| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
 Posted - 04 November 2009 : 10:54:28 AM
|
I heard on the radio that five more British soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan. Apparently they, and two Afghan policemen, were shot dead by another Afghan policeman who then fled the scene. The news item then included an interview with Kim Howell MP who is calling for a pull out from Afghanistan. Howell pointed out that there was no credible plan or strategy to achieve ‘victory’.
I don’t think there is any question about it any longer. The so called war on terror is a nonsense. It never really stood up to any serious analysis in the first place. How exactly do you wage war against something as nebulous as a political technique? Which is what terrorism is, albeit an extreme form of politics. Blair should never have dragged us into a US led ‘crusade’ that we could never be won, not at least on the basis that it was fought.
The problem is that the military might of the US needs some kind of raison d’etre. In the absence of a Russian military threat what was the point of stacking up so many planes, tanks, missiles and men? In addition to which, there is the economic and political inertia of the arms industry which has a stranglehold on so many US politicians. So it is hardly surprising that a ‘war’ on terrorism became the policy of the Bush regime once it had taken power through a judicial political coup. The problem for the wider world is that US policy makers are mired in a cold war mindset. They cannot cope without and enemy. US policy seems to be based upon the notion that peace is the continuation of war by other means, to put a twist on Clausewitz.
In fact Clausewitz’s views should be considered more carefully by US and UK strategists who seem to have lost sight of the central point of what he was arguing. For Clausewitz the essential purpose of warfare was to destroy the enemy’s centre of gravity. Traditionally that meant an army. In more modern times and against a more diverse range of techniques for waging war the enemy’s centre of gravity needs to be pin-pointed far more specifically.
The war against Saddam unfortunately seemed to vindicate traditional notions of thinking in the US government and military. Therefore they were wholly wrong-footed when the invasion and conquest of Iraq turned into a campaign to suppress a variety of independence movements based upon regional and religious nationalisms. The ‘enemy’s’ centre of gravity was no longer a conventional army and the coalition forces were left floundering. At first they tried to come up with a new paradigm for conventional warfare, ‘asymmetrical warfare’, which meant merely adjusting the balance of military power to engage in more direct terms. Basically, they stopped dropping bombs from high altitude and began to throw more grunts onto the streets. The only difference was that civilians and soldiers now died under the rubric of a ‘new’ strategy brand.
I believe the same mistakes are being made in Afghanistan. That is why a steady toll of British lives and those of civilians will continue as long as current policy prevails. There can be no military victory. The Taleban, ironically, have a far better grasp of strategy than their technically sophisticated enemy. They have identified the enemy’s ‘centre of gravity’ very effectively, namely public opinion, rather than the military apparatus. They could choose to stand up to the occupiers’ army in a conventional fight, but they would be slaughtered in short order. So it makes sense to fight the war of the outgunned and resort to ambushes and IEDs. Of course, they can only have a limited success here, yet the steady stream of casualties - slow enough that each one has a name and face and does not slip into the anonymity of a statistic – means that the US and British public feels each loss as personally as possible. In time, support for the occupation of Afghanistan will ebb and the Taleban will win.
Can the west win in Afghanistan? Yes, in principle. But they cannot win if they persist with the present military occupation. That war has already been lost. The Taleban still exists and still holds sway over much of the country. Every time civilians are killed it only increases their popular support. If the west really wants to start winning in this new age of warfare, which is unrestricted in terms of means and ends, as well as who counts as a combatant, then we’re going to have to adapt. You cannot fight ideologies with conventional weapons. You have to fight ideologies with other ideologies and have faith in that. If the west wants to win in places like Afghanistan then they should pull out every soldier. They should cut spending on conventional weapons drastically and use dollars instead of munitions to wage war on their enemies. Don’t intervene militarily – it ultimately only provokes the organisation of violent resistance. Just make sure that you provide an example of a better lifestyle to which others should aspire and make sure that you maximise the propaganda of your success. In time you can begin to offer inducements, such as profitable trade agreements and even aid.
This is not appeasement, by the way. If the west finds itself opposed to a genuine conventional military threat then it can resist that in a conventional way. That strategy is not precluded by the above. Rather, I am suggesting that in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan the west should be clear about who and what they are fighting and then deploy the most effective means of targeting that specific enemy’s centre of gravity.
|
|
|
CTL666
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 11:23:10 AM
|
This all assumes that the wars have had anything to do with what the military and politicians have said. If, in fact, they are about placing western military bases, troops and equipment into the middle east and the continual siphoning off of resources in those areas, then the WoT becomes little more than a lie. Assume for a moment that there are actually those in the world who are actively planning on a huge scale for events which are not due to play out for another twenty, thirty or even fifty years; those who have foreseen the problems we will face and have made decisions regarding the resources that will be required to maintain the lifestyles they hold dear. It would be in the interest of such people to engineer situations in advance which will permit them the desired outcomes. Yes, conspiracy theories abound and most will dismiss them out of hand, but there are certain facts which cannot be so easily ignored such as peak oil. Depending on whom you believe, we have either already hit PO or we are son to do so, and a world which is not only addicted to oil, but which looks to remains so for the medium term future will value such a resource more and more highly as time progresses and stocks diminish. Those with foresight might easily be seen as wanting to take control of such resources and using such a pretext as the Wot to achieve those aims is perhaps not as ridiculous and many may first think.
In addition to such wild flights of fantasy, there is also the shorter term issue of the billions of dollars being spent and made by the all the western companies and militaries involved in first destroying, then rebuilding the region. It's almost a license to steal money - troops go in and destroy anything they choose to under the cover of targeting the enemy and then western companies get awarded contracts in a fixed process where so called bidders are actually the only people who even knew a contract was up for grabs (if nobody else is told that the contract is even on offer, how can they enter a bid?) to rebuild it and then expect thanks from the people of the region who have been charged for the pleasure. Meanwhile our own economies benefit from the billions of dollars worth of extra sales of everything from weapons to toilets. Were it not for the piffling detail of our troops getting wasted in the middle of all this, it might even be considered a good plan.
D.
 |
 |
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 11:45:16 AM
|
You're right, a flight of fancy.
There's very little evidence of any long term strategic planning in the west. If there was then we would not be busy arming Saddam and the Taleban one moment and then waging war on them the next. That's why I don't think conspiracy theory thinking is very realistic or helpful. At best, any of the 'benefits' you suggest above are side effects.
If we're going to work towards solutions then we have to stop wasting time speculating on fanciful conspiracies, however attractive and neat such temptations may be. Let's keep on topic. |
Edited by - Simon Scarrow on 04 November 2009 11:56:29 AM |
|
|
|
CTL666
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 12:26:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Scarrow
You're right, a flight of fancy.
There's very little evidence of any long term strategic planning in the west.
That depends on how short or long term your thinking is.
Yes, short term, there is little evidence that the west actually care whether the people in the occupied countries survive or flourish. There is a distinct lack of day-to-day planning for immediate needs or methods for dealing with those who are engaged in fighting right now.
Long term, the west has created a situation which will see our troops on the ground in the region for at least the next decade and quite possibly long beyond that. Western influence in the region has grown and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Now we have the toe in the door it will be very hard for those countries to remove all westerners any time soon.
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Scarrow
If there was then we would not be busy arming Saddam and the Taleban one moment and then waging war on them the next. That's why I don't think conspiracy theory thinking is very realistic or helpful. At best, any of the 'benefits' you suggest above are side effects.
More short term thinking.
You appear to be stuck on the idea that there has to be just a single unified approach by all those concerned instead of multiple plans by disparate groups, each with their own agendas which have different time scales and goals.
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Scarrow
If we're going to work towards solutions then we have to stop wasting time speculating on fanciful conspiracies, however attractive and neat such temptations may be. Let's keep on topic.
We, as in you, I and any other forum user, are not working toward any solutions at all. We are "shooting the breeze". Let's not pretend that anything we write here or elsewhere is going to have any effect at all on anyone in a position to do anything in any of the conflict zones - either abroad or at home. Therefore we are free to discuss anything at all be it fantasy conspiracy theories, a conspiracy theory which everyone ignores or laughs at until it turns out to be a little closer to the truth than most gave it credit, or anything else.
D.
|
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 12:41:00 PM
|
Yes we are just talking amongst ourselves. For now. On the question of complex causes, I have no disagreement with you. But again, that is beside the case. The war is here and now and the matter I want to discuss is the best resolution to it. Let's talk about the issues raised and stick to them. If you want to pursue some other subject then start a new discussion. I'm not trying to be rude. I just want to kick off a discussion that sticks to the topic. Thanks.
|
Edited by - Simon Scarrow on 04 November 2009 12:47:43 PM |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14670 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 1:05:54 PM
|
Slightly different question for you Simon, Now we have commited to this War do we have the right to pull out and leave this country to the aftermath of the taliban? or are we now obliged to see this through no matter the cost?
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 1:36:13 PM
|
'The no matter what the cost' argument is a blank cheque no government has a right to sign on our behalf. To that extent we are not committed to the 'war'. If the government has a strategy to win this war then they should clearly state what it is so that the public has a chance to gauge the realistic prospect for its success. If there is no such strategy, or one that has clearly not been thought through, or one which has little to no chance of success then we should cut our losses and pull out.
The only justification for remaining in theatre is if there is a credible prospect of defeating the Taleban by military means. As Vietnam has proved, a high body count is not an accurate measure of progress in fighting an ideology. |
Edited by - Simon Scarrow on 04 November 2009 1:36:40 PM |
|
|
|
CTL666
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 1:42:21 PM
|
OK, on topic then.
The question of winning the war largely depends on what one perceives as winning. What is the desired result which would constitute a win and is that result the same for us in the west as it is for the Afghans themselves? We seem to be intent on following the same procedure that was attempted in Iraq: introduce a stable government based on our own principles of democracy (despite the fact that we ably demonstrate that democracy in practice doesn't work), leave the country with a fully functioning police force and some sort of military. Has the west considered whether this is the same result that the local people want? Clearly they have been happy with their more tribal existence for hundreds of years, so who are we to start imposing changes on them?
Can we now pull out and leave the country to whatever fate awaits it? I suspect we'll have to. The west cannot continue to run these M.E. countries whilst pretending not to. Either we need to take full control and run them as colonies - in which case we will always be fighting against those who want to kick us out - or we need to get to the point where we can cut and run. What we are doing now is not working. The question of whether we should ever have tried it in the first place is moot; we are there and the cockup has occurred. So what of the future of the country? Well, what was it going to be like before we interfered? Surely things haven't changed to such a great extent that life without westerners would be so different to what was going to happen anyway. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Afghanistan's history could jump in here?
D.
|
Edited by - CTL666 on 04 November 2009 2:42:49 PM |
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 2:36:35 PM
|
As a starting point I would offer the following:
1. We cannot occupy their country. There is a long history of fierce tribal independence in Afghanistan which means that any interference in their affairs, no matter how well meant, will only provoke resentment and hostility, particularly if such sentiments are whipped up by local leaders looking for a hook to hang their support on. Worse still, the occupation of the country will be used as just cause for third parties in invoking a wider hostility to western nations.
2. We cannot enforce western standards. Again the history is against us and in trying to force our institutions on their traditions we simply reinforce the hostility mentioned above.
3. We can attempt to contain the enemy by use of buffer states and tightening border controls. The states bordering Afghanistan can be charged with restricting access across the borders and rewarded for doing so. We should not coerce such nations into this duty. Closer to home we should enforce far stricter border controls to ensure that putative terrorist threats are contained. It is far cheaper to have tighter border controls here, than have boots on the ground over there. And less risky to personnel.
4. People with clearly defined nationalist aspirations must be permitted to live out their aspirations within the geographic borders of their states. Outside governments should not interfere with internal politics, other than through the offer of aid and investment. If that means that the advancement of the public interest within those states is restrained by the internal politics of those states then that has to be accepted. Regime change must occur from within if it is to have any lasting hope of improving a state. By all means make it clear to the downtrodden that if they change the government and request aid, then it will come. |
Edited by - Simon Scarrow on 04 November 2009 2:37:48 PM |
|
|
|
CTL666
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 2:48:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Scarrow
Regime change must occur from within if it is to have any lasting hope of improving a state. By all means make it clear to the downtrodden that if they change the government and request aid, then it will come.
