AFGHANISTAN, THE GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES OR THE FAILURE OF IMPERIALISM?

Afghanistan is a country everyone knows about. Despite being far, poor, landlocked and having no influence, it is more known for many people than the countries neighbouring theirs. For over three decades now, war rages in this mountainous country. It is credited with the fall of the USSR, and keeps the NATO forces bogged down after the longest war in US history. Now Trump wants to extend the number of troops and reduce the amount of nation building. Is Afghanistan really an exception and a giant killer?Afghanistan has a mountainous terrain, active tribes and guerilla fighters, it has poor infrastructures, and a poor population. This means that:- defensive fight is easy because there are a lot of places to hide- offensive fight is easy because there are a lot of places where ambushes are possible- fighters need to know the area perfectly- locals might support the fighters because they are closely related to them- any incoming army will be even more at risk of ambush because of slow transport- the population might become guerillero if it pays well enough.In addition it is very corrupt and has various sources of possible funding for a group of domestic fighters, notably opiates. This seems like the perfect mix, and that only one country has such characteristics that if a guerilla exists, it will thrive, but, as we will see later on, it isn't the case.There are some needed features for a country to have a successful guerilla, as outlined above, but they can easily be replaced by similar others. For instance, Mountains could be a jungle, or a very dense forest, tribes could be replaced by ethnicities or political parties. poor infrastructure remains a key component, to forbid an army from easily manoeuvring in the guerilla sanctuary, but a remote enough place, or an hostile enough environment might also serve as area denial. A rich population won't be tempted to fight for the money, but against any foreign army, there will be people who take arms for patriotism. Finally funding can come from other drugs, as well as other traffics, and local taxes and donations. Several guerillas met such criterias over the years. The FARCS, as well as the Sendero Luminoso, and other guerillas in South America were at that level, the Houthis in Yemen, and the PKK in Turkey also met most of what is needed, the Tigers in Sri Lanka as well, and the Maoists in Nepal even show how such a guerilla can win. On the other hand, the IRA and Daesh don't meet a lot of the criterias, making them vulnerable, despite popular support in the area they hold/held, with the IRA having little actual impenetrable sanctuaries, and being based in a rich place with a huge part of the population not considering that there were no invasion. Daesh was also lacking, even more severely, on sanctuaries, holding mostly cities and deserts, in addition its wages policies made funding hard. This is why, both the IRA and Daesh have been outlived by less popular guerillas, worst equipped ones, and more isolated ones, because military actions against them is not hard and they can't recruit or fund to the extent they should be able to. Most guerillas the West has fought were in this category, that impedes them a lot, notable exceptions were the guerillas in South East Asia during the decolonisation, that saw most western forces defeated. The guerillas that are in an inadequate place include Shabaabs in Somalia, AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) in Mali, the djihadists in Lybia and Sinai. It softened the armies to think that guerillas are either easily containable or would be with a single push, and that no big military intervention is necessary. This is until they fought the Talibans in Afghanistan, who were in an advantageous terrain.The talibans aren't the only terrorists having a good home turf, AQAP (AQ in the Arabian Peninsula) is also growing years on, years out, despite an active counter insurgency by the US for over a decade. But Yemen didn't single handedly bogged down powerful military nations (except the Saudis) to the extent of Afghanistan. Most would say that whilst Afghanistan has common characteristics, it remains unique by the extent in which the terrain is prone to guerilla. I will disagree with this, or with any Afghan exceptionalism. The army that were defeated there were often not fighting a single war, nor on a single front. The talibans, and most other groups in Afghanistan, have all been defeated at least once. The british empire did conquer Afghanistan, as did the Sikhs just before, there is no impossibility. Another, often overlooked, factor is that the guerillas were/are well armed by enemy states of the invading countries, or by states friendly to the guerilla. Indeed without Sting missiles, and the other anti tank/aircraft weaponry provided by the US, the Soviets were very likely to quickly pacify the country without too much casualties. Other guerillas over the years have actually achieved their goals durably, whether against their own ( maoists, Nepal) or against a powerful opponent (Viet minh, Vietnam, Indochina), which shows that Afghanistan isn't perfect for a guerilla compared to other places. It also is awashed in quite heavy weaponry from wars, that other countries don't have, but still doesn't perform to the standard expected with such armament, the Houthis for example actually punishing an ennemy with the same kind of arms, by downing their aircrafts. The talibans have been outmatched by other guerillas, and has proven to be less effective than other guerillas, not showing Afghanistan as the toughest place, but it would still be enough to diminish an invading army significantly.The final point I will make is that empires overstretched to go or stay in Afghanistan. The USSR already absorbed much of central Asia, and this country that bordered directly allies of the US seemed like the logical next step, but they hadn't the means to manage such a vast country, leading to inefficiencies and eventual collapse. Similarly, the US stays there, despite wars throughout the middle east and numerous bases, including some on stand by in hotspots like the DMZ (demilitarized zone, border of the Koreas), which impedes overall readiness, and, should a sizeable war happen anywhere in the world with the US involved, it would soon wear thin. This is what makes Afghanistan deadly, empires tend to get bogged down by their enemies or by a small scale insurgency there, and instead of either quickly finishing the hostilities or bailing out, their obsession for a meaningful victory, in a place where guerillas can survive, will make them stay for years until they are so strained that are defeated.The only exceptional thing with Afghanistan is the length of continual fighting. It is the result of that fixation that empires have towards it. It produces generations of people who are good warriors, but also only know war, it creates groups who get rich from instability, and perpetuates itself. Keeping a fight there, will only increase the resistance, especially against a foreign army, and will forbid the creation of good and stable institutions. Furthermore mercenaries will only make the problem worse with their unaccountability turning entire regions against the government and the country that props him up. The older IRA showed that even a bad place to do a guerilla is winnable if the people have enough experience of war and guerilla over generations, if they were able to take most of Ireland despite all their disadvantages, the Talibans won't be long before they do the same with Afghanistan, which they already started reconquering. This leaves with only one alternative, peaceful nation building. Giving conditional aid to Afghanistan, according to its treatment of minorities and women, its government transparency and its democratic standard, without propping up any particular person for president will be less expensive than the current military occupation, and the future build up. It will give Afghans the control of their states, and incentivize them to uphold human rights. Finally it will end most of the reasons to exist of the different groups who are currently battling there, and will lower the level of violence, and hopefully, on the long term, stop totally the fighting and start Afghanistan development.We have a Facebook now: https://www.facebook.com/The-new-reality-in-foreign-policy-492287754467588/