The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Leaving Afghanistan will have consequences > Comments

Leaving Afghanistan will have consequences : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 5/11/2010

Deserting Afghanistan now would make it a haven for terrorists.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I would have thought the best way to create a generation of potential terrorists was by assisting in making an unprovoked invasion of their country, destroying its functioning political and economic systems, killing hundreds of thousands of the inhabitants, and then expecting them to welcome you with open arms and expressions of joy.

But I don't have a PhD in politics, so what do I know?
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 5 November 2010 6:29:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But I don't have a PhD in politics, so what do I know?
Jon J,
You have a clear mind with a sober view, something you can't have with a PhD.
Posted by individual, Friday, 5 November 2010 6:48:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for reminding me how useless PhDs are. I will ask Graham to remove the reference immediately so you guys can focus on the argument rather than be distracted.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 5 November 2010 6:57:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think throwing off at an author because he has a PhD is pretty close to flaming. I can't see anything wrong with having a PhD, and being proud of having earned one from a non-academic start in life seems quite understandable.

Flaming is certainly not a sign of intelligence.

But as the author has responded I am going to leave these derogatory comments here, but will not allow anymore flaming or deviation in this direction from the topic.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 5 November 2010 9:00:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is true though that the Nato and allied forces, including our particularly kind and well-meaning Australian troops, are seen as an occupying force by most in Afghanistan. It would take several generations and a lot of luck to ever change this perception. Point blank, our troops need to be there, but they should be removed from virtually all contact with the local population and if possible stationed at bases over the border in a more friendly country such as Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. From there allied troops and air support should only be involved when called in by Afghan Government forces to provide aid when they strike a situation involving heavy opposition. After 9 years of training if Afghan police and military forces are not capable of managing the day-to-day security operations for the country then they never will. Removing foreign forces from the country to fortified bases out-of-country will lower local tensions and remove most objections to the war against the most evil group in history (and mark my words, the Taliban is the most evil group on the planet - knocking Stalian and his crowd into second place, no easy feat since Stalin made the Nazis look like an association of Sunday School teachers).

To the people in Afghanistan we in the West are aliens and unbelievers and will never be trusted or accepted fully. You can build them as many schools and hospitals as you care to, but it only takes one incident or accident involving a westerner to bring it all undone again.

Only Afghan police and troops are qualified to assess who is friend and who is foe. We should remain out-of-area and when asked for assistance should respond with overwhelming firepower. At present whenever our troops undertake patrols they are sitting ducks for an enemy who can hide amongst the general population until they are ready to strike. This war, like Vietnam, needs to be fought differently. Forget hearts and minds, just hammer the Taliban and Al Queda when they break cover…

Finally, Russia has pledged greater assistance in the war against the Taliban.
Posted by Conan57, Friday, 5 November 2010 9:36:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Chris there may be a good chance that leaving Afghanistan would actually take pressure off Pakistan and motivate the Taliban who fled the country to return and try to retake it;

As of now, they choose between fighting the US army and try to reclaim Afghanistan, or the Pakistan Army and annex parts of Pakistan; if the US army left, they would likely flee Pakistan to attack the weaker opposition of Afghanistan- giving Pakistan and numerous bordering countries a chance to strengthen their borders.

Personally I consider Afghanistan a loosing battle- there has been no success at all in transforming Afghanistan into a moderate, unified democracy- just a tribal squabble for institutional dominance pretending to be such.

The terrorists may use Afghanistan as a base again, but they were doing that with Pakistan anyway- and if I were to choose between the two (knowing that Taliban strength holding the Pakistani one will be compromised trying to get Afghanistan)- I would rather the lawless, tribal and fundamentally religious nation that we can threaten with a return of our fighter jets if another terrorist attack is launched, than the slightly more moderate, mostly-unified country that we cannot attack due to needing their alliance, and also holds possession of nuclear missile silos.

It may sound callous, but so is our attempts to invade and hold it- knowing the consequences of this action.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 5 November 2010 9:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And yes, you are absolutely right Chris, leaving Afghanistan would make it a haven for terrorists and perpetuate the untold suffering that Afghan women in particular suffered under the Taliban. On top of that it would promote the Islamist cause around the world to an even greater extent than the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution and seizure of the US Embassy staff in Tehran.

Having been unfortunate enough to recently view a video clip of a young teenage girl being beaten and stoned to death in the street for refusing a forced marriage in a Sharia law governed country, the spread of fundamentalist influence has to be stopped at all costs.

It would be useful at this point though to actively seek Chinese military involvement and support in Afghanistan also. They have plenty of troops to spare and have many economic reasons to start pulling their own weight.
Posted by Conan57, Friday, 5 November 2010 9:57:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about a budget and a time frame for acheiving a stable Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Most of the arguments seem to be just like Chris'. If we don't do "something" there will be more terrorists. Just say the magic word terrorist and that means we should send all our money and our best young people to Afghanistan to be killed for no good reason. What is the "something" our troops are going to do? Will it work? Has it ever worked? If the United States jumped off a cliff would Australia jump off a cliff too?

Why does the United States have all the answers about the best way for Afghanistan to manage its affairs? Has the United States had rousing success with its other foreign policy decisions in the middle east? Isn't there a fair chance that we are making things worse by being there? We'd probably be better off building and staffing schools and hospitals and with Schools and hospitals we could put together a meaningful time frame and budget and then see if it was successful.

Are there any other priorities that Australia could be spending its money and young people's live on that would make the world a better place. Darfur, North Korea and much of Sub-Saharan Africa don't get nearly the cash and lives that Afghanistan gets and there are plenty of people there living miserable lives that could use a hand and would probably appreciate the help. Cancer research and sustainable energy are a couple problems probably as tough to solve as Afghanistan but at least we'd know we were doing something that was really helping someone.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 5 November 2010 10:03:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ericc

I do not disagree with much of what you said.

However, my offering was to merely point out that an allied withdrawal will have some consequences, and that the region will need ongoing attention for some yet regardless of troop withdrawals.

As for a time frame, it will also need to take into account the stability of the region. If terrorism gains a more solid base there, the timetable may have to be extended.

It is a mess, and perhaps one that will haunt the world for a long time yet.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 5 November 2010 10:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judging by the history of the past two hundred years - trying to subdue Afghanistan as a foreign invading force is a bit like invading Russia overland in winter - not recommended as a potentially successful enterprise.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 5 November 2010 10:23:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, in a conventional sense the war in Afghanistan has been fought and won a long time ago. What we are left with is a constant insurgency that foreign forces are not equipped to deal with. It is high time to pull back to segregate allied forces from the population and only intervene when open combat is necessary. The Afghan forces must now assume chief responsibility for their own destiny. The resources then required to be employed by the allies can be scaled right back to easily sustainable levels. One Australian Battalion is required together with two US or British infantry brigades, four artillery batteries, appropriate support personnel plus four squadrons of ground attack aircraft – F35s as soon as they are available, together with perhaps an over supply of Apaches and Blackhawks.

Eric C is right in that more attention does need to be directed to the African continent and piracy in the Indian Ocean. Mind you a large part of the problems in Africa stem from the Islamist push from the Iran/Afghan region. Withdrawal from Afghanistan is not an option but it should certainly be scaled back at this point to cover the role I mentioned before. Still room for a Chinese batallion to help out though in the spirit of cooperation.
Posted by Conan57, Friday, 5 November 2010 2:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J, did the Taliban have functioning political and economic systems?

Either way the war in Afghanistan started off in a legal limbo. The current operations are on paper approved by the UN.

To look at some "succesful occupations," the post-WWII occupations of Germany and Japan yielded good outcomes (though they started from different economic and social bases). Sure both countries continue to have their fanatic extremists and issues with the US but on the whole they are safe, prosperous, democratic societies.

Now, more or less our options are:
a) We either stay in Afghanistan until the country can run itself in its own, unimposed way (or imposed way, if you prefer...)
b) Leave the country and watch as it either spirals into chaos or picks itself up unaided.

Which one do we want? The "stay in Afghanistan for democracy" argument is a little misleading, otherwise how many other countries should be on a "regime change" list? There are different ways to "stay" in Afghanistan while gradually allowing the local authorities to take over, like a few people have posted here. Fingers crossed that the corruption that power brings doesn't hit the Afghan government...or is that too late?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Friday, 5 November 2010 3:45:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the beginning of endless wars.Iraq was a lie, like Vietnam,like Afghanistan.The Taliban had stopped the production of heroine in 2000,hence there was a heroine drought.Now we see picture of US soldiers walking amongst poppy plantations.The US could easily destroy 90% of the world's heroine that makes $93 billion pa.Afghanistan has $ trillions worth of lithium for the battery industry and is the economic route for oil/gas piplines from Turkmenistan.

Who are we kidding? Al Qaeda is just a ruse for stealing resources and energy and making fat profits from war.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 5 November 2010 6:05:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis says:

"Deserting Afghanistan now would make it a haven for terrorists."

John J says:

"making an [unprovoked] invasion of their country, destroying its [functioning political and economic systems], [killing hundreds of thousands of the inhabitants]"

But (to my incredulity) Individual jumps in with:

//You have a clear mind with a sober view, something you can't have with a PhD.//

Where does one start to demythologise those rather bankrupt responses to Chris's astute realistic article?

Let's do it point by point. (assuming he means Afghanistan)

1/ "Unprovoked" ? Nope..sorry.. Taliban/Terrorist/Islamist training camps.... 9/11 Bali etc.

2/ "Destroying it's FUNCTIONING political/economic system. ?

a) Political: Yep.. it functioned well in murdering all those who it didn't like (Hazzara's/Norther Alliance supporters etc)
b) Economic: Yep they took over the Emerald mines in the Swat Valley and
"Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs in the West, and not by Muslims or Afghans."

3/ Killing '100s of 1000s' of the inhabitants. ?

Errr....nope.. killing identifiable terrorists and incurring some collateral damage in the process some through inadequate intel and others because Taliban use human shields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Civilian_casualties_.282001-2003.29

Direct deaths approx 14000
Indirect deaths approx 20,000 (high estimate)

Jon J and Individ... perhaps a tad more education is in order ? :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 6 November 2010 5:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AIR ,Robert Baer ex CIA http://patriotsquestion911.com/ page 48
Thom Hartman,"Are you of the opinion that there was an aspect of inside job to 911?"
Robert Baer,"There is that possibility,the evcidence points to it."
You will also see on this site hundreds of ex senior,intelligence Govt,military and law enforcers question the official explanation of 911.Robert Baer was recommended by Nick Caldis the Deputy Commissioner of Securty and counter terroeism of NSW.Baer was interviewed by 2GB in early Sept 2010.

Thomas Kean Chairman of the 911 Commission,Lee Hamilton Deputy Chair 911 Commission are there.

The hard evidence is there that we are in Afghanistan based on a lie.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 6 November 2010 7:10:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.presstv.ir/detail149520.html Noam Chomsky "US -led Afghan war, criminal" The FBI said in 2006 they did not have the evidence on Bin Laden for the 911 attacks." The head of the FBI,after the most intense internmational investigations ion history,imformed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan,but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emerates and Germany."

Chomsky," All this is totally illegal.It is more,criminal."
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 6 November 2010 7:35:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It strikes me as highly hypocritical albeit via ignorance, that many "experts" tell us what's right/wrong politically in the world. But, let's face it, how many decisions are made by those "experts" for which the rest of the world then has to find solutions via staging wars. You simply can not argue that forcing a policy or legislation upon a community and when it all goes lopsided and people have to take up arms to control the effects of these "experts' imposed policies we call them terrorists or an uprising. How many of us ever sit back & think of how many of these trouble spots we would not have if the "experts" hadn't created them. Why is ist that some people always believe they have the answers to the problems of others. They haven't ! How many more times do we need this evidence dished up ? How many policies dreamed up by ordinary people have ever been implemented ? So when an ordinary person turns around & points the finger at the "experts" than that person doesn't know what he/she is talking about. That my fellow concerned citizens is the crux of most of the mayhem in the times of every generation. What does it tell us ? Well. in my opinion if we had fewer "experts" we'd also have fewer problems. Stop consulting "experts" and ask people who know instead. People who have wisdom rather than knowledge.. Trouble is that wise people don't get a say because they're outnumbered by the educated.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 6 November 2010 8:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

I am not sure what you are on about.

I merely offered an opinion piece. I agree with you. I do not think that anybody has a monopoly on the right or wrong answer, regardless of qualifications.

I have no problem with anyone attacking my argument. Some may agree, some may diasagree. That is life.

All i do is utilise my opportunity to write on OLO and offer my personal position in response to my interpretation of events.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 6 November 2010 9:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm trying to put the focus on the real problem, be it Afghanistan or elsewhere. That real problem in my view has always been the experts. In Afghanistan for example the problem as perceived by many experts was that the Taliban were operating out of that country. So, what do the political experts do ? They barge in with war machinery ! You can't fight your enemy when your own people depend so heavily on your enemy's supply of drugs (=money) ! You get your own people off the (greed) drugs & bingo, the Taliban & so-called terrorists in general have no income to buy weapons.
Then you stop exploiting the poorer nations & again bingo, you'll get far less animosity from them. You'll also have an improvement in your own industry. All you have to do now is stop being so greedy & leave other people to do their own thing & guess what ? A lot less conflict & a cleaner environment. I know a lot of ordinary people who can see the merit in this. It's only the expert who're alway looking for the most difficult tactic to solve problems. Why, because most of them are so highly educated that they can't understand that to be wise you don't have to be educated.
Leaving Afghanistan will only have consequences in Afghanistan if we don't put our greed into the equation. To let the relatives of potential terrorists migrate to all parts of the western world is like trying to stop a plague of crow-of-thorns starfish which become even more prolific after you cut them to pieces & scatter them. One one hand we go into Afghanistan to fight terrorism & on the other hand we import it by the boatload. You aid the Afghans by helping them rebuild their country not by proliferating them & their problems throughout the world. The answer is containment.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 6 November 2010 11:55:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't agree with the logic here. I don't think that there is any credible evidence of the Pushtun people engaging in the kind of international terrorism that the article suggests we are in Afghanistan to prevent (and there is a problem with stereotyping a nation as terrorists that I also have a problem with). It seems more about the sort of road side bombs that are used in resistance to occupying troops. Despite our, no doubt good, intentions for being there (I don't really think Australia is involved due to any desire to take advantage of Afghanistan's natural resources), this is effectively what Australian forces are.

The Al Qaeda bases of operation that were the focus of the original invasion, that were not of Pushtun origin, have been destroyed and the organisation has relocated. So I think a better argument might be that we occupy the country to stop these forces returning.

I don't think that argument however will stand up to much logical scrutiny.
Posted by Mickey K, Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:11:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All these arguments are based on a false premise ie. Al Qaeda was reponsible for 911.This is clearly not te case.We aided the Taliban to oust the Russians and now we want to take their resources/energy.

It is like arguing degrees of theft and murder to appease our guilt,they are both wrong and immoral.Do we really think they we are more civilised than the Taliban when we have raped and pillaged Iraq under false pretenses?
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickey K,

I think any "good intentions" by successive Australian governments have always been a peripheral notion as far as our troop deployment in Afghanistan is concerned. The reality is (and always was) that we are there first and foremost as a show of solidarity with the U.S..
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:24:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickey,

I am not saying that the Pashtuns are all terrorists. I am arguing that the seeds are there for many to become terrorists if radical elements cement their domination there.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is the foreign invasion of other lands that fosters terrorism and I doubt the current government in Afghanistan, in its current form, will ever be able to withstand some corruption and negotiation with terrorists.

This will be true no matter when allied forces leave. Terrorism extends further than Afghanistan and a change in geographical location won't reduce the threat. There are far greater threats in Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on top of the nuclear threat in Iran. There are also concerns around militism in Indonesia and in the Southern Philippines in the form of loose networds and training camps.

Terrorism will remain a problem in the Middle East until the Palestine problem is sorted out and the West stop invading other nations without just cause.

