
This Is What Winning Looks Like – Afghanistan War Diary - yk
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/this-is-what-winning-looks-like-full-length
======
rickdale
I always feel like no matter how well a journalist covers Afghanistan, its
only a small slice of the pie, for everything that is going on over there. And
that is not to discredit the journalists, they do a great job, there is just
so much going on over there, you gotta pick and choose your stories.

For me, one of the greatest tragedies in Afghanistan as a result from the US
war is the drug addict problem over ther. I haven't studied the issue in a
couple of years, but I remember looking at pictures and statistics of heroin
addicts in Afghanistan. As the war destroyed their country citizens turned to
drugs and so did leaders, but the latter did so for money. The citizens
literally have nothing better to do. And thats not to say they weren't poppy
farmers before the war, they were, the majority were just not heroin abusers.

In 2008 I took a seminar about the Afghanistan War, premised on the question,
is Afghanistan a failed state? In a room with 12 reasonably bright American
students we all were able to point out terrific errors that were causing some
big issues. I remember reading that 70-80 percent of the trained Afghani
police force was just signed up to get a paycheck. They never showed up for
duty or anything.

I do a lot of thinking about Afghanistan, because the situation is unique, yet
historically predictable. In my opinion, its hard for me and Americans maybe
all westerners, to understand Afghanistan and the people there; and its just
as difficult for the people in Afghanistan to understand our way of life, and
how to assimilate to what we were setting up.

At present count, 3 people from my high school class have died fighting in
Afghanistan, and 5 counting the year ahead of me (0 of my college mates, point
for another story..). And this is what counts for me. I like to think that
because the situation is complex and can get confusing, the best way to gain
an understanding is to study individual stories, stuff that usually gets
hidden behind the larger scene.

From the research I have done, the majority of Afghans want peace to the point
where they would accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the continued war.
Its confusing, but it just shows the war really needs to end.

~~~
graycat
> From the research I have done, the majority of Afghans want peace to the
> point where they would accept a Taliban strict rule of law over the
> continued war. Its confusing, but it just shows the war really needs to end.

As I looked at US efforts at essentially 'nation building', often on the other
side of the world, to try to contribute to US national security, I came up
with a simple observation:

In a country with a government and economy that function at all, there has to
be and is a 'culture' with social structures, education, economic activity,
leadership, laws, government, usually religion, etc. While such a culture has
to exist, it may be very different from that in the US.

In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the 'culture' is heavily just
Islam: Islam controls social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child rearing,
the role of family, etc. Islam also controls most of education, much of the
economic activity, essentially all the laws, the police, the justice system,
the government, the foreign policy, and, of course, religion. We can toss in
architecture, what people eat, and what they wear. Basically from how people
dress, eat, work, etc., its all Islam. So, in an Islamic country, take away
Islam, and there's no culture at all and, then, just chaos, e.g., criminals,
gangs, civil war, etc. Net, in an Islamic country, for a government leader can
have an Islamic king (e.g., Kuwait), Islamic strong man dictator (Saddam,
Assad), or Islamic cleric (Iran). That's about it.

One can try to set up a Western, secular government in an Islamic country, but
the leader will have no cultural foundation to stand on and, thus, will be
trying to sell pie in the sky. Meanwhile the clerics will be working 24 x 7 to
get their people up on their hind legs against the guy, and too soon he will
lose, maybe his head.

For anything like US democracy, laws, police, secular government, freedom of
religion, etc., just f'get about it. We need to understand: In the US, our
'culture' of democracy is much more than just our Constitution and elections.
Instead, in addition, nearly all of us have 'bought into' a 'social contract'
where we believe in, invest in, and trust in our democracy. So for most
significant transgressions against the 'culture', the voters get indignant,
outraged, incensed, infuriated, and up on their hind legs and vote! E.g., each
member of the House has to stand for election each two years, which is darned
short, and keeps him on a very short leash, and if he messes up then likely
he's out'a there. To borrow from a Bond movie, getting caught in a motel room
with a cheerleader does nicely.

Really the Islamic countries are about 500 years behind the history of Western
Europe, e.g., when Western Europe was fighting wars of religion and starting
to develop respect for humanism, individual freedom, secular government, and
democracy. Moving ahead 500 years is not easy. The rivers of Europe ran red
with blood for hundreds of years before we got to 'Western Civilization'.
Europe has been the most effectively bloody place on the planet until finally
it started to learn to live in peace, recently, hopefully.

Net, Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic
country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or
cleric. Sorry 'bout that. We won't like such a 'culture': Some of the men use
boys for sex. They marry off their daughters at age 7 or 13 or some such. They
refuse to educate females. They use Islamic laws and justice. Islam runs
essentially everything.

That's just the way it is. That's the reality. We need to face the reality. We
don't like it. We see it as a 500 year out of date sh!tpit, and we are
correct. Right, it sucks. We know that.

Then, facing that reality, we can look for how to get what we need, e.g., US
national security, that is, to keep Afghanistan from being the base of
operations of another 9/11 attack on the US.

Okay, then, that's what we really need, our real 'bottom line': Keep
Afghanistan from being the base of operations of another 9/11 attack on the
US. We need little or nothing more than that from Afghanistan. Can we get
that? Sure. How? Two steps. Step 1. Put in place a bunch of INTEL. Step 2\.
Leave. [It took the US 12 years to figure this out?] If our INTEL tells us
that they are starting to attack the US again, then level them, appropriate
places plus some for good measure, from the air. Done.

What will happen after we leave? Mostly we don't give a sh!t. But I'd put my
money on a government run by an Islamic cleric, e.g., the Taliban.

Now, US military, welcome home. Well done.

Yes, we can be sure that the Muslim clerics will get their people up on their
hind legs shouting "Death to America". Sounds like a declaration of war to me
for which some USAF guy in a container room in Nevada should push a button on
a drone control and stop that stuff. But if all they do is shout, then we
don't always have to push the button.

England was long smart enough to work effectively in that part of the world,
in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India,
Burma, Singapore, etc., without getting all bent out of shape trying to bring
English culture to those places.

The US needs to quit being so darned simplistic, wise up, learn from the
English 150 years ago, update the lessons a little, use our drones, INTEL,
etc., do the smart things, and quit bleeding the US white on absurd foreign
adventures from just totally unrealistic, head in the sand, simplistic foreign
policy nonsense. We will not get what we have wanted in Afghanistan. Instead
we will wise up and get what we can and need or just go broke on nonsense.

What's it going to be US, wise up or go broke?

