admit I've seen way too many of these kinds of documentaries, even to the point of not being able to tell them apart. The PBS ones are quite good. Two that stands out of the top of my head is Blood and Dust and Bulletproof Salesman, the later being mostly about Iraq. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/09/2011915105947578551.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/09/2... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186201/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186201/
  - dfc 13y ago
    I think the nature of PBS's regulatory environment makes it tough for them to "tell a true war story," to borrow Wolf's words. This was even apparent in their re-airing of Armadillo, the version that was broadcast on the same channel as Sesame Street was different than the bluray/dvd version.
    - dfc 13y ago
      Err, someone emailed me about the "wolf reference." The reference was to The Things They Carried by Tim O'brien and not to a work by Tobias Wolff whose name I spelled incorrectly.
- pstadler 13y ago
  No End in Sight[1] is my favorite. A documentary about the Iraq occupation starting in 2003. It's a sad story - no room for heroes - as the iraqi people lost everything. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/
  - dfc 13y ago
    This thread is about afghanistan.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      There is a parallel however - the invaders leaving a disintegrating country as they give up on it. Iraq and Afghanistan are very different but do have things in common.
      - rdl 13y ago
        The thing most in common is how the US treated Afghanistan in 2009-2012 the way it treated Iraq in 2007-2009 (and got pwned as a result)
jmadsen 13y ago
Vice is nothing but quality. Wish more people were aware of them, and the really wide variety of excellent documentaries they produce
- twentysix 13y ago
  Not all of them. Watch this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYglCDgpu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYglCDgpu0 It might just change your mind.
  - skore 13y ago
    I voiced my criticism of Vices QC in another post, but I actually enjoyed that particular documentary. I can appreciate Hamilton as pure oddball fun (despite a vocal fry that can make heads explode). What's actually problematic are things like this[0]. Not to mention the sometimes-ok, most-times-(well, the few times I checked to be sure)-god-awful "oh look at us rascal cooks being all alternative, cool and hip with our outlandish exploits" Munchies. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmk3kSvxBEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmk3kSvxBEQ
- rdl 13y ago
  They had a video team at the Bitcoin conference; talked to the producer and expressed how amazed I am at their consistently high quality. Usually when I see news about something I know a lot about (say, the Jalalabad region weapons manufacturers, or the PI underground arms people), I'm full of wtf. But everything I've seen from Vice to date has been "oh, yes, that's exactly how it is" or "I wish I could have gone over there and seen that".
- skore 13y ago
  > Vice is nothing but quality. I agree that they have lots and lots of quality stuff, but they also have a quality control problem for good parts of their portfolio. The great ones offset the bad ones by leaps and bounds, for sure. But for every documentary like this one, there seem to be a couple hipsterish driveltaries that I close after a few minutes. Sure, I suppose you cannot break new ground without landing some misses and sure, it's not like everything has to be mindblowing and perfect or even deeply valuable. But some of these misses make me wonder how anybody ever thought they were a good idea in the first place. I think Vice has an aversion to "self censor", trying to get as much stuff out there as they can simply for the heck of it and as a means to retain credibility - and I applaud them for that. But it's not as black and white and doesn't help when your expectation of quality gets rather deeply disappointed at times. It's a form of brand dilution that might become a problem in the future.
morganwilde 13y ago
This is unbelievable... I mean what can be done when everyone is just high as f and just basically trippin all day. Afganistan is OK with how things are now, it seems, so I guess the only relevant take away from this, just leave the country ASAP with as few expenditures and casualties as possible.
- rdl 13y ago
  I'd also make sure the Afghans who helped us get out (which is part of the pending comprehensive immigration bill), and that any Afghans who are actually sane are considered fairly for education/refugee status/etc. in the west. But really, Afghanistan itself is essentially doomed, and GTFO is the only way to go.
IsaacL 13y ago
Random theory I have (hopefully some HN-ers with actual military knowledge can weigh in): modern militaries need less technology and more manpower. It seems since I was a kid politicians have been saying that armed forces should become smaller and more high-tech. That means less bodies sent home in coffins and also more contracts for BAE Systems, so it's a popular message. That all works well (very well) when you're invading countries. Doesn't work so well when you decide you need to build a new country out of the ruins. Maybe we'd do better if instead of spending billions on flying robot assassins to fight tribal hill-farmers, we simply enlisted more humans to take command. The only other option I can see is to start running the American empire British-style - they ran very efficient colonies by exploiting existing tribal divisions, usually by recruiting some existing elite as their colonial administrators. Not trying to implement democracy in tribal regions that don't yet have stable institutions or the rule of law would probably also help.
- skore 13y ago
  > modern militaries need less technology and more manpower An interesting thought! One of the most interesting conclusions I drew from this documentary is that the Afghan Military needs both - more technology and more manpower. But the trouble, as shown, is that you need the intelligence to handle so much manpower, the social contracts to retain that manpower and the education to handle that technology. So what you're saying about the balance might be an interesting point for the US military might work for them, but it doesn't even start to help out with the Afghan forces. As for going "British-style" - I think that stuff simply doesn't work in the modern, connected world. British colonialism took advantage of isolation and division. Doesn't work so well if the country you invade is reasonably well connected globally.
  - rdl 13y ago
    The US has a really bad track record of picking local partners. Mostly because during the Cold War, the "good" local people were more innately socialist, which the Communists exploited, so we got stuck with some pretty horrible people (either ineffective or outright evil) by default. I don't believe it's feasible to occupy a medium sized country which actively resists using modern militaries. It's certainly not worth it. I'd just focus on keeping a limited presence to rain death from above (like we do in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) or via limited JSOC strikes (Somalia, Afghanistan before 2007 or so, etc.), and then using armed but civilian organizations to interface with the populace and government. In a place like Somalia or Afghanistan, foreign organizations should run important infrastructure and logistics services for the local government and population, with the cost subsidized by international donors. i.e. a local Afghan should be able to buy electricity at 0.10/KwH, sell their pomegranates at the world price, and have clean water, Internet, cellphones, etc., without any other focus on building the government (since that's probably hopeless). The organization providing that infrastructure needs self-defense capability, but you don't need much beyond what Blackwater had to do this.
rickdale 13y ago
