Afghanistan

[hibsbollah]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm

[da-robster]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm

I wouldn't say losing but certainly not benifitting anyone us or the afghanistani people.

I think this war just played into the hands of al qaeda.

Very sad news about the dead soldiers but unfortunately they were the victims of stupidity by Bush and Blair.

[Killiehibbie]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm

I don't think it's a war that can be won. Ask the Russians about it.

[Tazio]

I don't think it's a war that can be won. Ask the Russians about it.

And the British. We were defeated twice there in the Victorian era when we had the strongest army in the world.

[Green Mikey]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm

I don't think we are losing the war but we're certaintly not winning the war.

Any territory gains made by the British can't be consolidated due to lack of troops and adequate equipment. It's a like a game of cat and mouse with no end in sight. IMO only a huge military commitment (like the Troop Surge in Iraq) or a complete withdrawal will see the end of this war.

[hibsbollah]

And the British. We were defeated twice there in the Victorian era when we had the strongest army in the world.

:agree:Theres a good chapter about our involvement there in Robert Fisk's 'The Great War for Civilisation'. Winston Churchill himself got ambushed and his unit got almost wiped out near where the Scots Guards are now. He reckoned there were so many ravines and strongholds between the mountains that it would take hundreds of years to find them all. They never had google-earth then I suppose:bitchy:

[RyeSloan]

I don't think we are losing the war but we're certaintly not winning the war.

Any territory gains made by the British can't be consolidated due to lack of troops and adequate equipment. It's a like a game of cat and mouse with no end in sight. IMO only a huge military commitment (like the Troop Surge in Iraq) or a complete withdrawal will see the end of this war.

I think you are right...and in fact America has started this week to mount a small surge to take and hold ground. So far the British have merely went on a 4 day excursion out of camp, had a fire fight and retreated back to camp....seems a rather pointless task and one which finally the americans at least seem to be thinking about changing.

I suppose the main difference between this war and others in Afghanistan is that there is large parts of it that do not want the Taliban and that if 'normal' order was restored (mainly through local tribes and their leaders) it might still be winnable in some sense of the word.

[Tazio]

:agree:Theres a good chapter about our involvement there in Robert Fisk's 'The Great War for Civilisation'. Winston Churchill himself got ambushed and his unit got almost wiped out near where the Scots Guards are now. He reckoned there were so many ravines and strongholds between the mountains that it would take hundreds of years to find them all. They never had google-earth then I suppose:bitchy:

A fantastic book. So much information and truly vivid descriptions of war zones.

[steakbake]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm

Almost certainly we are.

Don't rely on government spin or statistics to answer the questions. We are being stretched beyond full capacity in Afghanistan. We will be there for a very long time to come.

Another question: where is Bin Laden? Probably the same place that the WMDs were in Iraq.

[(((Fergus)))]

174 deaths doesn't really sound a lot but it's very different when you see their faces, read their names and hear their stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7799610.stm

[Betty Boop]

Almost certainly we are.

Don't rely on government spin or statistics to answer the questions. We are being stretched beyond full capacity in Afghanistan. We will be there for a very long time to come.

Another question: where is Bin Laden? Probably the same place that the WMDs were in Iraq.

Ah that old chestnut, he's been dead for a few years now.

[--------]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm



Of course we are.

We lost in the First Afghan War. This is a Victorian print of the British Army coming back.

http://www.afghanistan-photos.com/crbst_brydon.jpg

Seriously - the Afghans slaughtered the entire invading army, except for one man, an Army Surgeon called Brydon (pictured in the print). They let him go to tell the story of the disaster.

We went back in the 1880's. This time we didn't actually lose the entire army, but only because the commander (Lord Roberts) had the sense to get out while the getting out was good.

We were about to try again in 1912-13, but the Great War came along and we backed off.

Alexander the Great was turned back at the River Indus (the border of - guess where? - Afghanistan). He didn't even try to invade.

The Moghuls (who conquered the whole Indian sub-continent in the 16th century) didn't manage to defeat the Afghans.

Nor did the Soviet Union in the 1980's...

Anyone who invades Afghanistan is off his trolley. We're going to lose this one, as we lost the others.

Bush and Blair should have read their Kipling:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier...."

(There's an American soldier who may be regretting not having done just that right now.)

[Dashing Bob S]

Of course we are.

We lost in the First Afghan War. This is a Victorian print of the British Army coming back.

http://www.afghanistan-photos.com/crbst_brydon.jpg

Seriously - the Afghans slaughtered the entire invading army, except of one man, an Army Surgeon called Brydon (pictured in the print). They let him go to tell the story of the disaster.

We went back in te 1880's. This time we didn't actually lose the entire army, but only because the commander (Lord Roberts) had the sense to get out while the getting out was good.

We were about to try again in 1912-13, but the Great War came along and we backed off.

Alexander the Great was turned back at the River Indus (the border of - guess where? - Afghanistan). He didn't even try to invade.

The Moghuls (who conquered the whole Indian sub-continent in the 16th century) didn't manage to defeat the Afghans.

Nor did the Soviet Union in the 1980's...

Anyone who invades Afghanistan is off his trolley. We're going to lose this one, as we lost the others.

Bush and Blair should have read their Kipling:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier...."

(There's an American soldier who may be regretting not having done just that right now.)

Big mistake by Obama there. You have to learn from history and all its showing is that Afghanistan is the place to go for an arse-kicking.

[--------]

Big mistake by Obama there. You have to learn from history and all its showing is that Afghanistan is the place to go for an arse-kicking.


Arse-kicking's the least of it, Bob.

I was speaking to a pal who's an Army Padre. His comment regarding the Yank who got grabbed was that they'd either pay BIG bucks to get him back (which will just mean other grunts being grabbed in turn) or they'll find him with his throat cut and his bollocks in his mouth.

(See Kipling, R. - "The Young British Soldier", quoted above....)

[GhostofBolivar]

Of course we are.

We lost in the First Afghan War. This is a Victorian print of the British Army coming back.

http://www.afghanistan-photos.com/crbst_brydon.jpg

Seriously - the Afghans slaughtered the entire invading army, except for one man, an Army Surgeon called Brydon (pictured in the print). They let him go to tell the story of the disaster.

We went back in the 1880's. This time we didn't actually lose the entire army, but only because the commander (Lord Roberts) had the sense to get out while the getting out was good.

We were about to try again in 1912-13, but the Great War came along and we backed off.

Alexander the Great was turned back at the River Indus (the border of - guess where? - Afghanistan). He didn't even try to invade.

The Moghuls (who conquered the whole Indian sub-continent in the 16th century) didn't manage to defeat the Afghans.

Nor did the Soviet Union in the 1980's...

Anyone who invades Afghanistan is off his trolley. We're going to lose this one, as we lost the others.

Bush and Blair should have read their Kipling:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier...."

(There's an American soldier who may be regretting not having done just that right now.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/20/afghanistan.france?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Genghis Khan and Tamerlane mounted successful campaigns in Afghanistan.

Mostly because they didn't stop there - meaning the locals didn't get a chance to fight back. And they - of course - killed every living thing they came across. And then killed them some more, just to be sure.

More Kipling:

A scrimmage in a Border Station –
A canter down some dark defile –
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

[--------]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/20/afghanistan.france?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Genghis Khan and Tamerlane mounted successful campaigns in Afghanistan.

Mostly because they didn't stop there - meaning the locals didn't get a chance to fight back. And they - of course - killed every living thing they came across. And then killed them some more, just to be sure.

More Kipling:

A scrimmage in a Border Station –
A canter down some dark defile –
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.


That's the secret to successfully invading Afghanistan - don't stop moving from the moment you arrive to the moment you leave.

And on no account observe any rules of any sort.

[Tazio]

Anyone who has read the Flashman series of novels will have the info on Afghanistan in the Victorian era. This was always going to end in tears. The Afghans have always stayed in their own country but mercilessly slaughtered anyone who invades theirs.

[Woody1985]

Ah that old chestnut, he's been dead for a few years now.

And you know this how? :faf:

[Betty Boop]

And you know this how? :faf:

Well unless Benazir Bhutto was lying! :bye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpsvaTIa7Kc

[--------]

Anyone who has read the Flashman series of novels will have the info on Afghanistan in the Victorian era. This was always going to end in tears. The Afghans have always stayed in their own country but mercilessly slaughtered anyone who invades theirs.


I can recommend two books, Taz.

Charles Allen's "Soldier Sahibs: The Men Who Made the North-West Frontier", about John Nicholson, Henry Lawrence, and others, and Rudyard Kipling's novel "Kim".

There's also a lot of truth about the politics of that part of the world contained in Kipling's short story, "The Man Who Would Be King".

We're surely losing the war.

I suppose the only really good thing about the present situation is that nowadays we have choppers. We should be able to get everyone out safely but the rearguard.... :rolleyes:

[Tazio]

I suppose the only really good thing about the present situation is that nowadays we have choppers. We should be able to get everyone out safely but the rearguard.... :rolleyes:

Ah the irony!

[--------]

Another death yesterday/today.

That's the seventh this month - I make that one a day.

But we have a "sense of momentum", according to Ainsworth the Defence Secretary.

Who, like his master Gordo and the other parties responsible for the mess, is EXTREMELY unlikely to come anywhere within range of a bullet.

[Killiehibbie]

Another death yesterday/today.

That's the seventh this month - I make that one a day.

But we have a "sense of momentum", according to Ainsworth the Defence Secretary.

Who, like his master Gordo and the other parties responsible for the mess, is EXTREMELY unlikely to come anywhere within range of a bullet.

One thing that was certainly better 100's of years ago was Kings going into battle with their armies. At least they had the courage of their convictions.

[Allant1981]

Ive always found this question a hard one to answer. How do you determine whether the war is breing won or not? Is the country really that worse off now than when it was invaded? How long do you give it until you decide if you have lost or won a war?
I have a few mates still out there and one came back a couple of months ago with the marines.

[--------]

One thing that was certainly better 100's of years ago was Kings going into battle with their armies. At least they had the courage of their convictions.


Some of them did. Some didn't.

I once took my son and a friend on a visit to Culloden.

The look on their faces (they were about 10/11 years old) when they realised just how far out of gunshot the Drunken Italian Mountebank had positioned himself while better men than he were being killed on his behalf....

There's a chap out there from the Caldera with the Engineers. His wee boy goes to school next month....

[Killiehibbie]

Some of them did. Some didn't.

I once took my son and a friend on a visit to Culloden.

The look on their faces (they were about 10/11 years old) when they realised just how far out of gunshot the Drunken Italian Mountebank had positioned himself while better men than he were being killed on his behalf....

There's a chap out there from the Caldera with the Engineers. His wee boy goes to school next month....

He was an impostor never a real King. I think leading your men into battle was going out of fashion by then as some of them before his time even got killed.

[--------]

Ive always found this question a hard one to answer. How do you determine whether the war is breing won or not? Is the country really that worse off now than when it was invaded? How long do you give it until you decide if you have lost or won a war?
I have a few mates still out there and one came back a couple of months ago with the marines.


I'm not by any means casting aspersions at the soldiers and airmen out there. Those guys are very good at what they do, and their motives are positive ones.

It's the politicians that make me want to vomit - chancers like Blair and Bush, hypocrites like Brown.

GhostofBolivar put it in a nutshell - the only way to win a war in Afghanistan is by applying totally overwhelming force - which we haven't done - and being totally ruthless in the way we deal with the people - kill everything in sight, and then kill it all some more just to be sure.

But we're there to bring 'democracy' to the place. (How an unelected leader like Fat Broon qualifies for THAT particular mission escapes me for the moment, but that's life, I guess.) So we can't napalm women and children and old people, or carpet-bomb whole villages to rubble.

So we're destined to lose this war, just as the Yanquis were destined to lose in Vietnam the moment the photos of the wee girl running screaming down the road hit the front pages.

In my reading of history, the politicians get the Nobel Peace Prizes (see "Kissinger - the Day the World Threw Up") while the soldiers on the ground pay the butcher's bill.

[--------]

He was an impostor never a real King. I think leading your men into battle was going out of fashion by then as some of them before his time even got killed.



Edward I was a real king.

He was also a genocidal psychopath.

If he'd had his way, I wouldn't be around today.











(Did I tell you that in my family we can trace our ancestry right back to Robert the Bruce? About 20 generations.)

[Allant1981]

I'm not by any means casting aspersions at the soldiers and airmen out there. Those guys are very good at what they do, and their motives are positive ones.

It's the politicians that make me want to vomit - chancers like Blair and Bush, hypocrites like Brown.

GhostofBolivar put it in a nutshell - the only way to win a war in Afghanistan is by applying totally overwhelming force - which we haven't done - and being totally ruthless in the way we deal with the people - kill everything in sight, and then kill it all some more just to be sure.

But we're there to bring 'democracy' to the place. (How an unelected leader like Fat Broon qualifies for THAT particular mission escapes me for the moment, but that's life, I guess.) So we can't napalm women and children and old people, or carpet-bomb whole villages to rubble.

So we're destined to lose this war, just as the Yanquis were destined to lose in Vietnam the moment the photos of the wee girl running screaming down the road hit the front pages.

In my reading of history, the politicians get the Nobel Peace Prizes (see "Kissinger - the Day the World Threw Up") while the soldiers on the ground pay the butcher's bill.


I agree with your post but as I said how long should it be left before someone decides we have won/lost the war? IMO I'd have them all out of the country now before anyone else is killed but maybe thats why I'll never be prime minister

[Allant1981]

Edward I was a real king.

He was also a genocidal psychopath.

If he'd had his way, I wouldn't be around today.











(Did I tell you that in my family we can trace our ancestry right back to Robert the Bruce? About 20 generations.)


I'd love to trace back and see where my family come from. How did you go about finding this out?

[--------]

I agree with your post but as I said how long should it be left before someone decides we have won/lost the war? IMO I'd have them all out of the country now before anyone else is killed but maybe thats why I'll never be prime minister

My own feelings exactly.

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and if we hadn't gone into Iraq, the question of Afghanistan would never have arisen, IMO.



I'd love to trace back and see where my family come from. How did you go about finding this out?

I have a cousin working in the Middle East.

He's interested in this, and got onto one or two of the genealogical/family-history/trace-your-ancestors sites.

He got back as far as the 16th century and found an ancestor who's known to be descended from Bruce.

Of course, probably 25% of Scots living today are descended from the same Bruce; the difference is that WE can PROVE it! :devil:

[hibsbollah]

I'd love to trace back and see where my family come from. How did you go about finding this out?

Ive got my family traced back to Golspie in 1770 or thereabouts (not as impressive as Doddie I grant you). This site is a good starting point, assuming your family is Scottish.
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/

[Allant1981]

Ive got my family traced back to Golspie in 1770 or thereabouts (not as impressive as Doddie I grant you). This site is a good starting point, assuming your family is Scottish.
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/


Cheers I'll have a squint over it tonight. My dads side are scottish so hopefully i come from some royal family or something. Mums Irish so no point in looking on that site for hers

[--------]

Ive got my family traced back to Golspie in 1770 or thereabouts (not as impressive as Doddie I grant you). This site is a good starting point, assuming your family is Scottish.
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/



If you get back a bit farther and find the Wolf of Badenoch in your family tree - we're cousins.


At about 15 removes, but cousins nevertheless. :devil:



I'd also have to say that Bruce was a devious, two-timing, violent thug who believed firmly in doing others before they did him.

I haven't found out too much about his BAD side, though. :devil:

[Allant1981]

If you get back a bit farther and find the Wolf of Badenoch in your family tree - we're cousins.


At about 15 removes, but cousins nevertheless. :devil:



I'd also have to say that Bruce was a devious, two-timing, violent thug who believed firmly in doing others before they did him.

I haven't found out too much about his BAD side, though. :devil:

Robert the Bruce's daughter stayed in my hometown

[Peevemor]

My own feelings exactly.

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and if we hadn't gone into Iraq, the question of Afghanistan would never have arisen, IMO.




I have a cousin working in the Middle East.

He's interested in this, and got onto one or two of the genealogical/family-history/trace-your-ancestors sites.

He got back as far as the 16th century and found an ancestor who's known to be descended from Bruce.

Of course, probably 25% of Scots living today are descended from the same Bruce; the difference is that WE can PROVE it! :devil:

I used to work beside John Bruce, a direct descendant of Robert the. The family still has a scary amount of land here and there.

[--------]

I used to work beside John Bruce, a direct descendant of Robert the. The family still has a scary amount of land here and there.


Oy! Watch it!

"Robert the" indeed!

Great-great-great... ...great-grandad's what I call him. :devil:

[Sir David Gray]

Unlike Iraq, I do believe that our presence in Afghanistan is justified. The Taliban were supportive of, and protected, members of Al Qaeda and gave them a safe haven in Afghanistan.

However, it has turned out to be much too costly to our troops and we now need to get out of there ASAP.

Of course, that will possibly allow the Taliban to get back into power and then that will, in turn, allow Al Qaeda to return and the situation will be back to how it was before we went in.

But there have just been far too many British troops who have returned in a coffin.

We are there, supposedly, to implement "democracy" to Afghanistan. Maybe it's just me but I think there are far too many people in Afghanistan who are not interested in a democratic process. Let's face it, we can't force people to adopt democracy.

It's time we got out before even more mothers, fathers, sons and daughters are left broken hearted.

[IndieHibby]

Two more dead soldiers announced today, added to the two the day before yesterday. Are we losing this war?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134876.stm

We have just started a major offensive, having being freed to do so by the 'surge' of US troops, in advance of elections in the area. I think the recent increase in deaths are a reflection of this intense period of the conflict.

I don't think many people are expecting this conflict to have a clear, or any, 'victory' point. Victory, when it comes, will be when Afghans can elect their representatives, rather than rely on those with the largest aresnal of weapons to provide 'order', as the Mujahadeen, N.A. and Taleban have in the past.

Pretty tough for those soldiers, and their families, who pay the unltimate price.

I don't think I can ever express the depth of my gratitude to these men (and women). As a civvy, I am humbled by their sacrifice.

[hibsbollah]

We have just started a major offensive, having being freed to do so by the 'surge' of US troops, in advance of elections in the area. I think the recent increase in deaths are a reflection of this intense period of the conflict.

I don't think many people are expecting this conflict to have a clear, or any, 'victory' point. Victory, when it comes, will be when Afghans can elect their representatives, rather than rely on those with the largest aresnal of weapons to provide 'order', as the Mujahadeen, N.A. and Taleban have in the past.

Pretty tough for those soldiers, and their families, who pay the unltimate price.

I don't think I can ever express the depth of my gratitude to these men (and women). As a civvy, I am humbled by their sacrifice.

They've been able to 'elect their representatives' since 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/27/afghanistan-elections-hamid-karzai

[GC]

Well unless Benazir Bhutto was lying! :bye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpsvaTIa7Kc

Bhutto, Myself and you all have one thing in common.

None of us know whether he is alive or dead!

[GhostofBolivar]

We have just started a major offensive, having being freed to do so by the 'surge' of US troops, in advance of elections in the area. I think the recent increase in deaths are a reflection of this intense period of the conflict.

I don't think many people are expecting this conflict to have a clear, or any, 'victory' point. Victory, when it comes, will be when Afghans can elect their representatives, rather than rely on those with the largest aresnal of weapons to provide 'order', as the Mujahadeen, N.A. and Taleban have in the past.

Pretty tough for those soldiers, and their families, who pay the unltimate price.

I don't think I can ever express the depth of my gratitude to these men (and women). As a civvy, I am humbled by their sacrifice.

Then we've already lost (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/08/afghanistan-taliban-insurgency-victory)

[(((Fergus)))]

Unlike Iraq, I do believe that our presence in Afghanistan is justified. The Taliban were supportive of, and protected, members of Al Qaeda and gave them a safe haven in Afghanistan.

However, it has turned out to be much too costly to our troops and we now need to get out of there ASAP.

Of course, that will possibly allow the Taliban to get back into power and then that will, in turn, allow Al Qaeda to return and the situation will be back to how it was before we went in.

But there have just been far too many British troops who have returned in a coffin.

We are there, supposedly, to implement "democracy" to Afghanistan. Maybe it's just me but I think there are far too many people in Afghanistan who are not interested in a democratic process. Let's face it, we can't force people to adopt democracy.

It's time we got out before even more mothers, fathers, sons and daughters are left broken hearted.

:agree: It's foolish to believe you can go into another culture and impose your values on it. Isn't that what al qaida is supposedly trying to do to us?

[khib70]

They've been able to 'elect their representatives' since 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/27/afghanistan-elections-hamid-karzai
Quote from the Guardian? I am surprised:yawn:Even a flawed democracy is a million times better than an Islamist theocracy. Or maybe you don't think so.:cool2:

If we don't fight Islamism there, we'll be fighting it here in ten years time. Maybe you should apply your concern about imperfect democracies to China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Iran.

[hibsbollah]

Quote from the Guardian? I am surprised:yawn:Even a flawed democracy is a million times better than an Islamist theocracy. Or maybe you don't think so.:cool2:

If we don't fight Islamism there, we'll be fighting it here in ten years time. Maybe you should apply your concern about imperfect democracies to China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Iran.

Who said it was 'imperfect'? I'm just pointing out that the war isn't about bringing 'voting' to the Afghans, thats been achieved.

[steakbake]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8141591.stm

Fair comment, I think.

What I thought was deeply unfair was the partisan and hard-line the BBC journo took on Clegg in this morning's interview. He wouldn't let him finish and basically accused him of "letting the side down".

BBC is the UK's pravda.

[--------]

We have just started a major offensive, having being freed to do so by the 'surge' of US troops, in advance of elections in the area. I think the recent increase in deaths are a reflection of this intense period of the conflict.

I don't think many people are expecting this conflict to have a clear, or any, 'victory' point. Victory, when it comes, will be when Afghans can elect their representatives, rather than rely on those with the largest arsenal of weapons to provide 'order', as the Mujahadeen, N.A. and Taleban have in the past.

Pretty tough for those soldiers, and their families, who pay the unltimate price.

I don't think I can ever express the depth of my gratitude to these men (and women). As a civvy, I am humbled by their sacrifice.


Only a fool goes into a war without clear-cut aims and objectives.

If there's no point in view where "victory" can be claimed (however mendaciously) and the troops withdrawn, then those troops are simply being thrown away for nothing.

Afghanistan has always been run by the guys with the biggest arsenals; that's a part of the world where warlords rule, and if we think we're going to change that we're going to suffer some very nasty surprises in the next few months.

Afghanistan is no more winnable than Vietnam was. The difference is that the then British Labour government had enough sense to stay out of Vietnam. The present lot have dropped themselves (or rather our undermanned and under-equipped expeditionary force) into a very deep hole and ordered them to keep digging. Which orders the generals are only too willing to carry out.

We have too few troops in there to do the job.

They don't have the equipment they need to preserve their own lives, never mind do the job they're there to do.

There's no clear political strategy to win hearts and minds - "one man, one vote" might sell at a New Labour Party Conference; it doesn't work quite as well in Helmand. To pacify the country, we need to get economic aid in, we need to do all the things Matt Waldman lists in the article referred to by GhostofBolivar. But I very much doubt whether the improvement of ordinary people's lives is very high on the list of priorities for the US, UK and EU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/08/afghanistan-taliban-insurgency-victory

IMO our occupation of Afghanistan is in no way altruistic.

It's strategically driven - we and the US want to have a military presence in an area situated between the growing nuclear powers of India and Pakistan, the westward encroachment of China, and the thoroughly undemocratic and unstable post-Soviet republics of central Asia. And, of course, the oilfields of the Persian Gulf and the Caucasus.

In other words, what we're playing in Afghanistan just now is Round 229 or whatever of the Great Game. The soldiers and airmen who have died are just pawns in that game.

We should be out of there now.

[(((Fergus)))]

Quote from the Guardian? I am surprised:yawn:Even a flawed democracy is a million times better than an Islamist theocracy. Or maybe you don't think so.:cool2:

If we don't fight Islamism there, we'll be fighting it here in ten years time. Maybe you should apply your concern about imperfect democracies to China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Iran.

If a flawed democracy is really a million times better than Islamist theocracy, how can Islamism have the power to overcome democracy here?

[richard_pitts]

Fergal,

Not sure it can: don't believe the BNP, (they have their own agenda. :wink::greengrin) The biggest danger at the moment is the government handling the threat from "people who want to destroy our democratic way of life" by taking our democratic life away - ID cards, CCTV, surveilance et al...:bitchy:

Where I do agree with the neo-cons is what they said about everyone wanting roughly the same basic rights and freedoms. Iran demonstrates that imo :agree:

[richard_pitts]

Only a fool goes into a war without clear-cut aims and objectives.

If there's no point in view where "victory" can be claimed (however mendaciously) and the troops withdrawn, then those troops are simply being thrown away for nothing.

Afghanistan has always been run by the guys with the biggest arsenals; that's a part of the world where warlords rule, and if we think we're going to change that we're going to suffer some very nasty surprises in the next few months.

Afghanistan is no more winnable than Vietnam was. The difference is that the then British Labour government had enough sense to stay out of Vietnam. The present lot have dropped themselves (or rather our undermanned and under-equipped expeditionary force) into a very deep hole and ordered them to keep digging. Which orders the generals are only too willing to carry out.

We have too few troops in there to do the job.

They don't have the equipment they need to preserve their own lives, never mind do the job they're there to do.

There's no clear political strategy to win hearts and minds - "one man, one vote" might sell at a New Labour Party Conference; it doesn't work quite as well in Helmand. To pacify the country, we need to get economic aid in, we need to do all the things Matt Waldman lists in the article referred to by GhostofBolivar. But I very much doubt whether the improvement of ordinary people's lives is very high on the list of priorities for the US, UK and EU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/08/afghanistan-taliban-insurgency-victory

IMO our occupation of Afghanistan is in no way altruistic.

It's strategically driven - we and the US want to have a military presence in an area situated between the growing nuclear powers of India and Pakistan, the westward encroachment of China, and the thoroughly undemocratic and unstable post-Soviet republics of central Asia. And, of course, the oilfields of the Persian Gulf and the Caucasus.

In other words, what we're playing in Afghanistan just now is Round 229 or whatever of the Great Game. The soldiers and airmen who have died are just pawns in that game.

We should be out of there now.

Doddie,

I am in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Falkirk :duck: Al-Qaeda were organising out of Afghanistan and training people etc. All of the 9/11 suicide bombers trained in Afghanistan. If we are engaging the Taleban over there, we are limiting their ability to wage war over here.

I think aside from that aim, the main concern in Pakistan - It's a nuclear power and already seriously unstable with a long and porous border with Afghanistan. The fear is that Pakistan would be next if Afghanistan went back to Al-Qaeda, particularly as it had a large hand in creating the Taleban. The Taleban are mainly Pashtuns, who are also predominant in Pakistan and the latter sought to boost its influence over Afghanistan via the Taleban :worms::idiot:

The US already has a military presence in the former Soviet Central Asia - it has a large bomber contingent in Kazakhstan where they are propping up a seriously dodgy regime in return for acess :bitchy:Another story methinks though.

[Sir David Gray]

Doddie,

I am in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Falkirk :duck: Al-Qaeda were organising out of Afghanistan and training people etc. All of the 9/11 suicide bombers trained in Afghanistan. If we are engaging the Taleban over there, we are limiting their ability to wage war over here.

I think aside from that aim, the main concern in Pakistan - It's a nuclear power and already seriously unstable with a long and porous border with Afghanistan. The fear is that Pakistan would be next if Afghanistan went back to Al-Qaeda, particularly as it had a large hand in creating the Taleban. The Taleban are mainly Pashtuns, who are also predominant in Pakistan and the latter sought to boost its influence over Afghanistan via the Taleban :worms::idiot:

The US already has a military presence in the former Soviet Central Asia - it has a large bomber contingent in Kazakhstan where they are propping up a seriously dodgy regime in return for acess :bitchy:Another story methinks though.

LiverpoolHibs agreed with me on torture.
Betty Boop agreed with me about MP's expenses.
I'm sure Hibsbollah agreed with me on one occasion in the past as well.
And now you're agreeing with me.
Doddie, you're next! :wink:

There's no need to feel uncomfortable about it. Everyone will come to agree with me eventually.

You just have to learn to accept it. :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

LiverpoolHibs agreed with me on torture.
Betty Boop agreed with me about MP's expenses.
I'm sure Hibsbollah agreed with me on one occasion in the past as well.
And now you're agreeing with me.
Doddie, you're next! :wink:

There's no need to feel uncomfortable about it. Everyone will come to agree with me eventually.

You just have to learn to accept it. :greengrin

I have actually agreed with you twice, (the Fed express) :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

I have actually agreed with you twice, (the Fed express) :wink:

That's very true, I had forgotten about that.

It's obviously catching. :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Another two soldiers killed, bringing the total to nine in nine days.

[--------]

Al-Qaeda were organising out of Afghanistan and training people etc. All of the 9/11 suicide bombers trained in Afghanistan. If we are engaging the Taleban over there, we are limiting their ability to wage war over here.




Supposing this to be true, then we're still achieving the square root of Sweet Fanny Adams if the war we're waging is a losing one.

The point of waging war is to win. As General George Patton observed, there's no honour in dying for your country, the honour lies on making the other b****** die for his.

Our politicians keep claiming success in Iraq and progress in Afghanistan. All I can say is that if what we've achieved in Iraq is 'success', it's as well for us and for them we didn't fail - the place would be in an even worse mess than it is now. How many died in the latest bombing? Thought the place was pacified....

Progress is usually defined as making gains greater than one's losses.

I'm not sure how that fits with what's happening in Afghanistan, but I'm very glad none of my family's out there.

We are fighting in support of a government made up of those politicians who make noises the US approves of, warlords, and criminal bosses. Now where have I heard THAT story before? Oh yes - Saigon, 1968-75. (It's also the modus operandi the East India Company adopted during the First Afghan War. THAT was a rousing succes as well.)

I appreciate that there's a need to counter the Taleban, Richard. The idea of Pakistan with nukes being run by a bunch of fanatical Pashtun fills me with no joy whatsoever.

I just think we're making a total pig's breakfast of the affair, and we need to either shape up or ship out. NOW. While there's still time.

[hibsbollah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8145603.stm
5 more dead...thats 8 dead soldiers in 24 hours.

Britain's Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, said it was important to "remember why our people are fighting in Afghanistan and what they are achieving through their sacrifice and their courage".

[Tazio]

More casualties in Afghanistan than Iraq now.

I thought it was the easy one to invade and take over?

[GhostofBolivar]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/david-kilcullen-the-australian-helping-to-shape-a-new-afghanistan-strategy-1737451.html


We are looking at ten years at least in Afghanistan, and that is the best case scenario and at least half of that will be pretty major combat. This is the commitment needed, and this is what people in America and Britain should be told, and they should be told that there will be a cost involved.

[Betty Boop]

The battle for hearts and minds.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23025.htm

[Ed De Gramo]

FFS Brown...get the troops back home...not our fight...how many more must die?

[--------]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/david-kilcullen-the-australian-helping-to-shape-a-new-afghanistan-strategy-1737451.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/david-kilcullen-the-australian-helping-to-shape-a-new-afghanistan-strategy-1737451.html)

"We are looking at ten years at least in Afghanistan, and that is the best case scenario and at least half of that will be pretty major combat. This is the commitment needed, and this is what people in America and Britain should be told, and they should be told that there will be a cost involved..."



:agree:

This is the sort of thinking we should have been doing before we ever went into Afghanistan.

We need to re-think along the lines Kilcullen is arguing and commit the resources to the war that we need to commit to have a chance of winning it.

But I very much doubt that Brown will come clean on this in the byear before a General Election. He's much more concerned about his own career than about the lives of Afghan civilians, British troops, or European aid workers.

[hibsbollah]

I think that bastion of balanced journalism, The Daily Mail, puts it best;


"Either Helmand is the front line in a war to protect our way of life, as the Foreign Secretary has claimed - or it is not.

If it is, then it must be fought as such, no matter what the cost to the Treasury. Many more troops must be sent, equipped with the best available kit - particularly the helicopters that would keep them safe from the roadside bombs that have taken such a terrible toll.

If it is not an essential battle for our civilisation - and since Al Qaeda has fled to the Pakistan borders, it is increasingly hard to see that it is - there is only one humane course open to Mr Brown: with the utmost urgency, he must prepare a strategy for withdrawal."


Is it an essential battle for our civilisation? Would defeating the Taleban in Afganistan mean extinction for radical Islam? The obvious answer to these questions is no and no. If complete and total victory was achieved after how ever many years and after thousands of deaths, 'Al Qaeda'/'Taleban'/ whoever would just regroup in a similarly chaotic corner of the world. An urgent rethink of policy is needed, but i'm not holding my breath.

[Pete]

Anyone who has read the Flashman series of novels will have the info on Afghanistan in the Victorian era. This was always going to end in tears. The Afghans have always stayed in their own country but mercilessly slaughtered anyone who invades theirs.


I wish we more like that. The world would be a far safer place if we'd adopted that policy a long time ago.

We as taxpayers are funding this war...and how is it really benefiting us?
Forget about all the political rights and wrongs of why we're there, the economic aspect sickens me.

We are pumping monopoly money into this "war" when social housing is non-existant, people are having fist-fights over NHS dentistry and there are pensioners dying of hypothermia while energy fat cats are allowed to rip us off.
It might not be so bad if this war was winnable but you probably couldn't hand pick a worst place to go. History points to this time and time again.

Why can't we stop trying to tell others how to live their lives and get our own house in order first? Maybe once we do that we can be a world leader by being a good example of how to run your country for the benifit of its people. People would look up to us and respect us if we were an honest, peaceful nation whos priorities were it's citizens.

How many billions down the pan and what has it done for us?

[GhostofBolivar]

:agree:

This is the sort of thinking we should have been doing before we ever went into Afghanistan.

We need to re-think along the lines Kilcullen is arguing and commit the resources to the war that we need to commit to have a chance of winning it.

But I very much doubt that Brown will come clean on this in the byear before a General Election. He's much more concerned about his own career than about the lives of Afghan civilians, British troops, or European aid workers.

It appears you are not wrong (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-browns-secret-plan-to-cut-afghanistan-force-by-1500-1742747.html)

[hibsbollah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/david-kilcullen-the-australian-helping-to-shape-a-new-afghanistan-strategy-1737451.html

I can't see that Kilcullen is offering a solution either:confused: "We are looking at 10 years at least" in Afghanistan??? We've already been there since 2001; thats eight years already. Are future wars going to last for whole generations?? Crazy.

[(((Fergus)))]

I wish we more like that. The world would be a far safer place if we'd adopted that policy a long time ago.

We as taxpayers are funding this war...and how is it really benefiting us?
Forget about all the political rights and wrongs of why we're there, the economic aspect sickens me.

We are pumping monopoly money into this "war" when social housing is non-existant, people are having fist-fights over NHS dentistry and there are pensioners dying of hypothermia while energy fat cats are allowed to rip us off.
It might not be so bad if this war was winnable but you probably couldn't hand pick a worst place to go. History points to this time and time again.

Why can't we stop trying to tell others how to live their lives and get our own house in order first? Maybe once we do that we can be a world leader by being a good example of how to run your country for the benifit of its people. People would look up to us and respect us if we were an honest, peaceful nation whos priorities were it's citizens.

How many billions down the pan and what has it done for us?

Amen to that.

[joe breezy]

I remember signing a petition against the Taliban years ago. They were stoning innocent women to death.
They are total James Hunts. At the time I would have been delighted to think we would go to war with them - I even thought about joining the army to fight Islamic fundamentalism but I was too old and I don't think I could put up with someone shouting at me.

It is tragic that so many yound boys are being killed and I do fear that it is almost impossible to get a democracy there if the people don't want it.

It's pretty demoralising really. I don't believe in cultural relativism.
Women should have equal rights to men and there should be freedom of expression within reason.

I just find it so frustrating as don't see what we can do about human rights across the world.

I hate the BNP and amen't racist in any way. I'm also against any religious fundamentalism (Christianity too) but Islam is the biggest threat to our way of life that has surfaced in recent years.

[--------]

I can't see that Kilcullen is offering a solution either:confused: "We are looking at 10 years at least" in Afghanistan??? We've already been there since 2001; thats eight years already. Are future wars going to last for whole generations?? Crazy.


