Chorus of failure grows ever louder over Afghanistan

[.sergio.]

Chorus of failure grows ever louder over Afghanistan


Critics of the US war in Afghanistan now include the British ambassador

continue in

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cho...651267524.html

[Gorque]

Cowper-Coles apparently sees no benefit in boosting allied troops in Afghanistan - it would only increase the sense of an occupation and give the Taliban more targets, Fitou reports. Instead, the British ambassador argues that the only realistic solution is the emergence of "an acceptable dictator", which would allow Britain to withdraw its troops within five to 10 years

It appears to me that you are suggesting that Afghanistan was a much better place prior to the 2001 ouster of the Taliban. Perhaps you've forgotten that Afghanistan has been in a state of turmoil since the late 70's starting with Soviet meddling in Afghanistan's internal affairs.

Compared to the Afghan rebellion against Soviet occupation, the Afghan civil war and then the short and brutal rule of the Taliban, the current state of affairs can only be viewed as a peaceful respite from the prior 25 years of continuous strife.

Regarding the Ambassador's above-referenced suggestion, the Afghan people will see right through the installation of another warlord by a foreign power and will plunge the country, IMHO, into another civil war.

[PatBC]

This is guy who loves the sound of his own voice even it involves putting his foot in his mouth.

But he was forced to make a Boris Johnson style apology to the people of Nottingham when he claimed that the streets of Saudi cities were safer than theirs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...uk.afghanistan

"Sherard is a big, ballsy character who's always believed he should be shaping policy rather than just implementing it," says another old friend and admirer.

Not a very good choice for ambassador

[TigerVI67]

I need to check my calendar because it seems like 2006. Didn't I hear the same thing concerning Iraq just a couple of years ago? I think somebody really needs to update their talking points.

[Andy_S]

SNIP
the Afghan people will see right through the installation of another warlord by a foreign power and will plunge the country, IMHO, into another civil war.
SNIP

Eh? What's happening there now?

[Andy_S]

SNIP
Didn't I hear the same thing concerning Iraq just a couple of years ago? I think somebody really needs to update their talking points.
SNIP

Precisely. Iraq is settling - but have you heard any good news from Afghanistan recently?

We await Petraus' arrival with interest. Perhaps, then, we might actually have a strategy.

[tigerivan]

There are always defaitists.

[Bow]

Probably Alexander the Great said the same thing and he gave up and brought his army home...same old same old....

per ardua ad astra

[Gorque]

Originally Posted by Andy_S

SNIP
the Afghan people will see right through the installation of another warlord by a foreign power and will plunge the country, IMHO, into another civil war.
SNIP

Eh? What's happening there now?

Perhaps you missed the news of 2004, here, and 2005, here. I don't know about you, but the terms "free elections" and "installation of warlords" have 2 different meanings to me.

[clems]

Originally Posted by tigerivan

There are always defaitists.

now including general Carleton-smith...

[GeneralTsoGood]

Originally Posted by .sergio.

Chorus of failure grows ever louder over Afghanistan


Critics of the US war in Afghanistan now include the British ambassador

continue in

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cho...651267524.html

Why are we still there?
there should be very limited forces there... either that or take over the whole damn region...

[PatBC]

Originally Posted by GeneralTsoGood

Why are we still there?
there should be very limited forces there... either that or take over the whole damn region...

We are still there because Afghanistan never recieved the promised funding.

[Andy_S]

UK Ambassador did not have his foot in his mouth...UK commander there is saying the same thing (on the record), ie that, "this war cannot be won." See report below:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200810...n-81f3b62.html

We may have fine kill ratios over the Taliban, but we certainly aren't winning now. A colleague of mine was over there before the British forces deployed to Southern Afghanistan (he drove from Kabul to Sangin by taxi, driven by a former Taliban) and found it peaceful. Only when the troops arrived, did fighting begin. All indications are that the locals don't want troops there, as it simply causes a Taliban response. Civilians are caught in the middle..a number of towns where UK troops have outposts have now been deserted by their inhabitants, so clearly, IFOR is not operating in the best interests of the civilians.

Given that Afghanistan has never been governable - ie beyond the foreign invasions/incursions, it has a history of civil war, banditry and insurgency - the brig's comments make sense. It is worth remembering, however, that this is how N Ireland was always portrayed: It is not so much a sense of "defeating" the enemy as creating an "acceptable level of violence" that will create the conditions for an economic upsurge. And that (eventually) happened. But of course, in N Ireland, we were dealing with people who had roughly the same culture as us.

The question is, are British parents and politicians going to be willing to keep sending their sons to fight and die in an unwinnable war?

I also wonder what the US interest in the country is. Washington has left failed states in its wake when a military solution has failed in the past ( Somalia). Once the top AQ people are picked off, I suspect the US may ditch the idea of civilizing Afghan and pull out.

[tigerivan]

The taliban can certainly be reduced to a manageable problem.Just a question of patience .
The only problem is a lack will with a lot of people in the west.They cannot stomach a long war.There are also those who want defeat to humiliate the west.

[tigerivan]

Originally Posted by clems

now including general Carleton-smith...

He only said that you can only reduce the taliban threat to manageable proportions which is correct.In a war against a guerilla a classical military victory is impossible.In that sense he therefore did not say anything original.
Still,he should be sacked because he should have known his words would be misused and his statement about a political agreement is unacceptable.