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.

[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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

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.

I think his cluelessness might be understandable.... I'd certainly be left momentarily speechless if someone asked me to respond to the idea that you could win a war without any fighting.

[Papewaio]

I would put Afghanistan above Iraq in the War against Terror. Also under the polite idea of if you borrow something you have to return it in equal or better state... so Afghanistan should be returned to as least its infrastructure before they were attacked by the A/U/S/K or AUS/USA/UK.

Also there are a lot of unemployed Gurkha's at the moment... they are ideal troops and the best sort for the environment both cultural, linguistically and physically.

More feet on the ground and stabilse the area.

[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?

[Dâriûsh]

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?


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.

I’m sure Afghanistan’s neighbours would enjoy that. Especially the families of the thousands, yes thousands, of Iranian law enforcement officers who have been killed fighting drug smugglers the last two decades. And who knows how many Tajik, Turkmen, and Uzbek policemen have lost their lives?

[Pannonian]

I’m sure Afghanistan’s neighbours would enjoy that. Especially the families of the thousands, yes thousands, of Iranian law enforcement officers who have been killed fighting drug smugglers the last two decades. And who knows how many Tajik, Turkmen, and Uzbek policemen have lost their lives?

If there's a lawful channel for the opium to be exported from the country, there won't be any more drug smuggling, as the risks are too high and the rewards too low. So no more Iranian, Tajik, Turkmen, etc. policemen killed curbing it.

[Dâriûsh]

Great. So now all we have to do is get Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to legalize it.



Not all of it is going to the European market, mind you.

[Ja'chyra]

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

As usual we are trying to something that was poorly thought out while ensuring that the people on the ground have one arm tied behind their backs.

It should be all or nothing, this half arsed approach doesn't seem to be working.

[Tribesman]

I'd certainly be left momentarily speechless if someone asked me to respond to the idea that you could win a war without any fighting.
Errrrrrr... the idea that you can resolve a conflict satisfactorarily without any fighting shouldn't leave you speechless Xiahou .
But then again you do place your faith in the current bunch of incompetants who jump at the chance of fighting when they don't have to and when fighting isn't going to win anything , so I am not surprised by your lack of comprehension .

[Pannonian]

Great. So now all we have to do is get Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to legalize it.

No need, unless they want to buy it from us.

Not all of it is going to the European market, mind you.

If we're paying for it, it's going to us to be distributed however we see fit. The Afghans don't care which market it is going to, as long as they get paid for their crops.

And that's the start and end of it - they don't care what ostensible benefits we offer them, as long as we threaten their livelihood, and they won't care what governing system we impose on them (up to an extent), as long as they can make a living. Nothing pays them as well as growing opium, so that's what they do, and that's what we have to face up to.

[Al Khalifah]

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.

6 soldiers die in a month and the casualty rate is frightening?
Good thing these people weren't in charge for World War 2 or they'd have had heart attacks. I'd hardly call 6 soldiers dying in a month frightening especially not when compared to the thousands of civlians killed in the early stages of the conflict.

But this fact boils down to our true expectancy of the war - that it'd all be over by Christmas... Sod the civlians whose lives we've ruined because half a dozen Brits are dead there must now be questions made about the justifications for the war.

As Roosevelt said: "Does anyone think that victory is possible without facing danger?"

[ShadesWolf]

I think this war is unwinnable.

History has proved the Afghans cannot be forced. The land helps 'our enemies' and we are seen as the aggressor.

How can we expect to win, are we going to comit the correct amount of time to try to sort this out. 10,20,30 years with no guarantee of victory, who is going to pay for this ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There aren't enough troops on the ground, about another 2,000 infantry and support would be good. There are lots of Guards doing nothing important these days... bingo.

Aside from the obvious lack of boots making footprints I think there's not a lot going wrong. IRRC the British casualty rate is in the order of 100-1 and improving. The Afgans can't keep it up. Every people gets beaten eventually, if we kick them hard enough we might see the resolve finally slip.

Its tough and brutal but personnally I feel its and object lesson every people should learn.

[yesdachi]

Every people gets beaten eventually, if we kick them hard enough we might see the resolve finally slip.

If this is the case, it feels like the US is a one legged man in a butt kicking contest!

[Tribesman]

The Afgans can't keep it up. Every people gets beaten eventually, if we kick them hard enough we might see the resolve finally slip.

Isn't that what the Russians tried ?

[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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Afgans can't keep it up. Every people gets beaten eventually, if we kick them hard enough we might see the resolve finally slip.

Isn't that what the Russians tried ?

Oh I know but with the British doing a 1:100 kill ratio the Afgans will have to stop eventually, there just won't be any fighters left.

Obviously we should be trying to help them rebuild the country as well, and we need to find another crop for them other than poppies. Although that said we could buy some poppies. After all morthine doesn't appear out of thin air.

[rory_20_uk]

It's not our problem. Let the locals sort it out.

I agree that legalising heroin suddenly gets rid of the problem almost in its entirity.

[Tribesman]

Oh I know but with the British doing a 1:100 kill ratio the Afgans will have to stop eventually, there just won't be any fighters left.

So how many men of fighting age will have to be killed at your 100:1 rate , 100,000 , a million , 5 million ?
How many did the Russians kill for their 15,000 lost ? did they win or did the locals they were fighting get replaced by an even badder bunch of bastards from both within the country and from a much wider area ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh I know but with the British doing a 1:100 kill ratio the Afgans will have to stop eventually, there just won't be any fighters left.

So how many men of fighting age will have to be killed at your 100:1 rate , 100,000 , a million , 5 million ?
How many did the Russians kill for their 15,000 lost ? did they win or did the locals they were fighting get replaced by an even badder bunch of bastards from both within the country and from a much wider area ?

I don't know, but if we pull out then the country will slip all the way back into anarchy. If we have to fight for another decade and we lose another 500 men but we win then maybe its worth it, maybe not.

Not to sound like GWB but the West and fundamentalist Islam don't seem to be able to co-exist. That would be why we are fighting wars with them. We didn't go there to fight a war with them and we didn't start the shooting. If every time Brits go on a H&M mission they get shot at who's in the wrong.

British troops don't go out to kill people, a British response is always measured. If these people chose to fight us then we should fight them. If we're threatening the Opium trade and thats why they want to kill us then what should we do.

"Is defeat an exit stratergy?"

[rotorgun]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the strategic and economic reasons that the British government might want to send troops to Afgahnistan?

If the Oil barons are ever able to suceed in getting the Afghanistan Pipeline (it should be read Pipe-dream) project off the ground and finished, then it will need protection. This will come in the from of a stable, western freindly government, led by people who are amenable to western leadership, such as the current President of Afghanistan.

If the British Oil investors want thier cut of the oil profits from this venture, then they must get the government to be seen as supporting thier erstwhile American allies. It's really quite simple as that. Oh yes, there is the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and all that, but not to worry. It will all be sorted out in due time, after a sufficient amount of money is spent, and enough (mostly middle or lower class) people die, not to mention the Muslims that are dying.

Incidently, that is the main reason why GB, TB, and the leaders of the oil addicted western nations are so worried about Iran getting thier hands on some nuclear weapons. In one word-blackmail, of the economic variety, oil blackmail that is....black gold.....Texas (or rather Afghani) crude.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the allusion to the old Beverly Hillbillies program from the days of my youth.

Regards,

[yesdachi]

Sorry, I couldn't resist the allusion to the old Beverly Hillbillies program from the days of my youth.

I love the song!
it is available to dl about half way down the page

[edyzmedieval]

Well, the British and US troops are staying there to preserv the peace.
I wonder what the Romanian troops are still doing there.