The invasion of Iraq the first time around was to protect Kuwait and was welcomed - although one wonders if Kuwait would have been left to the wolves if there was no oil interest. The US is good at waging war when there is an economic threat.

The second invasion and the involvement in Afghanistan did more to foster terrorism than to stem the tide. We would be better out of Afghanistan once all the democratic processes are in place and the police/defence forces are established.

There is always the risk of corruption and for the Taliban to yield greater influence but that will be true now or later, and it is unrealistic for the US and allied forces to stay until that threat is over - because it will never be truly over until there is a change in mindset in foreign and economic policies.

The will of the Afghanis and self-determination will have a stronger influence within, than any external military presence.

That is the reality.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:29:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Chris, I appreciate that you were not implying all Pushun's were terrorists - but I can see how my post does kind of say that. However I think when you say

"I am arguing that the seeds are there for many to become terrorists if radical elements cement their domination there."

It does present us with a lot of different "there"s that could also be said to qualify. Why then do we focus on Afghanistan, and is the threat sufficient to justify the loss of life, both from Australian soldiers, and also the Afghani civilians who are so frequently killed in the fighting?
Posted by Mickey K, Saturday, 6 November 2010 12:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickey,

The Afghanistan situation is indeed horrendous. Unfortunately, I see much carnage and horror there for years to come no matter what policy scenario emerges.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 6 November 2010 1:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes tragically I have a agree.

I do worry however that Australia's involvement, particularly our military involvement is not necessarily making a positive contribution.

I don't have much faith in the government we are trying to maintain/instil in the country. But I can see no particularly obvious or correct path to follow.

I suppose this brings me back to your article. I worry that the fear of terrorism, in your case in the guise of radicalised Pushtun's, but also often expressed in terms of Al Quaeda, becomes a smoke screen to justify a continued military involvement. I don't think this case has been made.

Would it not be better to provide aid and facilitate development for the Pushtun people as a way of working against radicalism through more soft power?

Continued military involvement seems to work counter to this by providing an easily identifiable occupying power.
Posted by Mickey K, Saturday, 6 November 2010 1:49:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickey,

You said "Would it not be better to provide aid and facilitate development for the Pushtun people as a way of working against radicalism through more soft power?"

This is why i put in a couple of paragraphs mentioning their plight.

We have some big decisions to make in coming decades? There is always a cost if you want to prevent turmoil. You either react to a disaster, or you try and prevent them occurring in the first place.

I hope to take up this theme in my next article which will focus on the burden the US has in meeting a number of security needs around the world.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 6 November 2010 2:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris -

With all your agreement with comments from myself and other posters about the difficulty of military success and the possibility that there are negative impacts of having a military presence in Afghanistan, it is hard to reconcile the final sentence of your article:

With no sane nation wanting Pakistan also to collapse, with the US publications even suggesting that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization get involved, Australians too need to be informed of all the risks in the face of silly arguments that the US alone should be left to carry the burden.

It doesn't seem from your posts that you think the arguments are silly at all.
Posted by ericc, Monday, 8 November 2010 9:02:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ericc,

No, I will confess that it is hard for myself to avoid some contradiction with my attempt to both promote and provoke debate.

I do not feel there are obvious straight answers in terms of leaving or staying, but do believe that support has to be given to the US given the current situation.

This does not mean i merely support the use of force to contain a situation.

I have always been a realist, but have always considered softer policy options as of crucial importance.

Question for world, as i stated in previous post, is to prevent or address conflict in the future at a time when Western budgets are coming under greater pressure.

Also, article was about present rather than highlighting mistakes of past.

Hope this makes sense.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 8 November 2010 9:15:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

There was a lack of evidence to justify an invasion on the legal basis of self defence and also a lack of a UN resolution supporting an invasion. The Taliban were not linked to the 911 attack on the USA. Actually, the Taliban were USA government allies (not terrorists), when they were funded and trained to attack the Russian occupation.

As posted, the evidence gathered by the FBI found 911 attacks planned in Germany and USA, by a international terrorist organisation.

Further, security analysis by the US govt. agencies found that attacking Afghanstan would INCREASE world wide threats of terrorism.

Since the invasion, the resulting conflict has lead to thousands of innocent civilians, The evidence shows a MASSIVE INCREASE IN TERRORISM.

It is a circular argument, to say that after a country has been victimised and destroyed by an illegal invasion and occupation that the occupiers should remain to make sure things 'don't get worse'. In that case, any country could invade others with intention of making them unstable, on grounds that they are required to "fix things up".

Why did we invade and occupy? Consider the strategic importance of Afghanastan in relation to resources (oil and rare metals) and resource trade routes. Other evidence may also be found in the historical record of invasion of Afghanstan by other major powers. You will find these are the main motives for war.

The occupation should end, reparations be paid to Afghanstan and then we listen to solutions given by the Afghan people, none of which currently support any occupation of their country. Let us support all humanitarian efforts to aid peaceful development. How about an arms blockade of the country. Who has turned Afghanastan into a arms manufacturers playground? Who pays the westrern mercanaries to harrass the Afghans, and insult their culture? How about blockading this money?

The Afghan people haven't trusted the western powers for centuries. The poltical reality is that imperial powers like the USA don't want other neighboring countries having more influence in the country.
Posted by Nigel, Monday, 8 November 2010 11:36:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nigel,

In regards to your comments, I will merely cite a bit out of my draft sourced from the US security publication.

US intelligence has found continuing links between the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Afghan Taliban, and the al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan is protected by the umbrella organization Tehrik-i Taliban-i Pakistan
(TTP, Taliban Movement of Pakistan). Already the TTP is believed to collaborate with militant groups that have fought in Kashmir, as well as with Uzbeks and Chechens. Its support base among the local population uses a combination of money (funds from al Qaeda, Persian Gulf donors, and drug and other trafficking), force (death threats against tribal elders), and the provision of public services such as justice
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 8 November 2010 3:13:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There appears to be some inconsistency in the article by Chris Lewis. The population of Afghanistan is about 28 million. There cannot be 45 million Pashtuns , if 40-50% live in Afghanistan, and 10-20% live in Pakistan.

What is more to the point, - as the article referred to it, - the overall literacy is only 34%, while female literacy is only 10%. It is very important to consider the implications of this. Try to imagine the consequencies of illiteracy in our society hundreds of years ago.

For complex reasons, the illiterate Afghans have an affinity with the order offered to the by the Taliban. The order offered to them by the coalition forces simply does not resonate with them. The only way to change the perceptions of the illiterate Afghans is to have a massive educational programme, - which can take three generations. Nobody is prepared to entertain such thing.

Therefore, it is a waste of time, money and men, for the coalition forces to stay.

As regards the renegade bands of terrorists, such as the one assembled by Bin Laden, they can be dealt with without having troops on the ground. The Afghans should have no illusions about this.

As regards the Chinese, who are developing one of the largest copper deposits a short distance SE of Kabul, it is doubtful if they would allow Afghanistan to descend into chaos. The possibility of the Chinese having a controlling influence there is perhaps unfounded. They have enough problems within China, to waste money and time on futile interventions.

Naturally, the best way would be to have an effective, reformed United Nations which is not controlled by the Permament Members of the Security Council, and which can exert strong influence on failed or threatening states. Without this, all the other nations may look forward to some unpleasant complications not of their own doing.
Posted by Istvan, Monday, 8 November 2010 8:39:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Istvan,

You make some good and interesting points.

In regards to the population of Pahtuns, I relied on a US source and should have checked the data.

40-50% of Afghanistan's population is 11-14 million, and 10-20% of Pakistan's 180 million is 18-36 million, thus giving a range of 29-50 million range.

I should have offered such a range.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 9 November 2010 7:09:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is where you can go to buy the Afghan clothing before going to Afghanistan:

http://www.zarinas.com/
Posted by mariam, Thursday, 11 November 2010 3:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps ground troops should be withdrawn and just turn it into an air
to ground war.

I just wonder what the women of Afghanistan would think of a return of the Taliban ?
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 11 November 2010 2:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy