Originally Posted by
Stavros
If you don't understand it is because you don't want to, I have tried to direct your attention to the core issue, but you ignore it because it focuses on the issue that hurts the most: the cause.
I have no problem with the occasional heroism and bravery of armed service personnel in the field, its their job and sometimes they 'go the extra mile' for their comrades, but far from being eager to get stuck in like you, seasoned military professionals do not seek armed conflict- Colin Powell, who knows more about it than you do, once said it was his duty to prevent the USA from deploying troops in a theatre of war, precisely because of the things that can happen - and you should not send troops into a theatre of war without knowing how you are going to get them out. Surely even you can see what a mess the US military has been in since it was hi-jacked by the Republican Party?
But my key point is: WHY ARE THEY THERE? You never concern yourself with the core issue, because the truth is NATO need not be in Afghanistan at all, if anything NATO forces are an obstacle to the deal that will eventually be done with the Taliban, and which has to be done with the Taliiban if there is to be a workable peace, just as there has to be a resolution to the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir because Afghanistan is caught between the ambitions of these two countries as well as having its own problem creating stability and peace, but you either don't know what these issues are, or you are so focused on the so-called theatre of war you can't see the writing on the wall.
Your wilful ignorance of the politics is what makes your posts resemble the soundtrack to Rambo -and it is all about Politics: just as Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means, it also means that wars happen when politics fails, and wars end when politics re-asserts itself. There are serious issues on the table, some of them historical, some of them socio-economic, all have political resonance -and a lot of it is boring, but patient diplomacy that yields results works -two Democrat Presidents, Carter and Clinton, presided over two peace treaties -not two wars, peace treaties- between Israel and the Palestinians; Bush I and Bush II produced nothing comparable, but Bush I trashed Iraq, looked the other way while an enraged Saddam Hussein -the USA's ally for so many years- drained the southern Marshes, slaughtered the Shi'a and attempted to obliterate Iraqi Kurdistan, and then Bush II moved in to turn Iraq into a slaughterhouse -make the comparison: diplomacy, endless rounds of talks and talks and papers: or war, and then ask: which one works? Which one produces a desired result?
If all you want to do is kill people, don't be surprised if their descendants come to kill you -or you could just wake up one day and say, as do most soldiers: Enough! Then its time to talk.
Peace is the only option, but often the hardest option, it is easier for you to go Poof! when a Taliban gets killed, than it is to shake his hand, invite him for a coffee, and ask him what it is that he really wants.
Consider Daw Aung san suu Kyi, an exemplary political leader who has the right to be embittered and seek the destruction of the military who have ruined Burma -but who, instead of opting for violence, works tirelessly for a peaceful solution to the problems Burma has. Nelson Mandela could have led an armed conflict in South Africa -he chose peace and reconciliation. Again and again, war is exposed as the problem not the solution; peace and peaceful co-existence the only way in which to live, but it takes courage, and that is what is lacking in too much of contemporary politics. For heaven's sake, you can't even talk to Cuba! Is it really so difficult?