So given the fact that the Afghan way of life hasn't significantly changed - despite the attempted interference of outside forces on multiple occasions - over the course of hundreds of years, what are the odds that anyone would attempt regime change without some sort of further outside interference? When most of the population are deliberately kept uneducated and uninformed, who is likely to stand up and attempt change? And why should they if they don't see a problem with how they've always lived? It seems to me that it is the West that has a problem with the way Afghans live, not the Afghans themselves.
D.
|
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14670 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 2:58:47 PM
|
Surely Simon thats a very isolationist perspective rather than a long term global nation outlook. No one nation can resolve the issues faced in an single theatre of war or disaster or anything else, but we need to start somewhere, we need to have nations to lead the way towards peace.
obvoiusly its a very idealistic utopian perspective and im not daft enough to think its something that can happen easily or even ever, but does that mean we should not try?
The issues are many, what is the right form of goverment to take? there is going to have to be one? but maybe with regional versions? eventualy a global language?
i know im taking your topic off on an tangent, but this is the tip of the iceberg, do we pull out of afghanistan because it got hard? or do we help the goverment get to an effective stable format and then make a strategic reduction and allow them to police themselves (with help and support) but it needs to be freely given, no strings.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 4:04:28 PM
|
Short of some form of neo-colonialism, we need to step back from intervention in states where there is a limit to what can be achieved by outsiders. Frankly there are better established states who could benefit a great deal more for a fraction of what is being spent in Afghanistan. If we improved their lot, and provided a powerful positive example of what can be achieved then maybe the people of Afghanistan would get the point and change their ways. If they will not change themselves then we certainly can't do it for them. So no, we should not try, other than to offer advice and aid when it is asked for and only then on a properly assessed basis with guarantees that it will not be siphoned off by some corrupt official.
We pull out of Afghanistan because it is a struggle we are neither equipped to fight nor capable of winning. We get out because the we have never interevened effectively (barring the baleful influence that Reagan and Thatcher imposed on the people of Aghanistan by arming the Taleban to the teeth in the first place). We get out because it is costing us a fortune, and wrecking the lives of many families whose sons have died there, and in the hope that in the absence of western forces the warlords of the country have less excuse to wage war. The best policy now is to contain the troubles within Afghanistan and try and keep the religious fundamentalists and the poppy crops in situ.
I think we can give up on any notion of a westernised form of government succeeding for the foreseeable future. And if we want to play the blame game then I'm afraid we have ourselves to blame, as well as the warlords and the Russians. |
|
|
|
Mace
Small mammal
United Kingdom
737 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 4:28:43 PM
|
For my tuppence worth:
The election fiasco, with very small turnout, allegations of rigging, pressure for a 2nd round and then pressure not to, has proven that Afghanistan is not ready for Democracy. The geography and logistics involved show that you can’t have a central government in charge, and that local ones would be too weak and corrupt to function.
There is no way to gauge winning this war. What it’s measured against: dead soldiers v election turnout: destruction of past 8 years v 8 year rebuilding: flag burning v waving?
IMO, we have to stay, but the West cannot win the war. What’s required is a strong, stable Middle Eastern Government that can be seen a blue print for the rest of the region. But as long as the USA holds the big stick and we clamour for the ME’s black carrots, the West will always be perceived as propping up a puppet regime.
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14670 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 4:43:26 PM
|
what we need is are stable muslim goverments to come in and join the coalition of countries trying to bring stability to places like this. They understand the people and the mentality better than we do and would be able to aissist better than we can, we cannot impose western philosophy on them, but we also cannot stand by and watch while extremist policies are allowed to run rampant.
are there any Stable Muslim goverments? truly stable? if there are why are we not asking for their help? are we being short sighted and narrow minded?
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
WarrenH
Homosapien
United Kingdom
2019 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 4:51:11 PM
|
First off: 5 Soldiers have been killed. Murdered by a "so-called" friendly. I vote for a 1 mins silence for each of them.
