Getting (Stuff) Out Of Afghanistan
January 28, 2015 8:49 AM Subscribe
No one in this convoy is looking for a fight. They’re mostly logistics guys, the United Van Lines of the U.S. Army. Their mission is to pack up the last of the gear from Combat Outpost Chamkani so that the place can be handed over to the Afghan army. America’s longest war is over for U.S. troops for the most part. All these guys want to do is bug on out.
This is a remarkable story, a strange mixture of empire failing at its imperial raison d'être and accountants back home at Fast Company idly tabulating the costs of one small part of the retreat, as if some sort of capitalist moral could be patched onto the failure.
So earnest, so futile.
The futility seems starkest to me here, where they reveal that they can't even leave a fan behind because it might aid the enemy who vanquished them:
posted by clawsoon at 9:21 AM on January 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
So earnest, so futile.
The futility seems starkest to me here, where they reveal that they can't even leave a fan behind because it might aid the enemy who vanquished them:
The last day, only a few odds and ends remained: a fan, some kind of machine that had been used to work on trucks, some cables, a shipping container full of Meals Ready to Eat...If there's any question about whether we "won" or "lost" in Afghanistan, I think this answers it.
Two local Afghan workers who did odd jobs on the outpost were instructed to take a mallet to the fan. Then it, the cables, and the other odds and ends were taken to a burn pit. The Afghan commander next door had asked for the cables, but Able’s commander had dodged the question. The soldiers told me there were things like these they couldn't leave for the Afghan army. Anything with a motor. Anything cylindrical. Anything with wire in it. "If we give it to them," one of the soldiers said of the cable, "they'll sell it in the bazaar, and it will end up in IEDs."
posted by clawsoon at 9:21 AM on January 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
Wait, really? Not wanting to leave behind anything that could aid an enemy is a sign of defeat?
I realize that little matters like fans and such might seem silly, but come on. You can find better things to complain about with the US in Afghanistan than that. If we left it all behind, you'd point to that as a sign of our defeat, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:28 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
I realize that little matters like fans and such might seem silly, but come on. You can find better things to complain about with the US in Afghanistan than that. If we left it all behind, you'd point to that as a sign of our defeat, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:28 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well presumably, if we had "won", there wouldn't be "enemy" still improvising weapons out of our leavings.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 9:32 AM on January 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Hal Mumkin at 9:32 AM on January 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
Wait, really? Not wanting to leave behind anything that could aid an enemy is a sign of defeat?
If you can't leave useful equipment in the hands of the Afghan Army without it ending up in an IED then, yes, that's a sign of defeat.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:38 AM on January 28, 2015 [12 favorites]
If you can't leave useful equipment in the hands of the Afghan Army without it ending up in an IED then, yes, that's a sign of defeat.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:38 AM on January 28, 2015 [12 favorites]
I agree with you, scaryblackdeath, that there are much better things to complain about. :-)
But as symbolism goes, it's hard to beat having to worry about smashing a fan. What can we leave behind for them, if not a fan? Anything industrial? Anything they could build a modern economy with? No. The only way to leave the enemy weak enough is to not leave behind, "Anything with a motor. Anything cylindrical. Anything with wire in it."
If we were Rome, we could slaughter the inhabitants and salt the earth as we left, too, and call that a victory. But that was not the mission; that is not the task that modern empires have set for themselves.
posted by clawsoon at 9:45 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
But as symbolism goes, it's hard to beat having to worry about smashing a fan. What can we leave behind for them, if not a fan? Anything industrial? Anything they could build a modern economy with? No. The only way to leave the enemy weak enough is to not leave behind, "Anything with a motor. Anything cylindrical. Anything with wire in it."
If we were Rome, we could slaughter the inhabitants and salt the earth as we left, too, and call that a victory. But that was not the mission; that is not the task that modern empires have set for themselves.
posted by clawsoon at 9:45 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Retreating from Afghanistan can be a dangerous operation.
posted by mr vino at 9:53 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by mr vino at 9:53 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
In a way, too large a budget at the start meant that the end would be costly. Because there was always a sense of urgency, they would always fly stuff in whenever ground was too slow. So they never considered that it would be cheaper to build out the needed roads, like they had done in Viet Nam.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 9:54 AM on January 28, 2015
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 9:54 AM on January 28, 2015
If we were Rome, we could slaughter the inhabitants and salt the earth as we left, too, and call that a victory.
In modern asymmetrical warfare that may be to only available path to a "victory". Too harsh? Then don't bother to engage in the first place. Fly your drones and cruise missiles and pump money into your puppets but leave the troops at home. The end result will be pretty much the same in any case...
posted by jim in austin at 10:01 AM on January 28, 2015
In modern asymmetrical warfare that may be to only available path to a "victory". Too harsh? Then don't bother to engage in the first place. Fly your drones and cruise missiles and pump money into your puppets but leave the troops at home. The end result will be pretty much the same in any case...
posted by jim in austin at 10:01 AM on January 28, 2015
Meanwhile, TRANSCOM leaders are flying around the world laying down the groundwork with countries where we might need to set up supply lines in the future. It’s taking cues from companies like FedEx and UPS to ink agreements with nations and municipalities and investing in building out other countries’ airfields and seaports.I would be curious to know where those future places are. "So, yeah, we might want to do a war around here in the future sometime... can we help you build some roads?"
posted by clawsoon at 10:23 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well presumably, if we had "won", there wouldn't be "enemy" still improvising weapons out of our leavings.
So is that now the only definition we'll accept for victory in a military excursion? No enemies left standing?
I'm serious. I'm not trying to move the goalposts on Afghanistan--I see a problem in that we never set solid goalposts there in the first place. We went in as a retaliation for 9/11 (as opposed to Iraq, which was an even bigger fiasco). On that level, we absolutely succeeded. We wrecked the people who attacked us. We (eventually) got bin Laden. We could, in fact, call that a success. But "victory" became about vanquishing the Taliban and making Afghanistan stable and democratic and...much more than just beating the guys who attacked us.
Instead, we're leaving with our heads hung low, because we didn't fix a country that has been broken for a very long time, and which would require a far greater commitment on our part than we'd realistically consider even if we could "fix" it?
What's the standard for victory now?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:24 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
So is that now the only definition we'll accept for victory in a military excursion? No enemies left standing?
I'm serious. I'm not trying to move the goalposts on Afghanistan--I see a problem in that we never set solid goalposts there in the first place. We went in as a retaliation for 9/11 (as opposed to Iraq, which was an even bigger fiasco). On that level, we absolutely succeeded. We wrecked the people who attacked us. We (eventually) got bin Laden. We could, in fact, call that a success. But "victory" became about vanquishing the Taliban and making Afghanistan stable and democratic and...much more than just beating the guys who attacked us.
Instead, we're leaving with our heads hung low, because we didn't fix a country that has been broken for a very long time, and which would require a far greater commitment on our part than we'd realistically consider even if we could "fix" it?
What's the standard for victory now?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:24 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
So is that now the only definition we'll accept for victory in a military excursion? No enemies left standing?
It's not "no enemies left standing" we're talking about here - the bar is "our supposed allies, to whom we are supposedly handing security responsibility for Afghanistan, can be trusted to not sell the stuff we give them so it ends up getting used by our enemies."
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:37 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not "no enemies left standing" we're talking about here - the bar is "our supposed allies, to whom we are supposedly handing security responsibility for Afghanistan, can be trusted to not sell the stuff we give them so it ends up getting used by our enemies."
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:37 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Because there was always a sense of urgency, they would always fly stuff in whenever ground was too slow. So they never considered that it would be cheaper to build out the needed roads, like they had done in Viet Nam.
I'm sure that apart from media manipulation, the crowd in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give a second thought to the lessons of Vietnam.
Besides, they paid for the war with a tax cut. They were running the entire operation on the national credit card anyway, so why worry about cost?
posted by Gelatin at 10:46 AM on January 28, 2015
I'm sure that apart from media manipulation, the crowd in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give a second thought to the lessons of Vietnam.
Besides, they paid for the war with a tax cut. They were running the entire operation on the national credit card anyway, so why worry about cost?
posted by Gelatin at 10:46 AM on January 28, 2015
scaryblackdeath: On that level, we absolutely succeeded. We wrecked the people who attacked us.
That's the same level of victory that the US achieved in Vietnam, too. McNamara had the body counts to prove it. Vietnam was wrecked. Nixon could claim "peace with honor". But was it a victory?
What's the standard for victory now?
The stated standard for victory now seems to be to leave a functioning Afghan army which can prevent the Taliban from re-taking the country. That seems like a reasonable standard. To be fair, it may still be achieved. If the US Army is afraid to leave wires behind, though, it would seem that they don't believe themselves that this standard of victory will be achieved.
We wouldn't be the first force to win all the battles but lose the war.
posted by clawsoon at 10:49 AM on January 28, 2015
That's the same level of victory that the US achieved in Vietnam, too. McNamara had the body counts to prove it. Vietnam was wrecked. Nixon could claim "peace with honor". But was it a victory?
What's the standard for victory now?
The stated standard for victory now seems to be to leave a functioning Afghan army which can prevent the Taliban from re-taking the country. That seems like a reasonable standard. To be fair, it may still be achieved. If the US Army is afraid to leave wires behind, though, it would seem that they don't believe themselves that this standard of victory will be achieved.
We wouldn't be the first force to win all the battles but lose the war.
posted by clawsoon at 10:49 AM on January 28, 2015
To be fair, it may still be achieved. If the US Army is afraid to leave wires behind, though, it would seem that they don't believe themselves that this standard of victory will be achieved.
The rest of your comment is fair, but I'm sorry, I don't think this part is.
We'd see complaints if we left gear behind. We'd see complaints if we left nothing behind. If we left some things but not others, there'd be reasons to complain about what measure we set for that, and the inevitable inconsistencies therein.
US Military Does A Thing, Criticism Ensues. Film at 11.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:13 AM on January 28, 2015
The rest of your comment is fair, but I'm sorry, I don't think this part is.
We'd see complaints if we left gear behind. We'd see complaints if we left nothing behind. If we left some things but not others, there'd be reasons to complain about what measure we set for that, and the inevitable inconsistencies therein.
US Military Does A Thing, Criticism Ensues. Film at 11.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:13 AM on January 28, 2015
I would be curious to know where those future places are. "So, yeah, we might want to do a war around here in the future sometime... can we help you build some roads?"
Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East... basically everywhere that doesn't already have good infrastructure. Though we generally sell it as "This road will help your local farmers get their goods to market and sick or injured people to hospitals."
posted by Etrigan at 11:16 AM on January 28, 2015
Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East... basically everywhere that doesn't already have good infrastructure. Though we generally sell it as "This road will help your local farmers get their goods to market and sick or injured people to hospitals."
posted by Etrigan at 11:16 AM on January 28, 2015
Sounds like Korea and Vietnam all over again. We never learn.
posted by stormpooper at 11:22 AM on January 28, 2015
posted by stormpooper at 11:22 AM on January 28, 2015
I guess I never considered that we've pissed off every single country that shares a border with Afghanistan over the last 14 years. Maybe next time, make friends with the neighbors?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:31 AM on January 28, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:31 AM on January 28, 2015
Maybe next time, make friends with the neighbors?
Might've helped if we hadn't elected the epitome of Ugly American as president for the first crucial eight years. :/
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:37 AM on January 28, 2015
Might've helped if we hadn't elected the epitome of Ugly American as president for the first crucial eight years. :/
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:37 AM on January 28, 2015
scaryblackdeath: We'd see complaints if we left gear behind. We'd see complaints if we left nothing behind. If we left some things but not others, there'd be reasons to complain about what measure we set for that, and the inevitable inconsistencies therein.
We're leaving a lot behind, and some of what we're doing sounds positively admirable:
posted by clawsoon at 11:41 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
We're leaving a lot behind, and some of what we're doing sounds positively admirable:
That’s right, we rebuilt the bases according to the needs of the Afghans we were giving them to. The Afghans weren't going to take more than they could use, and they didn't have the money to do any reconstruction themselves.But even that carries the undertone of pending defeat:
An Afghan army unit that was given the whole of Shank, for example, would find itself overburdened with maintaining the place, with no time left to police the district. Worse, they might abandon it altogether, leaving a state-of-the-art fortress for the Taliban.I'm not trying to criticize the US Army. It's doing what it has to do, given the situation. Those wires will probably be used to blow people up if they're not destroyed. The fortress will probably be occupied by the Taliban if it's not torn down. The army is not making bad decisions, given the situation. But the situation is one of defeat. It was put into an unwinnable war, and lost. It smashed as much of the enemy as it could; it avoided embarrassment as well as it could; it built what it could for the local population; and now it's going home.
posted by clawsoon at 11:41 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Afghanistan didn't attack the USA. Osama bin Laden did. The argument for attacking Afghanistan is that they "sheltered" him, but that didn't lead the USA to attack Pakistan. It's also pretty obvious that Al Qaeda got (gets?) a great deal of financial support from places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. There has never been the least hint of a suggestion that the USA would impose sanctions on them, let alone go to war.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:47 PM on January 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:47 PM on January 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
^ I'm not trying to move the goalposts on Afghanistan.
You have done that already.
Remind me how many Afghanis flew into towers on 9/11.
Your President rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
So that's it thousands killed and maimed and a huge profit for Political Cronies; thats your Victory.
posted by adamvasco at 1:02 PM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
You have done that already.
Remind me how many Afghanis flew into towers on 9/11.
Your President rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
So that's it thousands killed and maimed and a huge profit for Political Cronies; thats your Victory.
posted by adamvasco at 1:02 PM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
This set of problems reminds me of the study showing how it would be cheaper to pay people a salary not to commit crimes than it actually is to incarcerate them. I posit that with the resources and logistical expertise deployed in Afghanistan over the past decades, it would have been quite possible to just build out a bunch of infrastructure that you intended to leave there, simultaneously smearing analgesic all over a lot of the wounds that led to the existence of the Taliban in the first place. I'm sure there would have still been a bunch of international military presence, but I'm talking no offensive action by that presence.
It runs counter to the whole revenge/punishment narrative that sold this unpopular war to whatever percentage of the US that approved of it, but but seems like you'd have ended up with a lot fewer "avenge my family" types recruited from the general Afghan population, along with the net good of providing infrastructure in a part of the world where it would make a huge difference in the quality of people's lives.
Ughcringe war is so fucking stupid and wasteful.
posted by aspersioncast at 1:08 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
It runs counter to the whole revenge/punishment narrative that sold this unpopular war to whatever percentage of the US that approved of it, but but seems like you'd have ended up with a lot fewer "avenge my family" types recruited from the general Afghan population, along with the net good of providing infrastructure in a part of the world where it would make a huge difference in the quality of people's lives.
Ughcringe war is so fucking stupid and wasteful.
posted by aspersioncast at 1:08 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I posit that with the resources and logistical expertise deployed in Afghanistan over the past decades, it would have been quite possible to just build out a bunch of infrastructure that you intended to leave there, simultaneously smearing analgesic all over a lot of the wounds that led to the existence of the Taliban in the first place.
There was a significant amount of that as well.* Roads, sewage facilities, hospitals, schools, etc. A lot of it got blown up, a lot of it got taken over by the Taliban (and other bad actors), and a lot of it is hard to maintain.**
* -- I managed a $200M Army infrastructure and economic development program in southern Iraq post-Surge and know a lot of people who have done the same in Afghanistan.
** -- As one of my bosses once said, "We're not building schools, we're building buildings. You don't build a school, you run it."
posted by Etrigan at 1:16 PM on January 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
There was a significant amount of that as well.* Roads, sewage facilities, hospitals, schools, etc. A lot of it got blown up, a lot of it got taken over by the Taliban (and other bad actors), and a lot of it is hard to maintain.**
* -- I managed a $200M Army infrastructure and economic development program in southern Iraq post-Surge and know a lot of people who have done the same in Afghanistan.
** -- As one of my bosses once said, "We're not building schools, we're building buildings. You don't build a school, you run it."
posted by Etrigan at 1:16 PM on January 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
The earth has certainly been salted in Afghanistan, it's just that the modern equivalent of salt is depleted uranium. Same goes for Iraq.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:55 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:55 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis is a very insightful documentary on the subject of Afghanistan.
I was going to say its the opposite of this article, but the article is pretty revealing with its jingoistic nerdgasming.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:04 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was going to say its the opposite of this article, but the article is pretty revealing with its jingoistic nerdgasming.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:04 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
This article also makes me wonder how much political capital has been expended keeping those supply lines open, especially those through Pakistan and Russia.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:49 PM on January 28, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:49 PM on January 28, 2015
sgt.serenity: "the article is pretty revealing with its jingoistic nerdgasming."
Could you help me out and point out some of the most jingoistic aspects of the article?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:43 PM on January 28, 2015
Could you help me out and point out some of the most jingoistic aspects of the article?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:43 PM on January 28, 2015
Could you help me out and point out some of the most jingoistic aspects of the article?
Why of course! Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to help you become more informed!
Is there anything else you'd like as well sir ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:34 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why of course! Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to help you become more informed!
Is there anything else you'd like as well sir ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:34 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was a significant amount of that as well
Abso-fuckin-lutely. It's been a crucial component of nearly every American military action since at least the Philippines, and that's another reason this article is frustrating; it points out a lesson we should have already learned.
Since it seems the "bad actors" are going to do their dirty deeds either way, I always imagine how much more could have been devoted to teaching people to maintain infrastructure if we the USAmericans hadn't been so busy blowing them up.
The whole "bad actors" rhetoric is potentially part of the problem. The Deobandi movement is full of mean mean meanholes, by my standards, but AFAICT a big part of the reason they're so successful at recruiting more meanholes in Afghanistan is a couple centuries of EVERYBODY (but especially England) rampaging through town and killing their relatives, on the way to somewhere else. It's been remarked, but no one's built a road in Afghanistan for a long time without the entire point being "this road will help us move troops through," or put up a building without the idea being "we can keep our dudes here."
Perhaps the Taliban taking over your old military base isn't as much of an issue if you don't have it in the back of your head that you're going to come back and try to kill them at some point. And just maybe, if they ended up with enough abandoned infrastructure, they'd start having something to look forward to besides a noble death in vengeance against the infidel.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:08 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Abso-fuckin-lutely. It's been a crucial component of nearly every American military action since at least the Philippines, and that's another reason this article is frustrating; it points out a lesson we should have already learned.
Since it seems the "bad actors" are going to do their dirty deeds either way, I always imagine how much more could have been devoted to teaching people to maintain infrastructure if we the USAmericans hadn't been so busy blowing them up.
The whole "bad actors" rhetoric is potentially part of the problem. The Deobandi movement is full of mean mean meanholes, by my standards, but AFAICT a big part of the reason they're so successful at recruiting more meanholes in Afghanistan is a couple centuries of EVERYBODY (but especially England) rampaging through town and killing their relatives, on the way to somewhere else. It's been remarked, but no one's built a road in Afghanistan for a long time without the entire point being "this road will help us move troops through," or put up a building without the idea being "we can keep our dudes here."
Perhaps the Taliban taking over your old military base isn't as much of an issue if you don't have it in the back of your head that you're going to come back and try to kill them at some point. And just maybe, if they ended up with enough abandoned infrastructure, they'd start having something to look forward to besides a noble death in vengeance against the infidel.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:08 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's been remarked, but no one's built a road in Afghanistan for a long time without the entire point being "this road will help us move troops through," or put up a building without the idea being "we can keep our dudes here."
USAID alone has spent $17 billion in Afghanistan, virtually none of which goes toward militarily useful projects.
I don't think that's what would have turned the Taliban onto the path of good governance. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
posted by Etrigan at 1:49 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
USAID alone has spent $17 billion in Afghanistan, virtually none of which goes toward militarily useful projects.
Each month, over one million patients visit USAID-supported health facilities, three-quarters of whom are women and children.... In the past several years, USAID alone has built more than 605 schools, more than 620 clinics, and reconstructed more than 2,000 km of paved roads.... Between 2002 and 2012, USAID invested more than one billion dollars into improving health care services in Afghanistan.And just maybe, if they ended up with enough abandoned infrastructure, they'd start having something to look forward to besides a noble death in vengeance against the infidel.
I don't think that's what would have turned the Taliban onto the path of good governance. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
posted by Etrigan at 1:49 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
aspersioncast: "no one's built a road in Afghanistan for a long time without the entire point being "this road will help us move troops through," "
You're in for a treat when you learn why the USA built the entire interstate highway system.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're in for a treat when you learn why the USA built the entire interstate highway system.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Obituary for the Marlboro Man | A Bike Lock You'll Never Forget to Bring Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jim in austin at 9:11 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]