NZ Herald on Afghanistan
The Herald editorial:
More fundamentally, most New Zealanders recognise their country must play a role in the escalating war against the Taleban. If the conflict is lost, Afghanistan will again become a bolt-hole for terrorism.
It is not just about Afghanistan.
There are good reasons for heightened New Zealand involvement at an early stage. This is looming as a defining time in the struggle. The Americans, with Iraq now much less of a distraction, have poured 20,000 more troops into the country, sparking major new offensives against the Taleban in the south and east. Most encouragingly, the Obama Administration has insisted on a new strategy, which places less emphasis on tracking and killing Taleban fighters and more on protecting Afghans from the insurgents.
The change in strategy seems very wise.
The Americans had some success with this strategy in Iraq, but Afghanistan is far more complex, if only because the Taleban, largely composed of members of the Pashtun tribes, is so well integrated. Even striking deals with more-moderate Taleban leaders will prove far from easy, given the international coalition’s emphasis on human rights and gender equality.
And the Pashtun are very nationalistic, only really uniting against foreigners.
Nonetheless, this is not a struggle that New Zealand can shirk. Sending the SAS has nothing to with currying favour with the White House. It is about the way Afghanistan provided a training ground for worldwide terrorism. Last week’s bombing in Jakarta reinforced the fact that every effort must be made to prevent that happening again.
Also, this is exactly the sort of combat the SAS has trained for. And from all accounts are very proficient at.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
We shouldn’t allow the States to kick us in the guts by subsidising their dairy products and then respond to their request for support at our cost. Do deals John, just like the Aussies did with wheat to Iraq.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
“If the conflict is lost, Afghanistan will again become a bolt-hole for terrorism.”
How true. Otherwise, it will a matter of stepping back waiting for these Stone Age tribes annihilate themselves.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
US involvement in the Middle East created the fertile grounds of hatred in which terrorism grows. We should distance ourselves the fuck away from it and stop associating the good name of New Zealand with the dumping ground of the American arms and oil industries.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Anybody here read up on 4th generation warfare (also called asymetrical warfare)? If so, you know that no matter what we or anyone else does in Afghanistan, we’ve lost.
Want to stop terrorism? Then disconnect from the countries that harbour the terrorists. No trade, no political relations, no immigration, no funding – nothing. If another country has any relationship with the terrorist country, then they too get the same treatment.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
You don’t mean pakistan, do you LC? That would never do. We play cricket with them!
July 21st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Well, Manolo,its easy to so arrogantly dismiss the lives of decent and courageous Afghani’s (eg Malalai Joya see http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/05/21/afghanistan-reinstate-malalai-joya-parliament), working to improve their country, often at risk of their lives, when you live in safety and comfort. But don’t forget that the state of the country is at least partly the result of British, Russian and now American invasions over the past few hundred years.
I agree with you DPF that a change in strategy would be wise. Perhaps the US could start by ceasing their support and arming of murderous warlords, who they put in power in order to enlist their support against the Taliban (just as they empowered the Italian mafia after Mussolini almost wiped them out in WW2). Most of these warlords are as bad, if not worse, than the tyrants they are supposed to replace. (see eg http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1865255,00.html). I imagine the Taliban retains a support base because the alternative is so bad.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
US involvement in the Middle East created the fertile grounds of hatred in which terrorism grows.
Now if you have any knowledge of the past this incident led to many years of Guerrilla warfare under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus all of which took place some 2000 years before the United States came into existance. So it is a bit of a stretch to claim ” US involvement in the Middle East created the fertile grounds of hatred in which terrorism grows” since such hatred and terrorism in the Middle East pre-dates the USA by millenia.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“Perhaps the US could start by ceasing their support and arming of murderous warlords,”
You commies always have instructions on what NOT to do, but no clear and practical idea on what should be done.
I know..!!!
How about we just give everyone in Afghanistan a skateboard????
July 21st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“Well, Manolo,its easy to so arrogantly dismiss the lives of decent and courageous Afghani’s (eg Malalai Joya..”
I never said that. Malalai Joya is a true hero, whom will probably pay with her life for her efforts. I’m talking about those bandits, terrorists and criminals disguised as tribal warlords, who fight against each other competing for the drug money (the poppy rules unopposed in that country).
I know your dislike of the United States, but where would Afghanistan be today without the earlier British presence? Turn around, look at Africa and see the results.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Hmm forgot about Pakistan. Though I think that it has it’w own problems with the Taliban as well. As I said just disconnect from these countries. Taliban earn lots of money from Opium. So stop the opium trade, their funding dries up, and they become less effective.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Andrei,
You seriously took my meaning to be that there was never any hatred or terrorism before US meddling in the Middle East? That’s what you read me as saying?
July 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Apologies Manolo, your blanket statement read like a racist comment against Afghanis. Perhaps you might indicate your actual target in future for slow ones like myself. But I agree about the bandits running the country – and the ones wanting to run the country.
Although as I understand opium production seriously declined when the Taliban was in command – not supporting them, I just like accuracy. Their corruptions were of a different kind I think.
Don’t know why you point at British intervention in Africa as evidence of anything. The tyranny of many (not all) African countries cannot be continually blamed on the colonial powers, I agree. But it is clear that Africa does struggle under a legacy of colonisation such as dysfunctional national borders (uniting historically hostile tribes and dividing historically homogenous ones) that were drawn up in the interests of European powers, the loss of the most educated strata of society (artisans, craftspeople and other skilled people were targeted by slavers, removing knowledge and the many of the best genetics from those societies) and economies geared towards meeting the needs of Europe rather than Africa.
Many post colonial African leaders have made things much worse, but there is little doubt that much of pre-colonial African society was in better shape politically and socially. The great libraries of Timbuktu, for example, are evidence of a great trading and scholarly society, and this was annihilated by European powers. So I find it hard to see why you think British influence was good for Africa.
Of course in addition some promising post colonial leadership was murdered by colonial powers in favour of more…. amenable people (eg the execution of Patrice Lumumba by Mobutu, who basically f**ked the Congo, all done to keep Belgian access to copper).
So if I “turn around and look at Africa (to) see the results” of British presence, I have to say its not a good legacy in many cases.
Redbaiter – are you joking or serious about the skateboard? I can never tell when you are joshing around.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Apologies Manolo, your blanket statement read like a racist comment against Afghanis.
You are seeing racism where none exists – time to have a long hard look in the mirror.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The rationale for fighting in Afghanistan was that we wanted to break Al Qaeda’s capacity to mount 9/11 type attacks. That goal has dimensions that extend far beyond Afghanistan. Indeed, Al Qaeda is no longer based in Afghanistan, no longer uses it as a base for training terrorists or for mounting serious operations. NATO has been successful in denying Afghanistan to Al Qaeda.
But now we’ve slid into a mindset of thinking the fight is to stop the Taliban taking over Afghanistan. I don’t have any truck with the Taliban at all, but I really can’t see how the West can hope to ever deny control of Afghanistan to the Taliban or to drag Afghanistan into the 21st century. If that’s what people think the new mission is then unfortunately it’s a mission that will be without end.
I support us having and using a strong military. But I also think it’s only fair that we task them with objectives that are (i) achievable and (ii) worth them, if necessary, sacrificing their lives for. Afghanistan fails both of those tests. So no I can’t support us continuing to deploy our military to Afghanistan.
By all means we could contribute to a refocused pursuit of Al Qaeda in its various hiding holes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc. We should do our part to stop their ability to raise funds, train people etc etc. That’s a fight worth taking part in. And if Al Qaeda try to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan again then we should take focused steps there too.
But trying the nation building thing to create some sort of stable democracy in Afghanistan is a fools errand that will inevitably fail. Afghanistan today is where the fight in Vietnam was in the late-1960s. It’s an intractable and unwinnable war. It is not a war that we need to fight.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
” which places less emphasis on tracking and killing Taleban fighters and more on protecting Afghans from the insurgents.
The change in strategy seems very wise.”
Actually a change of strategy AWAY from killing terrorists seems like a load of fucking arse to me David.
I bow to your superior military experience though.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Well Bevan, Manolo’s comment that “it will a matter of stepping back waiting for these Stone Age tribes (to) annihilate themselves” suggested to me that in his view
1. Afghani tribes are stone age (actually they have used metals for some time now)
2. All Afghanis, or at least those with tribal affiliations, are only interested in killing each other and are so stupid that they will continue to do so until they are all dead.
This sounds like racism to me. If I misunderstood, because he only meant warlords, well I’ve already apologised for that, and suggested he be clearer who he is talking about.But if you don’t think making sweeping and derogatory statements about a specific nationality is racism, well then how about I start saying similar kinds of things about Pakeha NZers and let’s see who objects.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Go nuts Nandor, we’re already well used to racist sweeping generalisations about pakehas thanks.
Just another day at the office.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
However, 9/11 did not alter the conviction that the main threat posed by failed states stems from endogenous problems and not from a great power competition to fill the vacuum created by their demise. At least in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks, there was a naive feeling that the Islamist threat festering in failed or weak states such as Afghanistan was a menace to the international community writ large,…
First and foremost, if we take the traditional view, failed states may pose an even greater danger to international security than policymakers and academics currently predict. Humanitarian disasters are certainly tragedies that deserve serious attention; yet they do not pose the worst threats to U.S. security or world stability. That honor still belongs to the possibility of a great power confrontation.
Third, the role of armed forces engaged in failed states needs to be re-evaluated in light of the traditional view. If failed states require only “nation-building”, the military forces of the intervening powers will have to develop skills that are more like those of a police force: comfortable with a limited use of force, adept at distinguishing peaceful civilians from criminals, able to enforce law and order, good at managing interactions within the societies and many other tasks as well.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
It will be difficult for NZ to keep our Special Forces out of Afghanistan.
Actually the SAS will be chomping at the bit to get back in and involved. It’s what they like to do. After a decade of Defence mismanagement, and plummeting morale it may serve our brave troops well to get some live training again. Just don’t ask the Brits for a Chopper ride.
Personally, I think Afghanistan is an intractible situation. However it is putting a lot of pressure on Pakistan to get its House in order on the Western tribal lands.
Very good to see Iraq is moving steadily towards democratic self governance. Soon they will be cultured enough to regulate shower pressures and other such important stuff like no smacking of children, and folic acid in their bread to stop the incidence of birth defects, and a cycle path!
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 am
From the time of Alexander the Great, the West never has and never will win a military conflict in Afganistan.
The best that can be done to deal with this denighted hellhole is to try to seal its borders [and those of its close neighbours] using every strategem and technology available whilst paying off, distracting and playing off an ever-changing cast of tribal leaders engaged in their their favourite vocations: war, religious zealotry and blood feuds.
Afganistan is an accursed place that isn’t worth the bones of a single grenadier.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
You’ve read too many novels Flashman. There’s no such thing as an unwinable war, just a lack of will to win it and an inability to win it to the satisfaction of the media.
Tell me how the hell you plan to “seal the boarders”, you gonna use the force or what?
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Holland fought Spain for eighty years for their freedom. Ultimately to beat these people into submission will require virtual genocide and remember that it was Saudi Arabia that supplied the money and people the Taliban just supplied loyalty to a friend.