Posted by johnlilburne on November 4, 2009, 10:23 pm, in reply to "Kim Howells in the Grauniad.... Afghanistan"

Must have been chewing too many coca leaves with his mates in the Colombian paramilitaries to have come out with this tosh! --Previous Message-- : Another ‘Damocleasian’ conversion from the : ranks of the establishment Warmongers. : Howell bangs on about our sacrifices but : fails to mention the tens of thousands of : innocent Afghan lives destroyed by our : ‘brave young men and women’ (as quoted from : his interview on the Today programme this : morning). : : He fails to mention that Karzai is ‘our man : in Kabul’ and was essentially guaranteed : victory in the recent ‘election’. You CANNOT : have democracy in an occupied country – This : was a betrayal of the Afghan people. He also : fails to mention the democratic deficit in : this country where near to 60% of people : have been against the war in Afghanistan for : some years now. : : No… Howells solution to the illegal invasion : and war HE wanted and backed is very simple. : Pull the troops out of Afghanistan and : impose a repressive, intrusive Police State : in the U.K. With dickheads like him in : Parliament, who needs the Taliban? : : It's time to pull out of Afghanistan and : take the fight to Bin Laden in Britain : I backed the war, but the chance looks : squandered. Local agencies battling : terrorism need the funds being spilt in : Helmand : For the best part of seven years the British : public appeared to accept the argument that, : if we didn't deploy our troops to fight : al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan, we might : be forced to fight them on the streets of : Britain. In recent months, however, it seems : that public support for our military : involvement in that United Nations-led : operation is diminishing. There are a number : of possible reasons for this. The public may : be asking whether deploying large numbers of : British forces to Afghanistan at great cost, : in lives lost as well as in pounds sterling, : is actually the most effective way of : preventing Islamic terrorist murders in the : UK. Perhaps, like me, they are considering : that there may be more effective : alternatives to the deployment and wondering : why there has been little discussion about : them, save for the usual "if we are : nice to violent jihadists they might be nice : to us" variety. : Seven years of military involvement and : civilian aid in Afghanistan have succeeded : in subduing al-Qaida's activities in that : country, but have not destroyed the : organisation or its leader, Osama bin Laden. : Nor have they succeeded in eliminating : al-Qaida's protectors, the Taliban. There : can be no guarantee that the next seven : years will bring significantly greater : success and, even if they do, it is salutary : to remember that Afghanistan has never been : the sole location of terrorist training : camps. If we accept that al-Qaida continues : to pose a deadly threat to the UK, and if we : know that it is capable of changing the : locations of its bases and modifying its : attack plans, we must accept that we have a : duty to question the wisdom of prioritising, : in terms of government spending on : counter-terrorism, the deployment of our : forces to Afghanistan. It is time to ask : whether the fight against those who are : intent on murdering British citizens might : better be served by diverting into the work : of the UK Border Agency and our police and : intelligence services much of the additional : finance and resources swallowed up by the : costs of maintaining British forces in : Afghanistan. : It would be better, in other words, to bring : home the great majority of our fighting men : and women and concentrate on using the money : saved to secure our own borders, gather : intelligence on terrorist activities inside : Britain, expand our intelligence operations : abroad, co-operate with foreign intelligence : services, and counter the propaganda of : those who encourage terrorism. Such a shift : in focus would have the benefit of exposing : far fewer British servicemen and women to : the deadly threats of Taliban snipers and : roadside bombs, but would also have : momentous implications for UK foreign and : defence policy. We would need to reinvent : ourselves diplomatically and militarily. : Treaties and international agreements would : have to be renegotiated. In particular, : relationships with our NATO partners, : especially with the Americans – our most : trusted and valued allies – would alter : fundamentally. : Life inside the UK would have to change. : There would be more intrusive surveillance : in certain communities, more police officers : on the streets, more border officials at : harbours and airports, more inspectors of : vehicles and vessels entering the country, : and a re-examination of arrangements that : facilitate the "free movement" of : people and products across our frontiers : with the rest of the EU. Some of these : changes will generate great opposition, but : many of them will be welcomed. If media : reports are true, the British public is : becoming increasingly hostile to the notion : that any of our service personnel should be : killed or wounded in support of difficult : outcomes and flawed regimes in faraway : countries. : This shift in opinion is happening at a time : when the size of the Afghan conflict might : grow, rather than decrease. Lieutenant : General Jim Dutton, the highly respected : British deputy commander of Nato's : International Security Assistance Force in : Afghanistan, backs the request of the US : commander, General Stanley McChrystal, for : the extra soldiers. Dutton said recently : that the ideal number required to turn the : tide in a country like Afghanistan, with its : 28 million people, is around half a million. : Currently, there is less than half that : number of foreign and Afghan troops : available to him and McChrystal. I doubt : whether the presence, even of another 40,000 : American troops – brave and efficient though : they are – will guarantee that the Taliban : and their allies will no longer be able to : terrorise and control significant stretches : of countryside, rural communities and key : roads. Recent attacks in Kabul and other : centres suggest that the present balance of : territorial control is at best likely to : remain – or, more likely, to shift in favour : of the Taliban. : Like many observers of this eight-year : conflict, I had hoped that by now a degree : of stability might have returned to : Afghanistan. I assumed, wrongly, that a : desire among ordinary Afghans for peace : would prevail over the prospect of continued : war and the spectre of being ruled by a : tyrannical theocracy in one of the world's : poorest and most backward countries. Dutton : has stated that the "ultimate : answer" to Afghanistan's problems is : "a stable democratic state … in which : [Afghan] forces are capable of maintaining : the rule of law". The general knows how : far away that is. At a recent demonstration : in the Afghan capital, Kabul, hundreds of : Islamist demonstrators chanted "Death : to America". In a Commons debate some : months ago, I expressed the view that a : deadly combination of anti-democratic : Islamic fundamentalism, corruption and the : proximity of safe Pakistani havens for : terrorists all militated against the notion : that we will be able to continue convincing : the British people that they should prepare : themselves for a "30-year" : campaign (as one of our distinguished : diplomats put it). These are my views, not : those of any part of the British government : or of any parliamentary committee. They are : the views of someone who supported the : deployment of our forces to Afghanistan. I : was convinced that, given the opportunity : offered to them by the UN-led intervention, : the Afghans would display the resolve, : skills and courage to tackle the problems : that have blighted Afghanistan for so long. : It was never going to be easy but I'm afraid : that, despite great sacrifice, the : opportunity has largely been squandered. : Bin Laden, along with his admirers and : followers, won't wait around for the future : of Afghanistan to be resolved. Their : preparation and training for terrorism : hasn't stopped, and Britain has no choice : but to continue to seek out his bombers and : those of other terrorist organisations. Our : police forces, intelligence and border : agencies have mammoth tasks. Their budgets : already are much larger than they were in : the years prior to the attacks on New York : and London in 2001 and 2005, but they will : have to grow larger still if they are to : prevent further atrocities, not least when : the eyes of the world will be on London : during the 2012 Olympics. The public will : want to know, of course, where the money to : pay for all this will come from. It won't be : easy but it is time to tell them that it : will come from the savings that will accrue : from not having to pay for the war in : Afghanistan. Sooner rather than later a : properly planned, phased withdrawal of our : forces from Helmand province has to be : announced. If it is an answer that serves, : also, to focus the minds of those in the : Kabul government who have shown such a : poverty of leadership over the past seven : years, then so much the better. : :

 Post a Response