What's new

Why? Six years on from the invasion of Afghanistan

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Why? Six years on from the invasion of Afghanistan

As another British soldier is killed in Afghanistan, Patrick Cockburn asks what is the point of the mission

Published: 06 October 2007



Six years after a war was launched to overthrow the Taliban, British solders are still being killed in bloody skirmishing in a conflict in which no final victory is possible. Tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan by the US, Britain and allies, an operation codenamed Enduring Freedom. But six years on, Britain is once again, as in Iraq, the most junior of partners, spending the lives of its soldiers with little real influence over the war.

The outcome of the conflict in Afghanistan will be decided in Washington and Islamabad. There is no chance of defeating the Taliban so long as they can retreat, retrain and recoup in the mountain fastnesses of Pakistan.

Yesterday, we learned of the death of another British soldier. Although his identity has not been released, it is believed that the dead man acted as a mentor to Prince William. Two others were injured when their vehicle was caught by an explosion west of Kandahar, bringing the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan to 82 since 2001.

The drip-drip of British losses underlines how little has been achieved in the past six years, and how quickly any gains can be lost. Most of southern Afghanistan was safer in the spring of 2002 than it is now and at no moment during the years that have elapsed is there any evidence from the speeches of successive British ministers that they have much idea what we are doing there and what we hope to achieve.

This week, the Conservative leader David Cameron told supporters that he would restore Afghanistan to the "number one priority in foreign policy" . The remark highlighted how this conflict has all but slipped from the political agenda.

Yet, Afghanistan is filled with the bones of British soldiers who died in futile campaigns in the 19th century and beyond. The lesson of these long forgotten wars is that military success on the ground in Afghanistan is always elusive and, even when achieved, seldom turns into lasting political success.

The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan through Pakistani support and it was when this support was withdrawn in 2001 that the Taliban abandoned Kabul and Kandahar in the days and weeks after 7 October without a fight. But six years later, the Taliban are back.

The violence shows no sign of ending. Suicide bombings, gun battles, airstrikes and roadside bombs have killed 5,100 people in the first nine months of this year, a 55 per cent increase over the same period in 2006.

I went to Afghanistan in September 2001 a few days after 9/11 when it became obvious the US was going to retaliate by overthrowing the Taliban because they had been the hosts of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

It was a very peculiar war that followed, distinguished, above all, by a lack of real fighting. When Pakistani support and Saudi money were withdrawn, the Taliban's regime unravelled at extraordinary speed. By early 2002, I was able to drive from Kabul to Kandahar without feeling that I was taking my life in my hands.

But, for all the talk of progress and democracy and the presence of thousands of British, American and other Nato troops on the ground, it is impossible to undertake such journeys across the country safely.

Yet, back in 2001, from the moment I saw the first American bombs falling on Kabul and the sparks of light from the feeble Taliban anti-aircraft guns, it was obvious the two sides were completely mismatched.

Taliban fighters who expected to be targeted, simply fled before they were annihilated. The victory came too easily. The Taliban never made a last stand even in their bastions of support in the Pashtun heartlands in south. It was a very Afghan affair in keeping with the traditions of the previous 25 years when sudden betrayals and changes of alliance, not battles, had decided the winner.

Driving from Kabul towards Kandahar in the footsteps of the Taliban, I visited the fortress city of Ghazni on the roads south where the Taliban had suddenly dematerialised and received a de facto amnesty in return for giving up power without a fight.

Qari Baba, the ponderous looking governor of Ghazni province, who had been appointed the day before, said: "I don't see any Taliban here", which was surprising since the courtyard in front of his office was crowded with tough-looking men in black turbans carrying sub machine-guns.

"Every one of them was Taliban until 24 hours ago," whispered a Northern Alliance officer.

One fact that should have made the presence of British, American and other foreign troops easier in Afghanistan was that the Taliban were deeply hated for their cruelty, mindless religious fanaticism (leading to the banning of chess and kite flying) and the belief that they are puppets of Pakistani military intelligence. And unlike Iraq, the foreign presence in Afghanistan has had majority support, though that is slipping.

Drawing parallels between Iraq and Afghanistan is misleading because Saddam Hussein had sought to run a highly centralised state. In Afghanistan power had always been fragmented. But Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were mired in poverty. One reason why both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein went down so quickly is that Afghans, like the Iraqis, hoped for a better life.

They did not get it. Lack of jobs and services like electricity, clean water, hospitals and food continued or got worse.

Iraq is potentially a rich country because of its oil wealth. In Afghanistan the only equivalent to oil money is the money from the poppy fields on which impoverished farmers increasingly depend. One of the reasons the Taliban lost the support of Pashtun farmers in 2001 – though this was hardly highlighted by the victors – is that they enforced a ban on poppy growing which was highly effective. If the US adopts a policy of killing the poppy plants by spraying them with chemicals from the air, then they will also be engulfed by the same wave of unpopularity. The opium trade is fuelling lawlessness, warlordism and an unstable state.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq are notoriously difficult countries to conquer. They have for centuries, been frontier zones where powerful neighbours have fought each other by proxy.

Victory in Afghanistan six years after the start of the war to overthrow the Taliban is not likely. Even massively expanding troop levels would just mean more targets, and more losses. Armies of occupation, or perceived occupation, always provoke a reaction.

Ultimately what happens in Afghanistan will be far more determined not by skirmishes in Helmand province, but by developments in Pakistan, the Taliban's great supporter, which are wholly beyond British control. And the agenda in both the Afghan and Iraqi wars is ultimately determined by US domestic political needs Successes in faraway wars have to be manufactured or exaggerated. Necessary compromises are ruled out, leaving Iraqis and Afghans alike with the dismal outlook of war without end.

http://photo.worldnews.com/PhotoArchive//2007/10/06/f718d6b521553e5d17eb7d5e6ea60bee-grande.jpg

* October, 2001 – British-backed US-led air strikes against Taliban strongholds. Taliban leader Mullah Omar flees to Pakistan border as his forces forced to withdraw.

* December, 2001 – The Bonn deal on the future of Afghanistan sees the creation of an interim government, headed by the US-backed President Hamid Karzai. .

* January, 2002 – Nato peacekeepers arrive with a year-long mandate.

* June, 2002 – The "grand assembly" selects Hamid Karzai as interim president.

* July, 2002 – Attacks increase throughout country and a vice-president, Haji Abdul Qadir, is shot dead with his son-in-law in Kabul.

* September, 2002 – Assassination attempt on President Karzai.

* January, 2004 – The Assembly backs a new national constitution

paving way for elections.

* September, 2004 – Another attempt on life of Karzai who is confirmed as President with 55 per cent of vote in elections - first for a generation.

* Spring/summer, 2006 – Taliban regroup in the south and carry out a series of fierce attacks there and elsewhere.

* July-October, 2006 – Nato peacekeeping forces, 18,500 and rising, take over full control.

* Spring, 2007 – Renewed efforts made by British-led coalition troops to force Taliban out of south.

* October, 2007 – Violent incidents, especially suicide bombings, are up 30 per cent on last year, with an average of 550 a month.

Why? Six years on from the invasion of Afghanistan - Independent Online Edition > Asia
 
Bring in all concerned parties to the table only than the air would be cleared and at end it would also be cleared whether US/NATO mission without hurting any part to the conflict could be cleared and acomplished.
 
Bring in all concerned parties to the table only than the air would be cleared and at end it would also be cleared whether US/NATO mission without hurting any part to the conflict could be cleared and acomplished.


Did not understand the bold part! ??????
 
[/B]

Did not understand the bold part! ??????

always

First of all we need to assert what is the mission of Afghanistan invasion ?

Certainly its not fighting the terrorism.

Than what ?
Indeed the energry! am i right ?
If then US needs to carry all the parties concerned along with if US wants to acomplish he mission of securing energy resources and reaching to CARs with smooth walk. But doing this as i said US also needs to avoide any party to the conflict.
Unless we do not bring every segment of Afghanistan in, we can not expect even to identify the US mission, rather she will continue to fight the rebelion.
 
always

First of all we need to assert what is the mission of Afghanistan invasion ?

Certainly its not fighting the terrorism.

Than what ?
Indeed the energry! am i right ?
If then US needs to carry all the parties concerned along with if US wants to acomplish he mission of securing energy resources and reaching to CARs with smooth walk. But doing this as i said US also needs to avoide any party to the conflict.
Unless we do not bring every segment of Afghanistan in, we can not expect even to identify the US mission, rather she will continue to fight the rebelion.


Ok. Seems a just solution but what if certain elements don't want to join in ? Anyway I hope for peace in Afghanistan which will help get our soldiers back. It will also reduce the tensions on the pak borders with them.

Regards
 
Ok. Seems a just solution but what if certain elements don't want to join in ? Anyway I hope for peace in Afghanistan which will help get our soldiers back. It will also reduce the tensions on the pak borders with them.

Regards

Afghans are said to be not perminent enemies nor perminent friends.
Indeed when you are trying to pump energy from my country and use my soil to fulfill your own agenda you had to accept some of my conditions right ?
:) so you had to see the conditions of certain elements when these elements are in majority too and also the only headach for you .
 
always

First of all we need to assert what is the mission of Afghanistan invasion ?

Certainly its not fighting the terrorism.

You've got to be sh!tting me!!!!!!!

Than what ?
Indeed the energry! am i right ?

What energy? Afghanistan got ZERO oil potential.

If then US needs to carry all the parties concerned along with if US wants to acomplish he mission of securing energy resources and reaching to CARs with smooth walk. But doing this as i said US also needs to avoide any party to the conflict.

Jana, take a look at the energy map. It is far easier to finalize the Canadian oil sands than it is to get a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Unless we do not bring every segment of Afghanistan in, we can not expect even to identify the US mission, rather she will continue to fight the rebelion.

Answer this question. What is going to happen with the Pakistani Taliban if NATO loses in Afghanistan?
 
The increasing attacks on Pakistan from the Taliban are a result of the push from NATO forces in Afghanistan and the fact that Taliban considers Palistan as its enemy now.

I think it is very difficult to defeat the Taliban by military force. After all, the Taliban is an ideology, and as long as the ideology survives, they will continue to get new recruits from tribes in those areas.

However, it would be extremely dangerous if the NATO withdrew now!! Things wil definitely go out of control in both Afg. and Pak.

The only way to solve this problem imo is to somehow stop the supply of arms and ammo and deny them the ability to fight.
 
You cant win wars now a days if you just capture their citys and lands because in guerilla wars any thng can happen and technology wouldnt save you ...

As for energy i think afghanistan has nil ...
 
Jana, take a look at the energy map. It is far easier to finalize the Canadian oil sands than it is to get a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Canadian oil sands will only produce Bitumen which is much less valuable than the type of heavy crude found in the Caspian. There's also the cost of extracting from oil sands. This link is interesting if you're willing to pay

Canada has chosen to define its 174 billion barrels of oil sand bitumen reserves as crude oil deposits, putting the country on a par with Saudi Arabia in potential oil production. However, the physical and economic definition of calling oil sand bitumen crude oil needs to be questioned. On the face of it, these definitions make Canada look as powerful as OPEC's leading producer, or Russia, on the world oil market. However, a fuller analysis shows that Canadian oil sand is quite different from crude oil and that Canada will have little if any effect on the global oil market, or on OPEC.Blackwell Synergy - OPEC Review, Volume 29 Issue 1 Page 51-73, March 2005 (Article Abstract)

Answer this question. What is going to happen with the Pakistani Taliban if NATO loses in Afghanistan?

If NATO withdraws from Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban wouldnt fight Pakistan, strange enough as it might seem. They're not the same as the Afghan Taliban in my opinion, they just plagiarized the word "Taliban" for propaganda purposes. Their fight is with the Northern Alliance plus they just don't like NATO in Afghanistan, just as they didnt like the Soviets there. Unfortunately they do give shelter to foreign fighters, and even if NATO withdraws from Afghanistan, I'd hope Musharraf continues to weed out the foreign fighters by bombing the place if necessary..they are a cause of destabilization in Pakistan.

mustang said:
As for energy i think afghanistan has nil ...

probably true, but it's the pipeline.
 
Canadian oil sands will only produce Bitumen which is much less valuable than the type of heavy crude found in the Caspian. There's also the cost of extracting from oil sands. This link is interesting if you're willing to pay
That point was reached $20 per barrel ago.

If NATO withdraws from Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban wouldnt fight Pakistan, strange enough as it might seem. They're not the same as the Afghan Taliban in my opinion, they just plagiarized the word "Taliban" for propaganda purposes. Their fight is with the Northern Alliance plus they just don't like NATO in Afghanistan, just as they didnt like the Soviets there. Unfortunately they do give shelter to foreign fighters, and even if NATO withdraws from Afghanistan, I'd hope Musharraf continues to weed out the foreign fighters by bombing the place if necessary..they are a cause of destabilization in Pakistan.

I've fought the fvcks in Yugoslavia. What are the odds that they won't go next door?

probably true, but it's the pipeline.

A pipeline that will never be built serves no one.
 
That point was reached $20 per barrel ago.
A pipeline that will never be built serves no one.

Well sir if you let it built, it will.

Dont you think the wrong policies by US in the past had resulted in so much mess.

If it was not the pipline why on earth US had supported the fighting elements in the past and if you remember OBL was also boy of America even treated there under the gaurd of CIA.

And indeed the pipeline is important for US thats why she is even ready to talk to Taliban and the recently held Pak-Afghan Jirga was also backed by US.
 
Well sir if you let it built, it will.
No one has even applied for the permits yet.

Dont you think the wrong policies by US in the past had resulted in so much mess.

That's with almost everyone. If you can see into the future, you mind giving me next week's lotto numbers?

If it was not the pipline why on earth US had supported the fighting elements in the past

Great Powers game.

and if you remember OBL was also boy of America even treated there under the gaurd of CIA.

No, he was not. If there is one thing the CIA and OBL can agree upon is that neither has helped each other in any way shape or form.

And indeed the pipeline is important for US thats why she is even ready to talk to Taliban and the recently held Pak-Afghan Jirga was also backed by US.

It took six years to build a bridge between Afghanistan and Tajikistan that my engineers could have built in 6 months. Good luck with that pipeline.
 
No one has even applied for the permits yet.Great Powers game..
:) which pipleline are you talking about.

If TAP than Sir you need to spare sometime and read the news.

The US company had been given the contract.

And Great Powers game for what ??? ;) if what im thinking than its still on right ?



No, he was not. If there is one thing the CIA and OBL can agree upon is that neither has helped each other in any way shape or form.

lolz Sir come on
Than where he was treated for Kidneys

It took six years to build a bridge between Afghanistan and Tajikistan that my engineers could have built in 6 months. Good luck with that pipeline.


That bridg is also constructed by US for her own intrests and not the Afghan Government and for the delay blam presence of yor army there and years' of mess created by your governments in the past and still is adding to it.

and as far your engineers well that could have been bulit by our Engineers in only 3 months if there was peace in Afghanistan.

And if that was the case why not your government provided US Engineers to bulit that that too under the guard of thousands of NATO forces, if your government is so keen to liberate and develop Afghanistan.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom