I don't want to be disrespectful to those people at all, but their best intentions don't count for squat. How they are perceived in that country, and the concrete results of their presence and actions are what count.

When some positive ones turn up I'd like to hear about them.

But will they, one guy accidently sticks a Koran in the rubbish that gets burned and there's mayhem, over a frickin book of fiction!

Why - because you think they are savages?

Excellent point, Dally. This will be good.

Is it more racist to think they're incapable of being brought to heel in the required manner? Or is it more racist to think that the inherent nature of their society without a Western military presence means that they ought to be?

Fight it out.

I haven't suggested that., HY.

Service personnel go out there because they're told to, but I'm sure that there's a wide range of personal feelings about doing that amongst them. And I wouldn't suggest others – and didn't.

But regardless of that, I would question how much has been achieved – and it's certainly not down to the ordinary soldiers to do the political/diplomatic stuff (what I touched on above).



Me neither.



Indeed.

No, because I've noted reports of reactions to other incidents there. This is a pretty horrific incident and in the light of reactions to less horrific ones, I don't expect there to be nothing happening this time.

Like I said, I hope you're right

Who are these apparent 'they' of which you speak? The majority? A few nutters? Who exactly?

I'm guessing it's the same "they" you were on about when you were ascribing to that entire population a single solitary opinion which you hope will be the ultimate outcome.



In fact, since Chris never used the word even once in the entire thread, I can only imagine this is the source of your confusion.

I haven't mentioned "they" in either post



The follwoing stories

February 2012: Deadly protests after US troops inadvertently burn Koran
January 2012: Video shows US marines urinating on dead Afghans

from the BBC website have both had responses in the form of protest, some violent, some not, some large, some not so. So as I said, I expect a "reaction" to the news.

I can't see this one going by without some major reprisals. There is going to be mayhem over the next few weeks, an any Westerner will be classed as fair game.

We went in there to get rid of Bin Laden, his AQA mates and the Taliban who were offering them safe haven. The job got done pretty quickly, and that was the time to hand power to local warlords and leave.

We then saw mission creep into reconstruction and 'democracy'. Reconstruction? There was nothing to reconstruct!

The sooner we pull out the better. The place has always been a hole and always will be. Even if there is some semblance of normality at the moment, it will go to rat poop when we leave.

It's worth making the point that in June 2010 the Indian/Pakistani journalist Fareed Zakaria quoting US and Afghan sources claimed Al Qaeda has been decimated fighting coalition forces and is now down to no more than 50-100 active members. As a fighting force it is finished.

Which means the overwhelming majority of attacks on occupying forces are by the people of Afghanistan.

[iMeanwhile in May of 2010 NATO lost over 100 troops![/i

I should mention that Fareed (who writes extensively on Middle Eastern affairs for Newsweek) [uSUPPORTED[/u the war in Iraq and can hardly be described as a liberal.

The problem was that Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and much of the core leadership escaped after Tora Bora. That left the West with a conundrum. They don't really want to be occupying Afghanistan at all but if they pull out the the Taliban would have been back in numbers and retaken power in no time, with the support of the ISI and foreign manpower, of course. Al-Qaeda would be back in a safe haven with all the freedom and training/recruitment capability that gave them.

So the only option was to carry on the hunt and keep striking at AQ and the Taliban while building Afghan security forces and infrastructure strong enough, professional enough, and militarily and politically capable of resisting the Taliban and their supporters.

I think you're absolutely right. Afghanistan has always been a powder keg of warlords and clan rivalries, where money above all else buys loyalty (a fact the CIA knew full well in 2001). It's likely things will disintegrate again within a couple of years should the West pull all support.


I think you're forgetting a rather major player in Afghanistan? The Taliban?

AQ as a ground fighting force have been insignificant for years despite their roots, and is been little more than a loosely linked network of 'cells' and other groups in various countries linked by a common ideology. Until 2001 Afghanistan their ground capability was stronger with the country acting as the central hub for training and recruitment bases, a financing operation, the figureheads in residence and the support of the Taliban and the ISI.

The fight at the moment is to prevent a Taliban resurgence and keep them out of power.

Why are we doing that again? I forget.

Didn't work out all that well last time.

