Is Afghanistan really a 'graveyard of empires?' - CNN.com Is Afghanistan really a 'graveyard of empires?' By Barry Neild, CNN Afghanistan has reputation as "graveyard of empires" Analysts say some truth to this, but needs strong qualification British, Soviet empires both collapsed after involvement in Afghanistan RELATED TOPICS Afghanistan (CNN) -- The hand of history will be weighing heavily on U.S. President Barack Obama's shoulders as he deploys thousands more troops to Afghanistan in the hope of finally crushing a relentless Taliban insurgency. Known as the "graveyard of empires," Afghanistan has a reputation for undoing ambitious military ventures and humiliating would-be conquerors, a fate his opponents at home say is not worth risking more American lives for. In the past two centuries, both Soviet and British invaders have been forced to beat bloody retreats from Afghanistan, deprived of victories that, on paper, looked easy, but ultimately proved futile. And can it only be coincidence that in the wake of their Afghan disasters both the British and Soviet empires -- like that of Alexander the Great's, which extended over the region more than two millennia earlier -- crumbled? Almost immediately, in the case of the Soviets, a century later for Britain.

This, say some, is the inevitable Afghan experience. Isolated, poverty-stricken and brutalized by interminable conflict that technological advances in warfare fail to end, the country apparently remains as impervious to today's military adventurers as it was to yesterday's. "It's a hard place to fight, to conquer and rule," says Patrick Porter, a lecturer in defense studies at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, Kings College London. "The geography is very hard: It is a country of mountains and deserts, of quite severe winters and that makes it difficult not only to fight in, but also to operate logistically. It limits your mobility and it is difficult to project power." No wonder, he says, that the country's "graveyard" legend dies hard. "I don't think there's some determinism in history that says things always go wrong in Afghanistan, otherwise we'd all pack up and not bother.

--British counter-insurgency expert David Benest This is, after all, the setting of the "Great Game" of spying and geo-political horsetrading chronicled by the British empire-era author Rudyard Kipling; a spectacular CinemaScope landscape of snowy peaks, azure skies and mud brick villages peopled with proud warriors. America's backing of the Afghan Mujahedeen in their Cold War-era struggle against the Soviets helped enhance the modern reputation of the Afghan fighters, with U.S. politicians casting them as noble anti-communist warriors to win funding for military operations. This cliche was seized upon rather memorably in the third of Sylvester Stallone's Rambo films, when the frequently shirtless Vietnam veteran joined their struggle in a mind-blowingly violent movie that was released just as the Soviets were actually withdrawing from Afghanistan. "Afghanistan is certainly, historically, a difficult place to conquer and to rule, and the 'graveyard of empires' does suggest some things that are true -- but they need to be strongly qualified," said Porter.

Though empires tend to fall after their Afghan skirmishes, he says, for the British this was largely down to World War II, for the Soviets, it was ideological crisis in eastern Europe and for Alexander the Great it was a failure to ensure the stable succession of his Asian empire. "The notion of a 'graveyard of empires' is actually a false extrapolation from something that is true -- that there is tactical and strategic difficulty," Porter says. "It is possible in wars against guerrillas to flood cities with troops. It is much harder to flood mountains. And Afghanistan is a country not of very powerful cities but of thousands of isolated villages cut off in severe winters, allowing guerrillas and insurgents to melt away and return." For Gen. Victor Yermakov, a former Soviet commander in Afghanistan, the situation is more clear cut.

Summed up by what he says are the words of Babur, founder of the Mughal dynasty that ruled much of central Asia in the 1500s: "Afghanistan has not been and never will be conquered, and will never surrender to anyone." Michael Codner, director of the military sciences department at the British think tank Royal United Services Institute, says claims that Afghanistan's sovereignty has never been violated are somewhat undermined by historical fact. Codner points to the Persian empire which extended over Afghan soil in the 18th century, having contributed to the collapse of the once-mighty Kabul-based Mughal empire that reigned over the region two centuries earlier. Video: Your questions on Afghanistan But while Codner insists there are vast differences between modern and past military operations in Afghanistan, he acknowledges inescapable similarities, chiefly the terrain, climate and impregnable clan loyalties. "It is not the same sort of situation you had with the Soviets and before, having said that Afghanistan is a mountainous country with a very complex tribal system and a variety of ethnicities -- and therefore a very complex country to try to manage.

"These were features facing the British in the 19th century and the Soviets, so there are obviously some continuities, but what the United States and NATO are trying to do is not the same as before." So can the planned troop surge help the United States and its NATO allies succeed where the superpowers of the past have failed? "I don't think there's some determinism in history that says things always go wrong in Afghanistan, otherwise we'd all pack up and not bother," says David Benest, a former Parachute Regiment officer who served as a British counter-insurgency adviser in Kabul. Benest -- who earlier this year spent time with Afghan army officers who, crucially, are fighting alongside rather than against NATO troops -- says the recruitment of former anti-Soviet fighters who saw off the Soviets on the side of NATO is key to this.

Not only are these men well-versed in the techniques of Afghan insurgency, they learned from Soviet mistakes in the battle for hearts and minds, he says, "Talking through counter-insurgency with Afghan colonels earlier this year, they told me: 'We're never going to do what the Soviets did because we all know how brutal it was and how it turned people against the Soviet regime.'" Benest argues instead that the current conflict will as likely be solved in corridors of government as it will on battlefields stained with the blood of vanquished invaders. "The idea that the Taliban can't be defeated is nonsense, if there is a common thread in counter-insurgency it is that you've got to get the politics right." Share this on: Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires | Foreign Affairs Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires About the Author: My FA Anthologies Milton Bearden served as CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was responsible for that agency's covert action program in support of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet-supported government.

Print THE GREAT GAME Michni Point, Pakistan's last outpost at the western end of the barren, winding Khyber Pass, stands sentinel over Torkham Gate, the deceptively orderly border crossing into Afghanistan. Frontier Scouts in gray shalwar kameezes (traditional tunics and loose pants) and black berets patrol the lonely station commanded by a major of the legendary Khyber Rifles, the militia force that has been guarding the border with Afghanistan since the nineteenth century, first for British India and then for Pakistan. This spot, perhaps more than any other, has witnessed the traverse of the world's great armies on campaigns of conquest to and from South and Central Asia. All eventually ran into trouble in their encounters with the unruly Afghan tribals. Alexander the Great sent his supply trains through the Khyber, then skirted northward with his army to the Konar Valley on his campaign in 327 bc. There he ran into fierce resistance and, struck by an Afghan archer's arrow, barely made it to the Indus River with his life.

Genghis Khan and the great Mughal emperors began passing through the Khyber a millennium later and ultimately established the greatest of empires -- but only after reaching painful accommodations with the Afghans. From Michni Point, a trained eye can still see the ruins of the Mughal signal towers used to relay complex torch-light messages 1,500 miles from Calcutta to Bukhara in less than an hour. In the nineteenth century the Khyber became the fulcrum of the Great Game, the contest between the United Kingdom and Russia for control of Central Asia and India. The first Afghan War (1839-42) began when British commanders sent a huge army of British and Indian troops into Afghanistan to secure it against Russian incursions, replacing the ruling emir with a British protege. Facing Afghan opposition, by January 1842 the British were forced to withdraw from Kabul with a column of 16,500 soldiers and civilians, heading east to the garrison at Jalalabad, 110 miles away. Only a single survivor of that group ever Log in or register for free to continue reading. Registered users get access to one free article every month.

Subscribers get access to the entire archive. There's a reason Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires | cleveland.com There's a reason Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires comments Jill "J.R." Labbe is deputy editorial page editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. (McClatchy-Tribune) The United States is using blood and treasure in Afghanistan to defend the worst existing legacy of 19th- and 20th-century European colonialism: artificial borders. "Bad borders push people together who don't want to be together, or they drive people apart who do want to be together," Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel-turned-author, told a group of journalists last month at the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism at the University of Maryland for sessions titled "U.S. Military: New President, New Outlook?" Peters, whose 24 books include "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century," said that America's misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Afghan history and tribal social structure is why conditions are spiraling out of control despite the efforts of the U.S.-led coalition. Trying to establish a strong central government may be an exercise in futility.

"There is no Afghan nation," Peters said. "There never really was an Afghan state, just a city-state in Kabul." The kings and the sultans who ruled Kabul had as much trouble with rural tribal areas as coalition forces and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have today. Alexander the Great nearly paid with his life in the 4th century B.C. to learn the lesson of the Pashtuns' territorial ferocity. Fast-forward 2,000 years and Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire, railed against the unmanageable nature of the tribesmen who controlled what is today Waziristan, the porous and virtually lawless area along either side of the Afghan-Pakistan border. They are still there. By the middle of the 19th century, British forces engaged in the great push-me, pull-you with Imperial Russian forces for control of the area were routinely bedeviled by tribes in northern and southern Waziristan. It's no surprise that the ultimate line drawn to separate what was then controlled by the British empire (today's Pakistan) from what was controlled by the Russian empire (Afghanistan) -- known as the Durand line -- has always been ignored by the locals.

The Soviets didn't fare much better in the decade after their 1979 invasion than Alexander did more than two millennia earlier. A strong central Afghan government had nothing to do with orchestrating the devastating casualties that Soviet troops suffered in the territory of the Wazirs, the Mahsuds and the Ahmadzais. Tribes, subtribes and clans ruled the day then, and they are ruling the day now. "There is no sense of nation, and they hate the living daylights out of each other," Peters said. He wasn't alone in that assessment. Seth Jones, a political scientist and Afghanistan specialist at RAND Corp. who's visited the country more than a dozen times since 2003, said that with the exception of the period between 1933 and 1973, when Mohammad Zaher Shah ruled as king, Afghanistan has lacked a functioning central government, so why on earth do the Americans think they can put one in place? "There's no recent history of a stable Afghanistan caused by a strong central government, so let's stop trying to create something that is totally ahistorical," Jones said.

The best that can be hoped for in the short term -- and in Afghanistan, short term is measured generationally -- is a central government strong enough to establish security. That doesn't mean, however, that all the systems and institutions that are the hallmarks of a functioning state will exist. "There's no reason -- moral, ethical or legal -- to assume that when somebody attacks us and we hit back, we then have to rebuild their entire country, or build a country where none exists," Peters said. "But if you want to create an Afghan state, it will take a lot of resources, at least 30 years, and even then it might not work." America's answer to any problem is to throw resources at it. The economy has problems? Throw another trillion dollars at it. When military might is the tool for change, the resources being thrown are men and women in uniform. President Barack Obama approved a plan to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer. But before they join the 38,000 U.S. troops who are already there, it would be helpful if there was a clear vision of what they are expected to accomplish.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, during a March 3 news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, said the National Security Council is conducting a review to clarify how to move forward. "Our objectives -- and milestones in terms of measuring the achievements of the objectives -- is the focus of the strategic review with our partners," Gates said. "We'll have a better idea of the way forward, at least as far as the United States is concerned, when that review is complete." In the meantime, the situation on the ground has deteriorated the past two years as extremist insurgencies have gained strength and U.S. and allied casualties have increased. U.S. deaths in Afghanistan increased threefold during the first two months of 2009 compared with the same period last year, the Associated Press reported on Feb. 28. Army Lt. Col. Brian Mennes, who's spent 14 months in Afghanistan, isn't optimistic that the White House review will help. "There is no vision for Afghanistan, there is no strategy," said Mennes, who's served for 20 years, including 40 months deployed in one hot spot or another. "When given a command to go clean up a highway threat, I can do that.

But what happens three weeks after that? No one had an answer." Mennes' frustration for his men and their mission stemmed from having no sense of a larger American foreign policy that they were working to achieve. "The surge has great potential to be something great, but not if it's just on the hope that more security forces are just going to get more security," he said. "I have not seen a New Deal architect for Afghanistan." Peters, who served in Army intelligence units before becoming a foreign area officer specializing in Russia and its surrounding states, is worried that the Obama administration, which came to power by focusing on a domestic agenda, will attempt to make its foreign-policy "bones" by proving its machismo in Afghanistan, which the Democrats have claimed as the "good" war. "Before we send more troops, tell us the mission, the goals, the strategy," Peters said. "But in America, when it comes to strategy, we can't even tell means from ends. "More troops is not a strategy, it's a means." Metro Columnists Standing by The Graveyard of Empires: Has NATO just declared the hundred year war ? – Soldier of Fortune Magazine U.S. service members zero-in their weapons at a range near Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec.

8, 2015. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Corey Hook Standing by The Graveyard of Empires: Has NATO just declared the hundred year war ? May 12, 2016 Comments Off on Standing by The Graveyard of Empires: Has NATO just declared the hundred year war ? 2,291 Views Now, I make no pretense of being an expert on the military/political situation in that unfortunate country, having been there only three times for relatively short periods back in the ’80’s. However, it is generally accepted that for an insurgency to be successful, it must have a safe area and an outside source of support. As long as areas of Pakistan serve as a refuge for Moslem Taliban, Al Qaeda, or other insurgent groups operating in Afghanistan ; as long as elements of the ISI provide support to the Taliban and other insurgent groups, the war will continue. Where the Islamic radicals get their weapons and ammo I know not. Though obtaining weaponry in that area of the world has never been a major problem as long as you have money, Lt. Col. Robert K. Brown USAR (Ret.) Now read NATO’s logic as to why this war has no end.

NATO: Standing by Afghanistan: the strategic choice U.S. Army Chaplain (Maj.) Steve Prost, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, addresses soldiers and civilians during an Easter service at Forward Operating Base Gamberi in Laghman province, Afghanistan, March 31, 2013. DLA Troop Support provided a taste of home for deployed service members to enjoy during their Easter meals and palms for observing Palm Sunday. (Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Richard Andrade) Afghanistan’s defence and security forces face enormous challenges. They are countering an insurgency of well-equipped guerrilla fighters, who enjoy the unconditional support of organised crime, international terrorists and some neighboring countries. They are on the front line of the fight against terrorist groups including Al-Qaida, so-called Islamic State and the Haqqani Network. Moreover – as Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani has said repeatedly – for fourteen years Afghanistan has been in an undeclared war with Pakistan. And it’s also believed that the country continues to be the proxy battleground for India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers.

It is essential that the international community continues to stand by Afghanistan, building up the capacity of its forces and sustaining them financially until the country is able to do so itself. Not only is this support vital for Afghanistan, it is also in the strategic interest of its international partners. A proud military destroyed Afghanistan is no stranger to conflict. It has suffered numerous civil, regional and cross-regional wars over the past three millennia. The security and defence of the country depended on militias for a long part of its history but started to develop its formal military in the tenth century, during the Ghaznavid Empire. U.S. service members zero-in their weapons at a range near Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2015. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Corey Hook By the 1980s, Afghanistan had a small, but strong military. As a landlocked and mountainous country, it depended heavily on its air force for transport, reconnaissance and close air support. It had more than 400 aircraft, including around 240 fixed-wing combat aircraft, 150 helicopters and perhaps 40 transport aircraft.

Abdul Ahad Momand (Pashto: عبد الاحد مومند‎, born January 1, 1959) is a former Afghan Air Force aviator who became the first Afghan,and 4th Muslim to journey to outer spacE The country’s proud aviation history was symbolised by Abdul Ahad Momand, an Afghan air force aviator who was the first Afghan – and the fourth Muslim – to journey to outer space as one of Soyuz TM-6 crew members and spent nine days aboard the Mir space station in 1988 as an Intercosmos Research Cosmonaut. These achievements were erased and most military assets were looted and destroyed during decades of war and internal conflict, before the international community intervened following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Starting from scratch In August 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), mandated by the United Nations (UN). Over the following decade of ISAF’s deployment, building up the Afghan national security and defence forces became an increasingly important part its mission. This meant starting from scratch. Afghanistan’s military assets had been destroyed.

Moreover, the UN-led Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration programme disarmed around 100,000 of the mujahedin and officers of the former communist regime — and many were excluded from serving in the Afghan security forces. An Afghan air force A-29 Super Tucano flies over Afghanistan during a training mission April 6, 2016. Train, Advise, Assist Command-Air worked daily with the Afghan air force to help build a professional, sustainable and capable air force. (U.S. Air Force photo by Capt. Eydie Sakura) With time it became clear that disarming the militia groups and excluding professional military officers – along with ISAF’s extremely centralised security and governance strategy – provided an opportunity for the Taliban and terrorists to re-emerge and re-organise in the rural areas of Afghanistan. Resistance and casualties increased. Eventually, under the command of General Stanley McChrystal, ISAF adopted a counterinsurgency strategy in 2009. This called for more ISAF troops to push back the Taliban, while also placing a greater focus on training and building up the Afghan security forces so that they would be able to secure their own country eventually.

By the time that ISAF had completed the gradual transition of responsibility for security to the Afghan authorities before ending its mission in December 2014, Afghanistan had around 352,000 well-trained soldiers and police – an impressive achievement. ISAF also underpinned other vital progress in Afghanistan, helping provide the security and space for democracy to take root, institutions and infrastructures to be rebuilt, thousands of schools to be reopened, free media to thrive, and the country to recover its international recognition. Lack of leadership Of course, the insurgency was not defeated by the end of the ISAF mission. The challenges of insecurity and instability facing Afghanistan remain immense and its national security forces will require long-term international support both financially and in terms of capacity building. The Afghan security sector has come a long way in terms of quantity but it is time to focus on quality and in-depth security sector reform. The Afghan security forces lack strong political and military leadership at all levels as well as the resources to fight hybrid warfare. The position of defense minister has been vacant since mid 2014. Moreover, reform of the ministry of interior has lagged. Nevertheless, Afghan forces have proved to be fierce fighters against the terrorists and insurgents.

Beyond expectations – and against the many predictions that civil war would follow the transition of security to Afghan lead – they have been defending their nation with courage and honor. The focus now should be on nurturing educated, professional and well-trained officers and non-commissioned officers. Leadership development, gender mainstreaming and accountability mechanisms in the security ministries should be prioritised. Afghanistan also needs to develop the capacity of young officers and soldiers to replace the older generation in the defence and security forces. Moreover, it is time to professionalise the police and draw greater distinctions between the duties of law enforcement and the military. Blood and treasure Afghanistan’s costly, bloody and lengthy war has exhausted the taxpayers of donor countries and troop contributing nations. There is no exact figure for the costs incurred by the international coalition during the war. However, the United States on its own has committed around US$113 billion since 2002 for the reconstruction and support of Afghanistan. And the human cost has been high: as of end February 2016, 3515 coalition members and tens of thousands of Afghan security forces and civilians have died. Yet, NATO and the wider international community have renewed their commitments to support Afghanistan for another decade.

NATO and its partners launched a new train, advise and assist mission (‘Resolute Support’) in January 2015. Wider cooperation with the Alliance is also being taken forward through its Enduring Partnership programme with Afghanistan. The United States and Afghanistan have also agreed a long-term partnership framework and a bilateral security agreement. Afghanistan’s partners want to secure the investments of blood and treasure they have already made to help the country get back on its feet. Reconciliation and a peace deal are the best options to end the war but – until a settlement is reached – the deteriorating security situation and the growing terrorist threats require the continued engagement of NATO Allies and partners in Afghanistan. It is also in their own strategic interest to remain engaged. Strategic choice As a landlocked country neighboring China, Pakistan, Iran and Central Asian countries, Afghanistan has significant geostrategic and geopolitical importance. It is the only country in the region which gives open access to the United States and NATO Allies. The Khyber Pass, located between Afghanistan and Pakistan, has long been one of the most important trade routes and strategic military locations in the world. Moreover, the Silk Road passes through Afghanistan.

This ancient network of trade routes, 4000 miles long, is known as the cultural crossroads of the Indian, Persian and Chinese civilisations. Insecurity and instability in Afghanistan would destabilise the region and provide fertile ground for terrorist groups, posing a threat to Allies and partners. Afghanistan also faces immense economic and development challenges. The country is rich in natural resources, gas, minerals and oil (worth more than a trillion US dollars according to some estimates). But insecurity and war has limited opportunities to explore and extract these resources, and Afghanistan remains among the poorest countries of the world. Combined with insecurity, lack of economic opportunities are driving many Afghans to flee the country. According to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, more than a quarter of the one million refugees and migrants who arrived in Europe in 2015 were Afghans (coming second after Syrians). Helping Afghanistan establish peace and to grow its economy could help stem the flow of refugees, which represents a brain drain for Afghanistan and also risks destabilizing the European Union.So, it is well worth sustaining investment in the development of Afghanistan as well as its security forces. The year 2017 is just around the corner.

Setting an exit date for the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission and the US presence may help the Afghan security forces to take responsibilities – but it also helps the Taliban narrative of “you may have the watches, but we have the time”. NATO’s upcoming summit meeting in Warsaw in July 2016 is an opportunity for NATO and its partners to renew their commitment to long-term support for the further development of the Afghan security sector. It is in the interest of both the Allies and Afghan people. AUTHOR FOR NATO Mohammad Shafiq “Hamdam” is a social activist, writer and analyst. From 2008 to 2014, he served as a Senior Media and Public Diplomacy Advisor to the NATO Senior Civilian Representative to Afghanistan. Share this: Kabul's British Cemetery is graveyard of empires - Winnipeg Free Press Winnipeg Free Press Kabul's British Cemetery is graveyard of empires By: Tony Perry Posted: 01/16/2010 1:00 AM | Comments: Tweet Email Hey there, time traveller! This article was published 15/1/2010 (2559 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

KABUL — The heavy wooden gate to the British Cemetery is kept locked. To get inside, the curious must bang their fists and shout their intentions over the sounds of boys yelling in the streets, the call to prayer from the local mosque and the roar of foreign military planes overhead. Hidden behind its tall wall are memorials to Englishmen, Europeans and even a few Americans -- all of whom came to this war-torn land in the service of their country and lost their lives. Afghanistan has long been called the "graveyard of empires," and nowhere is that somber designation more real than at this smallish cemetery, with its gravestones marking the fallen, some from forgotten battles that occurred more than a century past, others from deadly incidents that made headlines just weeks ago. Also known as the White Cemetery, the graveyard was originally a burial site for soldiers killed in Britain's ill-fated colonial adventures in Afghanistan: the Anglo-Afghan wars of the 19th century. Among those memorialized are Lt. Cecil Henry Gaisford, killed in 1879 in the battle for Asmai Heights -- "he died like a soldier." And Lt. St.

John William Forbes, killed that same year in the battle for a piece of high ground called the King's Throne. One of Britain's most famous heroes of the Afghan campaign is also memorialized here: Maj. John Cook of the 5th Gurkha Rifles, awarded the Victoria Cross for leading a desperate charge against Pashtun riflemen. In one mass grave are the remains of 29 members of the 67th Foot Regiment killed from 1878 to 1881. In all, the remains of about 150 are buried here, some beneath gravestones that are cracked, chipped or no longer readable. When a U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001, a British army unit adopted the cemetery, erecting a plaque that vows, "We Shall Remember Them." Service personnel are no longer buried here, but stone-carved memorial lists are attached to the walls, with the names and ranks of those killed in the struggle with the Taliban. Each November, as part of a Remembrance Day ceremony, British officials, backed by bagpipes, visit the cemetery for speeches, prayers and the laying of red poppies.

For security reasons, the ceremony is quick and at an unusual hour -- the 2009 celebration began at 6 a.m. For 25 years, the cemetery has been watched over and its greenery tended by Rahimullah, who like many Afghans goes by one name. During the Taliban years, an angry Mullah Mohammed Omar stormed into the cemetery with his gunmen and demanded to know why a Muslim would guard the graves of Christians. Rahimullah tried to sidestep the Taliban leader's question. "Because I am illiterate and illiterate people are blind," Rahimullah reportedly told Omar. For three days Rahimullah remained in hiding, fearing he was marked for death. After the Taliban was toppled and the British army decided to upgrade the cemetery, Rahimullah's defiance and wrinkled visage made him a minor celebrity in the British press. The British Embassy now pays him $100 a month and has issued a proclamation honoring him for decades of "faithful service." Under a cold, grey Kabul winter sky, the cemetery has a forlorn look, its trees bare, its rose bushes reduced to sticks with thorns, the patches of grass frozen. Neighbours occasionally hurl trash over the wall.

But Rahimullah's son Einullah said that in the spring, when the roses bloom, the grape arbor is in season, and the apple, almond and cherry trees are full with fruit, the cemetery has a colorfulness that stands in sharp contrast to the drabness of the neighborhood around it. "It's beautiful," said Einullah, who is tending the cemetery grounds while his father is in the hospital with high blood pressure and other ailments of old age. The most famous civilian grave may be that of Hungarian-born British archaeologist Aurel Stein, famed for his exploration of the "Silk Road" across Central Asia. For years he was denied permission to enter Afghanistan to study the military campaigns of Alexander the Great. He was finally allowed to enter in 1943, only to die in Kabul, the capital, that year. Near Stein's grave is buried an American engineer from Ohio who helped build the irrigation canals of Helmand province. And a British family killed in an automobile accident. Some grave markers tell of street murders. There are German, Polish and even Russian graves; one memorial plaque is to Turkish soldiers killed in a plane crash on their way home.

One of the more recent graves is that of Gayle Williams, an aid worker of British and South African nationality. Williams, 35, was gunned down in October 2008, allegedly by a Taliban fighter who believed that she was spreading Christianity. In her will, Williams asked to be buried at the British Cemetery. On her marble tombstone is a citation from Psalms: "How lovely is your dwelling place / O Lord Almighty." Afghanistan—Graveyard of Empires? - Council on Foreign Relations Council on Foreign Relations Author: Max Boot , Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies April 29, 2014 Post Email Afghanistan long ago became known as the "graveyard of empires." But while it is undoubtedly a tough place to fight and a tough place to control, its reputation is vastly overblown. In fact the last two empires to try to dominate Afghanistan—the British and Soviet—largely succeeded in achieving their objectives even after pulling their troops out as long as they were willing to keep extending aid to Kabul.

The British encounter with Afghanistan is remembered primarily for the disaster of the First Afghan War (1839-1842) which culminated in a pell-mell retreat by Anglo-Indian troops and their camp followers from Kabul. Almost the entire force of 16,000 people, including 700 Europeans, was wiped out as a result of freezing winter temperatures and unrelenting attacks by hostile tribesmen. The British encountered further setbacks during the Second Afghan War (1878-1880), most notably defeat at the Battle of Maiwand in southern Afghanistan, when nearly 1,000 soldiers out of a force of 2,500 were wiped out. Yet London managed to achieve its essential objective in Afghanistan: to keep control of Kabul's foreign policy and to keep Russian influence out. From 1880 to 1919 Afghanistan was a virtual protectorate of the British Empire, with the British supporting the rule of Abdur Rahman, "the Iron Emir," and his son Habibullah.

Habibullah's assassination in 1919 brought to the throne his brother Amanullah, who launched the Third Afghan War to regain control of his country's foreign policy. He succeeded but only because the British were too war-weary to offer much resistance. In any case Russia, at that point in the throes of a civil war between Whites and Reds, appeared to pose little threat of trumping British influence in Afghanistan.

