By Patrick Cockburn

It is the war that was meant to have ended for good. Just under five years ago the Taliban fled Kabul without firing a shot. But yesterday the Islamic militants showed they were back with a vengeance when a massive suicide bomb blew up beside an American convoy in the city killing 18 Afghans and two US soldiers. Fighting between the Taliban and Nato forces is raging across the south of the country.

The victory won by President George Bush in 2001 after the 11 September al-Qa’ida attacks on America has evaporated. “The fighting is extraordinarily intense. The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis,” the commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brig Ed Butler said this week. Taliban units have taken over swaths of country around Kandahar and are increasingly active in and around the capital.

Nato defence chiefs meeting in Poland yesterday asked for a further 2,000 to 2,500 men to supplement the 18,500 Nato troops already in Afghanistan. Nato commander James L Jones called for reinforcements saying the next few weeks could be “decisive”.

The suicide bomb near the US embassy was the largest to explode in Kabul since the overthrow of the Taliban. The bomber drove a Corolla packed with explosives which he detonated beside a US Humvee, tearing the vehicle apart. A spiral of brown smoke rose high into the sky from the blazing wreckage. The explosion was powerful enough to gouge a 6ft-deep crater in the road.

US troops stood guard over the bodies of two of their soldiers, one lying slumped in the gutter and the other covered by a plastic sheet. Near by were the remains of other bodies, Muslim prayer caps, floppy khaki coloured military caps and shoes. Some of the dead were street cleaners and seven were said to be foreigners.

Among the dead was the body of an elderly woman who had been sitting with her grand-daughter outside the apartment building where they both lived.

The victory by the US and its local allies after 9/11 was deceptively easy. Pounded by US bombers flying so high they could not be seen and often heavily bribed by emissaries of the CIA the warlords fighting with the Taliban changed sides or went home.

As the Taliban broke up in December 2001 I drove from Kabul to Kandahar and was amazed by how few people had been killed. Everywhere deals were being done between the old and the new regime so the Taliban could retire gracefully to their villages or across the border into Pakistan.

It was all too easy. Many of the local warlords stayed in business. There was little change in who held power on the ground. I visited one warlord south of Kabul who was so averse to giving his allegiance to Hamid Karzai, soon to be elected President, that he only recognised the authority of the UN and raised its blue flag over his village.

President Bush believed the victory was total and the Taliban had gone forever. By the spring of 2002 his administration was already planning to invade Iraq.

The White House and Downing Street exaggerated its own achievements in Afghanistan. The US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld said that what had happened in Afghanistan was “a breathtaking accomplishment”, even as US forces devoted their time to a vain pursuit of al-Qa’ida and Osama bin Laden.

But it took some time before the fragility of the regime became apparent. The Taliban had been deeply unpopular. Many Afghans believed it had been foisted on them by Pakistani military intelligence backed by Saudi money. In a country where there were land mines everywhere but few bridges and roads there was also a desperate desire for peace and development.

But President Karzai never controlled the four fifths of the country outside Kabul. One third of the MPs in the new parliament elected last year were warlords and drug smugglers. Aid was inadequate. For farmers in the southern provinces growing opium poppies was the only cash crop that could pay off their debts. Meanwhile the Taliban were raising fresh men. From a few hundred last year they claimed to have 12,000 men under arms in the south this year.

The most striking feature of the 4,000-strong British force dispatched to southern Afghanistan is its small size. Even the armies that Britain dispatched to Afghanistan, usually with disastrous results, in the 19th century were larger in number. There are hardly enough soldiers to defend themselves, still less to start an ambitious “hearts and minds” campaign.

In July 2002, 1,000 British peacekeepers were withdrawn as Britain handed over control of the international peacekeeping force to Turkey, leaving just 300 British peacekeepers.

The same month, 1,700 soldiers from the Royal Marines 45 Commando were sent home having largely failed to find al Qa’ida leaders in joint missions with US forces. Britain ignored entreaties from President Karzai for more troops. The military build-up for the Iraq invasion was already being planned.

Four years on, Nato troops are fighting for their lives in Afghanistan in battles which left hundreds of Taliban dead this week alone. The Taliban use tactics found so effective by guerrillas in Iraq. Suicide bombers driving vehicles packed with explosives, as happened yesterday in Kabul, are a horribly effective way of destabilising a government. It forces foreign forces to retreat into fortified bases.

The roadside bomb, which has inflicted half of American casualties in Iraq, is a simple but fierce some weapon against a vehicle-borne army.

The British Government was warned what might happen. Generals admitted privately that in Afghanistan and in Iraq British soldiers could end up penned into their encampments unable to move outside its fortifications. It is nevertheless strange that the Government, having become entangled in a messy guerrilla war in Iraq, should make exactly the same mistake in Afghanistan.

 

..and perhaps I don’t get as much time surfing as I used to, but this made me laugh. If you don’t know the story behind the pictures…where have you been?

So…this little thing going on in the sand lot we call the Middle East. On the toilet you might find me, reading books and letting the tops of my legs numb through extended sessions sitting on the seat. Apparently it is also strange that I can be found there with no real reason. Perhaps it is sanctuary, but it is one of the few places I can go to chill out and catch up on the rest of the world. Oh, and I have a laptop now also, which makes you wonder where I am as I write this crap. See, crap breeds crap. Anyhow….I started reading this book on the history of Middle East war so I might try and understand a little more. Mate, it is a very indepth and complex subject, but interesting nonetheless. However, I got bored after a while and I am currently reading about Nazi Gold and the Holocaust. Anyway….the point is….what is this thing that is going on between Israel, Lebanon etc? Below is a brief overview which I pasted from BBC news. Shall we discuss this or not? Im trying to formulate some thoughts on the whole picture. I can talk enough about my opinions on the Gulf, but Im trying to work out who I blame for all of this and why certain people have such a vested interest in the money to be made from this conflict.

How did the current crisis start?

The Hezbollah raid into Israel, in which eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured, was a stunning and provocative attack.

Lebanon has seen the first Israeli land incursion since 2000

Some have argued that Hezbollah wanted to test new Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is an unknown quantity as far as military crises go.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has said that the soldiers were captured to pressure Israel to release the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in its jails.

The raid was clearly a gesture of solidarity towards the Palestinian militants in Gaza who have been holding an Israeli soldier since 25 June.

Hezbollah may also have had an eye on its own situation in Lebanon where there has been increasing pressure for it to disarm.

How has Israel reacted?

The result of the raid is that Israel is fighting on two fronts. Israeli officials have cast the Hezbollah raid as an act of war and responded with air strikes, shelling and a sea blockade, threatening operations that will “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years”.

The immediate aim seems to be, as in Gaza, to build up massive pressure on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese population. Civilian casualties in Lebanon have been high and the damage to civilian infrastructure wide-ranging.

Thousands of foreigners have fled the country and there are increasing fears of a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Israeli strikes on targets other than Hezbollah installations are at least in part punitive – power installations, roads and the international airport have been hit.

What can the Lebanese government do about the situation?

Ordinary Lebanese civilians have been the main victims of the current crisis in terms of deaths and injuries.

Thousands have become internal refugees, seeking safety in areas that are not being bombed by Israel.

The country is dealing with a massive Israeli bombing campaign and a number of small land incursions. Since 2000, when Israel ended a 22-year occupation of the south, clashes on the border have been small affairs.

Israel has made it absolutely clear that it holds the Lebanese government responsible for the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah.

Many analysts see this as unfair.

Even though Hezbollah is operating from Lebanese territory and the militant group has two ministers in the Lebanese government, central government is almost powerless to influence the militant group.

It is the Hezbollah militia that is deployed in southern Lebanon, not the Lebanese army.

The group is also very popular in Lebanon and highly respected for its political activities, social services and its military record against Israel.

Most Lebanese may believe that Hezbollah’s capture of the two Israeli soldiers is deeply irresponsible. There is anger that the country is again being pitched towards war, but this is unlikely to translate into widespread anger towards Hezbollah.

Is there any way out of this crisis?

Israeli officials have insisted that there will be no direct negotiation with Hezbollah or Hamas over the return of its soldiers, and no Palestinian prisoner releases.

In the past, Israel has negotiated with Hezbollah and released hundreds of prisoners, but Israeli officials are now talking about a changed situation and new rules.

In both Gaza and Lebanon, the Israeli military appears to be using the opportunity afforded by the crisis to damage Hezbollah and Hamas as military organisations. A few days into the crisis, Israel demanded the disarming of Hezbollah and deployment of the Lebanese army to the southern border with Israel as pre-conditions for a ceasefire.

All sides are for now taking hardline positions, but it’s difficult to see how the Israelis are going to get their soldiers back without some kind of ceasefire followed by negotiations that will almost certainly involve prisoner releases.

Will the conflict spread?

We’re not yet at the stage of a regional conflict.

Much will depend on whether Israel extends its military operations to take in Syria and Iran, Hezbollah’s sponsors and supporters. Officials have already laid much of the blame for the escalating crisis on Damascus and Tehran.

Iran and Syria are also the states that can influence Hezbollah more than anyone else.

Inevitably the role of the US, in restraining Israel and pushing the various parties towards some kind of ceasefire may at some later date be crucial.

The first signs of an international diplomatic intervention emerged when the UN’s Kofi Annan and British PM Tony Blair called for the deployment of an international force in Lebanon.

But this may be some way off, if it gets off the ground at all.

It’s widely believed that the Washington has given the Israelis a window in which to continue its bombardment of Lebanon and degrade Hezbollah’s military capability.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might be headed to the Middle East at the end of the week. Should this go ahead, it might signal that Washington is ready to put its weight behind attempts to achieve a ceasefire.

Meanwhile, questions surrounding the disarmament of Hezbollah, as demanded by the UN Security Council, have been pushed way into the background for now. As are Mr Olmert’s big plans for disengaging from parts of the West Bank.

Are war crimes being committed in the current conflict?

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour has said that war crimes could have been committed in the current conflict.

She said international law stressed the need to protect civilians, and insisted that there was an obligation on all parties to respect the “principle of proportionality”.

She was even-handed and did not name particular leaders, but suggested that some leaders might be considered personally responsible for the alleged war crimes.

“Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable,” she said.

And the winner of the free death penalty contest is.. Saddam Hussein!!

You cant give him to the UN (in doing nothing there is only death) because they’d smack him on the wrist and send him back for more merciless killing. The Europeans won’t do it, the Americans would love to but realise they can’t and the Israelis would shoot him, shoot him again and then put him on trial, shoot him and then pickle bits of him for display purposes. Best give him to his own tortured people.

In some ways (and I hesitate to write this) it may have been better for us all if a grenade had been lobbed in the spider hole. Im sure that he thinks while he lives there is yet hope for his eventual return to power.

WR

Oh dear I cant compete with my two counterparts as I got rid of my uniform back in 19canteen…
What I can say is although I am a Brit I love the the desert; I like the extremes of temperatures. Does that make me some kind of nutter? I had enough rain for 6 months last year.

I was always sporty and didnt mind runs etc etc. It was always something I could beat the guys at…that and being a very good shot.

Bet thats annoyed you two =)

These days I dont like heat unless its air-conditioned and I dont even run for a bus…..

I imagine the UN (in doing nothing there is only death…) will bring all sorts of stuff with them UT. Hang on and hopefully the temporary politicians will send along more help.

Rosie (Dont divide Israel, you dont know Who you are playing with.)

You know I still can’t stop thinking about the UN. This is exactly one of those times that we could do with them. They can police Iraq; I know that’s what they have done before. Somebody needs to bring order out of chaos (hehehehe) so why not them? If the other three nations have so much at stake in the oil in this country surely now is the time to protect their investment? I am thinking of the Russians in particular. They could really steal some thunder out of this in being seen to be the ones who “sorted it out”.

Rosie.

In my ignorance I have to admit I didn’t think of the Iraqi’s the way I do now. I imagined them as peasants, workers or just Arabs… silly really. I have since found them to be quite educated, smartly turned out and actually quite wise.

If we in the UK had been more informed as to the state of the Iraqi’s, more aware of their plight under Saddam and the exiled Iraqi’s given more of a voice maybe the opposition in the world would have been drastically reduced.

I also think the first Gulf War was a shadow and a type of this war. Is now the time for a new world order? Certainly the state of the UN would precipitate a new way of governing. I have found that in the past we tend to swing from total liberalism to the jackboot.

The Arab world has said that this war is on a par with ’48 and ’67 (Israeli history guys,…) It is definitly not. Those coalition troops will be out faster than you can say knife… they have homes to go to you know =)

Rosie.

Could it be that the UN has finally come to the end of its usefulnes? On Fox yesterday someone came up with an interesting point about what the UN was not doing in Kosovo, or Rwanda…. What is the point of the UN now?
Britain is crumbling in its support. Finally the message of the people is getting through and it’s chinking away at Mr Blair’s armour. I must remember to pray for him too….
I think the Americans are just going to go on their own now and to hell with the consequences. You can have a lot of shiny big weapons but have you got the ability to use them wisely? I do not want to see lots of innocent dead civilians again. Will one day dawn when we have done with war forever? Is this all we do every now and again?

Also, try not to be too busy for spending time with God. When you get to the gates of heaven you may find that He’s just too busy for you…

R.

I think all this marching is because people dont want to fight anymore. The warrior spirit died with the WW2 generation. We just want to talk about it and hope it goes away. I wish Terry Wogan would do the commentary for the Security Council. My parents fell asleep while it was on. I just saw a bunch of people in suits. Nil pwan.

The US and the UK have had to bail out Europe twice before. We are having to do it again. I think that whatever happens the UN will never be the same again. What if we find those WMD? Oh the shame of those who refuse to do anything. Pick a side and stay there. Me? I am on the Lord,s side.

War is sometimes the only thing we have left to resort to. But I’ll give the marchers this; no real current evidence. But I think we will have to overrun the place to find it.

Rosie (being a Derby County supporter made me prematurely grey…..)