I always feel like no matter how well a journalist covers Afghanistan, its only a small slice of the pie, for everything that is going on over there. And that is not to discredit the journalists, they do a great job, there is just so much going on over there, you gotta pick and choose your stories. For me, one of the greatest tragedies in Afghanistan as a result from the US war is the drug addict problem over ther. I haven't studied the issue in a couple of years, but I remember looking at pictures and statistics of heroin addicts in Afghanistan. As the war destroyed their country citizens turned to drugs and so did leaders, but the latter did so for money. The citizens literally have nothing better to do. And thats not to say they weren't poppy farmers before the war, they were, the majority were just not heroin abusers. In 2008 I took a seminar about the Afghanistan War, premised on the question, is Afghanistan a failed state? In a room with 12 reasonably bright American students we all were able to point out terrific errors that were causing some big issues. I remember reading that 70-80 percent of the trained Afghani police force was just signed up to get a paycheck. They never showed up for duty or anything. I do a lot of thinking about Afghanistan, because the situation is unique, yet historically predictable. In my opinion, its hard for me and Americans maybe all westerners, to understand Afghanistan and the people there; and its just as difficult for the people in Afghanistan to understand our way of life, and how to assimilate to what we were setting up. At present count, 3 people from my high school class have died fighting in Afghanistan, and 5 counting the year ahead of me (0 of my college mates, point for another story..). And this is what counts for me. I like to think that because the situation is complex and can get confusing, the best way to gain an understanding is to study individual stories, stuff that usually gets hidden behind the larger scene. From the research I have done, the majority of Afghans want peace to the point where they would accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the continued war. Its confusing, but it just shows the war really needs to end.
- rdl 13y ago
  How did anyone argue "Afghanistan is not a failed state", other than the "it was never a state, so it didn't fail, it just never won" (although in the monarchy it was OK in certain parts, for about a decade).
  - 13y ago
thelogos 13y ago
Does anyone else think it would be easier and less bloody to just get the Taliban addicted to heroine and subsidize their cost of living?
- rdl 13y ago
  The Taliban were actually pretty hardcore counter-narcotics in the late 1990s, with western support. They only partnered with the narcotics industry after 9/11 when fighting the US.
- VLM 13y ago
  I've heard this semi-seriously described as the "Turn Them Into Detroit" strategy, and arguably this is the long term strategy we've selected although in an unspoken manner. Follow the money. I'm talking long term as in over decades of occupation not long term as in next financial quarter. I've also seen the same argument in reverse, if we cut back on social service payments, as seems economically inevitable in the long term, our own inner cities will rapidly look much like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. So if you want to see a realistic projection of "Detroit 2030", just look at "Somalia 2013".
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Afghanistan: a graveyard of empires.
deevus 13y ago
Is there an easy way to download this video for later?
- DanBC 13y ago
  Legally? Not sure. Illegally, a search for [panorama mission accomplished] probably returns relevant results.
- subsystem 13y ago
  It's also available on youtube, just use something like youtube-dl.
venomsnake 13y ago
I think the problem is that the enemy changed the rules and the generals unlike the foot soldiers took a lot of time to understand it (if they even have). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-... There are no military objectives or territory worth holding for them. Their goal is to just inflict as much pain as possible on the US troops knowing that they can outlast them. The US has army that can deal with any conventional threat (from which there are few) or properly defined objective, but seems unprepared for country occupation/building mission (and with good reason, the Army as a foreign policy tool is not wise).
powertower 13y ago
At first, as the movie started and one of the US troops was trying to teach those Afghan troops not to shit, eat, and clean themselves in the same spot, gauging by the response of the Afghan in-charge, I figured it was a pointless and insulting thing to do... Than as I watched more of the movie, I realized that more than likely that Afghan group was doing exactly that - and there was probably some type of hazard going among them. I'm about 30 minutes into the movie, and I really can't make sense of the buffoonery and self-destructive behavior displayed by the Afghan side. Is a product of nature, culture, situation ... what is it? Though what I can make sense of, is why historically the only successful means of controlling and stabilizing that region of the world was -> strong-rule <- (like the Taliban's). Because it must of cut right through all that bullshit. I'm not sure how the US troops must put up with all the crap.
- cup 13y ago
  Its the product of growing up in a destabalized war torn country. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to fight a proxy war with America. Most of the Afghan population since has had to etch our some kind of post-war anarhic life. Is it no surprise that you think their lifestyles/societies are backwards when you write your comments from a first world country that hasnt seen occupation and invasion in however many years (assuming you're from a western country that is).
6d0debc071 13y ago
So, notes? - Lots of people doing effectively nothing. - Low morale. - Ad-hoc training of Afghan army/police. - Lack of national identity. - Poor mobility. - Lack of intelligence. - Communication problems. - No clear strategic objectives or clear plans to achieve desired processes
shn 13y ago
This is what winning looks like: From this... http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-pop... to this... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-opium-production-increases-for-3rd-year.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-opi...
bane 13y ago
One of the major problems that occupying forces have had in Afghanistan is that modern military strategy fundamentally isn't designed for taking and holding ground. Outside of the bases in Afghanistan, there is not one square meter of ground that is "owned" by the coalition. The approach seems to be that transient patrols, haphazardly driving around and visiting villages in giant bomb proof robot trucks, is a substitute for thousands of years old strategies of taking, holding and controlling territory. There's no front lines in the kind of conflict because that's how the new strategy has defined the conflict. The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War. After that it was endless insurgencies or hit-win-withdraw like in the first Iraq war. This is opposed to the Taliban which can comfortably move into a village and live there 24/7, becoming "the villagers" as much as anybody who was there before. A robot truck driving up and asking "where are the non-villagers, where are the bad guys?" will get no answer because everybody is a villager, and the guy making bombs in the afternoons is a village elder the rest of the day. There are no bad guys. Afghanistan isn't a failed state, it's an anti-state, its borders are a reflection of the borders of its neighbors -- extending only so far as they cared to and stopping when the terrain became too difficult to bother. Within this zone are several city-states and otherwise large stretches of lawless territory connected, but not held together, by a network of smugglers and local warlords. The coalition controls none of it save for perhaps the city-state of Kabul. Of course the ability to take and control territory means lots and lots of manpower, which runs contrary to modern military thinking. This forces military leadership into a state of sustained denial that this or that alternate approach will be the one that opens up the opportunity for Afghanistan to develop into a real state. They're flummoxed that it isn't happening. But there's sadly only one proven way to accomplish this goal, take, hold and control territory. Put in place a carefully controlled puppet dictator or similar for a couple decades, one who will build up strong institutions of government and industry. Then once these things are in place, kill him or his dynastic line off (or have a quiet democratic revolution) and have the people assume ownership of these institutions and industries. Sure if the timing of these things is off it fucks up and we end up with Iran. But if the timing is good we end up with South Korea.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  There is no way how you can "take and hold ground" with tens of thousands of troops in a place populated with tens of millions. Proper occupation can be and has been done many times in history, but it takes a force at least somewhat proportional to the population; which the west doesn't really want to afford.
tibbon 13y ago
