World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 9° London Hi 14°C / Lo 10°C

Afghanistan: Time to leave

Patrick Cockburn, our award-winning reporter who has covered the region for more than 30 years, explains why it is best for the world, and Afghanistan, if our troops are brought home

Cpl James Crofts, 29, from Telford, on patrol yesterday in Babaji, Helmand province

pa

Cpl James Crofts, 29, from Telford, on patrol yesterday in Babaji, Helmand province

Britain should start withdrawing, not reinforcing, its troops in Afghanistan. Sending extra troops is unnecessary and will prove counter-effective. The additional number of British troops is small, but the US is poised to send tens of thousands more soldiers to the country. The nature of the conflict is changing. What should be a war in which the Afghan government fights the Taliban has become one which is being fought primarily by the American and British armies. To more and more Afghans, this looks like imperial occupation.

With regard to disputes in Washington and London about sending more troops, it is seldom mentioned that Afghans are against the deployment. Contrary to Western plans, just 18 per cent of Afghans want more US and Nato/Isaf forces in Afghanistan, according to an opinion poll carried out earlier this year by the BBC, ABC News and ARD of Germany. A much greater number of Afghans – 44 per cent – want a decrease in foreign forces.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Taliban have been able to win some support. The cruelty of their rule before 2001 is becoming a distant memory and they are successfully portraying themselves as the defender of the country against foreign occupation. Matthew P Hoh, the senior American civilian representative in Zabul Province east of Kandahar, resigned last week convinced that the US military should not be in Afghanistan. As a former US marine officer who served in Iraq, he says in his resignation letter that the US has joined in on one side in a 35-year-old civil war between the traditional Pashtun community and its enemies. "The US military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency," he says. "Our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people."

What is true for the Americans in Zabul is true for the British in Helmand. It may seem to military commanders on the ground that, with more troops, they could hold more ground and send out more patrols. Throughout history, generals have believed they are a few thousand troops short of victory. But Afghans, who have long experience of war, think more foreign troops means greater violence, more dead and wounded Afghans. Support for the Taliban is highest in those areas where there have been US or Nato shelling or air strikes inflicting civilian casualties. In other words, the Taliban's best recruiting sergeants are the American and British armies.

The future good of Afghanistan is not the first reason why Britain has an army of 9,000 troops there, according to Gordon Brown. He said on Friday that they are there to protect people walking the streets of Britain: "Our children will learn of the heroism of today's men and women fighting in Afghanistan protecting our nation and the world from the threat of global terrorism." We are fighting there, he adds, so we are safe in our homes and guarded against the atrocities carried out by al-Qa'ida not only in London, but across the world.

The problem with this argument is that al-Qa'ida is based in Pakistan not Afghanistan. There is no particular reason why its leaders should return to Afghanistan since they have a measure of support in the Pakistani intelligence services and among fundamentalist jihadi organisations. If Britain has sent 9,000 troops abroad to fight al-Qa'ida, then they are in the wrong country. Mr Brown slyly tries to evade this point by claiming that "three-quarters of terrorists' plots originate in the Pakistan-Afghan border regions". His sudden geographic imprecision avoids having to admit that they originate in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The US military says there only 100 al-Qa'ida militants in the whole of Afghanistan.

In reality, the presence of a large British military force in Afghanistan is making Britain a more dangerous not safer place to live in. Interrogation of would-be suicide bombers captured before they could blow themselves up reveals that their prime motive since 9/11 has been opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In portraying Britain as being at war with al-Qa'ida, Mr Brown, like President Bush and Tony Blair, has walked into the trap laid by al-Qa'ida at the time of 9/11. Its aim was not only to show the US was vulnerable to armed attack, but to provoke retaliation against Muslim countries. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa'ida's chief strategist, stated soon after 9/11 that the purpose of the provocation was to tempt the US into reprisals and open the way for "clear-cut jihad against the infidels".

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and Britain have faced similar dilemmas. These wars were started by President Bush, with Tony Blair trotting along behind, in the expectation that they would be short and cheap. The initial military assaults were wholly successful, but the American and British armies were then caught up in prolonged, bruising, guerrilla wars. By then, too much prestige was at stake and too much blood had been spilt for a withdrawal. The puniness of the armed insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, in each case probably a few tens of thousands of fighters, makes the humiliation of retreat all the greater.

The main reason for Britain's military commitment in Afghanistan was to maintain its position as America's principal ally in the world. As recently as 2006, this seemed a sensible strategy, but any engagement in Afghanistan, as a brief look at any history of the region will show, is always going to be dangerous. The Taliban had not really been defeated on the battlefield in 2001: its militants had gone back to their villages or taken refuge over the border in Pakistan. It took time for the Pakistan government, on which they were highly reliant, to decide that it was safe to unleash them once more because the US was too bogged down in Iraq to do much about it.

By this time also, the government of President Hamid Karzai, below left, had gone far to discredit itself. It is less of an administration than a racket. Its officials probably make more money out of opium and heroin than the Taliban. Some 12 million Afghans, 42 per cent of the population, live below the poverty line, trying to survive on 45 cents (just over 25p) a day. They are malnourished or starving, and feel little loyalty to a government in which ministers live in their "poppy palaces", built with the profits of the drugs trade, and foreign aid consultants earn $250,000 a year.

"Sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a byword for corruption," said Mr Brown. "And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption." Taken at face value, this means Britain will withdraw its troops since it is a certainty in Afghanistan that a government so viscerally crooked is not going to reform. "Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of Afghanistan," continued the Prime Minister, but Mr Karzai's election victory was attained by allying himself with the most blood-stained warlords in the country. Presumably, Mr Brown's pledge is no more than rhetoric.

The US and Britain have tumbled into a second war in Afghanistan that they weren't expecting. Justifying their own misjudgements, American and British leaders claim that Afghanistan is a war that has to be fought because it is the epicentre of the war against international terrorism. These threats are all grossly exaggerated. The Afghan Taliban comes from the Pashtun community, which is 42 per cent of the population. The majority of Afghans will always oppose them. Of course, present Afghan or Pakistani leaders have every interest in painting themselves to their foreign backers as the one alternative to the Taliban.

"The Pashtun insurgency," says Mr Hoh, "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal an external enemies." Britain should not be part of that assault that will not succeed in crushing a regional Pashtun rebellion on behalf a non-Pashtun state. Once this is accepted, then the need for a large combat force in southern Afghanistan disappears. What ultimately happens in Afghanistan should be left to the Afghans.

Developments yesterday

* Nato airstrike kills seven Afghan soldiers and police.

* Two-thirds of Britons polled say Afghanistan is a "lost cause".

* UK troops should be prepared to die in "fight against fundamentalism", says army chaplain.

* Obama's national security adviser: "We will not solve the problem with troops alone".

* UK army commander says troops fighting and dying for stability in "hotbed of terror". Cause is "worth the sacrifice".

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Good Arguement
[info]jim2509 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:52 am (UTC)
Mr Cockburn has obviously put forward a good arguement for the UK goverment to withdraw UK Forces out of Afghanistan, however a couple of things i'd like to counter in this arguement. Firstly where he got the figure that only 100 estimated 'al-Qa'ida' fighters are operating in Afghanistan is well, quite ridiculous, as from 1st hand experience i know there are 1000's of foreign fighters operating under the guise of ACM's & surely he would know that being so 'experienced' about Afghanistan, unless of course he hasnt come into contact with these people post operations?? People need to understand that we havent been committed to Afghanistan as we should have from 2001. It's only since 2006, that UK forces have been deployed in strength, and even then they were let down by the Treasury Budget Caps-only now is it dawning on the fools in the Labour Goverment that you need to spend an awful lot of money & you cant change a country like Afghanistan as Mr Cockburn pointed out overnight. What you ask an Afghan in the north your reply to the same question in the south will be different, they have suffered immense hardships from the Taliban rule but if you ask them do you want us here the answer is normally 8 of 10 yes, because they want a chance to improve their country for the next generation, and they want hospitals, schools to improve their quality of life for their community. The problem is cutting the corruption because that's what's stopping the daily life of the poorer Afghans, by the time things are dished out there's nothing left at the bottom and we made the mistake of throwing money at the problem so Everyone wants a bit of the pie. We can't cut & run from Afghanistan & leave the Afghans to their fate as we'll be asking for trouble down the line whether thats with 'al-Qa'ida' it's allies the Taliban/ACM's or other groups. Now's the time to support Pakistan's efforts against the Hardline Talibs/ACM's, cutting corruption in Karzai's goverment & negotiating with moderate tier Talibs who want to commit to a peaceful future and supporting our troops who actually DO make a difference everyday...but that's not on the media agenda at the moment is it????
Re: Good Arguement
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:23 am (UTC)
who is the one who worm his hand on the fire.
in 90ths Taliban were trustful,Taliban are the one who show the world including Brown that Karzi is corrupted,thought Brown knows but he does not us to know to keep his lies.so he needs to look for new lie and so on......!
Re: Good Arguement - [info]ancientoneuk - Monday, 9 November 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC) Expand
Sooner or later you will have to withdraw
[info]stayahead wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:18 am (UTC)

You invaded Afghanistan because you thought you were so superior and could overrun this 'medievalist' Taliban and install your puppet regime. The Taliban asked for evidence that Osama was behind 9/11 and even reportedly offered to have him then tried in another country. But your Bush had some other ideas.

Now after the freedom fighters (also called terrorists sometimes) made life very hard for you, you are all screaming "leave now!"

It is very imperative to know that your invasion was never at any time intended to benefit the Afghan people but was done solely for your own economic, security and political interests. And the fact remains you will only withdraw when the Taliban make life unbearable for you as they are doing now. Time is always on the Taliban side. The Taliban being Afghans will not disappear into thin air. They are there to stay. Ultimately, you will have to withdraw, with hundreds of your soldiers killed and thousands and thousands of Afghans killed. And the Taliban will be back. Maybe you will make some deal with them and all of a sudden, we will have the indie, Guardian, daily mail et al telling us how wonderful the Taliban are for brining security, eradicating corruption blah blah.
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw
[info]saxontimes wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:34 am (UTC)
If it was not intended to benefit the Afghans and us we could have simply dropped nuclear bombs on the whole Islamic mess that Afghanistan is. My remedy is withdraw all our troops and repatriate all the muslim colonisers that have come to our country, then people like you can live with your hate back in whatever -stan you come from.
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw - [info]andre_t - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:22 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw - [info]slaveweknow - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw - [info]richardcarter - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:22 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw - [info]slaveweknow - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw - [info]jim2509 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Sooner or later you will have to withdraw - [info]amallulla - Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 04:00 am (UTC) Expand
HOW HISTORY TENDS TO REPEAT
[info]foolsgold2112 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:29 am (UTC)
Google the Simla Manifesto
Written by the Earl of Auckland on 1st October 1838, setting out the necessary reasons for British intervention in Afghanistan. In it he laid out his reasons for war in a document filled with distortions and outright fabrications designed to cement support for the war. (SOUND FAMILIAR)

It is worth highlighting Auckland’s claim that a Persian siege of Herat was the equivalent of a Russian takeover of Afghanistan, and that in turn made necessary a British invasion. Auckland’s analysis turned a distant and manageable problem into an imminent and existential threat. Such twisted reasoning turned a professed desire to defend Afghanistan into a determination to conquer it.


In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan with the intention of incorporating it into the British empire. The immediate provocation for the war — replacing a supposedly pro-Persian ruler with a British puppet — was dubious and based on sexed-up evidence. Lord Auckland often referred to Herat — the gateway to Afghanistan, on the border with Iran — as “the western frontier of India”. The welfare of our possessions in the east,” said Auckland, “requires that we should have on our western frontier an ally who is interested in resisting aggression and establishing tranquillity, in the place of chiefs ranging themselves in subservience to a hostile power and seeking to promote schemes of conquest.”


HOW HISTORY TENDS TO REPEAT

I hope this bit doesn’t

On 1 January 1842 an agreement was reached that provided for the safe exodus of the British garrison and its dependants from Afghanistan. Five days later, the retreat began. The evacuees were harassed down the 30 miles (48 km) of treacherous gorges and passes lying along the Kabul River. The force had been reduced to fewer than forty men by a retreat from Kabul that had become, towards the end, a running battle through two feet of snow. Only a dozen of the men had working muskets, the officers their pistols and a few unbroken swords. The only Briton known to have escaped was Dr. William Brydon, though a few others were captured.
HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES
[info]foolsgold2112 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:35 am (UTC)
This war is about a 12 trillion $US gas pipeline and nothing to do with terrorists. Oh but that horrible Taliban I here you cry. You mean the same Taliban The CIA and ISA funded when the Russians were there? By the way the terrorist training camps were the CIA's idea. Even the UK defence secretary Bob Ainsworth on the BBC when asked why we are not negotiating with the Taliban stated well its difficult because there is no such thing. They are all different tribal leaders to negotiate with and it is difficult. I kid you not. Do you think that if Afghanistan’s biggest export was Chocolate we would even be there saving the world from terror?

The so called Taliban were in the US in the 90s trying sell a gas pipeline to a US Company called Unicol. When they decided to go with the Argentinean company Bridas Corp it hit the fan and the US through there dummy out the pram. A gas pipeline that was reported to be worth 12 trillion US dollar to the US economy.

The reason given to a dumbdown US public was that they wouldn’t hand Bin Laden over. That was a lie. The Taliban said that if the US could provide evidence he was behind 911 they would hand him over. The US had not intention of giving evidence (if they had any at all) because there intention was to invade anyway. Most of the Highjackers were Saudi's and even some of those are still alive as Pilots in tha far east. Known fact but I digress.

Does no one remember the Gulf War in the 90s when our boys were complaining that they didn’t join the army to protect oil fields.

Ohh an afterthought another excuse often given is about the poppy fields. The Taliban had almost eradicated it from Afghanistan in 2000 before The UK and the US waded on in.

WE CONTANTLY AS A NATION THROW STONES WHILST LIVING IN A GLASS HOUSE. WAKE PEOPLE AND MAYBE JUST MAYBE IF WE SPREAD A LITTLE LOVE INSTEAD OF HATE IT MIGHT,,,, JUST MIGHT STOP BITTING US ON THE BACKSIDE
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES
[info]graham_casey wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:44 am (UTC)
All known facts but have you noticed how little of this is ever discussed in mainstream media? Some observation on the way news is presented or issues discussed show a subtle censorship that diverts people into arguing about issues they can't resolve whilst never really getting to the core of the problem. As we look around at the quality of our 'free world' politicians, listen to their lies and see just how much they are in the pocket of the rich and powerful non-elected elite we can see that our democracies are dying and becoming more and more corrupt.
Unfortunately one result of this is that the US empire will drag Britain into more of these adventures which are either resource based or strategic moves on the chess board against some enemy or other.
Historically the USA has never been able to function without an enemy at the gate and the mysterious Al Quada and its leader Bin Laden fit the bill perfectly permitting a few decades of crusading and another line of films for Hollywood.
We seem to fall for it all the time and the dis-information that abounds in our media is skillfully used to headline us into situations that are well planned in advance. The truth is hardly ever a consideration and the public used to 2 minute sound bite news sadly believes most of it.

As for 911 the supposed cause for all this, it was convienient timing to say the least, got the USA control over the Iraqi oilfields and did its bit to keep the American consumer in 'gas' for their cars and profits for 'big oil' in Houston. Was it all planned to achieve just that? we will probably never know but it seems increasingly unlikely that a few totally inept hijackers planned and executed such an event and even more unlikely that 3 towers collapsed in their own footprints in less than 10 seconds from 2 aircraft impacts which caused only local fires.
I guess that's the point - we are asked to believe some pretty odd things in our media and by our 'leaders' the fact most people do and do not riot or demand answers just gives them licence to think just how far they can go and that is the scary bit.
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]foolsgold2112 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 03:13 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:38 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]foolsgold2112 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]gregory_sallust - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]scousekraut - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]frase33 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]gregory_sallust - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]freedommonger - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 07:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]ancientoneuk - Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:02 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]foolsgold2112 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]gollymolly44 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]frase33 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]frase33 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]unexpectedtiger - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]slaveweknow - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]slaveweknow - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:27 am (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]gregory_sallust - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:54 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]unexpectedtiger - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW CAN SO MANY FALL FOR THESE LIES - [info]ancientoneuk - Monday, 9 November 2009 at 09:51 am (UTC) Expand
If the Taliban take over...
[info]violetsmart wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:49 am (UTC)
What about the argument that if the Taliban take over all of Afghanistan, they will be an enormous threat to the West?

The Taliban are supposedly in Pakistan now, but if NATO moves out of Afghanistan, they will return to Kabul, etc.

Are we going to see another 9/11?

It's an honest question. I'm not trying to make a point.
Re: If the Taliban take over...
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 04:49 am (UTC)
We will only see another 9/11 if the US government chooses to orchestrate one.

9/11 was the biggest scam in history. Buildings containing asbestos would have been horrendously expensive for the owner to rehabilitate: far cheaper and easier to set demolition charges under them, take out additional insurance, send the air force away to do exercises based on hi-kackings (so everyone was really confused) and then fly some planes into the buidlings. It was one of the most brillaintly conceived and executed false flag operation in history and with teh assistnace of teh corporate media, sucked in millions. The only problem on the day was Bush didn't act his part particularly well and when told America was under attack he smiled and carried on reading the 'goat story'. He was supposed to have been surprised and worried.

However, things were soon back on track when there was widespread demand for a public enquiry. Bush managed to stall that for months while crucial evidence was shipped out the country and melted down, videos of the events confiscated etc. When the 9/11 Commisiion was finally set up, one of the gang headed it and produced a report giving the required version of events, refusing to address numerous contrdictions and blaring inconsistencies.

One piece of evidence could not be fiddled with however. The buildings fell at free-fall speed, only possible if Themite cherges had been pl;aced strategically throughout the buildings to cut through teh steel, pariculalry in the basement, prior to the event.

Notice how hte footage was played over and over agoan, just like the adverts that nurolinguisticaly programme people into buy stuff they don't need. All very sophisticaed mind control stuff that set teh scene for illegal and immoral invasions for teh control of resources.
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]frase33 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 01:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]gregory_sallust - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]someofusknow - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]someofusknow - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]jadroo - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:26 am (UTC) Expand
Re: If the Taliban take over... - [info]saxontimes - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC) Expand
what are we doing in afghanistan fighting flok with long beards and pyjamas who are no threat to us
[info]maradona_2009 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:07 am (UTC)
its time to pack our bags and get out of afghanistan and iraq we have no business being there we were taken in there based on lies and spin fighting tony blairs dads war bush who led us down the garden path there has been no thought gone in to the invasions in iraq and afghanistan and most certainly no exit strategy its been a complete disaster especially afghanistan where super powers like the USSR were no match for men with long beards and pyjamas with slippers on who fight like warriors they will not be defeated history proves that yet we are loseing soldiers left right and centre and will continue to do so for oil and gas pipelines yet we are told the taliban are a threat to us when they have not invaded a single country in there history we all know we are on a hideing to nothing
Resign from the club of fanatics
[info]floppsiefrog wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:37 am (UTC)
Britain, the US puppet, is in Afghanistan to secure a slice of the American dream to build a trans-Afghanistan pipeline that will enable them to exploit the vast gas deposits of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan not only to confound Russia and Iran, but to control the energy resources of Central Asia and the continued development of China. It's a completely immoral enterprise hidden behind a tissue of lies designed to legitimatize the criminal endeavor and win public support. There is no terrorist threat in Afghanistan beyond increasingly large numbers of insurgents who wish to liberate their country from foreign occupation. Fortunately, the British government, which is drowning in an ocean of debt, can no longer afford the expense of it all without further impoverishing the electorate and inspiring insurrection and riots. In the meantime, the bone-headed American mafia and its Zionist Israeli supporters press on with their plans to widen the conflict and attack Iran on the pretext that the country is anti-semitic and intending to build nuclear weapons. Good luck with that one and the ensuing economic meltdown.
[info]petechina wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:59 am (UTC)
I cannot see how the threat of terrorists attack can still be lauded by our government as good reason to stay in Afghanistan. With our sloppy and relaxed immigration policies there could be a whole regiment of al-Qa id and Taliban here already
Labour imported Taliban to Britain
[info]saxontimes wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
Read the Times today Labour knowingly let in thousands of dangerous immigrants here including men known to be TALIBAN fighters, they have deliberately undermined our security and put our troops lives at risk. We should withdraw and defend our borders albeit too late. We should certainly have no more muslim immigration it is sheer lunacy!
Some sanity at last
[info]find_empire wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:32 am (UTC)
Too bad it always takes a bloodbath and military defeat for our esteemed fourth pillar of democracy to come to its senses and tell us what we knew all along. It seems like as long as there are imperial powers in the world, they will take a crack at Afghanistan no matter what.



Let's hope that Osama's biggest ally Obama will read Cockburn and put an end to his imperial afpak folly that is simply handing over both stans to the Taliban on a silver platter.

Re: Some sanity at last
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:54 pm (UTC)
Tosser.

Smug onanistic tosser.
Pay for it later
[info]magnetman1 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:56 am (UTC)
If Britain and the US withdraw from Afghanistan no one knows what poisonous brew of mayhem the victorious Taliban and it’s friends Al-Qaeda would concoct towards the West. It would be a matter of time before Pakistan falls. Britain would then face an even more toxic situation and be drawn back to the region. Withdraw now, pay for it later.

Re: Pay for it later
[info]masmanz wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 03:46 am (UTC)
Just shear fear mongering to stoke the fire of wars. What do the Taliban have? Magic carpets? Or will they come to Britain riding the beast? Is it some fantastic end-timers theology? They will probably not able to capture the whole of Afghanistan, let alone capturing Pakistan and marching on to UK. What nonsense!
Ecsatcy and Agony of the Neocons.
[info]kisakhani wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 07:16 am (UTC)
When we place both Iraq and Afghanistan with the countries that surround them? We see the strategic value of the two as launching pads in the Space. From whence we could launch our provocative ''War against Terror'' only
to enhance our vested interests ? In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Pashtuns see this provocation launched by two
elements the MQM in Pakistan and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to eliminate them.
Sound and fury
[info]democraticact wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:37 am (UTC)
Our fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq hasn't been done with our democratic approval. ( Albeit political goyism returned a war criminal and his cronies, to power.) The killing will stop when the generals and the politicians have enough blood on their hands. Many of the comments here are well informed. But the storm of opinion that has come from the internet has only served our controllers in the pretence of a properly working democracy. Without the threat of real political change the protest is just so much hot air ! Go to: democraticbritain.org.uk ( and it is the .UK site ) and take up the democratic reponsibility to ACT.
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
is Britain able to leave even if USA refused ?
they follow USA write or wrong.
yes...but
[info]londonrebel wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:22 am (UTC)
We need to withdraw from Afghanistan as long as the Taleban can free themselves of AQ influence and cooperation. This may have happened or may happen in the future; the Taleban may realise their sure path to longterm power in the region is to cast off AQ. Our war is with AQ and perhaps AQ is now so weakened it may become increasingly ineffectual - especially if Afghanistan and Iraq are left alone. Perhaps we should also recognise that the UK government and its armed forces are unable to protect us from AQ in the same way that the US was hit on 9/11 and the armed forces and politicians did little to either protect the nation or offer long-term security. Let's pull out and see how AQ is weakened as a result. It may wither and die. But if some huge AQ-organised attack does happen in the West in future - something really off the dial - the people of the West may start looking at alternate strategies and sentiments, like AQ before them, which may coalesce into their own route to terror. That is always a risk that must be considered.
[info]obeseshady wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
Why is the PM the only man in the Labour Party with any common sense? Its a pity he couldnt have reconsidered defending Johnson in this recent disgrace to the party.
fooling our memory! to enslave us .look and see how color of Britain fading??
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
thank you well done.
This week two leaders recognized that they were looking at wrong side,ABBASS AND BROWN.
WE have seen the lies on Iraq about 45 minute to attack london by Saddan,Satan is working hard to fool us;creating reasons to stay in Iraq/Afghanistan.
while the world is facing crisis financially,social and climate; some one is looking for problems outside!!!
when the Chief "Pirate "is waiting the "smaller pirates" who are outside looting others,collecting everything and then enslaving them is his kingdom..!
Britian is selling their Gold and instualtion of the country very cheap and control the kingdom at minimal price.
look and see how color of Britain fading??
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
the one who own the money and the media the one who decide. Brown does not want to upset his posses by saying lies:"The future good of Afghanistan is not the first reason why Britain has an army of 9,000 troops there, according to Gordon Brown. He said on Friday that they are there to protect people walking the streets of Britain: "Our children will learn of the heroism of today's men and women fighting in Afghanistan protecting our nation and the world from the threat of global terrorism." We are fighting there, he adds, so we are safe in our homes and guarded against the atrocities carried out by al-Qa'ida not only in London, but across the world."Gordon Brown fool us ,he is the slave we know.
PETITION TO BRING BRITISH TROOPS HOME
[info]las202 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:15 am (UTC)


To help get British troops out of Afghanstan, sign the following petition:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/STWCAfghanistan/
Afghanistan occupation and other frauds
[info]amvet wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:22 am (UTC)
I agree that the best way to reduce Islamic terrorism is to stop the brutal occupation of Muslim areas....Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Do not forget that most terrorist acts are acts of revenge and killing one person wins you many enemies.
Time to leave
[info]daveryan80 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
Perhaps the hardest concept for most people in the west to grasp is that is WE who are barbaric murderous and immoral. It is WE who commit terrible acts of slaughter against defenceless women, children and men all over the world. All the victims in Afghanistan are civilians as it has no official army to defend itself against the aggressors - the west. The establishment and the mainstream media relentlessly imply that without our presence, civilisation will melt away and barbarity will grow like a cancer, spreading to our shores and threatening our safety and ultimately our way of life. The total reverse is the case; it is WE who are over there visiting our culture of violence and death on them. The bloated military machines of the west are our last vestige of authority. Any moral authority vanished a long time ago. It shows very well in our leader's mendacious, dissembling and spinning rhetoric. It's too vile to bear.
Re: Time to leave
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:27 am (UTC)
On the other hand, Mr Davery....
Perhaps the hardest concept for some people in the west to grasp is that is not us who are barbaric, murderous and immoral. It is not us who commit terrible acts of slaughter against defenceless women, children and men. We do not place bombs in market places or kill our own children for the preservation of our “honour”. Some of the victims in Afghanistan are civilians it is true, as their fighters hide behind civilians or blow them up with suicide bombers. The establishment and the mainstream media truthfully imply that without our presence, civilisation will melt away and barbarity will grow like a cancer, as it did, and has done, in many Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Somalia. Any moral authority vanished a long time ago in these countries, where their leader’s mendaciousness, avarice, cruelty and corruption is too vile to bear.
Re: Time to leave - [info]frase33 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Time to leave - [info]jim2509 - Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Afghanistan: Time to leave
[info]upwardsand wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
This has been BNP policy for a long time. Why no acknowledgment?
The Reason Why
[info]jameswoodfield wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
The brave young soldiers we honour today did not shirk their duty, and we dishonour them if we shirk ours.
Our duty now is to face, and to act upon, this shaming truth: that dying for one's country is not the same thing as dying because of one's government.
Re: The Reason Why
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
But Mr. James...... The majority of us voted for this government under an existing democratic system, otherwise it would not be in power. So, unless there has been a coup I didn't hear about, it is US who our troops are dying for. You may want to blame somebody else but many of us accept the truth, unpalatable as it may be. However, you will soon get your chance to vote and change everything back to the "perfect world" that existed before Labour were voted in - but who will you vote for to achieve that???
Read this
[info]charlesdanwood wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)

Amb. Murray reports that the people delivered by CIA flights to Uzbekistan’s torture prisons “were told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they’d been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.”

“I was absolutely stunned,” says the British ambassador, who thought that he served a moral country that, along with its American ally, had moral integrity. The great Anglo-American bastion of democracy and human rights, the homes of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the great moral democracies that defeated Nazism and stood up to Stalin’s gulags, were prepared to commit any crime in order to maximize profits.

Amb. Murray learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up. He saw the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK military aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from “terrorism,” and the utter fools would believe the lie.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11062009.html
Boogeyman in a cave,,,
[info]frase33 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:59 am (UTC)
9/11 was an inside job....No doubt about it at all...
There is a monumental cover up in the mainstream press who all know...
This issue is not going away...
Anyone in any doubt Watch this....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#

Find out the truth, or keep believing in the big bad boogeyman hiding in his cave!
Its absurd.....
Leaving Afghanistan
[info]ajp123 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC)
What a naive article written by Patrick Cockburn. How can you possibly expect a country that has never known democracy to suddenly get things working. Yes the government is corrupt and as democracy matures so will their voting system. Does he think that British democracy worked right from the start - I don't think so.

Pulling out at this stage would be a disaster but what do you expect from the media who always like to argue the opposite to what Governments say.
Re: Leaving Afghanistan
[info]jim2509 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
I have to agree that it was extremely naive & am sure Mr Cockburn being the intelligent man he is knew that it would create the reaction it has. Pulling out would be a BIG BIG Disaster & would set panic throughout the region and i can say that it would drag India in without a doubt...have people forgot that Pakistan & India have a Nuclear Arsenal?? When will people get it into their heads WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE MAJORITY OF AFGHANS, WE ARE FIGHTING A WELL ORGANISED BUT SMALL INSURGENCY & ACM'S ACROSS A VAST AREA, they WILL be defeated because the majority of AFGHANS HATE THEM!!! I people would stop whingeing about past history, blair, brown, bush, The going on a mass killing spree for oil everywhere blah blah...it's drivel and old hat and most people see through all that lefty rubbish, get a spine and start getting behind your country's forces...it's pathetic!!!!
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date