Afghanistan - the reality

[scottycelt]

I seem to have missed something here. What is this 'overwhelming majority opinion on the ground'? What is it saying exactly?I listened to what he had to say in the interview (see OP), and his opinion made sense. Actually, there were two guests: the other was Lucy Morgan-Edwards who has studied the situation closely, though I doubt she fought there. Which diplomats are you talking about? This is the French Ambassador, with several diplomatic heads nodding over his words. Not exactly upbeat.
I would trust the views of those who have served their time there, rather than diplomats and others who haven't.

Are you saying that the Afghanistan 'undertaking' was not an unnecessary disaster with muddled objectives, which has cost this country a huge amount in money and lives with no obvious benefit?

I won't go over the same old stuff again. I'll simply say that the comments of Cowper-Coles have been given prominence by the media precisely because they are unusual and contradict the mainstream view. Have you come across many other British diplomats with experience of Afghanistan saying the same sort of thing? I suspect some may have doubts about certain aspects of the operation ... it would be astonishing if they did not ... but I haven't as yet come across any who say the whole thing has been "a total failure'"and a complete waste of money. Apart from anything else it is far early to judge, as we'll only really know after a number of years of Afghan government control of security.

Furthermore when the official representatives of China, Russian Federation, France, UK and the US all agree on the same international action I suspect most of us might be prepared to take their advice. I can never remember such a show of international unanimity before or after. It all boils down to whether you prefer to take their advice or think that Cowper-Coles is more knowledgeable. It's up to the individual to decide which point of view might carriy the greater weight.

As to your final question I'm not saying anything apart from what I've already said! It is yourself who is taking the dogmatic line by claiming that the whole enterprise has been a disaster and a complete waste of money and lives. You (and others) appear to speak with total certainty here.

In contrast, I am far from being certain and prefer to see what happens after a reasonable period of Afghan self-determination. Then, and only then, might we have an indisputable answer!

[MrGongGong]

Is it just me , or is there something rather bizarre about the main protagonist in this discussion who is advocating the necessity for killing people as a "best worst" option is the same person who is a self declared follower of a pacifist religion ?
Or maybe Scotty is now the chair of the Western Isles Vegan Butchers Association ?

I'm not a member of any religion BUT I used to understand that the idea that you don't kill people was some sort of absolute ? not something that could be discarded when it's not expedient or economically useful ?

Surely one of the huge problems is that the USA and UK "crapped" all over the UN with the whole "Team America" approach to international politics ?
(Cue a comment suggesting that in saying that I'm advocating denying women access to education and suicide bombing....grr)

[ahinton]

All three points here display some degree of subjective opinion rather than 'indisputable' fact.

a) Achieved nothing ... who knows with any real certainty at this stage?

If, as you seek to imply, no one knows or indeed can know "at this stage" what Britain's and US's military involvement in Afghanistan has achieved, don't you think that, if no one's able to perceive any material difference after 12 years of it, something must be gravely amiss? Don't you think that a dozen years' involvement ought to have achieved something tangible and identifiable? What makes you think that it will be easier to tell the outcome in terms of benefit or lack of it several more years down the line?

b) Cost many lives. It has certainly cost lives ... to have done nothing would still have cost lives ... tragic as any death is for the family and friends concerned over half as many UK personnel died in a few weeks in the Falklands than have died in the 10 years to date in Afghanistan.

Far more Argentinians than British died during the Falklands conflict - and, in any case, why would the Falklands example serve as any kind of illustration here? One major difference is indeed the very fact that the aggressor - Argentina - sustained far greater loss of life than did the Falklands citizens and the Brits who went to their aid / defence; you could hardly say that of Afghanistan! Whilst it is almost certainly true that "to have done nothing would still have cost lives", none of the deaths that would in any case have occurred would be the responsibility of Britain or US; furthermore, the likelihood that the death toll would have been higher because an invasion had taken place is surely undeniable, to the extent that such invasion and subsequent military action would inevitably polarise all sides and exacerbate the effects of conflict.

c) Wasted £40bn of taxpayers' money ... again wasted is wholly subjective opinion.

