Afghanistan - the reality

[Frances_iom]

Do the Taliban = Al-Qaeda?

no but they are not disjoint sets

[scottycelt]

Scotty do you really believe that the point of these wars is to win them, and create a better, more peaceful, stable , Just and affluent country for the residents.
Really believe it, I mean?

Do I believe everyone will live happily ever after, following a war? No, I don't. Do I believe that all the countries which contributed to the Coalition forces went into Afghanistan just for the sake of it? No, I don't.

What I do believe is that fighting some wars is preferable to the "peaceful" alternative. Democratic Europe preferable to a Nazi or Communist Europe, for example.

The proof of the success or failure of the Afghanistan operations will not be known for some years. It's now very much up to the Afghans themselves how things work out.

Only time will tell, team, only time will tell.

[ahinton]

Do I believe everyone will live happily ever after, following a war? No, I don't. Do I believe that all the countries which contributed to the Coalition forces went into Afghanistan just for the sake of it? No, I don't.

What I do believe is that fighting some wars is preferable to the "peaceful" alternative. Democratic Europe preferable to a Nazi or Communist Europe, for example.

But whose wars, scotty? Did the Afghans invade or threaten to invade Britain? No. Did Hitler? Yes. Is there therefore a difference? Yes.

The proof of the success or failure of the Afghanistan operations will not be known for some years. It's now very much up to the Afghans themselves how things work out.

Only time will tell, team, only time will tell.

That's all very well, but do you not think that, after all those years of British involvement, there should be some idea on the part of the British authorities as to what outcome that involvement might be expected to have had?

[Thropplenoggin]

It is my belief that Scotty Celt has set knuckle-dragging Neanderthal politics back by millennia (source: his avatar).

To quote his hero, Sir Richard Littlejohn(son), you couldn't make it up.

Even a defeat is a victory. Even negotiating with terrorists is a win. Every soldier's widow can sleep well tonight knowing SC thought their husband or wife's death was worthwhile. Let the record state, he didn't volunteer himself to defeat this nefarious Evil that is now being negotiated with to 'win the peace' or something. :whistle: x infinity. Debilos.

[ardcarp]

Many (most?) Afghans do not like the Taliban. Anyone who has read The Kite Runner will know that. But likewise, anyone who has read the novels of John Masters will know that the indigenous peoples of those regions are tough, determined and intelligent who, when foreign forces invade will melt away, regroup, attack from remote mountainous hide-outs, do not seek modern comforts nor a materialistic lifestyle. They are still culturally 'medieval', that is to say, they are religious fundamentalists, do not flinch at (what we regard as) cruel and bloodthirsty punishments, hold life less dear, and see the role of women and the education of girls as 'The West' did a few centuries ago. It is completely hopeless and misguided for us to impose our mores upon them by force; and if we think a parliamentary democracy will spring up overnight then we are crazy. Moreover, it's none of our damned business. As for the argument about 'protecting Europe/America from terrorism', it is perfectly obvious that such anti-Western attitudes that exist (and the fanatics who express them in horrendous ways) are the product of our meddling in the region anyway. So I'm afraid, Scotty, I disagree with your disagreement!!!

[anotherbob]

Only time will tell, team, only time will tell.

It's my belief that time has already told.....
Time and time again.

[Thropplenoggin]

Many (most?) Afghans do not like the Taliban. Anyone who has read The Kite Runner will know that. But likewise, anyone who has read the novels of John Masters will know that the indigenous peoples of those regions are tough, determined and intelligent who, when foreign forces invade will melt away, regroup, attack from remote mountainous hide-outs, do not seek modern comforts nor a materialistic lifestyle. They are still culturally 'medieval', that is to say, they are religious fundamentalists, do not flinch at (what we regard as) cruel and bloodthirsty punishments, hold life less dear, and see the role of women and the education of girls as 'The West' did a few centuries ago. It is completely hopeless and misguided for us to impose our mores upon them by force; and if we think a parliamentary democracy will spring up overnight then we are crazy. Moreover, it's none of our damned business. As for the argument about 'protecting Europe/America from terrorism', it is perfectly obvious that such anti-Western attitudes that exist (and the fanatics who express them in horrendous ways) are the product of our meddling in the region anyway. So I'm afraid, Scotty, I disagree with your disagreement!!!

Hmm. Tell that to the people waiting on Death Row in the enlightened states of America. Or those who have been the victim of extra-judicial assassination by, um, the US, who, as God-fearing 'mericans, hold all life as sacrosanct, and clearly believe in due process. :whistle:

You are right, though, that this complex tribal nation will outwit our interference and crass imposing of Western values, as it has always done. I have learned to accept that Scotty Celt has no understanding of historical precedent in this particular instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War

[teamsaint]

It's my belief that time has already told.....
Time and time again.

Couldn't be put better.
Except, perhaps, by Eric Bogle.