Graveyard of Empires – The Rks Leads a nation of braves Its youth and their faith As stronger as their beliefs In ONE God, they believe A hood of khans Die for the sand of their country Can the world see the real power Thousands of super-powerful empires have tried and failed to capture My country which has blessed with longness Long ago yet still no empire has conquered my country, it owned a history That’s why it is called graveyard of empires Embrace love and it wont be that hard to do Those cracked walls you see around From every corner, a child comes out with an honour Of being a part of this lions-nation With a pride in their sparking eyes, you may see The world of wonders for all they dream with open eyes Count the dead bodies, the crueler in suit Blowing them away whilst training his empire of cowards for centuries Cries of those ladies, who lose a son or daughter Every single day of their lives Yet the nation still raises With weapons of love and respect For all to learn from the mother of Asia My Afghanistan, Every time, a home becomes a war zone Not a day of freedom, I witness But the braveness, I see it in their fiery eyes That experience the death this closer

 seems like they are to be the generation of our future Stop cutting our roots We are here not to bow down Don’t make us tell you your bounds Don’t borrow a heart that doesn’t even beat The battle of love Oh lady, don’t lay it down, our flag is to fly as higher as the mountain of pride Paint your soul with humanitarianism Frustrated, no need of an alarm around the town, my people are harmed Who to blame when the game is to blame the non-players Proud to be sacrificed, oh the soldiers for the land of graveyard of empires Homes get destroyed With one bomb or missile, explode just blood around Is it that cheesy to spread around Oh those innocents’ See the pain, they have been suffering for ages Along the pieces of their innocence God knows, who will be the next to blame For what they have never done Dreams of being home Wish they couldn’t wreck us for this long But under the influence of lions The nation will always remain the same Sum up the questions, that pop into my head I see no sign of raising voices As a bullet may pass my brain Is it my only concern?

certain things won’t work till we fight with love and peace Don’t these lives deserve to see a new sunshine A hall of joys, no separation of happiness Hoping if someone listens to my call of unity Hear the voices, singing of lost lives Literally each breath I take now gets harder to Hardships and we endure such pains Living in sorrows and we still draw a picture of a happy tomorrow Wars against powers but they mostly seem like against religion and lands oh Lord! Will the death unburden my shoulders Or it will make the stones more stronger Strange, is to be not weaker Fighter, we will always be No matter, if they call us warriors The flowers will bloom Or I was born to sit alone The day will come I won’t cry anymore The streets will be lit As we walk in With pride in our eyes, The Country will distribute peace amongst all are known and seen This is my graveyard of empires That’s where my roots belong to.🇦🇫💕 -Rks Share this: I_Was_Just_Thinking: Despite the Cliché: "Afghanistan is the Graveyard of Empires" – History reveals they has been conquered and occupied by everyone even passing through!

A blog to capture random thoughts, mainly dealing with politics and especially military matters. Saturday, June 25, 2011 Despite the Cliché: "Afghanistan is the Graveyard of Empires" – History reveals they has been conquered and occupied by everyone even passing through! The misquote most often attributed to Joseph Goebbles is: “if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.” Regardless who actually said it, never has it been more true then when applied to Afghanistan being called "the graveyard of empires." In truth rather than the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan has historically been conquered and occupied by everyone that has even passed through it. Beginning with the Persian Empire in the 5th century BC, Afghanistan has always been part of somebody's empire.

For this recount of history, I have liberally borrowed from an article by Andrew Roberts which appeared in the 20 Sept 2010 National Review: Graveyard Of A Cliché - Afghanistan presents no impossible military challenge, its 'history' notwithstanding and on my exchanges with Retired US Army LTC Les Grau, an acknowledged Afghanistan expert and the author of two books on the Soviet experiences there: "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" and "The Other Side of the Mountain." Both are a “must read” for anyone interested in doing a serious examination of Soviet performance there. His assessment was: “for a conscript army with a conscript NCO corps, the Soviets did a reasonable job while they were there. In some respects, they were far ahead of where we are--and we make many of the same mistakes that they made.” So what is the real history of Afghanistan? Despite the myth that Afghans are a fearsome warrior people who have defeated every imperial power since Alexander the Great, including Persians, Mongols, Moghuls, Russians, British, or Soviets, a closer review of history reveals this to be a myth. They have NEVER driven any conqueror out.

The reason Alexander stayed in Afghanistan so briefly was that there was nothing to plunder there so why stay; he merely needed to pass through there on his way into India. By then Afghanistan had already been conquered by the Median and Persian Empires, and afterwards it was conquered by the Seleucids, the Indo-Greeks, the Turks, and the Mongols. When Genghis Khan attacked in 1219, he exterminated every human being in Herat and Balkh and turned the country back to the Stone Age. Mongol conqueror Tamerlane followed suit and the Moghuls held Afghanistan peaceably for almost two centuries. Although conquerors ruled the country, none imposed any centralized direct control so allowed a good deal of tribal provincial autonomy as geography demanded in a period before modern communications. It was not until 1747 that even a primitive Afghan sovereign state could be detected. All these empires including the British ever wanted of Afghanistan was that it not be used as a base from which attacks could be mounted.

Britain's only interest was keeping czarist Russia away from its Greater Indian colony during what was called "The Great Game." Today, people wishing to perpetuate the “Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires” myth like to cite the more recent historical examples of the Afghan struggles with the British Empire. Granted, despite some early disasters during Britain's First Afghan War of 1839-42, the popular version of events is distorted. Although it is true that 16,500 people died in the horrific Retreat from Kabul, fewer than a quarter of them were soldiers, and only one brigade was British. The incompetent commander, Major General William George Keith Elphinstone, evacuated Kabul on 6 Jan 1842 in midwinter and the freezing weather destroyed his column more than the Afghans. Several hundred -- possibly over a thousand -- survived the retreat and were rescued by the punitive expedition that recaptured Kabul by September 1842. Early in 1843, the governor-general, Lord Ellenborough, sent General Sir Charles Napier to capture Sind.

General Napier is best known for putting down several insurgencies in India during his reign as Commander-in-Chief there and he once succinctly stated his philosophy about suppressing rebellions as: “The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.” He also said: "the human mind is never better disposed to gratitude and attachment than when softened by fear." This may explain why once he finished Afghanistan stayed quiet for another 30 years. Lieutenant General Sir Jasper Nicolls, another commander-in-chief of India, examined the “Retreat from Kabul” and listed the reasons for the defeat at the time as: "1. not having a safe base of operations, 2. the freezing climate, 3. the lack of cattle, and 4. placing our magazines and treasure in indefensible places." The only lesson to be learned from the Kabul catastrophe of 1842 is don’t appoint incompetent commanders.

The Second Afghan War was actually won by Major General Sir Frederick Roberts at the battle of Kandahar in August 1880 and thereafter Afghan resistance was subdued and Afghanistan was reduced to being a British protectorate until it was given its independence in 1919. There was a short three month Third Afghan War in 1919 which the British also won that settled the political boundary with India. Having achieved all their objectives, the Brits withdrew from Afghanistan leaving a monarchy in place that survived until 1973 although there was a great deal of post-independence instability. It should also be noted that Islamic fundamentalism is not historically deep-seated in Afghanistan and it was King Amanullah who instituted Kemalist modernizations such as monogamy, Western clothing, and the abolition of the veil in 1928. As for the Soviet involvement, it was the Afghan government that made repeated requests in 1978 and 79 for Soviet intervention but the Soviet government was in no hurry to help. It was not until the anti-communist rebel factions began receiving US aid that they stepped in.

On 3 July 1979 President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime; six months before any Soviets deployed. Around Christmas 1979 the Red Army entered Afghanistan with about 120,000 troops; not the Soviet's best units but with soldiers from the Soviet republics adjacent to Afghanistan to make it appear to be a limited, local operation. These two-year conscripts were often drunk or on opium and the Soviets ultimately lost 15,000 men (about ten times the number of Americans over the same length of time). Their helicopter gunships devastated most of the villages between Ghazni and Kandahar in February 1980, and the Soviets showed utter disregard for civilian casualties.

Their equipment, training, discipline, and morale were poor but as I quoted LTC Grau before: “for a conscript army with a conscript NCO corps, the Soviets did a reasonable job while they were there.” As far as the Soviets were concerned, their withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 was not a shameful escape accompanied by the hooting of the mujahedeen but rather the Soviet Army entered the country, accomplished its tasks and returned to the Motherland. When the Soviets departed, they left in place a Communist puppet regime led by Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai or merely Najibullah. Though it failed to ever win popular support, it was able to remain in power until 1992. Much like South Vietnam fell when the US withdrew its support, the Najibullah communist government fell in April 1992 when the new Yeltsin government no longer wished to continue to support their former communist puppet. The Mujahideen replaced Najibullah with a new governing council and had the Taliban not hosted and protected al-Qaeda while it masterminded the 9/11 attacks, most Americans would still have never heard of Afghanistan.

Despite the revisionist history by those wishing to point to the past failures of Great Empires to be successful in Afghanistan, they have only succeeded in demonstrating their own ignorance of history. They have distorted and greatly misrepresented the successes every invader has had against Afghans, a vicious but historically very unimpressive foe. Hopefully the US and our NATO allies will be as successful as the British Empire was in subduing Afghanistan and we leave it in such a condition that they can endure by themselves for at least as long as the last time the Brits left – 60 years (1919-1979)! Posted by

Question: Which country is called the "graveyard of empires"?
Answer: Afghanistan