Pakistan then was really loyal to the Wadi Party of Saudi Arabia and of course the Taliban while at the same time getting money out of the yanks for ‘defeating terrorism’.

How duplicitous is that?

As Mark says ‘Lets take our guns and go home’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Worth pointing out that the Taliban did stop the production of drugs in their controlled areas, a feat that has yet to be repeated by any of the so-called good guys…

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Ever since Abraham Lincoln the Republicans never really believed in democracy, what they are really pushing is an imperialist oligarchy and we , back in 2000 should have told them to go and get stuffed!!!!!

Did Britain under Harold Wilson get involved in the Vietnam war in the late sixties? NO.

The US government is the auther of it’s own problems by backing terrorist and racist regimes as Israel since 1948, so naturally the Taliban (regardless of what one thinks of their regime) have a deep loyalty to their muslim brothers the Palestinians.

The US simply interferes in other peoples business and if that results in a tangle of snakes then they should sort it out.

We should stay right out of Afghanistan and any other oil induced imperialist war of the USA!!!!!!

The people to be best dealing with the excesses of the Taliban are the Afghanistan people.

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

We have traditionally taken a multi-lateral line and supported collective action through the UN, perhaps some thought should be given how to reconcile the Green Party ethical position (non violence) and this tradition in practice – given we cannot easily change the option which others choose to take.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

do we have any evidence to support that. Afghanistan isn’t under one dictator (with oil exports at stake) nor is it a Rhodesia?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Irrespective of the motive, even where it can be identified, tribal & cultural opposing forces within the country have succeeded in repelling invaders & more or less reverting to their own idea of an indiginous culture, often diametrically opposed to that of the invading force. It seems to me therefore that it’s extemely unlikely that ‘winning’ can be a realistic outcome. No one can even seem to define what winning actually means, apart from the distopian view of ‘a Western Type Democracy’ being ‘imposed’ there.

Even if winning was possible, in the classic Irish words, “I wouldn’t start from here”.

Once you understand the real motives & Modus Operendi of the Americans/British under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair Criminal Conspiracy, you immediately see the impossiility of a successful outcome.

Therefore, what to do?

I believe this reasoning is behind Obama’s seemingly hesitant approach. In other words, he too doesn’t wish to ‘ start from here’.

My belief is that a fundamentally different approach is imperative.

1st – start playing Hardball with the Pakistani’s & cease supporting those who play fast & loose with us, supporting an ememy stronghold in the Tribal Areas. Bush & his mob actively supported a duplicitous Pakistani military Dictatorship who were in bed with the so-called Pakistani Taliban/Al Quaida (the real root of the current problem). This is belatedly happening, but far too late.

2nd – attack the Drug situation head-on. i.e. decriminalise Heroin, Cocaine, Cannabis, & start buying up Afgani drugs (burning them ). Set up a scheme whereby the money generated within the Afgani economy goes to the local level directly, not through Warlords or the corrupt Karzi regime. A difficult task, but no more so than the current fiasco.

3rd – stop supplying Pakistan with arms period. Instead support them financially to an equal degree, insisting the cash goes to primary education for all.

4th – instigate programs both in Afanistan & Pakistan to educate women & provide them with Micro Finance to establish small commerce at village level. The funds could be easily found by diverting money from arms programs.

5th – open up records of past Western wrongdoing (post 2000, Bush’s first rigged election & post Sept 11 2001)& punish through the Courts, those who decieved us & drew us into this morass. You know who I mean !

I could go on but those measures would be a good start.

Impossible I hear you cry, but no more so that the prospect of ‘winning’ in Afganistan/Pakistan by the current business as usual approach. Other than an increasingly bloody fiasco which is bound to end in many tears.

Only my humble opinion.

Like or Dislike: 3  2 (+1)

As for “western democratic idealism”, that is not something those with the real power of life and death are bothered with at all, except as a tool for keeping the public from complaining about the crimes done in their name.

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

But to determine that because of this, western democratic idealism is somehow some new colonialism is IMO not a useful argument.

It’s like saying that even if a democratic government has a mandate, it might use that to change things in a way that caused problems – so the whole concept of using the democratic process to enable government corrupted the idealism of democracy and made the people subjects of an neo-colonial occupying power doing them harm.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Totally with you on these points.

I also favour collective security, so that would be regional bullies (and or terrorists) know they will be contained.

OK conceptually, except that we’re the regional bully in this case and that is a fatal flaw. Idealism is fine until it clouds practical judgment and causes disasters. After that, we’re no better than anyone else.

(I don’t care if thats dismissed as some western democratic colonialism by some).

“Democratic colonialism”? LOL, I think I am starting to understand you.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Sure the intevention was made on the basis of the Taleban not handing over al Qaeda (standing in the way of international crime fighting), so that would offer a basis for talks over a withdrawal (and the Taleban ending links with Pakistani Islamists fighting the Pakistani government).

I am not sure that this would involve handing Kabul back to the Taleban, or the north and west of the country. But sure withdrawal of foreign forces from the south and re-inclusion of the Taleban to their homeland etc.

Maybe a self governing north and south (that would leave the Islamist Taleban and others to co-operate in the south), with a federal government in Kabul would be their best option.

Problem is the Taleban are not moderates looking for compromise, or if they are, they are not very good at it (so barring some of the very occasional American brilliance in diplomacy) …

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

(I don’t care if thats dismissed as some western democratic colonialism by some).

