Manic delusion

Collapse of denial due?

It is an early form of madness that now afflicts the Governments of France and Great Britain. Both leaders have proved they are deeply in denial of the dreadful tragic facts on Afghanistan.

 Sarkozy said, "We don't have the right to lose there, a defeat at that end of the world would be a defeat for French troops."Gordon Brown told our troops there was still "a long way to go" but progress had been made. Where?  When?

The manic delusion persists. The truth is ugly and terrifying.

Heart and Minds

A population that was fed up with the Taliban welcomed Nato into Afghanistan in 2001. Now many Afghans want us to leave because they fear life in a country of perpetual civil war. A wedding party of 46, mostly women and children were slaughtered by a USA rocket fire recently.

Drugs

A 2001 war aim was to end Afghan poppy crops and the import of Afghan heroin to the UK.  Nearly £2 billion has been spent on drug eradication. For the past two years Afghan poppy harvests have been the biggest ever. The price of heroin on the street of Britain is the lowest ever.

Territory

After six years, the USA said six months ago that 30% of the land of Afghanistan was controlled by Karzai, 20% by Taliban and 50% by warlords. Independent commentators say that 50% of the territory is now controlled by Taliban.

Bloodprice

Up to 2006, two British soldiers had been killed in combat.
The incursion into Helmand was meant to last ‘three years without a shot being fired’. Four million shots have been fired and the UK death toll is 116. The war is expected to last ‘at least 38 years.’ The PM paid a sincere tribute to the soldier who was killed this week. At the end of the parliamentary recess last year he paid a tribute to 18 soldiers who had been killed.

Allies

Sarkozy defied public opinion in France to send additional troops. The deaths of ten soldiers, possibly by friendly fire, are bitterly resented in France. The chance of more reinforcements from our European Nato allies is being destroyed.

Karzai

The ingratitude of President Karzai was proved by his statement that Helmand Province suffered after the arrival of British troops. Why should parliament continue to order British soldiers to risk their lives in the service of the corrupt barbaric Karzai regime?

Terrorism

An original war aim was to rob Osama Bin Laden of a safe haven from which to organise terrorism. He still has a safe haven – probably in Pakistan. The threat of terrorism worldwide has probably increased since 2001.

History

All foreign invasions of Afghanistan have been initially successful, then defeated. A member of the Russian Duma told me in 2001. ‘We conquered Afghanistan in six days. We were there for 10 years and spent a fortune in arms, killed a million Afghans and lost 15,000 of our soldiers. When we ran away there were 300,000 Mujahaddin surrounding Kabul. It will happen to you.”

Almost all insurgencies in modern times have concluded with victory for the local insurgents against invading foreign troops. Will this end in a Nato Vietnam or a Dien Bien Phu?

How much longer will Nato blunder blindly on before our Governments recognise the hopeless truth?

Comments

[Huw O'Sullivan]

As always I feel it needs to be pointed out
that when one of the "declared" war aims was the reduction of Afghan poppy production.This was despite the fact that the Taliban had already cracked down on poppy production and 2001 holds the record for the all time low in terms of poppy production. Because that "declared" war aim was like all the other "declared" war aims, a big fat lie.
This immoral invasion of a country "governed" by people I really have no liking for, people who were despicable in many ways, except one, however bad the Taliban were, they were better at least than the complete lack of government or any sense of law that existed with the warlords, that the invasion was mandated by the UN was the first nail in the coffin of the UN, the first step on the road to the immoral and illegal war against Iraq and an end to any hope for peace in the middle east at this time of peak oil. If there is to be no peace in the middle east there is effectively no chance for peace in the wider world due to energy requirements of all the developed and developing countries.

How long will NATO members who are not the US carry on helping the US to conquer large areas vital to everybodies national interests for the benefit of the US alone.

[paulflynn]

Thanks Huw. You ask how much longer will our NATO allies continue in a war without end. Not very long. Sarkozy is in deep trouble for changing French policy which led to the 10 deaths. Germany, Italy and Spain have recognised to futility of the mission and are reluctant to take casualties.
When I was in Hungary a few months, their top Defence people told me that their public were unwilling to accepts casualties on the scale that we and Canada have suffered.

[Salvador]

We cannot afford to be defeated in Afghanistan. A withdrawal without stabilization will bring back to power the talibans and will boost the activities of Al Qaeda. Already shaky Pakistan will be next and we know that those guys have developed nuclear power. The overall strategy has to be reconsidered, including a strong assistance to eradicate corruption and to win back hearts and minds of civilians. Nobody says it will be easy but we cannot afford to pull out.

[paulflynn]

Thanks Salvador.

The only way is to withdraw from Helmand and consolidate the gains made in the Kabul area. To extend Kasai's rule to more than 30%of Afghanistan is impossible.

Karsai's loyal followers are one group of Pashtuns. There will not any establishment of a democracy in an endemically corrupt country that is divided among the Baluchs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazaks and others.

If not. Nato's invasion will end as all other invasion have ended in Afghanistan.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

Thanks Paul
You mention France, Germany, Italy and Spain, but America's number one fan in these wars is the UK. When can we hope for the UK to desist from supporting that aggressor nation.

Also much as I hate to contradict people,
Salvador has it exactly wrong, just as in Iraq, the US must not ultimately win its wars of aggression, UN sanctioned, NATO supported or not, or the world will be an infinitely less safe place for everyone.

Salvador also clearly fails to understand that something like the Taliban will always be the first step in Afghanistan, the choice is not between democracy and the Taliban, the choice is tribal warlords and something like the Taliban. Once a country is stable and under one government, with rules however abusive, then and only then can it develop further.

In as far as US aggression has done anything for the surrounding countries, they have encouraged the spread of the extremism. Everything the US has done has been counterproductive to their declared aims, and was obviously so before they took any action. Everyone should be rightly ashamed of our parts in these wars but moving on we must seek to rectify rather than continue with these misguided, murderous and in the moral sense, criminal actions.