~~~
neebz
Have you ever been to an Islamic country ever? You just made up the whole
history like a simplistic comic book story.

> In Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world, the 'culture' is heavily just
> Islam: Islam controls social structures, e.g., sex, marriage, child rearing,
> the role of family, etc.

I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental
traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs. There is a
strong case that our marriage, sex etc. are more inclined towards traditional
indian culture than islamic (e.g. second marriages or marrying a divorcee is a
taboo in Pakistan while in fact is encouraged in Islam). There is so much
diversity in our provinces on how they deal with women (e.g. in Punjab in
rural areas, it is very common for women to have jobs, unlike in the Pashtuns)
that your claim of sweeping all Islamic countries under one broom is
laughable.

> We can toss in architecture, what people eat, and what they wear. Basically
> from how people dress, eat, work, etc., its all Islam. No it's not. Sorry
> that's just show your lack of research. Again the 'shalwar kameez' we wear
> here in Pakistan has more in common with Hindu lineage than Islam with the
> urban areas are totally jeans/suits. We have huge interest-based banks since
> forever where banks are a total no-no in Islam.

>Afghanistan is going to be an Islamic country, some version of an Islamic
country, but still an Islamic country, likely run by a king, strong man, or
cleric

Not sure you can lump up kings with clerics and make an argument out of that.
The only thing common between then is opportunist. They wanted to be on the
throne and they might've used religion in some cases or maybe sheer power in
other. In Pakistan, more than half of our history, we've been ruled by
dictators but not once we got an Imam or a cleric.

~~~
graycat
> I am from Pakistan. Our culture is massive mix of Indian/sub-continental
> traditions, Islamic values and most recently westerns customs

Apparently the main part of Pakistan relevant to Afghanistan is the 'tribal
regions' mostly not governed by the rest of Pakistan. There your claims of a
"mix" seem to be not correct.

Further, much of the problem the US has had with Pakistan is from the strong
role of Islam there and in Afghanistan. For reasons of religion, culture,
domestic politics, and foreign policy, Pakistan has been mostly on the side of
the Taliban, that is, wants to dominate Afghanistan.

My comments about Islam were focused on Afghanistan. The comments also apply a
lot to Iran and Iraq. For Pakistan, sure, it used to be part of India which is
wildly mixed from Muslim, Hindu, what it got from the British, and the old
cultures from before the British. India is a forbiddingly complicated place,
and Pakistan has been influenced by that.

But the main reason for the formation of Pakistan was just Islam -- they
wanted an Islamic country. Net, the main culture in Pakistan is just Islam.

Italy is heavily a Roman Catholic country, but the church does not run
everything. Turkey is an Islamic country, but the clerics don't run
everything. An Islamic country can have a culture more varied than just Islam.
No doubt the culture of Pakistan is more varied than that of Afghanistan.

The main interest in this tread is what the heck is the US going to do about
Afghanistan and why? The main content of why is just the role of Islam.

The US brought to Afghanistan constitutional government, free elections,
roads, schools, hospitals, training and equipment for police and a military,
but Afghanistan is about to throw away all of that and return to an 'Islamic
state' run by the Taliban. Thus, I and much of the US are losing patience with
both Afghanistan and Islam.

~~~
ucee054
_The comments also apply a lot to Iran and Iraq_

If you think Salafist Afghanistan, Kohmeinist Iran and Baathist Iraq had
anything in common then you know jack shit.

That's like comparing Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and the US colonies in
Cotton Mather's time, sticking them all into one big pot because they are all
"Christian". Idiocy.

~~~
graycat
You miss the point: It's not that all the versions of Islam and Islamic
governments are alike. Instead, it's that in the more backward Islamic
countries, Islam is essentially all the culture there is. And Islam is not
just a religion but is also into law, government, education, etc. So, in such
a country, Islam is about all the culture there is and can block, actively or
just passively by default, essentially all progress.

As you point out, there are still some differences. But what is in common is
that Islam, in whatever flavors, is so strong, and not just a religion, and
essentially all the culture there is, is able to block progress.

Look, to be more clear, the problem is not just Islam. Instead, the Roman
Catholics ran everything in Western Europe for hundreds of years, were
corrupt, blocked progress, and finally Europe got out of it, after religious
wars, etc.

The point is not that Islam is a bad religion, even if it is. Instead the
point is that to run a good society, need a good culture, and that culture
needs to come from much more than just some religious clerics. A religious
state, Roman Catholic, Islamic, or anything else, just will not be a
successful state. In the countries where Islam is the only culture, Islam
needs to shrink back to being just a religion, hopefully one of several, and
let the culture have other inputs besides just religion. Got it now?

~~~
ucee054
_Got it now?_

Don't patronize me. You wrote a screed justifying bombing the hell out of
civilians because you didn't like their speech. Somewhere in your moral
bankruptcy, you wrote

 _So, in an Islamic country, take away Islam, and there's no culture at all
and, then, just chaos_

 _This_ was your characterization of Iran and Iraq, which showed that you
don't know jack. It also won't work for Turkey or Malaysia.

By the way, "nation building" failed in Germany as well, largely because
Americans are hypocrites who SAY "nation building" and DO _war profiteering_ ,
_corruption_ and _vindictiveness_. The result was Adolf Hitler.

So the US had to fight _another_ World War with Germany, and after getting
their asses kicked so badly by the Axis, and coming close to losing in several
ways, the US decided in 1945 to do actual nation building in half good faith,
hence the Marshall Plan. This time round, it succeeded in Germany and Japan.

Unfortunately, the US forgot this lesson by 9/11, so when it came to Iraq and
Afghanistan, they went back to "nation building" by Blackwater XE and
Halliburton, with predictable results.

------
hooande
The taliban operates like the mafia in Afghanistan. They go from provincial
village to village, effectively saying "Hey, nice village you have here...it
would be a shame if something were to happen to it"

They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters
harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also
adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my
daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in
the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to
make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter.

In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan
villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer
military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at
scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen.
The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in
Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts.

The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection
racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor
villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to
introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law
to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business.

The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of
western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held
together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab
power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things
are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest
citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most
lucrative parts of the government.

It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people
who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them.
But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may
have helped the situation.

~~~
lolcraft
> When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how
> 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen.

9/11 hijackers were mostly well educated, middle-class Saudi Arabians. Not
Taliban, as you seem to imply.

If anything, what could be argued is that Afghanistan lacking a national
police force makes it easy for terrorist groups to establish military training
camps there. But that's a whole different thing.

~~~
wnight
Not even, it makes it easy for _warlords_ to train militias, not for
terrorists.

Terrorists rarely need combat skills as we think about them. Terrorist
training is more about pushing the button - which is all religious, or maybe
playing flight-sims and practicing with a knife. They do this in living rooms
and garages.

Local warlords though, need places to train troops live ammo, firing RPGs and
mortars, practicing attacking and defending against other large local foes.

Not that they shouldn't be stopped - that's a valid question - but we went in
after international terrorists, shot local warlords, and claimed victory.

(In the process, killing enough people unjustly to cause much of a generation
to have real reason to hate us.)

------
bane
One of the major problems that occupying forces have had in Afghanistan is
that modern military strategy fundamentally isn't designed for taking and
holding ground. Outside of the bases in Afghanistan, there is not one square
meter of ground that is "owned" by the coalition.

The approach seems to be that transient patrols, haphazardly driving around
and visiting villages in giant bomb proof robot trucks, is a substitute for
thousands of years old strategies of taking, holding and controlling
territory. There's no front lines in the kind of conflict because that's how
the new strategy has defined the conflict. The last time a modern military in
a major conflict actually took and held ground was probably the Korean War.
After that it was endless insurgencies or hit-win-withdraw like in the first
Iraq war.

This is opposed to the Taliban which can comfortably move into a village and
live there 24/7, becoming "the villagers" as much as anybody who was there
before. A robot truck driving up and asking "where are the non-villagers,
where are the bad guys?" will get no answer because everybody is a villager,
and the guy making bombs in the afternoons is a village elder the rest of the
day. There are no bad guys.

Afghanistan isn't a failed state, it's an anti-state, its borders are a
reflection of the borders of its neighbors -- extending only so far as they
cared to and stopping when the terrain became too difficult to bother. Within
this zone are several city-states and otherwise large stretches of lawless
territory connected, but not held together, by a network of smugglers and
local warlords. The coalition controls none of it save for perhaps the city-
state of Kabul.

Of course the ability to take and control territory means lots and lots of
manpower, which runs contrary to modern military thinking. This forces
military leadership into a state of sustained denial that this or that
alternate approach will be the one that opens up the opportunity for
Afghanistan to develop into a real state. They're flummoxed that it isn't
happening.

But there's sadly only one proven way to accomplish this goal, take, hold and
control territory. Put in place a carefully controlled puppet dictator or
similar for a couple decades, one who will build up strong institutions of
government and industry. Then once these things are in place, kill him or his
dynastic line off (or have a quiet democratic revolution) and have the people
assume ownership of these institutions and industries. Sure if the timing of
these things is off it fucks up and we end up with Iran. But if the timing is
good we end up with South Korea.

~~~
bdunbar
> The last time a modern military in a major conflict actually took and held
> ground was probably the Korean War.

Except for ..

Falkland Islands

Grenada

Desert Storm

OIF

~~~
lobster_johnson
The Falklands are British. The British forces did not "take and hold ground",
the repelled an invasion force.

Desert Storm: The US did not hold any ground for a long period of time. They
defeated the Iraqi forces and withdrew.

~~~
bdunbar
> The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion
> force.

Incorrect. The Argentines surprised the small garrison, had the place in a few
hours. The Brits then mobilized an amphibious force and had to take the
Falklands back.

> did not hold any ground for a long period of time.

I don't recall there being a qualification for 'time spent on the ground'. And
incorrect because we've had forces in Kuwait ever since.

~~~
lobster_johnson
You're arguing semantics. In the Falklands, the ground was British in the
first place, and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island; they
repelled an invasion force, and saying that "held ground" is like saying the
US has "held ground" from the British since the Revolution. Similarly, Kuwait
was friendly territory; I was referring to Iraq.

~~~
bdunbar
> and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island

One of us needs to review that conflict. And it's not me.

------
IsaacL
Random theory I have (hopefully some HN-ers with actual military knowledge can
weigh in): modern militaries need less technology and more manpower. It seems
since I was a kid politicians have been saying that armed forces should become
smaller and more high-tech. That means less bodies sent home in coffins and
also more contracts for BAE Systems, so it's a popular message.

That all works well (very well) when you're invading countries. Doesn't work
so well when you decide you need to _build_ a new country out of the ruins.
Maybe we'd do better if instead of spending billions on flying robot assassins
to fight tribal hill-farmers, we simply enlisted more humans to take command.

The only other option I can see is to start running the American empire
British-style - they ran very efficient colonies by exploiting existing tribal
divisions, usually by recruiting some existing elite as their colonial
administrators. Not trying to implement democracy in tribal regions that don't
yet have stable institutions or the rule of law would probably also help.

~~~
skore
> modern militaries need less technology and more manpower

An interesting thought! One of the most interesting conclusions I drew from
this documentary is that the Afghan Military needs both - more technology and
more manpower. But the trouble, as shown, is that you need the intelligence to
handle so much manpower, the social contracts to retain that manpower and the
education to handle that technology.

So what you're saying about the balance might be an interesting point for the
US military might work for them, but it doesn't even start to help out with
the Afghan forces.

As for going "British-style" - I think that stuff simply doesn't work in the
modern, connected world. British colonialism took advantage of isolation and
division. Doesn't work so well if the country you invade is reasonably well
connected globally.

~~~
rdl
The US has a really bad track record of picking local partners. Mostly because
during the Cold War, the "good" local people were more innately socialist,
which the Communists exploited, so we got stuck with some pretty horrible
people (either ineffective or outright evil) by default.

I don't believe it's feasible to occupy a medium sized country which actively
resists using modern militaries. It's certainly not worth it. I'd just focus
on keeping a limited presence to rain death from above (like we do in
Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) or via limited JSOC strikes (Somalia, Afghanistan
before 2007 or so, etc.), and then using armed but civilian organizations to
interface with the populace and government.

In a place like Somalia or Afghanistan, foreign organizations should run
important infrastructure and logistics services for the local government and
population, with the cost subsidized by international donors. i.e. a local
Afghan should be able to buy electricity at 0.10/KwH, sell their pomegranates
at the world price, and have clean water, Internet, cellphones, etc., without
any other focus on building the government (since that's probably hopeless).
The organization providing that infrastructure needs self-defense capability,
but you don't need much beyond what Blackwater had to do this.

~~~
skore
> In a place like Somalia or Afghanistan, foreign organizations should run
> important infrastructure and logistics services for the local government and
> population[...]

That's what I thought as well - The documentary left a pretty bleak picture of
the Afghans ability to build, extend or even maintain basic infrastructure,
but it's desperately needed if they want to get anywhere with education. The
country needs at least a good dozen generations to heal the most serious
wounds so it can find its own interest in the kind of social development that
makes it resistant to terrorism taking root over and over again.

Hand-holding throughout that time is what is required. But that's probably the
most costly thing, I would guess. Then again, those drones and all that
ammunition sure don't come cheap either. But the US has sunk far too much
money into that failed path to turn around and do the other one now.

And even then - the problem is that the citizens are already tired of conflict
and both sides, the international troops and the taliban, are trying to
exploit that. Just giving them great infrastructure might make it easier for
the international troops, but it would probably do the same for the taliban.

Whatever the solution, it sure won't be a quick one. My best bet would be to
exploit the countries natural resources and push all the money made from that
into infrastructure and security. But that's just the kind of "socialism" that
nobody in the west wants to pick up.

~~~
rdl
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagons_New_Map> from Thomas PM Barnett is
probably the "official" version of this -- a small, lethal military designed
to win wars, and a "SysAdmin force" designed to build nations after the fact.

I'm not sure how well this theory has held up (it's from 2004...), or how much
support it has. I think what happened is we got lucky in Iraq in 2007-2010
using the old British strategy of allying with semi-enemies against real
enemies (Sons of Iraq and the other Sunni tribes, and non-aggression with the
Shia militias), eked out a borderline draw in Iraq while calling it "a victory
for COIN", applied the "COIN" model rather than the "British" model to
Afghanistan with the surge and all, and have proceeded to lose from 2009-now
in Afghanistan.

------
dfc
If you liked this video you might also like:

* Armadillo[1] a documentary about a group of Danish soldiers deployed to Helmland. Armadillo is right up there with Restrepo in my opinion.

* The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan[2] if you are curious about the bacha bazi boys.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_%28film%29>

[2] <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/>

~~~
rdl
Restrepo is also pretty amazing in its own right.

My absolute favorite work about the whole war in Afghanistan is First In
([http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-
Afg...](http://www.amazon.com/First-Insiders-Account-Spearheaded-
Afghanistan/dp/0345496612)) which is how the entire war should have been
fought: A CIA man, a couple ODAs (~20 US Army Special Forces soldiers), an old
ex-Soviet helicopter, and $30mm in $100 bills, and victory in 2 months. I sent
a copy to weev in prison, will be interesting to see what he thinks :)

~~~
Helpful_Bunny
That's kind of you, but horribly naive.

 _Being validated by prison staff as an associate of a prison gang or being in
possession of questionable reading material can land an inmate in the SHU for
an indefinite amount of time. The UN says more than 15 days in solitary
confinement is considered torture. SHU prisoners at Pelican Bay spend an
average of 7.5 years there. In 2005 (last released statistics) there were over
80,000 inmates held in solitary confinement in the US. This inhumane treatment
is a clear violation of the 8th amendment and must be changed._

[http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary...](http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/solitary-
in-iran-nearly-broke-me-why-americas-prisons-are-worse/)

Wise up a little bit, the USG doesn't play nice, and weev has already been
subject to "special attention" due to not grokking the simple fact that he is
totally powerless in the system now.

The More You Know.

~~~
dfc
How is this questionable reading material? The book got through the CIA's
publication review board and there was no funny business like there was with
Operation Dark Heart.

Today is the only day of the year that I watch sports (Go Cuse!) so I'm going
to try my hardest to ignore that giant leap from >15 days in solitary is
torture to everyone in solitary is being treated inhumanely.

~~~
Helpful_Bunny
It is questionable reading material _based on the evaluation of the Prison
authorities in his prison_ , __not __any other authority. If you cannot fathom
how a book on CIA + Afghanistan + Black OPs could be twisted into "reading up
on terrorism" you're incredibly naive, or know nothing about the types of
books that have lead to solitary confinement in the US prison system. The
latter is obviously the case: I'd urge you to do a little research some time
into how the rule is abused. Biographies of Malcom X getting you in solitary,
that sort of thing...

As for "giant leap", I'd suggest: _Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement
by Stuart Grassian_ (25 yrs Harvard Medical school) for a quick over-sight
into the issues. Journal of Law & Policy PDF:
<http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf>

Solitary confinement is one of the leading punishments that is currently used
in the US Prison System. Weev has already made himself a "little unpopular" in
his stay (less than 3 months: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/weev-
soundcloud_n_3...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/weev-
soundcloud_n_3093315.html)) and is on the fast track to learning the hard way.
He has ~36 months remaining, less _if he behaves_ and doesn't "troll them".
Asking publicly about their financial data is __not __cute and __not __smart
and will __not __go unnoticed.

Enjoy your sports. Perhaps you should stick with the TeeVee, I was merely
suggesting that people _think_ before engaging with a totally foreign (to
them) mindset, that of the authoritarian US penal system. Or, at the very
least, do the barest minimum of Due Diligence.

Do the research; you might get shock & awed out of your bubble. Lions, Tigers
and Bears.

~~~
dfc
I have some experience with cases of excessive force and I am fully aware of
the level of discretion that the court affords to the professional judgement
of corrections officers (admittedly restricted to NYCRR). I certainly am not
under the impression that the metal bars delineate the good people from the
bad people.

My "TeeVee" time is long over and I have done a little research into how how
reading a book can land one in solitary. I have not been able to find anything
concrete. Most of the things that I have found are consistent with my
experience with the NYCRR and everything that I have found is consistent with
the Furnace case[1] from California (the most notable and recent case). From
everything that I have read I have not been able to find any instances of
solitary confinement solely due to reading a book. And certainly no instances
of solitary confinement for reading a mass market book that is currently #19
in its category on amazon that the prisoner received via mail and therefore
screened (where assessment is based on the individual receiving the book).

Could you point me to some source material?

Side Note: Why so passive aggressive with me or the parent comment?

[1] In re Furnace (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 649

~~~
Helpful_Bunny
I'd suggest your research has little to do with reality, and more to do with
the Court room:

 _“Extreme isolation is one of the most extreme forms of punishment one human
can force on another, and in New York State it is often a disciplinary tool of
first resort,” said NYCLU Legal Fellow Scarlet Kim, co-author of the report.
“People spend weeks, months and even years cut off from human interaction and
rehabilitative services for non-violent, minor misbehavior. The process for
determining who is sent to extreme isolation is arbitrary – there is virtually
no guidance or limitations on who can be sent to extreme isolation, for what
reasons, or for how long.”_

[http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_boxedin_FINAL....](http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_boxedin_FINAL.pdf)

 _The practice is theoretically intended to separate violent and dangerous
inmates from the rest of the prison population. The New York Civil Liberties
Union, however, uncovered that the majority of those in solitary confinement
were given the punishment for nonviolent, low-level offenses. Nearly 90
percent of the men placed in solitary confinement between 2007 and 2011 were
there for breaking one of the minor prison rules, such as having unauthorized
books, disobeying an order or growing their mustaches too long (“an inmate
shall not grow a beard or mustache over one inch in length”). Other documented
infractions that led to solitary confinement included one man who had gambling
chips in his cell and another who received 45 days for tattooing himself._

Took me about 3 minutes. Given that the ACLU report was indeed about New York
(NYCRR) and you were _"unable to find any examples of it"_ , I suspect you're
a tainted or biased source.

Given the "down votes" (a Reddit term, I think?) on my response that contained
decent sources, I'll disengage from this. I wish weev well, but I suspect if
he continues he'll be broken, hard.

------
shn
This is what winning looks like:

From this... [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-
pop...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-
success-us-aides-say.html)

to this... [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-
opi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/afghanistan-opium-
production-increases-for-3rd-year.html?_r=0)

------
joering2
Just so we are clear on one thing: the last war that US took a part of that
was a war fought in the name of freedom was War War 2 that ended in 1945.
Every single War after that date had nothing to do with Americans living on
American soil being free, safe, or whatever. You had to have your brain
removed to believe that invading Iraq or Afghanistan (and killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent, as a by-result of every military conflict) was
necessary, because otherwise those nations and their people will come here and
violate the US soil.

Both Iraq and Afghan war were carefully crafted by Military Industrial Complex
from day one (first step: create problem, like in Iraq WMD's that were never
found {glad there are some countries like Switzerland where they still
prosecuted war criminals [1]}, step two: offer solution: offer piece by using
force, step three: execute - by spending trillions of tax dollars), so you
should understand war is nothing more than good business. Bloody but good.
Stalin said one person killed that's a murder, millions is only a statistics,
and that's how I believe those pulling strings can sleep at night. Oh by the
way: as you remember those WMDs were never found (but sure they existed,
okay?), but rest assured they moved them somewhere around, conveniently. Never
mind 100,000 civilians dead (or some surveys shows 600k, or .. 1 million!
[2]).

I have a respect for american soldiers, but I wish they were more educated on
what they are really doing. They are NOT protecting american soil or fighting
for their own country. Those are gone long time ago, as Chief in Command
(President of the USA) is carefully following NATO orders, and US becomes a
part of North American Union. Their action, whether successful or not, have
nothing to do with us here being safe on american soil. Had they been educated
they are just a tool in hands of few with access to the highest standing
politicians that grab more tax money and give it into hands of Military
Industrial Complex, they would have stopped participating in the war, knowing
the real name of the game, like fighting for oil in Iraq.

Just some of my thoughts on this Memorial Day.

[1] [http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-
you-k...](http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/04/uncategorized/did-you-know-
that-bush-cant-travel-to-switzerland-without-facing-charges-will-obama-have-
same-fate/)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War>

~~~
curiousDog
Thank you for pointing this out! For a second there I couldn't understand how
the American population is turning a blind eye to such a pointless war.