“As a starting point I would offer the following:
1. We cannot occupy their country. There is a long history of fierce tribal independence in Afghanistan which means that any interference in their affairs, no matter how well meant, will only provoke resentment and hostility, particularly if such sentiments are whipped up by local leaders looking for a hook to hang their support on. Worse still, the occupation of the country will be used as just cause for third parties in invoking a wider hostility to western nations.
The whole concept of us been there is to stop the Taliban, stabilise the country, allow it to re-establish itself as a recognisable entity and as fractious it is as the moment or has been.
2. We cannot enforce western standards. Again the history is against us and in trying to force our institutions on their traditions we simply reinforce the hostility mentioned above.
The realisation that Western values cannot be enforced has become very apparent. This has lead to a change of tactics, and has restored some of the Afghanistan Government autonomy. This will improve in the YEARS to come.
A quick fix is out of the question, the people have been at war far too long, to know what peace is. First the Russians, then the Taliban – who were not even from Afghanistan, most were “foreign imports”.
3. We can attempt to contain the enemy by use of buffer states and tightening border controls. The states bordering Afghanistan can be charged with restricting access across the borders and rewarded for doing so. We should not coerce such nations into this duty. Closer to home we should enforce far stricter border controls to ensure that putative terrorist threats are contained. It is far cheaper to have tighter border controls here, than have boots on the ground over there. And less risky to personnel.
The breakdown of the Soviet block, in the late 80’s and early 90’s, turmoil with there own respective governments, the return to secular and tribal issues have risen. Powerful People (Warlords) have risen; opposition is squashed with deadly force. Has lead to conflict with Mother Russia. (2008 invasion of Georgia) and may will suffer the same fate soon...
Boots on the ground has always been the better deterrent, Hearts and Minds is the most effective weapon. Tighter border controls here in the UK will not work – to Liberal Lawyers will stop any such attempt! Infringement of rights or something close to it.
4. People with clearly defined nationalist aspirations must be permitted to live out their aspirations within the geographic borders of their states. Outside governments should not interfere with internal politics, other than through the offer of aid and investment. If that means that the advancement of the public interest within those states is restrained by the internal politics of those states then that has to be accepted...
Again, this is the western values. Values that the general population DOES NOT UNDERSTAND!. This is what we as Westerners need to understand and realise that they’ll change when the want to and are able to do. We have been using these values since just after the Roman empire fell, possible some time sooner than that – Simon will know that aspect better than me!
... Regime change must occur from within if it is to have any lasting hope of improving a state. By all means make it clear to the downtrodden that if they change the government and request aid, then it will come.
Yes change must come from within, and yes there were changing, The Russians were defeated, and left the country, and as they were picking themselves up, another lot came crashing through the borders, The Taliban, then for several years they had to live under that regime – most must have wished the Russians were back, as at least they did have something.... under the Taliban they had nothing.
In closing, there is no way the west can withdraw from Afghanistan. To do so will surmount to Suicide. The Subversives will believe they have won and go onto the full offensive. To them large numbers of dead means less to worry about killing later, let alone feeding them... We will have more bombings on our streets, schools, shopping centres, hospitals.... etc. You also have to realise that these people to not believe in talking, unless you are singing their praises and worshiping their god in their WAY!.... and you’ll still probably lose your head.
The biggest problem I have with this current Government is the lack of men and materials that are required, the lack of funding, and the continuous cut backs. Saying that the next lot that get in will follow the same routine and eventually kill our Armed Forces off, then we will have go to the EU with cap in hand and beg for the mercy!
 |
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 5:19:29 PM
|
With respect, I think that you are wrong. The problem is not that we spend too little on defence, but that we try to do too much with what we have. It is time that the UK government realised its limitations and confined itself to what it can do, and accept that the days of empire are over.
That Blair chose to intervene in Afghanistan, in addition to Iraq, is what drew the terrorists to the streets of London. The blood of our citizens is on Blair's hands. It is not suicide to withdraw from Afghanistan. I cannot see that. If we leave, and we respect the principles of non-intervention outlined above then we provide no excuse to anyone to choose us as a target. And yes we enforce border controls - rigorously. I would even go so far as to say that we curtail the abuses of selected civil rights that have been a feature in recent years. If anyone preaches a violent form of Islam, or any religion, then they should be tried for inciting violence.
It is my conviction that Islamic funademntalism is a symptom of the failure in international relations largely caused by the west. We have a choice. We either attempt to oppose it by force or we deal with it as peacefully, but firmly, as we can short of the kind of intervention that has failed so far. In the long run, we will be better off if we protect our interests where we can achieve an effect, and leave others to take care of their own interests in their own countries in their own way. |
Edited by - Simon Scarrow on 05 November 2009 08:22:05 AM |
|
|
|
Mace
Small mammal
United Kingdom
737 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 6:14:32 PM
|
I agree that Blair has blood on his hands, and i think that it is sad demonstration of how weak our EU deomacracy is that someone who broke so many international laws and lied to his own people can be considered for the Presidenacy. He should be defending his actions in an open trial, not looking to prfit from them.
The spending on defence is completely mispalced. What do we need more Tridant missiles for? So they can be mopthballed like the Apache helicopters we don't know how to operate, or the 3rd party company's we pay to delay orders and misplace equipment?
I disagree that leaving Afghanistan and Iraq and sitting in our little bunker is the way to go. I don't see why I should give up my libertese on the off chance that a terrorist attack will take place. The other EU nations can't enforce their borders as well as we SHOULD be able to, and now that they are calling the shots we will have to follow they're lead.
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
|
|
|
The Delayer
Dinosaur
United Kingdom
259 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 6:43:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Scarrow
You are wrong. The problem is not that we spend too little on defence, but that we try to do too much with what we have. It is time that the UK government realised its limitations and confined itself to what it can do, and accept that the days of empire are over.
That Blair chose to intervene in Afghanistan, in addition to Iraq, is what drew the terrorists to the streets of London. The blood of our citizens is on Blair's hands. It is not suicide to withdraw from Afghanistan. I cannot see that. If we leave, and we respect the principles of non-intervention outlined above then we provide no excuse to anyone to choose us as a target. And yes we enforce border controls - rigorously. I would even go so far as to say that we curtail the abuses of selected civil rights that have been a feature in recent years. If anyone preaches a violent form of Islam, or any religion, then they should be tried for inciting violence.
It is my conviction that Islamic funademntalism is a symptom of the failure in international relations largely caused by the west. We have a choice. We either attempt to oppose it by force or we deal with it as peacefully, but firmly, as we can short of the kind of intervention that has failed so far. In the long run, we will be better off if we protect our interests where we can achieve an effect, and leave others to take care of their own interests in their own countries in their own way.
You have used Iraq and Afghanistan together as though they are the same.
We went into Afghanistan after 9/11 due to the fact the Taliban and Al-Queda were linked almost as one. They were asked to give up Bin-Laden they said no.
The Taliban are also only in the Pashtun areas. They have no support in other tribal areas like the Uzbeks or Tajiks.
There is also the fact they are fighting in Pakistan too. When the Pakistani Govt did a deal and withdrew from the Swat valley the Taliban promptly broke the agreement and Pakistan was drawn back into a war it does not want.
Self involved nazal gazing with bleats of "Its all our fault" are not going to make an iota of difference to them or there beliefs. |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14670 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 8:06:23 PM
|
quote:
It is my conviction that Islamic funademntalism is a symptom of the failure in international relations largely caused by the west. We have a choice. We either attempt to oppose it by force or we deal with it as peacefully, but firmly, as we can short of the kind of intervention that has failed so far. In the long run, we will be better off if we protect our interests where we can achieve an effect, and leave others to take care of their own interests in their own countries in their own way.
So in short we are better off if we tick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. Thas a very very isolationist perspective. Quick close the borders! Shall we build a wall Along the coast! (sorry being a bit facitious).
But this is the sort of thing i would expect from the bible belt american not you!
I can accept that days of old and empire are gone, but we are still a modern nation and a major player on the world stage with a lot to offer the world and so should not stick our heads in the sand and wait for the barbarians to kick down the walls
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 9:42:36 PM
|
I'm not being isolationist. Far from it. I'm suggesting that we do our utmost to isolate those states that threaten to destabilise wider international relations and concentrate our efforts only where we can make swift and effective progress, and hope in the longer term that such examples inspire nations like Afghanistan to pull in the right direction. That does mean engagement with other nations and offering them help. It does not mean sitting in a bunker, nor examining one's navel, nor bleating, nor giving up liberties (just closing down some of the indulgences that we seem to have granted speacial interest groups in recent years).
