'Long war' model bodes ill for West.
Gordon Brown and the opposition leader David Cameron have conceded that the British army in Afghanistan needs additional helicopters to ferry the front-line troops around due to the heightened danger of roadside improvised explosive devices.
In doing so, they have inadvertently admitted that the war against the Taliban cannot be won.
Once an occupying army loses control of the highways and roads it has no hope of controlling, let alone permanently occupying, the surrounding countryside.
Nowhere was this better demonstrated than in south Armagh during the British army's long war against the Provisional IRA.
After a long and bloody war of attrition, the British military was eventually able to gain the upper hand in the major cities and towns of the north of Ireland.
After a long and bloody war of attrition, the British military was eventually able to gain the upper hand in the major cities and towns of the north of Ireland.
Yet the British army was never able to take control of the roads and lanes away from the South Armagh Brigade of the Provisional IRA, nor the surrounding countryside.
When the roads became too dangerous, the British army was forced to retreat to fortified bases and watchtowers.
Whenever a British army foot patrol ventured out the South Armagh Brigade, on its own terms and home ground, was able to continuously harass the "occupying power."
Out of sight of the army, it went on to plan and implement successful "spectaculars" in the very heart of London.
Eventually the British military and politicians recognised this weakness and agreed terms acceptable to both sides.
Must we wait 30 years before the US government reaches similar terms with the Taliban?
If so, better to bring British troops home now and avoid countless more young people killed or maimed in a lost cause
Mick Hall
Posts
4 comments:
Very thoughtfully understated,I think. I believe the longest war against occupiers in Afghanistan was 80 years,but since it is current rhetoric to ignore history,we are probably only talking to each other. Some would count centuries in the Irish fight against its occupiers,of course. The thirty year chapter being only the most recent.
But would the Taliban accept defeat so readily?
The Afghans never have accepted defeat historically,any more than the Irish have.Taliban simply means students and is a US/Western allies tag so far as I can figure. Afghan culture is a revenge based warrior culture and so far as I can see(following the work of Tariq Ali) hasn't changed a bit since they repelled Alexander of Macedon.
I don't believe the Irish saga is over either,but I am both a hopeless romantic,and not well versed in politics. If history,past behavior in the case of an individual,is the best predictor of future behavior....time will tell.
AM's post brought a wry smile to my face, but he knows better than most that as uilodomhnaill writes above, the 800 year struggle for 'full Irish independence' is not over due to a temporary halt being called in the proceedings.
Having said that, in many ways the Talaban in out look are not that dissimilar to the leadership group within the Provisional Republican Movement who signed the GFA. Pragmatic and consevative to the core. Yes when it suited them they can both pick up the radical stick, but if a better offer comes along they will discard it without a second thought.
Thus as the Provos dropped their radical US supporters when they felt green corporate America had the ear of the man in the big white house, there is no reason the Talaban would not do likewise if they concluded it would result in their US tormentors leaving them be. Indeed they have already distanced themselves from the radical islam of Bin Laden and his supporters.
None of this will mean much in the great historical sweep of things, as a dozen or so leaders in smoke filled rooms, whether they be Afghan or Irish, are unlikely to alter centuries of deep rooted cultural behaviour patterns.
Post a Comment