Bag's Rants

Massively worth it. Afghanistan?

Seems that we have finally admitted that the threat from the Taleban in Afghanistan has been underestimated. Their tenacity in the face of heavy losses has been a surprise. A surprise mainly to the guys sending in our poor troops. Read more here.

The article also mentions that the government is losing patience with the failure of NATO to find extra troops to bolster those already in Helmand. They at least have sense and I wonder how many now are actually considering their membership of NATO as a liability at the moment. Being used as cannon fodder by Bush.

I was also intrigued by the phrase 'massively worth it'. What does that mean? We will get back the billions we have spent on killing foreigners? We will get back the billions we have spent on reconstruction? Things we actually blew up ourselves. Will we get back our reputation? My understanding is that Afghanistan, even before we turned it into a hell hole, has always been one of the worst places on this planet to live. There are no natural resources and they only get by because poppies grow there and the inhabitants are meaner than a rattlesnake that has been stepped on. And that is before you annoy them. Just ask the Russians. Even then the Afghans were into killing in surprise attacks and cutting Russians prisoners heads off. Of course then we didn't like the Russians so we were pleased when they had their asses kicked and heads removed from screaming prisoners. Now we are realising that it wasn't because we supplied them with weapons, training and intelligence it is because they are some of the best fighters on the planet and they are willing to die by the truckful to get one of their enemies, which now includes us. Now, even if we nuked the place and left nothing alive. Didn't bother with infrastructure what is there that would be worth it, never mind massively?

One thing that has been proposed is that taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan means that they won't join the others fighting in Iraq. But wasn't Iraq supposed to be the battleground? We have fallen for the tactics that defeated many an army in the past. We have divided our forces. Does divide and conquer mean anything? Plus when you take on people in their own country they are more inclined to be helped by the local population, hell, they are the local population. They know the land, their supply lines are short and they are aided by people we can't, officially, shoot at. Wouldn't we prefer them in Iraq? These guys have so much fight in them they even fight amongst themselves over the drugs profits.

So, exacts what does 'massively worth it' mean? Nothing I can see is worth the lives of our troops.

posted by Bag @ 9:58 am