With the car wreck of Iraq taking centre stage for the past few years, Afghanistan was almost a forgotten war. Whatever your views on an invasion of Afghanistan as a response to September 11 2001, it did seem clearer at the time why this conflict was happening than it ever was in 2003 when the US and the UK declared war on Iraq. Now 8 years on, and with an increasingly tenacious insurgency, rising casualty figures, no clear way forward, seemingly little prospect of mission success, can we really say this is a justified use of force? Why are we occupying Afghanistan, are we doing any good, and what would "success" in Afghanistan actually mean? Is Afghanistan becoming Britain's, well, Afghanistan? Troops out now? Joe Glenton, British soldier speaks out against the war http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/03/british-army-alleged-deserter-court http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/30/soldier-afghanistan-letter-protest Foreign Affairs select committee reports on "mission creep" and a lack of clarity about objectives in Afghanistan: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6736534.ece Stop the war "Troops out now" demonstration http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1394/1/
Once again this seems to be a war with no clear plan to win it.. Just throwing a mass of troops at it won't work without a clear strategy to win.. However it keeps many would be terrorists busy.. Peace
I can. I'm not an un-emotional person; the death toll is relatively high, but it hasn't made me waver on my support for what those guys/gals are doing out there. People were saying Iraq was doomed to failure, but Iraq is a moderate success, right now, with the very good possibility of it being "mission accomplished" (as horrid as that phrase is.) In Iraq, our combat troops our leaving, we have handed responsibilty (recieved willingly) to the Iraqi's...etc etc etc. It still is far from over, but good things are occuring there, at last. I'm truly hoping the same can be said for Afghanistan in the near to mid future. I imagine/hope "we" are out there for the same reasons as "we" started. "Success" - to me - would mean "we" can pull "our" troops out asap. "Success" - to me - would mean Afghanistan is a stable and prosperous country and the people are safe and secure and more importantly - happy (I guess that will/should flow from being safe and secure.) I'm sure Afghanistan IS going to turn into another "Troops out now." "They" can hardly march the streets requesting "Troops out now" as far as Iraq is concerned, as "we" are removing ourselves from there as we speak. The "anti-war" protest has to be focused on something else now, I guess. I'm just hoping groups like stopwar.org.uk et al, don't presume it was them that brought "our" troops out of Iraq...as that would be arrogant of them...and I hope "they" won't trot out the same arguments they used in regards of Iraq...as it would seem rather less sincere (though I am pretty sure they have already.) I'm keeping my eye on the situation: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=369881&page=2
From the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Afghanistan and Pakistan July 2009 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmfaff/302/30202.htm
Baghdad now has, I think 4 working stop lights.. now thats progress.. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-08-06-stoplights-in-baghdad_N.htm?csp=34
The idea is to get more stop lights in Kandahar but these guys keep shooting them out.. Now that theres an objective. Can we proceed to waste money and lives now? I think painting the word STOP on the ground at intersections will be a success.
urgh,... the usatoday link there had to stop light story.. yer killing me.. heres another picture.. ": Mmm thats odd, Wonder if these guys got any weed ?
After watching a car zip through one of the new blinking red lights in Baghdad's Hurriya Square, Falih stopped the driver, who appeared astonished as Falih warned him to pay attention to such signals. "The drivers in Baghdad are terrible," Falih said. "No one has paid attention to any rules for so long that it's difficult to get them to start doing it now." Another reason for the signals: Traffic seems to get worse every day. Hundreds of thousands of new vehicles have come into Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Electricity remains spotty, so the new traffic lights work only four to six hours a day. But a few lonely drivers are trying to play by the rules. :auto:... .. shit aint easy..
Yes, I know. It mentioned that 7 stoplights had been reactivated in Hurriya Square, it didn't mention that there were only 4 - or so - stoplights in the whole of Baghdad. I wondered where you got that idea from. I guess you were just "joking".
It is in my opinion a balanced and illuminating report, and well worth reading. Particularly on the 'terrorist threat' which was the initial immediate justification for the 2001 invasion. The report concludes that there is no longer an immediate threat from Afghanistan but that recent international terrorism has been coming instead from Pakistan. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmfaff/302/30210.htm This justification for fighting the Afghan insurgency is circular: there would be no "terrorist" insurgency if it weren't for the ongoing occupation. An unpopular war, perceived as an imperial occupation, also provides ongoing reasons for radicalising anti-West extremists. Being tied down in Afghanistan may mean we are not facing the real threats. This also highlights the difficulty, perhaps impossibility, of countering international terrorism by attacking and occupying nation states...
Oh I saw it live on the news.. They said like 4 and then said a couple more to be activated.. you know how the news like numbers..
I think perhaps you may have got the wrong end of the stick. I meant in total, not how many were being switched on. Never mind. This thread isn't about bleedin stoplights. I just was curious for a minute. What's your thoughts on Afghanistan?
I'm sure it is worth reading I did mean to read it, because I had posted it in my thread. I'll read it today. I don't need to read the report to know Al-Quaeda are not as a huge threat within the majority of areas in Afghanistan, but they are still there. I do appreciate they have shifted towards the blury lines of the Afghanistan and Pakistani border regions...a little more difficult to gauge the No.s and strengh, wouldn't you say? "Afghanistan-Pakistan border had emerged as "a new crucible of terrorism" linked to three-quarters of the most serious plots against the UK." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8146082.stm This general area: How so?
Firstly and most obviously international terrorism is not tied to nation states, so fighting against the Taliban or Saddam Hussein is not fighting against international terrorism. You invade somewhere like Afghanistan, supposedly a stronghold for radical islamist terrorism, and "al-Qaeda" simply go elsewhere. Secondly and more importantly these wars act as sites of radicalisation in themselves, fuelling extremism and giving would be terrorists another reason to hate the west and to want totake up arms against it...
Imo, International terrorism isn't tied to nation states per se, but the attacks aimed towards Europe's and America, apparently DO start from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Infact if you believe - and I'm 60% sure you don't - 3/4s of the attacks aimed here, have been routed in those regions. Groups that attack International targets have to be based somewhere and it seems likely they are based in the Afghan/Pakistan border regions. So surely that is where the fight must be? If you eliminate the training grounds, base of operation, kill those in charge etc etc etc...surely they are less able to shift somewhere else. I'm not sure how a few thousand men and there equipment are going to shift to another so-called "safe haven," before being rounded up. It is unlikely such a place that Afghanistan has become, can be easily re-created in a short space of time. Neither is it likely people from other countries will be able to suddenly fill the gap if "we" deal with this issue as quickly as we can. It does seem, however, that Al-Quaeda and the Taleban are being squeezed out of the areas we "invaded" to begin with. So, I can accept that slowly they will have to jump off the edge and move somewhere else. But, I do feel that place will be somewhere in Afghanistan or atleast within the Pakistani border regions...it won't suddenly be, say, Venezuela. The removal of, Saddam Hussein, was for several different reasons, as you know.. But you must admit that he did have connections to terrorism, both locally and Internationally. There is - as I am sure you know - volumes of documents relating to his activities in that particular area. Some obviously more credible than others. e.g: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/v5.pdf They do, but so do teddy bears being called Mohammed (perhaps even more so.) If we were to withdraw from Afghanistan and Pakistan, it wouldn't stop terrorism, it probably wouldn't even slow it down...but being there does seem to curb terrorism...so on balance I know which option I prefer.
