Harry's Place

Weakness invites contempt.

The problem is not so much that there can be more than one aim, the problem is that there is no discernible plan for achieving any aim in Afghanistan. This is compounded by a lack of agreement on primary objectives and a diminishing legitimacy of both the central government and the occupation forces. These are serious problems not to be blithely dismissed and pointing them out shouldn’t lead to lazy accusations of being pro-Taliban.

It is also not a strategy to say ‘freedom for others equals safety for us’. It is a propaganda slogan which may not even be true. Another example of confusion between what ought to be the case with what is the case.

In fact Neil, instead of simply deriding the critics as being ‘confused’ how about elucidating what the aims are and how they are to be achieved. You haven’t built any kind of case with your post you have simply asserted that there must be a continued commitment. But a commitment to what exactly?

Good piece.

Unfortunately in war there will be casualties. Casualties in Afghanistan are historically low.

If NATO are going to win in Afghanistan we do need to raise our game. Cries for capitulation are simply providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Good piece Neil.
The trouble seems to be, at least in part, that the politicians themselves do not remember why Britain’s troops are in Aghanistan and what exactly is the nature of their mission and are therefore incapable or unwilling to convey that message to the general public.
No matter how good an army is, it cannot succeed if it does not have the moral and financial backing of the people at home. The people will not give their backing if the country’s leaders appear to be ambivalent.
This current fit of knee-wobbling is propogated by two factors -ineffectual leadership at government level and the subsequent vacuum caused by that being filled by parts of the media with an agenda.
I watched BBC coverage of the repatriation of some of the fallen soldiers this week and frankly was rather disturbed by the tone adopted. Whilst sympathy is shown for the soldiers and their families, there seemed to be an underlying insinuation that their deaths were in vain which is not acceptable from a publicly funded broadcaster in my view.

A stable, democratic and secure Afghanistan is

never going to happen. Nato has been in Afghanistan for over eight years and at this rate will be there for another eight years with no effect.

Bring our boys home.

an underlying insinuation that their deaths were in vain which is not acceptable from a publicly funded broadcaster in my view.

Even though it is true? You want the BBC to become a propaganda arm of the Government?

The old Stalinist ‘aid and comfort’ ruse is exactly the rhetoric made by those who won’t accept any questions. If there is a case to be made for staying in Afghanistan that doesn’t simply rely on emotive appeals for ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ absent of any clear methods of achieving those noble aims then make them, don’t simply insist on more ‘vigour’ more ‘elan’ more ’spirit’ more unwillingness to address genuine doubts, that’s not a strategy!

“This is compounded by a lack of agreement on primary objectives and a diminishing legitimacy of both the central government and the occupation forces.”

Plus the fact that Brown’s economic policy has starved the Army of resources…

Julia, don’t forget that tractor production is up for the 526th consecutive month…

“Why must there be only one reason for doing something? Is it about democracy?”

Funny you should say that: But what we’re trying to do is establish a modern democracy in Afghanistan at a time when legitimacy is seeping away from our own democracy. Hubris or what ?

Indeed…

“Julia, don’t forget that tractor production is up for the 526th consecutive month…”

Heh! True..

Mayve it’s time to put some guns, or rotor blade, or armour, on those tractors? How about it Gordon?

Julia,

That is bollocks. Democracy is not seeping away in our own country.

I see Azad “Kill the troops” Ali, is back at work for the Civil Service http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199099/Kill-soldiers-Muslim-blogger-job-Treasury-civil-servant.html

‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.

With our troops dying, irrespective of whether we support the political aims or not, I find this an insult to the memory of these brave soldiers and can’t understand why he is still working for the Government as a Civil Servant.

‘You want the BBC to become a propaganda arm of the Government?’

No, of course not, but neither do I want the BBC defining, influencing or shaping government policy. I prefer for the elected representatives of the people to do that.

Personally I do not think that the deaths of British soldiers have been in vain, but I do find it a reflection of the attitudes towards them and the ongoing war in Afghanistan when these deaths are item 6 or 7 on the list in a news broadcast or tucked away on the inner pages of a newspaper until the numbers involved change.

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but if in my country a soldier’s death was not front page news and an officer’s death received more media attention than that of a low-ranking soldier, I would be very worried indeed about the implications.

That is bollocks. Democracy is not seeping away in our own country.

That is bollocks. Democracy IS seeping away in our own country.

Israelinurse, I think I am correct in saying that if its an Arab/Bedouin member of IDF killed then the loss, honours and news is no less than if it had been a Jewish member of IDF. That Israel regards them all as brothers in arms.

Thanks, Spectrum: I’ve just this moment written my MP Laurence Robertson about this mysterious re-instatatement, especially since the other civil servant, the one who mildly criticized Hazel Blears has been sacked – end of story.

In the civil service it seems that insulting Hazel Blears is a sacking offence while threatening to kill British soldiers is just fine and dandy.

“Julia,

That is bollocks. Democracy is not seeping away in our own country.”

Really? Did we not read just this week that the civil service are to be advised to treat some democratically elected MEP members differently to all others?

Why, yes, I think we did. And I think a lot of commentators here were a trifle blase about it too.

Spectrum -of course -why would it be otherwise? The wishes of the families are of course paramount in the nature of media coverage given. Some families for instance prefer for funerals not to be filmed and there have been instances in which Bedouin families have requested that their fallen son’s name not be publicised, but within these constraints it is still possible to give the soldier the respect s/he deserves.

“It could have been published last week”

That’s the problem, though, isn’t it? The past eight years have had no discernible impact. Whatever happens, when (if) our interventions comes to an end, one lot of warlords backed by religious fruitcakes will sort of control parts of Afghanistan, or another lot will. If we “win”, some groups known to us as “Taliban” will have been defeated, and other groups known to us as “Taliban” will have been co-opted into the “government”. If we “lose”, much the same will have happened, but we will have been intimidated in the process.

At the end of the day, it’s their country, not ours. We should let them get on with it.

Rory Stewart’s ‘Irresistable Illusion’ is worth reading. It’ll have some of the commenters here frothing purely on the basis of it appearing in the LRB, but try it anyway.

‘It’s their country, not ours. We should let them get on with it’

But what they want our help (as seems to be the case)?

In the Sunday Times:

A Labour minister said: ‘General Dannatt has crossed an important line. He is playing a high-risk game.’

Like a professional soldier should be scared of some trough guzzling labour apparatchiks…

Israelinurse, thanks for confirming. I was absolutely sure of your answer. I wanted to use it against those who call Israel a racist apartheid society. It confirms that non-Jewish Israeli citizens will defend theor country and that they are equals under fire and as comrades.

Regards

Like a professional soldier should be scared of some trough guzzling labour apparatchiks…

Quite right. It would be like Haig versus Lloyd-George all over again.

That should be

But what if they want our help (as seems to be the case)?

You’re absolutely correct Graham. Bob Aintworthit is exactly like a modern day Lloyd George. Mighty statesmen both.

I stand corrected.

Bob Aintworthit is exactly like a modern day Lloyd George.

I hope you have some evidence that Mr Ainsworth is enriching himself through the sale of honours.

He’s a member of the labour party ain’t he?

Bob-B

“But what if they want our help (as seems to be the case)?”

1) Who are “they”?

2) There are a lot of people who might “want our help”. We can’t help everybody. I’d rather like to help the Iranians, but that’s not going to happen (and probably that’s just as well). Or the Burmese. Or the North Koreans. Or the Tibetans.

3) Whether or not “they” “want” our “help”, is what we’re doing actually helping? Not if you’ve accidentally been blown up by a straw missile, it isn’t?

4) Over the past week more than a hundred innocent Afghan bystanders have also been killed. Were we helping them?

Stopper Strategy:

1. Declare the war unwinnable and emphasize the terrible failures of NATO forces and the egregious democracy deficit in the West – which by contrast with an Al Qaeda type Islamist regime, doesn’t make the Taliban seem so bad after all, but sure shows the West to be full of warmongering hubris and hypocrisy.

2. Establish and announce date to Taliban by which all NATO troops are pulled out of Afghanistan.

3. Make concessions and compromises to reach rapprochement deal with the good Islamists in the Taliban and studiously ignore both Afghanis opposed to Taliban rule and any human rights of theirs which may have to be sacrificed along the way, because after all, human rights are culturally relative, not universal rights.

4. In case a Taliban led Afghani government starts exporting terror, again, claim that such accusations are merely neocon warmongering propaganda and send in the Christian Peacemaker Teams and Sean Penn to defend the Taliban from western imperialism.

5. In the hard to swallow scenario that the warmongers have it their way, recommit to defeating the Taliban and steps 1-4 are ignored, emphasize that the Gen. Petraeus led surge in Iraq was a failure.

‘You have all been fooled into believing that the war on terror is justified by the criminal act of 9/11 etc..

The facts: Bin laden had nothing to do with it…he said this so many times!

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 there leader Mullah Omar has said so so many times..

Then the question remains who did it..

Well over 50% of americans believe 9/11 etc was an inside job..

Only because the hardcore facts on all academic levels actually point 9/11 as being an inside job..

Don’t take my word for it check out Prof Steven Jones Scientific research below

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

And another thing the afghan people themselves know longer want nato forces on there land they prefer things as they were under taliban control..the majority of afghans now support taliban..

Check this out a brilliant resource on Afghanistan Rethink Afghanistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUwQGmMSm0&feature=PlayList&p=0F2B9493006F6389&index=1

Nato forces will not win over the afghan peoples cause know one wins in afghanstan only the afghans win..i think we should of learn’t this lesson from some sound history…

Many invading armies have tried and failed to take afghanistan..

The russian super power sent 500.000 military personnal to afghanistan
and had to retreat defeated and humiliated..

Afghan people are a warrior nation they are a patient people and very resourcefull…

According to many afghan the Nato forces have now over stayed there welcome in afghanistan now the afghan people want them out…

Afghanistan to afghans is the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ and afghans look at nato forces as a contination of the crusader invasions of muslim holy lands… a war on islam and on the muslims..

So to them there JIHAD is most noble indeed..!!

Us what do we have but bullshit force fed on us day and night..and plenty of body bags..But its okay swallowed with a gallon of beer or two

So makes me wonder what the heck are we doing there are we stupid or what..

Bring the boys home for gods sake…

I don’t think we are all as doped up as some would like us to believe..

But each to there own A.

He’s a member of the labour party ain’t he?

He’s got you there, Graham.

‘Who are “they”?’

They are the Afghan people, who you referred to saying ‘It’s their country’.

‘We can’t help everybody.’

Obviously, but it doesn’t follow that we should help nobody.

‘Is what we’re doing actually helping?’

Can you suggest a way of helping that doesn’t involve fighting the Taliban?

‘Over the past week more than a hundred innocent Afghan bystanders have also been killed’

The great majority of innocent Afghan bystanders that are killed are killed by the Taliban, and they will kill and terrorize many more if Afghanistan is abandoned. That’s why it’s not a great idea.

“Only because the hardcore facts on all academic levels actually point 9/11 as being an inside job..

http://www.journalof911studies.com/“

*rolls eyes*

Whilst agreeing with angrysoba that arguments for a continuing presence need to be more than just emotive pleas about democracy etc, the statement that: the problem is that there is no discernible plan for achieving any aim in Afghanistan. seems rather emotive itself, because we don’t actually know this do we?

There were certainly many people in 1943 that thought there was no discernible plan for defeating Hitler, purely on the basis that they were not privy to the secrets of planning for D-day let alone any talks with Stalin or other allies. The only question that we can really concern ourselves with on a blog is whether the country of Afghanistan is better as a Taliban theocracy, a modern nation-state or an off-limits “survival of the fittiest” area where power is held by warlords and bandits.

That Truther has to be a pisstake. Lbnaz is also an obvious caricature with those ridiculous strawmen.

Those who favour abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban might like to consider this opinion poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf

Asked who they would rather have ruling their country, 82 per cent of Afghan respondents said ‘the current government’ while 4 per cent preferred the Taliban

‘Afghans look at Nato forces as a continuation of the crusader invasions of muslim holy lands’

It’s interesting how people say such things without presenting a shred of evidence.

Earl Haig is dead. The British Empire is finally over.

We have been lacking in ambition in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Trying to do it on the cheap, we did nothing to dismantle local power structures.

We needed the equivalent of the deNazification process coupled with land reform, jobs for all adults willing to build the new democratic state, shares for all in nationalised oil companies, female emancipation, banning of the Burkah etc. Had we done all that and kept locked up the Mullahs who opposed us we could really have won.
It would have meant spending a lot more money of course. It would have been worth it just to have every adult male in both countries in our paid employment for 5-10 years – much cheaper in the long run.

In both countries we seem to be hoping some messy compromise might work. It might in Iraq, in the sense of keeping Al Queda out, but I am not sure about Afghanistan.

U Just –

OK, when and where have Al Queda denied involvement in the 9/11 attack. Why don’t you entertain us with some of your “facts”…

I am not sure about Afghanistan.

I think the point about Afghanistan is that it is only half the war. Pakistan is the real problem, and it is only in the past 12 months that we have seen conditions in Pakistan and the US change to deal with this. If the strategy is to squeeze the Taliban on both sides and stabilise both Pakistan and Afghanistan, then that should be supported.

For those who bleat on about no-one ever defeating the Afghans, blah blah blah, then surely they should recognise that if that is the case then the Afghans are the Afghan people, government, and army. They are ranged against the Taliban, and working with NATO troops. so those ahistorical numpties ought to be telling the Taliban to give up – not NATO.

Bob-b

Ah, but did you not know the Taliban is part of the vanguard against American/British imperalism?

Just ask John Pilger and Tariq Ali

Good point Neil D. The Afghan Army are supposed to be pretty fanatical fighters after they bestir themselves from their lunchtime bong session!

Pakistan is definitely a big part of the problem – have regressed into traditional Islam rather than becoming a modernising force in the region. It promoted the Taliban, it ignored Al Queda and it has done nothing to reform society in the NW frontier region. Only when the Taliban got within 60 kms of the capital did they begin to do something.

field, what kind of denazification process would you envisage? One that removes all warlords and Taliban supporters/allies? Fair enough, you could remove the Northern Alliance war criminals Dostum, Fahim, Khan and maybe Karzai too given his previous alliance with the Taliban. You wouldn’t end up with any legitimacy in the country at all, of course, but you would at least be a little more consistent in your commitment to human rights.

Graham, the choices you offer make the answer sound quite obvious but it assumes a modern nation state would be recognized by Afghans themselves (do they think of themselves as Afghans?) and not a quixotic fantasy. It also assumes this to be the primary strategy when the justification for the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Stewart points out the irony that Bin Laden chooses sanctuary in Pakistan because of its relative stability as a nation state means the US/UK have less of a free hand there. In other words stability and modernization does not equal security from terrorism.

Graham, the choices you offer make the answer sound quite obvious

With the (stated) proviso of course that we don’t have all the info..

but it assumes a modern nation state would be recognized by Afghans themselves

I really didn’t want to get into the big old muddy question of whether you could have semi-feudal areas existing in the globalised world of the 21st century but it may come down to the recognition by the Afghan people that they are actually living in such a world and not the one where Dost Mohammed gave Elphy a licking. Having followed the situation in Serbia I don’t think you can undermphasise the dangers of a retrogressive “national myth” held by even a small proportion of a population. Although you have clearly said that all you are looking for is more of a stated objective from the forces in Afghanistan; the idea that because stability and modernization does not equal security from terrorism means that people should be left to the mercy of semi-feudal bandits and theocrats seems to me a little on the absurd side.

Well, I was countering Neil’s implication that we can have the Moon on a stick if we just will it hard enough. A primary goal would still seem to be a reasonable request but the ideas being thrown around that terrorism can be eradicated and poppies stamped out, burqa bans enforced (with the Allies we have there, are you fucking nuts?) and democracy installed give me the impression no one really knows what should be done and what the Afghans will sort out for themselves.

angrysoba –

You said:

“field, what kind of denazification process would you envisage? One that removes all warlords and Taliban supporters/allies? Fair enough, you could remove the Northern Alliance war criminals Dostum, Fahim, Khan and maybe Karzai too given his previous alliance with the Taliban. You wouldn’t end up with any legitimacy in the country at all, of course, but you would at least be a little more consistent in your commitment to human rights. ”

Well, it hasn’t been tried has it. You would have been telling me the same thing about Germany and Japan, about the Junkers, the deep conservatism of the people, their innate materialism, the difficulty of all that mountainous terrain.

We had plenty of people get on side – ex Nazis, ex militarists, ex fascists – when they saw that democracy was the future. Most people like to be on the winning side, not the losing one.
In that sense de-Nazification was not a complete or fair process. But it was radical. It did prevent active Nazis from regrouping.

But we have never shown which way things were going in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists shot a few people, blew up a UN mission, and our “policy” was in shreds.

We made the mistake of trying to compromise with Iraq and Afghan society, rather than show a real vigorous intention to change society.

To do that you need of course to create a constituency. Give the unemployed jobs. Take land from the big landowners and give it the peasants. Break up the power centres – particular Mosques and religious centres.

@2:40 angrysoba is an obvious caricature with those ridiculous strawmen.

field, you and Graham have both brought up WW2 but I don’t think the parallel is correct. The dismantling of the Nazi party was something the majority of the population of a centralized modern state with experience of democracy were willing to put up with after five years of exhausting total war. The Germans who surrendered had legitimacy and they weren’t being forced to give up lederhosen and bratwurst. You are implying that the war was against a Afghanistan itself and that the retribution should be meted out to Taliban and Northern Alliance alike putting the lie to the idea of liberation from the Taliban. You may remember that many of the Wahabist Arab mujahadin were also despised by Afghans for the desecration of their graves and other heavy handed interference in their culture. The Russians were also not particularly popular for attempting the deIslamification you recommend (except within Kabul) whilst the only ’successful’ implementation of your policy has been in neighbouring oppressive Uzbekistan. I would venture that the policies you advocate would backfire hideously and could only be implemented brutally to be rightly condemned by the world.

field, you and Graham have both brought up WW2 but I don’t think the parallel is correct.

To be fair what i said about us not being privy to all the info would be true of any war anywhere ever.

I strongly suspect that “U Just Don’t Get It!” and HPhypocrite (posting on another thread) are one and the same MPACuk regular posting under different nicknames.

We had plenty of people get on side – ex Nazis, ex militarists, ex fascists – when they saw that democracy was the future. Most people like to be on the winning side, not the losing one.
In that sense de-Nazification was not a complete or fair process. But it was radical. It did prevent active Nazis from regrouping.

Yes but at the end of WWII nazism was still less than two decades old, and hardly a German ‘religious’ tradition going back centuries.

I’m very, VERY cynical when it comes to possibiulity of reform in both Iraq and Afganistan.

With the american withdrawal from Iraq , the country will just slip back into sectarian and tribal conflict.

And afganistan into tribal warfare, as well.

Even Attaturk’s massive and far reaching secular reforms are now failing in Turkey.

I hate to be so negative, but I don’t see much cause for optimism.

There are big questions as to how successful denazification was anyway (Covered well by Martin E lee in his book “the beast reawakens”.) The allies were aware of all this from opinion polls conducted at the time for instance:

In 1950, 1 in 3 (Germans) said the Nuremberg trials had been unfair.
In 1952, 37% said Germany was better off without the Jews.
In 1952, 25% had a good opinion of Hitler.

In my opinion the idea of “denazifying” the Taliban is a red herring – the analogy would be more with the forced conversion of the cathars.

I strongly suspect that “U Just Don’t Get It!” and HPhypocrite (posting on another thread) are one and the same MPACuk regular posting under different nicknames

Under a variety of names, in fact. I really hope it’s not Bob Pitt. I’d want my taxes to have been squandered on something less negligible than the piss being posted by this idiot.

We should really just keep away from the Nazis. They are too often invoked for pure rhetorical effect, ‘Ah! That’s what they said about the Nazis!’ or ‘That’s what the Nazis did!’ Very tedious, and of course Nazism was a political ideology first and foremost. It was young and radical and could be plausibly ditched as a wrong turn in a country’s history. Afghans won’t do that with Islam and you can’t simply bomb people from the stone age. Ahmed Rashid and Ashraf Ghani have lamented that there was never the right amount of funding to build a state. Perhaps this could be a good place to start rather than with closure of mosques, burqa bans and more troops.

I am not arguing for the de-Islamisation of Iraq or Afghanistan, because I think that would be a bridge too far and not acceptable to our societies in any case.

However, I am arguing that as we went in every single Mullah in the country should have been put under 24 hour watch with appointed liaison officers and anyone who stepped out of line should have been detained. All young males should also have been detained and screened before release and only released into managed positions within society i.e. specific jobs, the army, projects etc.

I am arguing for redistribution of wealth, for land reform, creation of co-operatives, emancipation of women, banning of the more extreme outward forms of Islam such as the Burkah and probably more important than anything creation of employment for all young men willing to co-operate with us.

Had we gone in with that sort of revolutionary approach we could really have turned things round I believe.

There is an interesting article in today’s Sunday Times on a book by a young female Afghan MP which is really arguing for just that sort of approach. I think there is a much bigger constituency for that sort of revolution than you realise.

A kind of Attaturk-Stalin-Woodrow Wilson combined approach.

None of you have mentioned the pipeline.Surely that is a reason for being in Afghanistan? We cannot have all that Caspian oil and gas going to Russia,can we, Neil D?

I see field and JP can’t help but expose the bigots they are, suggesting Muslims are irredeemable and unable to do democracy.

When in fact they are willing to go out in the streets and die for it.

I see that XX and YY…

(Erection of huge straw man)

Bollocks, etc etc.

None of you have mentioned the pipeline.Surely that is a reason for being in Afghanistan? We cannot have all that Caspian oil and gas going to Russia,can we, Neil D?

Who’s we Mr. Bassoon?

As usual Terry Glavin cuts through all the crap that types like Shatner’s Bassoon like to trade on:

There really are plans for a pipeline. Two, in fact. But neither are oil pipelines – they’re proposed natural gas pipelines, and neither are American. One exists on the drawing boards of energy planners working for Ahmadinejad’s Iran, if you don’t mind. You just can’t get any less “American” than that. The Iranians want to sell natural gas to India. The other pipeline exists in the hopes of a consortium involving Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

If either of these pipelines ever gets built – which is a huge “if” to begin with – construction isn’t expected to start until at least 2010. The gas won’t be going to American markets, remember. It’s Muslim gas from Muslim countries going through Muslim countries in Muslim pipelines, making money for Muslim governments. [...] But why, exactly, are these pipeline projects such bad ideas? Why are we supposed to be so sad? Either pipeline would generate welcome revenues for the Afghan treasury.

Afghanistan may well need the prescription set out in the Cook Albright piece. But in many people’s mind, the current sorry plight in Afghanistan of the West propping up feudal warlords because they will stand against feudal religious fundamentalists, it’s all just one more screw up by this awful Labour government. If only Iraq never happened then we would not be where we are today. And until Labour ‘fesses up’ to that ruinous debacle they do not deserve the trust of the electorate. There should be an immediate general election. No more troop deaths to placate the great ditherer Brown.

Lbnaz
If you don’t like the “crap” that I supposedly trade on, maybe you prefer that of Gen.Sir Richard Dannatt? You know…or maybe you don’t.

If only Iraq never happened then we would not be where we are today. And until Labour ‘fesses up’ to that ruinous debacle they do not deserve the trust of the electorate. There should be an immediate general election. No more troop deaths to placate the great ditherer Brown.

Yes, never mind Sept. 11th 2001, the reason the UN sanctioned NATO to go to Afghanistan, the real problem is that it is too bad that the Saddam regime isn’t still in power. Then everything would just be dandy. How terrible it is now for Iraqis not having Saddam’s regime to govern them and terrible that British troops were complicit in his forced ouster. That alone is reason why Labour should have to ‘fess up’ to the criminal and ruinous debacle of going in and toppling Saddam and his regime.

Thanks Hugh. Maybe someday you can teach me to love stopper logic as much as you seem to care less either for the perspectives of British soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or for Afghanis or Iraqis.

Neil D –

Where did I say Muslims are incapable of democracy? My analogy was with Germany and Japan – both now democracies.

Stop talking rot please. John P can speak for himself. He’s the pessimist.

My view is that you can create democracies in Muslim countries but you need to neuter or defang as some say Islam first which means taking the Mullahs out of politics. But you also need to address the
injustices and inequalities in these countries. You have to remember that a couple of hundred years ago they were all slave societies.

Indonesia may be a bit of an exception in the sense that Islam is perhaps not as deeply rooted there as first appears and it was introduced not on the coat tails of conquest but by mystics and traders. That might be why democracy seems to be taking in Indonesia. I certainly hope it does.

Ultimately I am not of the pessimist persuasion. Given choice people will make rational choices. But in most Islamic societies people don’t have many options. Apostasy is punished with imprisonment, death or ostracism. Debate is not possible. There is no democratic voice. They do not have a free media.

wardytron

I doubt it is Bob Field – he, at least, can spell, punctuate and form an English sentence with a degree of correctness. Whoever the muppet above is, he has demonstrated that he can do none of these things. I suspect one of the usual Cro-Magnon MPACuk suspects.

Actually, my main suspect is the entirely deranged troofer and anti-Semitic regular on MPACuk, one “dontask”.

Compare and contrast the drivel posted above by “U Just Dont Get It!!” and the posts here by “dontask” on the MPACuk forum:

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=638427#post638427

I doubt it is Bob Field – he, at least, can spell, punctuate and form an English sentence with a degree of correctness.

Damning with faint praise, but yes, that would separate Pitt from the dire creature above. There really are some thickies about.

Field says:

Where did I say Muslims are incapable of democracy?

then says:

My view is that you can create democracies in Muslim countries but you need to neuter or defang as some say Islam first

Here some vomit-worthy stuff!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/434235.html

Oi Libnaz.
Don’t tell me I care nothing for British troops. My beloved brother did nigh on thirty years in the service and I work alongside a brave territorial who is well up for going to Afghanistan if required.
My point is that Iraq took away the resources that should have been invested in sorting out Afghanistan post 911 – once and for all squashing fundamentalist terrorism.
But no, dimwit Bush & Blair go off attacking relatively harmless, almost defenseless and hitherto, the terrorist-free zone of Saddam Husain’s Iraq, even though Husain was well known to be then spending his time writing fiction rather than conspiring the downfall of “imperialism”.
You cannot stop the truth Lib baby, Iraq 2003 was arguably the biggest foreign policy fuxk-up ever in human history. Which of course made things worse for everybody, not least the long suffering people of Afghanistan.

Actually, no, Hugh. If we hadn’t got rid of Saddam, at this point in that timeline you would be whining about Afghanistan.

Neil D – You seem to fail to distinguish between Muslims and Islam – something people often accuse me (wrongly) of doing.

It’s great to read an article from Britain in support of the Afghan people for a change, thank you. May liberty reign supreme, as a natural right of all mankind. Just because Islam’s historical narative to date has failed to recognise this, doesn’t mean Afghans and Muslims like myself are incapable of reconciling it with our existing values. We are not peons of our cultures but rather the masters of our own destiny, as we shape ourselves in accordance to our needs. By working together to better ouselves, we stand to reap its rewards accordingly, for doing good is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Barekzai –

Just out of interest – do you think Ms. Yoga (the Afghan MP who has been vociferous in her opposition to the warlords and their friends) represents a sizeable slice of opinion in Afghanistan?

“Actually, no, Hugh. If we hadn’t got rid of Saddam, at this point in that timeline you would be whining about Afghanistan.”
So what are you Morgoth the supreme knower of men’s hearts and minds? Are you a psychic? Can you read others’ thoughts and have insight into their deepest motivations even those they may not be aware of themselves? Funny how you were able to do that mind-meld thing on me and I didn’t even notice
But somehow your mystic masterfulness has a valid point. If Iraq never happened and Afghanistan was still the terrible mess it is now eight years on, I would indeed be arguing, or whining as you charmingly put it, about Afghanistan but from the point of view that this Labour government can’t get anything right.

But no, dimwit Bush & Blair go off attacking relatively harmless, almost defenseless and hitherto, the terrorist-free zone of Saddam Husain’s Iraq, even though Husain was well known to be then spending his time writing fiction rather than conspiring the downfall of “imperialism”.

Of course Hugh, Kanan Makiya should have titled his book ‘Republic of Harmlessness’ instead of “Republic of Fear’. *rolls eyes*

Ever visited this link Hugh?

Friggin’ Saddam apologising, dissimulating stopper twits insult memory.

Why not exhume the Cook corpse and hang it and then quarter it for his war crimes in West Africa!

Friggin’ Saddam apologising, dissimulating stopper twits insult memory.

Libnaz you are repeatedly offensive, that it is hardly worth discussing things with you.
I am not apologizing for Saddam, I am not hiding anything. All I am saying is that Iraq was a monumental screw up and a consequence of that screw up was the withdrawal of resources and commitment to resolving the situation in Afghanistan which in turn largely explains where we are at today in respect of that latter sorry country.

Best thing we can do in Afghanistan is construct and occupy a few airbases with large perimeters to cover the country and the Pakistani border region with drones and helicopters. When we see non government military training going on, we bomb it. That should be enough to stop any major terrorist attacks on the West coming from that neck of the woods.

It’s the best that we can hope for, outside of Kabul. Most of the reconstruction projects going on are for schools and mosques – and as we can build them a school but can’t give them teachers to staff it, for “schools and mosques” read “madrassas and mosques”. That’s where the whole problem came from in the first place, ain’t it?

We’re wasting our time, money and soldiers’ lives trying to make a western-style democracy there. For Bob above and others thinking of the BBC article on the poll, showing that the vast majority of Afghans want us and not the Taleban – two questions:

1. Do you think the people making the poll took a balanced sample from around the country? Or do you think the poll was conducted exclusively in areas where the market researcher wouldn’t need a rifle company to guard them while they asked the questions i.e Kabul?

2. Had the research been conducted by the Taleban or other militias rather than the government, do you think the results would show the same?

If the Afghans were interested in a Western style democracy they would give up their warlords and do away with the massive amounts of corruption that are part of the culture.

As of now, they are not. We should focus on getting bin ladin and not rebuliding the country, stopping the poppy trade, educating the women, re-inventing the economy etc …

It is mission creep.

Good to read your comment Barekzai. Know that even if there are a number of people on this and other internet threads who are opposed to Western soldiers helping to provide security for Afghanis until the state can defend itself on its own from acid throwing and suicide bombing fanatics, their voices are not the only voices in the West and many of us disagree with them and are resolute that the fight against takfiri militants is an extremely important battle that can and must be won for all of our sakes.

And Hugh, your depiction of Saddam @ 11:59 pm as a harmless, defenseless soul, opposed to terrorism and only interested in writing fiction was more offensive than anything I wrote. If you think such a depiction of Saddam isn’t an apology for a man who in truth was a tyrannical Stalinist torturer and murderer aspiring to be the predominant leader of the Arab world and the predominant military power in the region by means of military aggression and funding incentives for suicide bombers, then I have to wonder what you imagine an apologetic for Saddam would look like.

Afghanistan was the base for the attacks on the west and the c.v.’s of several convicted (after due legal process before a jury) terrorists cite ‘visits’ and stays at training camps in Afghanistan when it was under the control of the Taleban. In many cases these were admitted facts.

The Taleban are being set up in western news circles as a resistence movement. Resistence to what? Afghans are not a single people any more than many other polities. The history of the country actually embraces many facets of its pivitol role in the long era summarised by the “Silk Roads”; of exchanges between east and west. It was a final testament to the Taleban’s fundamental views of the country’s ‘exclusive’ identity that they powdered with hammers all ‘non-Islamic’ exhibits in the Kabul National Museum and destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, a crime against world heritage.

What the Teleban represent is vile and ‘resistence’ is not what they represent at all. I am saddened by the deaths of my country’s young men (with technology supplied by Iran). It is they who died in resisting, resisting the hate filled ambitions of these people. To give up now will effectively politically bank roll the worst elements in Islam and invite further interference in the free world. For they attacked us and first. The rest is appeasement.

Can anybody say why the current Occupation of Afghanistan by the Allies that is now seven and half old will turn out to be any different then the three wars waged by Britain, 1839-1842, 1878-1881 & 1919-1920 and the ten year war, 1979-1989, waged by the late Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
(And please spare the Ministry of Truth propaganda about the Allies bring freedom to the benighted Natives.)

Afghanistan would be in a lot better shape today if not for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq that diverted most of the resources such as troops and aid away from Afghanistan. As savage and brutal as Saddam was, he was well contained and little threat to other countries. Cheney/Bush invaded Iraq for two reasons, INMO:
1). To provide a big payday for Cheney’s old firm, Haliburton with contratcts for Iraq’s Reconstruction and to gain control of Iraq’s oil for the Oil companies that contributed many millions to Bush’s campaign.
2). To divert attention from the real perpetraturs of 9/11 and many other Terrorist atrocities such as the beheading of Daniel Pearl, our so-called Friends, the Saudis who are the world’s leading sponsers of Hate and Terrorism.

David All –

Those previous missions didn’t have all of the following: helicopters, night vision equipment, drone aircraft, sophisticated electronic eavesdropping equipment etc etc. and a willing and co-operative government in Kabul.

How exactly did Saddam (invader of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) become “well contained” as you put it. Can you remind us?

David All (11.36 p.m. 13.07.09) gives as good a brief summary of the current leftist view of the Afghanistan situation as one might read, including a standard form of the doublethink riposte – “better shape today” – presumably by having presenting the “benighted Natives” with plumbing in the 19th century.

It is useless to point out the many differences between historical events which merely share geography. Napoleon’s battlefields recall those of later wars; therefore, according to David All’s reasoning, these must somehow be similar events, guided by similar motives and objectives. Napoleon, Cavour, Bismarck, Willem II, Hitler – all the same. Crudities such as these obscure rather than provide insight.

Afghanistan is a curious place in which to seek to make money. If David All wishes to imply the U.S.A.’s taxpayer’s have been rooked at home, I might be persuaded by evidence; to imply a foreign war was started “to bring freedom to the benighted Natives” (as if freedom itself were somehow risible) in order to cash in seems an unnecessarily complicated fraud. Embezzlers are seldom so careless with other people’s money.

The links between Taliban controlled Afghanistan and terror operations of increasing brazen violence against the west would have required action sooner or later. David All is silent about how to deal with this. For him and many on the left it begins with Bush, with perhaps a backward glance at Reagan and Thatcher (but never Brezhnev). The longer history is complicated and contradictory. It serves no useful purpose if a simple ‘white hat, black hat’ narrative is to be enforced. “Mummy! Make the big, bad American go away!” is all one needs to say.

There are perplexing difficulties in dealing with issues such as Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan, but evasion is a luxury the open societies of the west (an euphemism which has outlived its specific use; Japan long since and India increasingly, are “western” in this sense) cannot practice for ever. Electorates are likely to object when their loved ones are burned alive on public transport or in their offices doing a day’s work. Some, many, want something done about it. One complication in the response to international terrorism (Egypt, Kenya, Greece, Argentina. India, not just the U.S.A. or U.K.) is the fiction of western unity, one created out of a necessity following the Second World War, a war largely fought in the west against much of the rest by the Anglo-Americans (and with mixed motives). This fiction is ably demonstrated by the disunity of response to contemporary international crises like those in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, DRC, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere formerly, where an active response has been (mostly) shackled by passivity among Continental Europe, reduced to a pose of hand wringing and diplomatic tutting. That failure of will has had serious political consequences. (It is wonderful to watch countries who have enriched themselves whilst being defended for half a century by the U.S.A., condemn its policies as warmongering …)

It is not an absurdity to wish to live a peaceful existence and many do so wish to live. But faced with the failure of it’s armies to oust Jews from ‘Moslem lands’ following defeats in 1967 – 73, aircraft, airports, tourists and now workers in the heart of the west have felt the force of ‘young angry Moslems’, directed at the supposed sponsors of the Jews, swollen to a ‘global jihad’ intent now on nothing less than the overthrow of modernism in which the greatest weapon to exploit is the west’s own indolence. Viewing current attitudes among western progressives, one of which I take David All to be, it is not such a far fetched ambition as it seems.

Field and Larkers: Sigh, I do support the ongoing US-NATO operations against the Taliban and Al Qaida in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be a major defeat in the war against Islamist Extremism and Terror. The takeover of nuclear-armed Pakistan by the Taliban and its allies would be utterly diasterious for the entire world.

I am just asking, on the basis of hundreds of years of Afghan history of sucessfully resisting foreign invaders, why do you think we will suceed where so many others have failed. And is there any reason to suppose that the Afghan People view US-NATO forces any differently than they did the British and the Russians? Talk about how our high-tech weapons will make the difference is reminiscent of similar boasts made forty years ago by the US Military in Vietnam that modern weaponery would overcome the Viet Cong.

Note: I certainly do not have the beliefs that Larkers attributes to me in his last three paragraphs. Answering critics by charging falsely they support people being blown up on buses and subways may be a good way of diverting criticism, but it does not answer it.

David All: Sighing does not in itself constitute any kind of argument.

“Hundreds of years of Afghan history” is a platitude. Belgium has hundreds of years of history; so what?

The Afghans who fight alongside NATO forces are not then Afghans? Why not?

“Talk about our high-tech weapons …” I can make no such comment; few can in reality, though many try.

Pointing out the tendency of a piece of writing is legitimate. I never stoop to abuse or actively misrepresent even in order to make a argument; I believe the points I made about the connections, clear and certain between Taliban ruled Afghanistan and attacks on the west are correct and fair. Your position is similar to that held by the majority of views I hear or encounter. The people who hold such views are not monsters or fanatics nor dupes but their views if enacted into policy would have a very definite outcome. This is what I pointed out and I can support it with examples. I am quite certain you are not indifferent to terrorism or I should not have replied.

To map out a long series of attacks on the open societies of the ‘west’ – including now Africa and India – is not “a good way of diverting criticism”, if criticism it be. Essentially I see this struggle as one which began with the attempt to re-run the 1948 Palestine War and change the outcome. When, following defeats in 1967 and 1973 this was obviously not going to happen, Palestinian Arab groups supported by chiefly Arab countries began to switch their focus steadily and purposefully away from the Near East to the soft targets in Europe and elsewhere. Initially such groups where essentially political and only tangentially ‘Moslem’; they committed outrages dividing their attention between Israel and increasingly non-Israeli targets. This pattern was inherited by notionally Islamist sympathisers following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Marx, Sartre and Fanon gave way to Khomeni and the Koran, and complicated further by the fact that Iranians are not Arabs and have history also.

Subsequently, the ideology of ‘Palestinian’ resistance has been subsumed and overwhelmed by Islamist ambition: A ‘millenarian’ concept of an ‘Islamic world’, not simply ‘Moslem lands’ but entire Continents. I will not go into the background here but the forces at work today are intent on over throwing modernism (i.e. ‘the west’) however bizarre that idea strikes you and I. They have shown themselves well able to seize on the complexities and contradictions of western society the better to undermine and threaten it. Obviously, no such overthrow is in fact possible; but a great deal of harm is being done nevertheless and more is to come in my view.

Some believe as you may not that “we” can have a quiet life by giving up what for them is merely a war or series of wars drummed up by venial American politicians and flashy academics with a route in to the global media. Give up, come home, and , yes, cut Israel adrift, and all will be well. We have nothing to fear. I disagree with this point of view, quite apart from the moral aspect, and believe in contradiction to it that “we” will have far worse to follow if such a course is taken. I know Obama realises this and I hope he is not alone.

I am indeed quite willing to answer to my abilities any criticism of what I have written. Your pieces have much to commend them but as yet I see no criticism, simply complaint.

Responding to Libnaz 13/07/09 5.40pm.

I have recently been reading Simon Jenkins columns in the Guardian in which he proposes getting the hell out of Afghanistan. But he does not convince me.
I believe some international presence in that country is appropriate. An international presence began in late 2001 and was welcomed by many Afghanis. Only trouble was the neocon realpolitik of the time, anxious to start a war with Iraq, such that decision-makers made deals with despotic Afghani warlords instead of nourishing democracy and development.

In my earlier post, I depicted IRAQ in 2003, NOT Saddam, as relatively harmless, defenseless and absent AQ style terrorism. These are the facts as I understand them. That the viscous tyrant Saddam who fifteen years earlier may have been a possible candidate as pan Arab leader, but like his country after twelve years of economic sanctions was by then a spent force. That Husain became just one more fiction writing wannabe, is an apt national metaphor of the period.
If Iraq in 2003 still gave some baksheesh to suicide bombers in Palestine then this no more justifies the attack in 2003, than it would the British bombing Queens New York, in the eighties because of funds raised for republican terrorists in Northern Ireland.