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.

The reaction of the Taliban far out ways the action of the mentally unstable usa solider.

The Russians must be absolutely laughing their cocks off at the incredible folly of yet more Westren muppet leaders actually being so deluded, and so ignorant of or oblivious to history, as to convince themselves they could ever achieve a single thing in Afghanistan.

The majority of the Taliban is made up of people indigenous to Afghanistan. Many fled from the Soviet invasion and ended up in the huge number of squalid refugee camps on the Pakistan border where starved and brutalised they fell into the arms of various ideological entities who have used them as tools ever since.

Some are Taliban by virtue, others by design. Most have no wider political aspirations than self-determination. Let me quote Jason Burke, arguably the most informed Western journalist on the subject of Afghanistan:

[i” [The Taliban are a local movement with limited knowledge of the outside world, Islamic or otherwise, and profoundly parochial ambitions”[/i

So, yes. Whilst they do not represent the entire population they are still – for the most part – the people of Afghanistan. How else do you describe people born and/or raised in Afghanistan? Ideological outlook doesn't obliterate one's nationality. No one suggests British born Catholics are Catholics and not British.



Give over. You make it sound like it is some kind of monolithic Foreign Legion theocracy run on a top-down basis like a corporation. Let’s look at the facts – not state-invented propaganda. The Taliban is an amorphous and disparate group of ethnic identities, vacillating loyalties and political ambitions which often results in ironic and bizarre outcomes. This makes it possible to strike a deal with one group whilst warring with another. Both General McChrystol and Petreaus have admitted such on numerous occasions in the past.

There's a very good argument to say the term "Taliban" is a hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation and arguments that state there is a pressing need to take the battle to such are at best meaningless and at worst disingenuous.



Again, this is nonsensical. Whilst it is true to say the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda when the fled Somalia they were hardly busom buddies. Once more I'll quote Jason Burke:

[i“ After the arrival of Bin Laden in Afghanistan the Taliban became extremely uneasy. Despite being grateful for the assistance Bin Laden lent during the Soviet occupation they felt – particularly in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole, he was bringing too much heat down on them from the international community (preventing them being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan within the UN). Mullah Omar had little time for OBL's internationalist Jihad movement and instructed him to stay out of Afghanistan's affairs.

The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden dissolved to the point where they agreed to hand him, Ayman-al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef and the rest of Al-Qaeda over to America via Saudi Arabia (verified).

The deal fell apart when Clinton decided to distract attention away from his extra-marital affairs by launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan & Pakistan. Following these strikes the Taliban walked away from the table. They refused to hand AQ over because they would have lost face with their Pakistani paymasters."[/i

The 9/11 bombers are dead. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the bombings is in custody. Al Qaeda has been decimated in Afghanistan and the Taliban are more interested in self-determination than any expansive terrorist policy. There is simply no justification for the trillion dollar expenditure wrapped around the US (and UK) taxpayer’s necks.



Actually, legal justification for imperial international adventures is incredibly relevant. People have been sent to the gallows for lacking such.



Given the sobering casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan I’d say the US and its NATO allies are primarily in the business of killing civilians. I mean, on the one hand we are asked to believe modern “smart” munitions have never been so accurate. Yet the civilian casualty rates are astronomical.



According to Daniel Davis (whose report you should read) we are in the same boat as the Russians. But this was ALWAYS going to be the outcome. I mean, we had plenty of accurate data from the eighties on the success rate (or lack thereof) of a modern, hi-tech military juggernaught. The war was unwinnable from the start. The surprising thing is people actually believe those in power who initiated this plan thought it was in the first place.

Cronus phrased his point badly. It seemed the question was really whether the people of Afghanistan represented The Taliban, rather than The Taliban represented the people of Afghanistan. Two quite different things. I'm sure you realised that though.

As I recall, the Taliban were essentially drawn from the Pashtun tribes which at 30% are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. A fair number, but hardly the overwhelming majority you appear to initially claim. And I would guess tribal loyalty would come a long way before any notion of Nationality.Burke's dismissal of their knowledge of Islam is puzzling in the subsequent light of their very strict interpretation of Sharia Law.


I'm not sure of the point you're making here. Surely it is within the wit of the Nato Commanders to broker a localised deal with whatever blend of Taliban supporter has the most influence in the district?


Really? and what snappy, easily understood one word would you offer up to describe the aformentioned?


Oh, I'd say the relationship between the Taliban and AQ was a lot more than simply accomodating. Again,there is evidence that in the first instance, the Taliban offered to hand over BL to the Pakistani Authorities, who declined. There were other attempts by the Taliban, eager to avert the gathering storm, by offering him (with conditions) to America, who also declined, no doubt secure in their ability to secure their military objectives.


I wonder where you get your figures on civilian casualties from? For those more interested in [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics#dataFACTS[/url than rhetoric

I said the overwhelming majority (as opposed to foreign nationals who join for various reasons) are indigenous.



Burke is saying they have little knowledge of the Islamic world [ioutside[/i of Afghanistan. Which is in line with his argument that they have little to no internationalist agenda.



I'm saying we need to get away from this concept of a monolithic Taliban. Over the past twelve months the military appears to have embraced this idea (to an extent).



I wouldn't.



As I said, the Taliban were grateful for Bin Laden's assistance during the war. Or at least certain elements of them were as there is a division between those that fought the Russians purely for reasons of self-determination and those who were ideological warriors sponsored by Bin Laden, the Saudis etc.

But as Burke says, there is very little evidence the Taliban care about much beyond Afghanistan.



I notice you don't include Iraq. And as HRW says - it can only determine a fraction of the true figures in a dangerous country such as Afghanistan. And, of course, no mention is made of the number of people who've died as a result of, say, starvation fleeing the violence. Especially as Afghanistan is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in its history (one of the reasons opium production has sky-rocketed, I should add)

Absolute rubbish. 'The people of Afghanistan' are around 29.8 million multi-ethnic and multi-lingual Afghans, including 2.7 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and consisting of different groups such as Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Baloch, etc

The Taliban is an Islamist militant and political group made up of predominantly Sunni Muslim Pashtuns, and opposed by Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks, and Turkmen. They are not 'the people of Afghanistan'. They are 'some people of Afghanistan' who are not positively supported by the majority of the population. It's a bit like calling The English Defence League, 'the people of England'.

As for their origins and interests, I don't believe I ever said otherwise.


No, there's not a good argument for that at all, given their well documented and well organised history. Such a 'hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation' could never have waged an efficient campaign that saw them take swathes of the country and finally Kabul. That they and they supporters may be currently fragmented due to foreign forces in their midst is irrelevant. The movement still has its clearly defined leaders and determinations and immediately the West leaves, they will reform into a more definite group.


Bin Laden was incredibly familiar with the Taliban - of course he was, he fought with and financed many of them as part of the Mujahideen. The Taliban, as the de facto government, were stuck between reigning Al Qaeda in and building international relations, but given a choice between the infidel West/Great Satan and loyalty to a fellow Islamist group, Al Qaeda was always going to win. Regardless of differing outside interests.

And yes, it's true the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over (with conditions) - but this was done very reluctantly, and there's no evidence they weren't simply stalling for time, especially in 2001 when they knew a storm was definitely coming yet they still tried to negotiate and make deals. Plus at all times they had the ISI in the background snapping at their heels and working to their own agenda.

On the ground many Taliban (especially foot soldiers and those not in the top echelons of power) disliked Al Qaeda simply because Al Qaeda were mainly Arabs who threw their weight and money around. Indeed, there were indications around 2005 that even Al Qaeda was going through a split along these lines as Central Asian AQ began to severely resent Arab AQ, who had been hiding on their patch for years, yet treating it as their own.


That is true. But whether NATO forces wish to fight the Taliban or not, they are being attacked by them on a daily basis. The legal justification kind of takes a back seat when Taliban mortars are landing in the dunny and Taliban IEDs are so prevalent, and when Taliban fighters are throwing their weight and intimidating locals as soon as NATO forces are out of sight.


Smart munitions are incredibly smart, but they're only as accurate as the person aiming them. We want 'our boys' safe from harm's way and out of the firing line, yet we baulk at the inevitable consequences of firing munitions on the basis of long-range drone/aircraft footage. We can't have it both ways.

As rumplestiltskin already posted, you seem to avoid [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics#datathe facts.[/url And I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq in your response to him, when your statement concerned 'casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan'.


The war, to all intents and purposes, was won. The Taliban had been deposed, Al Qaeda all but destroyed, their financial backing wiped out, the central figures sent into hiding. The mistake we made was not to kill Bin Laden early on at Tora Bora when we made the mistake of trusting an Afghan warlord and his militia to support the operation, when instead they shied away from danger and instead let so many slip the net.

Our Western mindset is so fragile we recoil from the thought of absolutely ruthless action and the risk of TV footage of body bags. We're also obsessed with 'rebuilding', as if Afghanistan was in a pristine state before 9/11. If we'd really wanted to finish the job what should have happened was thousands of troops dropped along the borders, the mountain passes and roads secured, strike forces dropped in Al Qaeda hotspots, the Taliban wiped out and Al Qaeda encircled and destroyed. Job done, out we get, leave them to it. Yet we are so sensitive to media exposure and press disapproval we set unrealistic limitations on our armed forces and expect the world - and that's why we've ended up in the quagmire.

As it happens, we might have just been handed to perfect exit strategy. Karzai wants Western forces out of rural areas and a quicker transfer of power to the Afghan army, and the Taliban aren't talking. Fine, give them what they want and get out. They can get back to their usual tribal and Islamist in-fighting.

The only guarantee is that Afghanistan will get a lot worse and the West will kop the blame for the next 50 years, whatever happens.

You're right. Disgusting, degenerate behaviour to care about human beings being killed. They don't matter in the grand scheme. The natives aren't worth anything and the soldiers' families should be proud they've sacrificed their children (and let's face it, most of the ordinary squaddies are from pretty chavvy backgrounds, so at least this way, their lives have served a useful purpose).

As you say, such concerns are the result of a "fragile" mindset.

That's ok then! Just heard the attorney of the US soldier civilian murderer. He reassures Joe Public that the soldier and his family weren't at all anti-muslim....That's a relief then!

More to the point might be that he was on (if memory serves) his third tour of duty in Afghanistan, had been injured twice, was dreading a fourth tour and had seen his mate's leg blown off the day before.

Goes with the territory. He's collateral damage. Just like the 7 adults and 9 children he murdered.

Your attitude is far too namby pamby Western fragile.

Do something about it.

The point (as I think you probably understand) is that we elect leaders who decide to send us to war, though we're not willing (or able?) to accept or even truly understand the inevitable consequences - those being body bags, civilian deaths, mutilated and cripplied bodies, atrocities, 'collateral' damage, etc, etc, etc. Our military do their jobs and are reigned in when the press get hold of images or footage or incidents occur that we deem unacceptable, even in a conflict.

We want it both ways and that just isn't possible.

Perhaps sarcasm is the solution.

Actually, I can't remember the last time a political party in the UK stood for election on a manifesto that included going and killing people and allowing a few of ours to be killed too.

And when a party that was in government stood for re-election, having taken us into war on the back of lies and Murdoch-backed spin, then personally I didn't vote for it – or for a leader who would take us to war. Indeed, my decision on how i used my vote was in substatial part based on support for that war. But then – how did you so intelligently phrase it? – ah yes: I obviously have a "fragile" Western mindset.

Perhaps you [idid[/i vote for such a party/government/leader and are 'willing (able?) to accept and truly understand the inevitable consequences'.

How does it feel, voting for a government that would (is) send people to their deaths while killing others, including entirely innocent men, women and children?

Did you consider those who were appalled about and protested against the Iraq war, with it's images of small children with their heads blown in half (bloody interfering media) as having minds that had become "fragile" in a particularly Western way? (BTW, this doesn't half sound like religious nutters railing at the degenerate West)

And if some government – even our own – did that to your family, presumably you wouldn't be at all "fragile" yourself, but would shrug a bit and accept it? After all, we elect leaders who decide to send us to war – and presumably others do the same.

And "sarcasm"? Well, what do you expect from "fragile" sorts, eh?