Taliban fighters are sick of the 9 to 5 working desk jobs to run Afghanistan | Hacker News Reader

Taliban fighters are sick of the 9 to 5 working desk jobs to run Afghanistan

businessinsider.com

41 pointskneebonian30 comments

Speaking as a career American military officer, one of the biggest (of many, many) problems that led to our failure in Afghanistan was getting the Afghan National Army to some degree of self-sufficiency as we tried to build them up in our own image, and the biggest gap was in their ability to manage all of the back-office administrative stuff (logistics, human resources, etc.). The US Department of Defense is a massive bureaucracy for a lot of reasons, but some of them are good reasons. It really does take a lot of staff work at desks and in meetings to effectively manage the whole lifecycle of acquisition, fielding, recruiting, training, deployment, sustainment, maintenance, etc. at-scale.

I was a helicopter pilot, and we all quickly learn that we spend about 5% of our time flying and 95% of our time doing everything else to keep the aircraft and crews capable of flying. We're very curious to see exactly how long the Taliban will be able to keep all those helicopters that we left in Afghanistan in working condition.

> I was a helicopter pilot, and we all quickly learn that we spend about 5% of our time flying and 95% of our time doing everything else to keep the aircraft and crews capable of flying. We're very curious to see exactly how long the Taliban will be able to keep all those helicopters that we left in Afghanistan in working condition.

I don't think anyone expected them to keep Black Hawks in the air very long, not without spare parts...unless the Chinese can come up with something? Frankly, I'm amazed Iran has kept their F-14s in the air for so long, but they at least have a culture of desk work and logistics.

I was already surprised to see them flying some Black Hawks in their parade marking the anniversary of their return to power a few months ago. Just starting the engines and getting off the ground is non-trivial. But they still have under their thumb a lot of pilots that we trained, who weren't able to escape. I have no inside knowledge of this, but there was some news earlier this month about them actually training new pilots.

We've produced and exported a lot more Hawks (of various flavors) than F-14s, so I imagine that the availability of parts will be much better for them, but they clearly have no ability to produce parts domestically like Iran might have done.

I expect that these helicopters will probably be used mainly for showmanship, and later static displays, as a symbol of strength, like Afghan warlords kept old and no-longer-functional Stinger missile launchers on-hand for many years as status symbols.

This comment made me wonder: if we had to do this again.. I imagine there been lessons learnt, but is there an alternative model to build up a military?

I'm not a strategist, but... I think it's important to remember that the idea wasn't to build up just a military or security force. That was a necessary part of it, so that they could begin providing security for themselves instead of relying on US troops to do it for them indefinitely. But that was supposed to go hand-in-glove with also building up functional government and economic institutions, literacy, faith in democracy and rule-of-law, etc. Two problems:

1. The US military was basically left to do all of the above by itself, with only token commitment from other US government agencies and NATO partners. As a military we are pretty good at fighting, less good at building up another country's military force, and pretty bad at doing all the non-military stuff. We tried, and there was a whole cultural revolution within the Army between about 2005-2012 to get better at this, but we have to balance that with still being able to fight head-to-head against a peer military in large-scale combat.

2. The whole idea of "nation building" may just not be realistic, at least not on any timeline that we'd find acceptable. So the "alternative model" is probably putting up alternative goalposts. I think that's where we've effectively landed. Afghanistan isn't what we hoped it would be, but we can still play whack-a-mole with any Al-Qaeda (and now Islamic State) pockets that gather there to stage attacks on our interests, which is maybe what we should have limited ourselves to doing from the start.

Thanks! Yeah I suppose the possible scope for substantial military building absent a larger nation building project is limited

There was never any possibility of any success. These people have been small warring tribes forever, and muddled with by outside countries for longer than the US has existed.

An entire generation of fighters grew up in an environment where the US had drones buzzing overhead all the time and US bullets kept ending up in their family members heads. Their parents grew up fighting the soviets. They never wanted to be a western democracy, they just want to be left alone, and they should have been given that dignity.

If the people of a country don't want to stop being an oppressive religious regime, why would they have rallied behind a godless democracy?

Sure but it still stands that there were probably lessons learned beyond 'what we did was a bad decision'. Perhaps regarding robust organisational development, since it appears we had attempted to building things up there in the model of a highly industrialized developed nation dependent on steady logistical support.

If you haven't seen the VICE special This Is What Winning Looks Like [0], watch it.

As a sibling comment said, there was no plausible path to success. It was just a tremendous waste of time and resources, many of which just ended up in terrorist hands.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI

I have a friend who is an Army officer. It's interesting to talk to him about his work. He's weapons trained and all that, but his job basically boils down to being a mid-level manager managing a team of logistics people. Basically your average boring office job.

Yeah, you're not wrong. Being an Army officer is also not a singular "job" since we effectively change jobs within the Army every 1-3 years, and the jobs vary widely. We might go from a job that requires hands-on skill flying a tactical aircraft and employing weapon systems in combat, to a job that is basically doing logistics or HR middle-management[1] like you said, to a job in Washington (on Capitol Hill or at the White House) advising senior civilians and writing speeches on defense strategy and policy within our first 10-15 years.

[1] To get a real sense of just how mundane this can be, skim the table of contents for this Army Regulation which is like the bible or touchstone for every officer in command of a unit: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32931-AR_600...

