Haloface

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.

__________________
"A horse, a hose, my kingdom for a horse!"
- William Shakespear, Richard III, Bosworth Field, 1485.

Ailwon

Umm..Iraq - It had more profit to invade.

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.

Yep.

Winterworg

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.

Ailwon

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.

Winterworg

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.

Thormir

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.

Winterworg

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.

Kivorn

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.

__________________

Crist0

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

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?

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_...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.

__________________

Haloface

'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.

__________________
"A horse, a hose, my kingdom for a horse!"
- William Shakespear, Richard III, Bosworth Field, 1485.