MilitaryForums.co.uk

I dont think it was a cock up. First of all, a lot of British people died on September 11th. Secondly, the attacks were deemed as attacks against NATO. Blair didnt follow Bush into Afghanistan. If anything, the US and UK led the way. Blair also had a lot of public support, unlike Iraq. It also had UN support. Whether or not the Taliban was a legitimate target because of the actions of Bin Laden and co is debatable, but it may have been a necessary option to deny Afghanistan to miliatant groups in the future - although the necessity of that is again debatable since fixed groups are no longer the main threat.

I dont know what you mean by 'the lads are worth better than that.' The army is necessary component to implement policy. If that policy is sound -stability, democracy, rigts, etc, etc, - and the use of the forces is beneficial to that end, then I personally dont see the problem. Especially when events such as 9.11 prove that circumstances thousands of miles away can bring death and destruction to the streets of Europe, America and elsewhere. The lads are worth a lot, and what they are doing is worth a lot too. Whether the policy is more important than the lads is another realitic debate, but one that is insensitive on such a forum. But the loss of anyone is always a sad occasion.

gkayesem
I am in general agreement with you ,especially with regard to the Armed Forces .The policies seem to mean that these chaps are put into situations where they are policing with one arm tied.

The c--kup I refer to is that the 'Democratic ' Government which was elected is still not governing because they are argueing amongst themselves.Jack Straw is at the moment trying to get them to start working as a Goverment.


They should not need an outside force to enable them to Govern if they
were democraticly elected but this seems to be what is happening.

In the meantime the rest of the country is doing its own thing with variuos groups creating there own domains.the Taliban is re-establishing itself.

It a bit more complicated than democracy. Remember that the infastructure of Afghanistan has suffered severly as a result of decades of war and violence. Parts are virtualy ungovernable, and have been that way for centuries.

Ovcourse the Taliban is re-establishing itself. It was never destroyed. But the Taliban was never the main priority and is not a threat in itself. Centralised control of Afghanistan is near impossilbe so ovcourse various parts will stray from the 'official path'. The government is a collection of different groups who weld a lot of power respectively. There are also numerous ehtnic and cultural groups with different language variations and traditions. Try to think of it as a group of countries within one huge territory. Centralised command is nigh on impossible. Especially when communities identify themselves with villages, families, relgion, customs, etc, instead of a national identity.

The situation would be a lot worse without the presence of troops, and an ideal democracy is unrealistic at the present time.

gkayesem wrote:It a bit more complicated than democracy. Remember that the infastructure of Afghanistan has suffered severly as a result of decades of war and violence. Parts are virtualy ungovernable, and have been that way for centuries.

Ovcourse the Taliban is re-establishing itself. It was never destroyed. But the Taliban was never the main priority and is not a threat in itself. Centralised control of Afghanistan is near impossilbe so ovcourse various parts will stray from the 'official path'. The government is a collection of different groups who weld a lot of power respectively. There are also numerous ehtnic and cultural groups with different language variations and traditions. Try to think of it as a group of countries within one huge territory. Centralised command is nigh on impossible. Especially when communities identify themselves with villages, families, relgion, customs, etc, instead of a national identity.



The situation would be a lot worse without the presence of troops, and an ideal democracy is unrealistic at the present time.

Exactly.

This has always been the case in Afghanistan.In the last two centuries there have been many examples of failed exercises in establishing some form of control by the British in different parts of this country. Lessons should be learnt.

The token force of troops can only do their best, as they will, over the small area for they are responsible. What will be achieved in the long run,not very much.

We understand that the invasion was because of those responsible for 9/11 needed to be removed . This has not been achieved.It has left another very difficult volatile situation .

The Taliban have been removed! They havent been completely destoryed - that is unrealistic - but they are no longer a political organisation in control of a country and its resources. This also means that militants do not have free reign of Afghanistan as they has under the Taliban for several years. The Taliban are not, nor ever have been, the threat. The threat is from Islamic militants. However they have evolved to the current situation in which there is no structural organisation - just a collection of spontaneous acts. Bin Laden is no longer a priority or a threat in himself. The US wants him to bring him to justice, not to 'fight terror' since Bin Ladens death or capture would not make any difference. He is just a figure head and is now completely divorced from any large collection of supporters or Taliban.

