In recent days, and unsurprisingly, it has become common to hear the mournless rites being read for liberal interventionism. If anyone has opined publicly about Afghanistan in the last week - and plenty did - it was to regret our presence there and to wish us away. If ever an argument was being won by default this was it, especially since those making the case for quitting were far too exuberant to want to slow up and allow for the possible objections to their reasoning.
It was Condoleezza Rice, agitating for more Nato troops to be deployed in Afghanistan, who precipitated the current poison-ivy rash of isolationist critiques. This week in Lithuania Nato defence ministers are meeting to discuss finding 7,500 more troops to reinforce the existing 42,000, and last week there was a run-in between the Americans and the Germans over whether Bundeswehr resources could be sent to the dangerous south - a spat that the Bundesmedia seemed to enjoy a bit too much.
To which many resonant voices here were raised to make this point: we don't have the men, and even if we did we shouldn't send them; in fact we should start talking about withdrawing the ones we've got because the whole thing is broken and cannot be mended. “We British,” wrote Matthew Parris on Saturday on these pages, “are at our limit and losing confidence in our usefulness.” Independent reports speak of a danger of failure and a “weakening international resolve”, and the few gains of our continued presence - “a few new schools and roads in the north”, according to Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times - are insufficient to stop the country fragmenting.
And it is worse than that, they imply, because most of the problems that exist we have ourselves provoked and indeed spread to neighbouring Pakistan. “To have set one of the world's most ancient and ferocious people [the Pashtuns] on the warpath against both Kabul and Islamabad takes some doing. But Western diplomacy has done it,” says Jenkins; though why the Pashtuns are any more ancient than the rest of us, and why it should be so surprising that “one of the world's most ferocious peoples” might be relatively easily provoked, he doesn't explain. The tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, he argues, should have been left alone.
There has, of course, to be another logical step taken here, and this is it: for what cause have these bloody errors been committed? The cause of combating terror. But terror is an overblown threat, they say, exaggerated by men like Bush and Musharraf: terror kills few in the West and is generally contained by good policing. Our troops are making things worse. Rather than a War on Terror, we might do better to talk of a musing on terror, or - at worst - the tiff with terror.
In the current circumstances of the failure of the opium strategy, the bloody fighting in Helmand, the row inside Nato and the argument about Paddy Ashdown's unacceptability to Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, much of this pessimism seems appropriate. But if we are to follow its dictates, its proponents should do a better job of spelling out what it means. Anyone who still favours a military presence is easily decorated with the order of the armchair commentator, but let us see what other commentators are prepared to sit through.
Canada has already threatened to pull out its troops from Kandahar province in a year's time if other Nato countries don't contribute more. We must assume that if Britain were to begin to talk about a draw-down, then Canada would carry out this threat. British forces would then be exposed in Helmand and, presumably, would also withdraw. Let us suppose that an angry and abandoned US follows the “lead” offered by its allies, and itself pulls out, leaving itself only an air-to-ground interdiction capability.
Here are the likely consequences of such a pattern. The Afghan Government would collapse, to be replaced by an overt civil war fought between the Taleban and local governors in the various provinces. A million or more Afghan refugees would again flee their country, many of them ending up in the West. Deprived of support from the US, as recommended by our commentators, President Musharraf or a successor would effectively withdraw from the border regions, leaving a vast lawless area from central Afghanistan to north central Pakistan. Al-Qaeda and other jihadists would operate from these areas as they did before 9/11. This time these forces - already capable of assassinating a popular democratic politician - would seriously impact upon the stability of Pakistan, which is a nuclear state.
Jihadists everywhere, from Indonesia to Palestine, would see this as a huge victory, democrats and moderates as a catastrophic defeat. There would hardly be a country, from Morocco to Malaysia, that wouldn't feel the impact of the reverse. That's before we calculate the cost to women and girls of no longer being educated or allowed medical treatment. And would there be less terror as a result?
We have been here before. After the Afghans managed to defeat the Russians, the Yanks - and everyone else - left Afghanistan alone, to be swallowed up by the Taleban. Who then let Osama bin Laden in. It wasn't us who provoked the ferocious Pashtun in 2001, it was their Mullah Omar who gave sanctuary to the topplers of the twin towers. Many of bin Laden's people had themselves been radicalised by the failure of the West - in another non-intervention - to prevent Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims.
Whatever the failures of Western policy - which have usually been about doing too little, not too much - they will not be dealt with by the creation of a new myth of non-interdependence. Just as the genocide in Darfur has refused to confine itself within the borders of the Sudan, but has now destabilised neighbouring Chad, so anything that happens in Pakistan or Afghanistan, whether we cause it or not, will come back to us in the shape of fleeing people, apocalyptic ideologues, weapons proliferation and the export of terror.
Fortunately, it isn't just David Miliband who recognises this. Today America may decide that the next presidential election will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. All three recognise that America must continue to be the ideological and physical arsenal of democracy. Thank God.
You show a great ignorance of history and humanity. While condemning "9/11" and all killing, I seek beyond vengeance and revenge to understand the perpetrators' motivations. Are there true injustices underlying attacks and wars? For example, had the U.S. not had military bases in Saudi Arabia, would "9/11" have occurred. Had the Allies been more even-handed with Germany after WWI, would Hitler have come to power? This doesn't excuse violence, but seeks to understand it to avoid it in the future. Violence begets violence.
Nathan Prophet, Raleigh, USA/NC
Stop it!David Aaronovitch lauding the US as the champions of freedom and world democracy!The earth is shifting on its axis!It fair put me off my cornflakes!
D R Taylor, Saltaire, Yorks
It's incredibly depressing to me how many people are lazy and won't take the time to read anything other than than the source that agrees with their emotions.
The information is out there from people on the ground, in country who are actually seeing the effects of all the effort that's being poured into Afghanistan. And Iraq as well.
People who can post on the internet have no excuse for not taking the time to dig deeper! Maybe you're wrong!! Maybe your world view is being manipulated by those with an agenda that doesn't include what is best for mankind. Get off your butt and do some research!
Now, I'll let you all decide for yourselves what side of this article I'm on.
Bruce, Shamong, New Jersey
One quick question to the wacky folks who have already posted above:
"Are you willing to bet your life, and the lives of all you hold dear, that you're right and Mr. Aaronovitch is wrong?"
Well, are you?
The rest of us in the real world will be patiently awaiting your answer.....
MarkJ, Lafayette, Indiana
Gee, Dave...
Maybe the US should have withdrawn from Europe in WWII. If I recall, HItler never attacked us! We attacked a soverign nation for no other reason than to free citizens we thought were friends.
I bet you're glad we didn't think about the price. You say it's time to be "selfish"? Yeah, that works. It always has.
I am so sorry that the cost has been going up.
Don't cry too much. Go ahead, fall back and surrender.
Yes, oh yes, the U.S. will be there AGAIN to save you, no matter what it costs us. And yes, like always, we won't take compensation, just a place to bury our dead.
If the U.S. wasn't here, even with all the problems we can cause, how long do you think you'd already have before you would have to 'submit' to Islam?
Think about it... honestly. Wanna take the chance?
Shanester, Denver, CO
It's good to see someone in the UK with the sense to call for resolve. It is also no surprise to us in the US that the fighting contributions continue to be made by the UK, Canada and The Netherlands, not those would-be king-pins of the EU, Germany and France.
While I understand the resentment toward European neighbors this prompts in the UK, personally, I think it's just as well that we have not come to rely on France or Germany, because one or the other would in no time grow weary of the struggle and have weight to throw on the side of timidity.
I dearly hope our British, Canadian and Dutch allies will persevere but no one should doubt that whether we are led by President McCain, Obama or Clinton next year, the US will not stand down until the fight in Afganistan is won and al Qaeda destroyed.
J Edmund Burke, New York, NY/USA
Dear Deane - safe and secure in your cozy (sic) home in California - spare a thought for what your country has done to the harmless civilian population of Iraq.
Yes, you live in a powerful country. But your country is using its undoubted power not just to kill those who would harm you, but hundreds of thousands of other innocent people as well.
Please, Deane, think a little further than your cosy home in California. Think of the mothers in Iraq, mourning their children.
Then, perhaps, with your vote you might help to elect a decent leader instead of the hypocritical war criminal that you have at the moment.
alan, germany,
I was discussing the Afghan situation with a 10 year old this morning.I had been reading an article on "another paper".The article called for immediate withdrawal.What would happen next according to this pundit was that Iran ,Pakistan,and the Taliban would come to some sort of political arrangement.The small child said "Oh my God no they will kill each other." .The left wing pundit is hoping for what?
An enormous Islamic Caliphate or would it indeed be World War 3 with nuclear spice? As Pakistan cannot have an election without assassinating one of the candidates just leaving them to it looks as the kids would say "well dodgy".
Jane, London, UK
while america fights abroad the islamists are taking over america. in recent weeks the collapse of economy has allowed a good chunk of america' most profitable companies to be bought up by arab oil countries. america has been played and the only voice our government now listens to lives in a desert, no matter who wins the election just watch how fast they grab a jet to saudi arabia to begin the next round of ass kissing. americans will wake up one day in the not to distant future to see an american president bend down on his knees and take islam as his religion. wait and see.
warren bacon, atlantic beach, usa/fl
It's time to give up on NATO, with the fall of Soviet Union and Europeans inability to deal with problems in their own backyard without US assistance and now Germany and France's lilly livered response to Afghanistan it has shown it doesn't work. Instead the English speaking liberal democratic nations (US, Canada, UK, Aust & NZ) with like minded States should form a new grouping. Let Vlad (putin) impale Europe. The future will be decided not by Eurpoeans but by the coming ideological clash between the Liberal Democratic nations (Europe is mostly social democrat) and China/Socialist Asia. The lkess we hear from the French and Germans the better.
Reece, Melb, Aust
I'm sure the Soviets prophesised disaster for themselves for years before they eventually pulled out. But of course there was none.
The Afghans will never except foreign occupation. Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans not America.
K Buckmaster, Newcastle,
Countries such as France, Spain and Germany have refused to take part in operations that could involve fighting the Taleban.That's why, in my eyes, both UN and NATO are useless.So many bloggers seem OK to risk being 'attacked' as they think it won't happen to them. If I was a USA citizen I would tell you to take a hike & solve your own problems - not waste their soldiers' lives & taxes So many won't risk bugger all!
You prefer to stick to Karzai who can't bear to except Ashdown as the UN Special Envoy & won't leave Kabul (someone might assassinate him!). Karzai doesn't like the fact his 'leadership' is criticised but it blooming well ought to be! Five years of promises & he's a huge disappointment who actually hampers the progress of his country tremendously
I agree that we cannot leave but must take a firm stance both with the Karzai Government & NATO allies who don't want to fight & relieve the poor USA, UK, Dutch, Danes, Canadians troops et all who do their job no matter what!
LT, Warminster, UK
What a dismal piece of pro-PNAC drivel from Aaronovich - sucking up to HMV. Despite his revisionist tosh, we all clearly remember why the Yanks attacked Afghanistan - because of Bush's entirely baseless hunch that Osama bin-Laden was there. That story's been rewritten by all the Hitchens's and Aaronovich's and Bill O'Reilly's and Anne Coulter's, but the truth remains - Afghanistan didn't attack America on 9/11, and Osama wasn't in the country. All the good-sounding bunkum subsequently painted onto this tub of lies later is self-delusion written to defend the reputations of those who claimed the King really did have a New Suit Of Clothes.
The men who've died in Afghanistan have died to prop-up the lie that Osama bin-Laden was there, and for no other reason. It's an asinine untruth to claim otherwise.
Neil McGowan, Brit resident in Moscow, Russia
The world cannot and must not allow Afghanistan to be taken by the Taliban and turned again into a training ground for terrorists. A way forward is to to break up the country into three new countries along ethnic lines. It could then be more manageable for NATO.
Mohommad, KualaLumpur, Malaysia
'Islamo-Facist' what on earth does it mean?"
It means those who would impose an Islamist hegemony by force. If you can't understand that then I fear you are in for a very rude awakening.
Jonathan Wilton, Singapore,
Post 9/11, the world was so clearly with America in the afghan invasion. The enemy was well-defined, the purpose clear ... to rout murderous militancy from afghanistan by disposing of the regime that fostered it.
Soon after, President Bush made the dreadful decision, on the flimsiest of pretenses, to invade Iraq. A terrible move to be sure, but made all the worse because the afghan mess was far from dealt with. Long after the notions of glory faded, it was, as ever, only America, Britain and Canada (The Aussies and Dutch somewhat too) that were left doing the killing and getting killed.
Like it or not, there is unfinished business in Afghanistan and I suspect America, the UK and Canada will be fighting and dying there for a long time to come. I only hope the USA gets out of Iraq and returns in force to Afghanistan...maybe a new president will do that.
andy lawton, vancouver, canada
What we need is another International Brigade of literary anti-fascists like David Aaronovitch and Michael Gove, resolutely prepared to go and fight fascism as Orwell did in the 1930s. The brigade might have little military value, but the propaganda power would be immense. Showing that they are prepared to lay down their own lives for their convictions, rather than other people's, would add real moral ballast to David's and Michael's arguments.
Jake Peggott, Plymouth,
I can't wait for the next time Western Europe needs the US to come clean up another problem in your own backyard. When you people wake up to find yourselves dhimmis in your own countries you might want the US to come and save you once again. I will be out in the streets protesting any military involvement that helps Europe instead of all the leftist and Islamofacist sympathizers who are out there now.
Nato should be dissolved since Nato is just another name for the United States. I am tired of being in charge of the defense of Democracy when those that have it don't see a reason to defend it. Have a wonderful life under Sharia law.
shawn kelley, Cincinnati OH, United States
All I can say is; What an alliance! Thank God it was not needed to face an attack by the Soviets. Bless the English speaking members including Austraila which is not a NATO member. Canada is disgusted and may pull out and it is hard to blame them. One would think that a rich country like Germany, so long the beneficiary of NATO, and I must add, as the country that caused so much death, destruction and misery in WW2, would be front and center to go the the aid of an oppressed country if not in compliance to the terms of the alliance, to partly make up for her history. No chance of that however.
Jerry, seattle , usa
For heaven's sake. Don't rely on the US anymore. American taxpayers are fed up with the rest of the world relying on us and our government which you always despise.
Get up off your asses and decide to do something definitive about your own back yard. Yes, the ME is your back yard. Iran and its nuclear ambitions are something you should be concerned about. Russia is also a concern. It's all about location, location, location as they say in the real estate business.
Unfortunately that is your lot. And fortunately, the US has no real reason to subsidize your Socialist fantasies. You're on your own. Think about it. We don't owe you anything. You Brits and Euros are a welfare state of the US, but we are moving on.
Ciao
Emma, Blue City, USA
I don't understand what Western Europe is willing to fight for any more, and I don't understand how self-indulgent Europeans can claim moral high ground in Afghanistan, or if they know the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. America, Canada, Britain and Australia have carried the burden since 9-11 even though Europe has a larger and more troublesome Muslim population. If you think the US is a troublesome ally, try watching each other's backs for a while.
Mike, Pittsburgh,
Rubbush.
Nothing could be more catastrophic than what we've already done.
John Chuckman, toronto, Canada
The fundamental problem is that NATO is no longer a logical construct. It makes little sense to have a regional defense pact for a region that is not anymore under threat, and therefore fields smaller armies than in the past. What now binds the NATO member states is not geography but ideology. Therefore it makes sense to expand NATO beyond Europe and North America to create a worldwide defense pact comprised of nations that adhere to democratic principals. We should invite all nations that qualify and are willing to chip in. This will not only solve current problems but prevent future ones from taking shape.
brendan wilson, charleston, south carolina
We should withdraw immediately. The reason for going to war in Afghanistan has been completely forgotten and the cost to the UK in lives and money just keeps on going up. Osama Bin Laden is dead: he was hiding in a cave in 2001 with his ten-year-old son and has not been seen alive since the Americans bombed Afghanistan. Bush is close to becoming history and Blair is cleaning up on the dinner party circuit. We would do rather better trying to deal with the problems of Afghan heroin in the UK (Stephen Wright is in court here accused of killing five heroin addicts) rather than worrying about whether the Taliban will insist on their womenfolk wearing burqas - as they have for centuries long before Islam. It is time to be selfish and let Afghanistan be dealt with by the regional superpowers, China and India.
Dave, Slough,
Nothing is achieved in Afghanistan so what are we doing in that country.
Bin Laden is in Pakistan, Talebans are strong and fluid as ever, production and export of drugs increased, few more locals go to school (until it gets burned), Karzai controls few blocks in Kabul, few locals get better medical help from troops which prefer not to fight - and it all costs appx $30bn each year. It can not go on forever.
Muslims in Bosnia started the war, like in many other countries.
Savo, London, UK
There is no reason to assert that only lies provided the basis for fighting against repression and violence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why copy the ostrich and hide your head when danger approaches. Here is what Americans have been willing to fight and pay for in recent years: Liberation from severe repression and violence for Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, some 60 million people. The majority of those are defenseless women and children who can at least hope for education, health, peace and prosperity for the first time in their lives, but only if Americans and the few courageous and democratic Europeans left stand their ground against the fanatics. I have been traveling and studying in Europe for forty years. I really thought Europeans, the British in particular, had guts and devotion to democracy and peace. If you think peace comes when we withdraw, just contemplate Somalia.
Alan, Albuquerque, New Mexico
A good article, and timely after the defeatist claptrap trotted out by Simon Jenkins.
I hope, but I do not believe, that all those sneering at Mr Aaronovitch as an "Armchair General" have themselves fought on their feet against the enemies of our country. Combined with their cliched parrotings of ill-understood history they are more than tiresome. You, Mr Amery, are an example; what is your service number and where did you fight?
Jonathan Wilton, Singapore,
The absolute root cause of our problems with the Muslim world is that we are there uninvited! Whether it be Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., the local inhabitants, Muslims, will quite rightly, not roll over and accept the will of the west. Some become 'Terrorists' or 'Freedom Fighters' depending on your view. My point is, it would make no difference if the local inhabitants were Hindi, Buddist, Christian, Taoist or Scientologist, if they were occupied by a foreign power many would also become 'Terrorists' or 'Freedom Fighters' until the injustice has been rectified, and, they were left alone to solve the problems imposed on them by outsiders. Also, while we are about it can we also ban that ridiculus phrase 'Islamo-Facist' what on earth does it mean?
Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, UK
What War on Terror? The war on terror is a phony war used as a smokescreen for the largest robbery in history. Everybody involved are just interested in the corrupt gravy train that could go on forever. Be serious--What has been accomplished?
Ghost Commander, San Diego, USA
I am an American contributor to this thread and I want it to be known that as i sit here, with my coffiee, in the comfort of my cozy home, safe and secure, it is only because i live in a very powerful country that is only powerful because we have soldiers who will go anywhere we send them to the dirty work of killing those who would harm us. Because i can sit here in comfort i will never criticize our country's mission. i am 100% behind our mission and our soldiers. I also thank God that our allies help us when we need them. America loves the Brits (although i have a few choice words for Prince Andrew this morning). Thank you, Britain, Canada, Australia and everyone who heeds our call! We're in it together! God bless you!
Deane, Highland, California
When the Soviet Union existed it made sense for the US to have a large force in Europe. Without US help Western Europe might have fallen to Communism. This is no longer the case - Europe can easily defend itself against Russia or Islam if they have the will.
The ethnic makeup of the US is increasingly oriented towards Asia and South America - it is becoming more difficult to motivate the American people to support defending Europe based on a common European heritage. This trend will certainly increase.
The US gets most of it's oil from places other than the Middle East, we don't need to be involved there.
We need to revert to observer status in NATO and let Europe either sink or swim on their own. Right now we're convenient targets for liberal politicians in Europe who want to appeal to their own constituencies without having to be reponsible for the consequences of their actions.
GFR, Berkeley, California
Neo-cons lie to get us into wars, they lie about the consequences of their wars and they lie about the outcome of their wars. It's precisely because war is hell and many people die that it must not be brought about by deception.
Because these wars were based on lies they have not been supported by the people of the countries engaged in them. The vivid images of these wars confirm to me that the war on terror became a war of terror.
joe reilly, Spalding, England
It seems the Germans are allies "in name only". The USA should leave NATO and close all of its bases in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe).
We can continue the fight in Afghanistan with real allies (the British, the Canadians, etc). The America haters would be happy with the demise of NATO; and so would the American taxpayer.
John Wojtowicz, West Chester, PA USA
War is hell. If there were no Hiltlers or Osama bin Ladens, or Saddams, there would be no wars.
I'm afraid that just pretending they don't exist won't make it so.
Mike Sorensen, Las Vegas, USA
American contributors to this thread should be reassured that, just like the main political parties in the USA, the Labour and Conservative leaderships remain committed to the war on terror.
Unfortunately, however, there is a body of opinion in Western Europe that thinks we can maintain the Dolce Vita of the last thirty years for ever, regardless of the threats from without.
arnoldo, Coventry,
Can any who fall in with the consistant pessimistic drivel put out by the BBC please explain to me what has happened to all these "Spring" and "Summer" Offensives the supposedly resurgent Taliban have failed to deliver?
To any who desire closer ties with Europe - what would the proposed European Armed Forces reaction to the threat posed by the Islamo-Fascists based in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The Duke of Wellington once said that there is no such thing as a small war for a great country. We are in a war, it was not of our making. The reality of that situation is that you then must do whatever is required to win that war, retreat and withdrawal are not options.
Bill, Stavanger, Norway
Oh, what awful things will happen if we withdraw from Afghanistan. Yes, definitely, thanks to Bush and Blair, who were not content with ridding Afghanistan of terror camps.
Instead they wanted to devastate Iraq at the same time. And then they discover they've over-extended themselves. Tough.
Now all the whining and whingeing. Gates should put his harsh note to Berlin where the monkey puts its nuts.
alan, germany,
Yes the war on terror needs to be continued, but what actually are we doing in Afghanistan? We went there to win the hearts and minds of the people and rebuild the infrastructure. NATO was brought in under a pretext by the Americans. All we've done is put a puppet government in place, the old war lords are still there, poopy production is at an all time high and we've lost brave soldiers whilst killing hundreds of Afghanis and alienating them for generations to come. Te time is right to rethink the strategy. We should pull out and instead put into place mechanisms for ensuring that the country is rebuilt by civilians using a carrot and stick approach.
Hamad Lone, London, England
Marvellous. So we can't pull out because it will hand victory to the Taliban. So we must stay in. For ever, it seems. Making no progress. Watching the Taliban get stronger. Or do you mean we should commit all the troops it takes to win? What's that? 100,000? A million? Mr Aaranovitch, truly you know nothing of history, Afghan history in particular, and you have no sense that the world ain't ours ot do with what we will. Time to cut our losses, because our hand can never win in that part of the world.
Mod, London,
"LIBERAL interventionism"? America as "the ideological arsenal of democracy"?
Starts and finishes a long way out of the tree....
JK, London, UK
Is there truly a "war on terror"? I wonder. Because there clearly is a terrorist war on us. From Britain to France, Germany and Spain, the terrorists live among us, plot against us, and ultimately (if it not were for the security services) kill us.
Islamists are hard at work, planning our demise. We're overly concerned about their sensitivity to our insensitivity. They plant bombs. We cringe at our opinion pages. They take over countries and enslave or kill the indignant population. We debate the issues in the United Nations. They threaten our way of life. We go out of our way to avoid offending them.
It's time to take a stand. Either for Britain, or against her. Either for freedom, or for Islamic law. Either in hand with America (noting our differences) or with middle eastern dictatorships. Either for our way of life, or to succumb to their version of subordination.
There is no middle ground. Your are either against terror and islamo-fascism, or for Britain.
It's your choice.
Jack Heismann, Washington, DC
How soon the isolationist left forgets its own "well-written, good rhetoric."
Remember after 9/11, when western liberals pledged to Kharzai and the Afghans that we would not "abandon" their country to the terrorists as we (allegedly) did after Afghanistan's war with the Soviets? Remember when one of the chief objections to the Iraq war was that it was a "distraction" from the "real war on terror" and in particular, rolling up al Qaeda and bringing bin Laden to justice? Remember John Kerry pleding to "hunt down" bin Laden?
Now that these arguments are no longer operative in the situation d'jour -- victory over al Qaeda in Iraq -- they just think up new ones.
John, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Please keep it to the facts. It wasn't the Taleban that allowed bin Laden to come to Afghanistan, but Pakistan and most precisely Mr. Nawaz Sharif. After being kicked out from Sudan in 1996, it was Pakistan that more than welcomed Osama to Pakistan. Taleban were closing in on Kabul and by then had whatsoever no contacts with the Taleban leadership. It was Burhanudin Rabani, former president of Afghanistan, that not only allwed Osama to come to Afghanistan, but also awarded him with an Afghan citizenship.
In order to avoid American radar and pressure, Pakistan moved him to Jalalabad in Eastern Afghanistan, where the current governor of Kabul, Haji Din Mohammad, welcomed Osama.
Taleban were not even close to Jalalabad by then. But Osama, with the help of Pakistani ISI, had already reestabilished and reactivated his terror bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was Pakistan, the military regime that the UK and US governments are proping up against the Pashtuns, the Baochs and the Sindhis
kabura, Kabul, Afghanistan
as a canadian i could not agree more. if the west pulls out who the hell does every-one think will come back ? we have lost 79 killed soldiers and one killed diplomat in afganistan and our nato aliies other than great britian and the us have not really done very much to help us or the country at all. although denmark and holland have done the best with what they have . we have to stay and see it through and old fools like simon jekins should know better than to write a stupid column like he did . and i read it too soo no saying i was not prepared . sounds like he is bin ladens pr man for god sake. i also believe we in the west must do more to help the people in afganistan and send the money we promised to help rebuild the country .i wonder if simon jekins has ant good ideas how to help other than running away ? i bet he doesn't.
howard tweed, nanaimo bc, canada
I detest these comparisons with the vietnam war - the number of differences, excluding the enemy - such as conscription, lack of unified policy, command, and total commitment, and overall death toll should completely alienate the two, but people, notably media commentators, seem insistent to make the war on terror the new containment policy. The lack of resolve from a minority to carry out a few years of commitment is astounding - thank good it was not around in empirical times otherwise the UK would not be a world power and we the people would have no say about the way the world is going, having to sit on the back seat and complain even more, without the (although now limited but no doubt still there) muscle to do something about it.
I find it hard to understand where all these new fears about the Afghan war are coming from, in response to the always anticipated spring 'fighting season'? We should and will act for the good of the world although it might not know it yet
Doug Archibald, birmingham,
A lot of good points. The fact is that those who would claim that the Taliban are a result of American intervention and neglect are now advocating repeating the same strategy.
Who is ignoring history?
If having troubles because of errors we have made, then it follows that fixing those errors would help the sitation. OTOH, it doesn't show the situation is hopeless.
The commitment by the EU, and even by the USA, has been minimal (both militarily and in "nation building" and the result is going to be important both for the west (to avoid terrorism) and Afghanistan (anyone who claims to be worried about civilians will, most of all, want to avoid the civilar war that woudl follow abandoning the country yet again).
Daivd Summers, Menlo Park, CA, USA
I think it's a bit much to talk about the cost to women and girls of no longer being educated or allowed medical treatment by someone who seemed unconcerned about the thousands of civilians murdered during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Philip Wykes, Shrewsbury, MA. USA
Well written, good rhetoric. Alas, it sounds all to familiar. Hopefully the author is a lot younger than I. For if not, he ought to be criticized for plagiarizing from others: the champions of the Vietnam War.
D. Olberg, Mainz,
Mr. Aaronovitch, Thank you for your well-conceived opinion. It's hard for anyone to be ready to send their troops into harm's way, as I'm sure it was for many in 1939, but the threat is no less real.
True, we forget about working on the madrassas sometimes for the sake of of a good spring offensive against the Taleban, but it doesn't change the fact that capitulation in Afghanistan -- and now, unfortunately, Iraq -- means the enemy is no longer on the run. They're stationary enough as it is.
A consistent wave of condemnation and fatwahs from mainstream Islamic leaders condemning jihadists would be nice, maybe even helpful.
But who is really expecting that?
Duke Keith, El Paso, TX, USA
Not for nothing is Afghanistan known as the "graveyard of empires". But our politicians and their cheerleaders, notably you, Mr. Aaronovich, think they are above the lessons of history. Britain has had three bloody and unsuccessful ventures in the country before, in 1842, 1878-1880 and 1919. Afghanis did for the Soviet empire, and are well on the way to dismantling NATO. If you think things should be otherwise, Mr. Aaronovich, perhaps you should enlist instead of waging constant war from your armchair.
Paul Amery, London, UK