Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Is the conflict in Afghanistan worse than the Vietnam war?

A great blog post over at the New York Times.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 26 November 2010 12:25

I blogged a couple of days ago about the story of the "Taliban imposter" and the "peace talks" in Afghanistan. It turns out that British spooks played a major role in this humiliating episode. Has anyone asked the Prime Minister about this?

From the Times:

An investigation by the Times can reveal that British agents paid Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour from May this year, promoting him as a genuine Taleban figure of the highest standing who was capable of negotiating with senior American and Afghan officials.

But according to officials in Britain, America and Afghanistan, he was uncovered this month as a fraudster, dealing a blow to the credibility of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. Far from being a former Taleban government minister, the individual concerned is now thought to have been a shopkeeper, a minor Taleban commander, or simply a well-connected chancer from the Pakistani border city of Quetta.

A senior Afghan government official said yesterday: "British Intelligence was naive and there was wishful thinking on our part."

One source with knowledge of the affair described it as simply "a major f***-up".

That's a pretty good description of the Afghan war as a whole, which is often compared by its critics to the quagmire in Vietnam four decades ago. But, as the New York Times's Robert Wright points out on the paper's Opinionator blog, Afghanistan is worse.

Wright writes:

Is Afghanistan, as some people say, America's second Vietnam? Actually, a point-by-point comparison of the two wars suggests that it's worse than that.

For starters, though Vietnam was hugely destructive in human terms, strategically it was just a medium-sized blunder. It was a waste of resources, yes, but the war didn't make America more vulnerable to enemy attack.

The Afghanistan war does. Just as al-Qaeda planned, it empowers the narrative of terrorist recruiters – that America is at war with Islam. The would-be Times Square bomber said he was working to avenge the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Major Nidal Hasan, who at Fort Hood perpetrated the biggest post-9/11 terrorist attack on American soil, was enraged by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

And how many anti-American jihadists has the war created on the battlefield itself? There's no telling, but recent headlines suggest this admittedly impressionistic conclusion: We're creating them faster than we're killing them. And some of these enemies, unlike the Vietcong, could wind up killing Americans after the war is over – in south Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, in America.

Hawks sometimes try to turn this logic to their advantage: It's precisely because our enemies could remain dangerous after the war that we have to deny them a "platform" – an Afghanistan that's partly or wholly under Taliban control; Communists weren't going to use Vietnam as a base from which to attack America, but we saw on 9/11 that Afghanistan can be used that way.

Actually, we didn't. The staging ground for the 9/11 attacks was Germany – and some American flight schools – as much as Afghanistan. The distinctive challenge posed by terrorism is that the enemy doesn't need to occupy much turf to harm us.

He adds:

Al-Qaeda's ideology offers nothing that many of the world's Muslims actually want – except, perhaps, when they feel threatened by the west, a feeling that isn't exactly dulled by the presence of American troops in Muslim countries.

He ends with a plea to policymakers in the west:

So maybe the message should be put like this: Could we please stop doing al-Qaeda's work for it?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

19 comments

Fri, 2010-11-26 22:10 — triedeinsursE

"Is the conflict in Afghanistan worse than the Vietnam war?"

It's even worse. We have the Brits thinking they're contributing.

Fri, 2010-11-26 17:42 — charlesfrith

What annoys me is that MI5 spin their imbecilic top secret naffness to the Spectator about how cool it is to send internal memos in Greek.... It's too douchey for words.

http://bit.ly/g2VSS0

Fri, 2010-11-26 12:46 — Dave C (not verified)

I thought Osama bin Laden's big beef was American bases on the Arabian peninsula. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan might take out some of the heat, but their other causes might remain.

Sat, 2010-11-27 10:16 — javed (not verified)

Mosaad and the CIA were behind 9/11 but just like the palestinians are having to pay for euorpes crimes against the jews during the second world war, the muslims are paying the price for a larger conspriacy....

Sat, 2010-11-27 13:50 — Popa Teapa (not verified)

America return to wisdom!

U.S. experience in the Korean War, the war was lost by United States Army, is an example that should give pause for thought.
Vietnam War! War in Afghanistan! War in Iraq! The war in Yugoslavia. All these wars have not brought anything good or the United States and the rest of the world.

Korean War began the day 25 June 1950. On July 27, 1953 they signed a truce. http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Războiul_din_Coreea

1.Coreea. It is true that Korean War veterans have remained few. I was born in 1954 and I know about this conflict that we learn from history books. I know the American people did not agree with this war!

2.Vietnam. Those my age remember well the movements against the war in Vietnam, the whole world! They produced a wave of other veterans! High costs to the U.S. government. Global antipathy.

3. Afghanistan! That have been criticized Russia entered the war. The U.S. government financed the Taliban to defeat the Red Army! So Osama bin Laden became the head of the Taliban. Al-Qaeda enemy America. Indirectly, America financed the ones who destroyed the Twin Towers of World Trade Center in New York! The war in Afghanistan did not end. I'm sure there will be over soon! High costs for America. Global antipathy. Solidarity of Muslim fundamentalists!
4. Yugoslavia. High costs, dislike people from the neighborhood. Writing here trying to be objective. When we heard bombs exploding in Novi Sad, and I've hated Americans. I was Romanian sailor, working on the Romanian ship on the Danube! I still do not love you anymore! It destroyed the bridge that knew him for decades. They destroyed an economically prosperous country under a regime that Moscow opposed. It was better if we let the Europeans to solve their problems! Here Americans have encouraged Albanian Muslim extremists!

I regret to say, but a common mistake is with Afghanistan.

5.lrak. The war originally started as a U.S. intelligence said Iraq has an atomic weapon!

It was a pretext for removing Saddam from Iraq's leadership! Why? Iraqi oil was increasingly difficult to access America!

Many had lost. Romanian state, agreeing to în2028 Iraq debt rescheduling. companies had to pay the Romanian economic activities in Iraq played to the amount of 112 .000.000. U $. But Romania lose more. Lrak disrupt military expenditures in Romanians lose millions of dollars that will not ever be recovered.

It is true that U.S. companies will take over the reconstruction work in Iraq and will make large profits.

6.Coreea. The current conflict between the two Koreas, is quite serious. I think it would be best to let Chinese people to resolve it. I'm in the area have similar cultures! It is true that the U.S. is afraid of losing influence in the area. Perhaps the loss of military bases here.

If American diplomacy would treat the subject with the Chinese diplomacy would eventually find ways to solve common.

Should America reconsider its attitude to the world's policeman.

Since the Second World War America was no longer liked the interventions of other wars. But no war has not taken place on American soil during the last century!

I will say that war Europe and Yugoslavia, had effects on human health of neighboring countries. Agriculture was also lost. Frequent rain led to the disappearance of some crops. Orchards have dried whole. Novi-Sad name means "new plantations." They have never yielded fruits after the war.

One factor resulting from these wars is environmental pollution. Chernobyl was a minor point compared to the pollution caused by the five wars mentioned. Think of Agent Orange in Vietnam!

I think these views are common sense and objective.

I still believe that America is able to understand diplomacy: these are areas where others can better address crisis situations!

Teapa Popa Yours

Fri, 2010-11-26 15:19 — javed (not verified)

I hate all this terroist business. I used to love the days when you could look at an unattended bag on the train and think, 'I'm having that'

Fri, 2010-11-26 15:51 — masoom shah (not verified)

Afghan pashto speaker they are not tirorist but they don't want invader in thier country study afghan history from hundrids years

Sat, 2010-11-27 21:07 — Dave (not verified)

The Afghanistan war was misguided from the start and a distraction from finding out the full story of 9/11.

It's worse than Vietnam because it involves British troops, but also because the middle east conflict threatens the West's oil supplies and the world economy

OK, although immoral, perhaps Bush thought some whiz bang would improve his poll ratings and only wanted a quick in and out operation.

But clearly this wasn't the neocon agenda, who wanted some extensive and gratuitous attacks on random Muslim communities (of any denomination and none) in order to incite retaliatory attacks, which could be hyped up to justify further gratuitous attacks on Muslim communities (of any denomination and none).

In particular they wanted to bomb Afghanistan as a prelude to bombing Iraq which had already been extensively bombed and starved by sanctions, but was still headed by a defiant (and secular) leader who (unlike them) was a 'menace to world'.

And yet despite all the misery the neocons want to inflict the same on Iran, 'unless they can prove they have no intention of acquiring WMDs'(an impossible task), to 'avoid the Muslims taking over the world'!

And that's why Britain remains in Afghanistan, to help facilitate and provide cover for an attack on Iran.

And if your not convinced the neocon actions and fears are justified, just ask Hans Castorp who has a long list of minor and random incidents (real and imagined), which he believes demand a thousand eyes for an eye - and which he pretends is for 'all our sakes', rather than because of a very misguided view of Israel's national interest.

Sat, 2010-11-27 21:34 — triedeinsursE

Hans, Mehdi has no original ideas. All he knows what to do is leach from other journalists articles and make like he has the answer up his sleeve but it’s a secret. Just look at his following and it says it all.

Fri, 2010-11-26 16:47 — xixidada87

Best regards for you all,

Looking forward to your visiting.

http://www.1shopping.us/

Sat, 2010-11-27 22:30 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Where's the napalm? Agent Orange? Crop dusting chemicals? The Seventh Fleet? B52s? The Thunderthuds? Two million indigenous troops fighting on Uncle Sam's side? Plus Ozzies! Those fleets of tactical aircraft? Swarms of choppers? Contractors - well OK.
The media? John Wayne? I believe Glenn Ford, film star and reserve officer, fought the Commies in hand-to-hand combat. Any volunteers from Holywood. How about Cameroon's Volunteers? When compared to Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be sanitised police actions. Alright, NATO is belatedly helping out. But where was NATO in the 1960s and the Nixon presidency? Of course the USA has over forty allies toughing it out with them in Afghanistan but they don't have the same resources now as then. And with those North Koreans acting up - maybe we'll see a real war. If the **** hits the fan - pensions, forget 'em! Tuition fees, won't have to pay 'em. Just get behind the UK Secretary for War/Defence. He cuts a mean figure. Or has he cut the budget? Lethal typing speed, though.

Coat Holder

Sat, 2010-11-27 22:45 — JJ (not verified)

Some of the comments here (Javed, Dave), show why the NS is now the political equivalent of Loony Tunes. I come here to read serious debate and not rubbish.

Sat, 2010-11-27 23:09 — jie4v7i14

JJ. And what have you got to say? Ey?

Twll.

Fri, 2010-11-26 16:53 — Luddite (not verified)

This war against religious fascism will not be fought and won in the valley and maintains of Afghanistan.

Fri, 2010-11-26 17:11 — Sam Dale (not verified)

We can not dictate our foreign policy around what will make Al-Qaeda happiest. If a Muslim, or anyone, joins Al Qaeda then they are supporting the deliberate murder of innocent civilians. I strongly disagree with the analysis that says they are innocents converted to radicalism by Western foreign policy.

Wed, 2010-12-01 11:41 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Yes JJ, Javed and Dave are bordering on the equivalent of the Loony Tunes but they are no worse than the views expressed by the Cretin from the good old USA, whose earlier posting- "Is the War in Afghanistan worse than the Vietnam War? It's even Worse. We have the Brits thinking they're contributing."

All of us of a certain age well remember how they conducted the Vietnam war and how it ended with their Helicopters fleeing and leaving their Allies behind to their fate!

Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that they feel the same way about France, Italy, Germany and Russia, so we mustn't feel persecuted, they hate everybody!

I am curently following an excellent series entitled The American Dream, essential viewing.

Fri, 2010-11-26 23:33 — triedeinsursE

"This war against religious fascism will not be fought and won in the valley and maintains of Afghanistan"

You're right, but they will think twice about giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda again.

Sat, 2010-11-27 01:34 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Is Mehdi Hasan ever going to stop using John Rentoul questions?

In this spirit:

Has Robert Gates ordered the illegal carpet bombing of neighbouring countries, killing hundreds of thousand of civilians?

Was the US action in Vietnam mandated from the outset by the UN?

Was it a goal of the vietnam campaign to establish democracy?

Is the war in Afghanistan the fag end of years of covert action, financing of a corrupt and murderous regime, duplicitous diplomacy and complete disregard for international law?

Did generals in Vietnam take tactical decisions, even at the enhanced risk to their own soldiers, to minimise civilian casualties?

Has US's reason for invading been proven to be a complete manifest falsehood?

Are the civilian and military death tolls even remotely comparable?

"The would-be Times Square bomber said he was working to avenge the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Major Nidal Hasan, who at Fort Hood perpetrated the biggest post-9/11 terrorist attack on American soil, was enraged by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars."

Some Islamists blow themselves up because they want the caliphate back. Others do so because their countrymen and neighbours are Jews, or the "wrong" kind of muslim. One did so in Bali, killing dozens, because the US had belatedly facilitated the independence of East Timor from Suharto's muslim Indonesia. And so on, and so on. On this basis, we better start paying tithes like good kuffar or else slit our wrists now.

The logic of MH and the NYT article he quotes is completely nauseating, and literally self-defeating. The west tried appeasment to racist facism once thanks; never again.

It seems that, if you don't like the idea of the war, you must also want it to go badly. Mehdi seems to cheer the "humiliation" of our soldiers and every screwup and setback. Whose side is he on?

and as for "That's pretty good description of the Afghan war as a whole, which is often compared by its critics to the quagmire in Vietnam four decades ago."

What a transparent elision this is. Mehdi won't himself say Vietnam and Afghanistan are equivalent, or the former worse than the latter, because then he would have to make a cogent case, based on facts, to back his assertion up. Instead, he says nameless "critics" do so, which allows him to agree without having to justify his position. I'm noticing an upswing in this type of lingual dishonesty.

Fri, 2010-11-26 20:19 — swatantra

No. The Viet Cong were vicious and resolute and would never have given up, whatever. Whereas the Afghan Taliban are just thugs and bullies; thats why they can be beaten.