[lit-ideas] Ghost Wars

I finished reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars. He is the managing editor of the 
Washington 
Post. During the 80s, he covered Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ghost Wars is a very 
detailed 
documentation of the secret CIA war in Afghanistan against the USSR. Based on 
twenty years 
of experience, personal relations to nearly all of the major actors, extensive 
interviews 
with some 400 people, and access to declassified and classified documents, the 
book 
describes the twists and turns of US policy (or lack of policy) in Afghanistan.

Here's a bit of a summary of this book.

In the 70s, Afghanistan was a Soviet client state. During Carter's presidency, 
Zbigniew 
Brezinski and others got the idea to annoy the Soviets. To the Americans, this 
would be 
payback for the disaster in Vietnam. Give the Afghani a few weapons and some 
money and raise 
a bit of hell.

But after the disaster of Vietnam, the Americans were afraid of getting 
involved in anything 
anywhere. So the Pakistani ISI (their CIA) offered to do the dirty work: "Just 
give us the 
money and weapons, and we'll make sure it gets to the Afghani".

That agreement, and the motivations behind that agreement, the unsaid 
assumptions, and the 
unthought-out consequences, set in motion the most staggering US foreign policy 
disaster in 
US history.

The Pakistani had their reasons: they were boxed in by enemies: India in the 
east and Soviet 
Pakistan on the west, with China bearing down from above. So, if they could 
push back the 
Soviets, that would relieve some pressure. They got the Americans to agree to 
not have any 
direct contact with the Afghani. The USA would hand over the money and weapons, 
and the 
Pakistani would carry out the harassment of the Soviets.

But the USA-Pakistani Friendship Pact was hardly a friendship: during the 
Iranian Hostage 
Crisis, in which Islamic fundementalists captured the US embassy, the Pakistani 
government 
tried to go further: they tried to burn down the US embassy in Pakistan, with 
the entire 
staff in it. Several hundred would have died. Islamic hatred of the USA was at 
a high point 
and the Pakistani ISI whipped up angry crowds, brought them by bus to the 
embassy, and kept 
troops away. However the embassy didn't burn completely and the staff survived.

Anyway, the USA decided to overlook this small matter and for several years, a 
bunch of 
cowboys in the CIA at the Pakistani embassy managed the project.

But this spiraled larger and larger, and the USA was unaware of what they were 
funding. 
William Colby, of the CIA, was fanatically anti-Soviet and a strict Catholic. 
In his small 
mind, he assumed that if the Muslims were against the Soviets, they must be 
like Catholics.

- The Pakistani ISI were strict Islamists, and they discovered the Isalmic 
jihadi guerillas 
were excellent fighters in the Khasmir province in the Pakistani fight against 
Hindu India. 
Pakistan had been humiliated by India in various wars and they were looking for 
revenge.

- The Saudi were also fundementalist Muslims and they rallied to the jihad 
against the 
secular Soviet client state in Afghanistan, an Islamic country. The Saudi GDI 
(their CIA) 
also saw the opportunity to push the Soviets back, away from Saudi Arabia.

So the Saudi began to pour billions in Afghanistan, both to the Pakistani and 
directly to 
the Islamic jihadists. The USA was pouring hundreds of millions of dollars as 
well, all 
funneled to the Pakistani ISI.

By the mid-80s, the guerilla harassment was simmering quite well. 
Ultra-conservative, 
reactionary cowboys in Washington found out about Afghanistan and they insisted 
on more 
money and weapons to Afghanistan. No longer just annoy the Soviets: they wanted 
to destroy 
the USSR in Afghanistan. They wanted an open proxy war against the USSR and 
make it into 
their Vietnam. Billions in money and weapons were sent; so much that the 
Pakistani had 
serious logistical problems with too much supplies. The cowboys also made 
another big 
mistake: they sent some 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Afghanistan. 
(Something like 
500 of these are still there, waiting to be used against American civilian 
airliners.)

By the late 80s, the USSR gave up on Afghanistan and began to pull out. Up to 
that time, 
guerillas were a ragtag assortment of tribal warlords, opportunist mercenaries, 
druglords 
(heroin),  Islamic jihadists, and so on, from various tribes. None of them 
agreed on much, 
asides from attacking Soviets. There was no plan whatsoever for what would come 
afterwards, 
since the orginal idea was only to harrass the Soviets.

In the lawless civil war, where atrocities, rape, and robbery were common, a 
group of 
Islamic theology students in east Afghanistan began to clean up their towns. 
The theology 
students came out of the madrassas, the schools of Islamic theology. There were 
tens of 
thousands of these schools, set up and funded by th Saudi. The theology 
students, or, in 
Arabic: the Taliban, began applying Islamic law. They stopped the highway 
robbery and the 
rapes. The population was glad to have a semblance of peace. They grew very 
fast.

