http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3935755.stm

For once, ignore the Iraq stuff and scroll down to the Afghanistan section.

'The report also says Afghanistan could implode with "terrible consequences" without more foreign troops. '

'Tony Blair recently denied suggestions that Afghanistan had become a "forgotten" country amid complaints from some of the MPs on the committee who visited the country. '

As the biggest charity/aid company decides to move out of Afghanistan this month due to such an unsafe environment, you have to wonder - what happened with Afghanistan?
This very subject is one of the most undermining factors for me when I consider the Iraq invasion. Why? Why didn't we stop and rebuild the country we tore apart? Why didn't we stay to remove the bad element, make safe the country, and improve its infrastructure and society as we are attempting to do in Iraq? The Taliban are gaining more and more control, with coalition troops in the low thousands, confined mostly to border mountanous regions, hunting for al-Qaeda suspects.
Surely this place, the centre for al-Qaeda, ruled by an utterly oppressive Taliban regime, certainly the definition of a rogue state with an anguished and suffering population, would be a jewel example for those of the conservative liberation camp?
Why, then, was it not good enough? Why did everyone scramble to provide evidence of the very things that existed in Afghanistan, in Iraq? When we were already in Afganistan in the first place?!

It's under this situation when you question the supposed mission of liberation we're undertaking lately.

We need to go back to Afghanistan, to rebuild, and make safe. Especially as we are the reasons for so much of the destruction and harm. Not that, one assumes, the Afghans aren't used to such a state of existence anyway...

Perhaps it just didn't have the appeal Iraq did. Perhaps.

what happened with Afghanistan?
Umm..Iraq - It had more profit to invade.

certainly the definition of a rogue state with an anguished and suffering population, would be a jewel example for those of the conservative liberation camp?
The original goals were to eliminate Al queda bases of operation and get the Taliban out of power...that was accomplished. It would have been nice if we had built infrastructure and made it a stable country (so the Taliban and Queda terrorists wouldn't re-establish themselves) but, see above.:)

Perhaps it just didn't have the appeal Iraq did.
Yep.

Afghanistan should get as much support as the US, Western Europe, the UN, the Arab countries, Asia, Australia, the Pacific Islands, Central Europe, Central America, North America, South America, Greenland, and Africa can give it. If the US and UK are dominant in Afghanistan, they're seen more and more as occupiers IMO and thats not constructive. I think the US... I can't comment on the UK on this... has fallen down on the job by not putting more energy into infrastructure, and school building... as Bin Laden did.

I think the US... I can't comment on the UK on this... has fallen down on the job by not putting more energy into infrastructure, and school building...
How about security...pulling all the troops out (or a vast majority) to go figh another war has let the Taliban and Al queda begin to re-emerge there. It's difficult to build any real infrasructure without enough security.

IMO, Afghanistan was something Bush knew he needed to do to react to 9/11. He never intended to really help the country or keep it safe from becoming a haven for terrorists (and I include both the Taliban and Al Queda as terrorists) again. His focus has always been to the west, before and after 9/11.

Lol whatever. Maybe he just went down to the Sudan real quick to check if they really didn't have any oil. The UN and the EU and many others have been involved as well. So you're saying that we should have how many troops running around the countryside of Afghanistan still? We could have a million troops there and you'd find something to bitch about. We could have none there and you'd find something to bitch about. No matter what happened with either of these wars, the BBC was going to find some people to say we shouldn't have gone to war and we screwed up huge. It's like the sun rising. If we didn't do anything the BBC would find some people to say we were wrong to nothing. If we sent 10 trillion dollars to rebuild Afghanistan, the BBC would find someone to say we're doing it for the wrong reasons. Its their job... they make stories to publicize themselves and their viewpoints.

At some point you have to say... we can't occupy this country they need to swim or sink. They're swimming. Lets wish them luck and give them the support they ask for within reason. So as I said... I think we could have followed Bin Ladens example better and given more humanitarian type assistance. Not more soldiers.

So as I said... I think we could have followed Bin Ladens example better and given more humanitarian type assistance. Not more soldiers.It seems apparent from the departure of Doctors Without Borders that we need more soldiers (or, at least, better use of the ones we have) in order to safely provide that humanitarian assistance.

I'm speaking of the United States specifically lets be clear. And yes I'll have to amend my comment to say that should the assistance being rendered by the US government require a coordinated military protection or even more troops, then I would have to support that. The Doctors Without Borders people are quoted as saying in some articles that they are leaving because of worsening security and in others that they are leaving in protest that the Afghan government didn't do more to investigate the truth surrounding the deaths of 1-5 of their members two months ago.

The US still has 20,000 troops there... far more than anyone else who is so concerned. This has to be seen as an international effort, not solely as an American effort.

If Medecins sans frontières get the fuck out of dodge, you know the place is in shambles. We're talking about people who'll work with guerilla warfare on their doorstep.

They are pulling out because they feel the US is using humanitarian aid for political objectives.


the United States-backed coalition has consistently sought to use humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political ambitions. MSF denounces the coalition’s attempts to co-opt humanitarian aid and use it to "win hearts and minds."

From their website.

Odd isn't it, the Coalition reaching out to Afghans with humanitarian aid?

Man, the least they could have done is flat out said that they were going in with both the military AND humanitarian aid in ord..oh, hell.

Isn't it even more strange that this organization that supposedly avoids politics completely is pulling out of Afghanistan as a political statement?


I think the US... I can't comment on the UK on this... has fallen down on the job by not putting more energy into infrastructure, and school building... as Bin Laden did.

The Coalition has put forward $4.5 billion(with a "b") for rebuilding infrastructure alone in Afghanistan.

Here is a nice list of weekly progress reports:

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/afghanistan/weeklyreports/

It will tell you about things like improving enrollment for girls from 18% to 75% and go into detail about the 17 women's centers we have built across the country to boost literacy and education among the female population, how 45,000 students went into accelerated learning programs in April, new health centers being built(over 400), training provided to Afghans in everything from midwifery to farming technology and irrigation.

If you don't believe we have put 100 times as much energy and resources into rebuilding infrastructure and schools(real schools) as Bin Laden you are horribly misinformed.

'If you don't believe we have put 100 times as much energy and resources into rebuilding infrastructure and schools(real schools) as Bin Laden you are horribly misinformed.'

- I'm sorry.. someone mentioned Bin Laden had done a better effort?

You know.. comparing the "coalition" effort to Bin Laden's not only makes you sound retarded, but just goes to show the lengths you'll seek in order to make the effort look good.
Almost as idiotic as you comparing better treatment of prisoners to the way Saddam did.
See: laughable.

Afghanistan is utterly poverty strucken, many of its inhabitants live in shamble towns with no water or electricity. The Taliban regain much of its lost control, and it appears al-Qaeda are still very much alive in the mountains.
It's a forgotten conflict, a forgotten country, and an embarassment that undermines the so called humanitarian effort in Iraq. It neither gets the attention it deserves, or the respect you seem to neglect it in your attempt to dodge responsibility.

An international effort? Funny, I think the 3, 500 dead Afghans were mainly killed by Anglo-American bombs and bullets.

We had a responsibility to Afghanistan once we invaded, one we've now largely neglected in favour of the New Iraq Project of Liberation.

And yes I'll have to amend my comment to say that should the assistance being rendered by the US government require a coordinated military protection or even more troops, then I would have to support that.
Nail on head Winter...provide enough protection so aid can be rendered effectively and so the Taliban et. al. cannot slither back in.

This has to be seen as an international effort, not solely as an American effort.
I agree!!

They are pulling out because they feel the US is using humanitarian aid for political objectives.
Actually Cristo...if you read the entire article that's only part of the problem. They are leaving primarliy because they don't feel safe after 5 of them were killed, the culprits identified, and nothing was done about it. In addition, activity like this:

Only recently, on May 12, 2004, MSF publicly condemned the distribution of leaflets by the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan in which the population was informed that providing information about the Taliban and al Qaeda was necessary if they wanted the delivery of aid to continue
Granted, they are interpreting it to mean....inform us on the bad guys or you won't get aid. You can also interpret it as saying in effect...we can't deliver aid unless we are safe doing so, help us againts the bad guys. I don't agree with their interpretation of the coalition efforts there, but I can't condem them for leaving because of REAL safety concerns.

Here's some interesting (I believe either 2002 or 2003)stats from the Council on Foriegn Affairs:

The top recipient is Israel (http://www.terrorismanswers.org/coalition/sponsors.html), which gets about $2.1 billion per year in military aid—used mostly to purchase U.S.-made weapons—and $600 million per year in economic support.
Postwar Afghanistan (http://www.terrorismanswers.org/afghanistan/country.html), which is struggling to recover after years of Taliban rule and the U.S.-led war that toppled the Taliban, has already received almost $450 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid and will also get $140 million in economic and military assistance.
Bush has asked congress for 1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan for fiscal 2005 and reportedly cut some aid to Isreal by 300 million.

It will tell you about things like improving enrollment for girls from 18% to 75%
Considering that women were banned from attending school under the Taliban, this isn't as impressive a stat as it would seem.

Good things are happening in Afghanistan, but is it enough to keep it from sliding back into the chaotic terrorist haven it's been in the past? I'm not sure...especially with so much focus on Iraq. It is good to see that Bush has seen the light there and increased the US's aid to Afghanistan next year!!

To be honest, what happened is that the people we're after have most likely moved into mountains in Pakistan. Which was expected - we're not supposed to have ground troops in Pakistan, so they're harder to find this way.

I think you are greatly over-estimating the "control" of the Taliban or Al-Quaeda. What has been happening is simple guerrilla warfare and banditry...no part of Afghanistan is under Taliban control that I am aware of. They have support in the east and south from the very people who created them in the first place and no amount of foreign military presence will ever change that.

Large numbers of US troops in Afghanistan to guard cities is not the answer. It would only result in even more mistrust of the US and more guerrilla activity to drive the US away.

More attention does need to be paid to Afghanistan's own army, of that there is no doubt. The real root of the problem lies in Pakistan and in the various warlords IMO. The tribal territories are protecting the insurgents and providing much of the manpower that is causing the security issues in Afghanistan. The warlords are vying for their own control and need to be neutered eventually. A strategy needs to be developed and implemented to more effectively address both situations if possible.

As far as Doctors Without Borders goes, they really aren't a viable solution anyway. Treating wounded and the ill is great, but it does absolutely nothing to address the cause of all the misery in the first place. A "political" solution is absolutely necessary if Afghanistan is ever going to crawl out of the bloody mire it has been trapped in for thirty years. For them to blame the US for addressing that political solution is pretty damned low IMO. It was politicizing on their part and completely unnecessary.

Thanks for the infor Cristo. Unfortunately I was basing my judgment off a BBC World News report which said the US was doing very little in terms of infrastructure.

Halo... you're consistently horribly undereducated. Bin Laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan in terms of road and school building. It's the biggest reason he enjoyed so much support in the country. It's also was a big criticism that people used who opposed the war on the Taliban. So the logic is... follow his example in that respect to gain support among the people.

I'm sorry.. someone mentioned Bin Laden had done a better effort?
Yes.

Reading threads before responding is a wonderful way to avoid looking like an idiot.


Almost as idiotic as you comparing better treatment of prisoners to the way Saddam did
Read:

Almost as idiotic as not understanding when I pointed out to someone else who said "what if the situation were reversed" that in fact the situation had been reversed in the past, and assuming that by doing so I was justifiying one situation by comparing it to the other.


We had a responsibility to Afghanistan once we invaded, one we've now largely neglected
I am guessing clicking links is over your head as far as reading the thread is.

It's really quite amazing Halo.

You see, you click the underlined blue text in my earlier post and it gives detailed weekly reports(shit! more reading, sorry) of what the US is doing for Afghanistan(it doesn't go into detail about the UK or anyone else, you'll have to find that for yourself..I'm sure it's out there).


They are leaving primarliy because they don't feel safe after 5 of them were killed, the culprits identified, and nothing was done about it.

You can also interpret it as saying in effect...we can't deliver aid unless we are safe doing so
Hrmmm..

So they condemned the US for saying, in your own words, "we can't deliver aid unless we are safe doing so" in May..and 2 months later they pull out, giving the reason as..exactly what they condemned the US for saying.

That sum it up?

In any case, this supposedly neutral and nonpolitical organization is making a political statement of their withdrawal.

Well, what can you say - they come from France!

;)


Considering that women were banned from attending school under the Taliban, this isn't as impressive a stat as it would seem.
The Taliban hasn't been in power there for a good while now, so yes, seeing female enrollment in schools skyrocket by 417% is both impressive and encouraging to see.


Good things are happening in Afghanistan
TONS of great things are happening in Afghanistan, and the real shame is how little of it actually gets reported in the media...or even in the BBC's case gets intentionally ignored.

Just another failure of the modern media, who is more interested in selling themselves than real journalism.


To be honest, what happened is that the people we're after have most likely moved into mountains in Pakistan
Some.

More have gone to Iran too(that is also the most probable spot to find Bin Ladin supposedly)..but no one is actively going after that one yet.

So they condemned the US for saying, in your own words, "we can't deliver aid unless we are safe doing so" in May..and 2 months later they pull out, giving the reason as..exactly what they condemned the US for saying.

That sum it up?
No, sorry my post was a bit confusing.

They are pulling out because they don't feel safe. They also think (rightly or wrongly) that the coalition is using aid as an incentive to Afghans to help them....they want to provide aid, no condiditons, no ties. I understand leaving for safety reasons...don't necessarily agree with there assessment of the coalition's intent on the leaflets.

90% of Afghan electorate registered (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/08/02/90_of_afghan_electorate_registered/)

It's not looking all that bad to me. Improvements can be done, of course, but playing international politics with their future will not help.

One bad spot in the article...

Afghans have flocked to register in the north, west, and center of the country, where regional leaders, including opponents of Karzai's drive for a centralized state, have encouraged their supporters to sign up. Ethnic rivalry in a country deeply scarred by years of infighting also has encouraged communities to make sure they are fully represented.
UN figures suggest that a third of the estimated 1.05 million voters in five southern provinces dominated by the country's main Pashtun ethnic group are not registered.
Uuh, that's 66% that ARE registered to vote. Most western countries average what? 55%? voter registration. But obviously not having the same turn-out is going to hurt these southern guys, and I suspect they'll quickly figure it out when the other regions flex their political muscles following their wins.

In the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif, Singh said, the number of those registered had exceeded the projected total, suggesting either fraud or that the estimate of the electorate is far too conservative.
Officials acknowledge cases of people registering more than once, but say a dab of indelible ink on every voter's finger will limit fraud on polling day. Many underage Afghans also may have slipped through.
This could have been fixed with more time being spent getting a census and such set up before pushing for elections... (as we're doing in Iraq.)

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Wait a minute... I thought that Al Qaeda had taken over Afghanistan... The evilzor Americanz.