I think what Kilcullen is saying is that unless we adopt a realistic view of the nature of the task facing us in Afghanistan and face up to the cost - economic and personal - of fulfilling it, we're simply going to lose the war anyway.

Which means that the lives already lost have been lost for nothing.

What Fat Broon is trying to do is to have his cake and eat it - he wants to play at being a world statesman while weaselling out of any genuine commitment to the alliance with the US entered into by his predecessor Blair.

It is exceedingly unlikely that our economy can sustain the sort of armed forces we need to continue as the sort of world power our politicians would like to think we are. We're allegedly committed to building two large aircraft carriers - something we've never been particularly good at. If past history is anything to go by, those ships (if built) will end up as very large and vulneralbe naval units deploying inadequate and unbalanced air groups and demanding an inordinate proportion of the surface Royal Navy as protective escorts. The phrase "white elephants" comes to mind. But they probably won't be built. They'll be cancelled by whoever wins the next election.

And then there's the question of Trident... Trident and the aircraft carriers are major projects diverting funds and resources away from the troops presently engaged in Iraq. But they're more glamorous than the PBI in Helmand - the phallic symbolism of a Trident ballistic missile boat or thge drama of a big carrier launching an air strike gets certain politicians VERY excited in all sorts of disreputable ways, I believe. But who gets excited about decent boots and body-armour for the infantry?

No one ever won a war without committing 100% to doing so. We aren't committed to Afghanistan (even/especially at Government level).

Brown and Co couldn't care less about winning the war in Afghanistan. All they care about is preserving their own political hides at the next election. Which is probably one solid reason why the Army won't get the men they need to conduct an effective campaign in Helmand.

In March 1918 Lloyd George nearly lost the Allies the Great War by starving the BEF of the personnel needed to defend the British sector of the Western Front. When the Germans launched their offensive on the 21st, the British line nearly collapsed. The Great War was disastrous enough as it actually happened. If the Germans had won, it would have been a hundred times worse. Like LG, Brown is more concerned with his own political image than with the realities of weltpolitik.

And he'll spend soldiers' lives to curry favour with the electorate and the City.

[Betty Boop]

We have been in Afghanistan for eight years now, but don't worry victory is just around the corner. :rolleyes:

[--------]

We have been in Afghanistan for eight years now, but don't worry victory is just around the corner. :rolleyes:


That's what they were saying just before Dr Bryden got back to Allahabad in 1842....

[(((Fergus)))]

In March 1918 Lloyd George nearly lost the Allies the Great War by starving the BEF of the personnel needed to defend the British sector of the Western Front. When the Germans launched their offensive on the 21st, the British line nearly collapsed. The Great War was disastrous enough as it actually happened. If the Germans had won, it would have been a hundred times worse. Like LG, Brown is more concerned with his own political image than with the realities of weltpolitik.


A bit off-topic, but I wonder what would have happened had the Germans won WWI. Conventional wisdom says that WWII was the result of Germany losing the Great War.

Back on topic, why not let the taliban just get on with running Afghanistan in their own way? There'd be no need to worry about it being a "breeding ground for terrorism" if we didn't make ourselves a terrorist target by trying to mix in their business.

[--------]

A bit off-topic, but I wonder what would have happened had the Germans won WWI. Conventional wisdom says that WWII was the result of Germany losing the Great War.

Back on topic, why not let the taliban just get on with running Afghanistan in their own way? There'd be no need to worry about it being a "breeding ground for terrorism" if we didn't make ourselves a terrorist target by trying to mix in their business.


I think there's a misapprehension goes about regarding the nature of the Kaiser's Germany. When the Russians were defeated at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in 1914, the Germans took over 80,000 Russian prisoners. This gave them a problem - how to feed them? The Kaiser's answer was exactly the same as Hitler's in similar circumstances in 1941-45 - starve them to death.

Which, I believe, was what happened.

There was also a plan to carry out incendiary air-raids on the East End of London in 1918 using Gotha and Friedrichshafen bombers. the plan was to assemble a force of about 100 Gothas and 20-30 Friedrichshafens and start fires in the East End which given the right conditions would re-create the scenario of the Great Fire of 1666.

They failed, largely because they didn't have the technology at thgat time.

But in those sorts of cases I always think it's the THOUGHT that counts...


As far as the Taliban goes, they're an exceedingly unpleasant bunch of misogynistic theocrats and bampots, IMO. Letting them run Afghanistan their own way would be pretty tough on the rest of the Afghan population.

I suppose the question is how much we care about human freedom in other countries - enough to fight a war on their behalf? Or not?

And how dangerous the Taliban will be in the years to come - better to nip them in the bud now?

[steakbake]

I hate the BNP and amen't racist in any way. I'm also against any religious fundamentalism (Christianity too) but Islam is the biggest threat to our way of life that has surfaced in recent years.

Islam itself isn't a threat to our way of life. Militant islamism/fundamentalism, is.

That said, I believe we have been hoisted by our own petards in Afghanistan. Instead of illegally invading Iraq (which was a secularist, left wing republic albeit headed up by Saddam), we should have focussed all energies, resources and political will in stabilising Afghanistan.

Our thirst for grandstanding on the international stage and getting involved in Iraq is partly to blame for our current troubles in Afghanistan.

[Betty Boop]

I think there's a misapprehension goes about regarding the nature of the Kaiser's Germany. When the Russians were defeated at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in 1914, the Germans took over 80,000 Russian prisoners. This gave them a problem - how to feed them? The Kaiser's answer was exactly the same as Hitler's in similar circumstances in 1941-45 - starve them to death.

Which, I believe, was what happened.

There was also a plan to carry out incendiary air-raids on the East End of London in 1918 using Gotha and Friedrichshafen bombers. the plan was to assemble a force of about 100 Gothas and 20-30 Friedrichshafens and start fires in the East End which given the right conditions would re-create the scenario of the Great Fire of 1666.

They failed, largely because they didn't have the technology at thgat time.

But in those sorts of cases I always think it's the THOUGHT that counts...


As far as the Taliban goes, they're an exceedingly unpleasant bunch of misogynistic theocrats and bampots, IMO. Letting them run Afghanistan their own way would be pretty tough on the rest of the Afghan population.

I suppose the question is how much we care about human freedom in other countries - enough to fight a war on their behalf? Or not?

And how dangerous the Taliban will be in the years to come - better to nip them in the bud now?
If support for the Taliban is close to zero (as reported by our media), why is it taking so long for the UK and US troops to stabilise the country? Or has the slaughtering of civilians actually increased support for the Taliban. (maybe we are not just fighting the "Taliban" any more and are fighting against Afghani freedom fighters). You know how the Government love to create a bogeyman.:blah:

[(((Fergus)))]

If support for the Taliban is close to zero (as reported by our media), why is it taking so long for the UK and US troops to stabilise the country? Or has the slaughtering of civilians actually increased support for the Taliban. (maybe we are not just fighting the "Taliban" any more and are fighting against Afghani freedom fighters). You know how the Government love to create a bogeyman.:blah:

If one thing unites factions in a country, it's an external invader. Like it or not, the majority of Afghans have very different views on women's rights and all the other red herrings and view our meddling as a "threat to their way of life". The UK govt. doesn't give a toss about women's rights, otherwise they'd be putting the pressure on Saudi Arabia etc.; it's a pretext to get UK voters to support the invasion.

Even if the Taliban doesn't have the support of whatever percentage of the population qualifies as acceptable, so what? Let them fight it out amongst themselves. We allowed ourselves that freedom in the course of our history so why shouldn't they? If they one day by some miracle constitute a threat to the UK (why they would ever want to bother though when we weren't bothering them) we can deal with it as self-defence.

[Betty Boop]

If one thing unites factions in a country, it's an external invader. Like it or not, the majority of Afghans have very different views on women's rights and all the other red herrings and view our meddling as a "threat to their way of life". The UK govt. doesn't give a toss about women's rights, otherwise they'd be putting the pressure on Saudi Arabia etc.; it's a pretext to get UK voters to support the invasion.

Even if the Taliban doesn't have the support of whatever percentage of the population qualifies as acceptable, so what? Let them fight it out amongst themselves. We allowed ourselves that freedom in the course of our history so why shouldn't they? If they one day by some miracle constitute a threat to the UK (why they would ever want to bother though when we weren't bothering them) we can deal with it as self-defence.
:agree:

[J-C]

The Taliban are a Sunni Islamic Fudamentalist group who use the extreme hard line of their religion ( thought to be were Sharia Law started ) to give them power. Nato forces moved there in 2001, among these countries were Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Britain and the USA, all of which have lost soldiers during this conflict. At the Moment an Afghanistan Government has been elected and the Taliban have been driven into the outlying areas fighting in ambush style attacks, hiding in small villages threatening the locals with violence if they don't comply.

The main problem is that Al Qaeda is interlinked with the Taliban, who train up the terrorist in their camps in the north of the country close to the Pakistan border, hence the reason therin has been a lot of trouble in Pakistan recently( shooting at the cricketers ).

I think if you read this link, you'll understand a bit more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[Betty Boop]

Did the US not fund the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden, and arm them to the teeth when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? Oh the irony eh! :grr:

[J-C]

Did the US not fund the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden, and arm them to the teeth when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? Oh the irony eh! :grr:


True but at the time USA and Russia weren't best of pals.
Sometimes you have to ally yourself with someone you dislike, Saddam Hussain, Gadaffi, etc. etc. and occasionally the come back to bite your bum.:greengrin

[khib70]

I think there's a misapprehension goes about regarding the nature of the Kaiser's Germany. When the Russians were defeated at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes in 1914, the Germans took over 80,000 Russian prisoners. This gave them a problem - how to feed them? The Kaiser's answer was exactly the same as Hitler's in similar circumstances in 1941-45 - starve them to death.

Which, I believe, was what happened.

There was also a plan to carry out incendiary air-raids on the East End of London in 1918 using Gotha and Friedrichshafen bombers. the plan was to assemble a force of about 100 Gothas and 20-30 Friedrichshafens and start fires in the East End which given the right conditions would re-create the scenario of the Great Fire of 1666.

They failed, largely because they didn't have the technology at thgat time.

But in those sorts of cases I always think it's the THOUGHT that counts...


As far as the Taliban goes, they're an exceedingly unpleasant bunch of misogynistic theocrats and bampots, IMO. Letting them run Afghanistan their own way would be pretty tough on the rest of the Afghan population.

I suppose the question is how much we care about human freedom in other countries - enough to fight a war on their behalf? Or not?

And how dangerous the Taliban will be in the years to come - better to nip them in the bud now?
Interesting post. I have read the Russian prisoner story. In the interests of balance, were very large numbers of German prisoners not kept on the banks of the Rhine in 1945 in appalling conditions with no shelter and very little food, on the orders of Eisenhower. These were IIRC not hardcore Nazis, who had it coming, but ordinary soldiers. I think for all nations in major wars, the existence of very large numbers of POW's poses a problem which has no easy solutiion. Unless you're up for a bit of mass murder by neglect, of course.

The fate of Russian POW's was indeed horrific - as was that of the remnants of the German 6th Army after its capitulation at Stalingrad.

Regarding the topic of the thread. Unfortunately, wars of this nature are sometimes, if not always, a trade off between the long and the short term. If we don't make sacrifices now, will we be risking more lives in the future?
With regard to this particular conflict, I don't claim to know the answer. Certainly, as you say, the Taliban are an evil crew of extremists who pose a huge danger to their own people, as well as to civilians in the West. But the present loss of British, American, and other military lives, and of Afghan civilian lives is painful to watch, especially as very little progress seems to be being made.

The only thing I know for sure is that slogans and simplistic solutions will not help at all. There are, I fear, no easy answers

[--------]

Interesting post. I have read the Russian prisoner story. In the interests of balance, were very large numbers of German prisoners not kept on the banks of the Rhine in 1945 in appalling conditions with no shelter and very little food, on the orders of Eisenhower. These were IIRC not hardcore Nazis, who had it coming, but ordinary soldiers. I think for all nations in major wars, the existence of very large numbers of POW's poses a problem which has no easy solutiion. Unless you're up for a bit of mass murder by neglect, of course.

Max Hastings tells the story of a German soldier who was taken prisoner right in the very last days of the war, long after it had become obvious that the Third Reich was over. He kept moaning, "I die for my Fuhrer, I die for my Fuhrer...."

The officer to whom he surrendered sent him back to the rear with a private from the H.L.I. as escort. The prisoner and escort went off up the road; there was a shot.

"Who fired?" asked the officer. "I was me, sir," said the H.L.I. man. "He kept saying, 'I die for my Fuhrer, I die for my Fuhrer"... Well, the bugger's deid. Aye, he is."

In many individual cases like that one, I think it was as much exasperation and annoyance at people who didn't know when they were beaten and who wouldn't give in on a lost war as anything else. The Jock just wanted to go home, and here was this guy going on about dying for his Fuhrer. So give him what he said he wanted....

The fate of Russian POW's was indeed horrific - as was that of the remnants of the German 6th Army after its capitulation at Stalingrad.

Regarding the topic of the thread. Unfortunately, wars of this nature are sometimes, if not always, a trade off between the long and the short term. If we don't make sacrifices now, will we be risking more lives in the future?

With regard to this particular conflict, I don't claim to know the answer. Certainly, as you say, the Taliban are an evil crew of extremists who pose a huge danger to their own people, as well as to civilians in the West. But the present loss of British, American, and other military lives, and of Afghan civilian lives is painful to watch, especially as very little progress seems to be being made.

The only thing I know for sure is that slogans and simplistic solutions will not help at all. There are, I fear, no easy answers


You can say that again. :agree:

[Betty Boop]

Another British soldier killed bringing the total to 19 this month.

[J-C]

Unfortunately the troops are fighting in a very hostile land, against an enemy that hides behind innocent people and are not opposed to blowing themselves to smitherines for their beliefs. Afghanistan is where the majority of all the terrorist training camps are and where Osama Bin Laden was last reported to be, so it's obvious that is where we have to take the fight to. It's a shame that some of our young soldiers are being killed but it's not in vain, they're fihgting for the freedom of decent Afghanistanies and also the fight against terrorism.

[(((Fergus)))]

Unfortunately the troops are fighting in a very hostile land, against an enemy that hides behind innocent people and are not opposed to blowing themselves to smitherines for their beliefs. Afghanistan is where the majority of all the terrorist training camps are and where Osama Bin Laden was last reported to be, so it's obvious that is where we have to take the fight to. It's a shame that some of our young soldiers are being killed but it's not in vain, they're fihgting for the freedom of decent Afghanistanies and also the fight against terrorism.

If the problem is terrorists, how about if we find out why they don't like the UK and then see if we can sort that? Maybe they have a valid point? Not that they really seem to be much of a threat to the UK anyway. They never actually attacked our country until after we started "solving" the terrorist problem.

[AndyP]

Unfortunately the troops are fighting in a very hostile land, against an enemy that hides behind innocent people and are not opposed to blowing themselves to smitherines for their beliefs. Afghanistan is where the majority of all the terrorist training camps are and where Osama Bin Laden was last reported to be, so it's obvious that is where we have to take the fight to. It's a shame that some of our young soldiers are being killed but it's not in vain, they're fihgting for the freedom of decent Afghanistanies and also the fight against terrorism.


One of the problems is the Rules of Engagement that are issued in theatre, although the guys on the ground know where the Taliban are firing from, if they drop the weapon they can get away from the area without being attacked. If you couple this with the apparent corruption within some levels of the Afghan National Police which allows suspects to walk free on the grounds of "insufficient evidence" then you begin to see why the job becomes more difficult with each passing day


General Dannet reckons that another 2000 troops are required to hold the ground that has been reclaimed from the Taliban, personally I reckon that it's closer to 3k as we then need to increase the infrastructure to the retaken villages.

[Betty Boop]

Unfortunately the troops are fighting in a very hostile land, against an enemy that hides behind innocent people and are not opposed to blowing themselves to smitherines for their beliefs. Afghanistan is where the majority of all the terrorist training camps are and where Osama Bin Laden was last reported to be, so it's obvious that is where we have to take the fight to. It's a shame that some of our young soldiers are being killed but it's not in vain, they're fihgting for the freedom of decent Afghanistanies and also the fight against terrorism.

The Americans have bombed Afghanistan back to the Stone Age along with the terrorist training camps, and installed a puppet in President Karzai who is pretty much loathed by the Afghanis.

[Killiehibbie]

The Americans have bombed Afghanistan back to the Stone Age along with the terrorist training camps, and installed a puppet in President Karzai who is pretty much loathed by the Afghanis.

Look at before and after pictures not easy to tell the difference.

[J-C]

If the problem is terrorists, how about if we find out why they don't like the UK and then see if we can sort that? Maybe they have a valid point? Not that they really seem to be much of a threat to the UK anyway. They never actually attacked our country until after we started "solving" the terrorist problem.


I think it's more of an anti west think rather than just the UK.

The majority of the terrorists being trained there don't actually come from Afghanistan( Somalia, GB, Pakistan etc ).

The terrorists that committed the London bombings were actually born and raised in Britain and trained in the camps of Afghanistan.

7/11 bombers based in Germany and also trained in Afghanistan.

So pretty much everything connected with terrorism seems to be traced back to Al Quaeda and Aghanistan.

[(((Fergus)))]

I think it's more of an anti west think rather than just the UK.

The majority of the terrorists being trained there don't actually come from Afghanistan( Somalia, GB, Pakistan etc ).

The terrorists that committed the London bombings were actually born and raised in Britain and trained in the camps of Afghanistan.

7/11 bombers based in Germany and also trained in Afghanistan.

So pretty much everything connected with terrorism seems to be traced back to Al Quaeda and Aghanistan.

But what's their problem with the west? Anything other than America's support for Israel?

[J-C]

But what's their problem with the west? Anything other than America's support for Israel?


They see the west as infidels and against Islam, which of course is not true, remember we are talking about a very small percentage the Muslim population, which are again very extreme in their views.

I have known many Muslims in my life and find them honest, hard working and extremely family orientated.

[Betty Boop]

They see the west as infidels and against Islam, which of course is not true, remember we are talking about a very small percentage the Muslim population, which are again very extreme in their views.

I have known many Muslims in my life and find them honest, hard working and extremely family orientated.

Nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan then, the slaughtering of thousands of civilians, the torture and humiliation at Abu Gharaib, and extraordinary rendition? :rolleyes:

[AndyP]

Nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan then, the slaughtering of thousands of civilians, the torture and humiliation at Abu Gharaib, and extraordinary rendition? :rolleyes:

Radical Islam attacks have been doing the rounds long before these events came to pass or are you forgetting the first World Trade Centre bombing or Somalia or JEM attacks in SE Asia or any number of attacks made by the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria. All of these took place before the Twin Towers attacks in 2001 and subsequent Afghan invasion

[(((Fergus)))]

Radical Islam attacks have been doing the rounds long before these events came to pass or are you forgetting the first World Trade Centre bombing or Somalia or JEM attacks in SE Asia or any number of attacks made by the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria. All of these took place before the Twin Towers attacks in 2001 and subsequent Afghan invasion

Indeed, what was the reason for those attacks?

[hibsbollah]

So pretty much everything connected with terrorism seems to be traced back to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

Not strictly accurate I dont think; you could say the same things about the Finsbury Park area of London and Saudi Arabia, both of which have so far escaped the wrath of the worlds largest military machine.

There are a lot of interesting questions to which I am still awaiting an intelligent answer from the media or anyone else...1. The one which Fergus raised above-what motivates anti-West hatred, when it cannot be linked to Western foreign policy...(religious hatred? local conditions? fear of imperialism? AN other? 2. Does the British Govt think that a (so far unlikely-looking) military victory in Afghanistan would destroy islamic militancy? 3. Is our primary aim in being in Afghanistan pragmatic (saving the UK from terrorist bombs in Britain) or idealistic (promoting 'Western' values)? From what I can see it seems to be a misguided and muddy mixture of both.

[Sergey]

Not strictly accurate I dont think; you could say the same things about the Finsbury Park area of London and Saudi Arabia, both of which have so far escaped the wrath of the worlds largest military machine.



WTF are you blethering about?

Have you ever been to Finsbury Park?

[hibsbollah]

WTF are you blethering about?

Have you ever been to Finsbury Park?

Yep, Ive got relatives there. But many of western europes top Al Qaeda people attended the local mosque.

[Sergey]

Yep, Ive got relatives there. But many of western europes top Al Qaeda people attended the local mosque.

But that doesn't make it an Islamic stronghold. You'd be lucky to find a Muslim out with the mosque.

The area's populated mostly by Turks and Orthodox Greeks. Drawing a comparison with Saudi Arabia is simply laughable.

[hibsbollah]

But that doesn't make it an Islamic stronghold. You'd be lucky to find a Muslim out with the mosque.

The area's populated mostly by Turks and Orthodox Greeks. Drawing a comparison with Saudi Arabia is simply laughable.

I didnt say it was an Islamic stronghold or that it was comparable with Saudi Arabia. I was adding it to a list of areas that have been described as being a hotbed of 'terror' at some time or other.

[Sergey]

I didnt say it was an Islamic stronghold or that it was comparable with Saudi Arabia. I was adding it to a list of areas that have been described as being a hotbed of 'terror' at some time or other.

Finsbury Park is not a "hot bed of terror".

It happens to have a mosque that was infiltrated by a few Islamic extremists. It could have occurred in any town or city, but Finsbury Park is certainly not a "hot bed of terror" unless you factor in the heroin gangs that control the supply of Class A narcotics to most of London.

They are more of a threat in the area than the mosque.

If you want to see Islamic extremism in London, get yourself onto the Isle of Dogs or Bromley by Bow.

They have many mosques, but none have made the news......

....yet

[(((Fergus)))]

Finsbury Park is not a "hot bed of terror".

It happens to have a mosque that was infiltrated by a few Islamic extremists. It could have occurred in any town or city, but Finsbury Park is certainly not a "hot bed of terror" unless you factor in the heroin gangs that control the supply of Class A narcotics to most of London.

They are more of a threat in the area than the mosque.

If you want to see Islamic extremism in London, get yourself onto the Isle of Dogs or Bromley by Bow.

They have many mosques, but none have made the news......

....yet

OK why haven't they been bombed by the RAF yet?

[Betty Boop]

Radical Islam attacks have been doing the rounds long before these events came to pass or are you forgetting the first World Trade Centre bombing or Somalia or JEM attacks in SE Asia or any number of attacks made by the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria. All of these took place before the Twin Towers attacks in 2001 and subsequent Afghan invasion
I believe that many more have been radicalised due to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[AndyP]

I believe that many more have been radicalised due to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are many more that have came to the fore since then but there has always been an element within Islam that sees the forceful progression of Islam as the way forward. Iraq/Afghan may have given a cause celeb however we need to remember that there has been infighting within Islam for a good number of years before the 11th September attacks.

Afghan hasn't always been the war torn wasteland that it has been made out to be, it took Islamic soldiers/extremists/Jihadists and the Soviets to turn it that way in the 80s

Apols if this doesn't make much sense but quickly typing as I need to go on a call out.

[PC Stamp]

Whilst our troops continue to die in Afghanistan, we keep being told that it's a highly worthwhile exercise and it's a "war" we are winning.

I'd like to hear a wee snippet or two about how exactly we are winning it. I don't often hear on the news about a hundred Taliban extremists being killed in an offensive. Or about top Taliban officials being captured or killed etc etc ....

All we hear is Breaking News ... another British soldier has died in Afghanistan.

As Andy P may be suggesting (and apologies if not), the rules of engagement which apply to our troops make Afghanistan a war that is almost impossible to win. The insurgents set their own rules to whatever suits them at the time .... where we can only do it the traditional British fair play way!

It's a completely uneven playing field and a senseless waste of lives IMHO.

Maybe if previous and current and no doubt future UK governments would accept that we are no longer the power we perhaps were in the old days of the Commonwealth and we stopped interfering in other people's business, we wouldn't be such a target for extremists? Who made it our remit to sort out the rest of the world's ills?

Or is that too simplistic?

[Betty Boop]

Whilst our troops continue to die in Afghanistan, we keep being told that it's a highly worthwhile exercise and it's a "war" we are winning.

I'd like to hear a wee snippet or two about how exactly we are winning it. I don't often hear on the news about a hundred Taliban extremists being killed in an offensive. Or about top Taliban officials being captured or killed etc etc ....

All we hear is Breaking News ... another British soldier has died in Afghanistan.

As Andy P may be suggesting (and apologies if not), the rules of engagement which apply to our troops make Afghanistan a war that is almost impossible to win. The insurgents set their own rules to whatever suits them at the time .... where we can only do it the traditional British fair play way!

It's a completely uneven playing field and a senseless waste of lives IMHO.

Maybe if previous and current and no doubt future UK governments would accept that we are no longer the power we perhaps were in the old days of the Commonwealth and we stopped interfering in other people's business, we wouldn't be such a target for extremists? Who made it our remit to sort out the rest of the world's ills?

Or is that too simplistic?
Always wondered why when the US and the UK invade countries, they refer to those fighting against us as insurgents?:confused: Apart from that I agree with the rest of your post. :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Whilst our troops continue to die in Afghanistan, we keep being told that it's a highly worthwhile exercise and it's a "war" we are winning.

I'd like to hear a wee snippet or two about how exactly we are winning it. I don't often hear on the news about a hundred Taliban extremists being killed in an offensive. Or about top Taliban officials being captured or killed etc etc ....

All we hear is Breaking News ... another British soldier has died in Afghanistan.

As Andy P may be suggesting (and apologies if not), the rules of engagement which apply to our troops make Afghanistan a war that is almost impossible to win. The insurgents set their own rules to whatever suits them at the time .... where we can only do it the traditional British fair play way!

It's a completely uneven playing field and a senseless waste of lives IMHO.

Maybe if previous and current and no doubt future UK governments would accept that we are no longer the power we perhaps were in the old days of the Commonwealth and we stopped interfering in other people's business, we wouldn't be such a target for extremists? Who made it our remit to sort out the rest of the world's ills?

Or is that too simplistic?

Just been checking the civilian casualties and it's currently:

Killed directly or indirectly as a result of US-led action: at least 8,436 - 28,028
Killed directly as a result of "insurgent" action: at least 2,839 - 4,389

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(200 1%E2%80%93present)

Maybe the yanks and others are more careless than UK forces?

[(((Fergus)))]

That data is obviously impossible to verify, however these statistics are interesting:

According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database, Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing (http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emwherold/dossier), between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom) bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003. This estimate counts only "impact deaths" - deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting - and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the U.S. airstrikes and invasion.

Compare that with 9/11:

There were 2,974 deaths, excluding the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon).[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#cite_note-Chrono-35)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#cite_note-36) An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#cite_note-hirschkorn-28) All of the deaths in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon.

Is it acceptable to sacrifice these civilian lives in order to protect civilian lives?

[The Green Goblin]

Unlike Iraq, I do believe that our presence in Afghanistan is justified. The Taliban were supportive of, and protected, members of Al Qaeda and gave them a safe haven in Afghanistan.

However, it has turned out to be much too costly to our troops and we now need to get out of there ASAP.

Of course, that will possibly allow the Taliban to get back into power and then that will, in turn, allow Al Qaeda to return and the situation will be back to how it was before we went in. But there have just been far too many British troops who have returned in a coffin.

