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

If McChrystal gets the 40,000 extra troops he wants, Nato will have almost as many as the 150,000 the Soviets had at their peak. But as the general himself admits, success is not guaranteed. Rather than lack of troops, the real problem in Afghanistan is the lack of a credible government, a situation brought to the fore by the shambles of the August election. Though, given the record of the Karzai government, we should have expected the corruption and the fraud.

Isolated in his palace behind seven layers of security who don’t allow journalists to take in pencils or lipsticks, Karzai has become increasingly paranoid. Angered by the criticism over the elections, today he is like a wounded bull. If, as expected, he is re-elected in next week’s poll, one can only wonder what kind of relations he will have with the international community.

In village after village, people explain that they are on the fence. On the one hand, they have Taleban terrorising them and offering speedy justice, a key issue in a land where 30 years of war and disruption have left many property disputes. On the other, they have what McChrystal described as a ‘predatory government’, with corrupt police and officials demanding bribes.

A recent report from the Institute of War details how British forces took the district of Nad Ali last year, losing a number of soldiers. They then handed control over to the Afghan police, who set about raping young boys. Eventually the people got so fed up that they asked the Taleban to come back to protect them.

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. Mullah Omar recently issued a rule book, a 61-page volume explaining to his fighters how to win hearts and minds.

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

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