Sunny Hundal weighs up the pros and cons in a calculated manner worthy of the best US strategist or British imperialist: ‘it’s better for us to try to eliminate the Taliban militarily, as the civil war that would ensue if we withdrew would entail far greater loss of civilian life’. Well, that’s a) a judgement call that is extremely hard to make, in both practical and ethical terms (can we really say that the loss of, say, 20,000 lives through our actions makes the loss of 40,000 lives in a civil war we thereby prevent justifiable? Ask the relatives of the 20,000, I’d say); and b) the very fact of our being there militarily has created and escalated the conflict to the extent that we have put ourselves in the position to destroy those putative 20,000 civilian lives and still end up with a civil war if our endeavours there prove unsuccessful, as is likely.

That’s the other side of the equation: very low likelihood of success, i.e. that the Taliban will ever give up fighting in Afghanistan. Time for a change of tack, I’d say; especially if we should be concentrating on Pakistan, as SH says.

(Example) reasons for:
- Stability (needs to be defined much more clearly – you can create a graveyard and call it peace)
- To help the oppressed (needs also to be defined clearly especially so the implications can be drawn about where else we should intervene militarily – eg if the formulation can be applied to invading China or 50 other countries, say, then is this the logic of your position)
- To stop terrorism (is this a general principle, or a selective one – particular terrorism by and against particular groups only, because of who you feel threatened by – and if general, does this mean that anyone interpreting western actions as terrorist at any time is also justified in using political violence?)

Against:
- It is imperialist (imperialism both needs to be defined and then explained why it is more important to oppose imperialism than to pursue the pro-war principles)
- It is ineffective (this is similar to an argument that it is wasteful, but not clearly a powerful moral principle)
- It is counterproductive (another pragmatic rather than purely principled argument, and it has to be clarified in what sense it is the manner or the fact of intervention that is counterproductive, and what the preferred reasons and methods would be and why).

In my view some selective interventions have positive humanitarian outcomes, and can be followed by relatively genuine self-determination. But this should not blind us to the geopolitical interests they also serve and the longer term consequences of legitimising selective interventions by the powerful.

As there are competing principles, surely politicians should be eager for a way to sort out what makes a conflict just, to avoid allowing any intervention to claim legitimacy according to whatever principle can be made to fit the interests of the intervenor. But there is little discussion on this issue and little political interest in strengthening the UN or a similar institution less beholden to big powers, to take humanitarian interventions out of the hands of self-interested States.

I guess my conclusion is that the humanitarian principles behind intervention (while interesting for academics) are not politically important. They are selectively used by people who believe in military solutions to their problems and want to legitimise their fighting for power over territory.

Supposed humanitarian principles won’t help me understand the ethics of the invasion of Afghanistan (or resistance to it) until the advocates think through what the consequences would be if they applied the principles they are claiming in a consistent way, then also act accordingly.

Obama increased involvement in Aghanistan is only going to lead to a vastly bigger war in Pakistan – which has already begun. Obama will have turned Bush’s 2 wars into 3. And all of them have no end in sight.

So much for all you dummies who thought he was going to bring peace on earth.

And I did point out that I do not claim to have a quick solution to Afghanistan’s problems. I certainly empathise with what people are trying to do with their ‘interventions’ i don’t think i have to point that out. There’s no need to get all high and mighty -for us it is an academic discussion, of course it is, all of us are ‘pontificating’ – we have the luxury to.

Perhaps my point of view is cynical to those who think interventions have the effect they set out to, i’m just a cynical realist in many ways, particularly when it comes to war which i have experienced. I know full well saying what’s ‘right and what’s wrong’ in war is very difficult and this is particularly well-observed in the heat of battle.

Therefore the point is always, battle should be the last resort. And when battle seems endless, and with no clear defined enemy or theatre, it seems pretty futile to me.

But by all means, let’s carry on.

“Great quote and interesting perspective. But with all due respect (and I have a lot of time and respect fot your views) the situation and the context are different.”

Thanks , Twain did have a way with words, but i think the best writers are best because sometimes they work in an out-of-world context and aren’t swayed by the pressures that trouble us in our ordinary life. There’s something about why novels and fiction carry universal lessons about the human condition – they survive and live beyond us. I am not saying all writers have right on their side – as some promote pretty dodgy politics and should just do their art.

i agree with you, time and context is different.

But i really do think that struggles for influence, everywhere in the world’s strategic regions, will stay the same over time. We might find that political parties come and go, and domestic policies change with new governments. But changes to foreign policy and what’s deemed relevant to national interest in foreign affairs more or less stays the same. On average a country’s foreign interests change every 100 years – at a guess. Motives for influence and explanations might differ every 50 years to reflect changed times, but the significance of these regions do not change. Which might explain continued interest in that region for much of the 20th century and now 21st.

Bullshit… India never had any significant dealings with Afghanistan before Taliban. ISI propped up the Talibs to keep a lid on their own bloody troubles in NWFP and to have ’strategic depth’ against India. (read: Operate training camps in Afghanistan to train cannon fodder to bleed India with a thousand cuts.)…

I don’t know what an expansion of Indian interest in Afghanistan will do.

Pakistan’s propped up Taliban, Indians are building the infrastructure.. I don’t know which one is constructive!

But you are right in a lot of this. I am never usually keen to say I am totally for or against any of this as my opinion doesn’t really count for much in the decision making. Maybe events in Mumbai will unite the more sensible elements of India and Pakistan. A friend of mine was suggesting the excellent doco about Mumbai be shown in both countries for such reasons. Ideals are so often sabotaged by politics that it is very difficult to talk about good options but I accept a lot of what you say here. It is a problem which isn’t easy to solve.

I don’t think it is appropriate to make those comments without knowing personal situations or family situations.

Like someone asked in another thread – “I wonder where is all this moral outrage(superiority) coming from?”

I reiterate the simple question again — Would you have supported the Indian intervention in Bangladesh liberation war or not? And if we could have your reasons please?

********************************

On another note – no one advocated just the war here. Everyone here believes that we must invest in reconstruction and development. And that assumption was way OTT as they say. And we all know that “Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups”

Over the past few years, over 4000 miles of new roads have been built in Afghanistan -

Over 2000 schools have been built — which cater to over 6 million children of whom 1.5 million are girls.

Infant mortality (thanks to new hospitals and medical aid) have fallen drastically and almost 80% of the Afghan population now at least have access to healthcare – compared to 8% during the Taliban rule.

The trade just between Afghanistan and India is rising to almost 700 million dollars with India itself not the richest putting in almost over 500 million dollars in the past few years.

UK just committed to over 500 million to Afghanistan over next 4 years and another 600 odd to Pakistan for purely reconstruction and creating opportunities and delivering public services. I could highlight more statistics from different countries and projects undertaken.

These reconstruction efforts would become futile unless there is security in Afghanistan. The only way we can help them develop and sustain a better quality of life as well as opportunities is through a relatively secure and safe Afghanistan.

That is why our troops need to be there — so that what you pontificate earlier:

“What we need are CONSTRUCTIVE efforts: getting the women out of their homes, making it possible for young people in the country to see a NON-MILITARY future for themselves.”…..

can be achieved and sustained. It could only happen if we can make Afghanistan relatively stable and secure. We cannot eradicate terrorism but we can minimise its impact. And military power is needed to support the other activities.

And it is already happening — yes it needs to go a long way but it is taking place. And Afghanistan is a far better place and is far better equipped to participate in today’s world than what it was 7 years ago.

How do you get the women out if Taliban go on burning young girls with acid bulbs?

Retrospectively, maybe Nato especially UK should have sat on its behind while genocide was going on in former Yugoslavia. I do not think that would have been the better option. I think the Kosovars would have appreciated that right? NOT.

Or against the entire world’s opinion India supporting the liberation war in Bangladesh p– no India should have just blocked the borders and looked the other way? Would that have been a better option?

Or in Sierra Leone –

*************************************

Wars stop when one side wins. The shortest route to the end of a war is to speed up that process.

Now, NATO have enough firepower they could probbaly pick either side and have them win. But (going back to) supporting the Taliban would be a pretty hard sell, and in any case the Afghan governbment is not only stronger but somewhat less evil. And most importantly, unlike the Taliban, it has no ambitions to go off conquering parts of other countries, or even attempt to start up some new Islamic pseudo-empire.

The longest wars are between equally matched sides, with fluctuating external support.

Wars don’t stop when western cameras aren’t present. Ross Kemp never visited the front-line of the Iran-Iraq war, but that didn’t stop that being one of the longest and nestiests conflict of recent times…

You can only really and truly claim to take war seriously when you are involved yourself, when you are willing to risk your own life.

Presumably you can only advocate an alternative approach – whatever it is you think the afghans want – if you go there and actually do it yourself. Putting your own life at risk.

Because quite clearly it would be hypocrisy otherwise.

Personally i understand and don’t have any problem with the fact that in most democratic and free societies (and certainly in the case of the UK and US) you choose your function and type of input to a situation or problem. A soldier may volunteer to fight, a politican may choose to stand for office and direct strategy; someone working for an ngo may simply work to collect money whilst their colleague goes into the field.

I don’t think the passion or commitment of one individual in that instance could be said to be greator than another.

Besides if you’re disabled and advocate interventionism you’re truly buggered, eh?

So I suggest you war supporters – if you want to be taken at all seriously – come up with a simple schema on how you ACTUALLY see military action —-> stable society.

The military action results in the despotic taliban being kept from taking control of afghanistan whilst the afghan government and security forces develop to a point when we’re not needed.

No one can ’stabilise’ any ‘country’ – end of story. this is a myth that international relations departments seem to have perpetuated. People who think in terms of ‘foreign policy’ seem to buy into it.

Off the top of my head, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and of late Haiti. In each of those cases you can find instances of ‘failure’ in the sense of the institutions failing to consider a particular situation, but on the whole those areas have a greater ’stability’ after the intervention than before.

Yeah keep being fed propaganda and believing it is your own opinion, go on.

Oh id much rather believe in the ‘propoganda’ of rigorous polls than opinion pieces in magazines.

Still ill keep what you said in mind when newsweek disagrees with something you say.

I don’t think anyone can claim that they have accurate information from Afghanistan sitting in the UK

Given the context of the discussion i assume this relates to the opinions (political or otherwise) of the afghan people.

Noone sitting in westminster can claim they have accurate information about what anyone in britain is truly thinking, the entire reason for the existence of political advisors/focus groups and, yes, polls are to shed light on that lack of information.

Now i wouldn’t presume to suggest i know what every afghan is thinking rather the same methodology that is used everywhere else in the world to sample public opinion was used in afghanistan and there has never been any emprical evidence whatsoever that the afghans are viewing the taliban in a more favorable light.

I wrote that above because of what Munir said @ 7
”The hatred towards Islam of many American (and some British ) soldiers is the Talibans greatest recruiting sergeant”.

Hatered towards Islam in the ranks? Really?
I’m sure there’s some ignorance and prejudice (from these young men/boys). I was just wondering if people who are supporting the aims of this war had any feelings for the men who are fighting it, (on the NATO side). How do you feel (if you are supporting the war against the Taleban) about images on the news tonight of eight dead British troops being paraded through some small Wiltshire town.

I have to admit to feeling manipulated by the media when I passively watch things like that on the news (which I’m about to do in half an hour at 7 O clock).

It’s said we have to fight the Taleban. but how has the rest of Afghanistan been fairing? The other half of the country rulled by Northen Allience warlords?
I haven’t heard much out of Mazar-e-sharif for a while.
Is General Dostum still in charge?

If you support the NATO troops, should you watch ”Ross Kemp in Afghanistan?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbl_bx8lTzk&feature=related
Does anybody think that these British squaddies are muppets and mugs?
I myself have mixed feelings about them.

Great quote and interesting perspective. But with all due respect (and I have a lot of time and respect fot your views) the situation and the context are different.

I don’t think much differently than what you present.

And dare I say, the world is a much smaller place now.

**************************************

Sonia – I disagree

But the points you raise they deserve well thought out responses. I have a lot of respect for your views — although I often do not agree.

Unfortunately, I have to run now but I would at least try to establish my case later on.

But before I go, if you were an adult when the Bangladesh liberation war was going on and you were an Indian citizen – would you have supported the intervention by India?

If so, why so? If not, why not?

Have to run now but I will respond.
*************************************

But thank you both for enriching this debate.