Cutting and running? No, Prime Minister

Brian O'Connor

. . . If they thought that for one minute, why would the Afghans continue to fight on their own behalf? Why wouldn’t they succumb to Taliban pressure?’. . .

Well, because the Taliban have abandoned their commitment to Islam and share the uniquely 20th — early-21st C western view that there is no such thing as an enemy, only a friend whose just grievances must be addressed.

There will be a great circle . . . Noble Taliban "fighters" will join hands with their western oppressor counterparts and the Afghan citizenry,and all will sing Kumbaya and denounce former President Bush for his aggression.

All will live happily ever after. What could be easier?

Ray

Of course, it would have been better had we not been sucked into this morass in the first place.

Osred

Surely the question needs to be asked. Do the Afghans (i.e Pashtun and allies) want to keep the talibs at bay? I dont think they do. They certainly dont want to expend any blood or effort in doing so. Afghan effort can only be bought by us temporarily.

Get the troops out. It will be cheaper to fight the battles on our own ground. This will bring home a few home truths that the Lib/Lab/Con consensus cannot spin away.

steve

Melanie,

I'm curious what you think about the news from a couple of weeks back that President Karzai's office has received "bags of money" from Iran to "run his office"?

Neil Craig

Remotely piloted aircraft have been the major & very successful weapon against the Taliban in Pakistan & have "taken out" many of the leaders.

I think it would be wise to pull out our troops, who are essentially only serving as targets & maintain remote air power. This might not exactly bring peace but it would prevent the Taliban exercising power & give all parties an incentive to reach agreement (& save a lot of our lives & silver).

John.

While allied casualties in the present Afghan war are derisory compared with those involved in the Battle of the Somme for instance, they are nevertheless the lives of unfortunate young men being lost in what may be a pointless cause. In a recent documentary which followed American troops into battle in Afghanistan, shown on ITV1, it transpired that the locals had been perfectly content to live under the repressive regime of the Taliban and were were nostalgic about it! Asa this is the case, what is the point of fighting in Afghanistan? The locals will obviously run the Taliban with open arms the moment we withdraw - even if we appear to have won! Just as they did after the Russian withdrawal.

Wm. H.

"...the Afghans themselves were in a position to keep the Taleban at bay..."

The Taliban are Afghans. So US troops are to remain until some Afghans can keep other Afghans at bay. It has been said that al qaeda and the Afghan Taliban fell out in part because al qaeda did not approve of the Taliban's purely national ambitions. It would appear that Nato "credibility" requires us to continue to interfere in a civil war.

"Britain’s new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, has politely told Prime Minister David Cameron that he can stuff his UK troop withdrawal date of next July".

Is it consistent with democracy for the military to decide which orders to obey?

blue_&_white_avenger

I agree with the sentiments that the local Afghans would be quite happy & prepared to live under Taleban rule.
Additionally, the moves made last year by the Afghan parliament to legalise rape in marriage just show that the "democratic lot" are no better than our enemies.
However, if we do pull out then the fate of westernised women hardly bares consideration.
That's the rub. But,if we stay, we should insist on equality i.e women have same rights as men- & proceed to block brown-paper bag cash donations from the Persians.

davvers

I don't know how many taleban there are but NATO forces well in excess of 100,000 have so far failed to even bring them close to giving up/ surrender. They will outlast NATO even if it takes another decade or two.

We all know that corruption is rife in that country and that democracy even if it subsists at some level after we have pulled out will be tainted by rigged/ bribed votes etc so that Taliban supporters will be in charge. So be it but I shudder to think how many young Muslim Brits will by then have succumbed to the mantra of hatred of "the west" and become a cancer in our society.

You have to wonder what exactly have we ( will we) in this country gained from this conflict.

Augustus

And the funny thing is that the US has spent about a thousand billion dollars fighting in Afghanistan, but it will be the Chinese and Russian firms who will benefit from the vast quantities of metal ore deposits there such as gold, lithium, cobalt, copper, and iron. In fact Afghanistan is destined to become the Saudi Arabia of lithium, a key component in batteries for cell
phones, computers, and cars of the future. And while the Chinese will be happily mining their deposits, the Kabul regime's ministers will be happily taking millions in bribes, and the US military will be dutifully guarding the mines. What a set-up!

Baron

Melanie, you are getting it wrong. We couldn’t win in that hellhole of a country if we stayed forever unless co-opting a ‘cleansed Taleban’ counts as a win. The Taleban aren’t a force from outside the country, they are local, the rural unwashed will side with whoever has the upper hand, the Taleban have it, they live there, we don’t, never will.

The best we can do is to convince those in charge to keep al-Qaeda out, it was these nutters, who trained there, who want us harm, the Taleban have never dispatched a suicide bomber to our shores, their only sin was allowing our true enemies to establish a base in the country.

Jeem

interesting

pterodactyl

Augustus says: "And the funny thing is that the US has spent about a thousand billion dollars fighting in Afghanistan,"

On the assumption that all people all over the world are basically the same and fundamentally want to live peacefully in a non-corrupt society with electricity and schools, the USA spent these vast sums (and lives) to give them peace and democracy. They hoped that once one Arab country enjoyed the benefits, the others would demand the same from their own oil-rich governments, so that eventually they could all be prosperous and peaceful, and this would divert them from spending so much of their energies hating the Israel and the West. They would surely realise that there is more to life than glory for their religion through conflict and war and they could calm down and we could all be friends, or at least tolerate each other in a civil way.

Unfortunately, they have decided that they prefer their old way of life.

Maybe we are not fundamentally all the same after all.

Dixon

Two years after Obamas promised one month deadline for closing Gitmoits still open.

Many months after the withdrawal of "the last" US Army units fromIraq depicted on the front pages of our papers, there are still 50,000 US troops there.

Sometimes necessity ovverrules rhetoric.

However, as Ive mentioned, I dont think this war warrants squandering our personnel in combat. Their lives should be valued higher than so-called "civilian" Afghans. Combat should be taken to the enemy with an extensive and overwhelming use of air-power.

Not foot-patrols with unloaded weapons, as it is now.

Wm. H.

Dixon
November 11th, 2010 1:38pm
When you write "civilians", what do you mean by the inverted commas? And what is it you think warrants an aerial bombardment of Afghan civilians, or even "civilians"? Why is it preferable to kill men, women and children than to leave?

Dixon

Wm. H.
November 11th, 2010 5:40pm

Dixon
November 11th, 2010 1:38pm
"When you write "civilians", what do you mean by the inverted commas?"

Many Taleban simply "change hats" and blend into the population as it suits them. Afghan "civilans" are permitted arms and munitions if they can offer a valid reason (such as tofight off Taleban...ironically). It must be impossible to distinguish between those who genuinely reject the Taleban and those who support or are party to Taleban actyions. Moreover, in the wider perspective, there can be very few Afghans outside the urban enclaves who do not have attitudes that more or less overlap with thoseof our enemies. The notion that there are Afghans who are not enemies of our interests is questionable. Ultimately, all Afghans at this time should be regarded as enemies exactly as all Germans were during WW2.

"And what is it you think warrants an aerial bombardment of Afghan civilians, or even "civilians"? Why is it preferable to kill men, women and children than to leave?"

My perspective isthat of extreme national self-interest. In my perspective the interests of my national grouping trumps any othert consideration. Thje projection of power in the interest of our state is a fundamental given inmy world-view.Regulars here know that I have argued this cponsistently for years. I dont subscribe to the latterly orthodox assumption that allhuman life is of equal. On the contrary, there is a pyramid of status. My own life and interest is at the apex, my family and friends on the tier below. My immediate community below that. My co-nationals form the foundation of this pyramid of value. Anything beyond that is immaterial. I am of the view that The State isconnected to the individual through this ascending stratified pyramid of self-interest and that it is in my personal; self-interest that The State act only with the interests of its citizens and not those of any other state in mind.

In this perspective, the policy in Afghanistan is not wrong for our projection of force but for the method which contradicts the relationshipof citizen to state being vested in the self interest of the citizen. That Afghans,or anyone else, are accorded the same value as my fellow citizens is in my opinion an abommination.

Dixon

...apologies for the terrible typing that time.

Dixon

It is deeply ironic that even a minor nation like Britain today possess such God like destructive power that we could if we chose utterly obliterate any third-world entity that opposes us and yet such industrially advanced nations are rendered utterly powerless by their moral squeamishness and decadence.

Michael Roberts

Dixon

Excellent post. Absolutely the heart of the matter.

A.

I wonder why the foundation of this mound supporting Dixon should be that recent invention the nation state? What arguments are to be used against anyone who chooses a narrower or a broader base?

And what vital interest of the UK requires it to intervene in an Afghan civil war to protect Dixon? Is the argument that anyone who has ever been associated with any group that the UK has identified as a threat should be obliterated to ensure Dixon's comfort - and the Afghan Taliban comprise a part of the Afghan people and so the Afghan people should be obliterated (although neither they nor the Taliban have actually attacked Britain)?

Dixon

A.
November 13th, 2010 3:00pm

"I wonder why the foundation of this mound supporting Dixon should be that recent invention the nation state?"

I actually referred to "community" at a higher status than "state". In other words, the oldest and most fundamental of absolutely all social relations, the tribe. You will not find anything older or more fundamental in Human affairs. This system of alllegiance predates even language itself and our particular Hominim species.

" What arguments are to be used against anyone who chooses a narrower or a broader base?"

Narrower bases I have already included in my previous argument, ones family and oneself being in turn each more narrow and higher in status than any other. How is your adducing what I myself endorse an argument against my position? On the other hand, the only "broader" base than the state would be The Brotherhood of Man...a notional entity for which no evidence exists (Mankind being composed demonstrably of self-interested and competing tribes) and which fails your own criterion of vintage, being so recent that its presence as a consideration in Human affairs has been vanishingly small to actuially non-existent. Essentially only influencing the actions of some Western industrialised nations in the past sixty years and having no influence among any other nation or community on the planet, today or at any point in history or prehistory.

"And what vital interest of the UK requires it to intervene in an Afghan civil war to protect Dixon? Is the argument that anyone who has ever been associated with any group that the UK has identified as a threat should be obliterated to ensure Dixon's comfort - and the Afghan Taliban comprise a part of the Afghan people and so the Afghan people should be obliterated (although neither they nor the Taliban have actually attacked Britain)?"

Yes. Absolutely. That is what I was saying.Although you have confused the content of two different posts at the end,my view is essentially that anyone who "looks at us in the wrong way" should be pounded into submission.

A.

Dixon,
You contradict yourself: you do indeed talk of the nation and say that the state is the base of your pyramid of self-interest. This contradicts your later assertion that we have not moved on since the stone age. I would still like to know what principle it is causes you to stop at the nation state, which is a recent invention, and not at a more tribal level or an imperial level, as has been more frequent in the past. And what argument you could have with your neighbour if he decides his family forms the base of his pyramid and takes your possessions by force.

As for Afghanistan, the US had little problem with the Taliban until Unocal's negotiations ran into difficulties (when the Pentagon drew up plans to oust them). The Taliban were falling out with al qaeda as the Sudanese had before them. The Taliban now is engaged in a civil war that should be of no interest to Britain. And for this, every man, women, and child is to be exposed to carpet bombing? To assuage your mistaken notion that they pose a threat to you. Anyone who looks at you the wrong way...When said by you, it provokes a snort of derision. When said by Hitler (who I'm sure you know you're quoting) it caused the death of millions.

You clearly enjoy your self-image as hard-headed realist and egotist, and are comfortable with the company you keep.

Dave

It would be perverse if Britain remained in Afghanistan at the behest of the Generals, because it is the political leadership who should be giving the orders.

Particularly as the term "cut and run" is a political rather than military term.

British solders never cut and run, but they do advance, hold position and retreat.

Generals are there to make these operational decisions, but it is not their role to decide whether we should be in Afghanistan or not.

Perhaps the politicians are hiding behind the Generals on this one, allowing Cameron to break another promise about leaving Afghanistan by 2015, to please the Americans!

But some Generals do give good advice. Wellington said a good leader knows when to retreat and has the courage to do so.

Dixon

A:
November 14th, 2010 11:20am

"Dixon,
You contradict yourself: you do indeed talk of the nation and say that the state is the base of your pyramid of self-interest This contradicts your later assertion that we have not moved on since the stone age."

No, I dont contradict what I actually wrote (rather than your incorrect comprehension of it). I wrote that the criterion that trumps all others, at the top of the "pyramid" is oneself, below that ones family, below that ones community and BOTTOM of the list in status is the state. Theres no contradiction in saying that and then saying that the same sequence of priorities existed long before the state existed, indeed before our species existed.

" I would still like to know what principle it is causes you to stop at the nation state, which is a recent invention,"

A "recent invention" at least 8,000 years old.

"... and not at a more tribal level..."
If you actually read what I wrote and comprehended it you will see that in my last post I did indeed stress the tribal level as more fundamental. Obviously you arent responding to what I write but your own attempts to stereotype my views inside the pigeonholes of your head.

"...or an imperial level"

Because quite obviously an empire encompasses tribes other than one sown.The last British Empire squandered fortunes in administering and protecting foreign posessions and their peoples.

"... as has been more frequent in the past. And what argument you could have with your neighbour if he decides his family forms the base of his pyramid and takes your possessions by force."

The argument against his behaviour is purely HIS self interest. HE would suffer ill consequence as a direct result. More to the point, he and I and everyone else in our own community share the self interested principle that by abiding by mutually endorsed rules of conduct (in this case property rights) we ALL benefit. Such reciprocity however does not function BETWEEN communities, as those of one community do not have anything togain by observing the alien mores of another community. Nor does the principle of self-interested shared rules in any sense resemble the notions of "morality" or "ethics" that it is fashionable to adduce as arguing the "rights" of people elsewhere in the world, unconnectedto us, as being equal to the interests of members of our own community. Ie, that the "rights" of Afghan "civilians" outweighs the interests of members of my own community (the squaddies being killed by Afghans). Obviously the Afghan will seeit similarly but inverted. But I am not an Afghan. We have nothing in common. The Afghans interest is not my interest and there is no objective basis (as opposed to the theological kind, which I do not endorse and doubt you do either) for stating that his interest should be given the same value, by my leaders, as my own.

"As for Afghanistan, the US had little problem with the Taliban until Unocal's negotiations ran into difficulties (when the Pentagon drew up plans to oust them). The Taliban were falling out with al qaeda as the Sudanese had before them...."

This is just ingenuous waffle, sophistry, ...WHO CARES how you read the pretensious minutiae of quasi-history.

"... The Taliban now is engaged in a civil war that should be of no interest to Britain. And for this, every man, women, and child is to be exposed to carpet bombing?"

This phrase "carpet bombing" which Inever used or would use merely indicates your immensely old-fashioned mind-set.You are stuck somewherein the 1940's.

"... To assuage your mistaken notion that they pose a threat to you...."

If Afghanistan "falls" Pakistan will too,and Pakistan posseses scores of nuclear weapons. Not the conjecturedkind of "intelligence" reports but the very unambigous kind that they have tested and which aredeployed. If you dont think that poses a threat to both me and you then you arents on the same planet. Dont forget, whether you like it or not, you are part of my community and if those who are, whether you like it or not OUR enemies decide to obliterate me, they do you as well.

"... Anyone who looks at you the wrong way...When said by you, it provokes a snort of derision...."

Why? You havent met me and know nothing of my personal record in this regards.

" When said by Hitler (who I'm sure you know you're quoting) it caused the death of millions."

Im sure as hell he never said it. Give us the quote.

The quote I always have in mind (and it too is no doubt apocryphal, though frequently cited) is of the American in VietNam:
"too liberate the village we had to destroy the village"
Those who cite this quote invariably do so without any comprehension of the truth at its heart.

A child of an Afghan is condemned by birth to an existence of abject oppression. Particularly the girls. Particularly under those Taleban who you so patently favour, speak on behalf of, endorse and assist even in youyr commenting here. Frankly, I would prefer for myself a swift death rather than such an appalling existence and to deliver swift death to such unfortunates is in my sincerest opinion an act of mercy and liberation.

I do not value life as a fetishistic quality as do the religiously inclined. Only quality of life ranksin my assessment. Of course itsdifferent if youve "got religion" and believe in the sanctity of life. Tell us, do you have religion? If you do, no argument can counter it. But somehow I suspect that you do not. You merely find it helps you feel vaguely warm and fuzzy about yourself to speak up on behalf of the vilest enemiesof you, me and their own children.

"You clearly enjoy your self-image as hard-headed realist and egotist, and are comfortable with the company you keep."

...as Ive said in previous paragraph, self-image is also YOUR "kick". You like to see yourself as having a heart that bleeds. The difference between your orientation and mine is that your heart may as a result of those you endorse quite literally end up bleeding whereas my control and suppression of such emotional inclinations might if reflected in government policy prevent such an eventual outcome.
I have OUR interests at heart. You have...only a "heart".

A.

Dixon
""When said by Hitler..."
Im sure as hell he never said it. Give us the quote."

You are "sure as hell" about a whole lot of things, aren't you.

The quote: "The partisan war has its advantages as well. It gives us the opportunity to stamp out everything that stands against us...Shoot anyone dead who even looks at us askance."

You are in the best of company, are you not.

You do however add to the gaiety of nations. A few more gems:

"...he and I and everyone else in our own community share the self interested principle that by abiding by mutually endorsed rules of conduct..." (It's so easy when you can assume what you purport to prove. And still no explanation of why this sharing extends all the way from the family to the nation state, and also why it doesn't extend further.)

"the American in VietNam:
"to liberate the village we had to destroy the village"" (No comment required, just quiet enjoyment.)

"If Afghanistan "falls" Pakistan will too,and Pakistan posseses scores of nuclear weapons..." (A tabloid geopolitician as well as a moralist!)

"to deliver swift death to such unfortunates is in my sincerest opinion an act of mercy and liberation." (It's not hard-headed realism and self-interest. It's an act of mercy!)

You should certainly publish.

(I apologise for the anachronism from the era when it was Indochinese killed in their millions. These days we go in for precision munitions, which in Iraq killed thousands upon thousands, and in Afghanistan are still doing their precise work.)

Dixon

A:
"A.
November 14th, 2010 7:59pm

Dixon
""When said by Hitler..."
Im sure as hell he never said it. Give us the quote." "

The quote: "The partisan war has its advantages as well. It gives us the opportunity to stamp out everything that stands against us...Shoot anyone dead who even looks at us askance."
You are in the best of company, are you not."

Said who, when, published where, when and what is it in German? Thats not a"quote", a citation, its just apocrypha. If its genuine, you would be able to cite who reported first hearing it and where their testimony was published.Moreover, it would be in German. "Askance" has no exact translation in German.

All of which is besides the point. Hitler may have said a lot of things. If you are going to judge everything by whether or not Hitler endorsed it you are going to make some idiotic cases. For a start, vegetarianism would by your criterion be considered a criterion for comparison with Hitler, as would love of dogs and any number of things. Its a fundamentally absurd line of argument.

"You do however add to the gaiety of nations. A few more gems:

"...he and I and everyone else in our own community share the self interested principle that by abiding by mutually endorsed rules of conduct..." (It's so easy when you can assume what you purport to prove. And still no explanation of why this sharing extends all the way from the family to the nation state, and also why it doesn't extend further.)

"the American in VietNam:
"to liberate the village we had to destroy the village"" (No comment required, just quiet enjoyment.)

"If Afghanistan "falls" Pakistan will too,and Pakistan posseses scores of nuclear weapons..." (A tabloid geopolitician as well as a moralist!)

"to deliver swift death to such unfortunates is in my sincerest opinion an act of mercy and liberation." (It's not hard-headed realism and self-interest. It's an act of mercy!)

You should certainly publish."

Merely quoting me is not in itself an argument. Nor for the reasons I point out is comparing me to Hitler. Clearly you do not have any arguments.

"(I apologise for the anachronism from the era when it was Indochinese killed in their millions. These days we go in for precision munitions, which in Iraq killed thousands upon thousands, and in Afghanistan are still doing their precise work.)"

Now you are trying to dodge the entire argument about my unconcern for such things by merely restating your initial assertion that such things are to be thought "wrong".That doesn't constitute an argument either.Its exactly the same as sticking your fingers in yourears, closing your eyes and going "na, na,na na,na..."

Or maybe you just dont get it: my whole point is that if it doesnt affect "me and mine" I absolutely do not care.The onus is on you to explain why I should. That you cannot do simply repeating the fact of so many deaths as though they are in themselves an argument as to how I ought react to them.

Clearly you are bereft of any rational basis for your concern for the plight of complete strangers. Your opinions (vague and ill-thought that they are) are merely a reflectionof a culture formed in the mist of religous and metaphysical presuppositions (eg, the sanctity of life) and continued blindly by someone who hasn't even got the religious basis for those beliefs to fall back on. Any person who says "sanctity of life" is decreed by their faith I can respect. Merely parroting it without any basis in such observance is simply to blindly conformism with your upbringing.

Incidentally, I have published, in both "Philosophy Now" and "The Philosopher", to name but two journals. What makes me guffaw is that you would condescendingly assume that I had not.

I predict you'll pipe back with some simple ad-hominem

A.

Dixon
November 15th, 2010 2:22pm
On Hitler, Geoffrey P. Megargee "War of Annihilation" p 65 quoting Norbert Muller, Uwe Lobel, and Ulrich Freye (eds) Die faschistische Okkupationpolitik in den zeitweilig besetzten Gebieten der Sowowjetunion (1941-1944) p.161. But since you think it an absurd line of argument to point out that your notion of how war should be conducted is the same as the Nazis' I am not sure why you were first so keen to deny Hitler could have said any such thing and then so keen for the details of the reference.

For the rest, you continue blithely to assume what you purport to prove.

I would be interested to read your contributions to "Philosophy Now" and "The Philosopher". Could you provide references.

Harold

Dixon,
You mistake the argument from Hitler. It would be daft to argue, "Hitler said it, therefore it must be wrong". But your remarks on vegetarianism show that this is not the argument and that the "fundamental absurdity" is not A's. Hitler was a vegetarian. His vegetarian diet made him flatulent and gave him bad breath. A vegetarian should take from this, not that vegetarianism is bad, but that a diet, if vegetarian, should be different from his if these dire consequences are to be avoided. Similarly, if you share his opinions on slaughtering innocents to protect what you believe to be your interests, you should observe the effects of such opinions in practice. Are you comfortable with the consequences of your opinions when put into practice?