I've never been in the military, so I'm sure there is a great deal that I don't understand- or worse, think I understand when I've got it backwards. When I watch something like this, I'm absolutely blown away by how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers. Yet, how many years did it take for us to try to train troops in Iraq, and it sounds like they still just unloaded entire clips whenever they saw a rabbit in the desert. When these countries turn over top leadership (Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt, etc) it feels that they completely lose all historical training/ability for the military and go back to square one. Complete anarchy. It sounds like a huge percentage of their people defect seemingly randomly. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't feel like this happens (generally) in European countries when there is a massive leadership change. A post WW1 Germany was able to keep enough military knowledge/discipline together to be a seriously powerful force by WW2- and that certainly didn't have external forces in there trying their hardest to give them all the help possible. Post Russian Revolution USSR was quite a force to be reckoned with as well. Why is it so damn hard to set up decent military training? Seems like a process we should understand by now, since we've put millions of young people through it. We (americans) initially setup West Point in the middle of a revolution and have been running it since (although it wasn't the United States Military Academy until 1802). I'm absolutely certain it isn't because westerners are smarter, better, etc (we aren't)... but there is something seriously weird over there at the same time (malnutrition, lack of basic formal education system, cultural differences, too many generations of instability (maybe one generation works ok, but 3 breaks things seriously))
- jilebedev 13y ago
  >how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers A country's military is a reflection of and limited by the society that spawns it. The USA can keep disciplined and ethical soldiers because it has never suffered civil unrest, never been invaded, enjoys prosperity, freedom, public law and justice. No such thing can be said of Afghanistan or Iraq. Moreover - the "10 weeks of BCT" is not "just" "10 weeks of BCT". There is a logistics and supply train several tho-- million pages long that creates those "just" 10 weeks. Consider the fact that humans are recruited. Recruiters need to be trained, fed, paid, and have offices. That costs money. Afghanistan has no money. Consider the fact that young men need to be transported from and to BCT: this requires roads free of IEDs, requires fuel for trucks, favourable economic conditions to produce or import buses. Consider the fact that a certain percentage of all military trainees quit before completing that training. This is accounted for and expected: there are 300 million humans in the USA and this is acceptable losses. Consider the fact that abiding by the laws of a nation and strict adherence to authority is something these "17/18" year olds have done for two decades by the time their military training is over. It is ingrained into their psyche to follow the law from the earliest age, in the most gentle of methods: by the witnessing of safety and prosperity of Americans abiding by the law. Consider an Afghani youth: what is ignrained into them is an invsion by Russia and now invasion by America. How confident in justice do you think they are? How inclined are they to respect authority? How confortable are they submitting to a national government? A country's military is fundamentally a reflection of the society it spawns. Afghanistan is a failed state in every respect, for the last several decades, and as such it cannot muster a professional military despite the efforts of the US-led coalition.
joering2 13y ago
Just so we are clear on one thing: the last war that US took a part of that was a war fought in the name of freedom was War War 2 that ended in 1945. Every single War after that date had nothing to do with Americans living on American soil being free, safe, or whatever. You had to have your brain removed to believe that invading Iraq or Afghanistan (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent, as a by-result of every military conflict) was necessary, because otherwise those nations and their people will come here and violate the US soil. Both Iraq and Afghan war were carefully crafted by Military Industrial Complex from day one (first step: create problem, like in Iraq WMD's that were never found {glad there are some countries like Switzerland where they still prosecuted war criminals [1]}, step two: offer solution: offer piece by using force, step three: execute - by spending trillions of tax dollars), so you should understand war is nothing more than good business. Bloody but good. Stalin said one person killed that's a murder, millions is only a statistics, and that's how I believe those pulling strings can sleep at night. Oh by the way: as you remember those WMDs were never found (but sure they existed, okay?), but rest assured they moved them somewhere around, conveniently. Never mind 100,000 civilians dead (or some surveys shows 600k, or .. 1 million! [2]). I have a respect for american soldiers, but I wish they were more educated on what they are really doing. They are NOT protecting american soil or fighting for their own country. Those are gone long time ago, as Chief in Command (President of the USA) is carefully following NATO orders, and US becomes a part of North American Union. Their action, whether successful or not, have nothing to do with us here being safe on american soil. Had they been educated they are just a tool in hands of few with access to the highest standing politicians that grab more tax money and give it into hands of Military Industrial Complex, they would have stopped participating in the war, knowing the real name of the game, like fighting for oil in Iraq. Just some of my thoughts on this Memorial Day. [1] http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-you-know-that-bush-cant-travel-to-switzerland-without-facing-charges-will-obama-have-same-fate/ http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-you-k... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
- curiousDog 13y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out! For a second there I couldn't understand how the American population is turning a blind eye to such a pointless war. Also the new Start trek movie is oddly reminiscent to this. Although the taliban/iraq aren't nearly as powerful as the Klingons.
genwin 13y ago
Search for: A new law signed by President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan requires Shiite women to ask their husband's permission before leaving the home and forces them to have sexual intercourse. ... Human rights activists say the new law grants even fewer rights to women than when the Islamist Taliban held sway.
gwgarry 13y ago
It was a stupid idea and a waste of time.
hooande 13y ago
The taliban operates like the mafia in Afghanistan. They go from provincial village to village, effectively saying "Hey, nice village you have here...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it" They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter. In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen. The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts. The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business. The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most lucrative parts of the government. It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them. But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may have helped the situation.
- btilly 13y ago
  It is worse than that. The fundamental problem with the government is that in the name of expediency we put people who hated the Taliban in charge and called it a democracy. Then when they maintained their power by openly stealing elections, we didn't call their bluff because we were trying to pretend that they are an independent country. The example that everyone sees is corruption starting at the top, and flowing all of the way down. Now we're trying to declare victory and leave. But the existing kleptocracy can't stand. Everyone knows it. We just don't want to keep dying for no purpose. And the kleptocracy is only seeking to steal as much as they can before they lose power.
gmays 13y ago
First off, I didn't watch the whole thing, I got sick of it. So, my comments aren't necessarily about the documentary, but to provide some perspective. The below are notes I took while reading in no particular order, so the argument is a bit disjointed. I spent a year as an embedded advisor in Afghanistan and just returned last month. Prior to that I was in Iraq for a year as an advisor in 2009. Despite my feelings for the documentary, I commend the crew for the work they did. They did the best they could to report what they saw. However, they let preconceived notions and a minute slice of experience significantly influence their perspective. This is inevitable to some extent, but incredibly dangerous in this case. When it happens with a small news story, not such a big deal. But 99.9% of the population has no experience or knowledge on Afghanistan so their opinions and everything they know is based on what they read (yeah right) and what they watch (the preponderance). This gives those who report on Afghanistan great power, but also great responsibility. We can only hope those who consume this swill are more than sheep. -There are ANP units of all levels of competency. The one we were with was stellar. Sure, others we worked with left much to be desired, but it wasn’t the norm. At times units farther away from the 'flagpole' have less supervision and fewer resources. They resort to what they're used to and what they need to do to survive, which is expected. Lord of the flies anyone? People tend to act that way in such environments, even in the US. -The documentary was disappointing because it sought to show the Afghans in a bad light. It was unbalanced and failed to explain some of the cultural reasons behind some of the examples. Their culture is fundamentally different from ours and they do the best they can to survive in that environment. Service members are there for between 7-12 months, it's a sprint for us. They’ve been there and will be there for the long haul. In their past, how many nations have come and gone? What does such turmoil do to a culture, a nation, and its people? -There is a significant focus on drug use, which is somewhat missing the point. How prevalent is drug use in the United States? If the US had the history of Afghanistan with a fledgling government and security forces, would it be any different? Our culture sees drug use differently than theirs. Our alcohol is their weed. Should a professional force be under the effects of substances while on duty? No, but let’s talk more about why things are the way they are. As the force professionalizes, these things will improve. -Sangin, the region in most of the filming, is one of the worst parts of Afghanistan. What if we made a documentary about the worst parts of the US? The ghettos and slums, homeless, murders, drug use, etc. and named it “This is what America looks like.” The US documentaries on these issues pale in comparison to all of the positive coverage. All we see about Afghanistan are the shitty things. Not the progress, not the new schools or education, not the hard working people. When we do, it’s drowned out by the bad stuff. -The same goes for corruption. We can't help but see corruption through our Western lens, but it's seen differently in Afghanistan. Think about how an Afghan documentary would talk about US alcohol consumption, fashion, sex, and other aspects of our culture? It'd probably sound quite similar. It’s almost impossible to think of it differently because we’ve had the luxury of structure, strong government, order, etc. in the land of plenty. -I'm not an expert in Afghanistan, but the perspective in this documentary is unfair. Sure, some advisor teams were embedded with subpar units lead by completely corrupt, uninvolved commanders but this is not a representation of units or the government as a whole. -Why does this documentary point out every wrong thing the Afghans do in the course of their day? What about the good things? I'm sure if I held a camera on any of us all day it'd be easy to pick us apart. It's an easy thing to do when you haven’t been the one struggling. -During the year our Afghans made significant progress. They wanted to get better and they did. Now they have their own sustainable training programs and they're getting better all the time. Are they perfect? No. Do they still make mistakes? Yes. -What was this documentary actually trying to achieve? The reporter is from the UK, what about the UK's history in Afghanistan. Let's talk about their losses in Afghanistan and the general sentiment towards Afghans. After spending some time at the MOB in Lashkar Gah, it's quite disappointing to see how Afghans (even our interpreters) are treated at times by British military personnel. Let's get a crew and film that. Are the UK forces bad? Not at all, they’re great, they’re our brothers and we rely heavily on each other. But if you’re filming 24/7 it’s easy to point out every time someone stumbles, because we all do it. At the very least, acknowledge your biases as a source of news. -This documentary is one-sided. The unfortunate thing is that most people look for things that validate their existing arguments. I can only imagine the countless people nodding their heads watching the documentary who can't even find Afghanistan on a map and who've learned everything they know about Afghanistan through the news or shit documentaries like this. I’m not an expert on Afghanistan and I am speaking from my experiences with multiple Afghan units from all pillars. In my time there I worked with units in Helmand and Nimroz provinces and spent some time in Kabul. Is Afghanistan doomed? I don’t know. But I do know that encouraging negative sentiment based on minimal experience doesn’t help and it’s a betrayal of the trust people put in those who deliver their news. It’s also a disservice to every service member who’s spent time or gave their lives to make it work. We all do the best we can, but our ‘best’ correlates with what’s on the line. When you’re responsible for shaping opinions on significant issues like this, you need to do a better job of being balanced. Maybe I’m off here because I never watch the news and maybe this is the norm, but it’s disappointing nonetheless. For more context on the Afghan people see this my post in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5557881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5557881 It's about interpreters in Afghanistan. Most of our interpreters were local Afghans. Some used to be (or easily could have been) Afghan police or Army. The Afghans are a great people who were just dealt a shitty hand.
bradfordarner 13y ago
This reminds me so much of being over there. This documentary does such a great job of showing the utter confusion and screwed up nature of fighting counter-insurgencies. Every day is like choosing between different types of cancer. There is no 'winning' only seemingly less lethal varieties of the same disease. To make it worse, you are choosing which cancer to support through an intermediary, the interpreter. After a short time there you realize how much of a gap the language barrier is and how debilitating it is to not be able to build genuine relationships with your interlocuteur because you have to wait for the interpretation. There is no 'solution' to Afghanistan and there is no 'winning'. People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went. Afghanistan is still the jungle and the strongest wins. That isn't going to change from one day to the next. At this point, warfare is all that they know. They've been at it for over 30 years. Unfortunately, you walk away thinking that the only solution is to be the strongest.
- wnight 13y ago
  > People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went. Had we gone into Afghanistan in the 90s when various groups of locals were asking us to we might have fought about as much, in the end, but we'd have been there at the request of the people, actually building relationships, instead of continually rebuilding a failed-by-design state for some bullshit 9/11 excuse. Bin Laden might still have happened because he wasn't depending on Afghanistan, or he might not have, because the allies could have had a better (good) reputation in the area negating much of the terrorist fervor. But, I (one who criticizes our soldiers for war crimes) do recognize that we often, ultimately, bring some good to the survivors - hospitals, clean water, etc, and often stop many ongoing killings and other horrible practices. But never for the reasons we say we're there and only in doing things that perpetuate the cycle of war such as setting up dictators and selling critical resources and infrastructure. Even if in their specific case any given soldier may save more lives than they cost, our war overall and our continued ability to wage it via the complicity of our soldiers, will cost far more lives in the end. Refusing to fight for an unjust cause, or hurt without need, is a duty of all soldiers of modern civilized militaries. Sure, it realistically means jail for those who refuse - but it means death for their victims if they don't. Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly not justified by 9/11 or implicated by any related evidence. By fighting for the USA and allies despite these lies, without the mandate of the people, soldiers are essentially pissing on the rule of law. We're showing - through action not words - that no matter what they do we'll just make shit up and bomb them. Why do we expect them to expect anything else? If our governments couldn't field the army unjustly, our peacekeeping might not only be welcome but might finally work.
crusso 13y ago
"Try to find a police chief who doesn't fuck young boys." Ouch.

