A series of leaks on the progress of the war and then a report on what appear to be expedited plans for a US withdrawal, have had the media abuzz with stories and analysis, but with no real consensus – a question of heat but very little light.

The first trigger was a Nato report leaked to the BBC, which suggested the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI), only to be followed by a predictable denial, with the Pakistani foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, dismissing the report as, "old wine in an even older bottle".

As to the US plans, the trigger here was a suggestion by US defence secretary Leon Panetta suggesting that US combat missions in Afghanistan would end in 2013. That, though, was quickly clarified when Panetta said that the US would keep fighting alongside Afghan troops, but would cede the lead role in combat operations.

View full article here

Richard, no doubt you've read the books by Ahmed Rashid; Taliban and Jihad; he explains in some detail the role that Pakistan plays in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The key thing that our lot don't recognise is that muslims lie as easily a breathing. So, you can't trust anything that is said by them; only actions can give some insight into their intentions. And even then, the motives change according to circumstances. I would suggest that we're used to our enemies being predictable, whereas muslims are not.

My second suggestion is that soldiers are trained to kill our enemies; that's what they should do, and not be deployed as policemen. If there are no enemies to be killed, then they should be brought home (though I don't think they should have been there in the first place). They'd be better deployed rounding up all the illegal immigrants and escorting them out of our country, rather than presenting themselves for target practice by barbarians. And just because someone is smiling at you, doesn't mean (as we have been brought up to believe) that they are friendly; that's another mistake we seem to keep making.

I really would not single out Pakistan ... the US administration is just as disposed to lying when it suits it, as is the British government ... to say nothing of the Indian government.

Pakistan, however, has cause to be concerned at developments in Afghanistan, and the relationship between India and the Karzai government. No one comes out of this with clean hands, and the Indians are at least as culpable as the Pakistanis.

As to the role of British troops, I would be reluctant to see them in action on the streets of Britain ... you are crossing the line if that is what you wish to see. However, the point made in my post it that war is an instrument of policy ... to which extent, so are soldiers. If we need troops to act as policemen (or in support of policemen) and that is what they are paid to do, then do it they must. Soldiers, no more than any other public servants, have no right to define their own roles, or that which they will or will not do.

Another aphorism understood by successful guerrillas is that they do not need to win, merely avoid being beaten by the enemy. Didn't Sir Keith Park use the same tactics in the daylight Battle of Britain?

I trust the planners are already beavering away to draw up a "Victorious Withdrawal" along the lines of the Dardanelles and Dunkirk. For the many in the MoD PR Department, that will be their finest hour.

Er, Richard, something missing?

The problem is, that nearly everyone does not understand Islam and its followers. It is a political ideology, not a religion.

It's whole raison d'etre is built upon lies. Such as the 'religion of peace'. Islam means submission and the above phrase comes from the true meaning that, there will be no peace until everyone submits to Islam.

Readers who wish to have a simple introduction to Islam could do well to scan the following articles.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/ ... hfork.html

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/t ... islam.html

Yes ... thanks ... amended to "no right".

Not least of the problem is that the Pashtuns put tribal loyalties first, before even their religion - the latter being a bastardised version of the creed. It is not a terribly good idea, in my mind, to get too obsessed with Islam - especially in the context of Afghanistan. The tribal factions will happily slit each other's throats, Islam notwithstanding.

The colonial British, in their own way, managed the tribes on the North West frontier, and the Pakistanis followed in their footsteps, using the same techniques ...

http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2 ... efore.html

http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2 ... ctory.html

It is as well to note that, at the heart of the British system was a corps of political officers, who lived in the diverse localities - politics came first and the administration took the time to understand the local politics, and work with them.

Now, from all accounts, we have military and short-term civil servants blundering in, with no local knowledge at all. Thus, in southern Afghanistan, one gets references to Baluchis as a tribe, without the first idea of the historical background to the area.

Therein lies your problem ... we are in Afghanistan without understanding Afghanistan, of which Islam is but a part. That is a sure way of committing suicide.

Have our politicians become more exaggerated with each successive generation? There is a little less substance and a little more style each time. A little more aping the actions of their predecessors without understanding the context. They are increasingly becoming a cargo cult.

First those understanding that war and politics are the same thing. Followed by those who see war as an influence on politics. Now a bunch who view war and politics as separate. Informed by the past but not understanding the complexity of it they see war today as something for winning votes at home and maintaining a position in the global order of things (not NWO conspiracies, just if governments want to get listened to they need to show they mean business).

I want to use the word 'entertainment' but I think that is pushing it. Certainly the propaganda and jingoism runs high these days with breathless embedded reporting and VIPs dropping in to see the troops every other day.

I know this is well cliched (maybe along with Clausewitz) but I cannot but help think of Orwell's 1984. "Perpetual war" and The old Ministry of Truth set up for propaganda and historical revisionism by the inner party elite ... and "we have always been at war with Eastasia"

As each year passes I think about that book more and more.

All 'Peoples of the Book' (Jews, Christians and Muslims) subscribe (or did originally) to a 'political' ideology and way of life which was specified in their book.

In many parts of the world the Christians have dropped this overt adherence (though it still underpins a lot of things they do). This is often bemoaned by the right wing, as a collapse of 'good, old-fashioned values'.

I am sure the same pertains in Jewish and Muslim states...




Very rash. Our esteemed host has recently written a book which pointed out that we have yet to have an honest and realistic understanding about important aspects of the Second World War....

Nice point. I recall a Frenchman explaining to me that he was taught that The Battle of Trafalgar was an indecisive naval battle in which the British Admiral was killed.