KABUL, Nov 21 (KUNA) -- A leading London-based think-tank has said that 54 percent of Afghan territory is under the control of the Taliban, who were ousted as a result of US invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.
In its report based on analysis and research, the Senlis Council said in order to bring peace to the war-battered country, an 80,000 NATO plus troops must be required to be stationed in that country. The report was issued in London. However, a copy of the report was received to this correspondent via e-mail on Wednesday. "The security situation has reached crisis proportions. The insurgency now controls vast swaths of unchallenged territory including rural areas, border areas, some district centres, and important road arteries," said Norine MacDonald QC, President and Lead Field Researcher of The Senlis Council. The disturbing conclusion is that, despite a universal desire to 'succeed' in Afghanistan , the country was in grave danger of becoming a divided state, said the report. The Taliban are the de facto governing authority in significant portions of territory in the south, it adds. "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears not to be whether the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when this will happen" said MacDonald. "Their stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever, and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a dramatic change in strategy before time runs out. Defeat in Afghanistan would be catastrophic to global security, and risks making NATO irrelevant." To succeed in Afghanistan, NATO members must increase their presence in the country, but NATO partners should share this burden equally. A 'NATO Plus' force of 80,000 troops is needed, stressed the report. Senlis also called on NATO forces to urgently enter Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, "which has become a training ground for Taliban and al-Qaeda elements". According to the Senlis report, such an increase in their activities would never have been possible without a sanctuary outside Afghanistan.
Via Kuwaiti News Agency.
Comment:
Christ. I hadn't realized it was this bad.
We need to get the troops out of Iraq. We need to deploy them to Afghanistan. We need to deploy a UN peacekeeping force to the North West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. And we need to do it now.
It has gone on long enough. We defeated a global superpower when we were but a colonial backwater. We conquered a continent. We waged total war on two fronts, against enemies that had seemed undefeatable. For half a century, we vied for global supremacy, and we achieved it. We are mighty, we are legion. We are Juggernaut, we are Nemesis. We are not about to be defeated by a band of common criminals because of one man's pride.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
1. Why would the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan respond better to UN troops than they have responded to US, UK, Australian, Canadian and Pakistani troops?
2. The backwater colonial power you refer to was also backed by its own superpower, France, and also a willingness to match the enemy superpower with superpower-like tactics (artillery, ordered divisions, etc). If you want to draw a metaphor between Iraq and the American Revolution, the Iraqis are the patriots, the Iranians the French, and, sadly, we are the Brits.
3. We conquered a continent by reneging on countless treaties and multilateral agreements, coupled with displacement, exploitation, and in some cases out and out genocide. Please don't ever use this when referring positively to American history. It's humiliating.
4. If you are somehow under the impression that the Taliban is a band of common criminals, it's no wonder this story surprised you. At what point does one gain the prestige to be promoted from criminal to a major strategic player? 55% of Afghanistan? 56?
1. It's not about their response, it's about Pakistan's. If US troops were to invade and occupy a substantial chunk of Pakistan, the folks in Islamabad might get somewhat peeved, and they have nukes. A UN peacekeeping force would be ruffle fewer feathers, especially as it's mission would be to assert the supremacy of the federal government.
2. I'm not drawing a metaphor between Iraq and the American Revolution. I'm not talking about Iraq at all, except to say we need to get out of it so we can win in Afghanistan.
3. I am well aware of our nation's shameful history with regards to Native America, indeed, I am currently taking a class on that very subject. Our military might did however play a substantial role in our expansion, and the point I was trying to make was that when we have a military task at hand, we succeed. The United States is not in the business of losing wars.
4. By "common criminals", I meant non-state actors. The Taliban resemble a terrorist network more than a conventional army. They do not call in air strikes, they do not deploy tanks. Instead, they fight with homemade bombs and Kalashnkovs, which are common household appliances in some parts of the world. Granted, "common criminals" is overstating their semicivilian nature, but I was mad at the time, and was really thinking more of al-Qaeda in any case (not that they're all that "common", either).
I'm willing to concede on all points except the first. It seems far more likely that the Taliban and other tribal elements will not allow any supremacy to be asserted, whether its UN, Pakistani, or Coalition.
That's why peacekeeping forces tend to be well armed.
But that's precisely my point. How will the UN troops be any different from Coalition and Pakistani forces aside from a different uniform? You can't, after all, be under the impression that US troops are unarmed...?
At best a UN agreement would score political points, maybe, but is that the goal or is the goal to pacify Afghanistan?
There are no US troops in the FATA or NWFP, and nowheres near enough Pakistani troops.
The goal is to pacify Afghanistan, which would be kind of difficult if we were to start a nuclear war in Southern Asia by invading Pakistan (which could very well prompt Pakistan to use nukes, which would in turn draw India into the fray, and so on).
Post a Comment