The Wikileaks (see here) release of 92,000 reports shows not only the heavily reported coalition killing of civilians, kill or capture missions and the Taliban using deadly surface-to-air missiles. It also shows just how Taliban are killing civilians and there are some awful reports of Taliban attacks. There are also reports of funding,training and arms supplying from Iran (see here).
It's worth bearing in mind that there are two sides to this story (or more) with the Afghans in the middle who are the biggest losers. I know there are now more children including girls going to school and some safer areas and some people are now protected from some of the awful Taliban laws but there can be no doubt that the short term (if I can call it that) is awful.
The press conference today given by Wiki Leaks founder Julian Assange also told how the Australian secret service was asked to investigate Wikileaks (who refused the US request) and that there is a further 15,000 reports yet to be published. These reports have not yet been released because they are being checked to ensure that they don't endanger civilians.
Perhaps this data is dangerous for the military but it does show that if you try to hide secrets then sooner or later they will be exposed if that secret is big enough.
It should also be noted that not all of these report will be 100 percent accurate but they are only as accurate as any other reports taken by the military during a conflict can be. But its the general picture of the war that it paints that is most important.
I would also add that I have been quite impressed with how the guardian have reported this story on their Web site. With a live blog and map of the significant incidents (see here). Expect this story to not only run and run but actually effect the way this war is reported an conducted.
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Monday, 26 July 2010
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Afghanistan IN or Out Debate
Nick Clegg has recently published his plan for Afghanistan in the time see the link here.
I was having an email discussion with my brother (not a Lib Dem supporter) on this point.
He I think came up with some points that I think deserve a public airing. E-mail trail below;
Brothers Post
Nice article, but we've already had 8 years in which Mr Clegg's suggestions could have been implemented. If NATO hasn't got their Afghan strategy together by this point, you have to assume that they never will.
As long as Karzai is in power this war is a sham. Billions in aid will go into the wrong pockets.
My Reply
Yes but you have to give a strategy time to work and after the recent vote, it became more clear that we need a change of tack.
But your right, we all know the effort was on Iraq, which at the end of the day has given the Taliban more time etc,
Brothers Post
How long do you give it? Wars are expensive. In the past people have gone to war for profit, resources or to protect their homeland from invaders; There would be an ultimate benefit from going to war.
All those wars with dubious winning criteria (i.e. ideological wars) always fail. Prime examples are the crusades, Korean War, Russian Afghan campaign and Vietnam. All hugely expensive in money and casualties and provided no benefit to anyone.
The only viable argument for maintaining the Afghan war is to safeguard the UK from terrorist attacks. Though this argument is highly dubious it could be achieved but will take decades and far more money than we have available to change the culture and infrastructure of the place. You cannot remove corruption from the country - it is a cultural norm and haggling, bribery and gifts is a standard way of doing business.
So the government (whoever it is) should be honest and say:
1. It will cost a fortune.
2. It will take ages.
3. Lots of troops will die.
4. It may not be successful.
Unless the govt make an extraordinarily strong argument to justify the above points, public support will continue to slip away.
I would imagine it would be much cheaper to prevent terrorism using methods in the UK. Linked to the immigration policy perhaps? Lets remember there was no Islamic terror attacks on UK soil before the Iraq war.
My Reply;
Oh dear if even you are thinking about the war like this then the government (which ever one it is) has already lost the publics support. (I have always considered my brother to be pro the war)
It's a hard choice but at the end of the day your almost right, problem is Pakistan. What if the West pulled out then the Taliban could use more effort on Pakistan, that's the real danger.
Both sides are fighting an ideological war, but I for one can’t reconcile the British losses myself with the mission.
Brothers Reply;
Pakistan is not a problem. The Americans want you to think it is a problem. It suits them very nicely that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Do you really think the Taliban could get control of a nuclear missile?
If so, would they launch a nuclear missile against the west? They are not that stupid. They would know to do so would mean every last one would be hunted down by every country, sparing no expense or mercy.
They just want to manage their own affairs. Unfortunately that means repression for the people they rule...but that is not our problem, according to the war mission.
My Reply;
Well not so much that more they would have more people to fight Pakistan in the boarders making a prolonged war there. I cant see them getting hold of nuclear missiles myself, but it could turn into a civil war if the Taliban can throw more men and arms at the war.
Brothers Reply
The only reason the Taliban are so strong is because they can use foreign invaders as justification for drawing new young recruits to their cause. If there is no religious imperative for joining the Taliban, their oppressive methods of rule will soon make them obsolete as people rebel against them.
My Reply;
Hmmm you could be right.
Brothers Reply;
I would really like to know what the true reason for this conflict is.
It can't be to stop Islamic terrorism, because there was not any before the US invaded Iraq following the Kuwait incursion. So it is clear the 'war on terror' is the usual propaganda aimed at voting populations back home. The Americans learnt their PR lesson in Vietnam and have been extremely careful not to allow any blood or bodies to be seen on US television sets. Which suggests the media is also on a government leash, because there are plenty of videos and pictures on the web.
That leaves Oil I suppose. If it's not oil it would be very interesting what the reason is.
One thing is for sure; the 'war' is proving to be a lot harder than expected. Which, looking at history, should not be a surprise.
What do you think about the Afghanistan war; should we pull out?
Also to add more fuel to the fire as it were have a look at his article called How the US [Still] Funds the Taliban here on the Nation website.
I was having an email discussion with my brother (not a Lib Dem supporter) on this point.
He I think came up with some points that I think deserve a public airing. E-mail trail below;
Brothers Post
Nice article, but we've already had 8 years in which Mr Clegg's suggestions could have been implemented. If NATO hasn't got their Afghan strategy together by this point, you have to assume that they never will.
As long as Karzai is in power this war is a sham. Billions in aid will go into the wrong pockets.
My Reply
Yes but you have to give a strategy time to work and after the recent vote, it became more clear that we need a change of tack.
But your right, we all know the effort was on Iraq, which at the end of the day has given the Taliban more time etc,
Brothers Post
How long do you give it? Wars are expensive. In the past people have gone to war for profit, resources or to protect their homeland from invaders; There would be an ultimate benefit from going to war.
All those wars with dubious winning criteria (i.e. ideological wars) always fail. Prime examples are the crusades, Korean War, Russian Afghan campaign and Vietnam. All hugely expensive in money and casualties and provided no benefit to anyone.
The only viable argument for maintaining the Afghan war is to safeguard the UK from terrorist attacks. Though this argument is highly dubious it could be achieved but will take decades and far more money than we have available to change the culture and infrastructure of the place. You cannot remove corruption from the country - it is a cultural norm and haggling, bribery and gifts is a standard way of doing business.
So the government (whoever it is) should be honest and say:
1. It will cost a fortune.
2. It will take ages.
3. Lots of troops will die.
4. It may not be successful.
Unless the govt make an extraordinarily strong argument to justify the above points, public support will continue to slip away.
I would imagine it would be much cheaper to prevent terrorism using methods in the UK. Linked to the immigration policy perhaps? Lets remember there was no Islamic terror attacks on UK soil before the Iraq war.
My Reply;
Oh dear if even you are thinking about the war like this then the government (which ever one it is) has already lost the publics support. (I have always considered my brother to be pro the war)
It's a hard choice but at the end of the day your almost right, problem is Pakistan. What if the West pulled out then the Taliban could use more effort on Pakistan, that's the real danger.
Both sides are fighting an ideological war, but I for one can’t reconcile the British losses myself with the mission.
Brothers Reply;
Pakistan is not a problem. The Americans want you to think it is a problem. It suits them very nicely that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Do you really think the Taliban could get control of a nuclear missile?
If so, would they launch a nuclear missile against the west? They are not that stupid. They would know to do so would mean every last one would be hunted down by every country, sparing no expense or mercy.
They just want to manage their own affairs. Unfortunately that means repression for the people they rule...but that is not our problem, according to the war mission.
My Reply;
Well not so much that more they would have more people to fight Pakistan in the boarders making a prolonged war there. I cant see them getting hold of nuclear missiles myself, but it could turn into a civil war if the Taliban can throw more men and arms at the war.
Brothers Reply
The only reason the Taliban are so strong is because they can use foreign invaders as justification for drawing new young recruits to their cause. If there is no religious imperative for joining the Taliban, their oppressive methods of rule will soon make them obsolete as people rebel against them.
My Reply;
Hmmm you could be right.
Brothers Reply;
I would really like to know what the true reason for this conflict is.
It can't be to stop Islamic terrorism, because there was not any before the US invaded Iraq following the Kuwait incursion. So it is clear the 'war on terror' is the usual propaganda aimed at voting populations back home. The Americans learnt their PR lesson in Vietnam and have been extremely careful not to allow any blood or bodies to be seen on US television sets. Which suggests the media is also on a government leash, because there are plenty of videos and pictures on the web.
That leaves Oil I suppose. If it's not oil it would be very interesting what the reason is.
One thing is for sure; the 'war' is proving to be a lot harder than expected. Which, looking at history, should not be a surprise.
What do you think about the Afghanistan war; should we pull out?
Also to add more fuel to the fire as it were have a look at his article called How the US [Still] Funds the Taliban here on the Nation website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)