Steven Pressfield who is not a historian (as he claims) but a writer of generally authentic historical fiction, has decided that all wars in Afghanistan (and Iraq, he adds) are the same as when Alexander the Great invaded 2,300 years ago because they were insurgencies. He bases this on:
- Insurgency-style resistance to Alexander’s initial invasion near the Khyber Pass;
- Alexander’s invasion was pre-Christianity and pre-Islamic, so therefore “tribes” are why they resisted;
- If it were possible to “beam Alexander back into this room or into Afghanistan to see” the Taliban, he’d recognize the men wearing gortex vests and carrying AK-47s and RPGs;
- The “Surge” of Alexander’s campaign was just as ill-fated as the Surge in Iraq, since they’re all the same as Afghanistan, and there is something defeatist in calling up reinforcements;
- And… oh God I can’t do this any more.
Really, Pressfield? Iraq and Afghanistan are just like ancient Bactria, and President Bush was the ill-fated Alexander the Great? Good grief—if you immersed yourself in the particulars of the current war in Afghanistan the same way you supposedly immersed yourself in Alexander’s Campaign, you’d see that while there are some superficial similarities (the war is in Afghanistan, the insurgents are… umm, insurgents), it really is not an appropriate comparison. Oh, and Alexander was there a good millenium before the Pashtuns ever were. And the Taliban is mostly Pashtun.
Then again, if Pressfield had bothered to read any recent counterinsurgency literature—basic stuff, like Galula, or the Field Manual—he’d know that COIN is, for the most part, COIN, and if you squint your eyes enough they all kind of sort of can look pretty similar.
The devil is in the details.
I am ignoring, for now, his point about how the enemy is “tribalism” and NOT militant Islamism; it is one of those seductive ideas that seems to appeal for our desire for a counterintuitive explanation for a very easy to understand phenomenon, so that will take some more space. But this is a sterling example of the worst instincts of analogy, comparison, and a burning lust for ignoring all the important details that make wars distinct from each other. And for not being able to tell the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. That one is pretty basic, especially considering the fact that Alexander the Great died in Baghdad, but not in Afghanistan (and not from “tribalism,” either).
{ 2 comments }
Generally I find your criticisms a bit harsher than they need be, but in this I think you are not harsh enough. This guy is a nut- one only needs ,a href=”http://www.livius.org/so-st/spitamenes/spitamenes.html”a cursory knowledge of Hellenic history and this “Afghan Campaign”, just to see how wrong he is. Spitamenes – Prescott’s Osama Bin Laden – actively led his “insurgency” from day one; the conflict in Bactria died when he did. Furthermore, he was not an unconventional warrior, just one with better horseman. His fight was not among or even for the population- he put cities under siege and was content to fight conventional battles as long as he knew the numbers were on his side. Fleeing from an asymmetrical match-up does not a terrorist make.
And perhaps most damning for Prescott’s thesis is how the defeat of Spitamenes actually came about. When Alexander and his generals reinforced and fortified every town and oasis in Bactria, Spitamenes’ campaign fell apart. By cutting Spitamenes away from densely populated areas, he lost his ability to wage war.
You know, kind of like the opposite of what is happening in Afghanistan right now.
Joshua-
Generally I find your criticisms a bit harsher than they need be, but in this I think you might not be harsh enough. This guy is a nut- one only needs a cursory knowledge of Hellenic history and this “Afghan Campaign”, just to see how wrong he is. Spitamenes – Prescott’s Osama Bin Laden – actively led his “insurgency” from day one; the conflict in Bactria died when he did. Furthermore, he was not an unconventional warrior, just one with better horseman. His fight was not among or even for the population- he put cities under siege and was content to fight conventional battles as long as he knew the numbers were on his side. Fleeing from an asymmetrical match-up does not a terrorist make.
Perhaps most damning for Prescott’s thesis is how the defeat of Spitamenes actually came about. When Alexander and his generals reinforced and fortified every town and oasis in Bactria, Spitamenes’ campaign fell apart. By cutting Spitamenes away from densely populated areas, he lost his ability to wage war.
You know, kind of like the opposite of what is happening in Afghanistan right now.