Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

John Pratt: "The US and its allies are using the same tactics in Afghanistan that were tried and failed in Vietnam. This war is likely to end in exactly the same way."

What? With the political Left actively supporting the Taliban and then lying about it for decades after?

And John Pilger doing a documentary "exposing" the horrors of Taliban rule to the world years later? And blaming the US for it?

Maybe Nike can set up a factory in Kabul and Student Travel can run holidays there.

"Seventy-six people, all civilians and most of them women and children, were martyred during the operation by coalition forces in Shindand district of Herat province," the ministry said.

The dead were "19 women, seven men and the rest children all under 15 years of age," it said.

"The interior ministry, while expressing its profound regret because of this incident which happened by accident, has sent a delegation of 10 people to the area and more details will be announced once the investigation is completed".

If the death toll is confirmed it would be one of the highest for civilians in the battle to fight the extremist Taliban, who were ousted during a US-led invasion in 2001.

The ministry said an unknown number of civilians were also wounded, with some of them in a critical condition.

The police chief for western Afghanistan, Akramuddin Yawer, had also said 76 people were killed in the incident and 15 houses were destroyed in strikes. "Taliban are included but their number is unknown," he said.

The killing of women and children is going to turn the Afghanistanis away from the NATO forces. Our forces in Afghanistan are being forced to use airstrikes and artillery in a guerrilla war. The lesson has not been learnt that airpower will not win a guerrilla war. Airpower is being used because we do not have enough troops to do the job. The US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped in the whole of WWII.

"More bombs were dropped by American planes in the Quang Tri province in Vietnam than in the whole of Europe in World War II," said Tony Edmonds, professor of history at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, and author of the book The War in Vietnam. "It's one of the most bombed places on the planet. Of course, 10 to 15 percent of those bombs never exploded—and are just rusting away in the jungle."

The US and its allies are using the same tactics in Afghanistan that were tried and failed in Vietnam. This war is likely to end in exactly the same way.

That is a valid point, alrthough it is also understood that every soldier hopes/expects to be part of the victory parade.

What is distinctive in such as this escapade in Afghanistan, is that the US,eg, is so derisive of its allies.  Perhaps the French are equally contemptuous of the US. There is, in fact, no united opposition...it is fragmented and often hostile to other forces supposedly on the "same side".  Interesting.

It never ceases to amaze me that countries believe their soldiers should be free from being shot after they have invaded and occupied someone else's country.

"French troops 'killed by Nato jets'

Sarkozy said he had no regrets about sending 700 more troops to Kabul REUTERS

Reports that 10 French soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan after being mistakenly attacked by Nato aircraft are to be "looked into," officials for the military alliance have said.

France's Le Monde newspaper quoted French soldiers who had survived the ambush near Kabul on Monday saying they were hit in a "friendly fire" incident.

The soldiers told the newspaper they waited for four hours for back-up after being ambushed.

But when Nato planes finally arrived they hit French troops after missing their target, the newspaper quoted the soldiers as saying.

A Nato official said on Wednesday: "I have nothing substantive to confirm or deny this particular suggestion. ..."

Oops.

And all that publicity. Don’t expect any news retraction methinks at the same level as the initial news announcements-every 15mins on ABC NewsRadio. Would explain the condition of the bodies. No doubt final confirmation will be in REALLY small print.

Does this mean that Moslems will not be targeted in France and the American areas will be instead? Ho-hum.

All this for the pipeline to India. Ah well.

Hey Dylan, hope you will cover any final retraction and the reaction and (lack of?) reporting to the same extent and analysis level – should, of course, the US have bombed the French to pieces as this Reuters report suggests. Hmm, maybe Reuters is a bit less "sound" now it lost one of its own to flechettes. Hmmm.

So, why are we there again? Osama? Keep down an Islamic government? "Stop terrorism" WMD rapid monkey attacks etc....Why are we there? Evidence? Now, that would be a discussion worth having in the media before we lose more young lives and limbs.

Cheers

Throughout history, the wars soldiers fear are the ones where military muscle is not backed up with political will and skill. The Americans lost in Vietnam because they were neither prepared to fight to the knife nor clever enough to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. But big armies can beat insurgencies. The British did it in Malaya and it looks as if the US and the Iraqis are doing it in Iraq now. The war in Afghanistan can be won, but only if the allies take it seriously. If they don't, there will be more casualty statements such as the French one this week.

An extract from an editorial piece in the Australian.

With the Taliban closing in on Kabul it is time for the politicians to either withdraw our troops from Afghanistan or put enough troops on the ground to win the war.

A former US commander has said that the number required to do the job would be about 400,000.

In an interview to Spiegel, a German magazine, the outgoing ISAF Commander Mc Neill confessed having inadequate trained force to effectively counter terrorism in Afghanistan.

NATO has only 47,000 soldiers instead of a required strength of 400,000 with a shortfall of 260,000 men.

Where would the extra troops come from? Is the US and other countries including Australia willing to reintroduce conscription? Or will they just put the burden on troops already at breaking point using a stop loss program?

Stop-loss, in the United States military, is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date.

Let's face: it we do not have the political will to win the war in Afghanistan and we should withdraw immediately. To do anything else is putting all our troops at risk for little or no gain. It is a rerun of Vietnam armchair generals urging more action but not willing to pay the price themselves.

Accuse you of being cryptic, that is?

I wouldn't take any notice of my views, if I were you.  Obviously, they're irrelevant to our society....hence Guantanamo et al. 

We have seen, in Russia, how outsiders saw and reacted to our economic system. We will see in the future, the way that we showed and taught others to treat individuals.

"Now, why did we go to Afghanistan again?"

Gross Destructive Profit, er, GDP.....

That is US GDP - we should stick to blowing up Tasmania.

"O'Reilly has at least one thing explicitly wrong there".

O'Reilly has a lot wrong there. That was my point. Being factual, or correct, has absolutely nothing to do with his popularity: it is in the promotion of emotion. And, endorsing "old Europe" as decadent, cowardly, effete is endorsing popular opinion. As he does, so successfully.

The concept of allies, united in a common cause and with a concern about the fate of their friends, has, as Dylan Kissane points out , apparently been quite lost in Afghanistan.

...Richard Tonkin, is so obviously wrong, so obviously wicked, so obviously a contradiction of every value, hope dream and wish that I once understood that we stood for, that I usually cannot bear to bring it into my consciousness.

So, I haven't seen that transcript. But, now I will.

Originally it was presented to us as "getting Osama Bin Laden" - a legitimate idea at the time. It is cynical of me to suggest that we weren't likely to long pursue the son of people who were not only family friends, economic allies, but given extraordinary privileges after 9/11....but, in fact, that aim soon faded away. So why are we there?

Dylan Kissane says that these deaths "will harden the resolve of the French to bring peace to Afghanistan." Cynical again to suggest that the withdrawal of all western troops would quickly bring Afghanistan closer to peace.

The Northern Alliance and the Taliban are evidently very similar. No one there has asked us to sort out their squabble.

\Why can't we leave these people alone?

Napoleon loved maps; he was also born on my birthday; that's two out of three things we have in common. Napoleon's understanding and use of maps and terrian were a major reason for his military successes.

I reckon NB would never have had delusions of invading and occupying such geography taking into account the home team who are always quite happy to do what they have done for yonks. Fight the silly buggers who dare invade - for ever how long it takes.

When it's all over and the silly buggers go home (as always) the home team fight amongst themselves - as they have done for yonks.

We ain't gunna win in the Stan, none of the silly buggers have yet; you can read it in the map.

So that makes three things Napoleon and yours truly have in common. We would stay away from the Stan and leave it to the silly buggers.

One day the COW will retire hurt from the Stan and with nothing to show (sans tears, sorrow and lots of bullshit from politicians) we will wonder what the fuck we silly buggers were thinking.

BTW; wasn't it all about getting OBL, can't remember really and whatever happened to OBL anyway?

PS. On October 7th this year we will enter our eighth year of fighting in the Stan (for whatever the reason) - and things are getting worse - you don't need a map to get the feeling  this adventure will end up like all the rest.

The immensely popular (on Fox) Bill O'Reilly says that "once again the US is trying to do a noble thing...improve the lives of people was around the world, and protect our own lives at the same time."

"Some Nato countries like Canada, Britain, Australia and Poland are aggressive in the fight", he says. "Others are not."

Undoubtedly the French are included in the "others".

This is a great leap forward from his previous broadcasts, where he has said that the US soldiers are the only ones fighting, and those from other countries are cowards, hiding in safe places.

The slight acknowledgement of these French deaths from the US administration perhaps suggests that they take their opinion from Bill O'Reilly.

Michael: "Are those Dylan's personal thoughts or those of the general French public?"

As I acknowledged from the outset, it’s hard to sum up the feelings of an entire country in a few words. I think, though, that it’s fairly representative of how the French are feeling and a couple of things this morning have reinforced this view for me.

First and foremost is the editorial in this morning’s Liberation. Liberation is the major left-wing daily newspaper with circulation up around the 140,000 mark. It’s editorial this morning was headed “Tragique nécessité” and, roughly translated, it reads in part:

How to win a war militarily unwinnable...

This is the challenge facing the French soldiers with the other forces of democratic countries present in Afghanistan. The courageous sacrifice of ten of them (and 21 wounded), the embodiment of greatness and military service, shows that this war that has lasted for September 11 can hardly find a solution on the ground. Driven by a ruthless willingness to death, the Taliban have almost managed to encircle Kabul, to deprive the lawful government control over a large part of the territory and make the mission of international forces increasingly dangerous. In an old military proverb there is new meaning: you can do everything with a bayonet except sit on it.

The worst solution would clearly be the withdrawal. Legitimate, unlike the war in Iraq...the intervention in Afghanistan was a tragic necessity.

Who would want to offer anything except for a ringing victory against the most violent Islamist fanatics? But the solution, even if it requires military supremacy, can only be political...The courage of soldiers requires intelligence policies...

To me this suggests that even for the mainstream left the question is not “should we be there?” but “how should we win there?”. Questions are raised as to the policy and strategy of the NATO forces but not their place as part of the international force in Afghanistan.

Over at Le Monde there are nearly 90 comments on yesterday’s online story about the deaths near Kabul. In the comments you find a fair bit of difference in the views of the commenters, though I wonder if this is reflective of the country or the proportion of the people who chat about politics online. Whatever the case, there exist a broader variety of views than on the cable news and in the papers. These views include those who are adamant that sticking and fighting is the right move:

The war in Afghanistan is a just war not like the Iraq fiasco! It would be crazy to withdraw...Let's be supportive of our soldiers and proud of belonging to the Western world that can sacrifice his men out of love of Liberty – Stephane C

Those who see oil and the US behind the deaths:

Our guys are dying for U.S. oil (and a little for Total, but so little ...) The attacks of 2001 were a great excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. History will judge... – Franz C

And there are those who don’t question the engagement but, like Liberation, urge that the strategy must be effective for the troops to succeed:

The soldiers certainly deserve respect. To ask questions is not to insult them, au contraire. Afghanistan is a harsh country, very marked by Islam. To send a few thousand soldiers there, seen primarily as non-Muslims, in the belief that we will be able to defeat the Taliban is to show great naivety. The duty of the politicians is to set clear goals and give, in the case of a military intervention, ways to overcome the enemy. – Jackpote

There’s even a couple that are strongly supportive of the war:

It's disrespectful to the memory of the victims to say that these soldiers died for a doubtful reason. The fight against the Taliban is no doubtful reason. What is doubtful is a call not to wage war against the Taliban on behalf of the anti-Sarkozy groups or the regular Ameriphobes...These soldiers that face the green fascism [colloquialism for Islamism over here- DK] are the honour of our country. – Kamel

There’s obviously debate, then, Michael, but it is not a debate that – as yet – seems to be anywhere other than online. With all the cable news channels, the print media and all of the political parties (save for Le Pen and, I’m guessing here, the Revolutionary Communist League that will release a statement later today) committed to staying and winning in Afghanistan any debate is muted.

Does that put you on the fringe left? Maybe in France – but different countries have different political contexts. A voter from Australia who supports private hospital cover, wants to make it easy to choose private education for their kids, thinks that HECS is a pretty good thing and that cutting back on the dole for people who don’t even bother to look for a job is a good thing – your typical centre-right voter in Australia? - would find themselves at least on the right-wing of the governing centre-right UMP party and probably even further to the right and voting for one of the smaller, less-mainstream right parties as I did when I voted here for the first time. In Australia I am a Liberal party voter, here I am a minor party voter (the Mouvement pour la France which picks up about 2% of the total vote and is considered a "conservative, traditionalist and economically liberal party”). Different contexts, different politics and a different location for where one fits on the left-right spectrum.

Michael de Angelos: "I certainly believe that going into Afghanistan was a mistake."

I know. It's not like Iraq. Someone should tell Kevin Rudd.

Richard:  Ninth for the day, Eliot.

"There is no real debate about whether the French should be in Afghanistan and – save for the fringe left and fringe right – there is no serious political party or group calling for withdrawal. While all would recognise, like my neighbour, that more deaths are not only possible but probable, I doubt this will dissuade them from their support for the mission."

As I would think is the case here Dylan. There was, from memory, large accord on the "mission" in Afghanistan from its conception.

It is worth wondering where the "project" in Afghanistan might now be had the US administration the attention span of a fifteen year old rather than an eight. And that demeans eight year olds around the globe.

There was no absolute urgent need to invade Iraq when it did. That need was palpably manufactured. In the rush to Saddam's Oil Ministry the US ceded Afghanistan to those who were interested - largely "our" warlord thugs, the Northern Alliance. All since has been an involved process of patching the competing power blocks whilst the Taliban (and other "warlords") gradually aggrandise themselves.

The US is in no position to commit further troops to Afghanistan. Its commitment levels in Iraq are only made possible by the employment of an army of mercenaries that is larger than its military force and makes it possible to avoid a draft.

The US, having been served its dozen natural oysters for entree, went straight to the dessert in Iraq. Afghanistan, the main meal, suffers. We have not abandoned them though Tony Blair. Just neglected - for a far juicier prize - might be all.

Father Park

It's always handy to get a report like this from the "inside" and from a person living in the local area. I've wondered how the French would react to these deaths – indeed, I was surprised and had no knowledge that French troops were actually there (considering I still get silly email jokes about the French from Yankee friends).

The only think I question in Dylan's report: "There is no real debate about whether the French should be in Afghanistan and – save for the fringe left and fringe right ".

Are those Dylan's personal thoughts or those of the general French public?

I certainly believe that going into Afghanistan was a mistake. I suppose I could be from the "fringe left" but I doubt it.

"Our soldiers should not be killed for Uncle Sam," he said.

- Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Says it all, really.

Mr Sarkozy announced French reinforcements to Afghanistan at a NATO summit in April, drawing fierce criticism at home from left-wing opponents who see the move as a sign of French alignment with US policy.

Following a raucous debate in parliament, the Socialist opposition however lost its bid to pass a no-confidence vote against Mr Sarkozy over his decision to send the extra troops.

The far-right also weighed in with similar criticism today.

"These soldiers were doing their duty, but they did not die for France. They died in an unending war that the United States is waging in that country for its own interests," said far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

"Our soldiers should not be killed for Uncle Sam," he said.

NATO is supporting the weak government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and fighting an insurgency led by the Taliban movement which was ousted from Kabul in late 2001.

The president, who paid a brief visit to Afghanistan in December, pushed for expanding France's military role in Afghanistan despite polls showing public opinion did not support such a move.

It is not very often that I end up on the same side as Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The tragic loss of these ten French paratroopers will make strange bedfellows of us all. It is obvious that the Taliban are getting stronger in Afghanistan. The generals are asking for more troops but most countries are at the peak of their commitment. The result is that the troops are vulnerable and the death toll rises. We do not have the political will to increase troop levels to a capacity to win the war so we should withdraw immediately.

U.S. commanders are asking the Pentagon for up to 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

The request was a subject of discussion when President Bush met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon on Wednesday.

AND

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon. "Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

"The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks, as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate," Mullen said. ". . . We all need to be patient. As we have seen in Iraq, counterinsurgency warfare takes time and it takes a certain level of commitment."

Former ISAF Commander General McNeill.

McNeill: Each army has a formula as to how to determine what you need in the way of security forces for a counter insurgency. If you use the US doctrine, which is based on population and land mass, the figure for Afghanistan comes out well over 400,000 troops.

We are putting our troops lives at risk by not giving them the support they require to do the job.