Posted: Sun 26 Feb, 2006 12:53 pm
I agree that we may have diverted much needed resources and attention to Iraq, but I disagree that the governments thought out the plan wrongfully. The situation in Afghanistan is actually not that bad, when you compere it to places like Iraq. Its not just the short term stuation that needs securitising, but its long term future as an allie of the United States (and to a lessor extent GB). The enemy in Afghanistan - wheter they be Mujahideen (foreign fighters unaffiliated with any Bin Laden or Taliban cause), Taliban, Afghans, sympathisers of OBL - are fighting Coalition troops and committing terrorist attacks, but these are insufficient for any serious drawn out campaign.
Say if western forces did leave, and then Taliban forces rose up again and increased attacks substantially - would this mean a falure of the coaltion forces?
In my view, it would be seen that way. But the motivations and intentions of the adversary must always be taken into account, and realistically the enemy is something that troops on the ground can not annihilate completely. The idea is to weaken the enemy to the point that its ambitions seem out of reach and decides to lay down its arms.
Its a bit different with those who committ terrorism however. But remember that terrorism only serves an end, and that end is not victory. Terrorism is niether sufficient or lasting enough to implement a policy. Terrorism can only create the conditions necessary for a revolution or prolonged guerrilla insurgency. The aim to to train the Afghan government to the point (it is also true for th Iraqi government) that it can defend against terrorist attacks. These governments do not have the authority, power or legitimacy to fight a prolonged defensive campaign against guerrillas - so they must extinguish or limit the threat in its terrorism phase.
That can also be applied to Iraq. There are probably tens of thousands in Iraq fighting what can only be described as legitimate - political affiliates is not important here - guerrilla war. Only a minority - a few thousand at most - are beign used in terror attacks. The goal of those attacks, in my view, is to kick off civil war and create chaos - conditions necessary for a minority and prolonged guerrilla campaign and Islamic revival in Iraq. Like in Afgahnistan, the Iraqis need to be trained to defend and fight against terrosists.
However in Iraq this is not the case. Because policy makers have fused the guerrillas and terrorists into one bloc of oponents - 'the insurgency' - much needed resources are being used to go on the offensive against an enemy that one can only realistically defend against. Iraqi soldiers and police are being used to fight the enemy of the United States and coalition forces. They need to concentrate on fighting those who comitt terrorism - the Islamic Shura council is the new name of the collective organisations I think - and to destroy thier infastructure. Anti-coalition forces are the coalitions problems. Anti-Iraqi forces are the Iraqis problems. But that is not to say that we shouldnt be fighting those who commit terror.
Iraqis or Afghanis should not be used to fight our wars. If they are used correctly, the terrorist infastructure can be shattered and the long term threat can be extinguished in its most destructive and vulnerable phase.
If not, and Iraqis and Afghans are continually used against those who pose no long term threat to the stability of Iraq - Iraqi resistance fighters and foreign Mujahideedn (for sake of argument I have seperated the guerilla Mujahideen from the foreign terrorist fighters) - then the long term stability of Iraq can not be guaranteed.
You may see differently, but in my view attacks upon coalition forces are not a sign of instability - for thier is alwasy two sides of a war and thier motivations are so complex and varied that they can not be just labelled as Islamists, Baathists, etc. Terrorist attacks are the main indicating factor of stability or not.
It may seem simplistic that I devide the enemy into two camps - those who committ terror and those who do not. While both sides may equally, from time to time, vary thier tactics and use both conventional and unconventional tactics, it is those groups centred around Abu Musab al Zarqawi - the Shura Council - that use terrorism most greatly and are therefore the greates threat to Iraqis stability.
Blatantly labelling every single group and individual in Iraq or Afghanistan who fires a gun in anger as a terrorist is not only comletely unjustified and incorrect, it is also problematic and simplistic. It adds complications to an already complex situation and adds unecessary layers to the threat. The USA has simply neglected understanding for firepower and brute force. It may be politically helpful for Geroge Bush to call his enemies evil, but the situation on the ground is a lot different and if military commanders follow Bush's rhetoric then the situation will never get better.
And Iran? Its anyones guess but apparently it will take them 4/5 years to develop a nuclear weapon. Either we sort this mess out peacefully or Iran will have to be bombed every 3 years or so, and even then they will eventually gain nuclear weapons sooner or later - if that is indeed thier intentions,
Say if western forces did leave, and then Taliban forces rose up again and increased attacks substantially - would this mean a falure of the coaltion forces?
In my view, it would be seen that way. But the motivations and intentions of the adversary must always be taken into account, and realistically the enemy is something that troops on the ground can not annihilate completely. The idea is to weaken the enemy to the point that its ambitions seem out of reach and decides to lay down its arms.
Its a bit different with those who committ terrorism however. But remember that terrorism only serves an end, and that end is not victory. Terrorism is niether sufficient or lasting enough to implement a policy. Terrorism can only create the conditions necessary for a revolution or prolonged guerrilla insurgency. The aim to to train the Afghan government to the point (it is also true for th Iraqi government) that it can defend against terrorist attacks. These governments do not have the authority, power or legitimacy to fight a prolonged defensive campaign against guerrillas - so they must extinguish or limit the threat in its terrorism phase.
That can also be applied to Iraq. There are probably tens of thousands in Iraq fighting what can only be described as legitimate - political affiliates is not important here - guerrilla war. Only a minority - a few thousand at most - are beign used in terror attacks. The goal of those attacks, in my view, is to kick off civil war and create chaos - conditions necessary for a minority and prolonged guerrilla campaign and Islamic revival in Iraq. Like in Afgahnistan, the Iraqis need to be trained to defend and fight against terrosists.
However in Iraq this is not the case. Because policy makers have fused the guerrillas and terrorists into one bloc of oponents - 'the insurgency' - much needed resources are being used to go on the offensive against an enemy that one can only realistically defend against. Iraqi soldiers and police are being used to fight the enemy of the United States and coalition forces. They need to concentrate on fighting those who comitt terrorism - the Islamic Shura council is the new name of the collective organisations I think - and to destroy thier infastructure. Anti-coalition forces are the coalitions problems. Anti-Iraqi forces are the Iraqis problems. But that is not to say that we shouldnt be fighting those who commit terror.
Iraqis or Afghanis should not be used to fight our wars. If they are used correctly, the terrorist infastructure can be shattered and the long term threat can be extinguished in its most destructive and vulnerable phase.
If not, and Iraqis and Afghans are continually used against those who pose no long term threat to the stability of Iraq - Iraqi resistance fighters and foreign Mujahideedn (for sake of argument I have seperated the guerilla Mujahideen from the foreign terrorist fighters) - then the long term stability of Iraq can not be guaranteed.
You may see differently, but in my view attacks upon coalition forces are not a sign of instability - for thier is alwasy two sides of a war and thier motivations are so complex and varied that they can not be just labelled as Islamists, Baathists, etc. Terrorist attacks are the main indicating factor of stability or not.
It may seem simplistic that I devide the enemy into two camps - those who committ terror and those who do not. While both sides may equally, from time to time, vary thier tactics and use both conventional and unconventional tactics, it is those groups centred around Abu Musab al Zarqawi - the Shura Council - that use terrorism most greatly and are therefore the greates threat to Iraqis stability.
Blatantly labelling every single group and individual in Iraq or Afghanistan who fires a gun in anger as a terrorist is not only comletely unjustified and incorrect, it is also problematic and simplistic. It adds complications to an already complex situation and adds unecessary layers to the threat. The USA has simply neglected understanding for firepower and brute force. It may be politically helpful for Geroge Bush to call his enemies evil, but the situation on the ground is a lot different and if military commanders follow Bush's rhetoric then the situation will never get better.
And Iran? Its anyones guess but apparently it will take them 4/5 years to develop a nuclear weapon. Either we sort this mess out peacefully or Iran will have to be bombed every 3 years or so, and even then they will eventually gain nuclear weapons sooner or later - if that is indeed thier intentions,
