Lessons from allies' Afghanistan defeat

Afghanistan has shown that logistics can defeat the most potent of world powers when ignored in the environment where it is expected to work. After 18 years of war, the Allies working to defeat the Taliban have admitted defeat, a war that cost America alone over an estimated $1 trillion and 2,400 lives. In Britain a very conservative cost estimate is put at over £30 billion, money diverted from pressing demands elsewhere. President Trump is preparing America for a cut and run as he attempts to deliver on his promise to pull out of America's "endless wars" by excluding the Afghan government from the peace talks with the Taliban, who have never been defeated in the countryside where the terrain and climate favours guerrilla warfare and imposes huge logistics cost on the foreign occupying forces.

As I warned in my blog of July 10, 2010: "Logistics will be Britain's Afghanistan calvary," the Talibans' great advantages over its enemies were the country's ideal guerrilla warfare terrain and its enemies' logistical problems, "the cost of which would break the coalition's will at a crucial time when nations must tighten their belts as the world faces another possible financial meltdown." I went on the say: "Military logistics is not just about controlling the supply chain effectively to deliver all that is required to the war theatre at the right time. It is also about how the chosen battlefield can be used to degrade an enemy's military ambitions. In this respect the Taliban had the country's geographical and climatic conditions working in their favour That, perhaps, more than any other factor, ensured that the allies could not win a military victory."

But there are other lessons to be learned from the allies' Afghanistan defeat. First and foremost, never fully trust the military mind, almost never known for its original thinking, because, as with the Pentagon, it will always advise throwing more good money after bad. Britain's military advisers were no less obtuse when, following Britain's withdrawal from Iraq, the British commander in charge was more concerned at using up his recently freed-up troops for fear of losing them. "If we don't use them we lose them," he crassly averred.

Another key lesson is the economic one and its political reverberations since the two are inextricably entwined. Consider what these "endless wars" have cost the American societal fabric. Real incomes per capita are lower now than the were over 30 years ago, while most of the country's wealth is now concentrated in the hands of a tiny few. Huge sums are desperately needed to shore up America's crumbling infrastructure. Such is the level of homelessness in American cities that the Government has been concerned at the soaring rates of Hepatitis A, which is caused by faecal contamination. Its response has been to issue poo maps so people can avoid the risks! One wonders if Capitol Hill is on a poo map.

President Trump's aim is to pull out of Afghanistan before next year's election. The proposed deal is that the Taliban will pledge not to host any terrorist attacks on America, in return for bringing American troops home. Years of strife would suggest that the Taliban would be inclined to uphold the deal, but don't hold your breath. Reportedly, the Taliban have also pledged not to undo the progress made with women's rights. In a deeply conservative society that, too, alas, may prove a hollow pledge.
                                                                        END