[scottycelt]

Many (most?) Afghans do not like the Taliban. Anyone who has read The Kite Runner will know that. But likewise, anyone who has read the novels of John Masters will know that the indigenous peoples of those regions are tough, determined and intelligent who, when foreign forces invade will melt away, regroup, attack from remote mountainous hide-outs, do not seek modern comforts nor a materialistic lifestyle. They are still culturally 'medieval', that is to say, they are religious fundamentalists, do not flinch at (what we regard as) cruel and bloodthirsty punishments, hold life less dear, and see the role of women and the education of girls as 'The West' did a few centuries ago. It is completely hopeless and misguided for us to impose our mores upon them by force; and if we think a parliamentary democracy will spring up overnight then we are crazy. Moreover, it's none of our damned business. As for the argument about 'protecting Europe/America from terrorism', it is perfectly obvious that such anti-Western attitudes that exist (and the fanatics who express them in horrendous ways) are the product of our meddling in the region anyway. So I'm afraid, Scotty, I disagree with your disagreement!!!

That is a perfectly reasonable point of view, ardcap, and you could well be proved to be right. At least it is an intelligent response unlike those offered by some who obviously prefer to indulge in what they consider to be side-splitting personal jibes as in #19 and #22. Oh, if they only knew the truth ... if only!

However, the Afghanistan of the 19th and 20th Centuries will not necessarily be the Afghanistan of the 21st and beyond. My only position is to state that it is far too early to say with any certainty what the legacy of the last 12 years will be and will it revert to the situation as it was prior to 2001? It might do but considering the current reality on the ground that is unlikely, I suspect. Terrorists were being trained in Afghanistan long before Nato started its 'meddling'. That's precisely why the UN gave it full authority to 'meddle'. I wholly agree with you that a Western-style democracy in a country like Afghanistan is a bit of a pipe-dream, to say the least. However any future arrangement that is suitable to most Afghans, and an improvement on what went before, has to be a good thing for both them and us, surely?

Those members who claim to already know the future of Afghanistan must all have crystal balls. I readily admit that I don't have a crystal ball and therefore retain an open mind as to the likely outcome, whether it be a political and social advance or just the same as before.

[ahinton]

That is a perfectly reasonable point of view, ardcap, and you could well prove to be right.

Broadly speaking, I concur with your view of ardcarp's remarks here.

However, the Afghanistan of the 19th and 20th Centuries will not necessarily be the Afghanistan of the 21st and beyond.

True, but the same could - indeed would realistically have to - be said of almost anywhere, not least those invaders of Afghanistan, including what was once the Soviet Union and, more recently, US, UK and others.

My only position is to state that it is far too early to say with any certainty what the legacy of the last 12 years will be and will it revert to the situation as it was prior to 2001? It might do but considering the current reality on the ground that is unlikely, I suspect. Terrorists were being trained in Afghanistan long before Nato started its 'meddling'. That's precisely why the UN gave it full authority to 'meddle'. I wholly agree with you that a Western-style democracy in a country like Afghanistan is a bit of a pipe-dream, to say the least. However any future arrangement that is suitable to most Afghans, and an improvement on what went before, has to be a good thing for both them and us, surely?

Of course, but only if it happens and can be seen to have happened; you suggest "that it is far too early to say with any certainty what the legacy of the last 12 years (in Afghanistan) will be" but, whilst that may be true in itself (as it would be of anywhere else in any case), we ought reasonably to be able to assume that the invasion of and military actions in that country were planned as part of an agenda to try to achieve certain specific changes there and, 12 years on, it is surely NOT too early to assess what changes if any have occurred as a direct consequence thereof, is it? In other words, we shouldn't be seeking to hide behind pointless speculations as to the future here but taking account of the actual outcomes of those past 12 years and it would surely be fair to argue that little material change has occurred there, especially given the number of lives lost in the attempts - 400+ British ones alone - and the sums spent on that "mission" - £40bn+ by Britain alone.

If we must embrace speculation here, however, I wonder what the British government in 2001 would have thought had they been in possession of those crystal balls that you mention and thus been able to predict the current state of Afghanistan and compare it with their hopes and expectations of 12 years of involvement there, mindful that it would involve more than four hundred deaths of British military personnel and a sum in excess of forty thousand million pounds of hard pressed taxpayers' money?

Those members who claim to already know the future of Afghanistan must all have crystal balls. I readily admit that I don't have a crystal ball and therefore retain an open mind as to the likely outcome, whether it be a political and social advance or just the same as before.

Fair enough as far as it goes, scotty, but never mind the balls, what about the walls? Isn't there yet sufficient evidence of failure to suggest that the writing is already on them? Just consider for a moment what the outcome might have been today had Britain and US not decided to get in on an Afghan act largely of their own making!

[Richard Barrett]

Regarding crystal balls: many people back in 2001 predicted exactly the kind of mess that the Afghanistan engagement would become, without the use of such devices, because it was so incredibly obvious. Our government and the US government are still lying about what its aims were and whether they can or will be achieved. Supposedly what was at stake was the safety of the citizens of these countries, but the expenditure of thousands of human lives on both sides, not to mention vast and continuing financial expenditure which ends up in the pockets of the fatcats of the "defence" industry, that is to say of the people who are really calling the shots, appears if anything to have had the opposite effect.