254 points by yk 13y ago

dfc 13y ago

If you liked this video you might also like: * Armadillo[1] a documentary about a group of Danish soldiers deployed to Helmland. Armadillo is right up there with Restrepo in my opinion. * The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan[2] if you are curious about the bacha bazi boys. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_%28film%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_%28film%29 [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/

rdl 13y ago
Restrepo is also pretty amazing in its own right. My absolute favorite work about the whole war in Afghanistan is First In (http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-Afghanistan/dp/0345496612 http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-Afg...) which is how the entire war should have been fought: A CIA man, a couple ODAs (~20 US Army Special Forces soldiers), an old ex-Soviet helicopter, and $30mm in $100 bills, and victory in 2 months. I sent a copy to weev in prison, will be interesting to see what he thinks :)
- Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
  That's kind of you, but horribly naive. Being validated by prison staff as an associate of a prison gang or being in possession of questionable reading material can land an inmate in the SHU for an indefinite amount of time. The UN says more than 15 days in solitary confinement is considered torture. SHU prisoners at Pelican Bay spend an average of 7.5 years there. In 2005 (last released statistics) there were over 80,000 inmates held in solitary confinement in the US. This inhumane treatment is a clear violation of the 8th amendment and must be changed. http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary-in-iran-nearly-broke-me-why-americas-prisons-are-worse/ http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary... Wise up a little bit, the USG doesn't play nice, and weev has already been subject to "special attention" due to not grokking the simple fact that he is totally powerless in the system now. The More You Know.
  - dfc 13y ago
    How is this questionable reading material? The book got through the CIA's publication review board and there was no funny business like there was with Operation Dark Heart. Today is the only day of the year that I watch sports (Go Cuse!) so I'm going to try my hardest to ignore that giant leap from >15 days in solitary is torture to everyone in solitary is being treated inhumanely.
    - Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
      It is questionable reading material based on the evaluation of the Prison authorities in his prison, not any other authority. If you cannot fathom how a book on CIA + Afghanistan + Black OPs could be twisted into "reading up on terrorism" you're incredibly naive, or know nothing about the types of books that have lead to solitary confinement in the US prison system. The latter is obviously the case: I'd urge you to do a little research some time into how the rule is abused. Biographies of Malcom X getting you in solitary, that sort of thing... As for "giant leap", I'd suggest: Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement by Stuart Grassian (25 yrs Harvard Medical school) for a quick over-sight into the issues. Journal of Law & Policy PDF: http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf Solitary confinement is one of the leading punishments that is currently used in the US Prison System. Weev has already made himself a "little unpopular" in his stay (less than 3 months: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/weev-soundcloud_n_3093315.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/weev-soundcloud_n_3...) and is on the fast track to learning the hard way. He has ~36 months remaining, less if he behaves and doesn't "troll them". Asking publicly about their financial data is not cute and not smart and will not go unnoticed. Enjoy your sports. Perhaps you should stick with the TeeVee, I was merely suggesting that people think before engaging with a totally foreign (to them) mindset, that of the authoritarian US penal system. Or, at the very least, do the barest minimum of Due Diligence. Do the research; you might get shock & awed out of your bubble. Lions, Tigers and Bears.
      - dfc 13y ago
        I have some experience with cases of excessive force and I am fully aware of the level of discretion that the court affords to the professional judgement of corrections officers (admittedly restricted to NYCRR). I certainly am not under the impression that the metal bars delineate the good people from the bad people. My "TeeVee" time is long over and I have done a little research into how how reading a book can land one in solitary. I have not been able to find anything concrete. Most of the things that I have found are consistent with my experience with the NYCRR and everything that I have found is consistent with the Furnace case[1] from California (the most notable and recent case). From everything that I have read I have not been able to find any instances of solitary confinement solely due to reading a book. And certainly no instances of solitary confinement for reading a mass market book that is currently #19 in its category on amazon that the prisoner received via mail and therefore screened (where assessment is based on the individual receiving the book). Could you point me to some source material? Side Note: Why so passive aggressive with me or the parent comment? [1] In re Furnace (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 649
- dfc 13y ago
  Restrepo was already at the top of my lists with the book, photo book and movie, but after Hetherington died it has ascended to a special place all its own. I liked First In, but I also read Jawbreaker and I have trouble separating the two in my mind. I don't remember the order that I read them in but even as I was reading the second book I was often unsure if I was rereading the first book or reading the second. The experience was not that unlike reading any of the Robert's Ridge books. There is a report from the Army War College that I have been meaning to read but I have lost the citation. If you like reading about A-Teams the non fiction "Lions of Kandahar" was an exciting read. But my favorite book on the subject is a work of fiction: The Degüello. If you have not read it I highly recommend it. As far as winning the war goes we could not win the AfPak war by only winning in Afghanistan. No amount of effort is going to keep my lawn weed free as long as my neighbor's lawn is a forest of dandelions.
  - rdl 13y ago
    My biggest problem with how we fought in Afghanistan was not allowing Army SF to do their doctrinal mission. I believe in the traditional SF model (mentoring indigenous forces for FID) more than the JSOC model (direct action, technical intelligence, big dollars). Indeed, Jawbreaker and First In were pretty similar (and Jawbreaker essentially covered time before and after First In, too). I haven't read LoK yet, it's on my list. Also never even heard of The Deguello; added, thanks. The TF Dagger book sucks, though.
subsystem 13y ago
Restrepo nor Armadillo really stuck with me. I'll admit I've seen way too many of these kinds of documentaries, even to the point of not being able to tell them apart. The PBS ones are quite good. Two that stands out of the top of my head is Blood and Dust and Bulletproof Salesman, the later being mostly about Iraq. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/09/2011915105947578551.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/09/2... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186201/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186201/
- dfc 13y ago
  I think the nature of PBS's regulatory environment makes it tough for them to "tell a true war story," to borrow Wolf's words. This was even apparent in their re-airing of Armadillo, the version that was broadcast on the same channel as Sesame Street was different than the bluray/dvd version.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Err, someone emailed me about the "wolf reference." The reference was to The Things They Carried by Tim O'brien and not to a work by Tobias Wolff whose name I spelled incorrectly.
pstadler 13y ago
No End in Sight[1] is my favorite. A documentary about the Iraq occupation starting in 2003. It's a sad story - no room for heroes - as the iraqi people lost everything. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/
- dfc 13y ago
  This thread is about afghanistan.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    There is a parallel however - the invaders leaving a disintegrating country as they give up on it. Iraq and Afghanistan are very different but do have things in common.
    - rdl 13y ago
      The thing most in common is how the US treated Afghanistan in 2009-2012 the way it treated Iraq in 2007-2009 (and got pwned as a result)

jmadsen 13y ago

Vice is nothing but quality. Wish more people were aware of them, and the really wide variety of excellent documentaries they produce

twentysix 13y ago
Not all of them. Watch this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYglCDgpu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYglCDgpu0 It might just change your mind.
- skore 13y ago
  I voiced my criticism of Vices QC in another post, but I actually enjoyed that particular documentary. I can appreciate Hamilton as pure oddball fun (despite a vocal fry that can make heads explode). What's actually problematic are things like this[0]. Not to mention the sometimes-ok, most-times-(well, the few times I checked to be sure)-god-awful "oh look at us rascal cooks being all alternative, cool and hip with our outlandish exploits" Munchies. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmk3kSvxBEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmk3kSvxBEQ
rdl 13y ago
They had a video team at the Bitcoin conference; talked to the producer and expressed how amazed I am at their consistently high quality. Usually when I see news about something I know a lot about (say, the Jalalabad region weapons manufacturers, or the PI underground arms people), I'm full of wtf. But everything I've seen from Vice to date has been "oh, yes, that's exactly how it is" or "I wish I could have gone over there and seen that".
skore 13y ago
> Vice is nothing but quality. I agree that they have lots and lots of quality stuff, but they also have a quality control problem for good parts of their portfolio. The great ones offset the bad ones by leaps and bounds, for sure. But for every documentary like this one, there seem to be a couple hipsterish driveltaries that I close after a few minutes. Sure, I suppose you cannot break new ground without landing some misses and sure, it's not like everything has to be mindblowing and perfect or even deeply valuable. But some of these misses make me wonder how anybody ever thought they were a good idea in the first place. I think Vice has an aversion to "self censor", trying to get as much stuff out there as they can simply for the heck of it and as a means to retain credibility - and I applaud them for that. But it's not as black and white and doesn't help when your expectation of quality gets rather deeply disappointed at times. It's a form of brand dilution that might become a problem in the future.

morganwilde 13y ago

This is unbelievable... I mean what can be done when everyone is just high as f and just basically trippin all day. Afganistan is OK with how things are now, it seems, so I guess the only relevant take away from this, just leave the country ASAP with as few expenditures and casualties as possible.

rdl 13y ago
I'd also make sure the Afghans who helped us get out (which is part of the pending comprehensive immigration bill), and that any Afghans who are actually sane are considered fairly for education/refugee status/etc. in the west. But really, Afghanistan itself is essentially doomed, and GTFO is the only way to go.

