One of the questions right at the top was “We’ve encouraged the Afghani people to get involved in democracy. We’ve empowered women to risk their lives to take a stake in the process. We promised these people a better future. Are we to now cash in our chips and leave them to it?”

Am I right in reading your position: as pull out?

Then who would you respond to Richard’s input at 11?

If we leave Afghanistan unchanged, then won’t it have been a total waste of lives/time/money?

We’re certainly not going to leave it unchanged – we’ve already changed it quite dramatically. There’s a heck of a lot more graves, for one thing. Was that worth the lives / time / money?

Focussing on sunk costs is never a good way to make decisions. At what point do you accept that you’ve made a mistake?

“Imposing a foreign system of government on an weaker indigenous population used to be called colonialism.”

And that seems to be, pretty much, what we are doing.

Unfortunately,

“It seems to me that the Afghans have made a pretty good fist of demonstrating that they feel their land and way of life is worth defending. We should get out as soon as possible and let them rebuild their lives and country as they see fit.”

really is bollocks, isn’t it?

When you say “the Afghans” who, exactly, do you mean? Let’s rule out about 50% of the population, Afghan women, for a start, since under the pre – existing, and current, social structure their say in most things was/is limited to, approximately, sod all. How about the 3 million (approximately) Afghan refugees in Pakistan or Iran? Probably not, eh? Maybe you meant the Sikh and Hindu minorities? Again, I’m guessing, not. I could go on …..

Getting out and leaving the Afghans to “rebuild their lives and country as they see fit” in reality, would actually mean “getting out and leaving the country to descend into an even greater state of chaos from which the Taliban are likely to emerge as the strongest single force.” Under such circumstances the Afghan people would not be free to “rebuild their lives and country as they see fit.” They would be free to either accept a repressive, medieval regime which they have already experienced, add to the numbers of refugees in Pakistan and Iran or die. Pretty much the prevailing state of affairs pre – American/NATO involvement.

“It seems to me that the Afghans have made a pretty good fist of demonstrating that they feel their land and way of life is worth defending. We should get out as soon as possible and let them rebuild their lives and country as they see fit.”

And if that leads to the country being a training ground for the Islamists who then come and attack the West at will…..

If we leave Afghanistan unchanged, then won’t it have been a total waste of lives/time/money?

“I would say that what you basically need to do is build a state that most Afghans feel is worth defending.”

What he means is impose a modern liberal democracy on a people with a fragmented tribal tradition.

We are not building anything- we’re invaders without justification or even a viable agenda. Imposing a foreign system of government on an weaker indigenous population used to be called colonialism.

It seems to me that the Afghans have made a pretty good fist of demonstrating that they feel their land and way of life is worth defending. We should get out as soon as possible and let them rebuild their lives and country as they see fit.

Isn’t that just partition, like Korea?

NB: selective quotation by me acknowledged. Conor discussed measures to undermine the Taliban in the same quote.

What do you think of Conor Foley’s analysis of Afghanistan:

“I would say that what you basically need to do is build a state that most Afghans feel is worth defending. That means tackling corruption and impunity as the number one priority (the opposite of what Charlie thinks), and recognising that the south is essentially lost and so re-directing aid to where it can do some good (again the opposite of Charlie’s ’strategy’). The Taliban can be contained easily enough and weakend through undercover operations, selective assassinations, recruitment of informers, etc. They are also wracked with their own internal divisions and factionalism.

I would say the main priority is to get a functioning professional police force – not the paramilitary militia the US wants to create – and an accessible justice system. You also need to build up national capacity of the civil service (pay them decent wages so that all the engineers and teachers who are currently working as drivers and cleaners for international organisations go back to their old jobs). The international troops should concentrate on peace-keeping in the areas that are secure (as the French, Italians and Germans have done) and adopt a fairly defensive posture to the Taliban-controlled areas.”

But the thing is, while we continue to prop up shit-head dictatorships in the Gulf, the Islamic world will always have beef with us. One things for sure, when the oil runs dry, we’ll be outta there quicker than a priest in a lingerie department (hat-tip Graham Linehan). I predict Muslims will continue to be pissed at us though.

And in that sense our continued participation is pointless until the americans come up with a winnable strategy. So withdraw and stop british soldiers dying seems a reasonable policy.

TBH though I think the key in this is Pakistan.

It appears we don’t have an objective, and therefore we’re struggling for a strategy. This is important. Obama made a big deal about Afghanistan being the “right war”, but since November he’s not outlined a coherent strategy. I know healthcare, pirates, the “Birthers” *spits* and the SCOTUS have dominated the agenda, but unless we focus on this problem, the violence is going to continue to rise until the Winter kicks in.

We all knew activity would spike in the summer, but we don’t seem to be reacting.

And to that extent Obama’s plan has been slowly changing and being re-shaped according to problems on the ground.

As far as I can tell, the “plan” was:
1. Give a load of guns and money to a ragtag assortment of local narco-warlords unhappy with the current regime, on the understanding that they would overthrow said regime.
2. ?????
3. Sunshine, puppies and happiness. (Or, if you prefer, “profit”.)

Now, my memory may be playing up here, but I don’t recall “improving the lives of the Afghan people” as the basis on which our involvement in Afghanistan was initially sold, much less “installing democracy”. I’m pretty sure it had something to do with some bearded Saudi bloke in a cave somewhere. In fact, it was basically a botched rendition snatch job (and look where that line of thought has lead us). Not perhaps the best basis for overthrowing a regime, no matter how objectionable… (And I’m not convinced that the Taliban were really that much worse than a lot of the allies we’ve picked up in the process. Which is not to do down their unpleasantness – but they’re up against some stiff competition.)

He of course opposed, but I saw some element of good in such a move. Re-articulated properly, it could mean that we observe the Taliban’s pursuits without necessarily attacking, thereby curbing the possiblity of exasperating the problem, like the war effort has done.

I, also, am not a war expert, but this seems to me like more of a plan than we have at the moment, and it also sheds light on some sort of exit strategy, which unlike in Iraq, seems really really far away.