Afghanistan - just a matter of time?

#1
Here's an interesting take on the development of the war in Affers. It's actually a very much shortened version of a piece Jonathan Neale wrote for "International Socialism" in Autumn 2007.

Theres also an interview with Johnny Rico, who, in spite of the name being reminiscent of a bad Keanu Reeves filum, was stationed in Affers and wrote a book about his experiences there. He's a Septic, by the way.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10145

This article, and the very much longer original version in "International Socialism", just about sums up what I've always felt about the invasion of Affers, but see what you think.

MsG
 
#2
The first Afghan War was in 1838, when the British invaded to make Afghanistan part of the Indian empire. The Afghan barons and warlords did not resist. It was the ordinary people who rose up under the leadership of the village mullahs and slaughtered a whole British army. The British left.
What absolute twaddle. Mohammed Akhbar Khan was no 'Village Mullah'.
 
#3
Tom_of_Bedlam said:
The first Afghan War was in 1838, when the British invaded to make Afghanistan part of the Indian empire. The Afghan barons and warlords did not resist. It was the ordinary people who rose up under the leadership of the village mullahs and slaughtered a whole British army. The British left.
What absolute twaddle. Mohammed Akhbar Khan was no 'Village Mullah'.
No, he was a warlord. That's what the word "khan" means in Pushtu.

And your point is?

MsG
 
#4
Bugsy said:
Theres also an interview with Johnny Rico, who, in spite of the name being reminiscent of a bad Keanu Reeves filum,
Johnny Rico is Starship Troopers, which is a completly different barrel of philosophical fish.
 
#5
Bugsy said:
No, he was a warlord. That's what the word "khan" means in Pushtu.

And your point is?

MsG
That attributing the events of 1841-42 to some pseudo-revolutionary act by the lumpenproleteriat is specious, ideologically motivated and totally historically illiterate.
 
#6
Bugsy said:
Tom_of_Bedlam said:
The first Afghan War was in 1838, when the British invaded to make Afghanistan part of the Indian empire. The Afghan barons and warlords did not resist. It was the ordinary people who rose up under the leadership of the village mullahs and slaughtered a whole British army. The British left.
What absolute twaddle. Mohammed Akhbar Khan was no 'Village Mullah'.
No, he was a warlord. That's what the word "khan" means in Pushtu.

And your point is?

MsG
Presumably that the 2nd paragraph of the blurb is factually incorrect.
It categorically states that it was villagers under religious leaders that threw out the British Army in the 1st Afghan War.
Mohammed Akhbar Khan was not a village religious fella but he was the man who drove out the British Army.
Its a basic historcal inacuracy right at the start
 
#7
jagman said:
Bugsy said:
Tom_of_Bedlam said:
The first Afghan War was in 1838, when the British invaded to make Afghanistan part of the Indian empire. The Afghan barons and warlords did not resist. It was the ordinary people who rose up under the leadership of the village mullahs and slaughtered a whole British army. The British left.
What absolute twaddle. Mohammed Akhbar Khan was no 'Village Mullah'.
No, he was a warlord. That's what the word "khan" means in Pushtu.

And your point is?

MsG
Presumably that the 2nd paragraph of the blurb is factually incorrect.
It categorically states that it was villagers under religious leaders that threw out the British Army in the 1st Afghan War.
Mohammed Akhbar Khan was not a village religious fella but he was the man who drove out the British Army.
Its a basic historcal inacuracy right at the start
I've already granted that, Jagman. It still doesn't invalidate the general gist of the article; which is that the war in Affers is unwinnable.

MsG
 
#8
We'll win the war in Afghanistan in the same way that we "won" the war in Iraq in that it's the politicians who define the term win.
 
#9
Bugsy said:
jagman said:
Bugsy said:
Tom_of_Bedlam said:
The first Afghan War was in 1838, when the British invaded to make Afghanistan part of the Indian empire. The Afghan barons and warlords did not resist. It was the ordinary people who rose up under the leadership of the village mullahs and slaughtered a whole British army. The British left.
What absolute twaddle. Mohammed Akhbar Khan was no 'Village Mullah'.
No, he was a warlord. That's what the word "khan" means in Pushtu.

And your point is?

MsG
Presumably that the 2nd paragraph of the blurb is factually incorrect.
It categorically states that it was villagers under religious leaders that threw out the British Army in the 1st Afghan War.
Mohammed Akhbar Khan was not a village religious fella but he was the man who drove out the British Army.
Its a basic historcal inacuracy right at the start
I've already granted that, Jagman. It still doesn't invalidate the general gist of the article; which is that the war in Affers is unwinnable.

MsG
It does cast doubt on the acuracy of the article right from the start though.
For what its worth (and seeing as I have never been to Afghanistan its precious little) I think bringing democracy and freedom to Afghanistan is destined to meet as much sucess as colonial Africa.
As seen in a multitude of former colonial possesions (not just British) you cannot impose western values upon people who don't want them. As soon as the troops leave things return to pretty much what they were before the whole thing started.
It would appear that nobody has learnt much in the aftermath of colonialism and the Americans are determined to have their bash at it. Britain is just along for the ride for reasons best known to Mr Blair

So yes, in short military victory won't change a damned thing
 
#10
RangeStew said:
We'll win the war in Afghanistan in the same way that we "won" the war in Iraq in that it's the politicians who define the term win.
That's exactly the point, RangeStew! It's a hopeless situation that's just wasting folks lives for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

MsG
 
#11
Bugsy said:
Here's an interesting take on the development of the war in Affers. It's actually a very much shortened version of a piece Jonathan Neale wrote for "International Socialism" in Autumn 2007.

Theres also an interview with Johnny Rico, who, in spite of the name being reminiscent of a bad Keanu Reeves filum, was stationed in Affers and wrote a book about his experiences there. He's a Septic, by the way.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10145

This article, and the very much longer original version in "International Socialism", just about sums up what I've always felt about the invasion of Affers, but see what you think.

MsG
Ahh ' international socialism' doesn't the established wisdom of what crap this is influence you at all? I bet you think Brown is a genius...
 
#12
The most important thing to us isn't bringing democracy to Afghanistan - it's the stabilisation of the country. Ideally, the end result for us will be an inoffensive, not too repressive government which has to deal with nothing more than low level insurgency. Persuading the Pakistanis to remove their fingers from the pie is going to be difficult, but it would help. Making Afghanistan truly democratic would be a bonus, but it isn't expected.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads