EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
UK in Afghanistan for Decades, Says our Man in Washington
Britain must concentrate all its efforts on the military campaign to conquer the Taliban as its attempts to achieve a wide-ranging "rescue" of Afghanistan have failed miserably, an influential committee of MPs warns today.
Security for troops in Afghanistan is 'precarious' (Photo: Independent) A report on the Afghan campaign from the Foreign Affairs Committee claims that British politicians have allowed "mission creep" to interfere with the original objectives set eight years ago, but they have still failed to pull off wider goals including stamping out the opium trade. Instead, the MPs insist, the UK should target its resources on "one priority, namely security" and allow the international community to spearhead the broader effort to rebuild Afghanistan.
The dismal verdict on the UK's all-round performance in Afghanistan came as Britain's most senior diplomat warned that Britain's involvement in the country will last for "decades". Sir Nigel Sheinwald, British ambassador to Washington, painted a bleak future for British forces in the week that the Panther's Claw operation in Helmand was declared a success. In an intervention laying out the longest official timetable yet seen for Britain's commitment to Afghanistan, he predicted that the tide would turn against the Taliban "over the next year or so" rather than in a matter of weeks.
Related articles
"We're going to have a very long-term commitment to Afghanistan's future. This is not just one year," Sir Nigel said in an interview with The Boston Globe. "This is going to be for decades. We're going to help them get to a state which can they can ward off the return of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. That's our strategic objective. We need to avoid the vacuum returning. And that's what this huge effort is about."
The committee report, Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan, followed a three-month inquiry which took evidence from more than 40 individuals and organisations, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. It also concluded that the security situation in Afghanistan, particularly in the south where the majority of British troops are based, would remain "precarious" for some time.
But the report said there could be no question of the international community abandoning Afghanistan, and that the issue at stake must be how best the UK and its allies "can allocate responsibilities and share burdens so as to ensure that the country does not once again fall into the hands of those who seek to threaten the security of the UK and the West".
The committee chairman, Mike Gapes, said: "The UK has experienced mission creep from its initial goal of supporting the US in countering international terrorism, far into the realms of counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, protection of human rights and state building. It is clear that despite the commendable efforts of the Foreign Office in adopting a broad-ranging, holistic approach to tackling narcotics in Afghanistan, success in that area depends on a range of factors which lie far beyond the control and resource of the UK alone."
The committee recommended that the lead international role on counter-narcotics should be transferred away from the UK, and that the Afghan government should be partnered at an international level by the United Nations and the Nato International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, which is better equipped to co-ordinate international efforts.
Although the committee backed the current "surge" which has claimed the lives of so many British troops, members fired a broadside against "caveats" used by Nato members to limit military involvement in Afghanistan.
The committee said a negotiated, Afghan-led political settlement with broad popular support represented the only realistic option for long-term security and stability in Afghanistan.
Mr Gapes added: "Bearing in mind that this is the first Nato deployment outside of Nato's 'area', this has now become a most critical and seminal moment for the future of the alliance. The failure of some Nato allies to ensure that the burden of international effort in Afghanistan is shared equitably has placed an unacceptable strain on a handful of countries."
William Hague, the Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, seized on the report's findings to demand greater clarity from ministers about the UK's strategy in Afghanistan. He said: "This report should be a wake-up call to the Government. It confirms what we have been saying for months: Britain's objectives in Afghanistan should be realistic, tightly defined, and subject to regular formal assessment. The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the Government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain's objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show All"We're going to help them get to a state which can they can ward off the return of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. That's our strategic objective. We need to avoid the vacuum returning. And that's what this huge effort is about."
Man, are you confused. Not surprising coming from "your man in Washington", I suppose. Which is it that you're fighting? The Taliban, al-Qa'ida or a vacuum? They're not exactly synonymous and the last one could be an even trickier target than the other two for the troops and drones. Sounds like the "collateral damage" is more likely to grow rather than shrink.
I could be wrong, but I thought "freedom and democracy" for the Afghans themselves had been mentioned at some point during the "mission creep." Have they declared their preference for your continued military and other decades-long activities in their country over all of the alternatives? Or are their wants and wishes now a part of that undesirable vacuum?
Last, but not least, is there any vague tie-in to NATO's North Atlantic security mission remaining at all? Or has that too joined "freedom and democracy" in the dust heap of quaint and no longer relevant excuses. It was always a stretch of course and the alliance, if not the treaty itself, is looking shakier all the time.
OT - ***********BLOCKBUSTER*********
From the most silenced person in American History, Sibel Edmonds.
Bin Laden Worked for US Till 9/11
Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."
These 'intimate relations' included using Bin Laden for 'operations' in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These 'operations' involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner "as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict," that is, fighting 'enemies' via proxies.
It is important to understand why: the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years, promoting the Islamization of Central Asia in an attempt to personally profit off military sales as well as oil and gas concessions.
Full and unedited at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760117/-
Bombshell:-Bin-Laden-worked-for-US-till-9-11
This is a "blockbuster"? What's new? U.S. "outsourcing" of terror, torture and other such dirty work certainly isn't. Nor is its employment of any and all henchmen who might be handy for its nefarious purposes at any given time. Utility and expediency are the sole selection criteria.
Although it's certainly a distasteful part of the geopolitical game, probably for all concerned parties, it has always been pretty much standard imperial practice. And, since its sole purpose is "plausible deniability", the continually shifting allegiences on all sides are almost totally irrelevant, if not a positive advantage in some cases.
P.S.: The work of OBL and al-Quaida for U.S. purposes didn't end on 9/11/2001.
The Taliban also worked for us at one time. They fought the USSR. However, when the USSR left, congress wasn't interested in helping Afghanistan move on. We created a vacuum that the Taliban happily filled.
Regarding bin Laden, we were closing in on him in Afghanistan. THen Bush lied us into Iraq and Afghanistan was "back burner" until recently.
Now, let's just stop being the "world cop" and get our own country in order.
The Taliban didn't exist as an organized force during the rebellion against the Soviet occupation forces. The Taliban emerged later, in the 1990's, as a result of Pakistani nervousness with the ongoing Afghan civil war, and their desire to have access to Central Asia for Pakistani exports.
Ripped from the headlines
... of 1839, 1878 and 1919.
But this time it will work out much better. Just you wait and see.
the writers advocate (a change) in british military campaign to concur the taliban. no doubt that this presumed change will require time, a long time,to check its results. and
knowing the british honosty in conveying the truth to its people, as for example what happened in iraq, this may take years if ever. and in the mean time, countless of poor british citizens will face their ultiamate outcome,death. not counting, natuarally, the afghans death. but who cares about these savages any way especially from the british military cammanders with their battons under their arms. i wonder where the writer(s) got the notion that by changing military tactics the british could prevail. let us cite the russians, before that the mongols and after that the americans, with or without the british. the resuts are zero. and will continue to be zero. why don't you people wake up?
"... british honosty in conveying the truth to its people ..."
Questionable at best, except, perhaps, in certain relative contexts. British geopolitical activities and their self-assessments thereof often seem to involve an element of subtlety that is missing from the U.S. "bull in a china shop" counterparts, but imperial maturity shouldn't be mistaken for a greater degree of objective truth.
Karzai is a proxy for US and UK ambitions in Afghanistan. He would sell out any and all who get in his way.
In any village or district in Afghanistan, there are two or more competing factions who want to control the resources of their people. Some factions are controled by the west (Karzai) and some by the Taliban.
The growth of the opium market in Afghanistan, a major source of funding for village Afghanistan, the Taliban and Karzai, offers some clues to why we are in Afghanistan.
The easiest way to control the opium market is to make it legal Turkey was the largest provider of illegal opium until it was legalized for the world analgesic markets.
When opium was legalized, prices went down and profits for the Turkish Government and more importantly the legal drug companies went up.
At present, there is a major shorage of analgesics (pain killers) in the developed world and more importantly in the developing world. This means major profits for drug companies
Keeping drugs illegal in Afghanistan means profits for the drug companies, profits for Karzai and friends, and a source of funds for the generally impoverished Afghan "tribesman".
Aside from the ongoing tragedy in Afghanistan, we continue to profit from pain, suffering and death of millions who do no have access to low cost pain killers.
And why are we so dedicated to defeating he Taliban?
Karzai and friends are no better than the Taliban. The rape and suppression of women continues in the provinces, often under "friends" of Karzai.
Fighting among warlords has increased, not decreased with western control - a nation of Hatfields and Mc Coys.
Eight years ago, we thought we had strategic alliances in Central Asia which would be key to the massive oil resouces of this region. We underestimated the resurgence of Russia and the emerging power of China. We are in too deep to pull out of the region. Unrest has become our best strategy.
If we can't build the Unical Pipeline and control Central Asia, the Iranis, Pakistanis, and Chinese can never be able to build competing pipelines and use their port of Gwadar. God forbid that we should lose control of the region.
Development of Afghanistan and the broader region is a threat to US and Western interests. Chaos is our friend.
And meanwhile, western oil companies continue to hold the world to ransom and the poor continue to suffer with high priced drugs.
So WTF is so bad about the Taliban? Is it any worse than the west?
The West (i.e., the imperial consortium) couldn't care less about the Taliban as such. You can be absolutely certain that, once the true objectives have been accomplished (if they are), any subsequent domestic horrors of Afghanistan's governance will be swept under the carpet so quickly it will hardly be visible at all.
Oh, there may be some superficial organizational shuffling and name changes, and possibly even a few minor feminist concessions, but none of that will amount to anything more than mere window dressing -- and probably transient window dressing at that.
The UK has squandered it's blood and treasure in Afghanistan for Decades before. Is the Oilgarchs Pipe Dream worth any more senseless slaughter? When these jingos say 'Taliban' they mean Pashtuns which means Afghanistan and a chunk of Pakistan. Is the UK going to kill them all? That's nearly as many as those who died in WWII fighting over the injustices of Paris 1919. If the UK wants natural gas that badly then let them eat beans!
"War profiteering" is now "stamping out the opium trade".
NATO is the problem. Its become the invasion force to be followed in by the UN. Clinton gave the same reason using the protection of NATO's credibility as the main reason to bomb Yougoslavia. The first mission 'outside its territory' sounds ominous. Its the most dangerous organisation on the face of the earth.
Why is NATO fighting the Taliban? They are simply the group that were well on the way to winning a civil war till 9/11. They had overcome enemies and after so long in desperate situations following the USA sponsored rebellion against the Soviet army.
The Taliban were prepared to capture and hand over anyone the USA wanted as long as evidence was forthcoming concerning 9/11. This offer was sold as being ridiculous. Why was that? Invasion followed. Now its occupation and the Pashtuns are in the firing line from all sides. They will do exactly as anyone would expect them to do and they will resist and fight in their homelands. Taliban and others will hide and live among their own people. War lords in government do the same and are well rewarded for their charade in democratic elections.
They are The Northern Alliance bosses who ripped Afghanistan apart leading to a Taliban takeover. The latter brought security for large parts of the country through their imposition of Sharia law and Islamic ideas. Having been indoctrinated in Pakistan and financed by Saudi ideologues they fought long and hard over a couple of years to establish dominance across Afghanistan.
Now. their people are under siege from Pakistani and NATO forces. The Afghan army is to take control just like the Pakistan army is eh?
All leads to great destruction in both countries particularly for Pashtun populated areas. Hearts and minds?
In the end, negotiations are inevitable with the Taliban leadership. Any serious attempt to bring security there is through negotiations. There is no military solution. There are 42 million Pashtuns on an artificial border into Pakistan that is 1500 miles long. That's their land. They don't take well to being attacked and killed. Whoever plots The Great Game now should be aware that history repeats itself. Get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible and negotiate with Mullah Omar. I'm sure he could be persuaded to support a policy of having girls education. I'd bet he's a reasonable enough guy for REAL CHANGE on this one. Its certain he's against the drug barons.
He's a core leader of the biggest tribe's Taliban. If they want Sharia Law enacted they should have it so.
This seems to be an attack on Islam. Secular democracy is being imposed by western armies. The Taliban may disappear into the future but the Pashtuns will remain intact on their land. They fought the Russians and made enemies of the Iranians too in the process. They are alone now with their enemies and NATO attacking and The Pakistan army on their other flank. Who might become their allies? Nobody! They are alone while every death will bring forces for revenge. Millions may die and be starved of sustenance. Resistance will be long lasting and fierce. Generations will replace generations and they will fight. Long war indeed!
Where is the hard evidence that convicts Osama Bin Laden for 9/11 attacks in the USA? Why are the FBI not convinced of this? Who exactly attacked the USA on 9/11? Why does the Occupation of Afghanistan continue to expand? Well believe it or not it is seen as a perfectly reasonable policy to prove the credibility of that defensive war machine NATO. Can't be seen to fail in whatever it is doing in Afghanistan, its first foray outside its territories; can it really now?. That's why! Think about that one!
"The first mission 'outside its territory' sounds ominous."
It does indeed sound ominous and the outcome of that first extra-territorial mission may well determine the alliance's future, or at least its cohesive willingness to continue following where the U.S. wishes to lead it.
The dissatisfaction and resistance of what Rumsfeld referred to as "old Europe" appears to be growing, and even with the usually reliable Brits to some extent. That may explain some part of the U.S. push to include more former Soviet-bloc states whose residual fears of the Russian bear have a great influence on their desire for NATO treaty protection under U.S. leadership.
"This seems to be an attack on Islam."
Well, yes and no. It's an attack on resistance to the globalization of USA Incorporated's version of "freedom and democracy" and its many cultural intrusions that are inconsistent with at least some elements of Islamic faith and teachings. In some respects, that may be a distinction without a difference, but it's none the less important to understand the real roots of the conflict.
Of course there is also a widely held western view that Islam is inherently "anti-Capitalist" and that, in turn, is "terrorism" according to some U.S. media analysts. See, for example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvPSoJ9Ou4c
FUBAR
http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko07312009.html
The dismal verdict on the UK's all-round performance in Afghanistan came as Britain's most senior diplomat warned that Britain's involvement in the country will last for "decades".
It will last for decades only if the people of the UK allow it to. David Cameron, the Tory leader who may be the next Prime Minister, also plans to escalate in Afghanistan. The British people face precisely the same dilemma as the Gringos: if you don't get rid of Labor and the Tories, the Republicans and the Democrats, you'll never get out of Afghanistan. You can stay and stay and stay, bleed and bleed and bleed, spend and spend and spend, and in the end it will all be for absolutely nothing. The strutting, thoroughly deluded and bloody-minded imperialists of both nations are using Afghanistan as a penis enlarging device. In the end, that's what it all can be reduced to.