Dissolution of Afghanistan?

[Ironduke]

I was wondering if this idea had been floated by any academic or military thinkers. I don't think it would be seriously considered by interested parties at this time, but would appreciate any articles or writings on the topic.

[Tronic]

Its not the right answer. It would actually make the area less stable. Sure, the Afghans may get their own mini ethno-nations, but it would be worse for general regional stability. Look at Pakistan's tribal belt and you get a picture of how a Pashtun republic may look like. Force a democratic system there and they would actually be forced to make some sacrifices in order to live together. It is better to instill some sort of Nationalist ideology in the Afghans rather than think dissolution.

But, on the other hand, atleast you would have nations which would be accountable for their actions. Unlike now, where the Pakistanis refuse to be held accountable for what comes out of their own country.

[S2]

Dissolution

I concur with Tronic.

It increases, also, the number of partners necessary to see CAR LNG/oil to Pakistani/Iranian ports. That is, to me, the surest source of near-term capitalization for the afghan gov't and critical if we going to provide CAR with some leverage to being held hostage by Russian and/or Chinese energy monopolization.

CAR needs all the options it can handle to assure customer access to market-priced energy so Afghanistan must be stabilized and opened up.

[Parihaka]

I keep telling ya, you've got to colonise it. Expect to be administering it for at least 50 years and keeping troops there for another 50. Even then it might still turn to custard but at least Pakistan will be long gone.

[S2]

Parihaka Reply

I can't wait for those job openings in the Colonial Office!

Northeast with your Kiwis for me although I'm encouraged by seeing a trout farm in Konar the other day-but they can have those in Baghlan too!!!

My flyrod and I would be most, most happy to FINALLY apply those fine University of Wisconsin political science/history degrees for their intended purpose.

Can S-2 rock out in Baghlan?

[Ironduke]

So I take it this hasn't really been proposed by any serious academics? I can do a search, but forgive me, on a subject like this (unlikely as it is), I can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

[astralis]

matt,

well, ralph peters tried something of the sort-- let's just say no one was impressed anywhere.

Blood borders - June 2006 - Armed Forces Journal - Military Strategy, Global Defense Strategy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...ast_medium.jpg

[Cactus]

Dissolution of Afghanistan?
I was wondering if this idea had been floated by any academic or military thinkers. I don't think it would be seriously considered by interested parties at this time, but would appreciate any articles or writings on the topic.

As the most likely gainers in any such dissolution Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan may consider it. You aren't likely to find much recent literature on it, as Afghanistan is considered an indispensable buffer-state in maintaining status quo. However such things change (ex. Tibet once served as a buffer between the Russian Central Asia and British India).

[Cactus]

Its not the right answer. It would actually make the area less stable. Sure, the Afghans may get their own mini ethno-nations, but it would be worse for general regional stability. Look at Pakistan's tribal belt and you get a picture of how a Pashtun republic may look like. Force a democratic system there and they would actually be forced to make some sacrifices in order to live together. It is better to instill some sort of Nationalist ideology in the Afghans rather than think dissolution.

More likely the fractions will be gobbled up by countries with pre-existing ties: Tajiks with Tajikistan, Uzbeks with Uzbekistan, Pathans with Pakistan. The smaller minorities will be divided up amongst them, as their inclinations go. After that not much will change immediately, of course. Then it is back to the eternal Iran-Turan-Hindustan (err Pakistan, now, I suppose) power struggle.

Is it better, or worse? That opinion will differ from person to person. I am just saying how it is more likely to play out, if A'stan is dissolved.

[1980s]

I concur with Tronic.

It increases, also, the number of partners necessary to see CAR LNG/oil to Pakistani/Iranian ports. That is, to me, the surest source of near-term capitalization for the afghan gov't and critical if we going to provide CAR with some leverage to being held hostage by Russian and/or Chinese energy monopolization.

CAR needs all the options it can handle to assure customer access to market-priced energy so Afghanistan must be stabilized and opened up.

You say that Afghanistan 'must be stabilized and opened up' but that isnt the issue that needs debating. The debate is "how" to achieve that. Personally, i dont think it will be possible, at least not for a generation or perhaps more. The idea that there is a common "Afghan-ness" to all of its people is a myth. Afghans, the real Afghans, are the Pashtuns, and their original homelands are places like Qandahar and Helmand. Historically speaking. Other communities that are now Afghan had been subjugated by force, and held together by force. Their histories, cultures and identities are not shared with the original Afghans, the Pashtuns.

It is often argued that many of the conflicts afflicting Africa today are down to it having been enslaved, occupied and then carved-up by the colonial powers of Europe. Less attention however is paid to how modern Central Asia has had a similar experience of occupation and "carving-up" by alien powers. However, Afghanistan is somewhat unique, because it was never colonized by Russia or by a European power. In its current form it became a de-facto buffer-zone between the Russian and British empires, and by that reason, its territorial integrity came under almost de-facto protection by both sides, or by Britain at least, regardless of whether the people living there wanted this arrangement or not. For example, when Iran attempted to liberate Herat from Afghan occupation, the British prevented this. And that city has since been lost to the Afghans, despite it being an historically Iranian city inhabited largely by Persians.

Because of Afghanistan's isolation and relative independence during that period, it is debatable how much Western political-thinking and concepts such as nationalism, constitutionalism etc and the type of 3rd World nationalism that spread throughout much of the occupied and non-Western World during the past century, influenced the people there. I dont think it had much affect, if any at all. And i believe that is one reason why Afghanistan has struggled to develop and mould itself on the model of what a "modern nation" is, and why it is a country where society throughout much of it still lives an almost archaic existence and where society often recognizes loyalty to the tribe before the state.

To sum-up, Afghanistan was an artificially constructed nation, and one that has since needed to be held together by force and the threat of violence. It took decades of colonialism or exposure to Western political-thinking to transform most of the World into what it is today. Nations built on Western political and economic models. Afghanistan is one of the few places in the World that wasn't subjected to this, or at least, the majority of its people had not been influenced by Western thought. That, and a recent past of 3 decades of war and instability, much of it ethnically driven, should reveal something about the futility of trying to "build" an "Afghan nation" in its current form.

Iraq has more viability than Afghanistan, yet there was a time when it was seriously debated about dissolving it into three. I am surprised that no such discourse on Afghanistan has yet taken place. Rather, it is being debated whether "some" Taliban can be reconciled with and allowed to return to Afghanistan's power set-up. A total betrayal to every community that suffered under and resisted the onslaught of that fascist Pashtun movement that survived only with backing from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and by terrorizing people into submission.

[Tronic]

Its a matter of perception. Pashtuns may be the dominant ethnicity due to their sheer number, but what of the Hazaras? They lie right in the heart of Afghanistan. The problem of the Afghans is that throughout history they have tried to subjugate and rule one ethnic group over the other rather than try to form their own seperate societies. The current problem is not that they are oblivious to Afghan nationalism; the mere existence of the Northern Alliance proves that point wrong. They know the boundaries of their own country very well and have played politics within for ages, the only difference is that they have often played with the bullet rather than the ballot. As for history, they do share a common culture. They have historically been a culturally Persianate society since the Turko-Mongols adopted Persian culture. Their greatest roots probably lie in the Mongol invasions and share a common past through the Chagtai Khanate. Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks along with other Central Asian peoples all served together under the Chagtai armies. So, the Durranis may have shaped the perception that Afghans = Pashtuns but historically speaking, all the ethnic tribes there have served together as one under a non-Pashtun, non-Tajik, or should I say non-Afghan ruler. The problem is that they have to learn to stick to the ballot rather than the bullet. They have to learn how to live together on an equal basis, not how to overthrow and rule over the other.

[S2]

Borders Defined From the Outside-In

We'll not see the re-integration of ethnicities back to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. We'll not see a Baluch or Pashtu south for other reasons and the poor Hazara aren't going to fed on by everybody else combined.

Tribes and ethnicities come together out of need. Others play to the desire that the need not necessarily have to come about in order to manipulate towards their own ends. Afghanistan now exists and has for some time. That's the only fact in all this pseudo-Ralph Peters speculation. What is critical is making clear to each ethnicity how they can expect to possess a small and largely unrealized ambition when the sum of the parts, properly constructed, shall yield a whole that's far more beneficial.

As Tronic suggests, unification of ends and means is possible and the N.A. serves as the model if not the agent of such. The problem is the B.S. being fed the pashtu that they can have it all and do so without cooperating with their neighbors.

I marvel at the use of majority and plurality by Pakistanis. They'd have you believe that there's a pashtu majority in Afghanistan. It simply isn't so but like the myth that taliban are sworn enemies of opium or that the taliban control 70% of Afghanistan, or that the afghan people FAVOR the taliban, this myth also continues.

Gee, I wonder why when all is easily googled and seen for what really is?

None of the aforementioned CARs will benefit from a fractured Afghanistan. Nor shall Iran, Pakistan, India nor the PRC. If convolution is an issue now it will reach to unprecendented heights in any proposed partition environ.

JMHO.

[diplomaticview]

I was wondering if this idea had been floated by any academic or military thinkers. I don't think it would be seriously considered by interested parties at this time, but would appreciate any articles or writings on the topic.

This idea seems good but not applicable and where I think no any country would like to shake their hands in fire.

Actually world is treating of patient but not disease.

[diplomaticview]

Look at history

[QUOTE=The problem is that they have to learn to stick to the ballot rather than the bullet. They have to learn how to live together on an equal basis, not how to overthrow and rule over the other.[/QUOTE]



Good comments but insufficient because you are giving such words for those to whom every invader paid for his invasion in form of deads.

Rock can't be melted but can be break

[Cactus]

None of the aforementioned CARs will benefit from a fractured Afghanistan. Nor shall Iran, Pakistan, India nor the PRC. If convolution is an issue now it will reach to unprecendented heights in any proposed partition environ. -- JMHO.

Mmm, I don't know about that S-2. Of course, I haven't had even a tiny sample of Uzbek or Tajik opinion on it. But in Pakistan the idea of putting in "Afghania" as the first "a" in the word "Pakistan" has a revolutionary appeal dating back at least to 1930s. Plus there is the question of adding physical strategic depth and population with even just a few Pathan-dominated eastern provinces.

Iran will just have to suck it up. It really is none of Indian or Chinese business what happens there. If Indians "feel" bad about Pakistanis gaining that strategic depth, they can always make themselves feel better by adding another brigade or two of Agni IIs. And why would Chinese care, it will be business as usual.

Lately the idea of getting all fish in one barrel seems very appealing. :))