The Butcher and I were watching CNN yesterday and they were talking about whether the Army is irredeemably broken. Today I read in USA today that the Army faces a severe shortage of officers that is bound to continue into the next decade.
This seems to me to be one of the most dangerous fall-outs from Bush’s failed policy. I know it’s easy enough to tease conservatives under 40 who support the war for not going out and actually, you know, participating in the war, but I think that beyond it being funny, it actually illustrates a dangerous problem that, and I’d wager, future administrations have: fewer and fewer people trust our government enough to turn their lives over to it.
Regardless of how you feel about this war or about military spending, we do need a standing army capable of going to war. Right now, we don’t have that.
I think the reasons why are pretty complex, but becoming more apparent as time goes by. We do a poor job of planning for our troops in the field and giving them operations that can actually be carried out with some measure of success. We don’t take care of them once they return home and, when they leave the armed forces, it’s even worse.
I don’t have a solution for this.
I was on the plane yesterday with a guy who was wearing a POW/MIA shirt.
I don’t know. I wasn’t around before Viet Nam, but it seems to me that what we haven’t, as a country, gotten over is this idea that we (America) will leave you (troops) behind. It seems to me that, if there’s one lesson we refuse to learn from Viet Nam, it’s that–the immorality of leaving folks behind.
And I’m sorry, but not providing our service people with adequate health care or counseling or whatever it is they need once they get home, that is leaving them behind.
POW may not be exactly the right term for it, but damn, every time I see that black & white logo, it feels to me like an indictment larger than just its literal meaning.
It’s no wonder it becomes harder and harder to find folks willing to do for us the things we won’t do only to have us turn our backs on them when they’re done.
Tiny Cat Pants 
No, I have one more thing to say on your blog before getting back to work: I recently dated a guy who was in the first Gulf War. He had half of his skull blown off, but somehow managed to survive fairly physically unscathed. He has major PTSD and it has been a chore for him to get the help he still needs after a decade home. All of that to say that he fought for our country, did unspeakable things in the name of the U.S. of A, and he hates our government because of it. I learned some pretty eye-opening things from him about how the government has forsaken our veterans…and now they are speaking out about it louder than ever…so who in their right mind would want to put their life on the line only to end up like so many of our veterans have?
Pingback: Nashville is Talking » The Chickenhawk Conundrum
A slightly different point of view –
My son is a high school senior at a private, college prep school. You may be surprised to learn the number of kids like him, from higher income families, private school educations, etc,etc, who are interested in the military.
Competition for service academy appointments and ROTC scholarships remains very high (we know, we were declined on both counts, while still being accepted to prestigious universities). There are significant numbers who are even joining at the enlisted level, putting off college to serve.
Even with all the cynicism expressed in the media, the desire to serve is still strong in this country.
I know it’s easy enough to tease conservatives under 40 who support the war for not going out and actually, you know, participating in the war
The chickenhawk argument is pretty ridiculous. Just because I support the war my point is meaningless unless I actually fight in it? What people who make this argument fail to realize is that what they are arguing for is a military dictatorship, wherein only the military gets to decide whether or not the military may be used to fight wars. One of the more important aspects of our system of government is the part about civilian control of the military. And by making the chickenhawk argument, you are basically saying that you don’t want civilian control of the military. That is why that argument has no merit.
As far as funding for the military, Bush took over a military that had been repeatedly defunded by the Clinton administrations. Clinton used the military more often than any previous peacetime American president. He sent armed forces into areas of conflict on an average of once every nine weeks.
I’m not making the argument that everything is fine with the military and the support system surrounding it. It clearly is not, and there needs to be a major overhaul in the support system, starting with Walter Reed hospital. But to say that this is a result of “Bush’s Falied Policies” is not an accurate statement.
I would also argue that we do in fact have a very capable standing army, and they are at war in multiple places right now doing the jobs that they are trained to do. To say that “we don’t have that right now” is also an inaccurate statement.