That's true. He went from managing a 400 person group to now being an individual contributor in an intelligence role. I think he did some sort of training in between those jobs.

What failure in Afghanistan? The war was over in the 2000's with the US having full control of Afghanistan right? As far as nation building, it was a silly idea to begin with to help your defeated enemy rebuild but the failure there is the Afghan people's failure. Their soldiers would resist training and discipline and their politicians were consumed with bickering and infighting. They were not ready or willing to accept democratic rule or a civilian controlled military. They failed, the US merely stopped dumping money there for free.

As far as the Taliban go, no one is concerned that in their current state they will harbor al-qaeda or pose a risk to the west. Their leadership and al-qaeda in Afghanistan was eliminated. What you have now is people who believe in the Taliban's ideals beliefs who continued the old organization and it's rule over the country.

Vietnam I get calling a failure but Afghanistan is a stretch. The US was never interested in colonizing them and eradicating the Taliban entirely would require colonization and transforming their culture and ways so they can accept western ways and ideals which even if the US was willing to do, the american people don't have the stomach for the cruelty involved in such an affair.

Honestly, if Americans were cruel and craved violence does anyone doubt the taliban along with millions of civillians could be wiped out cleanly and permanently? Historically, that is what happens in war and even in current times you can see worse cruelty in war.

Is it really defeat when you pull out because you don't want to hurt your enemy even more than you already have?

So if we go back to the original objectives, I think they were (1) to destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and (2) replace the Taliban with a government that would never again provide a safe space for Al-Qaeda or any entity like that.

On (1), sure, I think we can declare success.

On (2), yes, we had full control within months (weeks?) of invading the country, but that was only true, at best, as long as we physically occupied every part of the country, and that wasn't the plan. The Taliban is back in power and arguably stronger than they were before we dislodged them and spent so many resources trying to sustainably replace them with someone else. Now, I agree that maybe we can make an argument that it's not the same Taliban anymore, and maybe this one wouldn't accept the presence of something like Al-Qaeda again. Indeed, we've actually worked with them to fight pockets of the Islamic State already. But this remains to be seen, and is still a pretty disappointing outcome if not a "failure."

I can agree that as a mission objective, installing a friendly government there was a catastrophic failure.

But the war ended in like 2002. The Taliban and America were not at war for 20 years. Remnants of a defeated enemy were causing problems and engaging guerilla style attacks from hiding after being evicted from power.

A war was declared against Afghanistan and the US controlled the land and government and dismantled the people in power and at the very least put them in a place where they cannot govern any aspect of the country.

What failed was a mission objective part of the greater "war on terror" not the war against afghanistan.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else use the phrase "war against Afghanistan" as opposed to the "war in Afghanistan," mostly describing a civil war that we were trying to stabilize in favor Hamid Karzai's and Ashraf Ghani's government.

Anyway, saying that the war ended and the enemy was defeated in 2002 seems like saying that a doctor saved a patient's life, but only as long as the patient remains in the ICU hooked up to life support machines.

I am glad you said that last analogy. The purpose of war is to defeat an enemy not save a country. Doctors save, militaries defeat or lose. If you want to use a patient as an example, it would be a more "apples to apples" comparison to say "the patient is dead so the disease won the fight" saving and maintaining state are open endes. But defeating is a specific goal.

Unlike "the war on terrorism" normal wars like the one against iraq and afghanistan involves two or more countries and militaries. One side has to be removed from power and control or accept defeat in order for the other side to claim victory. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US defeated and disbanded their militaries. At that point the US had victory. There was no obligation to stay there, historically it isn't uncommon for the victor to simply leave after acheiving victory. We stayed because of goals that were bigger than the war against those countries.

The Taliban in 2001 was the legitimate government of afghanistan against which the war was declared. Victory can only be measured relative to the specifics of the declaration of war.

This should surprise nobody. The kinds of people who make good soldiers and leaders in wartime conditions don't tend to have the disposition to succeed in boring peacetime.

It's all fun and guns til you realize civilization runs on pen, paper, and unsexy paperwork. True martyrdom is doing that boring shit so no one else has to.

Reminds me of Fargo Season 2 when the muscle/hit man Mike Milligan goes corporate.

Was it anything like the "Don Years" in the Whitehouse? I swear the guy has ADHD or something very similar. Almost everyone who ever worked for him and talked has stories.

Hahaha, the article even mentions one of the moaning about too much traffic and rent being too high.

Next they'll be at the cereal aisle, baffled by all the options, and wishing they could return to the theatre of war...

I don't think I'd trust business insider to report on what the Taliban are doing in afganistan accurately.

Ya but on the other hand this article has convinced me that the only way we are going to have world peace is by bonding over our mutual hatred of TPS reports.

From reading the article, it looks like the hard work was done by Afghan researcher working for Afghan think tank. Can find similar story from other outlets including one in Germany where think tank is based. Hopefully, Business Insider wrote their own story and did some verification, but could have repackaged it.

Where are the women that used to do all the hard paperwork silent and efficiently when the poor lads need them most?

Indeed! I'm not saying women are necessarily better at desk work, only that those who did it before have the necessary experience and office habits. But most got fired after the change-over.

Sounds similar to America, no more enemy to focus on, will begin to eat their own

That's why you keep women around guys..

There is some 8 million women in Afghanistan available that can do wonderful military clerical works.

Oh wait, we can't be having men working side-by-side with women. NVM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com