NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7313823.stm

The Afghani Education minister has a proposed a new strategy for defeating the Taliban. He proposes that NATO and other Western nations allow local communities in Afghanistan to take over the fight against the Taliban.

An influential Afghan minister has called on the West to allow local communities in Afghanistan to take over the fight against the Taleban.

Education Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar said the answer lay in what he called the "Afghanisation" of security.

Mr Atmar, who is a close ally of President Hamid Karzai, said Afghan forces needed more training.

While Nato leaders have been calling for member countries to commit more troops to Afghanistan, Mr Atmar told the BBC that this was not the answer.

He says a traditional Afghan system, with local communities being allowed to practice self-defence, would be more effective.

He believes that Afghan forces could defeat the Taleban in five years, instead of the 15 he believes Nato would need.

And with at least 10 times as much money being spent on foreign troops as on Afghan forces, he believes that money could be better spent in training and providing resources.

The BBC's Elettra Neysmith says "Afghanisation" is a popular concept at the moment within Nato.

She says it has been cynically described as a "get out of jail free" card for Western countries mired in the deepening Taleban insurgency.

But Mr Atmar says the "Afghanisation" of security has worked successfully in provinces like Khost and Paktia in the south-east, where the Taleban are active.

Seems like a good idea to me, what do you wise people of NSG think?

Seems like a good idea to me, what do you wise people of NSG think?
They lost last time. Why bother letting their country fall under the control of the Taliban again just because NATO is lazy?

It's basically the acknowledgement that NATO didn't end the civil war. Which I don't think any serious person would have a problem with.

More problematically, civil wars rarely stay the same over time. Local communities are likely to have their own interests once they have some guns at their disposal and might start fighting each other or demand greater independence from Kabul. That raises questions on how the Afghan government wants to cut back poppy production. In the long term, I think arming locals would be the death sentence for Kabul, but there are few scenarios left in which the government survives as it is.

In principle I don't think it's a bad idea to get greater local Afghan involvement in the conflict. It's definitely gonna be much harder to defeat the Taliban without it. But I don't think it can be used as a strategy instead of NATO boots on the ground. Western forces need to assist with extra firepower and their commanders have to serve as the central thrust that keeps local communities focused.

But in as much as it turns the locals from bystanders and collateral damage into parties that have an interest in supporting the fight against the Taliban, I'm in favour.

Sounds good to me, I think. It is the Afghan people who have the greatest stake in maintaining their liberty from the Taleban, not NATO. NATO will still exist if Afghanistan goes to Hell, and continuing conflict in Afghanistan would mean NATO would have grounds to demand more money so that they can 'stop' the conflict, thus giving an incentive for them to drag out the chaos for as long as they can. Whereas, if Afghan localized security failed to protect themselves the repercussions would be borne by themselves.

In fact, it might be even better if NATO withdraws entirely, like the US should leave Iraq, so as to take away the Taleban's justification of fighting against foreign invaders, not their own people, avoid creating resentment amongst opium farmers who just want to make a living and are being harassed by NATO, and avoid accidental killings that would bolster the Taleban's legitimacy. (Not to mention that Afghans would no longer have to deal with NATO bureaucracy in implementing their security and would have to place more focus into localized security rather than using NATO as a fallback.)

the problem with the taliban is that america created it. they lost my good feels as just another bunch of people with guns fighting for something when they destroyed those ancient buddhist archiological sites that had up ontil then unmolested pretty much.

but any way, america's way of doing things militarily, which seems basically to send in robots and bombs and just blow everything up willy nilly, is never a very rational way of dealing with a gurilla trained force on the ground.

you'd think america of all places, which supposedly won its war of succession from the british empire by NOT wearing bright red jackets, whould have figgured out that such forces arn't going to conveiniently encamp enmass someplace where making a big hole in the ground is going to somehow magically wipe them out.

i think the afghanies may well need international assistence to stabilize their country. but also i aggree, outsiders attempting to do so by remote control can only keep the existing mess mucked up as long as they continue to arrogantly assume the know the playing field better then the people who have to live there.

multinational forces need to NOT be run by interviening superpower governments but by NEUTRAL international authorities that ACTUALLY LISTEN to ALL of the people there on the ground.

=^^=
.../\...

but any way, america's way of doing things militarily, which seems basically to send in robots and bombs and just blow everything up willy nilly, is never a very rational way of dealing with a gurilla trained force on the ground.
This isn't World War I. Ever heard of Special Forces? Foreign internal defense? COIN operations? Ever seen the scruffy, bearded white guy in the shemagh and the khaki BDUs?

Anyway, I highly doubt the ANA can defend itself at its present state.

Well there are several examples that clearly show that using "native" troops against the guerillas is the most effective way of defeating them

Take the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya. The British found out that using a large Home Guard of loyalist africans along with the Britwsh Army was a better way of gaing the support of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising

Another exapmle is Malayan Emergency were native troops were a major factor in the British victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

the problem with the taliban is that america created it.

:confused:


Also, would it kill you to capitalize?

:confused:

Cameroi is right; the CIA did help Islamic fundamentalists so that they could fight the Soviet Union, seeing as how the latter was seen as the greater threat. (Ah, the myopia of democratic public policy.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7313823.stm

The Afghani Education minister has a proposed a new strategy for defeating the Taliban. He proposes that NATO and other Western nations allow local communities in Afghanistan to take over the fight against the Taliban.





Seems like a good idea to me, what do you wise people of NSG think?

I agree. To each his/her own. Let the Afghans fight the Taliban. Let kin fight kin. World involvement on this conflict only brings harm.

Cameroi is right; the CIA did help Islamic fundamentalists so that they could fight the Soviet Union, seeing as how the latter was seen as the greater threat. (Ah, the myopia of democratic public policy.)

Which doesn't have all that much to do with how the Taliban is today.

For example, you toss some guy a broom while you are walking through the street and see a well-known contract killer coming after you; you hope the man you just gave the broom too will help you against the threat(to both you and him).

Later on the man goes around like some sort of serial-sweeper, sweeping both trash and babies into the gutter.. Is this your fault?

Seems rather pointless to me, they'll surely fail without outside help.

I agree. To each his/her own. Let the Afghans fight the Taliban. Let kin fight kin. World involvement on this conflict only brings harm.

Actually, I went to a Global Citizenship Conference (fancy way of saying school trip to see a bunch of lectures) on the March Break, and one of the speakers was an Afghan who said that the Taliban and their ideology isn't native to Afghanistan...He was arguing that Radical Islam was imported during the 80's from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan...some blame belongs to Zia-ul-haq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_ul_Haq) and his Islamization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia-ul-Haq%27s_Islamization) policies during the 1970's.

[/End Pointless Rant]

Actually, I went to a Global Citizenship Conference (fancy way of saying school trip to see a bunch of lectures) on the March Break, and one of the speakers was an Afghan who said that the Taliban and their ideology isn't native to Afghanistan...He was arguing that Radical Islam was imported during the 80's from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan...some blame belongs to Zia-ul-haq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_ul_Haq) and his Islamization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia-ul-Haq%27s_Islamization) policies during the 1970's.

Considering this, perhaps, since the Taliban is a spawn of the Arab world, of radical Muslims, the rest of the world should let the Arabs deal with their nasty son.;)