More troops will just mean more targets

28 October 2009

/article_images/articledir_10964/5482223/1_listing.jpg

Since the war on terror began, Christina Lamb has believed that the answer in Afghanistan was to send more soldiers. Now, after eight years of fighting and no end in sight, she has changed her mind. Victory is not an option

Nato commanders talk of building up the Afghan army to fight their own war but this is a slow process (so far we have only managed to create an army of 80,000 out of 30 million people — by contrast Iraq has one 600,000 strong). In the end the only way out of this mess must surely be to deal with the Taleban. At the moment, while they are in the ascendancy, it’s hard to see why they would agree, unless their sponsors in Pakistan could be persuaded.

If the situation is to have any hope of being turned round, Afghans need to see some benefit from the presence of international troops. The US is spending $4 billion a month to keep its troops in Afghanistan, but the country remains one of the poorest on earth, and even in the capital most residents don’t have running water or electricity.

Just like last year, and the year before, we are being told that this year is the critical year in Afghanistan. Since ousting the Taleban with great ease eight years ago, we have made endless mistakes: getting distracted by Iraq; giving Karzai too much leeway; supporting warlords; being unable to differentiate tribal infighting and Taleban; bombing wedding parties; believing Pakistan shared our interests; putting the Italians in charge of building a justice system.

Don’t get me wrong. I care passionately about Afghanistan. As the autumn chill settles on DC, I dream about pomegranates, red pips shining like tiny rubies. The scent of pine in Rock Creek Park brings back memories of Herat or the mountains of Nangahar, and I miss squatting in villages listening to fantastical stories of ancient feuds. But as those stories illustrate, Afghanistan has always been beset by fighting. I don’t envy Obama pacing his Situation Room and wondering how to avoid this becoming his Vietnam. I don’t think we should just withdraw and let the Taleban take over. But I do believe we shouldn’t compound the mistakes already made by sending yet more young men to die.

Christina Lamb is Washington correspondent of the Sunday Times and won this year’s Prix Bayeux Calvados for war reporting for her coverage of Afghanistan.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

More articles from: Christina Lamb | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Janus

October 29th, 2009 5:34pm Report this comment

As your article explains, it is the local population that always bears the brunt of these conflicts, despite being promised a better life. I am reminded of the story of a mexican chicken farmer during the civil war. "First one side comes through and steals my chickens. Then the other side do the same. And they all say they're fighting for me."

Snowman

October 29th, 2009 7:48pm Report this comment

Two small, but not insignificant points.

Sending armed forces from non-Muslim countries to fight the Islamic Teleban could only succeed in alienating both the local Afghan population, and the Muslim community elsewhere, but not in defeating the enemy. The West, together with those Muslim countries that are to lose as much as us if the fanatics were to prevail, should have set-up an Islamic equivalent of the French Foreign legion, funded largely by the West, and backed by the UN.

The roots of the Afghan conflict lie not in the Afghan and Pakistani border caves, but in those madrasas that fill the young hearts with hate for years. Without tackling the teaching of evil, we can hardly win on the battlefield. To learn how to shoot a Kalashnikov, or dig in a IED takes only hours.

Herbert Thornton

October 29th, 2009 8:33pm Report this comment

This article is a sad mix of naivety and defeatism.

For naivety, try this - "The Taleban may have smashed TV sets when in power, but they can teach the MoD propaganda skills any day, and argue that if they come back to power they would not shut down girls’ schools or insist on long beards."

If Christina can believe that she can believe anything.

For defeatism - well the entire article is redolent of it.

Every can be won –but the things necessary are the material means to win and above all the determination to apply it.

I think it was a former Viceroy of India who said that there would be no peace in the Northwest Frontier areas "until the military steamroller has passed over them from end to end."

But he added that he did not want to be to person to order that. In short, the will was lacking.

And it still is lacking.

Willingness, alas, is possessed in inexhaustible measure by Islam.

And unless civilised world re-arms itself not just with material weapons, but with the same sort of will, it will itself eventually be defeated and subjugated.

grauniad

October 30th, 2009 7:15am Report this comment

Curious that Christina Lam seems to have spoken to the same Taleban member as The Guardian's Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in his August Article entitled "Inside the Taliban: 'The more troops they send, the more targets we have'" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/15/fighting-taliban-in-afghanistan-war)

A. MacAulay

November 1st, 2009 7:06pm Report this comment

An interesting article which nicely demonstrates how thoroughly we have either swallowed the lies of our leaders,(the same ones who lied so shamelessly about Iraq) or have simply lied to ourselves.

What was the victory over the Taliban supposed to look like? France in 1815? Germany 1918? Germany and Japan in 1945? The idea that a war is fought until it is won or lost may not apply here because we have invaded and at best tried to provoke a civil war. Or what? And not even watching the Soviet Union over-reach itself has given us pause for reflection.

It is nice that Christina Lamb has begun to examine her premises. Keep going!

Post comment