One of my friends is returning from his third tour in Iraq in the next two weeks. I’ll ask him directly what he thinks about your statements if you like.
I think that this is a regional thing. Around here (NY), the upper-class kids have zero interest in serving in the military in any capacity. It’s the lower-middle-class whites and working-class African Americans (and the first generation Hispanic kids of all classes) who are enlisting. The Army seems like a viable route out of Dunkin’ Donuts jobs for high school dropouts without a lot of other options. In my homegrounds (KY), it’s the same story. Rich kids are planning to go to college and poor kids are planning to go to the military — as it has been in eastern Kentucky since at least back to Korea. So while I believe you that further south, wealthy boys are lining up to try their hand at being Top Guns, I think you gotta ask yourself if Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia can really carry the rest of the nation for officer recruitment. I don’t think they can.
The reason that the “chickenhawk” argument works is that there’s hypocrisy in braying about the necessity for supreme sacrifices from the safety of your computer keyboard while letting other men and women do your dirty work. If winning the war means so much to you, have at it. Guys like my cousin (also redeployed for the third time — how does that serial overdeployment, reduced training times, and sapped morale say military strength to you?) would love to have some drum-beating chickenhawks take their places. They are looking forward to supporting you — by keeping you deployed indeterminately in unsafe conditions, driving to the mall with idiotic magnets on their bumpers, and writing tendentious blog posts — like you’ve “supported” them.
MBW,
Are you saying that since I’m not enlisted in the military, I can’t support the war or the reasons why we are fighting it?
So only the military should be allowed to decide what wars our military engages in?
I would be interested in your answers. My friends who serve have never said that I shouldn’t be allowed to support the war or voice my opinion that we need to fight and win the war. Indeed, they are enlisted voluntarily, therefore they don’t blame anyone but themselves if they end up in theater.
I agree there is danger in saying that the opinions of those who have not been in the military somehow count less than the opinions of those who have. This is made worse by the fact that the military (like so many things) has become more of a profession, as opposed to countries where everyone must do military service.
I also agree that having experience with something makes your opinion more sound. When it comes to military matters, I trust someone who has been in the military more than I trust someone who has not, just as a successful businessman might be trusted more on business matters.
But here’s the thing.
No leader or candidate is going to know what it is like to be rich and poor, black and white, etc. All leaders have to rely on others’ judgements. I’m going to vote for someone who I trust less on at least one topic. It’s inevitable.
The big hurdle someone has to clear for me to trust them, is: in areas where they have little experience, do they listen to and take good counsel from those who have more experience?
That’s where I would fault Bush and our current administration most. In the areas where they have had the most trouble (and every administration has trouble), they have seemed to disregard the professional expertise of those who were capable of avoiding or lessening the problems.
And one last point on the civilian vs military experience thing. I’ve heard nobody here say that only people *currently serving in* the military should be trusted. There are plenty of people with military experience who are now civilians. Talk about “military dictatorship” is a red herring.
To be a little more pointed about it:
The opinions of those without military experience matter. I have no military experience. Nobody says that people without experience shouldn’t be listened to. Nobody says that a president has to have military experience.
But if you are president, and have no military experience, and surround yourself by people without military experience, and decide to implement a pretty revolutionary military strategy, and (here I’m speculating) seem to reject or punish the advice of those who question your approach rather than saying, in effect, “hey we’re talking about some radical changes, and none of us around the table have been there, so seriously guys, tell us if we are full of shit or have our heads in the clouds… does this make sense to you? And it won’t hurt our feelings if you say so, we want your real opinions. Step up.”
That kind of stuff. Sure every opinion counts. But if you know that you don’t know things, you have a duty to ask the hard questions and listen hard to the answers. I think Tman is doing just that – asking his friends who know. That’s what you are supposed to do.
I think that didn’t happen right in the past few years, and I hope all future Republican and Democratic administrations (and the press) make a point of seeking the disinterested opinions of experienced people and paying them serious attention. Call the next Kennedy on Cuba, call the next Clinton on Somalia, and call the next Bush on Iraq. People die over this stuff.
That’s not the chickenhawk argument, though. The chickenhawk argument isn’t that civilians don’t have the right to an opinion; it’s that the chickenhaws wouldn’t be so hawkish if they figured that they or their loved ones would have to fight the wars they start. Changing the terms of the argument to whether there ought to be civilian control over the military is, well, changing the argument.
the chickenhaws wouldn’t be so hawkish if they figured that they or their loved ones would have to fight the wars they start
I do have loved ones fighting right now. I didn’t “start” the war, but I do agree with our reasons for fighting it. The problem with the chickenhawk argument is that you are implying that because I don’t or haven’t served in the military, my opinion about when the military should be sent in to battle shouldn’t count. You are implying that only those who have or are serving in the military should be able to make these decisions, and that would circumvent the civilian control of the military, which is a fundamental part of our governments system.
No, it is suggesting that those who started the war (not you, unless you’re one of them) acted cavalierly because they knew that they personally would not be affected by it. This particular wrinkle suggests that, further, they were able to feel little concern for, and take few preventive measures to ensure, the well-being of those who were personally affected by the fighting in the event of injury, extended deployment, etc. Presumably, if you have loved ones fighting right now, you are supporting them actively and in concrete ways as well as with your prayers, which would make you … not a chickenhawk. Bush, however, and Clinton in his days in office, were responsible for sending troops into harms way in wars of choice (though Clinton at least was careful to limit the mission and length of his military adventures) although each of them personally had pulled strings, used what influence they could come by, and generally been weaselly in order to get out of combat when their contemporaries were in danger.
NM,
Aunt B. said above the following-
“I know it’s easy enough to tease conservatives under 40 who support the war for not going out and actually, you know, participating in the war,”
This is what I am told is the chickenhawk argument. I don’t know why anyone thinks that I can’t support the war without actually fighting in it. It’s ridiculous to make this argument for the reasons I stated above. I never “acted cavalierly” and frankly, I don’t think that Bush “acted cavalierly” about sending troops in to battle. I don’t think that anyone knows how Bush feels about sending troops to battle other than himself. I find it hard to believe that Bush doesn’t care about the troops, or their well being. You can argue that the weren’t funded well enough, or the plan for battle was weak, or the conditions at say Walter Reed hospital are pathetic, and I would agree with you. But I don’t agree that this is all entirely Bush’s fault. Walter Reed has been a mess for over a decade, and from having family who are in the military, I learned what happened under Clinton personally when the military was defunded in various areas. Bush inherited a military that had been handicapped under Clinton, and then had to reform it to fight a new war. That everything isn’t perfect is not an indictment of Bush, or his commitment to the troops well being.
Bush was repeatedly told that the army he had was inadequate for the war of choice he wished to begin. He began it anyway. To me, that’s cavalier. He was, or should have been, aware that military hospitals were not ready to deal with the massive number of wounded they would be (and are being) called on to handle. He did nothing to improve the situation. To me, that’s cavalier. YMMV, and obviously does.
“Bush was repeatedly told that the army he had was inadequate for the war of choice he wished to begin.”
The army he had then, and the army we have now is more than adequate for the military objectives they are currently involved in. But that’s the problem. The military are not policemen, yet they end up being used as a police force when the military objectives are met. This is primarily due to the nature of the conflicts. I agree that it is ultimately Bush’s responsibility for the conditions at Walter Reed and other military hospitals and he should be held accountable.
Anyone who told you that our military was “inadequate” to fight the wars that they have been sent to fight knows little to nothing about our military. I don’t remember any one miitary advisor who stated that our military was “inadequate” to fight in Iraq.
The former general (not former in 2002) who told him he was going to need an extra 100,000 troops to stabilize things after the invasion was over comes to mind.
Our combat forces patently are inadequate as currently deployed. They’ve been fighting for four years in Iraq and nearly six years in Afghanistan and they have not yet accomplished their mission in either location. You can blame whoever you like for this. But if this particular size of force were adequate to complete that mission in an effective and timely manner, the President would not be sending more troops every time he takes a dump.
The mission in Agfhanistan was to remove the Taliban from power.
That was accomplished.
The mission in Iraq was to remove Saddam from power.
That was accomplished.
Just because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan resembles Japan ten years after WWII does not mean that the military was unable to complete its job. What is being asked of the military now is not something they can do alone. It will require both the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to come together with the help of the coalition forces to rebuild from the damage done by both of the former regimes.
Horsepucky. The mission in Afghanistan was and is threefold: to neutralize Al Qada, kill or round up Bin Laden, and to remove the Taliban from power. I think you’re reading a different newspaper if you think we’re batting better than .300 – and don’t look now, but the only place that the Taliban has been diminished in more than a cursory way is Kabul. They are where we are not. And we are not in most of Afghanistan. We’re distributing little FIFA soccer balls to try to woo the kids but there’s no pumps to blow them up with. The opium growers are stepping up production to greater than pre-war levels, with little intervention from either Karsai’s government or our military. It’s a fuck-up of ghastly proportions
If the mission in Iraq was just to remove Saddam from power, then I guess we’re done there. You should have no objection to immediate withdrawal. But if you believe that the mission includes, like, say “what is being asked of the military now” (is this not a mission? have they accomplished it? or are they inadequate to do so, as nm and I have said and you’ve just admitted), then they are not getting it done and in fact, probably won’t be able to do it.
Coalition? What coalition? Ain’t no such thing. Even the British are beginning to bail. It’s just us in the big muddy now, dude.
Afghanistan-
Al-Qaeda moved to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden in my opinion is fertilizer at this time, and either way Islamic terrorism is not entirely dependent upon the life of Osama.
The Taliban are removed from power in every meaningful sense.
The rest of your complaints from Afghanistan tend to lean towards the typical “well, EVERYTHING ISN’T PERFECT YET!!” msm mantra, and I don’t believe that this in any way refutes the general fact that the mission was indeed accomplished.
Here is a NATO fact sheet listing the various Coalition forces currently serving in Afghnistan-
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm
The mission in Iraq was indeed to remove Saddam, and it was accomplished. The mission they have now, as I stated above, is not a military mission any longer. It is a political mission, and the military is simply providing security. They cannot and are not supposed to be a police force. They will never be “adequate” enough to be a police force because that’s not what the military does.
Global Security report on non-US military forces in Iraq-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
Let’s review. Read the President’s speech when he sent troops to Afghanistan in October 2001:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.html
The mission is exactly what I said it was. And we haven’t accomplished it and probably won’t with less than 20k troops to try to occupy 650k square miles of territory. I’m not knocking the troops, man. I’m using a little goddamn common sense. Not only is everything not perfect, but it’s so bad that it actually is making the Taliban look like liberators from the chaotic conditions that we’ve created and are sustaining.
Again I say, coalition? We had, at one point, 40-odd “partners.” We now have 21. By the beginning of the summer, we’ll have 19, maybe 18, as Poland and Denmark are out. Thus, we’ve lost over half our former supporters. 89 percent of the troops in Iraq are from the US. 135,000 and counting. And the total number of coalition forces is? 14,000. 7000 of those are British and Blair has recently announced that he wants to pull between 3000 and 5000 soldiers and possibly more by the end of the year. Many of the countries you’ve listed have token forces at best. Macedonia has about 30 guys. The Czech army sent 80, but called half of them back. Latvia has 122. Lithuania has 105. Mongolia has eight soldiers on the ground, down from their max number of 180.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition_040521.htm
By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, we will be hauling about 95% of the load come mid-summer. If you’re bleeding to death and I hand you a kleenex, am I helping? If I convince a friend to hand you another, are we a coalition of the willing to let you bleed to death?
Bush said in the speech-
“These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.”
How can you say that this wasn’t accomplished? Al Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan, and the NATO forces get to play whack-a-mole every few days with some remnants of the Taliban. The Taliban ALWAYS lose these fights.
“it actually is making the Taliban look like liberators from the chaotic conditions that we’ve created and are sustaining”
Sounds like you’re ready for a job at CNN.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060825164339ndyblehs0.4105493
Washington – The co-founder of a grassroots development organization in Afghanistan says women have come a long way since the fall of the Taliban regime in December 2001, but it has been an uphill struggle.
“At first even the educated women of Herat city could not express what their legal rights were,” she said. “But after a year and a half of these workshops, even uneducated women from the provinces spoke up about their rights.”
“Women now demanded to be educated and even get jobs in the business sector that was considered a man’s domain. Some requested car-driving lessons,” she added.
http://www.womenforafghanwomen.org/
You are so off base it’s not even funny. Then you say we are “alone in the mud” and when I show you statistics that clearly show we are not, your excuse is “well, it’s only 21 countries and that’s not really helping us!”.
http://www.itv.com/news/afghanistan_7cded401487dce946753c91e7f22153a.html
Taliban in south ‘practically defeated’
11.32, Mon Oct 2 2006
Just because the media keeps trying to sell defeat to you doesn’t mean you have to buy it.
Ok, I’ll review.
“These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…….By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans……Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we’ll also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.
Done, done and done. How can you say that this wasn’t accomplished?
This statement however, is remarkably stupid.
it’s so bad that it actually is making the Taliban look like liberators from the chaotic conditions that we’ve created and are sustaining.
Really? Let’s check the evidence-
http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/
During the rule of the Taliban (1996 – 2001), women were treated worse than in any other time or by any other society. They were forbidden to work, leave the house without a male escort, not allowed to seek medical help from a male doctor, and forced to cover themselves from head to toe, even covering their eyes. Women who were doctors and teachers before, suddenly were forced to be beggars and even prostitutes in order to feed their families.
Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, many would agree that the political and cultural position of Afghan women has improved substantially. The recently adopted Afghan constitution states that “the citizens of Afghanistan – whether man or woman- have equal rights and duties before the law”. So far, women have been allowed to return back to work, the government no longer forces them to wear the all covering burqa, and they even have been appointed to prominent positions in the government.
As far as the coalition forces are concerned, it would be more honest if you listed a current link like I did instead of the link from 2004. Either way, you stated that we were alone, and as both links clearly show- we are not. You can move the goalposts and whine about the number of troops, but you can’t we’re alone.
And I suppose this news would also defeat your surrender fantasy-
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365
MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) — The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
Taliban — moved out of Kabul. Check. Taliban — not in our own bases, we think. Taliban — could be anywhere else. It’s a big country. We have one soldier stationed there for every 32.5 miles of territory.
When you cite your source, expect me to call you on it if you leave out the complete quote, especially when the omissions are self-serving. The part you did not quote — from the general information website that is largely cribbed from the online Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia — says the following:
“Despite all these changes many challenges still remain. The repression of women is still prevalent in rural areas where many families still restrict their own mothers, daughters, wives and sisters from participation in public life. They are still forced into marriages and denied a basic education. Numerous school for girls have been burned down and little girls have even been poisoned to death for daring to go to school.”
This better accords with what human rights groups, war journalists, and UN observers have been saying since 2002. Moreover,
according to women in Afghanistan themselves, Afghanistan’s government is exclusionary in practice and in principle. Both the
Karzai government and local mayors (where there still are such things) tacitly and expressly condone violence against women in the name of Islam and in the name of “democracy.” Finally, they note — as I did — that the warlords have actually gotten much stronger in most of the country, producing heartbreaking conditions. I guess I’d rather believe women living there than a poorly sourced website produced by who knows who.