The vast majority of those who trained in Bin Ladens camps or who belonged to the Taliban have simply packed up and gone home. They are probably not a threat to anyone, although it would be foolish to forget about them. Being a member of the Taliban was never illegal, while training in camps - to use Kalashnikovs, to read the Koran, to learn to write - does not make someone a terrorist. Only a select few were recruited for purposes of terrorism.

The fact of the matter is that, since 9/11, the majority of terrorist attacks that have taken place have been carried out by people with little or no training or support, and the majority of the Iraqi Insurgency are Iraqis or Muslims who have no history of militancy. The threat is now a spontaneous one.

The situation in Iraq is still not completely secure. But no country on the planet is completely secure or stable. Thier was no feasible way that the UK, USA, and the rest could have removed the Taliban from power and achieved strong stabalisation in such a short space of time. The diversion of attention and resources to Iraq has not helped but is not in itself the main cause of the current situation in Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan - the people, the culture, the terrain, the history - are two very different countries.

Was thier any other course of action that the USA/NATO could have followed that would have made the current situation - which is not as dangerous as percieved - any better?

Those responsible for 9/11 - and we are talking probably of only about 30 individuals here - either died on 9/11 (the 19 hijackers) , have been killed or captured since (such as Khalied Shiek Mohammed, Bin al-Shibh, etc) or are on the run and no longer have any control over a organisation (Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri). A lot more have been killed and some have been scattered. But these are no longer the main threat.

Democracy sounds fine in some of these countries but they have little concept of just what it means. To most of them they hope to get voted into office which becomes licence to print money, then to fiddle the results so that they can stay in office. It should be remembered that most western democracy have taken hundreds of years to achieve and cost many lives and civil wars to get to the present state.

Good point Tab, I was only half joking when I said fifteenth century meets twenty first century etc. They have no concept of things we regard as basic human rights. Controll needs to be in place in order to establish stable conditions. Education and equal opportunity for all, regardless of clan group or sex. How to compress six hundred years into one generation?
We don`t even have controll ffs

gkayesem


You have given a pretty good comprehensive description of the situation as it is now.

Is it really any differrent to before the attempt to remove those involved in 9/11 apart from the Taliban, who are still there but almost inoperative at the present time as you say.

The end result seems to be that the Coalition are trying to support a democratically elected Government, for a country that doesn't really recognise Democracy with very limited Armed Forces.

A believe that they are trying to support a government that is not the Taliban. Democracy may be the best outcome, but its not the only satisfactory outcome. As long as thier remains a government that doesnt cater for militants and relative stability.

Its not the end result - the end result in when NATO and other forces pull out of Afghanistan and an Afghan government is able to protect itself and its people. That may be decades away - the US and UK still has forces based in Germany, Japan and Korea remember (and Iraq).

The taliban is still there - and in various other places - and they are still relatively active. Yet they are not the political power in charge of a country or any substantial amount of territory - that is the important thing. Th war was never to destory the Taliban but to remove them from power. Democracy is not the only result and is not mandatory. Stability and security of Afghanistan - for the benefit of the US, Nato and thier allies - is the goal. Lack of democracy in Afghanistan does not make the war a failure.

Nazis are still around but that doesnt mean that the Second World War is not over. The purpose of war is to force an enemy to do one's will. The aim was to remove the Taliban. Some died, some changed sides, some went home, some ran off and are fighting or hiding. But they are not in control. Thats all that matters.

Just a little sub point - the Taliban never attacked the US or any other nation. Osama Bin Laden did. But OBL, even though he is still alive and free, is no longer an active militant. He may release statements and videos, but he no longer leads or commands, financers or directs. He is is simply a figure head.

Is it really different? Yes. There is no Taliban in power. No civil war. No vast number of guerrilla and/or terrorist training camps. There may not be a full democracy. But that was never the reason for the war. Any attempts to democratise must be made by the government after it has completely securtised itself.

Democracy may bring benefits. But in itself it is not a majoc wand that will make everything right. Democracy will not make the Taliban or warlords dissapear. It will not prevent mass opium production. It will not lead to huge queues outside of army recruitment centres. Nor will it turn Afghanistan into a technologicaly, intellectualy and scientificaly prosperous nation over night. It may be better, but do not make the mistake of overestimating its capibilities.

Harry, I dont think you can just say they do not have any concept of basic human rights. Our rights are rooted in our traditions, as are thiers. But there traditions may block some potential for rights - but that is were politics comes into it. Its a gradual process but one that will come about. In other words, they have concepts of rights even though they may not practice them. Many put thier religion, their traditions and thier families (and maybe thier country) before thier indendant rights. We all have rights but those can only practiced within acceptable limits. Its the same for them, even though thier limits may be tighter than ours in some aspects of life.

They have the right to live, the right to eat, sleep, live in shelter. Women may have to (or chose to) wear burkhas but many wear makeup up lingerie under them. They have the concept of rights, but some of those rights are denied to them. Just like some of our rights are denied to us. It should be a right to walk through the Tube naked, but if we did it we would get arrested. We all have concepts of rights, but we just live at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The most basic of rights is the right to live. Abortion is banned in Muslim countries as far as I know, but it is legal here. Does that mean they have more rights than us? Just simple questions like that show how complex the rights issue is.

Anyway im going on a bit so ill stop

gkayesem wrote: The most basic of rights is the right to live. Abortion is banned in Muslim countries as far as I know, but it is legal here. Does that mean they have more rights than us? Just simple questions like that show how complex the rights issue is.

I'm not going to get into the rights, wrongs and maybes about abortion (this isn't the USA!), but one fact is important to state.

The reason abortion was legalised in Great Britain (different legislation in NI) was to prevent the deaths and maiming every year of hundreds of young women who were paying for back street abortions. The legislation didn't start people having abortions, but did stop the late abortions and reduce the risk of death and severe infection.
Where abortion isn't legal or is very difficult to obtain, these problems still exist. I've seen them once and hope never to do so again.

gkayesem






Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:09 pm

Yes you have just about covered everything and it does just about convince me that things have not and will not change much in that area.

I agree that Afghanistan under the Taliban never attacked anyone in fact I don't think they ever have, whoever was in control. This doesn't seem to be taken into account when certain politicians need to make their mark.

The UN and its supporters are gradually being overwhelmed by situations such as those created in Afghanistan.I won't mention other countries on this thread.

Ruth, I as just using abortion as an example - a poor one as that. I dont know were I stand on the issue. Thanks for the info anyway.

Sprey, just how is the UN (or do you mean the US?) being overstretched in Afghanistan? Do you believe that the situation could realisticaly be better?

I think the problem is that a lot of people expect quick results, and when that does not happen they are quick to play upon the problems. Thier are problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, and almost everywhere else for that matter. But the problems were largely inevitable. If you give people freedoms and give them an enemy (many Iraqis and Afghans or militants still believe that the US, etc, are thier enemies - its not ideal but its fact), they will use those freedoms to express themselves politically and they will use those freedoms to express themselves with weapons.

Afghanistan and Iraq are only partly 'free' (not a word I prefer to use but it is convenient). If it was fully democratic, people would not chose to pick up arms as thier issues could be solved through diologue and the courts and parliament, etc. But thier is no full democracy so some chose to fight for thier beliefs. In my opinion, violence is inevitable following the collapse of a regime such as the Taliban or the Baath Party. By removing those regimes, we are dispersing or destroying the armed forces - and thus distributing the weapons - damaging and destroying any infastructure that existed and removing law and order in the process. Democracy can not be raised from such conditions. Democracy is a lot more than the right to vote. It takes time for it to be physically and psychologicaly implemented.

First the infastructure needs to be built (which was damged during the wars and continues to be damged after) and that is a slow, gradual and costly process. The fact that the infastructure - such as oil pipleines, bridges, etc - is being targeted by insurgents does not mean that those insurgents are anti-democratic. That infastructure is being targeted because the coalition forces depend upon it (just like the Baathists and the Taliban depended on thier infastructure), so the imperitive is to find a balance between rebuilding it, protecting it and developing it - and protecting those who work on it. In my view, much needed resources are being diverted to fight anti-occupational forces who have all been branded with the vilifying term of 'terrorism'.

The occupational forces have realised that those they are fighting have a legitmate right. Sure, Americans, Brits, etc, have a right to defend themselves using lethal force. But the emphasis should be on defence. Pouring much needed resources into fighting a insurgency and calling it part of the 'war on terror' is problematic to say the least.

I am not denying that thier are terrorists in these countries. Terrorism is a very real threat in Iraq. Resources should be spent fighting them. Currently the emphasis is on defeating the insurgencies. But diologue can pervail and has pervailed. Not only have some groups laid thier guns down to vote or enter talks, but some have also turned against the extremists groups and ex-Baathists who continue to work against almost everyone in Iraq. But my point remains the same - the US needs to differentiate between terrorists and guerrillas. Vast resources spent fighting the anti-occupational guerrillas should be spend fighting the anti-Iraqi terrorists. In other words, defend against the guerrillas. Strengthen the offensive against the extremists.

If the Americans obtained the head of al Zarqawi (who in my opinion has been overestimated and turned into a cult figure by the US) and worked more against his supporters and affiliates, the Iraqi guerrillas would see sense in America. This may sound contraversial, but lets face facts - a lot of Iraqis actually blame the current crisis in Iraq on the Americans failure to control the extremists. Because of that, anti-coalition attacks have been high since 2003.

There are many other factors, but once again, im going on.

gkayese

"Sprey, just how is the UN (or do you mean the US?) being overstretched in Afghanistan? Do you believe that the situation could realisticaly be better? "

I am suggesting that the US ,the UN and any country/power trying to sort out the World problems are overstretching themselves. It is common knowledge that both th US and GB are calling up resevists on a regular basis in order to maintain the strength needed in each area of operaton.

There is little chance of the situation getting realisticly better than the you have so very well described it
.

The main point as I see it is that the resulting situation is very little different for Afghanistan, than it was before the onslaught.Except there are now foreign troops who are likely to be stationed there for some time.

Ovcourse they are going to be stationed there for years to come. Lets be realistic here. Afghanistan requires secuirty, therefore they require troops. NATO and other countries provides the troops because they need security in Afghanistan. When security is resotred, then the troops can be pulled out. Iraq is slightly different in that, in my view, the US wants to withdraw but can not do so without giving the insurgents 'a victory'.#

But even when the troops are eventually pulled out - if that is ever the case for troop deplyment serves other purposes besides security (strategic value for one) - then the US, etc, will still have to remain in the area for many years to come, if ever. Idealy troops should be stationed on aircraft carriers in international waters or on non-Muslim land (eg: Diego Garcia), but for the time being troops are needed on the ground.

Look at the sheer amount of countries around the world that are hosts to foreign troop deployments. It should not be assumed that the governments are after troop withdrawal. The US may (in my view) want to seek withdraw from Iraq but that is not possibe yet. Iraq is not an ideal place to base troops, while basing troops in Saudi Arabia is also problematic. But troops will always be deployed - whether they be Special forces working from embassies to aircraft flying over suspicious sites. The idea is to withdraw as many troops as possible while keeping a substanital pressence in the area, not total withdraw.

gkayesem

You are right of course.



Hindsight is painful.But.

What should be remembered is that the Afghanistan situation requiring foreign troops is because of too little consideration of what might happen afterwards,with the decision to attack, much more consultation should have taken place to consider what the consequences might be.

Not to mention Iraq which is going into serious 'meltdown' now.

Perhaps I should not mention Iran,yet.