The mission in Afghanistan is consistent with some of these goals, so I will remain sympathetic to it, despite difficulties consequent on being sidetracked in Iraq. The question facing Obama is as to what strategy would work best and what resources would be required to achieve it. In my opinion he is probably tempted to try an option that would require less input – despite a greater risk of failure – this on the basis that capability could be better applied to America’s advantage (he may agree with critics because thats their new national real-politic) elsewhere.

In the past, the security imperative in the war against terrorism built up to support the regime change in Iraq – which is where Americans had real interest (while they were in oil import economy global superpower mode). My fear is that Afghanistan may be abandoned because they could not get their way in Iraq (as per the oil fields), and that a new Afghanistan will occur in Pakistan once the Americans leave. And not only that, but the whole fiasco (perception of American decline) will deepen the problem over the self-identity of Iran as a legitimate regional power amongst their establishment elite. Ultimately this goes much further than just this region IMO and involves how we intend (or even if we intend) to regulate regional power agression in a world without a superpower (for Americas days in this role are numbered). That scenario in a world facing the economic problems consequent from global warming and peak oil, water depletion etc gives me enough concern to generally support international endeavour where it is now occuring.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Given the consequences of leaving and that Afghanistan is now writ large on the domestic stability of a nuclear armed neighbour, I don’t see that the West has much choice but to stay on and do what can be done.

These consequences range from the humanitarian (note refugees returned to Afghanistan, whereas in Iraq people are still leaving) to the admission of failure in the attempt to bring the terrorists to justice.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

I don’t think I evaded your point. I’m just saying that it can’t be applied in all situations.

Even bad guys, such as Stalin, are sometimes on the right side of history.

This isn’t one of them.

And you also evade responsibility for all the people who will be at risk as soon as foreign forces leave, leave them to sort it out

Not at all. I’m saying if we care about those people, we need a fundamentally different approach as continuing on the same course will make things worse, not better. Here’s a link discussing the plight of women there, noting that even woman’s groups aren’t sure what to do in this terrible situation. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091104_what_option_for_afghan_wo men/

And how many years of sorting it out and will anyone offer them aid afterwards if its simply the Taleban who prevail once again? Euphemisms for accepting cruelty provided it’s done by locals to each other and no Americans are involved.

You clearly care very deeply and that makes you want to act, which is laudable. But there are many situations where acting, particularly via Western military interference, can only make things worse, regardless of good intentions, which true, I don’t believe the US has. And that makes your goals even less likely to be realised.

Its an aside to the main point here, but why hasn’t the US sorted out Mugabe? Why does it support regimes in the mid-east that are at least as bad as the Taliban? Answer: realpolitik self interest. If women or anyone else benefit, fine and good propaganda too, but that is not part of their calculations.

It’s too simplistic a foreign policy for my taste.

I know it’s not simple. Its just that we seem have this argument in some form every few weeks on this blog and its frustrating to have to rehash the whole thing over and over. In fact, it is an incredibly complicated situation, particularly as our military involvement has made things so much more difficult. I do not advocate washing our hands of Afghanistan. We have too much responsibility for breaking it (more than it already was). That doesn’t mean we stay on the same path. If the engagement remains primarily of a military nature, none of the things you hope to achieve will happen, despite rising death tolls on both sides. To me that is the simple part. The rest is a mess, but hard to even debate so long as we approach every situation as a war.

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

This place has been gang-banged for going on a century, and Kipling’s wail about the jezail still echoes.

The only thing to do now that so many people have made so many mistakes is to take the situation in hand another way. The West will leave when the Afghans and Pakistanis turn over the militant Al-Quaeda (including Osama Bin-Forgotten or his remains). This must be accompanied by a program that allows evacuation of western-educated and other western sympathizing refugees to countries that participated in the foolishness. We made the mess, we get to clean up after.

That leaves the Taleban in control but removes the criminals from their protection. That’s the best option I can think of, and while it sucks from the perspective of wanting people to be enlightened and educated and empowered, it is the case that radical Islam is a cause that has gained much of its power from our own clewless religions false sense of superiority.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 2  2 (0)

This was all tried in the 1950’s. I would suggest SPC that you look into the history of Helmand province.

I remember some years ago watching a British Officer standing in Helmand province telling the reporters that they were going to modernise the province. I fell out my seat laughing talk about history repeating.

Why is the world so full SPC’s who think that they are superior to everyone else and that their belief and value systems should be imposed everywhere.

Democracy can not be imposed on an uneducated population and if you decide to western educate that population you wont get democracy you will get communism.

The above is exactly what we got in Afghanistan last time we followed SPC’s advise. I would think since you got it wrong last time SPC that at least this time you would try something different. Wait isn’t that the definition of stupidity.

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Don’t evade my point and then attempt to belittle by falsely implying I was comparing the fight to the war on the Nazis.

My point was clear enough – you just chose to evade it. You were the one invoking the Americans are bad line, I just chose to note that what Churchill said (and we both know he did not care for the Russians but welcomed them as allies), so even if the Americans were as bad as you make out to justify your position, it is irrelevant.

Even bad guys, such as Stalin, are sometimes on the right side of history.

And you also evade responsibility for all the people who will be at risk as soon as foreign forces leave, leave them to sort it out … you mean the slaughter of those not Islamist in their politics who don’t have a warlords protection.

And how many years of sorting it out and will anyone offer them aid afterwards if its simply the Taleban who prevail once again? Euphemisms for accepting cruelty provided it’s done by locals to each other and no Americans are involved. It’s too simplistic a foreign policy for my taste.

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)