I can't see this one going by without some major reprisals. There is going to be mayhem over the next few weeks, an any Westerner will be classed as fair game.

We went in there to get rid of Bin Laden, his AQA mates and the Taliban who were offering them safe haven. The job got done pretty quickly, and that was the time to hand power to local warlords and leave.

We then saw mission creep into reconstruction and 'democracy'. Reconstruction? There was nothing to reconstruct!

The sooner we pull out the better. The place has always been a sh1thole and always will be. Even if there is some semblance of normality at the moment, it will go to rat poop when we leave.

It's worth making the point that in June 2010 the Indian/Pakistani journalist Fareed Zakaria quoting US and Afghan sources claimed Al Qaeda has been decimated fighting coalition forces and is now down to no more than 50-100 active members. As a fighting force it is finished.

Which means the overwhelming majority of attacks on occupying forces are by the people of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in May of 2010 NATO lost over 100 troops!

I should mention that Fareed (who writes extensively on Middle Eastern affairs for Newsweek) SUPPORTED the war in Iraq and can hardly be described as a liberal.

The problem was that Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and much of the core leadership escaped after Tora Bora. That left the West with a conundrum. They don't really want to be occupying Afghanistan at all but if they pull out the the Taliban would have been back in numbers and retaken power in no time, with the support of the ISI and foreign manpower, of course. Al-Qaeda would be back in a safe haven with all the freedom and training/recruitment capability that gave them.

So the only option was to carry on the hunt and keep striking at AQ and the Taliban while building Afghan security forces and infrastructure strong enough, professional enough, and militarily and politically capable of resisting the Taliban and their supporters.

I think you're absolutely right. Afghanistan has always been a powder keg of warlords and clan rivalries, where money above all else buys loyalty (a fact the CIA knew full well in 2001). It's likely things will disintegrate again within a couple of years should the West pull all support.


I think you're forgetting a rather major player in Afghanistan? The Taliban?

AQ as a ground fighting force have been insignificant for years despite their roots, and is been little more than a loosely linked network of 'cells' and other groups in various countries linked by a common ideology. Until 2001 Afghanistan their ground capability was stronger with the country acting as the central hub for training and recruitment bases, a financing operation, the figureheads in residence and the support of the Taliban and the ISI.

The fight at the moment is to prevent a Taliban resurgence and keep them out of power.

Why are we doing that again? I forget.

Didn't work out all that well last time.

Oh right, yeah. Well so long as we're not brutalising our young men at a cost of millions of pounds a day for nothing.

We're not. Rest easy.

So, if it's down to money buying loyalty, why aren't we buying the poppy?

Buy opium from the warlords, bring the lads home. Win, win for mine

I have thought this a good idea for ages, buy it all off them, burn it, they get a good income and we control the stuff.

You can buy the loyalty of the average civilian, but not a load of religious nutjobs intent on enforcing some mentalist version of Sharia and executing/torturing everyone in sight, such as females getting an education. Or anyone listening to music. Or flying kites.

I forget the exact details, but in 2001 the CIA was having trouble convincing a warlord he should side with them. After a few days it came to light the Taliban had bribed him not to cooperate with the US. The CIA simply outbid them, being careful not to offend. "We'd be grateful if you would take this of this wad of cash into your safekeeping for us." That sort of thing happened several times.