Personally, I think putting more brigades into Afghanistan is probably counter-productive; more bases, more road convoys, more wedding-party strikes-in-error, and more stress on our incredibly strained logistics.

We need to concentrate on building up the Afghan government, negotiating with anyone who offers anything better than all-out talibanism, and delivering population security and economic aid. That includes security from us. If the EU should send anything, it should send more advisors (OMLTs), doctors, and engineers (PRTs – Provincial Reconstruction Teams), and money.

Everyone knows, after all, that even if the Americans do go through with sending significantly more troops, they can only do so by bringing forward some deployments and pushing back some returns – it’s temporary, and in a year’s time their numbers will be falling again.

We certainly don’t want a no-decision (as Robert MacNamara would say) with falling US troop levels but still a bigger, more logistics-intensive footprint and the Taliban still in the field, after a year of intensified violence. In that scenario there would be a real risk of disaster.

But nevertheless the US was attacked on 9/11 and most of Europe is in an alliance with the US. Thus we need to have a sensible response.

Love your blog but you’re on the wrong track here.

The US only ever put 7,500 troops into Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance providing the bulk of the troops that overthrew the Taliban. Those troops are still there.

I’m Australian and I must admit that the ‘what’s in it for us’ attitude pervading Europe these days is somewhat alarming.

Freedom must be fought for by those who are capable of doing so. It’s our moral duty.

Thus, we should do whatever is necessary to topple Mugabe, repair Sudan etc etc to stop the bloodshed.

Keep up the good work.

… there were several terrorist attacks mounted by Islamic fighters in Europe well before anyone (apart from the Soviets and the Israelis) was considering any offensive actions against Afghanistan or Iraq. Some of these attacks, especially the ones carried out by the PLO and the Abu Nidal organization, were quite famous, and they continued from the 1970s to the 1980s.

Of course, these fellows were still (mostly) directing their attacks primarily against American and Israeli targets based in Europe, with the local Europeans ending up merely as collateral victims. Still, I don’t see any practical difference. They were terrorist attacks on European soil.

… this doesn’t mean that the ongoing peace-enforcing action in Afghanistan makes any sense whatsoever. I do not believe that it breeds terrorism; but nor do I believe that it prevents any terrorism, or that the potential Afghan or Islamic terrorism would be of such a special kind that it inevitably necessitates overseas preventive military campaigns.

The mess in Afghanistan makes no sense. I’m sick and tired of seeing the men and the women from the ISAF getting shot at for no purpose and no gain, while the local poppy cultivation is at an all-time high and honour killings are still an everyday phenomenon. The whole region is a _pays barre_, and I’m in favour of letting it go hang. Leave now, and don’t look back.

Cheers,

J. J.

And expensive.

@Alex

We are having a debate because the issue hasn’t been resolved. Prevention is better, if it works. It didn’t work several times. What about that? Ignore it?