This war has now lasted as long as both world wars of the twentieth century put together, and so far has achieved nothing apart from death, pain and misery, unless I'm very much mistaken. How much more time, how much more death, is necessary before something positive could be said to have been achieved?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (attributed to Albert EInstein)

[ahinton]

Regarding crystal balls: many people back in 2001 predicted exactly the kind of mess that the Afghanistan engagement would become, without the use of such devices, because it was so incredibly obvious. Our government and the US government are still lying about what its aims were and whether they can or will be achieved. Supposedly what was at stake was the safety of the citizens of these countries, but the expenditure of thousands of human lives on both sides, not to mention vast and continuing financial expenditure which ends up in the pockets of the fatcats of the "defence" industry, that is to say of the people who are really calling the shots, appears if anything to have had the opposite effect.

Exactly. Many "people", yes - yet the governments of those very people cynically and wilfully rode roughshod over their views and concerns and went ahead regardless, largely for the reasons that you mention.

This war has now lasted as long as both world wars of the twentieth century put together, and so far has achieved nothing apart from death, pain and misery, unless I'm very much mistaken.

You aren't mistaken; the statistics for loss of life and for financial expenditure are broadly correct and no one - not even the culprit governments - seems to be arguing them down.

How much more time, how much more death, is necessary before something positive could be said to have been achieved?

"How long, oh Lord, how long?", as Shaw might have put it; it's surely obvious, though, after a dozen years with almost no tangible positive results that it wouldn't matter how much more time gets to be spent on yet more of what's been going on during that time, it will heal no wounds, resolve no internal conflicts and be of no perceptible benefit either to Afghan society, or the armed forces personnel still in Afghanistan or the reputations of the governments that keep them there.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (attributed to Albert Einstein)

!!!

[amateur51]

Regarding crystal balls: many people back in 2001 predicted exactly the kind of mess that the Afghanistan engagement would become, without the use of such devices, because it was so incredibly obvious. Our government and the US government are still lying about what its aims were and whether they can or will be achieved. Supposedly what was at stake was the safety of the citizens of these countries, but the expenditure of thousands of human lives on both sides, not to mention vast and continuing financial expenditure which ends up in the pockets of the fatcats of the "defence" industry, that is to say of the people who are really calling the shots, appears if anything to have had the opposite effect.

This war has now lasted as long as both world wars of the twentieth century put together, and so far has achieved nothing apart from death, pain and misery, unless I'm very much mistaken. How much more time, how much more death, is necessary before something positive could be said to have been achieved?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (attributed to Albert EInstein)

Lucidly and angrily put, RB.

Interesting that you should call up Einstein - of course what you and he lack, is ... faith :winkeye:

[Frances_iom]

Lucidly and angrily put, RB.

Interesting that you should call up Einstein - of course what you and he lack, is ... faith

Faith is fine whilst in a private capacity, it comforts the bereaved etc in same way kids like fairy stories - the whole concept that a certain people have a direct line to 'God' (whatever that is) leads only to misery for those who do not share such misconceptions - Islam is inherently fascist if the Koran is to be followed with apostates to be killed. Likewise Zionism has been the cancer in the middle east as American Jewry continues to pay conscience money to keep it alive - the US empire is however more a creation of mammon - profit for companies such as Halliburton acquired by the death and suffering of tens of thousands - as for the UK government did you really expect Hague of all people to come clean re antics of GCHQ even tho they were supposedly authorised by that son of the Manse (+ worse PM so far this century) Brown

[scottycelt]

Regarding crystal balls: many people back in 2001 predicted exactly the kind of mess that the Afghanistan engagement would become, without the use of such devices, because it was so incredibly obvious. Our government and the US government are still lying about what its aims were and whether they can or will be achieved. Supposedly what was at stake was the safety of the citizens of these countries, but the expenditure of thousands of human lives on both sides, not to mention vast and continuing financial expenditure which ends up in the pockets of the fatcats of the "defence" industry, that is to say of the people who are really calling the shots, appears if anything to have had the opposite effect.

This war has now lasted as long as both world wars of the twentieth century put together, and so far has achieved nothing apart from death, pain and misery, unless I'm very much mistaken. How much more time, how much more death, is necessary before something positive could be said to have been achieved?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (attributed to Albert EInstein)

Of course there will always be those who oppose certain actions (often for purely political reasons).

Here are some of the facts, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1510

So we know 49 countries contributed forces to the huge Nato-led operation (up to Dec 2012). Even that number doesn't include the list of diverse nations who lent support to the operation in other ways, including Iran & Russia. All with the unanimous blessing of the United Nations Security Council.

It could be that the leaders of all these countries are either 'insane' or total mugs, completely failing to see the 'incredibly obvious'.

Yes, that must be it ... :ok: