George Friedman - WikiLeaks and the Afghan War

8/9/2019 George Friedman - WikiLeaks and the Afghan War

1/7

George Fried

Author: GDate: JulySource: StRelated sp

On Sundaexcerpts odocuments

from tacticmilitary recollection.

Tactical insenior U.S.handed ovAfghanistachief Lt. Ginformal c

The Wiki

At first glaintelligencintelligencintelligencso-sensitivover the dvery hard t

an WikiLea

iki

orge Frie27, 2010 |

ratfor at ht

cial topic

, The Newtens of thcomprise

al reportsations bet

elligence oand Pakisr to the Pa

n are intern. Hamidpacity.

Leaks

ce, it is diwas storestored acwithout d

e materialcuments,o imagine

s and the Afg

Lea

dman 0856 GMtp://tinyur

age: Th e

York Timeusands ofvast arra

rom smalleen the U

n firefightsani officialkistanis. R

ingled wiGul, who r

ficult to id, or the exoss multipetection. Iated secreet very fentelligence

an War

s an

l.com/2df

W a r in A

and two oocumentsof materi

unit operaited State

is intermis in whicheports on th reportsportedly c

agine a sinistence ofle databastriguingly,or below.documenton Gul an

1

the

mwt

f ghan i s t

ther newsleaked tol concerni

ions to broand Pakis

gled withlists of Pak

e use of sn the actintinues to

gle databasingle ind

s and ableall of wha

The Timess have bee

his organ

Afg

n 1

apers publwebsite kg the war

ader stratetan. It app

reports onistani operrface-to-aities of forliaise with

e in whichividual cleto collect,has been

reports threleased i

ization, th

an

ished sumown as W

in Afghani

gic analyseears to be

confrontatatives in Ar missiles

er Pakistthe Afgha

such a divred to seeollate andeleased sot Guls nan the curreInter-Ser

ar

aries andkiLeaks. Ttan.2 They

s of politicn extraord

ons betweghanistany militantni intelligTaliban i

erse rangesuch divertransmit tfar has bee appears

nt batch, aices Intelli

herange

-inary

nare

inncean

ofeen not-allnd it isgence


2/7

George Friedman WikiLeaks and the Afghan War

2

(ISI) directorate,3 being classified as only secret. So, this was either low-grade material hypedby the media, or there is material reviewed by the selected newspapers but not yet madepublic. Still, what was released and what the Times discussed is consistent with what mostthought was happening in Afghanistan.

The obvious comparison is to the Pentagon Papers, commissioned by the Defense

Department to gather lessons from the Vietnam War and leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to theTimes during the Nixon administration. Many people worked on the Pentagon Papers, each ofwhom was focused on part of it and few of whom would have had access to all of it.

Ellsberg did not give the Times the supporting documentation; he gave it the finishedproduct. By contrast, in the WikiLeaks case, someone managed to access a lot of informationthat would seem to have been contained in many different places. If this was an unauthorizedleak, then it had to have involved a massive failure in security. Certainly, the culprit should beknown by now and his arrest should have been announced. And certainly, the gathering ofsuch diverse material in one place accessible to one or even a few people who could move itwithout detection is odd.

Like the Pentagon Papers, the WikiLeaks (as I will call them) elicited a great deal of feignedsurprise, not real surprise. Apart from the charge that the Johnson administration contrivedthe Gulf of Tonkin incident, much of what the Pentagon Papers contained was generallyknown. Most striking about the Pentagon Papers was not how much surprising material theycontained, but how little. Certainly, they contradicted the official line on the war, but therewere few, including supporters of the war, who were buying the official line anyway.

In the case of the WikiLeaks, what is revealed also is not far from what most people believed,although they provide enormous detail. Nor is it that far from what government and militaryofficials are saying about the war. No one is saying the war is going well, though some say thatgiven time it might go better.

The view of the Taliban as a capable fighting force is, of course, widespread. If they werent acapable fighting force, then the United States would not be having so much trouble defeatingthem. The WikiLeaks seem to contain two strategically significant claims, however. The firstis that the Taliban4 are a more sophisticated fighting force than has been generally believed.An example is the claim that Taliban fighters have used man-portable air defense systems(MANPADS) against U.S. aircraft. This claim matters in a number of ways. First, it indicatesthat the Taliban are using technologies similar to those used against the Soviets. Second, itraises the question of where the Taliban are getting them they certainly dont manufactureMANPADS themselves.

