LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Exclusive Truthdig Merchandise - Gore Vidal signed first editions - Signed Mr. Fish prints
November 23, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Refuse Allegiance to Coal

The Guantanamo Lawyers: Shipwrecked

Give Kennedy His Cracker

Obama's Third Way in Afghanistan

Beautiful Steamer

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Freedom’s Fight: Part II

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
The Day Wall Street Exploded

The Day Wall Street Exploded

By Beverly Gage
$18.45

Coal River

Coal River

By Michael Shnayerson
$16.50

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Yet Another Reason Why War in Afghanistan Is a Bad Idea

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Sep 17, 2009
soldiers in Afghanistan
Flickr/Army.mil

Two American soldiers search mountains in Afghanistan’s Andar province for Taliban members and weapons caches in 2007.

Numerous historical examples have demonstrated that attempting to go to war in Afghanistan isn’t really the best plan, what with the tricky geography and all, yet here we are, eight years into just that very scenario. Along with the landscape-oriented issues, The Wall Street Journal has noted yet another reason that this war is dragging on without a clear end in sight: Afghanistan happens to be the place a relatively large percentage of angry young men call home at the moment.  —KA

The Wall Street Journal:

How can a politically divided population of today 33 million provide enough fighters to resist the NATO countries, which have a combined population of nearly one billion? How can the Afghans challenge such military behemoths? Or, to put it differently, why do Russia and NATO win easily against mini-powers such as Georgia or Serbia, but find it hard to defeat mini-powers such as Chechnya or Afghanistan? What do the Afghans have that both the other mini-powers and the big powers are lacking? The answer is in the dynamics of a rapidly growing population.

Decade after decade, the women of Afghanistan have been averaging three to four sons each. This means even if an Afghan family loses two or more boys on the battlefield—“disposable sons”—it still has one or two male offsprings at home to carry the family into the next generation. Russian soldiers in 1979, however, were likely to be only sons. Statistically, that is also true for American soldiers in 2009, and is true as well for the soldiers of Serbia and Georgia that have quickly shrinking and ageing populations.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Michael Hoang, September 21 at 5:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

No extra troop please.
I’m a Vietnamese american, I have good experience about Hit & Run war style. We can not send our son and daughter to the war with their hand tie. We can not win the war if we can not use our best weapon like B52. Let train the local people to fight for their country. Please get out ASAP.
Michael Hoang

Report this

By Folktruther, September 20 at 9:40 am #

Lemuel, the thesis does matter, or at least it may matter, and extends far beyond Afghanistan.  As people migrate to the cities from the farms under inductrialization, we have less children.  Indeed, the European population, which industrialized first is declining. 

Therefore people may be less inclined to permit their children to be sent off to war.  If this is true and a significant force, and I don’t know whether it is or not, that means that war will diminish in the future, and those wars that occur will be less bloody.

It also means that the US will lose the war in Afghanistan, but most knowledgable people knew that to begin with.  It would also mean that the US and Western imperialism would be more reluctant to get into these colonial wars, since killing a lot of people doesn’t win them.  and it has implications for the Palestinian struggle as well against Israel.

History doesn’t forward in a straight line but sidles sideways, like a crab.  The Journal’s bent toward imperialist oppression has stated a truth that might have historical implications.  Or perhaps not.  It should be explored and examined more closely.

Report this

By LemuelG, September 18 at 10:07 pm #

Ok, fair enough, I would agree in principle that there is less potential for conflict when populations are in decline - simply because there will be less competition for resources.

But - how is this relevant? Does an American mother feel better about losing a son/daughter if she has other children? I doubt it crosses their minds… grieving families look for reasons why - not demographic comparisons.

They see their precious, beloved children dying because of strategic/tactical incompetence on behalf of their military and policy-makers; this is never acceptable to anyone of any culture or any amount of children.

If the tables were turned, and American only-children were dying defending their homes and families, I doubt there’d be the same trite arguments being peddled…

That article was obfuscation - bullshit designed to obscure the reality of the situation, frankly.

Obama needs to articulate clear objectives for this war - he hasn’t - therefore it is un-winnable, geddit? I’m not saying that it would necessarily be simple to achieve your goals if only they existed, but at least you’d have something to aim for.

Please, focus on the things which matter.

Report this

By Folktruther, September 18 at 1:33 pm #

No, no, Lemuel, The Journal story is politically interesting.  The population of a decling growth may be more loath to go to war than one with increasing growth.  This may be the reason that the US is concentrating on low intensity conflicts and is so sensitive public relations-wise about the death of its soldiers, not showing the coffins on TV. 

After all, compared to the massacres of the 20th century, a few thousand deaths over a number of years are insignificant, and deaths of dark skinned Enemy are largely invisible to the American population. 

Europe, a decling population numerically, is now more peaceful than Africa, with a huge birthrate.  How significant this factor is needs to be explored, not dismissed.  It is to the credit of TD that it raises it.

Report this

By LemuelG, September 18 at 6:09 am #

Just when you thought writing on the Afghan-war couldn’t get any sillier…

Sure, Afghans will easily out-breed Amerians, all day long. But how is it relevant in this day of drones and B-52s? When some dude back in the states can rub out a couple of hundred people before brunch, without even getting his finger-nails dirty…

The monthly NATO casualty-rate in Afghanistan is negligible, a fraction of that incurred by traffic-accidents during WWII. While that is cold comfort to those whose loved-ones are dying, do you think military-planners give a fuck? (No, dying is part of a soldier’s job - this isn’t a conscript-army)

The reason the war isn’t being ‘won’ is because there are no concrete objectives - how does one fulfill an objective which doesn’t exist?

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
Chrome Bag - Free Shipping
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.