Leading article: Defeat is not yet inevitable
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Seven years ago today, the West began a war in Afghanistan which is proving intractable. Military victory against the Taliban regime, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden, was swift; the US and Britain then switched their focus to Iraq.
This week's anniversary has been marked by the emergence of new doubts and defensiveness. A leaked dispatch from the British ambassador in Kabul recommended installing an acceptable dictator as the only way to salvage a failed strategy. The British commander in Afghanistan was quoted as proposing talks with the Taliban as a way of managing an unwinnable war. Neither comment was denied. In an indirect riposte, the US Defence Secretary criticised defeatism.
There should be no illusions about the plight of Afghanistan. Despite big talk, it received barely a quarter of the money ploughed into Iraq by the US Congress. Indeed it was given only half the amount the US gave to Afghan militants to fight the Soviet army in the 1980s. The world's poorest country outside Africa, it receives less aid per capita than any other major post-conflict state.
The West has under-funded and under-equipped the government of the hand-picked President, Hamid Karzai. A weak economy, rising unemployment, a lack of electricity and soaring crime have all increased popular dissatisfaction with the Karzai regime. To make matters worse, Washington has never made up its mind whether its primary target is al-Qa'ida or the poppy growers who produce 93 per cent of the world's opium. All this only increased the ability of the Taliban to recruit when it returned, as is now happening, to its old strongholds.
As a result, the number of insurgent attacks has increased and the fighting has spread, particularly in the east and the south of the country. Suicide bombings have increased six-fold in the past two years. British and US troops have taken severe casualties. Doubts about whether the war can be won look increasingly justified.
Not being able to win, though, is not the same as losing. It is possible for Nato troops to reduce the war to a level of insurgency in which the Taliban is no longer a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army. The conflict will then have to be resolved through political means.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
We never learn from the Past history....but yet we study it :)
Posted by unknown | 08.10.08, 15:47 GMT
With the Iraq War winding down and the Iraqi President and President Bush already negotiating the timetable for the withdrawal of Coalition troops you can bet that once the new Obama administration gets into power the war in Afghanistan will become the new number one priority. Obama wants to show the American public he will finish what Bush failed to finish and soon all kinds of money and troops will be heading for the Afghanistan effort. Al Qaeda and the Taliban will wonder WTF is going on when the full force of the American military again turns its attention toward eliminating them. I bet within 12 months of Obama taking office Al Qaeda and the Taliban will be finished completely with Osama's head on a pike out in front of the White House. That's the Chicago Way, that's how you get Capone er Osama.
Posted by Jinx | 08.10.08, 15:22 GMT
The only way is to show no mercy to the terrorists. REmember the adage the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Initially extreme force is required. Then when ther terrorists have been virtually eliminated, political action to rehablitate the fence sitters is required. Negotiations at this stage will not help.
Posted by Ashok Mehta | 08.10.08, 14:03 GMT
in order for the Afghan government to suppress an insurgency the infrastructure would need to be rebuilt by the allied coalition.
The infrastructure has not been rebuilt , rivers are still unbridged, roads have fallen in to disrepair and there is no running water or electricity in the provinces. How on earth can the afghan government hope to suppress an insurgency when the allies leave the country if we have not attempted to solve the massive problems this country now faces becasuse of our invasion in the first place.
That is the dilemma, by leaving the country, we condemn all the pro western supporters to reducation, ( i doubt the country would hold of the taliban for more than 5 mths). If we stay then who knows how many will die, be they afghans, brits, yanks or anyone else.
Posted by unhappy jon | 08.10.08, 12:40 GMT
Afghanistan.
The Nato Commander in charge of training an Afghan army faces a dilemma. As a matter of fact, Afghan troops are under-equipped and of course compare their weapons and body-armour (if any) ( and pay !) with the Coalition's soldiers: undoubtedyl, there must be a certain resentment built up during these last years. On the other side, they are not fully reliable so there is no miracle solution. A possible way out should be to increase the ratio of Tadjiks, Harati, Uzbeks, Aïmaks and others who were and still are "against" the Taliban ( or the Pashtuns ? ).This is only a part-solution and a double-edged one as is foretells a potential split inside the army corresponding to an announced cleavage of the country. I wonder whether an possible issue should not to have more autonomous provinces unavoidably corresponding to ethnic, religious and language distribution or, if you prefer a kind of loose confederation. But everthing is better that the current situation ?
Posted by Maxim | 08.10.08, 11:43 GMT
Sorry i took so long to reply to busy laughing it really did hurt quite a bit. In 1842 we got are assets kicked for doing the same thing so you point is we're not very bright ?.
Posted by RSBridgman | 08.10.08, 08:36 GMT