If they have obtained advanced technologies, this would have significance on the battlefield.For example, if reasonably modern MANPADS were to be deployed in numbers, the use ofAmerican airpower would either need to be further constrained or higher attrition ratesaccepted. Thus far, only first- and second-generation MANPADS without Infrared Counter-Countermeasures (which are more dangerous) appear to have been encountered, and notwith decisive or prohibitive effectiveness. But in any event, this doesnt change thefundamental character of the war.


3/7


3

Supply Lines and Sanctuaries

What it does raise is the question of supply lines and sanctuaries. The most important chargecontained in the leaks is about Pakistan. The WikiLeaks contain documents that charge thatthe Pakistanis are providing both supplies and sanctuary to Taliban fighters while objecting toAmerican forces entering Pakistan to clean out the sanctuaries and are unwilling or unable to

carry out that operation by themselves (as they have continued to do in North Waziristan).

Just as important, the documents charge that the ISI has continued to maintain liaison andsupport for the Taliban in spite of claims by the Pakistani government that pro-Talibanofficers had been cleaned out of the ISI years ago. The document charges that Gul, thedirector-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, still operates in Pakistan, informally serving theISI and helping give the ISI plausible deniability.

Though startling, the charge that Islamabad is protecting and sustaining forces fighting andkilling Americans is not a new one. When the United States halted operations in Afghanistanafter the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, U.S. policy was to turn over operations in Afghanistan

to Pakistan. U.S. strategy was to use Islamist militants to fight the Soviets5

and to usePakistani liaisons through the ISI to supply and coordinate with them. When the Soviets andAmericans left Afghanistan, the ISI struggled to install a government composed of its alliesuntil the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996. The ISIs relationship with the Taliban which inmany ways are the heirs to the anti-Soviet mujahedeen is widely known. In my book,Americas Secret War, I discussed both this issue and the role of Gul. These documentsclaim that this relationship remains intact. Apart from Pakistani denials, U.S. officials andmilitary officers frequently made this charge off the record,6 and on the record occasionally.The leaks on this score are interesting, but they will shock only those who didnt pay attentionor who want to be shocked.

Lets step back and consider the conflict dispassionately. The United States forced the Talibanfrom power. It never defeated the Taliban nor did it make a serious effort to do so, as thatwould require massive resources the United States doesnt have. Afghanistan is a secondaryissue for the United States, especially since al Qaeda has established bases in a number ofother countries, particularly Pakistan, making the occupation of Afghanistan irrelevant tofighting al Qaeda.

For Pakistan, however, Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic interest. The regionsmain ethnic group, the Pashtun, stretch across the Afghan-Pakistani border. Moreover, werea hostile force present in Afghanistan, as one was during the Soviet occupation, Pakistanwould face threats in the west as well as the challenge posed by India in the east. ForPakistan, an Afghanistan under Pakistani influence or at least a benign Afghanistan is a

matter of overriding strategic importance.


4/7

George Fried

It is therefexpect to bThe Pakistpermanenin itself. Tunder Bar

Given thatin chaos inthe TalibaIndia,9 thethus createof overt op

This is dupnever did.The Americould giveWashingto

an WikiLea

re irratione a majornis never

ly. They uey undersck Obama,

they dontAfghanist. Given thPakistanisd a situatiposition to

licitous onhere wasans knewhem10 whi

n emerged

s and the Afg

al to expecart of thexpected tderstood tood this u7 who mad

expect then, it follot the Unitwill not mn in whichthe Taliba

y if you clomple evid

they couldle constantthat Pakis

an War

t the Pakisovernmene United Sat Afghander Georg

e withdraw

aliban tos that theyd States iske this thethe only rand cove

se your eynce, as tht break th

ly pressingan could d

4

anis to halof Afghan

tates to maistan was a

W. Bush.al a policy

e defeatewill maintpowerful air public ptional polit support f

s to the PaWikiLeak

ose ties. Tthem hardstabilize a

t collaboraistan whenintain a prmeans toThey undegoal.8

, and givein close r

nd is Pakislicy, howe

cy for Pakior the Tali

kistani reas show, ofey settleder and harltogether.

ion with tthe Unite

esence inard an en

rstand it e

that theylations wittans only lver. The U

tan is twoan.

lity, whichovert ISI tor what suer until gince a sta

e force thStates lea

fghanistan, and noten more cl

re not inth and suppever againited State

tiered, con

the Americes to the Tpport Pakinuine fearle Pakista

t theyes.

n endearly

restedort forthas

sisting

ansaliban.stan

inis


5/7


5

more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan which it wasnt going toget anyway the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed,then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.

