Friday, March 27, 2009

How the West lost its way in the East


Kabul was taken in days, but then the 'liberation of Afghanistan' became a slow-motion disaster. Patrick Cockburn, who has reported on the conflict since 2001, charts the fatal mistakes

".....The surge may play a similar role in Afghanistan. One of the main reasons for keeping American and British forces there is because it would be humiliating to withdraw. But the role of foreign military forces has always been ambivalent. They prop up the Karzai government but they also de-legitimise it as a puppet administration. Their use of firepower, originally designed for use against the Soviet army, against mud-brick compounds in Afghan villages means an inevitable flow of civilian casualties and builds support for the Taliban. And despite all these efforts Mr Obama says military victory is not feasible. The Americans are finding, as the British did in the 19th century and the Russians in the 20th, that the effort of keeping an army in Afghanistan is not really worth it."

No comments: