Afghanistan

tim_wand

Firstly to all those currently serving or who have served and in Afghanistan and the 400 plus servicemen and women and their families who have lost their lives I apologise in advance if this post causes distress or offence.

Having served in Op Granby myself and being an ex serviceman I appreciate that the picture is never as simple as presented.

However, Following the rogue and unpredictable act of a US service man killing 16 Afghan civilians, Afghanistani President Hamid Karzai as asked that all US and British service personnel remain in their operational bases.

The brief on our operations in Afghanistan is that we are there to win the battle of hearts and minds, tribal leader by tribal leader and valley by valley in order to prevent Al qaeda and the taliban from setting up training bases and growing opium crops to fund acts of terrorism against US and British targets.

Now this justification may hold as much validity as the WMD arguement or not, None the less.

Following Karzai's reqeust, the immeasurable cost of life and national finances this sortie has so far taken, would we be justified in saying,

"Fine Mr Karzai, its your country so be it, we will withdraw, but if any of the concerns with regards to funding and harbouring terrorist groups which have demanded our presence in your country re occur or appear to be founded, then we wont return to try and win hearts and minds again , well just nuke the crap out of you, so we dont have to worry about what may be going on in your country"

Sorry I picked up a copy of the Mail today that someone had left in the staff room think it might have got to me!!!

None the less give them the right to run their own affairs but make it absolubtley unequivical that if those affairs cause us any fear then we will deal with it and stop pussy footing around.

Cleat Eastwood

sounds like you're taking Mattc59's advice

MattC59 wrote:

Take off and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Or what you could do is make people in this country not fear islam, and likewise educate the afghans not to fear criticism of what is a juvenile and immature religion - but ultimately until people of all walks of life and religions stand up to those who have a vested interest in war, unnecessary deaths will occur on all sides. It is one almighty fuck up though.

Jez mon

If we're going to start nuking every country which appear to be providing safe havens or funding to terrorist groups, then we're going to be starting nuclear war with a fair few countries. I mean, aren't certain Americans accused of funding various Irish terrorist groups? Not to mention how many countries in the middle east are accused of providing safe havens/places to launder funds (in return for not blowing parts of that country back).

I have a suspicion that the country which we should really be concerned about harbouring terrorists, is Pakistan, by all accounts, the worlds most wanted man was able to live there undetected, for a good while. The kingpins of al-Qa'ida are a lot more dangerous if they are living in a country with a good communication system, than if they have to live in a Cave in Afghanistan.

Jez mon

Sorry, that reply was probably a bit serious!

Monkeypump

tim wand wrote:

None the less give them the right to run their own affairs but make it absolubtley unequivical that if those affairs cause us any fear then we will deal with it and stop pussy footing around.

Funnily enough, this exact thought occurred to me today. If only it was that simple! But yes, I agree with the sentiment.

tim_wand

I fear all religions. I think mans inhumanity to man and intolerances are no more better pepetuated than in the guise of religion than any other vehicle.

With regard to those with a vested interest in War,

surely by now following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan and the justification of taking actions there.

Whilst we turn a seemingly blind eye to the likes of Assad in Syria or even Mugabe in Zimbabwe and others who pursue genocide and repression of there own people,

we can see through the self interest agenda of the governing classes and their lack of moral servitude.

Kenjaja1

I think it is necessary to appreciate a few unfortunate facts about Afghanistan.

1) The country has always proved a problem for foreign powers to control. Part of this is due the diverse tribes which make and break alliances in much the same way that, hundreds of years ago, leaders used to do in Europe. The nature of the terrain also makes it difficult to tame. Mountainous terrain cannot be controlled by a foreign occupying force without enormous military skill and expense - this has always been true and is not changed by advances in weaponry and military skill.
2) The country, while Islamic, has a very high illiteracy rate and even those who can read are unlikely to comprehend the archaic Arabic of the Quran. Islam is therefore taught by Moslem clerics who are often poorly educated themselves and frequently have their own agendas. We see the result in the religious bigotry of the country masquerading as piety – exactly the same kind of cr@p generated by, for example, Christian fundamentalists in the American bible- belt and by Jewish fundamentalists in Israel.
3) The economy is a mess. Income is derived from foreign aid with some money earned from illicit opium production. The foreign aid has produced good growth rates in recent years but it is not investment. This aid just makes the country increasingly dependent on what Afghans see as foreign invaders. Also the good economic growth of recent years has started from such a low base that it will take a heck of a long time before wealth reached a level recognisable in the west. (Schools, roads hospitals etc). What little wealth exists is unevenly distributed on an unbelievable scale with the poor living on less than a $1 a day. The rich get richer –not by increasing the wealth of the country but by corruption. President Karzai blames the corruption on the foreigners and has done nothing to tackle the problem.

It is possible to go on forever about the dire situation in the country and there is little cause for optimism on any front in the foreseeable future except for one aspect of the country hardly mentioned in the British media. The country could and should be very wealthy and when that money starts to materialise all sorts of things will change in Afghanistan.

The country is sitting on massive mineral reserves which include gold, copper, lithium, uranium, oil, gas, coal and gemstones both precious and semi-precious. Much of the mineral wealth will be relatively easy to extract (i.e cheap) but virtually nothing is being produced at the moment. Given the invasions of recent decades it is unlikely (but not impossible) that either Russian or American interests will be able to gain control of the mineral extraction in Afghanistan. They will probably struggle to gain even a small slice of this very large cake. The country I would bet on would be China. They have been positioning themselves for this in the same way they did in Africa. China has already signed deals to develop some of the oilfields in the country. When the timing is right (i.e. when there is sufficient stability) huge earth-moving machinery will begin extracting the mineral wealth in Afghanistan. Once this starts it will crank up to fever pitch extremely quickly.

The development of Afghanistan will have plenty of hiccups along the way but commercial interests and commercial development is the real hope for stability. As long as the people of the country see themselves benefiting from a mining-based economy then they will accept and support it.

The occupying forces cannot stay in Afghanistan for ever. The Afghans do not want a foreign army on their territory, the US army does not want to be there and the US Government cannot afford the financial or political cost of such ventures. The occupying forces will leave and the only question is ‘When?’. Timing may be influenced by events in Pakistan, by relations between Pakistan and the west as well as by that county’s ability (or inability) to manage its own internal security. The forces will, however, leave Afghanistan and the mining industry will start to develop shortly afterwards. After that we will see this traditionally unstable country stabilise rapidly as it shoots up the league table of wealthy countries. As this happens the body bags, suicide bombs, a massacre by a rogue GI, will fade into history and either be forgotten or (more likely) be viewed as part of the pattern which shackled the country and locked it into it into being a medieval feudal state for more than a century.

Monkeypump

Kenjaja1 wrote:

The country, while Islamic, has a very high illiteracy rate and even those who can read are unlikely to comprehend the archaic Arabic of the Quran. Islam is therefore taught by Moslem clerics who are often poorly educated themselves and frequently have their own agendas. We see the result in the religious bigotry of the country masquerading as piety – exactly the same kind of cr@p generated by, for example, Christian fundamentalists in the American bible- belt and by Jewish fundamentalists in Israel.

This is probably the single most dangerous and destructive aspect of human behaviour, irrespective of which religion they represent.

Pross

Very few people expressed opposition to going into Afghanistan in the first place (unlike Iraq) but there seem to be a lot of people wise after the event.

I thought the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan was already underway in any case?

bompington

tim wand wrote:

I fear all religions. I think mans inhumanity to man and intolerances are no more better pepetuated than in the guise of religion than any other vehicle.

Monkeypump wrote:

This is probably the single most dangerous and destructive aspect of human behaviour, irrespective of which religion they represent.

Well everyone know that's true, don't they? Except maybe for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... oh hang on ... and pretty much every other murderous dictator you could name.

daviesee

Jez mon wrote:

If we're going to start nuking every country which appear to be providing safe havens or funding to terrorist groups, then we're going to be starting nuclear war with a fair few countries.

Good point.
This Country has supplied it's fair share of terrorists. Should we nuke ourselves?

PS:- I don't agree with the Afghanistan campaign. It was never going to get any positive results. They don't even have an agreed objective. Simply saying stopping worldwide terrorism is not an achievable objective.
Unless you take off and nuke it

cougie

I thought that a lot of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudia Arabia ? We didn't invade them ?
And I don't believe you'll ever win hearts and minds by Miltary Force.

Jez mon

cougie wrote:

I thought that a lot of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudia Arabia ? We didn't invade them ?
And I don't believe you'll ever win hearts and minds by Miltary Force.

The west has fairly well developed relationships with the rulers of Saudi, and of course wouldn't want to disrupt our oil supply with a war.

My memory of us going into Afghanistan, (and bear in mind I was 12 at the time!) was that it all happened very quickly, at a time when there was an expectation that we would be going a war, somewhere in the world... there wasn't really time for a large anti war movement to build, whereas the build up to our entrance to Iraq was very protracted.

Pross

Following 9/11 and the Bush "you're either with us or against us" comments the invasion of Afghanistan was widely supported and although there was no UN resolution allowing an invasion the US argued it was collective self-defence. No-one wanted to be seen to be remotely supportive of the terrorist regime (which was basically AQ and their Taliban mates according to Bush and co) so there was no real challenge.

Monkeypump

bompington wrote:

tim wand wrote:

I fear all religions. I think mans inhumanity to man and intolerances are no more better pepetuated than in the guise of religion than any other vehicle.

Monkeypump wrote:

This is probably the single most dangerous and destructive aspect of human behaviour, irrespective of which religion they represent.

Well everyone know that's true, don't they? Except maybe for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... oh hang on ... and pretty much every other murderous dictator you could name.

Well, pardon me. I'll let you get on with adding something fresh and insightful to the conversation

slowondefy2

tim wand wrote:

"... well just nuke the crap out of you, so we dont have to worry about what may be going on in your country"

Sorry to bring up the 'O' word, but that is pretty offensive in and of itself. Afghanistan has a population of about 30-35 million people - the vast majority of which are just trying to live normal lives.

SoYoureAWaffleMan

Before you decide what the best course of action is you have to define your objectives:

a) If your objective is "Prevent the impoverished people of Afghanistan from living through yet another decade of conflict & misery" then all we can do as a nation is pull our forces out as soon as practically possible, stop trying to manipulate their economy and encourage aid for programs to rebuild all the utilities that have been destroyed along the way. This option is easily the furthest from becoming reality.

b) If your objective is "Exploit Afghanistan instability to secure favourable conditions for the UK re: various Afghan resources" then... we've done our best. We obediently followed the U.S. into war, installed a puppet government and paid a price in lives which our leaders must consider acceptable. As UK citizens' appetite for the conflict disappears, a military exit before the next general election in 2015 must be seen as essential.

With the greatest respect, a battle for Hearts & Minds has surely never been on the agenda. Afghanistan is a massive tactical prize with no army. It's as simple, and sad, as that.

OffTheBackAdam

There's no chance of reforming their process of government, building their infrastructure or doing anything else constructive.
Pull out, take away or blow up all the bases & what have you, that we've built & leave them to fight amongst themselves again.

Frank the tank

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

There's no chance of reforming their process of government, building their infrastructure or doing anything else constructive.
Pull out, take away or blow up all the bases & what have you, that we've built & leave them to fight amongst themselves again.

Nail on the head IMHO. I know you and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things but in this case I concur. Afghanistan by it's geological nature and history is an almost impossible land to govern, and whatever made the bright-sparks in the west think any different, I don't know. :roll:

iainf72

Pross wrote:

Very few people expressed opposition to going into Afghanistan in the first place (unlike Iraq) but there seem to be a lot of people wise after the event.

I thought the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan was already underway in any case?

A lot of people did say they'd never win and it would turn into another Vietnam. The place is as dangerous as ever, or more dangerous, churning out more smack than ever.

Anonymous

iainf72 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Very few people expressed opposition to going into Afghanistan in the first place (unlike Iraq) but there seem to be a lot of people wise after the event.

I thought the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan was already underway in any case?

A lot of people did say they'd never win and it would turn into another Vietnam. The place is as dangerous as ever, or more dangerous, churning out more smack than ever.

Correct. A few of my friends have served in Afghanistan now and part of the paradox is that if you find opium or poppy fields you are not allowed to destroy them or confiscate them. This is because as part of the British army you cannot take an action that will negatively affect your ordinary Afghan farmer and his family and by destroying his crop, therefore destroying his income. So any insurgent group relying on income from these crops will not be affected adversely.

Historically Afghanistan has been bad news for most visiting armies, we are no different. I feel ashamed that my country is involved in this sordid escapade with the US and the sooner we are not involved militarily, the better.

cyco2

What a mess! Pakistan are being held by fear of reprisal if they don't support the training and shelter of the terrorists. So, giving safe passage for insurgents in to Afghanistan. Recruitment of new forces and weapons are on constant supply there. New forces are 'picked up' as soon as they are big enough to carry a gun by threats, intimidation or idealism in both countries. The insurgents have only got to wait a short while to take over Afghanistan because the prize is so good for them. The Afgan army/authority seem to be a bunch of drug driven rabble. So many countries people in the East are not united through tribalism and there is no way they will co-operate with one another unless one of then is big enough to take over the other. It is this type of country that can only survive through strong Dictatorship. Democracy is a really stupid idea for tribal nations because it can only be supported with violence which is what Dictatorship does but more successfully.
There are so many things wrong with the way occupying forces do things to change countries in the name of freedom or Democracy and I guess they have to be single minded enough to do it. But they are making unsolvable problems for themselves (all of us) and so many innocent deaths for many.

markos1963

We couldn't do it in thew nineteenth century(despite ruling most of the rest of the world) and lost an army there. the Russians tried and failed in the twentieth century, why do the Americans think they can in this? The men from the hills will always rule in Afghanistan. We have already started talking to the Taliban(although after this week that has stopped) so we have already accepted we can't beat them. Let's get out now, save our young men for causes that do matter and put the money we save into counter intelligence.

OffTheBackAdam

The military, both ours & the US's, knew that it would take half a million men to do the job in Afghanistan.
There's no way the politicians would agree to that, as that would involve conscription to raise that number of men.
The politicians now need a way to save their faces and to get out.

ilm_zero7

Lithium - not the suppression of opium is what the fuss is about....... one of the worlds largest deposits in Afghanistan, and when the oil runs out, Lithium will be worth more than gold.

daviesee

ILM Zero7 wrote:

Lithium - not the suppression of opium is what the fuss is about....... one of the worlds largest deposits in Afghanistan, and when the oil runs out, Lithium will be worth more than gold.

Finally. An answer that makes sense. Not nice but does compute.
I have no reference to know if it is true but given the rising oil price and the push for new technology - that energy source has to be located somewhere.

tim_wand

So to summarise, we are keeping a flag in the sand because Afghanistan is basically a massive goldmine to be harvested once we've appeased the indigenous population. Sounds familiar and somewhat ironic on the 30th anniversary of the Falklands.

Seems like this has been our foreign policy since Cecil Rhodes and the Boer War . (Okay the Dutch had a big stake in that)

Lions lead by Lambs all over again.

Jez mon

daviesee wrote:

ILM Zero7 wrote:

Lithium - not the suppression of opium is what the fuss is about....... one of the worlds largest deposits in Afghanistan, and when the oil runs out, Lithium will be worth more than gold.

Finally. An answer that makes sense. Not nice but does compute.
I have no reference to know if it is true but given the rising oil price and the push for new technology - that energy source has to be located somewhere.

[Pedant] Lithium isn't an energy source[/Pedant]

It's a nice theory, but I'm not sure if it holds up too well, not sure we had decent geological info on Afghanistan pre invasion? Not to mention, a lot of the military force is due to leave soon, well before the price of oil really starts to bite and the price of lithium (potentially) sky rockets, plus isn't lithium's supposed future value is based on one out of many possible scenarios.

daviesee

Jez mon wrote:

[Pedant] Lithium isn't an energy source[/Pedant] ]
But won't we need it to create dilithium?*

Anyway. Substitute lithium for any natural resource and I will believe that is the real reason. I find that sad.
Not only because it may be true but because history has taught me that being cynical should be the default setting.
EG I don't believe that either the UK or Argentina Governments have the Falkland's population best interests solely in mind.







* Joke.

Pross

iainf72 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Very few people expressed opposition to going into Afghanistan in the first place (unlike Iraq) but there seem to be a lot of people wise after the event.

I thought the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan was already underway in any case?

A lot of people did say they'd never win and it would turn into another Vietnam. The place is as dangerous as ever, or more dangerous, churning out more smack than ever.

People said it after the invasion but not many said it beforehand. The plan was sold as going in, getting rid of AQ and the Taliban that provided them with a safe haven and then let our mates in the Northern Alliance take control of the country while giving a bit of support and backing out. It was only once there that people seemed to realise the task in hand, the first few months were deemed a massive success. There were obviously some cautious voices but public opinion and political opinion was very much in favour, unlike the invasion of Iraq where the link to 9/11 was always considered tenuous by a lot of people.

Peddle Up!

ILM Zero7 wrote:

Lithium - not the suppression of opium is what the fuss is about....... one of the worlds largest deposits in Afghanistan, and when the oil runs out, Lithium will be worth more than gold.

Yep. And other resources. All you need to know