Afghanistan - the reality

[amateur51]

What is those dreadful 'Western powers'? I wasn't in that comment going as far as to suggest that they had any responsibility for the trouble beginning: I was limiting myself to the "indisputable" facts that, subsequent UK interference in Afghanistan had

a) achieved nothing (evidence of Sherard Cowper Coles on the Radio 4 prog mentioned in the OP)

b) cost many lives of UK personnel alone

c) ergo, wasted £40bn of taxpayers' money.

That surely is a clear enough lesson that further such adventures would be inadvisable?

Re point a) SCC said that the objective of removing the Taliban government had been achieved by January 2002. What happened thereafter was 'mission drift' (my shorthand) and that had achieved nothing.

[french frank]

Re point a) SCC said that the objective of removing the Taliban government had been achieved by January 2002. What happened thereafter was 'mission drift' (my shorthand) and that had achieved nothing.

Didn't he also say that our quarrel was not, in any case, with the Taliban, but with Al Qaeda?

[amateur51]

Didn't he also say that our quarrel was not, in any case, with the Taliban, but with Al Qaeda?

Well remembered, he did indeed :ok:

[scottycelt]

What is those dreadful 'Western powers'? I wasn't in that comment going as far as to suggest that they had any responsibility for the trouble beginning: I was limiting myself to the "indisputable" facts that, subsequent UK interference in Afghanistan had

a) achieved nothing (evidence of Sherard Cowper Coles on the Radio 4 prog mentioned in the OP)

b) cost many lives of UK personnel alone

c) ergo, wasted £40bn of taxpayers' money.

That surely is a clear enough lesson that further such adventures would be inadvisable?

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?

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.

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

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!

[amateur51]

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?

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.

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

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!

If you insist that it's all subjective scotty, then I'll say that I'd rather accept Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles's subjectivity than yours any day - he has a significant amount of experience of Afghanistan whereas you have none.

What word would you choose to replace 'wasted' scotty?

I've dealt with your smoke screen in msg #59.

[french frank]

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!

Not territorially, perhaps, just in terms of prestige. Am51 said the rest.

I'm not questioning the legality of it (unlike Iraq), just the pointlessness.

[anotherbob]

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.

You still choose to ignore the crucial point about unanimous UN Security Council authority for the action in Afghanistan.....

For all sorts of reasons I'm not as reassured as you by large numbers of politicians backing a political decision.

[scottycelt]

Not territorially, perhaps, just in terms of prestige. Am51 said the rest.

I'm not questioning the legality of it (unlike Iraq), just the pointlessness.

The last sentence is an advance. That is a personal view like my own, nothing more or less. We can therefore agree to differ. You may well turn out to be right. As I said right at the beginning only time will tell whether the Afghan operation was a success or failure. As with so many things in this life it could well turn out to be somewhere in between.

The other poster you mention made the quite ridiculous assertion that I purport to know more about Afghanistan than a previously unheard of and obviously maverick British diplomat called Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. I know nothing about Afghanistan and even less about Cowper-Coles and I suspect I am far from being alone here in both regards. One can't resist a smile though for the sudden forum warming to a BAE Systems Development Director with a double-barrelled surname!

The whole premise of my argument (as you must know) has been to point out the huge wordwide support for the intervention in Afghanistan, backed by an unanimous UN Security Council vote.

It was/is not a US/UK military 'adventure'. At least you now appear to have somewhat reluctantly acknowledged that fact. I also don't claim to know more about Afghanistan than the leaders of over 70 nations and every single national representative in the Security Council of the United Nations!

[scottycelt]

For all sorts of reasons I'm not as reassured as you by large numbers of politicians backing a political decision.

You may have a bit of a point there, anotherbob!

Being a bit of a political cynic myself it's not so much a question of reassurance but much more about simply trying (no doubt vainly) to set the record straight!

[amateur51]

The last sentence is an advance. That is a personal view like my own, nothing more or less. We can therefore agree to differ. You may well turn out to be right. As I said right at the beginning only time will tell whether the Afghan operation was a success or failure. As with so many things in this life it could well turn out to be somewhere in between.

The other poster you mention made the quite ridiculous assertion that I purport to know more about Afghanistan than a previously unheard of and obviously maverick British diplomat called Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. I know nothing about Afghanistan and even less about Cowper-Coles and I suspect I am far from being alone here in both regards. One can't resist a smile though for the sudden forum warming to a BAE Systems Development Director with a double-barrelled surname!

The whole premise of my argument (as you must know) has been to point out the huge wordwide support for the intervention in Afghanistan, backed by an unanimous UN Security Council vote.

It was/is not a US/UK military 'adventure'. At least you now appear to have somewhat reluctantly acknowledged that fact. I also don't claim to know more about Afghanistan than the leaders of over 70 nations and every single national representative in the Security Council of the United Nations!

Scotty, has it occurred to you that post-Iraq invasion the United Nations has learned something, such as it is probably better to let USA/UK have their own way if you also ensure that there are lots of other nations tagging along to have an investment in what actually happens? It might be damage limitation rather than actual enthusiasm.

You are very dismissive of Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles whom you describe as a 'maverick'. However consider his career experience in relation to Afghanistan.

From wiki:

'Diplomatic career

Cowper-Coles entered the diplomatic service in 1977 [aged 22]. He was Third Secretary and later Second Secretary in Cairo, 1980–1983, First Secretary in the Planning Staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1983–1985; Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-secretary of State, 1985–1987, First Secretary in Washington, 1987–1991, Assistant in the Security Policy Department of the FCO, 1991–1993, Resident Associate, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1993–1994; Head of the Hong Kong Department of the FCO, 1994–1997, Political Counsellor in Paris, 1997–1999; Principal Private Secretary to Robin Cook, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 1999–2001.[2]

His first role as a head of mission was in Tel Aviv as the British Ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2003. He was next appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia in Riyadh, a post that he held until 2006. From 15 May 2007 until April 2009 he served as ambassador to Afghanistan in Kabul.[2] In February 2009 it was announced that he would be taking up a new role as special representative of the UK Foreign Secretary to Afghanistan and Pakistan.[4]

In early 2010 it is reported that he clashed with senior NATO and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised.[5]

On 21 June 2010 the British high commission announced he had taken "extended leave" from his position in Afghanistan.[5] Following comments from the Foreign Secretary William Hague, it appeared unlikely he would return to the post


That looks like a lot of recent experience in Afghanistan to me, with a capacity for independent thought. I for one would listen to what he has to say.

[amateur51]

You may have a bit of a point there, anotherbob!

Being a bit of a political cynic myself it's not so much a question of reassurance but much more about simply trying (no doubt vainly) to set the record straight!

To coin a phrase. I often think that straight is wildly over-rated :smiley:

[scottycelt]

Scotty, has it occurred to you that post-Iraq invasion the United Nations has learned something, such as it is probably better to let USA/UK have their own way if you also ensure that there are lots of other nations tagging along to have an investment in what actually happens? It might be damage limitation rather than actual enthusiasm.

You are very dismissive of Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles whom you describe as a 'maverick'. However consider his career experience in relation to Afghanistan.

From wiki:

'Diplomatic career

Cowper-Coles entered the diplomatic service in 1977 [aged 22]. He was Third Secretary and later Second Secretary in Cairo, 1980–1983, First Secretary in the Planning Staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1983–1985; Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-secretary of State, 1985–1987, First Secretary in Washington, 1987–1991, Assistant in the Security Policy Department of the FCO, 1991–1993, Resident Associate, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1993–1994; Head of the Hong Kong Department of the FCO, 1994–1997, Political Counsellor in Paris, 1997–1999; Principal Private Secretary to Robin Cook, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 1999–2001.[2]

His first role as a head of mission was in Tel Aviv as the British Ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2003. He was next appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia in Riyadh, a post that he held until 2006. From 15 May 2007 until April 2009 he served as ambassador to Afghanistan in Kabul.[2] In February 2009 it was announced that he would be taking up a new role as special representative of the UK Foreign Secretary to Afghanistan and Pakistan.[4]

In early 2010 it is reported that he clashed with senior NATO and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised.[5]

On 21 June 2010 the British high commission announced he had taken "extended leave" from his position in Afghanistan.[5] Following comments from the Foreign Secretary William Hague, it appeared unlikely he would return to the post


That looks like a lot of recent experience in Afghanistan to me, with a capacity for independent thought. I for one would listen to what he has to say.

You've hit the nail well and truly on the head with your blue highlighting, amsey!

We'll always get those who depart from the mainstream in any employment. Cowper-Coles could well be right. He could also be hopelessly wrong. We don't know the actual reason for that 'extended leave'. There also could be (and almost certainly is) much more to this than you and I know. We are simply not in possession
of all the facts.

However, even without additional factors, it is a question of whether one believes overwhelming majority opinion on the ground or the view of a maverick who begs to differ.

I am not saying the man is necessarily wrong. I am simply asking why you (and French Frank) are so eagerly prepared to accept the view of this one single disaffected man and yet so easily dismiss the equally professional and oft-stated judgement of the overwhelming majority of his fellow-diplomats and (here we go again!) the unanimous decision of the UN Security Council?

As you are most unlikely to know very much more about Afghanistan than I do, can you now give me a proper answer to that very simple question?

[amateur51]

You've hit the nail well and truly on the head with your blue highlighting, amsey!

We'll always get those who depart from the mainstream in any employment. Cowper-Coles could well be right. He could also be hopelessly wrong. We don't know the actual reason for that 'extended leave'. There also could be (and almost certainly is) much more to this than you and I know. We are simply not in possession
of all the facts.

However, even without additional factors, it is a question of whether one believes overwhelming majority opinion on the ground or the view of a maverick who begs to differ.

I am not saying the man is necessarily wrong. I am simply asking why you (and French Frank) are so eagerly prepared to accept the view of this one single disaffected man and yet so easily dismiss the equally professional and oft-stated judgement of the overwhelming majority of his fellow-diplomats and (here we go again!) the unanimous decision of the UN Security Council?

As you are most unlikely to know very much more about Afghanistan than I do, can you now give me a proper answer to that very simple question?

You seem to think that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles is the only dissenting voice here, scotty. There are plenty of other people, from a range of backgrounds and nationalities, who have come to the same conclusions that he has.

Does the phrase 'the fog of war' mean anything to you?:erm:

[scottycelt]

Does the phrase 'the fog of war' mean anything to you?:erm:

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

[french frank]

it is a question of whether one believes overwhelming majority opinion on the ground or the view of a maverick who begs to differ.

I seem to have missed something here. What is this 'overwhelming majority opinion on the ground'? What is it saying exactly?

I am not saying the man is necessarily wrong. I am simply asking why you (and French Frank) are so eagerly prepared to accept the view of this one single disaffected man and yet so easily dismiss the equally professional and oft-stated judgement of the overwhelming majority of his fellow-diplomats and (here we go again!) the unanimous decision of the UN Security Council?

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.

As you are most unlikely to know very much more about Afghanistan than I do, can you now give me a proper answer to that very simple question?

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?