US forces have now spent almost as much as time in Afghanistan as the Greeks at Troy. Even by the most optimistic assessments, they will return well after the Greeks did from Illium. That a campaign on distant shores has been sustained for close to a decade by the blood, bone and sinew of volunteers beggars the imagination. If every nation has its Illiad, this is the American one.
I think I know why US troops are fighting. But I am puzzled about why the Taliban are. Consider the following `what if’. What if, when the US entered Afghanistan, the Taliban leadership scurried over the border to Pakistan (which they did) whilst rank and file hid their weapons and passed themselves off as `civvies’. In short they, the Taliban, sat on their hands. Afghanistan would have been considered `pacified’ or `safe for democracy’. The desire to bring troops home or redeploy to Iraq coupled with no pressing peace keeping duties in Afghanistan would have resulted in elections in a year, two at most. A feckless, corruptible government would come to power. The US would exit leaving a token force as advisors and trainers. The conditions would be ripe for the country to descend again into the chaos which the Taliban exploited to come to power the first time. It is unlikely the US would return to eject the Taliban. All told, the Taliban would have been back on top by 2006.

15 comments
February 25, 2010 at 2:02 am
Anonymous
I donot think so, that the US troops will move out of Afghanistan even in the next 50 years.
Think strategically. Afghanistan is close to Pakistan (everyone in US knows that the biggest security threat right now is Pakistan).
At the same time, its proximity to Iran and China, makes it an ideal place for an US military base.
March 7, 2010 at 9:32 pm
rvohra
ummmmm
Unpersuaded, because these arguments would apply prior to 9-11
Why didn’t the US the use the vacuum created by the departure of the Soviets to set up a base?
Why have a base when one can throw one’s lot in with India?
March 9, 2010 at 2:18 am
Rajib
sorry…i disagree. now it is all economic warfare….unlike the oil reserves of Iraq, Afganistan does not offer any economic benefits….so, US’ presence in Afgan seems to be a temporary affair ..
February 25, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Ben
I think one factor in their policy of direct confrontation is what “winning” means in the case of the Taliban. To the extent that they see this as a war of cultures and religions, winning means driving the infidels out, not merely regaining political power. In as much as the funding, recruitment, and justification of the Taliban is powered by the story that they alone have the zeal and courage to stand up to the “Great Satan” while the rest of Islam cowers and compromises, they fight as a means of demonstration in similar fashion to their suicide bombers. The point is the show, more so than the result, and the more they are brutally beat back as they valiantly resist, the more their story is ratified, at least from their perspective.
March 7, 2010 at 9:43 pm
rvohra
Two points here, I think. One that vigorous opposition is needed to display their commitment and confirm their self image.
The second, similar to Kunal’s point below, they compete with other insurgents for resources. This competition plays out in shows of defiance against US and NATO forces.
If the second, perhaps the US should just give credit for all insurgent act to the Taliban, so as to reduce their incentives to compete.
March 2, 2010 at 1:08 am
kunal
I think a possible fallacy is to model the Taliban as a single static entity. In fact, it is a complex organization which draws support from the public, and from the various clans. If they sit on their behinds for several years, while a peaceful government takes charge and gains in strength, or while some other organization takes over the anti-American rhetoric and the fighting, they may lose any grassroot support they may have. The warlords may find other power centers such as the govt., or any alternative fundamentalist group that may arise, as reasonable alternatives. Their base (probably fundamentalist youth) who have been brought up on anti American rhetoric, would desert them if they sit tight, and may leave them for an alternative. Their organized crime funding sources may also start to get diverted to the competition. In short, if they do the “rational” thing, they would emerge in 5 years a significantly weakened organization.
March 7, 2010 at 9:47 pm
rvohra
See the response to Ben’s comments above.
It is not obvious to me why the Taliban would face a greater challenge to seizing power after the departure of the US than they did after the Soviets left. Their base are Pashtun’s. Given the ethnic tensions in Afghanistan, I cannot see the base deserting them.
March 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm
parag waknis
bounded rationality?
March 7, 2010 at 9:48 pm
rvohra
An explanation for all seasons. If correct, would take the wind right out theorizing!
March 4, 2010 at 1:37 am
Martin Riggs
Dear friends,
Taliban or USA, Russia or China does not matters. The main question is the marketing of weapons and drugs. Check the channels of these two items among Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, St. Petersburg.
The others are theories at leisure. The poor village man just looks at the bread they can buy for the kids. Religion, strategy etc. are coming at the end. I think.
March 8, 2010 at 10:50 am
Anonymous
Maybe its because they have nothing else to do – remember, guns and opium have been in the blood for people in that area for centuries.
March 8, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Jaidev
Here are some possible reasons:
- The issue is control of the minds of people. Taliban and the regime that they symbolize rule by the fear people have of them. If the people do not fear the Taliban any more, they will not let them be in power. If they quietly melt away, it will symbolize that they are afraid, so they lose the very basis of their existence. Also a fear free mind can rear other progressive thoughts which would contradict their philosophy and drive cracks in its relevance.
- If they were gone, in their absence, there could be better alternatives put in place. That might also demonstrate their irrelevance.
- If the taliban are not fighting, their fighters will get time to think and they might see the irrelevance of their fight. So to keep them trained and not to keep give them time for thinking, it is better to keep them fighting. Also it could be more difficult to reorganize once disbanded.
March 9, 2010 at 6:33 am
Tarun Sharma
That’s a great question. I think a possible answer lies in the fact that the Taliban has never seen “peace” as a way of life. The vast rank and file of the Taliban has always been in a combative role. For them, it’s all about fighting against their perceived “immoral” and “impure” enemies. They aren’t merely locked in a worldly war – for them, this is a holy war, a sort of grand righteous showdown between the forces of good (their God) and evil (everyone else). This is what happens when a whole generation of men are raised on a virulent dose of indoctrination, rote learning (Koran), unemployment and social disarray.
July 24, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Dave
We should just warn civilians that whoever puts himself near a terrorist puts himself in danger.
Can’t keep fighting like we do.. they figured it out and now they take advantage of our morality.
November 3, 2010 at 5:31 am
Joe Brownbag
If ‘We The people” ever do wake up – you ruled to be fooled fools will be left with nothing to speculate upon.