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
So, for next round — no fudging on quotes,because I’ll check your quotes and you’ll look like a jackass if you short-quote to prove a point. Either find a better quote or don’t quote at all. Check the provenance on your sources from the web, because not everything has the same level of credibility. Primary documents are more credible than plagiarized encyclopedia articles. And finally, don’t impute opinions to me that I don’t hold — for example, I have no “surrender” fantasies, nor did I articulate any.
At the risk of saying you’re both right, I’d offer the following:
We had sufficient forces to win the war, and we did. And in winning the wars we removed bad people from power and helped protect those who were abused by those bad people.
However, that left a vacuum. We neither planned nor wanted to fill that vacuum (more than temporarily), but there was no one able to fill it properly. Thus we had to do it. It is in this sense that we did not have sufficient forces to “win the peace”. We have not lost yet the peace, but we are closer to “losing” than “winning”. In fact (as Tman says), it turns out the peace isn’t totally (or even much) within our control. It’s not really ours to win.
The administration and the public both believed that winning the war was the main thing. I think a lot of the public anger comes from the whole “greeted as liberators” talk, which made most Americans support the war without serious reservations. They feel gullible for having not foreseen the events to come (everything is obvious in hindsight), guilty at the sacrifices being asked of our soldiers, and they want someone to blame.
They think ultimately the administration should have known better. And when various stories paint a picture of a White House primarily interested in rewarding loyalty and those who speak the party line, and punishing those who challenge it, it reinforces the idea that, had the administration been more interested in seeking out and listening to the advice of those with more experience than in pushing a predetermined agenda, they could have better prepared (or rethought) their plans, and greatly reduced the damage the war has caused. (I think that’s why Katrina hurt the administration so bad, it made the style-over-substance seem less of a coincidence.)
That’s not to say the war has only caused damage. If we could leave now and maintain status quo, we’d call it on balance a success. The problem is that while we’ve changed to power balance there to one we like more, it does not appear to be a stable balance. It’s one we maintain only at high price to our soldiers (and their families and our taxpayers and other countries).
Hence why I think arguing about winning vs losing misses the point. It depends on whether you assume we stay/get lucky. As long as we keep our military there, we will continue to be “winning”. If we bring them home before we get lucky, we will probably lose. We don’t want to be losers, so we ask the soldiers to, in effect, jump into the volcano of Iraqi politics in hopes of appeasing some God of War that will look favorably on us and cause the various factions to make peace.
The awful part is that every day we have to look at their families and decide how many more soldiers lives are worth risking for the winner’s trophy. It feels like some gambling addiction, and it looks brilliant and steadfast if you win, but like a compulsive sickness when you go bankrupt. The costs are high either way, and I don’t claim to know an easy answer. The point is the planning was unacceptable, and quite possibly the result of listening only to people who say what one wants to hear. *Taking that attitude* with others’ lives when you have no experience (or skin in the game) is the knock.
Bridgett,
You said that we were making the Taliban look like liberators. Every single source you can come up with would say that that is patently false. I never made the argument that things were perfect, but it’s a damn sight better than with the Taliban in charge. There may not be womens rights on par with a western civilization, but at least they can now go to school and participate in civic life.
You keep avoiding the fact that every time you make these over the top statements like “we’re all alone in the muddy” or “we make the Taliban look like liberators” and I call you out on it, you back off from your statement.
Again, no one is making the argument that things are perfect, but things are significantly better than they were under the Taliban.
Since I’m so frightened that you’ll “make me look like a jackass” you can judge for yourself here at the UN Refugee Agency site which I would think you consider a viable source.
http://www.unhcr.org/country/afg.html
You need no help from me to look like a jackass.
But apparently you need help from me-I’ve got some doanes for those sore shoulders, they must be killing you from moving those goalposts so much.