IsaacL 13y ago

Random theory I have (hopefully some HN-ers with actual military knowledge can weigh in): modern militaries need less technology and more manpower. It seems since I was a kid politicians have been saying that armed forces should become smaller and more high-tech. That means less bodies sent home in coffins and also more contracts for BAE Systems, so it's a popular message. That all works well (very well) when you're invading countries. Doesn't work so well when you decide you need to build a new country out of the ruins. Maybe we'd do better if instead of spending billions on flying robot assassins to fight tribal hill-farmers, we simply enlisted more humans to take command. The only other option I can see is to start running the American empire British-style - they ran very efficient colonies by exploiting existing tribal divisions, usually by recruiting some existing elite as their colonial administrators. Not trying to implement democracy in tribal regions that don't yet have stable institutions or the rule of law would probably also help.

skore 13y ago
> modern militaries need less technology and more manpower An interesting thought! One of the most interesting conclusions I drew from this documentary is that the Afghan Military needs both - more technology and more manpower. But the trouble, as shown, is that you need the intelligence to handle so much manpower, the social contracts to retain that manpower and the education to handle that technology. So what you're saying about the balance might be an interesting point for the US military might work for them, but it doesn't even start to help out with the Afghan forces. As for going "British-style" - I think that stuff simply doesn't work in the modern, connected world. British colonialism took advantage of isolation and division. Doesn't work so well if the country you invade is reasonably well connected globally.
- rdl 13y ago
  The US has a really bad track record of picking local partners. Mostly because during the Cold War, the "good" local people were more innately socialist, which the Communists exploited, so we got stuck with some pretty horrible people (either ineffective or outright evil) by default. I don't believe it's feasible to occupy a medium sized country which actively resists using modern militaries. It's certainly not worth it. I'd just focus on keeping a limited presence to rain death from above (like we do in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) or via limited JSOC strikes (Somalia, Afghanistan before 2007 or so, etc.), and then using armed but civilian organizations to interface with the populace and government. In a place like Somalia or Afghanistan, foreign organizations should run important infrastructure and logistics services for the local government and population, with the cost subsidized by international donors. i.e. a local Afghan should be able to buy electricity at 0.10/KwH, sell their pomegranates at the world price, and have clean water, Internet, cellphones, etc., without any other focus on building the government (since that's probably hopeless). The organization providing that infrastructure needs self-defense capability, but you don't need much beyond what Blackwater had to do this.

rickdale 13y ago

I always feel like no matter how well a journalist covers Afghanistan, its only a small slice of the pie, for everything that is going on over there. And that is not to discredit the journalists, they do a great job, there is just so much going on over there, you gotta pick and choose your stories. For me, one of the greatest tragedies in Afghanistan as a result from the US war is the drug addict problem over ther. I haven't studied the issue in a couple of years, but I remember looking at pictures and statistics of heroin addicts in Afghanistan. As the war destroyed their country citizens turned to drugs and so did leaders, but the latter did so for money. The citizens literally have nothing better to do. And thats not to say they weren't poppy farmers before the war, they were, the majority were just not heroin abusers. In 2008 I took a seminar about the Afghanistan War, premised on the question, is Afghanistan a failed state? In a room with 12 reasonably bright American students we all were able to point out terrific errors that were causing some big issues. I remember reading that 70-80 percent of the trained Afghani police force was just signed up to get a paycheck. They never showed up for duty or anything. I do a lot of thinking about Afghanistan, because the situation is unique, yet historically predictable. In my opinion, its hard for me and Americans maybe all westerners, to understand Afghanistan and the people there; and its just as difficult for the people in Afghanistan to understand our way of life, and how to assimilate to what we were setting up. At present count, 3 people from my high school class have died fighting in Afghanistan, and 5 counting the year ahead of me (0 of my college mates, point for another story..). And this is what counts for me. I like to think that because the situation is complex and can get confusing, the best way to gain an understanding is to study individual stories, stuff that usually gets hidden behind the larger scene. From the research I have done, the majority of Afghans want peace to the point where they would accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the continued war. Its confusing, but it just shows the war really needs to end.

rdl 13y ago
How did anyone argue "Afghanistan is not a failed state", other than the "it was never a state, so it didn't fail, it just never won" (although in the monarchy it was OK in certain parts, for about a decade).
- 13y ago

thelogos 13y ago

Does anyone else think it would be easier and less bloody to just get the Taliban addicted to heroine and subsidize their cost of living?

rdl 13y ago
The Taliban were actually pretty hardcore counter-narcotics in the late 1990s, with western support. They only partnered with the narcotics industry after 9/11 when fighting the US.
VLM 13y ago
I've heard this semi-seriously described as the "Turn Them Into Detroit" strategy, and arguably this is the long term strategy we've selected although in an unspoken manner. Follow the money. I'm talking long term as in over decades of occupation not long term as in next financial quarter. I've also seen the same argument in reverse, if we cut back on social service payments, as seems economically inevitable in the long term, our own inner cities will rapidly look much like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. So if you want to see a realistic projection of "Detroit 2030", just look at "Somalia 2013".

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Afghanistan: a graveyard of empires.

deevus 13y ago

Is there an easy way to download this video for later?

DanBC 13y ago
Legally? Not sure. Illegally, a search for [panorama mission accomplished] probably returns relevant results.
subsystem 13y ago
It's also available on youtube, just use something like youtube-dl.

venomsnake 13y ago

I think the problem is that the enemy changed the rules and the generals unlike the foot soldiers took a lot of time to understand it (if they even have). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-... There are no military objectives or territory worth holding for them. Their goal is to just inflict as much pain as possible on the US troops knowing that they can outlast them. The US has army that can deal with any conventional threat (from which there are few) or properly defined objective, but seems unprepared for country occupation/building mission (and with good reason, the Army as a foreign policy tool is not wise).

powertower 13y ago

At first, as the movie started and one of the US troops was trying to teach those Afghan troops not to shit, eat, and clean themselves in the same spot, gauging by the response of the Afghan in-charge, I figured it was a pointless and insulting thing to do... Than as I watched more of the movie, I realized that more than likely that Afghan group was doing exactly that - and there was probably some type of hazard going among them. I'm about 30 minutes into the movie, and I really can't make sense of the buffoonery and self-destructive behavior displayed by the Afghan side. Is a product of nature, culture, situation ... what is it? Though what I can make sense of, is why historically the only successful means of controlling and stabilizing that region of the world was -> strong-rule <- (like the Taliban's). Because it must of cut right through all that bullshit. I'm not sure how the US troops must put up with all the crap.

cup 13y ago
Its the product of growing up in a destabalized war torn country. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to fight a proxy war with America. Most of the Afghan population since has had to etch our some kind of post-war anarhic life. Is it no surprise that you think their lifestyles/societies are backwards when you write your comments from a first world country that hasnt seen occupation and invasion in however many years (assuming you're from a western country that is).

6d0debc071 13y ago

So, notes? - Lots of people doing effectively nothing. - Low morale. - Ad-hoc training of Afghan army/police. - Lack of national identity. - Poor mobility. - Lack of intelligence. - Communication problems. - No clear strategic objectives or clear plans to achieve desired processes

shn 13y ago

This is what winning looks like: From this... http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-pop... to this... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-opium-production-increases-for-3rd-year.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-opi...

bane 13y ago

One of the major problems that occupying forces have had in Afghanistan is that modern military strategy fundamentally isn't designed for taking and holding ground. Outside of the bases in Afghanistan, there is not one square meter of ground that is "owned" by the coalition. The approach seems to be that transient patrols, haphazardly driving around and visiting villages in giant bomb proof robot trucks, is a substitute for thousands of years old strategies of taking, holding and controlling territory. There's no front lines in the kind of conflict because that's how the new strategy has defined the conflict. The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War. After that it was endless insurgencies or hit-win-withdraw like in the first Iraq war. This is opposed to the Taliban which can comfortably move into a village and live there 24/7, becoming "the villagers" as much as anybody who was there before. A robot truck driving up and asking "where are the non-villagers, where are the bad guys?" will get no answer because everybody is a villager, and the guy making bombs in the afternoons is a village elder the rest of the day. There are no bad guys. Afghanistan isn't a failed state, it's an anti-state, its borders are a reflection of the borders of its neighbors -- extending only so far as they cared to and stopping when the terrain became too difficult to bother. Within this zone are several city-states and otherwise large stretches of lawless territory connected, but not held together, by a network of smugglers and local warlords. The coalition controls none of it save for perhaps the city-state of Kabul. Of course the ability to take and control territory means lots and lots of manpower, which runs contrary to modern military thinking. This forces military leadership into a state of sustained denial that this or that alternate approach will be the one that opens up the opportunity for Afghanistan to develop into a real state. They're flummoxed that it isn't happening. But there's sadly only one proven way to accomplish this goal, take, hold and control territory. Put in place a carefully controlled puppet dictator or similar for a couple decades, one who will build up strong institutions of government and industry. Then once these things are in place, kill him or his dynastic line off (or have a quiet democratic revolution) and have the people assume ownership of these institutions and industries. Sure if the timing of these things is off it fucks up and we end up with Iran. But if the timing is good we end up with South Korea.