Until then, the Pakistan ISI were supporting their own Jihadi warlord to take 
over 
Afghanistan. But the Taliban grew faster and soon, the ISI switched their 
support to the 
Taliban. This is an important point: the ISI didn't create the Taliban. They 
arose on their 
own from Saudi funding for theology schools. The Saudi intended only to create 
schools. They 
didn't plan that these students would take over the country. The USA, 
meanwhile, was 
completely clueless about all of this, since they were just writing checks.

Tens of thousands of Arabs poured in from across the Arab world, from Tunisia 
to Indonesia, 
to join the jihad and drive out the secular goverment. The Saudi oil princes 
poured in 
billions. The Pakistani ISI built a formidable war machine, with thousands of 
Pakistani Army 
officers training, directing, and managing the war. Prince Turki, head of Saudi 
GDI, sent in 
his man to supervise the Saudi efforts. The fellow was deeply trusted and a son 
of a major 
Saudi construction family, namely, Osama bin Laden.

The USSR left Afghanistan, the client goverment collapsed, and by the early 
90s, the Taliban 
took control of most of the country.

And so the book ends on the 10th of September, 2001.

The Saudi are pursuing their own agenda: push back India, Russia, and China. 
They are deeply 
fundementalist Islamic and they support jihads against secular societies, 
namely, the USSR 
and the USA. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA/Saudi alliance 
based on that 
common enemy has evaporated.

The Pakistani need to push back India, and they do this with two tools: their 
nuclear 
weapons and the jihadi. A few thousand suicidal jihadi are able to tie up ten 
divisions of 
India's army. The jihadi carry out attacks in India. Pakistan is also provoking 
Islamic 
insurgency throughout the south of Russia and in Western China. (The USA was 
also somewhat 
involved in this during the Afghani war).

The Taliban was a local Afghani event, fueled by the Saudi theological schools 
and, later, 
the Pakistani ISI. They were deeply dependant on both the Saudi and the ISI, 
but they were 
also uncontrollable and extremely narrow-minded.

Osama bin Laden "went native" in Afghanistan and got deeply caught up in the 
jihad. A jihad 
against secularism (both Soviet and Western) was the solution to the crisis in 
the Islamic 
world: the corruption, the secular military dictatorships in most Muslim 
countries, the 
Israeli, and so on. Although bin Laden was the Saudi representative in 
Afghanistan, he 
slowly slipped out of Saudi control and eventually, became a major threat to 
Saudi Arabia.

In the big view, the Saudi are the main players: they are the center of the 
region, they 
have the most important interests (the oil), and they have billions in oil 
money. They are a 
country led by 50,000 princes and there is no unified policy or strategy. In 
the game, they 
play every side. They fund the jihad, they support the USA, they deal with 
Pakistan. With 
regard to bin Laden, they stripped him of his citizenship, but they also don't 
want to bring 
him back to Saudi Arabia for trial. Nor do they try to have him assassinated. 
Coll 
speculates that the Saudi have a deal with bin Laden; if he leaves the kingdom 
alone, they 
leave him alone, and he can do whatever he likes against the USA.

The USA throughout the 80s and 90s had no strategy. What started out as a bit 
of fun for the 
CIA spiraled into a war, but the ultra-conservative cowboys never thought out 
would happen 
next. When the USSR pulled out, the USA simply stopped their funding and walked 
away, 
without realizing what they had set in motion.

Let's be clear about this fact: the USA started a proxy war, plunged a country 
into a brutal 
civil war, where 1,500,000 Afghani died, and then walked away, with complete 
indifference 
(when Bush Sr had been president for several years was told about an event in 
Afghanistan, 
he said "Oh, is that still going on?")

The USA created the situation into which the Pakistani joined (for their own 
strategic 
reasons) and the Saudi came in (for their reasons as well.) The other players 
had their 
reasons, but the USA started the issue. However, at the time, the USA was only 
thinking of 
harassing a few Soviets. They had not considered the geopolitical ramifications 
or 
implications. They were unaware that the Islamic world had such a deep hatred 
and resentment 
of the USA (US goverment and business leaders dealt only with Western-educated 
Arabs.)

There is no clear thread in this story. A number of players pursued their own 
agendas, for 
different reasons, and often in deep secrecy (and contradiction) from each 
other. (I've not 
talked about the Pakistani nuclear weapons. The USA, under Carter, gave a 
violently 
anti-American Pakistan permission to produce nuclear weapons. Those weapons are 
in Pakistan 
and may soon spread to the rest of the Arab world.)

The public understanding of the issue usually is either oil (the USA wants the 
Arab oil), 
Israel, crusades, and so on. Those explanations are too simple. Throughout the 
80s, the USA 
only thought about protecting Saudi oil. Afghanistan was only an issue in 
regards to 
harassing the USSR. Israel is an annoyance to all sides, but they are a 
secondary issue. The 
USA had no policy or strategy towards the Arab world: in fact, the overall US 
policy towards 
Arabs was ignorance and indifference. The USA dealt with the Arabs only in 
reaction to 
crisis.

