AFGHANISTAN QUAGMIRE: LESSONS FROM ALEXANDER

Dr. Tanvir Orakzai
When US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to tackle crisis in Middle East, it was repeating an old story that started 2300 years ago by Alexander the Great under similar circumstances. Alexander like President Bush inherited Middle East crisis from his father Philip II, who felt threatened by the growing power of Persia similar to Saddam´s increasing influence in the Middle East. In order to resolve this crisis; Alexander began his march on the East. Being the superpower of the time, Alexander led his Greek army through Persian Empire smashing the regime of King Darius through sheer force. Persians though numerous in numbers were no match for Alexander superior tactics; and city after city fell on his way. The Persian Empire was bordered by Afghanistan and Pakistan, whose tribes nominally accepted Darius but were free to follow their religion and traditions. For Alexander´s generals, Afghanistan was less than a top priority, but Alexander wanted to bring lawless tribes under his control to snatch freedom from fugitives, who found refuge in Afghanistan and its tribal frontier (FATA). Alexander vowed to save civilization; a rhetoric that is habitually used in the Western media today by all Western leaders. From the local perspective, Alexander was imposing an infidel culture on the local traditions through fire and blood that was not acceptable to them. The local tribes fought for their survival; while Alexander wrestled for the stability of his empire.

Alexander invaded Afghanistan in 330 BC. He fought his way from city to city leaving troops behind in garrisons to control the local population. As he marched forward; resurrection rose in the conquered territories and insurgent took back control of their cities and towns. Alexander initiated further retaliatory attacks by burning cities and towns to ashes and chastise the defiant population. The rebels launched attacks from the mountains and valleys bringing misery and affliction to his army that could not cope effectively the complicated terrain and guerrilla tactics. Alexander started to burn crops and orchards, slaughtered men, and enslaved women and children, but nothing could stop the rebellion. It was a similar strategy adopted by Soviets; who in their rage burned village after village to stamp out support for the Mujahedeens. The Soviet not only murdered innocent men, women and children in the hamlets; they also poisoned rivers and streams, and in many cases killed even the village dogs. These extreme measure of Alexander and Soviets garnered more support for the insurgents from the local population. The same story is repeated by US forces, as they pound village after village in Afghanistan and FATA in the mistaken belief of eradicating support for Talibans.

Alexander forced warlords and chieftains of the warring tribes into submission under the threat of violence; but as soon as he moved to the next target; the insurgents would break the truce and kill the limited number of troops in the garrison. For Alexander it was one step forward and two steps backwards; he dispatched his generals to overcome the insurgency, who were meant to support him in the main mission. Alexander´s army was spread all over in petty skirmishes with insurgents, who attacked unexpectedly and evaporated in the remote valleys and mountains. President Obama recent announcement of bringing additional troops to try "hammer and anvil" approach- will not make any difference for a force that is thinly spread over a vast archaic terrain with ferocious opposition from the local population. The first hammer and anvil approach was applied in 2001; where US forces wasted millions of dollars of expensive weapons on rocks and boulders in Tora Bora; while Osama was enjoying tea in some corner of Afghanistan.


Unable to contain insurgency, Alexander´s generals started to slaughter innocent villagers on the slightest suspicions that further alienated them from the local population. The generals were unable to comprehend that the insurgents were fighting for liberation of their land; while they were fighting for occupation. Those who cooperated with Alexander´s army did only under the threat of violence; as soon the threat was lowered down; the people would fight back. Afghanistan has never been a country or kingdom in a normal way; it is rather a conglomerate of hamlets and small towns surviving under their local warlords, who on occasions may submit to some central power, but have been free in their way of life. Imposing a Greek style government or Western Democracy overnight through brute force on these fiercely independent people is a farfetched dream. Western media for years harped plight of women in Afghanistan, where even life has no value and fighting is way of living. Afghanistan is deeply entrenched in traditions; where people objected even Sardar Daud´s wife, who appeared without purdah on a trip to the West.

As Alexander continued his campaign of conquest, his men became tired of never ending war with an enemy that was indistinguishable from the local population. The moral of army was on decline; the Afghans were more rebellious than their expectations. Alexander had won kingdoms and empires from large armies, but here no conventional army was in sight, ordinary men were willing to fight and die and pester their life with exhausting skirmishes. A similar pattern can be observed in British army campaign of 1841 that started with great fanfare and ended in a tragedy with a lone survivor to tell the wretched tale.

After four years of exhausting war, Alexander lost most of his men, sustained injuries twice; and his health was in terminal decline. He tried to find alliance with the local kings and warlords to buy peace and time. Being the most eligible bachelor, he found a wife, Princess Rukshana (Roxana) daughter of Oxyartes, a warlord, who gave him a tough fight at Sogdiana (modern Tajikistan). Alexander´s marriage was not only a political alliance to pacify the warring tribes but also a face saving exit strategy to hasten back to Greek. For all invaders of Afghanistan; there has been one consistent reminder; conquering Afghanistan is easy but staying alive is not easy.
Print Email
Bookmark and Share

Dr. Tanvir Orakzai

Tanvir Orakzai is a PhD (E-Commerce) including Masters in IT and English literature. Tanvir is a Pakistani Think Tank, writing on diverse topics, such as Pakistan and US Foreign Policies, War on Terror, Economic Reviews of Southeast Asia, Historical and Cultural Review of Islam and West in variety of newspaper, magazines and journals around the world since 1996. Tanvir has contributed in various projects in well-known MNCs, such as HP, Philips and FujitSu. Currently he is working in Singapore.