PeterisP 13y ago
There is no way how you can "take and hold ground" with tens of thousands of troops in a place populated with tens of millions. Proper occupation can be and has been done many times in history, but it takes a force at least somewhat proportional to the population; which the west doesn't really want to afford.

tibbon 13y ago

I've never been in the military, so I'm sure there is a great deal that I don't understand- or worse, think I understand when I've got it backwards. When I watch something like this, I'm absolutely blown away by how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers. Yet, how many years did it take for us to try to train troops in Iraq, and it sounds like they still just unloaded entire clips whenever they saw a rabbit in the desert. When these countries turn over top leadership (Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt, etc) it feels that they completely lose all historical training/ability for the military and go back to square one. Complete anarchy. It sounds like a huge percentage of their people defect seemingly randomly. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't feel like this happens (generally) in European countries when there is a massive leadership change. A post WW1 Germany was able to keep enough military knowledge/discipline together to be a seriously powerful force by WW2- and that certainly didn't have external forces in there trying their hardest to give them all the help possible. Post Russian Revolution USSR was quite a force to be reckoned with as well. Why is it so damn hard to set up decent military training? Seems like a process we should understand by now, since we've put millions of young people through it. We (americans) initially setup West Point in the middle of a revolution and have been running it since (although it wasn't the United States Military Academy until 1802). I'm absolutely certain it isn't because westerners are smarter, better, etc (we aren't)... but there is something seriously weird over there at the same time (malnutrition, lack of basic formal education system, cultural differences, too many generations of instability (maybe one generation works ok, but 3 breaks things seriously))

jilebedev 13y ago
>how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers A country's military is a reflection of and limited by the society that spawns it. The USA can keep disciplined and ethical soldiers because it has never suffered civil unrest, never been invaded, enjoys prosperity, freedom, public law and justice. No such thing can be said of Afghanistan or Iraq. Moreover - the "10 weeks of BCT" is not "just" "10 weeks of BCT". There is a logistics and supply train several tho-- million pages long that creates those "just" 10 weeks. Consider the fact that humans are recruited. Recruiters need to be trained, fed, paid, and have offices. That costs money. Afghanistan has no money. Consider the fact that young men need to be transported from and to BCT: this requires roads free of IEDs, requires fuel for trucks, favourable economic conditions to produce or import buses. Consider the fact that a certain percentage of all military trainees quit before completing that training. This is accounted for and expected: there are 300 million humans in the USA and this is acceptable losses. Consider the fact that abiding by the laws of a nation and strict adherence to authority is something these "17/18" year olds have done for two decades by the time their military training is over. It is ingrained into their psyche to follow the law from the earliest age, in the most gentle of methods: by the witnessing of safety and prosperity of Americans abiding by the law. Consider an Afghani youth: what is ignrained into them is an invsion by Russia and now invasion by America. How confident in justice do you think they are? How inclined are they to respect authority? How confortable are they submitting to a national government? A country's military is fundamentally a reflection of the society it spawns. Afghanistan is a failed state in every respect, for the last several decades, and as such it cannot muster a professional military despite the efforts of the US-led coalition.

joering2 13y ago

Just so we are clear on one thing: the last war that US took a part of that was a war fought in the name of freedom was War War 2 that ended in 1945. Every single War after that date had nothing to do with Americans living on American soil being free, safe, or whatever. You had to have your brain removed to believe that invading Iraq or Afghanistan (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent, as a by-result of every military conflict) was necessary, because otherwise those nations and their people will come here and violate the US soil. Both Iraq and Afghan war were carefully crafted by Military Industrial Complex from day one (first step: create problem, like in Iraq WMD's that were never found {glad there are some countries like Switzerland where they still prosecuted war criminals [1]}, step two: offer solution: offer piece by using force, step three: execute - by spending trillions of tax dollars), so you should understand war is nothing more than good business. Bloody but good. Stalin said one person killed that's a murder, millions is only a statistics, and that's how I believe those pulling strings can sleep at night. Oh by the way: as you remember those WMDs were never found (but sure they existed, okay?), but rest assured they moved them somewhere around, conveniently. Never mind 100,000 civilians dead (or some surveys shows 600k, or .. 1 million! [2]). I have a respect for american soldiers, but I wish they were more educated on what they are really doing. They are NOT protecting american soil or fighting for their own country. Those are gone long time ago, as Chief in Command (President of the USA) is carefully following NATO orders, and US becomes a part of North American Union. Their action, whether successful or not, have nothing to do with us here being safe on american soil. Had they been educated they are just a tool in hands of few with access to the highest standing politicians that grab more tax money and give it into hands of Military Industrial Complex, they would have stopped participating in the war, knowing the real name of the game, like fighting for oil in Iraq. Just some of my thoughts on this Memorial Day. [1] http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-you-know-that-bush-cant-travel-to-switzerland-without-facing-charges-will-obama-have-same-fate/ http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-you-k... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

curiousDog 13y ago
Thank you for pointing this out! For a second there I couldn't understand how the American population is turning a blind eye to such a pointless war. Also the new Start trek movie is oddly reminiscent to this. Although the taliban/iraq aren't nearly as powerful as the Klingons.

genwin 13y ago

Search for: A new law signed by President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan requires Shiite women to ask their husband's permission before leaving the home and forces them to have sexual intercourse. ... Human rights activists say the new law grants even fewer rights to women than when the Islamist Taliban held sway.

gwgarry 13y ago

It was a stupid idea and a waste of time.

hooande 13y ago

The taliban operates like the mafia in Afghanistan. They go from provincial village to village, effectively saying "Hey, nice village you have here...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it" They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter. In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen. The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts. The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business. The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most lucrative parts of the government. It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them. But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may have helped the situation.

btilly 13y ago
It is worse than that. The fundamental problem with the government is that in the name of expediency we put people who hated the Taliban in charge and called it a democracy. Then when they maintained their power by openly stealing elections, we didn't call their bluff because we were trying to pretend that they are an independent country. The example that everyone sees is corruption starting at the top, and flowing all of the way down. Now we're trying to declare victory and leave. But the existing kleptocracy can't stand. Everyone knows it. We just don't want to keep dying for no purpose. And the kleptocracy is only seeking to steal as much as they can before they lose power.

gmays 13y ago

First off, I didn't watch the whole thing, I got sick of it. So, my comments aren't necessarily about the documentary, but to provide some perspective. The below are notes I took while reading in no particular order, so the argument is a bit disjointed. I spent a year as an embedded advisor in Afghanistan and just returned last month. Prior to that I was in Iraq for a year as an advisor in 2009. Despite my feelings for the documentary, I commend the crew for the work they did. They did the best they could to report what they saw. However, they let preconceived notions and a minute slice of experience significantly influence their perspective. This is inevitable to some extent, but incredibly dangerous in this case. When it happens with a small news story, not such a big deal. But 99.9% of the population has no experience or knowledge on Afghanistan so their opinions and everything they know is based on what they read (yeah right) and what they watch (the preponderance). This gives those who report on Afghanistan great power, but also great responsibility. We can only hope those who consume this swill are more than sheep. -There are ANP units of all levels of competency. The one we were with was stellar. Sure, others we worked with left much to be desired, but it wasn’t the norm. At times units farther away from the 'flagpole' have less supervision and fewer resources. They resort to what they're used to and what they need to do to survive, which is expected. Lord of the flies anyone? People tend to act that way in such environments, even in the US. -The documentary was disappointing because it sought to show the Afghans in a bad light. It was unbalanced and failed to explain some of the cultural reasons behind some of the examples. Their culture is fundamentally different from ours and they do the best they can to survive in that environment. Service members are there for between 7-12 months, it's a sprint for us. They’ve been there and will be there for the long haul. In their past, how many nations have come and gone? What does such turmoil do to a culture, a nation, and its people? -There is a significant focus on drug use, which is somewhat missing the point. How prevalent is drug use in the United States? If the US had the history of Afghanistan with a fledgling government and security forces, would it be any different? Our culture sees drug use differently than theirs. Our alcohol is their weed. Should a professional force be under the effects of substances while on duty? No, but let’s talk more about why things are the way they are. As the force professionalizes, these things will improve. -Sangin, the region in most of the filming, is one of the worst parts of Afghanistan. What if we made a documentary about the worst parts of the US? The ghettos and slums, homeless, murders, drug use, etc. and named it “This is what America looks like.” The US documentaries on these issues pale in comparison to all of the positive coverage. All we see about Afghanistan are the shitty things. Not the progress, not the new schools or education, not the hard working people. When we do, it’s drowned out by the bad stuff. -The same goes for corruption. We can't help but see corruption through our Western lens, but it's seen differently in Afghanistan. Think about how an Afghan documentary would talk about US alcohol consumption, fashion, sex, and other aspects of our culture? It'd probably sound quite similar. It’s almost impossible to think of it differently because we’ve had the luxury of structure, strong government, order, etc. in the land of plenty. -I'm not an expert in Afghanistan, but the perspective in this documentary is unfair. Sure, some advisor teams were embedded with subpar units lead by completely corrupt, uninvolved commanders but this is not a representation of units or the government as a whole. -Why does this documentary point out every wrong thing the Afghans do in the course of their day? What about the good things? I'm sure if I held a camera on any of us all day it'd be easy to pick us apart. It's an easy thing to do when you haven’t been the one struggling. -During the year our Afghans made significant progress. They wanted to get better and they did. Now they have their own sustainable training programs and they're getting better all the time. Are they perfect? No. Do they still make mistakes? Yes. -What was this documentary actually trying to achieve? The reporter is from the UK, what about the UK's history in Afghanistan. Let's talk about their losses in Afghanistan and the general sentiment towards Afghans. After spending some time at the MOB in Lashkar Gah, it's quite disappointing to see how Afghans (even our interpreters) are treated at times by British military personnel. Let's get a crew and film that. Are the UK forces bad? Not at all, they’re great, they’re our brothers and we rely heavily on each other. But if you’re filming 24/7 it’s easy to point out every time someone stumbles, because we all do it. At the very least, acknowledge your biases as a source of news. -This documentary is one-sided. The unfortunate thing is that most people look for things that validate their existing arguments. I can only imagine the countless people nodding their heads watching the documentary who can't even find Afghanistan on a map and who've learned everything they know about Afghanistan through the news or shit documentaries like this. I’m not an expert on Afghanistan and I am speaking from my experiences with multiple Afghan units from all pillars. In my time there I worked with units in Helmand and Nimroz provinces and spent some time in Kabul. Is Afghanistan doomed? I don’t know. But I do know that encouraging negative sentiment based on minimal experience doesn’t help and it’s a betrayal of the trust people put in those who deliver their news. It’s also a disservice to every service member who’s spent time or gave their lives to make it work. We all do the best we can, but our ‘best’ correlates with what’s on the line. When you’re responsible for shaping opinions on significant issues like this, you need to do a better job of being balanced. Maybe I’m off here because I never watch the news and maybe this is the norm, but it’s disappointing nonetheless. For more context on the Afghan people see this my post in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5557881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5557881 It's about interpreters in Afghanistan. Most of our interpreters were local Afghans. Some used to be (or easily could have been) Afghan police or Army. The Afghans are a great people who were just dealt a shitty hand.

bradfordarner 13y ago

This reminds me so much of being over there. This documentary does such a great job of showing the utter confusion and screwed up nature of fighting counter-insurgencies. Every day is like choosing between different types of cancer. There is no 'winning' only seemingly less lethal varieties of the same disease. To make it worse, you are choosing which cancer to support through an intermediary, the interpreter. After a short time there you realize how much of a gap the language barrier is and how debilitating it is to not be able to build genuine relationships with your interlocuteur because you have to wait for the interpretation. There is no 'solution' to Afghanistan and there is no 'winning'. People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went. Afghanistan is still the jungle and the strongest wins. That isn't going to change from one day to the next. At this point, warfare is all that they know. They've been at it for over 30 years. Unfortunately, you walk away thinking that the only solution is to be the strongest.

wnight 13y ago
> People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went. Had we gone into Afghanistan in the 90s when various groups of locals were asking us to we might have fought about as much, in the end, but we'd have been there at the request of the people, actually building relationships, instead of continually rebuilding a failed-by-design state for some bullshit 9/11 excuse. Bin Laden might still have happened because he wasn't depending on Afghanistan, or he might not have, because the allies could have had a better (good) reputation in the area negating much of the terrorist fervor. But, I (one who criticizes our soldiers for war crimes) do recognize that we often, ultimately, bring some good to the survivors - hospitals, clean water, etc, and often stop many ongoing killings and other horrible practices. But never for the reasons we say we're there and only in doing things that perpetuate the cycle of war such as setting up dictators and selling critical resources and infrastructure. Even if in their specific case any given soldier may save more lives than they cost, our war overall and our continued ability to wage it via the complicity of our soldiers, will cost far more lives in the end. Refusing to fight for an unjust cause, or hurt without need, is a duty of all soldiers of modern civilized militaries. Sure, it realistically means jail for those who refuse - but it means death for their victims if they don't. Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly not justified by 9/11 or implicated by any related evidence. By fighting for the USA and allies despite these lies, without the mandate of the people, soldiers are essentially pissing on the rule of law. We're showing - through action not words - that no matter what they do we'll just make shit up and bomb them. Why do we expect them to expect anything else? If our governments couldn't field the army unjustly, our peacekeeping might not only be welcome but might finally work.

crusso 13y ago

"Try to find a police chief who doesn't fuck young boys." Ouch.