And so we come to 9.11 and today. The USA has occupied both Afghanistan and 
Iraq. The Iraqi 
are carrying out a jihad against the USA. Someone (or several) is funding that 
jihad with 
money, weapons, information, and Islamic jihadi. Why they are doing this isn't 
clear. What 
the USA plans to do with Afghanistan and Iraq isn't clear; the cowboys in 
charge have never 
shown the slightest interest before 2000 in the region (up until 9.11, Rice was 
ignorant 
about basic facts on Afghanistan and Bush never brought up the issues on his 
own.) The USSR 
was unable to hold Afghanistan in the face of a jihad that was bent on driving 
out 
secularism, so it's a good question whether the USA will be able to create and 
maintain a 
secular government (democracy, elections, women's rights) into Iraq. The very 
idea that they 
are trying to do that shows that the Bush White House is unaware of the issues 
in the 
Islamic world.

Where is bin Laden? Why has the USA not been able to capture him? bin Laden is 
very likely 
being protected by the Pakistani ISI. They need the jihadi to protect 
themselves against 
India. When the USA attacked Afghanistan after 9.11, the USA allowed Pakistan 
to withdraw 
thousands of jihadi guerillas, incl. Pakistani Army officers, ISI officers, and 
Arab jihadi.

It's possible (my speculation) that Bush agreed with Pakistan that if they 
could keep bin 
Laden under control, the USA would continue to support Pakistan and they could 
keep their 
jihadi guerillas (for Kasmir), and this would release Bush to pursue his 
invasion of Iraq. 
The Saudi don't want to capture bin Laden because this would create an uproar 
in Saudi 
Arabia. Much better to leave him on the loose in the mountains of Pakistan.

Pakistan is not a friend of the USA, in any manner. They are using the USA for 
their own 
purposes.

So, what will happen in Iraq? It's my guess that both the Saudi and Pakistan, 
who publically 
are on the side of the USA, are secretly supporting the anti-American jihad in 
Iraq, perhaps 
together, perhaps apart. Their goal is to drive the USA out of the region so 
they will end 
up as the biggest powers. Both the Saudi and the Pakistani (and they are not 
allies) stand 
to gain if the USA loses.

The Russians are also interested in the area: they may be supplying the Iraqi 
jihadi. Both 
payback for the USA war in Afghanistan, and to weaken the USA in the region. 
Which means our 
other good friends, China, may also be involved. There's India. There's also 
Iran. If the 
USA failed, all of these countries would be amused. All or any of these 
countries could be 
sending weapons, food, clothing, trucks, supplies, information, intelligence, 
and so on, 
either just to see the Americans get a bit of trouble or to push the USA out of 
the region.

The Great Game continues. All the major players want to be either each the 
winner, or in any 
case, not allow another to be the winner.

There's many things from the book that I didn't discuss. The book is an 
extremely detailed 
description of how the US foreign policy actually works, if one can say that it 
works at 
all. There's the general disaster within the CIA. It is plagued with 
bureaucracy, 
infighting, incompetence, careerism, and reluctance. The White House. 
Regardless of who was 
in the White House (Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr.), the White 
House is driven 
by election politics. There is no strategy whatsoever in the White House. The 
Congress is 
made up of nuts, cowboys, and indifferent politicians. US oil companies. "Hey, 
let's run a 
billion dollar pipeline through an all-out civil war! Six warlords? No problem! 
It'll be a 
win-win-win-win-win-win situation!" Congressional lobbyists. "Show me the 
money." At one 
point, Coll says that US policy, if one can call it that, is simply greed, 
shortsightedness, 
ignorance, and political grandstanding. And the catastrophic failure of the US 
intelligence 
community. They were so focussed on the USSR (which they completely 
misunderstood anyway) 
that they were unable to shift to a new issue.

This doesn't mean that the USA is the only one with a chaotic policy. Pakistan 
and Saudi 
Arabia are a cauldron of conspiracies, factions, and battles. Pakistan has 
coups every few 
years and assassination attempts on every major holiday.

Saudi Arabia is a vast family empire, where several hundred billionaire princes 
run each 
their own private foreign policy (for example, one Mr. bin Laden is doing just 
that.) Lease 
an entire military airfield? Fly in several hundred military cargo planes and 
jets? Just to 
go falcon hunting? That's what those Arabs do.

Regrettably, Coll did not interview the Soviets. There is very little from the 
USSR on their 
motivations and policies. He also pretty much ignored India, China, and Iran, 
which also 
were significant players.

The book is a fairly demanding task to read: it's dense with details, names, 
and events. The 
extensive footnotes are worth reading. There's also an index, several maps, and 
good 
bibliography.

yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: