Meanwhile, brute force can almost always hold its ground, and an American surge should bring a little more security. But for what? The ground may be cleared by guns, but there is no viable politics here waiting to occupy it. And until what? Until the Americans try to leave.
So the fortunes of war are irrelevant. To save your sanity, your solvency and perhaps your life, it’s important not to grasp the detail, or it will bankrupt you, kill your sons and break your heart. Don’t hunt for truth. Don’t dissect. Don’t delve. Don’t help. Don’t peer at the demented jigsaw puzzle of dollars, capital letters and committees, or shuffle the pieces around: they don’t add up to a country. Push aside your microscope, fetch your telescope and put your eye to the wrong end. The devil is not in the detail. The devil is in the whole damn thing.
So take a look at the whole damn thing; see that occupying Afghanistan was a mistake; then close your mind to further argument or entreaty; because of argument and entreaty there will be no lack, but it will never be conclusive; and in the end we will have to decide. We must harden our hearts against this beautiful country and these handsome, noble, crazy people; and all the rest is noise.
Posts
32 comments:
Mathew Parris wrote that, "We must harden our hearts against this beautiful country and these handsome, noble, crazy people; and all the rest is noise."
The implication of course that we went there to save the Afghans from themselves.
The words missing from his piece were "Oil", "Gas", "Energy", "Iran" and "Caspian Sea Basin". In short he wrote a nice hand-wringing article but he has no more insight than the man in the street into why we are there or more importantly why the US is there. Though that may not necessarily be true. The man in the street often has more knowledge than those who think they are in the know.
The US is there to gain a strategic foothold in Central Asia. The UK is there because it does what it is told by the US. The rest of the ISAF are there either because they don't want to upset the US or they are also doing what they're told.
The US are in this for the long haul. Energy supplies are too important for the future of the US as a World Power to give up easily. If they can effect, "Regime Change", in Iran then the direct route from the sea to Central Asia is open and they are there poised on Iran's Western and Eastern borders ready to "assist" any new government.
In all the comment pieces by the main stream commenters on Afghanistan Iran and Energy are always the two missing words. Interesting isn't it?
I came across a posting, I think it was in the Times, from a Canadian to say that they have lost 137 soldiers in Afghanistan, a suprisingly high number for a country that has less than half our population. We never hear about their sacrifice.
Dark Lochnagar:
Some interesting info on a new gas pipeline in Afghanistan which will go right through the Canadian sector. The info is a year old but the project is still valid.
A long piece but worth it is Professor Michael Parenti's lecture on The Struggle for History (Clips 0-5) via youtube or more easily from his Facebook notes. He becomes incandescent on the continued deceit of altered/ing history but moreso the way it is marketed via it's authors and instigators. His examples are frightening.
When considering the so-called 'Official Inquiries' we fund to "learn lessons" etc. Professor Parenti's words and delivery are all the more relevant.
I fully respect the honourable manner by which the people of Wootton Bassett receive the repatriation of our troops killed in action - but I regret the lack of a physical presence elsewhee to animate the continuous stream of powerful, knowlegable and heart-felt words against this current debacle in Afghanistan - or are our 'anti-terrorism' laws too restrictive to allow us to demonstate against a war on alleged 'terrorism' - irony?
What must others think when we have the towering intellect and defence experience of Bob Jobsworth as our front-line Minister - dear, oh dear.
Doug, Matthew Parris wrote an article ages ago about gas, oil and energy being the reason the US are there. Sorry I can't find it as I don't think I bookmarked it.
Our troops were fundamental in carrying out a major installation of a pipe line last year - again I don't have the link.
I took this article of his to be one involving strategy rather than reason. We've been hearing much about the lack of strategy recently although our politicians refuse to say there is a problem.
Thank you for your contribution Doug. It's important people understand the reason. Ours of course is that we're the US's bestest friend.
Great Energy Game right enough, good link Doug.
Parenti on Facebook Clarinda? I must read it later.
Also I shall revisit his lecture on Youtube. Sometimes I forget salient points after listening to the ramblings of those who wish us to stay uninformed.
Like Iraq, I think Afghanistan was a knee-jerk invasion prompted mainly by 9/11 but influenced by a geopolitical wish-list including new US bases in the Middle East to replace Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi, to get direct access to further oil (2 of these by-product aims were mentioned to me by US military personnel), and to build a pipleline for natural gas avoiding Russia.
However, I doubt any of these were the overriding reasons for either war. The overriding reason was regime change in both Afghanistan and Iraq, in the misguided War Against Terror which mixed up Iraqi intransigence, Afghan fundamentalist tribalism, as well as legitimate Islamic aspirations (Palestinian state) with the limited but effective terrorist brand of Al Qaeda. WMD in Iraq was a shameless embellishment with a large dose of enthusiastic self-delusion.
As we've discussed before, Afghanistan is a strategic failure and a waste of lives. It was perhaps winnable (with an inventive reconstruction and bribery strategy) prior to 2003 but not after the strategic focus shifted to Iraq.
The Iraq War at the height of the Afghanistan operation was even more stupid than Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941...believe it or not, Hitler actually had good reason to invade Russia and was forced into it by his failure to subdue Britain in 1940, Russian rearmament (with an evolving defensive strategy of massive counter-attack) and the fact the war was largely inevitable but time and resources were on Russia's side. Sorry for the digression!
I was a little saddened to not see you on,
http://oldrightie.blogspot.com/2009/07/time-passing.html
Subrosa. Says all I could repeat here.
It's been a predicament for hundreds of years.
Subrosa,
have a squeek at this.
http://specificgravy.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-listen-to-blinky-and-perky-theyre.html
That's my take. Get the lads out now before it goes really pear shaped.
Heads up.
Only an idiot, or in this case, two idiots would start a war in Afghanistan - many have done so before and all have failed to achieve anything but defeat.
I entirely agree with Doug above, which sets me wondering if the UK is in this for the long haul too, and the present rate of troop losses is deemed 'a price worth paying'.
One of the best blogs on this is here. Don't read it if you like to sleep at night.
Hello Jess. I heard on radio in the past couple of days that 80% of the IDs the Taliban plant kill or maim civilians.
When I have more time I shall search for confirmation of that. Horrific civilian numbers but it seems the Taliban are happy to blow their own people up without any thought for those who are left behind.
OR, I did visit your post but had problems leaving a comment. I shall return.
Thank you incoming. Much appreciated. Have you found a link anywhere about a treaty?
Oh it's definitely a long term business Vronsky. I posted a video a few weeks ago about life on the front line and it shows permanent buildings etc:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/06/life-on-forward-operating-bases-in.html
Fake Scottish Unionist:
Do you consider this acceptable?
We differ politically. That's all.
What if someone decides to "retaliate" against the person whom you presumably think is me?
I don't know which Scottish Unionist is which. If anyone can enlighten me I'll be grateful.
Click through to the profile pages. My blog started in July last year, so I probably didn't join Blogger in November 2008.
It's easy Subrosa. One's adopted a fake identity and the other's an impostor.
Oh, that's hilarious!
Subrosa: I have received threats and that person could be targeted by some nutter. Please do the right thing.
Subrosa,
any Durand line ref will give a flavour of the treachery involved in the demarcations in that area in 19th/20th Century.
http://www.afghanland.com/history/durrand.html
Gives a rough overview.
However the ref I remember from ages ago which got vaped on another PC specifically deals with a very early 20thCentury Raj/Afg/Iran Balochistan series of treaties.
Here is a good summary
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/817.pdf
from a Balochi perspective.
As you can see it's pretty murky stuff and our lads are in the thick of a nuke tinderbox.
Heads up.
Thank you Doug. I'm being a bit thick I know but how can both be connected to the same blog? Are they the same individual?
What do you consider is the right thing SU?
Many many thanks Incoming. I shall study that in detail. Haven't heard about it previously.
The true profile has a link to my blog under the heading "My Blogs". The fake profile can't do that, so he put it in the left sidebar.
The right thing would be to minimise the likelihood of the above named person being subjected to intimidation.
The right thing would be to minimise the likelihood of the above named person being subjected to intimidation
SU can you put that in plain English please. You sound like some lawyer trying to confuse the judge.
It's your blog, Subrosa. If you don't want to delete it, or if you're enjoying this for some reason, just say so.
SU, I certainly am NOT enjoying this I assure you. I'm doing my utmost to sort it out. Please email me, I'm sure my readers are scunnered with it.
My email is beside contact.
Emailed.
Post a Comment