There is no point in fighting a war you cannot win. There is still less point in acting as the recruiting sergeant for the opposition by imposing a military presence where it is not wanted. This all begs the question, what is the point of remaining in Afghanistan? To eradicate every last member of the taliban? If that is the war aim, then frankly the coalition is going to have to destory the country in order to save it. Does no-one learn from history any more? Do the past examples of failure in Afghanistan and Vietnam count for nothing, or is the modern generation so arrogant that it thinks it can succeed where their forebears have failed. the same mistakes are being made. The west's tradition of military confrontation with enemies needs to be rethought and new strategies and means of defeating dangerous ideologies put in place. Boots on the ground, bombs from the air and bullshit from the front benches is simply a recipe for continued disaster. |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14670 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 10:02:20 PM
|
i very much doubt any pne ythinks we can eradicate the taliban, the best chance we have is to drive them into the hills and give the new elected goverment a chance to train their own force to combat them, so they can manage themselves and their own issue. and im sure they themselves would like us to feck off out of their country and leave them too it, but not yet leaving them in a world of shite that we have caused.
right now it would be like leaving a turn on their front lawn and buggering off. we need to set and objective and a time scale and stick to it or we will be there for ever, even alexander the great could see that that place would just eat an army up, you make friends and alliances there not enemies. and thats what we need to do, maginalise the taliban to the point they have no where to go, get everyone to turn on them. but if we just bugger off that just give the taliban more ammo and more propaganda about the evils of the west.
yes i agree with you about a withdrawal but not just a bugger off one. slow planned and taking into account the mess we made and cleaning it up before we leave as best we can.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
CTL666
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 04 November 2009 : 11:36:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace
What do we need more Tridant missiles for?
There aren't any plans to increase the number of Trident missiles. There are plans to renew the firing platform - the submarines. Besides, we don't actually possess or own the missiles themselves. They are leased from the U.S. - they are ours in title only - and it is in the U.S. where they are stored and serviced. Our subs go over to the U.S. to be fitted out as and when the missiles are required on board the sub/s.
D.
|
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7849 Posts |
Posted - 05 November 2009 : 5:33:47 PM
|
I understand that Obama has given Karzai 6 months to "clean up" his government and make real reforms otherwise he is pulling US troops out of the country. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6901770.ece
I guess if the Yanks pull out, the Brits won't be far behind.
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
|
|
|
Mace
Small mammal
United Kingdom
737 Posts |
Posted - 06 November 2009 : 11:43:17 AM
|
But who do we need the missiles for? China etc are not likely to fear us, it's the USA that they will fear. And if we're going to have Eurofighters, UN piecekeepers, etc, then it's time to accept that Brittish, French, Dutch ermies will porbably be ammalgamted into a single Euro army...
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
|
|
|
John Prigent
Homosapien
United Kingdom
8791 Posts |
Posted - 06 November 2009 : 12:43:00 PM
|
We need the Trident missiles to launch against Brussels if the Euros try to stop us eventually leaving their bureaucratic dictatorship.
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7849 Posts |
Posted - 06 November 2009 : 3:27:55 PM
|
On the contrary, Milliband has warned that if the Conservatives persist in their efforts to renegotiate Britain's EU treaty when they get in power, it will lead to calls from Brussels for Britain to Leave the EU. Why wait? Go now before you are pushed.
I doubt the EU will want to hang on to Britain if it remains so euroskeptic. Britain is nothing special in terms of EU contributions. It contributes no more than other EU countries of similar size & wealth (equivalent to 18p/day for every person). I guess you'll have to look elsewhere for work for the 3 million people currently in jobs linked to trade with the EU, not to mention for other trading partners to replace the 80% of UK trade with the EU.
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
Edited by - Ankhsy on 06 November 2009 3:50:25 PM |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14670 Posts |
Posted - 06 November 2009 : 4:46:08 PM
|
you make it sound doom and gloom, but the trade will not disapear, people will still want to purchase the goods we will just not be bound by crazy EU legislation, and have to pay for the privilige.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
Livia
Single Cell Organism
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 10 November 2009 : 03:10:20 AM
|
Simon is absolutely correct. Based on the "West's" willingness to fight/occupy by sending significantly insufficient troops, this is a textbook case of a slow bleed. First, from a pragmatic viewpoint, it costs more money and lives to solve the problem(presumably stop terrorism) than terrorism itself costs. Let's get out.
Second, Blair and Bush had it right to start. Use the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban and only use air support. We should have pulled out right when Karzai got put in power. That should be our model. Pullout with the threat that if the terrorists get safe haven, we will decapitate the government.
Third, Require the Saudi government to build a christian church in Suadi Arabia for every Mosque they fund in Europe and America. But we are way too soft, somehow we would think that is wrong..... It is interesting in the sense that Islam believes that it is a battle between Christendom and Islam. I think 'The West" views it as a fight between people who should want to become like us and our own faults.
Either way, we should get out.
Poison is Queen |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7849 Posts |
Posted - 10 November 2009 : 09:30:51 AM
|
A question.....do you think the USA & UK really do want to get out but don't know how to do it without losing face? Or is it the case that these governments still fail to see the writing on the wall?
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
|
|
|
John Prigent
Homosapien
United Kingdom
8791 Posts |
Posted - 10 November 2009 : 1:14:27 PM
|
OK, time for my tuppence-worth. Firstly, remember that Afghanistan is a tribal society. I only know of one tribal society where democracy was reasonably successful in going against the tribal ties, Tanzania, and since I haven't been back since 1986 I don't know whether it still is. The basic problem is that such societies function on a basis of "me and my family first, my tribe second, everyone else can go hang", the name for which is amoral familism. Hence the level of corruption and general distrust of everyone who isn't a close family member. The second problem is that the fundamental islamists are following their own ideas of islam which have very little to do with the majority of muslim beliefs but cleave to their prophet's original "convert by the sword" doctrine.
Given the tribalism, one way to get relative peace would be to split the country into independent tribal areas and encourage each to keep its neighbours in check, possibly including the tribal areas of Pakistan. Since borders are nowadays thought of as fixed and impossible to change that seems unlikely even to be considered by the do-gooders.
An alternative would be to follow the methods used in pacifying the North-West Frontier under the Raj: inform every tribal leader and village chieftain that the nearest village to any attack will be demolished - and folow through on the threat. That gave a clear incentive to the villagers to either (a) stop any attacks in "their" territory, or (b) tell the peacekeepers of any raiders crossing "their" territory and assist in repelling it, or (c) both. It was reasonably successful according to the memoirs of life on the Frontier that I've read.
The third alternative to simply pulling out is to adopt the zero option - like option 2 but simply bombing the villages concerned without giving anyone time to escape. That does mean "civilian" casualties, as far as there can be civilians in an area where everyone has access to arms (read your Kipling in respect of the women's knives), but makes sure of getting the actual attackers.
Option 3 would cause howls of fury from the do-gooders so will never be adopted, but would have the greatest chance of success - at least, it seems to have been the pacification program adopted by successful invaders in the past. "Oderint, dum metuant"
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 10 November 2009 : 2:04:25 PM
|
I don't see that option 3 has any use, given that we want to get out of this situation without creating any further martyrs to spur on recruitment to the enemy's ranks. The partitioning argument makes far more sense. There is a definite tendency for western nations to think large in terms of any concept of state. I am not a fan of that view. I think there is an optimum size for a state and that a common culture and language are crucial limiting factors, for administrative reasons mainly. In Afghanistan where tribalism has far more influence, it might well be best to use the tribe as the basis of division of the existing country and then leave them to it, while providing aid for those tribal lands that can be encouraged to develop in harmony with the progressive world.
On a separate matter, I have been hearing quite a lot of the argument that we should be in Afghanistan in order to prevent terrorism in the UK. However, nobody seems to be able to explain how this works, or how this is the most effective way to tackle terrorism on the streets of Britain. Would anyone here care to explain such thinking? Or point me in the direction of anyone who has explained this rather odd logic. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Can the west win in Afghanistan?