Oh right, yeah. Well so long as we're not brutalising our young men at a cost of millions of pounds a day for nothing.

We're not. Rest easy.

So, if it's down to money buying loyalty, why aren't we buying the poppy?

Buy opium from the warlords, bring the lads home. Win, win for mine

I have thought this a good idea for ages, buy it all off them, burn it, they get a good income and we control the stuff.

You can buy the loyalty of the average civilian, but not a load of religious nutjobs intent on enforcing some mentalist version of Sharia and executing/torturing everyone in sight, such as females getting an education. Or anyone listening to music. Or flying kites.

I forget the exact details, but in 2001 the CIA was having trouble convincing a warlord he should side with them. After a few days it came to light the Taliban had bribed him not to cooperate with the US. The CIA simply outbid them, being careful not to offend. "We'd be grateful if you would take this of this wad of cash into your safekeeping for us." That sort of thing happened several times.

Experience should have taught everyone involved that the only thing the warlords are interested in is the dosh.

After the three previous campaigns we fought and the experience of the Soviets in their foray into the country, I frankly astounded that the NATO allies thought there might be some other way of exercising influence

Why burn it when you can give it away to registered addicts?

There's not a criminal organisation on the planet that can compete with "free" and our record on "the war on drugs" is far worse than the "war on terror"

Fair enough. Here's to ten more years. Cheers.

Cool.

Err, what are we achieving, exactly.

I think I've already mentioned the people of Afghanistan.



No. The President of the United States is ONLY authorised by Congress to intervene in Afghanistan for the purposes of bringing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those that harbour them to justice. Keeping the Taliban out of power is NOT part of his remit.

Even if Obama had such authorisation there is little to no supporting evidence to back up this claim. In a classified report which was leaked to the New York Times, Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis (a 17 year army veteran with 4 tours under his belt), who was assigned by the Pentagon to evaluate operational effectiveness throughout the country, states US forces are currently no further on than the Russians were six months prior to pulling out.

Almost all US forces are effectively immobile within their bases - too afraid of roadside IEDs to leave - and most of the country is now beyond their influence. Worse still, attempts to train local police forces who are supposed to take over when (if) the US leave have failed. Davis states that so far the US has poured over $11.6 billion into training and most of it has been wasted. There are pervasive drug problems. Morale is at an all-time low and Taliban infiltration is total.

Whatever the US is doing in Afghanistan it is NOT preventing the Taliban from assuming control. They ALREADY control the country.

You're saying the Taliban are the people of Afghanistan? No. They are a group mostly made up of men froma couple of ethnic groups, and being bolstered by recruits from Pakistan. They never had control of many provinces in the north of the country and have never found real support there. In 2001 the two factions making up the Northern Alliance controlled or partially controlled up to 13 provinces and around 30% of the population.

The people of Afghanistan are not attacking NATO forces. A militant religious and political group is.


[i...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[/i

He can use all necessary force to against those responsible and those that harbour them to prevent future acts of terrorism against the US. The Taliban harboured Al Qaeda, and could do again. Al Qaeda members (Mullah Omar included) are still in the area - either in the border regions or in Pakistan - and are simply waiting for an opening to return.

Regardless. What the authorisation says or doesn't say is irrelevant in the face of what is actually happening on the ground. Degrees of success can be argued but the fact of the matter is NATO and the Taliban are the groups engaged in firefights on a daily basis, and NATO operations have been aimed at the Taliban for a long time now.


I don't believe I argued NATO were being particularly successful. We all know IEDs are crippling NATO movements and Taliban influence and threat of retribution outweighs any promises NATO can deliver where the average Afghan civilian is concerned.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no confidence in local security forces to maintain law and order in the face of a NATO withdrawal. Things will go back to the usual mixing pot. But then that's been Afghanistan for much of its history. A history of war, civil war, inter-tribe, sub-tribe and ethnic divisions. And seemingly short memories. Many Afghans initially welcomed the Taliban for the stability they brought though that soon changed following the ruthless enforcement of their prohibitions and massacres such at Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998. Let's not forget the Taliban rule only through their willingness to be astoundingly violent and through a culture of fear.


Debatable. They don't control the cities, they don't control the north (and never have). What they do have is considerable influence in their home provinces.