| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Afghanistan | ||
| Stop killing the Taliban – they offer the best hope of beating Al-Qaeda | ||
| 2008-06-22 | ||
| Simon Jenkins The British expedition to Afghanistan is on the brink of something worse than defeat: a long, low-intensity war from which no government will dare to extricate itself. With the death toll mounting, battle is reportedly joined with the Taliban at the very gates of the second city, Kandahar. There is no justification for ministerial bombast that “we are winning the war, really”.
In seven years in Afghanistan, America, Britain and their Nato allies have made every mistake in the intervention book. They sent too few troops to assert an emphatic presence. They failed to “hit hard and get out”, as advocated by Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary. They tried to destroy the staple crop, poppies, and then let it go to warlords who now use it to finance suicide bombers, among others. They allowed a corrupt regime to establish itself in the capital, Kabul, while failing to promote honest administration in the provinces. They pretended that an international coalition (Nato) would be better than a unitary command (America), which it is not. They killed civilians and alienated tribes with crude air power. Finally, they disobeyed the iron law of postimperial intervention: don’t stay too long. The British ambassador threatens “to stay for 30 years”, rallying every nationalist to the insurgents’ cause. The catalogue of western folly in Afghanistan is breathtaking.
All hope was buried in a cascade of hypotheticals. Victory would be at hand “if only” the Afghan army were better, if the poppy crop were suppressed, the Pakistan border sealed, the Taliban leadership assassinated, corruption eradicated, hearts and minds won over. None of this is going to happen. The generals know it but the politicians dare not admit it. Those who still support the “good” Afghan war reply to any criticism by attempting to foreclose debate. They assert that we cannot be seen to surrender to the Taliban and we have gone in so far and must “finish the job”. This is policy in denial. Nothing will improve without the support of the Afghan government, yet that support is waning by the month. Nothing will improve without the commitment of Pakistan. Yet two weeks ago Nato bombed Pakistani troops inside their own country, losing what lingering sympathy there is for America in an enraged Islamabad. Whoever ordered the attack ought to be court-martialled, except it was probably a computer. We forget that the objective of the Afghanistan incursion was not to build a new and democratic Afghanistan. It was to punish the Taliban for harbouring Osama Bin Laden and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for Al-Qaeda training camps. The former objective was achieved on day one; the latter would never be achieved by military occupation. A moment’s thought would show that any invasion that replaced the Taliban with a western puppet in Kabul would merely restore the Taliban as champions of Afghan sovereignty. The Americans sponsored them to be just such a puppet in the 1980s, funding some 60,000 foreign mercenaries to join them against the Russians. Intervention reaps what it sows. | ||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 Also, the very first Reception Day was photoblogged at Winds of Change. In the comments thread one of the gentlemen involved in the enterprise wrote on May 15, 2007 The acadamy now has over 700 cadets, 400 staff and faculty, six academic majors, dozens of new buildings and a diverse student, staff and professor population of Pashtoons, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and other ethnicities that reflect the population of all Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-22 21:44 |
| #7 To what degree are we helping Afghanistan build forces to make effective incursions into Paki territory? Richard, some members of the first class at Afghanistan's new 'East Point' literally walked barefoot through the snow to get there. The school was deliberately based on West Point, and has gotten a great deal of assistance from the West Point professorate. I'm not sure, but I think that first class graduated last year. For more see here, here, and here. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-22 21:22 |
| #6 What is important here is to raise Afghanistan from a failed state to a normally dysfunctional central Asian country. The notion that Afghani national power could invade and capture anyone they like in the Pakistani tribal regions would completely eliminate the appeal of the region to anti-western cultists. Which would be marvelous, even if they all moved to Iran. |
| Posted by: rammer 2008-06-22 21:00 |
| #5 One comparison with Vietnam is actually correct. That is, Pakistan is to Afghanistan what North Vietnam was to South Vietnam. And this means that until that border is sealed, or the Pakistan military puts a stop to the trouble on their side, there will be a continuing flow of gunman in one direction. We had the opportunity for some of this while Perv was fully in charge, but it would have involved a large scale slaughter of the tribes on the Pakistani side. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-22 16:26 |
| #4 Well, since you asked Richard, you shall receive. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-22 15:14 |
| #3 To what degree are we helping Afghanistan build forces to make effective incursions into Paki territory? That seems the key to a more stable existence in that area. Maybe we could hire a few Iraqi's to help pave the way with the Afghani's. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-06-22 12:31 |
| #2 Don't Panic McZoid. From Strategy Page - "June 19, 2008: Afghan and NATO forces killed or wounded several hundred Taliban who had come together south of Kandahar, and tried to take over seven villages. As usual, an examination of the dead, and interrogation of prisoners, showed that most of the gunmen were from Pakistan, recruited from Pushtun tribes, and religious schools for boys. Not exactly a great source of skilled warriors. Give them an AK-47, a few days training, a pep talk by a preacher and send them across the border. If they don't come back, and many don't, declare them martyrs for the cause." In military parlance - they're sending out the old men and boys to fight. Things aren't going their way on the other side either. And by standard measures, they're scraping the bottom of the barrow. I suspect that a well executed incursion into the Northwest Tribal areas by an major Afghan force would bring the place crashing down. It's one thing to wait out the Yanks and other foreigners, its another to know that you've royally pissed off your blood feud neighbors who won't give a damn about some imaginary border either and can visit any time in the next couple generations when they want and basically destroy your way of life. Imagine the tribal leaders running down to Karachi asking for protection. That would be a show after their behavior for the last four years and they know it. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-22 10:24 |
| #1 The Vietnam experience proved: Americans will not sustain a war that they are not allowed to win. The conflict escalated because: North Vietnam could not be occupied. However, Taliban cannot be allowed to resume power in Afghanistan. The only difference between them and al-Qaeda is the fact that they were locals; al-Qaeda is mostly foreign arabs. Unless we take some extremely harsh measures in order to take away Taliban's ability to recruit endlessly, and fight a war of attrition, all we can possibly achieve in Afghanistan is an Orwellian perma-war. At present, I would project an Obama election victory and surrender to the Taliban. Then, 4 years later Americans will elect the harshest kick ass President ever to take office. That is a long time to wait, but the Bush administration chose to stifle Northern Alliance moves against the Pashtos, and decide the 2001 contest by armistices with Taliban-lite. You reap what you sow. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-06-22 05:08 |