Also the new Start trek movie is oddly reminiscent to this. Although the
taliban/iraq aren't nearly as powerful as the Klingons.

~~~
joering2
Well, it doesn't matter whether they are turning blind eye or not. America's
politics in not in people's hands, but in politician's hands that serve bigger
cause (read: serve Military Industrial Complex).

The sad part is, is that not much is gonna change. There is STILL too much
money to make off of war, and in case too many civilians stand up, you can
always setup another 911, plane bombing (shoe-bomber), another stage shooting,
etc, and it will shut everyone up, and open their wallets to even more money
being given to MIC.

Its a really sad and disappointing situation.

------
jmadsen
Vice is nothing but quality. Wish more people were aware of them, and the
really wide variety of excellent documentaries they produce

~~~
negrit
I was thinking the same thing until I watched a documentary about France's
Toughest Rappers. And unfortunately I know very well the rape scene and this
documentary was nothing but a big joke: Lies, bullshit, ...

So know I'm a bit suspicious.

~~~
namdnay
I hope you're referring to the "rap scene"..

Yeah that documentary was slightly exploitative: "oh look, let's send a cute
young girl into the ghetto and film a bunch of knuckleheads trying to get in
her pants!" Then again, nothing too different from the usual late night TV
"documentaries" about the police/the ghettos/the jet-set..

~~~
negrit
Yes I am referring to the rap scene. My bad.

------
bradfordarner
This reminds me so much of being over there. This documentary does such a
great job of showing the utter confusion and screwed up nature of fighting
counter-insurgencies.

Every day is like choosing between different types of cancer. There is no
'winning' only seemingly less lethal varieties of the same disease. To make it
worse, you are choosing which cancer to support through an intermediary, the
interpreter. After a short time there you realize how much of a gap the
language barrier is and how debilitating it is to not be able to build genuine
relationships with your interlocuteur because you have to wait for the
interpretation.

There is no 'solution' to Afghanistan and there is no 'winning'. People accuse
NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing the legitimate war
crimes we prevented every single place we went. Afghanistan is still the
jungle and the strongest wins. That isn't going to change from one day to the
next. At this point, warfare is all that they know. They've been at it for
over 30 years.

Unfortunately, you walk away thinking that the only solution is to be the
strongest.

~~~
wnight
> People accuse NATO soldiers of war crimes everyday without even realizing
> the legitimate war crimes we prevented every single place we went.

Had we gone into Afghanistan in the 90s when various groups of locals were
asking us to we might have fought about as much, in the end, but we'd have
been there at the request of the people, actually building relationships,
instead of continually rebuilding a failed-by-design state for some bullshit
9/11 excuse.

Bin Laden might still have happened because he wasn't depending on
Afghanistan, or he might not have, because the allies could have had a better
(good) reputation in the area negating much of the terrorist fervor.

But, I (one who criticizes our soldiers for war crimes) do recognize that we
often, ultimately, bring some good to the survivors - hospitals, clean water,
etc, and often stop many ongoing killings and other horrible practices. But
never for the reasons we say we're there and only in doing things that
perpetuate the cycle of war such as setting up dictators and selling critical
resources and infrastructure.

Even if in their specific case any given soldier may save more lives than they
cost, our war overall and our continued ability to wage it via the complicity
of our soldiers, will cost far more lives in the end.

Refusing to fight for an unjust cause, or hurt without need, is a duty of all
soldiers of modern civilized militaries. Sure, it realistically means jail for
those who refuse - but it means death for their victims if they don't.

Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly not justified by 9/11 or implicated by any
related evidence. By fighting for the USA and allies despite these lies,
without the mandate of the people, soldiers are essentially pissing on the
rule of law.

We're showing - through action not words - that no matter what they do we'll
just make shit up and bomb them. Why do we expect them to expect anything
else?

If our governments couldn't field the army unjustly, our peacekeeping might
not only be welcome but might finally work.

------
morganwilde
This is unbelievable... I mean what can be done when everyone is just high as
f and just basically trippin all day. Afganistan is OK with how things are
now, it seems, so I guess the only relevant take away from this, just leave
the country ASAP with as few expenditures and casualties as possible.

~~~
rdl
I'd also make sure the Afghans who helped us get out (which is part of the
pending comprehensive immigration bill), and that any Afghans who are actually
sane are considered fairly for education/refugee status/etc. in the west. But
really, Afghanistan itself is essentially doomed, and GTFO is the only way to
go.

------
tibbon
I've never been in the military, so I'm sure there is a _great deal_ that I
don't understand- or worse, think I understand when I've got it backwards.

When I watch something like this, I'm absolutely blown away by how utterly
incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into
attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor)
17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years
of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn
disciplined soldiers. Yet, how many _years_ did it take for us to try to train
troops in Iraq, and it sounds like they still just unloaded entire clips
whenever they saw a rabbit in the desert.

When these countries turn over top leadership (Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt, etc)
it feels that they completely lose all historical training/ability for the
military and go back to square one. Complete anarchy. It sounds like a _huge_
percentage of their people defect seemingly randomly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't feel like this happens (generally) in European
countries when there is a massive leadership change. A post WW1 Germany was
able to keep enough military knowledge/discipline together to be a seriously
powerful force by WW2- and that certainly didn't have external forces in there
trying their hardest to give them all the help possible. Post Russian
Revolution USSR was quite a force to be reckoned with as well.

Why is it so damn hard to set up decent military training? Seems like a
process we should understand by now, since we've put millions of young people
through it. We (americans) initially setup West Point in the middle of a
revolution and have been running it since (although it wasn't the United
States Military Academy until 1802).

I'm absolutely certain it isn't because westerners are smarter, better, etc
(we aren't)... but there is something seriously weird over there at the same
time (malnutrition, lack of basic formal education system, cultural
differences, too many generations of instability (maybe one generation works
ok, but 3 breaks things seriously))

~~~
jilebedev
>how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put
into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often
poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2
years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn
disciplined soldiers

A country's military is a reflection of and limited by the society that spawns
it. The USA can keep disciplined and ethical soldiers because it has never
suffered civil unrest, never been invaded, enjoys prosperity, freedom, public
law and justice. No such thing can be said of Afghanistan or Iraq. Moreover -
the "10 weeks of BCT" is not "just" "10 weeks of BCT". There is a logistics
and supply train several tho-- million pages long that creates those "just" 10
weeks. Consider the fact that humans are recruited. Recruiters need to be
trained, fed, paid, and have offices. That costs money. Afghanistan has no
money. Consider the fact that young men need to be transported from and to
BCT: this requires roads free of IEDs, requires fuel for trucks, favourable
economic conditions to produce or import buses. Consider the fact that a
certain percentage of all military trainees quit before completing that
training. This is accounted for and expected: there are 300 million humans in
the USA and this is acceptable losses. Consider the fact that abiding by the
laws of a nation and strict adherence to authority is something these "17/18"
year olds have done for two decades by the time their military training is
over. It is ingrained into their psyche to follow the law from the earliest
age, in the most gentle of methods: by the witnessing of safety and prosperity
of Americans abiding by the law. Consider an Afghani youth: what is ignrained
into them is an invsion by Russia and now invasion by America. How confident
in justice do you think they are? How inclined are they to respect authority?
How confortable are they submitting to a national government?

A country's military is fundamentally a reflection of the society it spawns.
Afghanistan is a failed state in every respect, for the last several decades,
and as such it cannot muster a professional military despite the efforts of
the US-led coalition.

~~~
tibbon
Thanks for the reply.

Toward the end of the doc, it digs a bit more into the 'why', which include
many of your points.

I thought a while about the perspective of an Afghani youth vs those views of
an American youth. Afghan youth probably realizes even more than the American
one that they are simply pawns in the system and no one outside their families
cares for them. The Afghani youth are likely illiterate by most standards, and
it sounds like the soldiers keep absolutely terrible records accordingly. As
much as we trash the American education system (which is flawed), we at least
have a pretty decent baseline for education to create soldiers that can
read/write/math.

Whereas the American youth probably thinks that they are fighting for their
country and doing great good around the world, I'm not entirely sure that the
Afghan youth would think of it that way. At best, they are fighting for a
paycheck, a gun, and some temporary protection.

As you point out, the basic supply chain of infrastructure is lacking there.
We've given them the tools such as solar panels (which they feature in the
doc), but if something messes up they have no idea how to fix them. Corruption
isn't a bad thing, its being smarter and probably closer to survival than
anything. The motivation to stay and fight in a dangerous situation is
exceedingly low; whereas an American soldier can at least hope for a memorial,
benefits to their spouse, and honors if they are killed in action, there is
certainly none of that for the Afghan youth.

I guess to top that off, we're all left holding the question of why we're over
there at all. It didn't really make that much sense at first (didn't we learn
from Vietnam?), and it makes even less sense now. Nationbuilding doesn't work.
Never has, never will.

------
6d0debc071
So, notes?

\- Lots of people doing effectively nothing.

\- Low morale.

\- Ad-hoc training of Afghan army/police.

\- Lack of national identity.

\- Poor mobility.

\- Lack of intelligence.

\- Communication problems.

\- No clear strategic objectives or clear plans to achieve desired processes

------
thelogos
Does anyone else think it would be easier and less bloody to just get the
Taliban addicted to heroine and subsidize their cost of living?

~~~
rdl
The Taliban were actually pretty hardcore counter-narcotics in the late 1990s,
with western support. They only partnered with the narcotics industry after
9/11 when fighting the US.

------
gmays
First off, I didn't watch the whole thing, I got sick of it. So, my comments
aren't necessarily about the documentary, but to provide some perspective. The
below are notes I took while reading in no particular order, so the argument
is a bit disjointed. I spent a year as an embedded advisor in Afghanistan and
just returned last month. Prior to that I was in Iraq for a year as an advisor
in 2009.

Despite my feelings for the documentary, I commend the crew for the work they
did. They did the best they could to report what they saw. However, they let
preconceived notions and a minute slice of experience significantly influence
their perspective. This is inevitable to some extent, but incredibly dangerous
in this case. When it happens with a small news story, not such a big deal.
But 99.9% of the population has no experience or knowledge on Afghanistan so
their opinions and everything they know is based on what they read (yeah
right) and what they watch (the preponderance). This gives those who report on
Afghanistan great power, but also great responsibility. We can only hope those
who consume this swill are more than sheep.

-There are ANP units of all levels of competency. The one we were with was stellar. Sure, others we worked with left much to be desired, but it wasn’t the norm. At times units farther away from the 'flagpole' have less supervision and fewer resources. They resort to what they're used to and what they need to do to survive, which is expected. Lord of the flies anyone? People tend to act that way in such environments, even in the US.

-The documentary was disappointing because it sought to show the Afghans in a bad light. It was unbalanced and failed to explain some of the cultural reasons behind some of the examples. Their culture is fundamentally different from ours and they do the best they can to survive in that environment. Service members are there for between 7-12 months, it's a sprint for us. They’ve been there and will be there for the long haul. In their past, how many nations have come and gone? What does such turmoil do to a culture, a nation, and its people?

-There is a significant focus on drug use, which is somewhat missing the point. How prevalent is drug use in the United States? If the US had the history of Afghanistan with a fledgling government and security forces, would it be any different? Our culture sees drug use differently than theirs. Our alcohol is their weed. Should a professional force be under the effects of substances while on duty? No, but let’s talk more about why things are the way they are. As the force professionalizes, these things will improve.

-Sangin, the region in most of the filming, is one of the worst parts of Afghanistan. What if we made a documentary about the worst parts of the US? The ghettos and slums, homeless, murders, drug use, etc. and named it “This is what America looks like.” The US documentaries on these issues pale in comparison to all of the positive coverage. All we see about Afghanistan are the shitty things. Not the progress, not the new schools or education, not the hard working people. When we do, it’s drowned out by the bad stuff.

-The same goes for corruption. We can't help but see corruption through our Western lens, but it's seen differently in Afghanistan. Think about how an Afghan documentary would talk about US alcohol consumption, fashion, sex, and other aspects of our culture? It'd probably sound quite similar. It’s almost impossible to think of it differently because we’ve had the luxury of structure, strong government, order, etc. in the land of plenty.

-I'm not an expert in Afghanistan, but the perspective in this documentary is unfair. Sure, some advisor teams were embedded with subpar units lead by completely corrupt, uninvolved commanders but this is not a representation of units or the government as a whole.

-Why does this documentary point out every wrong thing the Afghans do in the course of their day? What about the good things? I'm sure if I held a camera on any of us all day it'd be easy to pick us apart. It's an easy thing to do when you haven’t been the one struggling.

-During the year our Afghans made significant progress. They wanted to get better and they did. Now they have their own sustainable training programs and they're getting better all the time. Are they perfect? No. Do they still make mistakes? Yes.

-What was this documentary actually trying to achieve? The reporter is from the UK, what about the UK's history in Afghanistan. Let's talk about their losses in Afghanistan and the general sentiment towards Afghans. After spending some time at the MOB in Lashkar Gah, it's quite disappointing to see how Afghans (even our interpreters) are treated at times by British military personnel. Let's get a crew and film that. Are the UK forces bad? Not at all, they’re great, they’re our brothers and we rely heavily on each other. But if you’re filming 24/7 it’s easy to point out every time someone stumbles, because we all do it. At the very least, acknowledge your biases as a source of news.

-This documentary is one-sided. The unfortunate thing is that most people look for things that validate their existing arguments. I can only imagine the countless people nodding their heads watching the documentary who can't even find Afghanistan on a map and who've learned everything they know about Afghanistan through the news or shit documentaries like this.

I’m not an expert on Afghanistan and I am speaking from my experiences with
multiple Afghan units from all pillars. In my time there I worked with units
in Helmand and Nimroz provinces and spent some time in Kabul.

Is Afghanistan doomed? I don’t know. But I do know that encouraging negative
sentiment based on minimal experience doesn’t help and it’s a betrayal of the
trust people put in those who deliver their news. It’s also a disservice to
every service member who’s spent time or gave their lives to make it work. We
all do the best we can, but our ‘best’ correlates with what’s on the line.
When you’re responsible for shaping opinions on significant issues like this,
you need to do a better job of being balanced. Maybe I’m off here because I
never watch the news and maybe this is the norm, but it’s disappointing
nonetheless.

For more context on the Afghan people see this my post in this thread:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5557881> It's about interpreters in
Afghanistan. Most of our interpreters were local Afghans. Some used to be (or
easily could have been) Afghan police or Army. The Afghans are a great people
who were just dealt a shitty hand.

~~~
erikpukinskis
> First off, I didn't watch the whole thing

> It was unbalanced and failed to ...

How do you know what it failed to do? You didn't watch the whole thing.

------
genwin
Search for: A new law signed by President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan requires
Shiite women to ask their husband's permission before leaving the home and
forces them to have sexual intercourse. ... Human rights activists say the new
law grants even fewer rights to women than when the Islamist Taliban held
sway.

------
crusso
"Try to find a police chief who doesn't fuck young boys."

Ouch.

------
deevus
Is there an easy way to download this video for later?

~~~
DanBC
Legally? Not sure.

Illegally, a search for [panorama mission accomplished] probably returns
relevant results.

------
powertower
At first, as the movie started and one of the US troops was trying to teach
those Afghan troops not to shit, eat, and clean themselves in the same spot,
gauging by the response of the Afghan in-charge, I figured it was a pointless
and insulting thing to do...

Than as I watched more of the movie, I realized that more than likely that
Afghan group was doing exactly that - and there was probably some type of
hazard going among them.

I'm about 30 minutes into the movie, and I really can't make sense of the
buffoonery and self-destructive behavior displayed by the Afghan side. Is a
product of nature, culture, situation ... what is it?

Though what I can make sense of, is why historically the only successful means
of controlling and stabilizing that region of the world was -> strong-rule <\-
(like the Taliban's). Because it must of cut right through all that bullshit.

I'm not sure how the US troops must put up with all the crap.

~~~
cup
Its the product of growing up in a destabalized war torn country. Russia
invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to fight a proxy war with America. Most of the
Afghan population since has had to etch our some kind of post-war anarhic
life.

Is it no surprise that you think their lifestyles/societies are backwards when
you write your comments from a first world country that hasnt seen occupation
and invasion in however many years (assuming you're from a western country
that is).

------
venomsnake
I think the problem is that the enemy changed the rules and the generals
unlike the foot soldiers took a lot of time to understand it (if they even
have).
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-
failure/309148/)

There are no military objectives or territory worth holding for them. Their
goal is to just inflict as much pain as possible on the US troops knowing that
they can outlast them. The US has army that can deal with any conventional
threat (from which there are few) or properly defined objective, but seems
unprepared for country occupation/building mission (and with good reason, the
Army as a foreign policy tool is not wise).

------
LekkoscPiwa
Afghanistan: a graveyard of empires.

------
gwgarry
It was a stupid idea and a waste of time.

