Also, you can't go handing out missiles to people...
I'm not suggesting we give the Northern Alliance (or today the tribes of them) long range missiles. I'm suggesting that we give
radios (like those people had in Vietnam) so that they can call in our support, and so that we can drop the 500 pound bombs from the safety of 20,00
feet (for them). Or so that we can indeed order the firing of long range missiles to defined targets.
This prevents the risk that these “special weapons” can fall into the wrong hands, and leaves us fully in control in case a tribal alliance may
break down, or become corrupted.
the Northern Alliance takes over, and then becomes the new Taliban.
As for the fear that the Northern Alliance (or today just the tribes of them
) could take over and become the new Taliban I’ve outlined the
solution to that…
A tribe, or groups of tribes, may indeed try to start imposing the anti western, authoritarian religiously fanatic, doctrine of the Taliban. But as
long as we have agents on the ground, or communicating with native people working for us on the ground, we can get a pretty good idea what is going
week to week, month to month.
If someone is backstabbing us it is only question of a few gold bars, U.S dollars, and light weapons; as well as adequate knowledge of local tribal
politics (obtained through our spy-networks) to select the right tribes to eliminate whoever is causing us the problems.
The point is that we can have other people doing everything our troops do; but at a much, much lower cost in terms of both lives and finance. True
they may not be as well trained as our boys but that in a way is a good thing; because it means in an exceptional emergency we have more of an
advantage to eliminate them, as well as ensuring the training does not leak out to our enemies in Afghanistan or indeed worldwide.
Besides one thing any knowledge of the Afghan tribal warrior class will tell you, is that what they lack in training, they make up in both numbers and
willingness to die. (So be it for their tribal structures).
I stick to my point that we are fools to be using troops in places like Afghanistan; that not only is it the same mistake of the Soviet
Union, but that it is also not politically sustainable at home (in the long or medium term).
I did say I was against giving tribal people long range missiles, and I am. But things similar to RPG’s aren’t so bad, because although there is
still a risk of them moving to abroad; you have to remember that places like Afghanistan are full of them; and that no matter what you say about it,
it is (pragmatically) too late to undo this legacy of the past. That said I'm not supportive of tempting fate by flooding Afghanistan with them; but
I am certainly in favour of policies like exchanging the spent launchers for new ones (as a spent one is of course proof of a used one), as well as
rationed input into the numbers in circulation.
The point is that any agent who can supply both weapons and money will be nothing but an asset to those acting as the pawns of our foreign policy, and
As for those who fight both as these, sure our agents are their enemies. The problem is our western agents will (99% of the time) be too far away from
them to be targeted. And that when danger is close, it is only fellow Afghanis (working for us) they can have any chance of killing (if they can
Therefore apart from a few massively unfortunate individuals (wrong place, wrong time, sort of thing) the number of Western lives lost in Afghanistan
will be limited to several western year (and that’s probably at absolute most).
And the cost would so cheap. Providing we do not abandon Afghanistan like we did last time (i.e. withdraw our agents, cut funding for our knowledge of
Afghanistan local politics, as well as for it’s manipulation in favour of pro-western, western-neutral outcomes) we cannot fail.
Unlike now there will be a lot less mums and dads in the U.K and United States wondering what became of their brave sons and daughters.
The policy I'm putting forward is politically sustainable, cheap, and will put us in as powerful (if not more powerful) position to
manipulate-control Afghan on a very local level, with its door wide open to both our mercy and wrath.
Seriously that was a very good history lesson, but what was your point in relation to Afghanistan-Iraq, our future?
I agree about having a strong and efficient military; it’s just that in order for it to be efficient, and not open to
defeat abroad and politically at home (something our militarily may currently be defeated by both of these) then we need to stop behaving like a
superpower confronting another super power. Instead we need to behave like a super power confronting a: splintered, backward, un centrally organised,
and highly undermine able, enemy; which is exactly what we are fighting.
We are not using the security services for abroad (MI6) nearly enough to tackle what is essentially a security problem. We make the features of our
enemy I’ve just listed seem like advantages, because they are advantages as long as we aren’t exploiting them using the right tools.
Blair and Bush have behaved like people confronting another superpower, and though (maybe) well intentioned, it has led us to the brink of defeat; is
already showing itself to be overall
counter productive as far as kicking up the sands. There is no way the gold, silver, bullets and blood
spent would be counter productive if we were using a more traditionalist effective-approach.
Mine is one to address the political questions at home, and financial, productivity questions occurring from abroad.