It is not so if what was intended to be achieved before invasion and action commenced has not been achieved - and even you are expressing doubts and hedging your bets about what's been achieved in Afghanistan in the past 12 years! Had Afghanistan invaded Britain in 2001 and deployed military personnel there, the expenditure of taxpayers' money would have been eminently more understandable - and perhaps justifiable - than is actually the case; £40bn+ is a very large sum of taxpayers' money - not far short of an average of £100 per taxpayer per annum and if one also factors in a due proportion the consequential misappropriation of the procurement arm of Britain's defence budget, the sum wasted is higher again.

You still choose to ignore the crucial point about unanimous UN Security Council authority for the action in Afghanistan and refer to 'adventures' as if the UK was desperately trying to recover some of its 19th Century Empire, with the active assistance of over 40 other nations!

Britain could still have refused had it so chosen, but the more important point is that the UN authority did not, at the time it was granted, specifically provide for the indefinite presence of troops there and, when they've all departed, the dust settled and it is seen that little of positive value has been achieved, it might in any case seem in retrospect to have made something of a mockery of that part of the UN Security Council authority that sanctioned the invasion itself; just because UN endorses something doesn't necessarily make it right, does it?!

[amateur51]

Not much more or less than to you or anybody else here I should imagine, amsy ... <laugh><winkeye>

I was trying to evoke memories and lessons of the Vietnam war, scotty - McNamara used that phrase.

[scottycelt]

Is it just me , or is there something rather bizarre about the main protagonist in this discussion who is advocating the necessity for killing people as a "best worst" option is the same person who is a self declared follower of a pacifist religion ?
Or maybe Scotty is now the chair of the Western Isles Vegan Butchers Association ?

I'm not a member of any religion BUT I used to understand that the idea that you don't kill people was some sort of absolute ?
not something that could be discarded when it's not expedient or economically useful ?

Surely one of the huge problems is that the USA and UK "crapped" all over the UN with the whole "Team America" approach to international politics ?
(Cue a comment suggesting that in saying that I'm advocating denying women access to education and suicide bombing....grr)

I've never actually 'declared' anything regarding being a 'follower' of any particular religion. On the old forum I happened to reveal that I once went to a Jesuit school and that, in retrospect, was inexcusably naive. Some of our tolerant, all-embracing 'liberals' then came down on me like a ton of bricks with their loud anti-Catholic hysteria.

Mr GG, it is you that is obsessed with religion not myself. Unlike others, I have never raised the subject or started a thread on it. It is true I have not been shy in expressing my own views or combating anti-faith intolerance on this forum, of which you are undoubtedly the most celebrated example.

However this thread is supposed to be about Afghanistan and not my religious beliefs which do not include Pacifism. You really must get better informed. I (and no doubt many of your fellow-atheists as well!) do believe that there can be such a thing as a 'just war' so your remarks, not for the first time, are wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

[amateur51]

I've never actually 'declared' anything regarding being a 'follower' of any particular religion. On the old forum I happened to reveal that I once went to a Jesuit school and that, in retrospect, was inexcusably naive. Some of our tolerant, all-embracing 'liberals' then came down on me like a ton of bricks with their loud anti-Catholic hysteria.

Mr GG, it is you that is obsessed with religion not myself. Unlike others, I have never raised the subject or started a thread on it. It is true I have not been shy in expressing my own views or combating anti-faith intolerance on this forum, of which you are undoubtedly the most celebrated example.

However this thread is supposed to be about Afghanistan and not my religious beliefs which do not include Pacifism. You really must get better informed. I (and no doubt many of your fellow-atheists as well!) do believe that there can be such a thing as a 'just war' so your remarks, not for the first time, are wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

Just to be clear - the invasion of Afghanistan was primarily about removing thae Taliban government, the Taliban being a extremely violent fundamentalist Islamic sect. The majority of the troops that took part in the invasion would have come from Christian countries. Thus it is clear that the invasion can be seen at least in part as a religious war, and that cannot be avoided.

You have stated many times that non-Catholics like myself and MrGongGong have no business commenting on Catholic affairs, such as the local and Vatican handling of cases of child abuse by priests, because we are not Catholics, scotty.

Why raising these issues should be regarded as hysteria is beyond me. In fact I would think the hysterical reaction, in the psychological use of the term, lies within those who refuse to acknowledge how pernicious and vile and prevalent these acts and the Church's reaction to them were.

[MrGongGong]

However this thread is supposed to be about Afghanistan and not my religious beliefs which do not include Pacifism. You really must get better informed. I (and no doubt many of your fellow-atheists as well!) do believe that there can be such a thing as a 'just war' so your remarks, not for the first time, are wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course I was mistaken
the whole bit about not killing people in the Bible was a mistranslation

IT IS very relevant indeed
our whole society is partly built on that tradition (some might say wholly)
they said prayers in the House Of Commons before deciding to invade Iraq
like they said prayers before Beziers

Maybe belief in doing good and not killing people is "wholly irrelevant to this discussion" in your world
but it's a bit odd, don't you think ?

[ardcarp]

I often wonder if the capitalist system has missed a trick? Rather than forking out 40,000,000 quid to kill people, why not just give them the money and tell them to go away? Sort of 'swords into Tesco shares'.

[Richard Barrett]

the whole bit about not killing people in the Bible

It would be nice to see an interpretation of Jesus' alleged words:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

which could provide a justification for invading countries and bombing people. Just asking.

[Richard Barrett]

forking out 40,000,000 quid to kill people .

Three zeroes missing there I think.

[ardcarp]

Oops, yes indeed. £40,000,000,000.

[teamsaint]

Is it just me , or is there something rather bizarre about the main protagonist in this discussion who is advocating the necessity for killing people as a "best worst" option is the same person who is a self declared follower of a pacifist religion ?
Or maybe Scotty is now the chair of the Western Isles Vegan Butchers Association ?

I'm not a member of any religion BUT I used to understand that the idea that you don't kill people was some sort of absolute ? not something that could be discarded when it's not expedient or economically useful ?

Surely one of the huge problems is that the USA and UK "crapped" all over the UN with the whole "Team America" approach to international politics ?
(Cue a comment suggesting that in saying that I'm advocating denying women access to education and suicide bombing....grr)

Yup , last I heard killing people was wrong.

If anybody doesn't think that our systems of government and power are based on violence, arms, money and greed, I recommend a trip to Blenaevon Ironworks near Abergavenny, where this is demonstrated all too clearly.

It seems that killing people is also expensive for us, and lucrative for them.

[Frances_iom]

I often wonder if the capitalist system has missed a trick? Rather than forking out 40,000,000 quid to kill people, why not just give them the money and tell them to go away?

I believe this has been tried - known as Danegeld (+ no this isn't what we pay for Lurpak) + wasn't that successful,
however the Qur'an does not contain such peaceful messages - the other people of the book merely have to pay additional taxes but non-bleliever and apostates are to be killed

[french frank]

As to your final question I'm not saying anything apart from what I've already said! It is yourself who is taking the dogmatic line by claiming that the whole enterprise has been a disaster and a complete waste of money and lives. You (and others) appear to speak with total certainty here.

In contrast, I am far from being certain and prefer to see what happens after a reasonable period of Afghan self-determination. Then, and only then, might we have an indisputable answer!

Going back, as this is a reply to me: I don't think certainty over what will happen in the future is possible in this sort of situation. Disregarding the rights and wrongs of getting involved in the first place, you weigh up the evidence and take a decision as to when enough is enough. You seem to want to prolong the agony until you're certain about the outcome; others say this is just throwing good money and lives after bad.

[amateur51]

Women human rights defenders include activists, journalists, teachers, health professionals and politicians. These are exceptional women doing often ordinary jobs, risking their safety to speak out for women's rights and work to defend women's human rights in Afghanistan.

The work that they do puts them at serious risk. In recent months two female parliamentarians have been attacked and the last two most senior female police officers in Helmand province have been murdered. This September, Sushmita Banerjee, a well-known author who had written about life under the Taliban was dragged from her home, shot 15 times and left to die.

The UK government has an opportunity to make a big difference to the lives of these women and the women they represent across Afghanistan. Our government needs to lead on supporting and protecting women's human rights defenders in Afghanistan.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/stop-violence-against-women-activists-afghanistan?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=niche_email&utm_campaign=women&utm_content=button1

Perhaps readers might like to make contact with their MP about this?