AFGHANISTAN - A LESSON 200 YEARS OLD

You know what really surprises me? Apart from this thread (which hasn't been heavily contributed to) I can't find any other threads, nor any discussion about the Afghanistan election on A2k. (Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places?) I find this really odd, given the election is tomorrow (20th August) ..... & also because many A2Kers live in countries which whose military troops are fighting in Afghanistan right now .. The US, the UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc ...
So I would have thought there'd be a lot more interest in the outcome of this election, especially given that one of the often stated reasons for NATO & other forces being there is to assist the democratic process through ensuring a safe election in Afghanistan. I don't understand: we are spending huge amounts of money on this war & there have been heavy casualties ... so why so little interest or desire to discuss this issue? (Don't get me wrong. I am not so much being critical as expressing my puzzlement. Why the lack of interest?)

Afghanistan in numbers

Troops

*US 62,000

*UK 9,100

Deaths

*US 742

*UK 212

Helicopters

*US 120

25-40 Chinook

50-60 UH-60 Black Hawk

25-35 Apache (non-troop carrying attack helicopter)

*UK 30

8-10 Chinook

6 Sea King

5 Lynx

8 Apache (non troop-carrying attack helicopter)

6 Merlin to arrive by end of 2009

Cost

*US £135bn

*UK £12bn

My only objection was more academic so to speak when it seems as though people act like we just went over to Afghanistan because we wanted to conquer their country and change their way of life by taking over their country. That may have been true with Iraq and Vietnam but not with Afghanistan after we were attacked on 9/11 and lost over 3000 lives in one morning by AQ who were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was not about giving Afghanistan safe elections or trying to turn them into a democracy but merely defending ourselves from a true enemy who did attack us (US) on 9/11 and who have shown no signs of giving up so we can't either.

WASHINGTON -- In a remarkable shift, Afghanistan, where U.S. officials were once confident of victory, is now rivaling Iraq as the biggest cause of concern for American policymakers.

According to a new Pentagon report, Taliban militants have regrouped after their initial fall from power and "coalesced into a resilient insurgency." The report paints a grim picture of the conflict, concluding that Afghanistan's security conditions have deteriorated sharply while the fledgling national government in Kabul remains incapable of extending its reach throughout the country or taking effective counternarcotics measures.

A Swedish charity decries our forces going on a rampage. This is pretty disgusting and gives more weight to the argument that we must get the hell out

Under international law, a hospital (even a military one) is exempt from attack. Notice in the article that our military is looking into the incident, which it called rare.

......Why bomb and burn anything in a global war on an idea? Does bombing and burning make yours a better idea? How does that follow? How does that work? Old friend, you may have fallen into error on this matter.

You may have sought the wrong advice. You may be pursuing the wrong global policy. You might be fighting the wrong war for the wrong hearts and minds and losing it.

Might it not be a better idea to buy the entire poppy crop each year, offering each farmer a fair bit more than Karzai's gangster friends now pay for it, and give it free to the world's poorer hospices where, in the form of morphine, it will help old, dying people die more happily?

And if there's any left over, burn it all in a public place, on Thanksgiving Day perhaps, with a suitable oration by Barack Obama proclaiming this first small step in the war on drugs for mankind and civilisation, the first small step towards victory.

This plan would cost less per year than two days of the war on terror in Baghdad and Kabul and make friends, not lose them. Or am I wrong? And might it not be a better idea to offer sanctuary in several Western countries - New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Germany - to any Hazara who wants to leave Afghanistan and settle there? Might this not be cheaper than pursuing and killing those that pursue and kill them for their beliefs?......

... but I don't like it.

..... I don't see much alternative other than just to bomb people or just forget about those who attacked us (the US) on 9/11 and shrug our shoulders and say "that's life" and pack up and go home even though the same terrorist organization who attacked us on 9/11 have regrouped and is still there and/or supporting the Taliban to carry out terrorist activities and operating in the country. One of the three are our only options as far as I can see.

...Might it not be a better idea to buy the entire poppy crop each year, offering each farmer a fair bit more than Karzai's gangster friends now pay for it, and give it free to the world's poorer hospices where, in the form of morphine, it will help old, dying people die more happily?

And if there's any left over, burn it all in a public place, on Thanksgiving Day perhaps, with a suitable oration by Barack Obama proclaiming this first small step in the war on drugs for mankind and civilisation, the first small step towards victory.

"The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and have coalesced into a resilient insurgency. It now poses a challenge to the Afghan Government’s authority in some rural areas. Insurgent violence increased in 2007, most visibly in the form of asymmetric attacks as Afghan and international forces’ relentless pressure forced the insurgents to shift the majority of its effort to targeting police and civilians. More than 6,500 people died as a result of suicide attacks, roadside bombs, and combat-related violence. The 2007 ISAF and ANSF military campaign caused setbacks to the Afghan insurgency, including leadership losses and the loss of some key safe-havens in Afghanistan. Despite these setbacks, the Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008. The Taliban will challenge the control of the Afghan government in rural areas, especially in the south and east."

But the report was limited in scope to events prior to April of this year. Secretary Gates had to contradict one assertion in the report on the day before it was issued, when he admitted that attacks in eastern Afghanistan, including Khost province, rose 40 percent from January to May.

The report also discussed the role that drug trafficking plays in the Taliban's resurgence. "The cultivation, production and trafficking of narcotics in Afghanistan is a major concern. Narcotics-related activities are fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan and, if left unchecked, threaten the long-term stability of the country and the surrounding region. Over 90 percent of the world’s opium originates in Afghanistan, and the emerging nexus between narcotics traffickers and the insurgency is clear."

The report also criticizes Pakistan's appeasement of the Taliban in its Northwest provinces, identifying cross-border infiltration and attacks as the greatest threat to Afghanistan.

"The greatest challenge to long-term security within Afghanistan is the insurgent sanctuary within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The ANSF must be able to coordinate actions with a Pakistani force that is trained and resourced to eliminate threats emanating from within Pakistan. The Pakistan Military (PAKMIL)’s clashes with Taliban members and terrorist organizations in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal areas have, in the past, contributed to a decrease in cross-border insurgent activity in Afghanistan’s eastern provinces. The U.S. is concerned about ceasefire negotiations and other agreements between the Government of Pakistan (GoP) and possible militant groups in South Waziristan and other locations in the FATA and North West Frontier Province. After similar agreements were signed in 2005 and 2006, cross-border operations by extremist groups against U.S. and NATO forces increased substantially."