Gwynne Dyer: A crisis of trust in Afghanistan
“A defeatist position [in Afghanistan] is not possible for us. We cannot leave in our underpants...or without any.” That was Mikhail Gorbachev addressing senior Soviet officers in 1987, two years before the Soviets pulled out. Two years before NATO pulls out, the same frantic search is underway for something that could be called a victory, or at least “peace with honour”. Meanwhile, NATO soldiers die, together with many more Afghans.
The French are smart: all their troops will be gone from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The Canadians were even smarter: almost all their troops left last year. But the rest of the NATO countries dumbly soldier on towards the scheduled departure date of 2014, even though the situation is clearly spinning out of control: one-quarter of the 48 Western troops killed in Afghanistan this August were murdered by Afghan government soldiers.
The most striking thing about these so-called “green-on-blue” killings, according to a 2011 Pentagon analysis reported by Bloomberg, is that only 11 percent of them are the result of infiltration by the Taliban. Most of them are due to grudges or disputes between coalition and Afghan army troops, which suggests that NATO’s current focus on training Afghan forces to “stand up” on their own is just as futile as all its previous strategies.
Last year a team of U.S. Army psychologists investigated the nature of these grudges and quarrels, conducting interviews with dozens of American and Afghan focus groups. Their report, “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility”, concluded that the Afghan troops see the American soldiers as “a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane infidel bullies hiding behind high technology.”
The U.S. troops, in return, generally view their Afghan allies as “a bunch of cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous and murderous radicals.” This does not constitute the foundation for a successful collaboration.
The view of the Afghan soldiers is more positive, despite all that, than the civilian population’s attitude towards the foreign forces. A poll conducted in late 2010 by the Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic Research reported that nearly sixty percent of civilians wanted all the foreign soldiers gone within a year. Forty percent would still want the foreigners out even if their departure meant that the violence got worse.
In the main conflict areas, 40 percent of the population believed that roadside bombings and other attacks aimed at killing U.S. and other foreign forces were justified. And almost everybody hates and despises the gang of warlords and racketeers who make up the U.S.-backed government of Afghanistan.
Yet less than 10 percent of Afghans, according to the same poll, actually want to see the Taliban back in power. They are not being inconsistent. They just don’t buy the standard Western line that only the foreign occupation has kept the Taliban and their alleged al-Qaeda allies from returning to power.
There is some evidence that the Taliban themselves don’t really believe that either. They remember that even when a Taliban government ruled in Kabul in 1996-2001, they never succeeded in extending their authority to the northern parts of the country where the non-Pashtun minorities live— and taken together, those minorities account for sixty percent of the population.
In an interview published in the New Statesman last month, a senior Taliban commander known as “Mawlvi” told Michael Semple, a former United Nations envoy to Kabul during the period of Taliban rule, that “the balance of power in the Afghan conflict is obvious. It would take some kind of divine intervention for the Taliban to win this war.”
The foreigners have lost their war, but the Taliban, still overwhelmingly Pashtun, will not be able to defeat all the other ethnic groups in the civil war that follows NATO’s departure. In fact, they won’t even do as well as they did in the similar civil war after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989: “The Taliban capturing Kabul is a very distant prospect,” Mawlvi said.
He may be wrong about that. His assumption is that after the foreigners leave the Afghan army, which is overwhelmingly recruited from the non-Pashtun groups, will break apart into the same Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara militias that thwarted the Taliban’s drive to control all of Afghanistan after the Soviets left.
But those ethnic militias no longer exist, and their former commanders have grown fat and corrupt in the service of the foreigners. It might prove impossible to rebuild them fast enough to thwart a post-occupation drive by the Taliban to seize the whole country— although they would probably be unable to hold the non-Pashtun areas in the long run.
The Taliban have won their war against the foreign occupiers, but they probably won’t win a decisive victory in the civil war that follows. And the only remaining way that the foreigners could still influence the outcome would be to dump their puppet president, Hamid Karzai, and start rebuilding the ethnic militias now.
They won’t do that, so their continued military presence over the next two years is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome. And public opinion in Afghanistan is turning against them so fast that they might still end up leaving without their underpants.






You certainly put a lot of thought into this article. The outcome may well be as you are predicting. One thing seems obvious: outsiders will have little influence.
I have a nagging feeling that the West's attitude condemned the entire mission to failure from the beginning.
My idea is based on the following: when the allies defeated Germany in 1945 they offered a helping hand to rebuild. There was the Marshall plan, etc. But they insisted on one crucial item: "Cut off all connections with your past, the Nazis!" The defeated Germans agreed and it worked. Sort of.
In Afghanistan all problems (in my view anyway) start and end with Islam. In the West freedom of religion is so basic, it is untouchable. Even when we should know that Islam is not just a religion, but through Sharia law, it is fully integrated with government and daily life. We do not seem to even come close to understand how different their culture is from ours and how much more it means to them. Religion is that big and their connection to the tribal differences is even bigger!
I really do not mind being proven wrong. However, I have heard nothing so far that comes even close to sending my theory to the scrap heap.
Imo, all problems in Afghanistan start and end not with Islam - but with poverty. Religious fanaticism thrives when people are poor and/or politically repressed (or when individuals are nuts of course).
According to the CIA World Fact Book, Afghanistan's GDP per capita of $1000 per year ranks 213 out of 226 total countries.
They are desperately poor and their only hope (imo) is to leave them alone, let them have their civil war until they finally realize that all the fighting is getting them nowhere and allow they themselves to finally become a relatively prosperous nation - whether as Afghanistan or as a series of smaller countries.
Why is that striking? The citizens of invaded and occupied countries don't like the invaders. I've an acquaintance from Africa who was more or less a mercenary in Iraq. He said many Iraqis remarked to him that the only reason they didn't shoot him dead right then and there was that he wasn't really one of the invaders.
"when a Taliban government ruled in Kabul in 1996-2001, they never succeeded in extending their authority to the northern parts of the country where the non-Pashtun minorities live"
Yup. The problem, if the USA leaves, will then be for the cousins of the non-Pashtuns, in the central Asian republics, to solve.
THIS! A thousand times.