Sunday 22 August 2021

Afghanistan

 I suspect that Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party's current leader, will not be pleased by Tony Blair's belligerent entry into the debate on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.  It is a stark reminder that it was the Labour Party, with Blair obsequiously  coat-tailing of the American President, that got us involved in this debacle in the first place.

In response to the devastating attacks on the US on 11th September 2001 President Bush declared a "war on terror" and chose Afghanistan as the enemy.  Tony Blair dutifully supported the move, but it was the wrong move.  

The attack on the Twin Towers was an horrendous, evil, terrifying and criminal act, and that is how it should have been countered:  by police action.  

The police  could have been international, preferably directed by the UN, probably armed, preferably involving participants from the countries surrounding Afghanistan (where the terrorists might have been hiding).  The US contingent could have played a leading role, but with international authority.

Such a  police investigation would first of all try to track down the criminals responsible for the atrocity, along with others "aiding and abetting" the crime (which may or may not have involved the then government of Afghanistan, the Taliban) and, having identified them, brought them to trial and justice.

Instead the "war" has cost the lives of over 100 000  Afghanistan civilians,  including countless children, 70 000 members of the Afghanistan security forces, almost 2 500 US soldiers (and 2 000 injured) and almost 500 UK soldiers. (For precise details see here.)  

And the Taliban are now in as strong, if not stronger, position than they were in 2001.

 The much maligned Jeremy Corbyn failed to follow Blair's lead and voted against our participation in  the War. I suspect all the Tory MPs voted for it.  I'm not sure about the Liberal Democrats.  Whether we did or not, we learned our lesson and Liberal Democrat MPs, under Charles Kennedy's leadership, unanimously voted against our participation in the Iraq war which followed two years later, and with similar disastrous consequences.

It is sad that in neither conflict did the British army cover themselves in glory.  We went in claiming to be the "best little army in the world," but had to be rescued by the Americans from both Basra (Iraq) and Helmand (Afghanistan.)  For a meticulously detailed account see Simon Akam's excellent book, "The Changing of the Guard."

The speed of the Taliban's recapture of the country has apparently taken everyone  by surprise. So what is the real value of our much vaunted "intelligence" services.  Or were they just not listened to?

The Afghan Army is accused of cowardice for caving in so easily, but it seems to me they have acted very sensibly.  The almost universal  predictions before the event were that the Taliban would retake control of the country in about 90 days.  So, if the Taliban were  expected to win anyway, why should the Afghani soldiers shed their blood in a doomed attempt simply to delay them.  Much more sensible to pack up and go home.

President Biden's ordering of a somewhat abrupt  departure is curious.  He is an exceptionally experienced politician and it is hard to understand why he should precipitate chaos.  Maybe he felt that to sanction a slower and more orderly departure would simply lead, as so often before, to "just one more heave" to achieve nation-wide pacification.  

Better to quit quickly and decisively.    I look forward to the judgement of history.

In the meantime what can civilised countries do?  

For one thing, answer the telephone.  

For another, welcome unconditionally all Afghan and others involved to settle on our shores.  Yes, we shall get a few bad eggs but bureaucratic delays to sort out the deserving from the undeserving would simply add to the misery we have helped to create.

For the future we must develop the concept of an international police force to deal with future atrocities, and end the the assumption that  the rich and powerful can lumber around the world to impose their will, however affronted they may feel.


Post script (added 24th August).

It is  well worth reading this article written by Labour MP Zarah Sultana:

 https://labourlist.org/2021/08/labour-must-reckon-with-its-past-the-war-on-afghanistan-was-a-catastrophe/


13 comments:

  1. For the future we must develop the concept of an international police force to deal with future atrocities

    What a ridiculous idea. How on Earth would that possibly work? Under what body's authority could such a force possibly operate, and why on Earth would any sensible sovereign country (let alone a corrupt, criminal government!) accept such a body's authority? What would stop the nations supplying the members of such a force from simply recalling their troops rather than allowing them to be used in any operation with which it disagreed?

    What would be the legislative body which would draft the laws this internationall police would be expected to enforce? What moral authority or legitimacy could it possibly have?

    And that's before we even get to the question of what such a force could do when faced with a nuclear-armed state harbouring criminals… ask very very politely for them to be handed over, and then back away?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, an international police force would encounter many difficulties in becoming established and securing acceptance, but that is no reason not to try. We have an International Court of Justice, not perfect but a move in the right direction. An international police force to bring suspects to it for trial is an obvious next step. International justice secured by agreement would be far preferable to the revenge retribution exemplified by the attack on Afghanistan. I suggest you read the article by Zarah Sultana, which I've just discovered and put a link to on the original post.

      Delete
    2. We have an International Court of Justice, not perfect but a move in the right direction

      The International Court of Justice is a totally different thing. It exists to adjudicate disputes between sovereign nations which voluntarily submit themselves to respect its judgements — in effect it's not really a court which can enforce its decisions on unwilling parties, but an arbitration panel which can only operate with the cooperation of the parties.

      You may be thinking of the International Criminal Court, but again, the ICC relies on the wiling co-operation of states to execute, for example, its arrest warrants. the ICC has no authority or ability to force a sovereign state to give up a criminal, or to go in and fetch a criminal from an unwilling state, and it's impossible to imagine any body which would have such authority or ability.

      I suggest you read the article by Zarah Sultana, which I've just discovered and put a link to on the original post.

      It doesn't seem to address the idea of an 'international police force' at all? Did I miss something?

      Delete
    3. Yes, I am thinking of the ICC. Perpetrators of crimes seem to be sent to it, tried and convicted.

      No she doesn't mention an international police force, but she does highlight the evil of revenge retribution by a well-armed group of states.

      Delete
    4. Perpetrators of crimes seem to be sent to it, tried and convicted.

      Yes, after they've lost a civil war, usually, and are handed over by the victorious side. It doesn't go and catch them itself and never would.

      No she doesn't mention an international police force, but she does highlight the evil of revenge retribution by a well-armed group of states.

      You're against the North Atlantic Treaty, then, Article 5 of which commits all the signatories to retaliate against an attack on any one of them, specifically in order to deter an enemy from attacking a weaker member of the organisation because they know that to do so would be to invite retribution from a well-armed group of states?

      Delete
    5. I haven't read the treaty but I suspect that when it was written it was assumed that the "attack" to which all would retaliate would be from a another state rather than a rogue group. It's interesting that President Biden, in response to yesterday's suicide bombing outside the airport, is promising to track down the perpetrators (ie a police style action) rather than attack another country. QED

      Delete
  2. I haven't read the treaty but I suspect that when it was written it was assumed that the "attack" to which all would retaliate would be from a another state rather than a rogue group.

    That is probably what they imagined, but so what? If they'd wanted to specify that they could have, but they didn't; they deliberately left it open, presumably to deal with possible future circumstances. What if, for example, the USSR had not attacked directly but had sponsored a non-state group to do so — you couldn't have the response get bogged down in legal arguments over whether Article 5 applied, when days, indeed, hours, could have been the difference between the survival and destruction of the free world.

    Perhaps more importantly, given the primary purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty was deterrence, you couldn't leave open the possibility that there was a way to avoid (or even just delay) the collective retaliation by using non-state proxies, as that might encourage the USSR to try it and so start the third world war.

    It's interesting that President Biden, in response to yesterday's suicide bombing outside the airport, is promising to track down the perpetrators (ie a police style action) rather than attack another country.

    He's not proposing to extradite the perpetrators and put them in front of an international criminal court, though, is he? He's proposing that the USA unilaterally violates the sovereignty of whichever country they are in by sending an unmanned aerial vehicle to bomb them and anyone who happens to be near them at the time.

    That hardly seems compatible with your 'international police force' idea, does it? I mean it doesn't even involve a trial. Even calling it a 'police style action' seems a long way less than accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was a far from satisfactory response, but at least better than the invasion of a whole country. So a timid step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a far from satisfactory response, but at least better than the invasion of a whole country.

      You think? How would you react if some country started randomly bombing bits of the UK from the air? I think I'd prefer them to be honest about their intentions and invade, because at least then we could fight them off.

      Delete
    2. No, that would promote a war. Better a police action.

      Delete
    3. No, that would promote a war. Better a police action.

      You think if a country — Russia, say — started bombing British citizens in the UK from the air that that wouldn't promote a war?

      I suppose we didn't go to war when they accidentally killed a British citizen while poisoning one of their own, though. Is that the kind of 'police action' you'd be in favour of then, as it stops short of an escalation that would provoke a war?

      Delete
  4. LEGIT FULLZ & TOOLS STORE

    Hello to All !

    We are offering all types of tools & Fullz on discounted price.
    If you are in search of anything regarding fullz, tools, tutorials, Hack Pack, etc
    Feel Free to contact

    ***CONTACT 24/7***
    **Telegram > @leadsupplier
    **ICQ > 752822040
    **Skype > Peeterhacks
    **Wicker me > peeterhacks

    "SSN LEADS/FULLZ AVAILABLE"
    "TOOLS & TUTORIALS AVAILABLE FOR HACKING, SPAMMING,
    CARDING, CASHOUT, CLONING, SCRIPTING ETC"

    **************************************
    "Fresh Spammed SSN Fullz info included"
    >>SSN FULLZ with complete info
    >>CC With CVV (vbv & non vbv) Fullz USA
    >>FULLZ FOR SBA, PUA & TAX RETURN FILLING
    >>USA I.D Photos Front & Back
    >>High Credit Score fullz (700+ Scores)
    >>DL number, Employee Details, Bank Details Included
    >>Complete Premium Info with Relative Info

    ***************************************
    COMPLETE GUIDE FOR TUTORIALS & TOOLS

    "SPAMMING" "HACKING" "CARDING" "CASH OUT"
    "KALI LINUX" "BLOCKCHAIN BLUE PRINTS" "SCRIPTING"
    "FRAUD BIBLE"

    "TOOLS & TUTORIALS LIST"
    =>Ethical Hacking Ebooks, Tools & Tutorials
    =>Bitcoin Hacking
    =>Kali Linux
    =>Fraud Bible
    =>RAT
    =>Keylogger & Keystroke Logger
    =>WhatsApp Hacking & Hacked Version of WhatsApp
    =>Facebook & Google Hacking
    =>Bitcoin Flasher
    =>SQL Injector
    =>Premium Logs (PayPal/Amazon/Coinbase/Netflix/FedEx/Banks)
    =>Bitcoin Cracker
    =>SMTP Linux Root
    =>Shell Scripting
    =>DUMPS with pins track 1 and 2 with & without pin
    =>SMTP's, Safe Socks, Rdp's brute
    =>PHP mailer
    =>SMS Sender & Email Blaster
    =>Cpanel
    =>Server I.P's & Proxies
    =>Viruses & VPN's
    =>HQ Email Combo (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, MSN, AOL, etc.)

    *Serious buyers will always welcome
    *Price will be reduce in bulk order
    *Discount offers will give to serious buyers
    *Hope we do a great business together

    ===>Contact 24/7<===
    ==>Telegram > @leadsupplier
    ==>ICQ > 752822040
    ==>Skype > Peeterhacks
    ==>Wicker me > peeterhacks

    ReplyDelete