We are there, supposedly, to implement "democracy" to Afghanistan. Maybe it's just me but I think there are far too many people in Afghanistan who are not interested in a democratic process. Let's face it, we can't force people to adopt democracy.

It's time we got out before even more mothers, fathers, sons and daughters are left broken hearted.


Taking the bit in bold, and going a wee step back before that, there is the small matter of the CIA throwing money and weaponry totalling millions of dollars to the Taliban during the 80s so they would repel the expanding Soviet threat. Chickens coming home to roost in this case.

Also, it does seem as if all these soldiers (and civilians) are dying out there to do little more than prop up Karzai`s increasingly corrupt government. Originally "appointed" by George W Bush, Karzai is causing concern mostly because he is not keeping up his end of the bargain to do what he`s told. Remind you of anyone??! Saddam Hussein perhaps?

I think that as far as your concerns go about the Taleban getting back into power, well, I think there`s little doubt that the Taleban are effectively in power in the country in everything but name only.

It`s also a wee bit dangerous to generalise simplistically and say that people living there aren`t interested in democracy. The argument that the people there somehow `aren`t deserving` of what we want to `give them` (through the barrel of a gun/drones etc.) is just a face-saving excuse on the government`s part and one of the increasingly likely reasons being lined up for us eventually leaving.

The real and much greater `Al-Quaeda` threat comes from Pakistan at this point, a country we are currently throwing money at to help defeat the Taliban. Hmm, sounds familiar doesn`t it?!

Iraq was and is a hell-disaster and people are dying left, right and centre in Afghanistan for politicians` pride. Not much hope all round really. I agree with a lot of your post though, especially the heartache of young lads, teenagers, fathers who will never see their children born and, let us not forget this, an awful lot of civilians, all dying out there, for what?

GG

[J-C]

Taking the bit in bold, and going a wee step back before that, there is the small matter of the CIA throwing money and weaponry totalling millions of dollars to the Taliban during the 80s so they would repel the expanding Soviet threat. Chickens coming home to roost in this case.

Also, it does seem as if all these soldiers (and civilians) are dying out there to do little more than prop up Karzai`s increasingly corrupt government. Originally "appointed" by George W Bush, Karzai is causing concern mostly because he is not keeping up his end of the bargain to do what he`s told. Remind you of anyone??! Saddam Hussein perhaps?

I think that as far as your concerns go about the Taleban getting back into power, well, I think there`s little doubt that the Taleban are effectively in power in the country in everything but name only.

It`s also a wee bit dangerous to generalise simplistically and say that people living there aren`t interested in democracy. The argument that the people there somehow `aren`t deserving` of what we want to `give them` (through the barrel of a gun/drones etc.) is just a face-saving excuse on the government`s part and one of the increasingly likely reasons being lined up for us eventually leaving.

The real and much greater `Al-Quaeda` threat comes from Pakistan at this point, a country we are currently throwing money at to help defeat the Taliban. Hmm, sounds familiar doesn`t it?!

Iraq was and is a hell-disaster and people are dying left, right and centre in Afghanistan for politicians` pride. Not much hope all round really. I agree with a lot of your post though, especially the heartache of young lads, teenagers, fathers who will never see their children born and, let us not forget this, an awful lot of civilians, all dying out there, for what?

GG


Pakistan has nuclear weapons, this is why we are trying to get rid of the Taliban from Afghanistan and aslo Pakistan. If the Taliban could get a strong hold in Pakistan get their hands on these weapons, chaos could result.

[The Green Goblin]

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, this is why we are trying to get rid of the Taliban from Afghanistan and aslo Pakistan. If the Taliban could get a strong hold in Pakistan get their hands on these weapons, chaos could result.

I agree, however Pakistan is already in chaos. It`s leader is a brutal criminal and a murderer. It is chock full of people sympathetic to both the Taliban and Al-Quaeda.

Should `we` therefore be giving it enormous amounts of money and weaponry, as `we` did to the Taliban in the 80s, accepting and supporting one `necessary evil`to sacrifice another?

That`s exactly my point here. We`ve been here before and look what happened.

GG

[AndyP]

I agree, however Pakistan is already in chaos. It`s leader is a brutal criminal and a murderer. It is chock full of people sympathetic to both the Taliban and Al-Quaeda.

Should `we` therefore be giving it enormous amounts of money and weaponry, as `we` did to the Taliban in the 80s, accepting and supporting one `necessary evil`to sacrifice another?

That`s exactly my point here. We`ve been here before and look what happened.

GG

GG, Taliban didn't receive direct (if any) funding from the West as their founding can only be traced back to the early-mid 90s, after the Soviets left and Najibullah was decorating a lamp-post.

Mujahideen infighting made it fairly simple for this Pakistani backed group to move into the vacum that existed post Soviet withdrawl

[hibsbollah]

GG, Taliban didn't receive direct (if any) funding from the West as their founding can only be traced back to the early-mid 90s, after the Soviets left and Najibullah was decorating a lamp-post.

Mujahideen infighting made it fairly simple for this Pakistani backed group to move into the vacum that existed post Soviet withdrawl

Thats just semantics Andy. The Taliban in many ways are just elements of the old mujahadiin under a different label, the people and the organisation are basically the same. The Americans spent £10billion arming them during the Soviet occupation (the Saudis also sent them £525million in just two years), and all this military hardware and guerilla knowhow from the CIA is what is killing British soldiers today. Robert Fisks 'The Great war for Civilisation' has some excellent background.

[AndyP]

Thats just semantics Andy. The Taliban in many ways are just elements of the old mujahadiin under a different label, the people and the organisation are basically the same. The Americans spent £10billion arming them during the Soviet occupation (the Saudis also sent them £525million in just two years), and all this military hardware and guerilla knowhow from the CIA is what is killing British soldiers today. Robert Fisks 'The Great war for Civilisation' has some excellent background.

The only elements of hardware that are killing the majority of troops today is actually the recovered Soviet anti-tank mines something that the Americans didn't actually need to arm the Muja with.

As for semantics, I don't think it is. The Mujahideen and the Taliban are 2 separate entities, now it may be similar to the various Republican and Loyalist disidents BUT they still remain distinctly different due to their ultimate goals.

[hibsbollah]

The only elements of hardware that are killing the majority of troops today is actually the recovered Soviet anti-tank mines something that the Americans didn't actually need to arm the Muja with.

As for semantics, I don't think it is. The Mujahideen and the Taliban are 2 separate entities, now it may be similar to the various Republican and Loyalist disidents BUT they still remain distinctly different due to their ultimate goals.

Whether they are 'separate entities' or not doesnt really matter. If you pour weapons and military training into an area, those things dont disappear when there is a change of Government. The men who kill people for their livelihoods continue to do so. GG is right that the US created the monster.

[Betty Boop]

The Big Lie of Afghanistan
Inquiries into the 954 deaths in police custody since 1990 have all proved fruitless – and then this historic case comes along

By Malalai Joya

July 26, 2009 "The Guardian" -- July 25, 2009 -- In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament. Women like me, running for office, were held up as an example of how the war in Afghanistan had liberated women. But this democracy was a facade, and the so-called liberation a big lie.
On behalf of the long-suffering people of my country, I offer my heartfelt condolences to all in the UK who have lost their loved ones on the soil of Afghanistan. We share the grief of the mothers, fathers, wives, sons and daughters of the fallen. It is my view that these British casualties, like the many thousands of Afghan civilian dead, are victims of the unjust policies that the Nato countries have pursued under the leadership of the US government.

Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.

For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.

In the constitution it forbids those guilty of war crimes from running for high office. Yet Karzai has named two notorious warlords, Fahim and Khalili, as his running mates for the upcoming presidential election. Under the shadow of warlordism, corruption and occupation, this vote will have no legitimacy, and once again it seems the real choice will be made behind closed doors in the White House. As we say in Afghanistan, "the same donkey with a new saddle".

So far, Obama has pursued the same policy as Bush in Afghanistan. Sending more troops and expanding the war into Pakistan will only add fuel to the fire. Like many other Afghans, I risked my life during the dark years of Taliban rule to teach at underground schools for girls. Today the situation of women is as bad as ever. Victims of abuse and rape find no justice because the judiciary is dominated by fundamentalists. A growing number of women, seeing no way out of the suffering in their lives, have taken to suicide by self-immolation.

This week, US vice-president Joe Biden asserted that "more loss of life [is] inevitable" in Afghanistan, and that the ongoing occupation is in the "national interests" of both the US and the UK.

I have a different message to the people of Britain. I don't believe it is in your interests to see more young people sent off to war, and to have more of your taxpayers' money going to fund an occupation that keeps a gang of corrupt warlords and drug lords in power in Kabul.

What's more, I don't believe it is inevitable that this bloodshed continues forever. Some say that if foreign troops leave Afghanistan will descend into civil war. But what about the civil war and catastrophe of today? The longer this occupation continues, the worse the civil war will be.

The Afghan people want peace, and history teaches that we always reject occupation and foreign domination. We want a helping hand through international solidarity, but we know that values like human rights must be fought for and won by Afghans themselves.

I know there are millions of British people who want to see an end to this conflict as soon as possible. Together we can raise our voice for peace and justice.





I