What are we doing in Afghanistan?

[ShadesWolf]

Interesting article by Peter Hitchens

The casualty rate among British soldiers in Afghanistan is frightening, far higher than in Iraq. Lance Corporal Jonathan Hetherington is the sixth to die this month, the 21st in the Afghan operation as a whole. And that casualty rate is not falling, as some senior officers predicted it would.

In any war where our national interests are at stake we have to tolerate the deaths and injuries which result. But we still do not have any explanation of what British soldiers are doing in this graveyard of past expeditions, or what the purpose of their mission is.

Former Defence Secretary John Reid, who has now moved on to attacking liberty here at home in Britain, was notably clueless when he suggested that the mission – whatever it is – could be completed without any fighting.

The new Defence Secretary, Des Browne, says Lance Corporal Hetherington died in a ‘noble cause’. So he did – he died for his country, for his fellow-soldiers, for the traditions of his regiment and the Army, which goes where the politicians send it because that is its duty.

But the questions of why the British Army is in this place, what good it can possibly do there, or how anyone can know that its mission is accomplished, badly need to be answered.

[Goofball]

Interesting only in that it shows one of two things on the part of the author. Either:

1) He was born after the invasion took place, so is unaware of the reasons for the invasion;

or,

2) He is of the belief that a cancerous regime that was a haven for terrorists was a good thing to have in the world.

As his grammatical skill is sufficient to demonstrate that he is at least 16 years old, I rather suspect that number two is correct.

[Lemur]

I read that entire piece, eyes bulging out of my head, unable to believe that Christopher Hitchens had written such a thing. Then I realized that it was Peter Hitchins, and reality slowly locked back into place.

What's funny is that this Peter fellow is considered a Tory (i.e., conservative). I would certainly want to read the entire article before jumping to conclusions -- linky?

[Somebody Else]

I propose a vote. Those who think we have a good reason to stay there, and those who don't.

Just out of curiosity of course.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we are doing a good thing out there, though sorely undermanned and underappreciated.

[Tribesman]

I propose a vote. Those who think we have a good reason to stay there, and those who don't.

Well there is a good reason to stay , but the questions remain , is the current approach working , is there the neccesary levels of finance and manpower , is there actually a workable plan , have too many errors already been made which make any "workable" plan practically useless .
The failure to deliver early benefits to the population are coming back with a vengance .
Allying with a drug dealing homicidal maniac who changes his allegience more often than he changes his underwear and effectivley giving him control of 1/4 of the territory was also not a wise move .
Also where the hell are the Taliban getting all their money from , I thought everyone was supposed to be clamping down on terrorist finances , yet they are able to pay huge wages for more active fighters under arms than they were able to field when they were "conscripting" them as the government.

Edit for Pannonians post
Now if we buy out the Afghan crop of opium at a higher price than their usual contacts offer them, we could probably gain the near-unconditional support of the Afghans, remove nearly all support for the Taleban, and be able to set up whatever system of government we want as long as we keep paying up.
Hisorical prescedent , the British went in and were doing the big payoff , it worked for a while , but then was getting too expensive so they cut the payments .
I wonder what happened to the Brits (and Empire troops) that were there once the money was cut .
The old saying , you can rent an Afghan but you can never buy him .

[Pannonian]

Edit for Pannonians post
Now if we buy out the Afghan crop of opium at a higher price than their usual contacts offer them, we could probably gain the near-unconditional support of the Afghans, remove nearly all support for the Taleban, and be able to set up whatever system of government we want as long as we keep paying up.
Hisorical prescedent , the British went in and were doing the big payoff , it worked for a while , but then was getting too expensive so they cut the payments .

There's certainly currently a market for opium, otherwise they wouldn't keep growing it and people wouldn't keep buying it. Our bringing light and peace to these parts isn't winning us friends, so why not start bringing in green and taking away the red?

I wonder what happened to the Brits (and Empire troops) that were there once the money was cut .
The old saying , you can rent an Afghan but you can never buy him .

Simple, keep enough troops there to keep outsiders from buying into the market on the pretext of keeping the suplpy routes open, any found doing so being treated with extreme prejudice. Let the Afghans themselves organise the supply of opium, pay them as it comes in so they can see both the paymaster and the direct link between their efforts at keeping the peace and their payout. We'll therefore always be paying a year's harvest in advance, but the profits should more than pay for it. If the market disappears, cut and run, or keep a presence there but reduce the scale of operations in case the market picks up again.

There's no need to make friends of the Afghans, they've no interest in becoming our friends anyway. Identify a common interest, and ally for as long as that interest remains mutual. And always be prepared to scarper when things turn sour.

[Reverend Joe]

Interesting only in that it shows one of two things on the part of the author. Either:

1) He was born after the invasion took place, so is unaware of the reasons for the invasion;

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Pannonian]

We're fighting a moral war, the worst kind. We are trying to make a final end of the Taleban, kill or capture Osama Bin Laden, stop Afghanistan from becoming the world's leading cultivator of opium, and establish a liberal democracy there, all at the same time. Which is stupid, will never work, and will cost us no end of cash.

Now if we buy out the Afghan crop of opium at a higher price than their usual contacts offer them, we could probably gain the near-unconditional support of the Afghans, remove nearly all support for the Taleban, and be able to set up whatever system of government we want as long as we keep paying up. Sell on the opium at a remove to dealers, or better still legalise heroin but keep it a state monopoly, and we'll be able to recoup the costs and make a considerable profit on top. If we keep state control of the heroin business we'll be able to keep the supply pure, cut down on illnesses relating to drug usage, and cut down on drug-related crime.

Old-style colonialism and a win-wn situation for both Afghanistan and Britain, if only we'd drop our moral objections to drugs.

[Navaros]

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

Answer: Killing as many Muslims as possible.

Disclaimer: I do not support the killing of any Muslims, I am merely answering as to the reality of what is being done.

[Papewaio]

But is a terrorist a muslim?
Would you consider someone who is a terrorist a Christian as well?
Are they just using the holy text as a fulcrum?