The Observer published its editorial on Sunday, 20 July 2008, entilted: “Poorly directed aid increases Afghanistan’s woes” …
Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/20/afghanistan.internationalaidanddevelopment
MD’s view on WordPress:
… Yes, I agree with the general balance of this argument which is well placed, accurate and hits central themes. I have noticed in the past articles from commentators that are either partisan in attitude, without an attempt to balance the difficulties in Afghanistan, or are written from an ad hoc basis.
It is worth re-iterating that Afghanistan is a failed state. In such circumstances, it is not rational to expect a drawdown of military resources. The heavy military presence in Afghanistan is, and will be required for some considerable time yet, in avoiding a bloodier insurrection that would likely arise if those troops were not present. It is equally worth remembering that soldiering is as much about peacekeeping as it is to do with warfare, the roles are poles apart with different types of skills required in adapting to the task at hand.
But, Afghanistan is far more than just protecting the confines of Hamid Karazai’s Kabul. Any leader deserves protection, but to the detriment of everything else? The Taliban has resurfaced, healthy and well-financed from this year’s opium crop, and predominant in both the west and south of the country. Afghanistan has come full-circle, it’s about to enter it again but it requires a different strategy with different tactics. The heavy use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in tracking enemy movements on the ground, for example, has become ineffective as many have been lost to rocket-propelled-grenades or are unable in tracking movements within the fine crevices of the rugged and mountainous terrain of the country. Here-in lies the real intelligence where operatives gather; it is rarely detectable.
Where the Taliban is posing a threat, the use of surgical strike air capability has to remain a key strategy. The military should do all in their power in removing innocent civilians and aid groups from any such areas when heavy bombardments are planned. Allowing the Taliban and their warlords to take further strongholds in Afghanistan is taking the country back post 9/11, where the country was run by Al-Qaeda operatives. The link between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is a close-one, some arguing as it being one and the same thing.
Pakistan remains a nemesis, as it continues to supply arms, weapons and finance into Afghanistan, a bloodline that by now should have been seized upon by the heavy military presence in Afghanistan. The routes of supply are numerable, military tactics have failed in this area and so the war rages on. Military intelligence is weak from within Pakistan, partly because the Pakistani government is reluctant in reforming access by allowing better rights of monitoring by the west. But, if the west is to get a better handle on Afghanistan it requires better co-operation from Pakistan.
© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected
Supplementary:
… “The Taliban are waging a simultaneous three-front war: information, media and military, in a dazzlingly modern insurrection”
Observer, Sunday 27 July 2008