The WikiLeaks seem to show that like sausage-making, one should never look too closely athow wars are fought, particularly coalition warfare. Even the strongest alliances, such as that

between the United States and the United Kingdom in World War II, are fraught with deceitand dissension. London was fighting to save its empire, an end Washington was hostile to;much intrigue ensued. The U.S.-Pakistani alliance is not nearly as trusting. The United Statesis fighting to deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan while Pakistan is fighting to secure itswestern frontier and its internal stability. These are very different ends that have verydifferent levels of urgency.

The WikiLeaks portray a war in which the United States has a vastly insufficient force on theground that is fighting a capable and dedicated enemy who isnt going anywhere. The Talibanknow that they win just by not being defeated,11 and they know that they wont be defeated.12The Americans are leaving, meaning the Taliban need only wait and prepare.

The Pakistanis also know that the Americans are leaving and that the Taliban or a coalitionincluding the Taliban will be in charge of Afghanistan when the Americans leave. They willmake certain that they maintain good relations with the Taliban. They will deny that they aredoing this because they want no impediments to a good relationship with the United Statesbefore or after it leaves Afghanistan. They need a patron to secure their interests againstIndia. Since the United States wants neither an India outside a balance of power, nor Chinataking the role of Pakistans patron,13 it follows that the risk the United States will beargrudges is small. And given that, the Pakistanis can live with Washington knowing that onePakistani hand is helping the Americans while another helps the Taliban. Power, interest andreality define the relations between nations, and different factions inside nations frequentlyhave different agendas and work against each other.

The WikiLeaks, from what we have seen so far, detail power, interest and reality as we haveknown it. They do not reveal a new reality. Much will be made about the shocking truth thathas been shown, which, as mentioned above, shocks only those who wish to be shocked. TheAfghan war is about an insufficient American and allied force fighting a capable enemy on itshome ground and a Pakistan positioning itself for the inevitable outcome. The WikiLeakscontain all the details.

We are left with the mystery of who compiled all of these documents and who had access tothem with enough time and facilities to transmit them to the outside world in a blatant andsustained breach of protocol. The image we have is of an unidentified individual or small

group working to get a shocking truth out to the public, only the truth is not shocking it iswhat was known all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that isalready known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit itunimpeded? Whoever it proves to have been has just made the most powerful case yet forwithdrawal from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.


6/7


6

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displayingthe following sentence at the beginning or end of the report, including the hyperlink toSTRATFOR:

"This report is republished with permission ofSTRATFOR" - http://www.stratfor.com/

End Notes:

1 http://www.stratfor.com/theme/war_afghanistan?fn=2616797730

2http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100720_week_war_afghanistan_july_14_20_2

010?fn=3016797772

3

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/pakistan_anatomy_isi?fn=9816797758 4

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090918_taliban_afghanistan_assessment?fn=1616797710

5http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100628_30_year_war_afghanistan?fn=82167977

72

6http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100111_pakistan_us_rumors_and_fallout_khos

t_bombing?fn=1916797710

7http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20091201_obama_announces_new_us_

afghan_strategy?fn=9916797793

8http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091201_obamas_plan_and_key_battleground?fn

=4915451293&fn=1716797734

9

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100427_three_points_view_united_states_pakistan_and_india?fn=1816797795

10http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100222_afghanistan_pakistan_spate_taliban_a

rrests?fn=9016797768


7/7


7

11http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090526_afghanistan_nature_insurgency?fn=53

16797759

12

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100223_afghanistan_campaign_part_2_taliban_strategy?fn=3816797786

13http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081016_china_walking_fine_line_alliance_paki

stan?fn=1516797757

###

Documents

George Friedman - WikiLeaks and the Afghan War