Is the Stop The War Coalition a waste of time?

[HAL9000]

If NATO abandoned the notion of state sovereignty then wars could be won quickly without all this faffing about.

A rogue state would be conquered outright and forced to surrender. NATO would then install a caretaker government under a boilerplate democratic constitution until the resistance is rounded up and executed.

What's left could be declared an international tourist resort, divided up into time-share units and sold off on eBay.

Simples!

[reggie]

Mark Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------->

> And they don't give many solutions as an

> organisation, it's all "that's bad", "that's bad"

> and "that's bad too". Do they have any viable

> solutions? Stop the War... and then what?

Mark..

I dont think any efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan have been a solution to anything. More like settling old scores and revenge.

So pulling back the troops and "stopping the war" does not have to come with solutions.

The only solution we need is to try to explain,when we pull out, which we will have to do one day, why did so many die and for what.

Of course the original goals have been met..long ago. Getting rid of WMD and the training camps..so job done isnt it?

[Mark]

Explanations are not a solution.

Something that comes across as a bit annoying about the coalitions website, it's seems to want to stir things up and want people to hate western governments rather than actually want to do something constructive.

[reggie]

I would say that not going to war in Iraq is a very constructive thing to do. In fact not going to war in Iraq would rank in my top 5 of most constructive tasks of the last decade...ever!

I think the stop the war movement is angry that Labour stirred it up in the first place. Remember when Hans Blix the weapons inspector said wait..you dont have to do this but Bush was just too keen.

[Huguenot]

Isn't the concept of 'Not Going to War in Iraq' just kind of not accurate?

If the campaign is against past mistakes, I really don't see any point in campaigning against history. No-one can make it go away.

It sounds like one of those 'made up' protests, where the reality isn't nearly dramatic enough for the protestors: so they egg each other on with ever escalating tall tales until they finally fabricate something they can all agree on.

I understand there's no British troops in Iraq at the moment, and for the last part of their tenure they were largely confined to the base?

I think it would also be inaccurate to suggest that the Americans are currently 'waging war' in Iraq.

It would also be inappropriate to suggest that the Brits are 'waging war' in Afghanistan. At the moment they're kind of 'hanging out' with an ill-defined policing role.

A unilateral pull-out is demonstrably not the right thing to do there, and would suggest that any 'Stop the War Coalition' campaign on that front would be indescribably cold-hearted, probably based on no small indifference and patronising indulgence for funny little foreigners.

[reggie]

Surprised that you think pulling out the troops is a "patronising indulgence" for our hosts.

Even more surprised that you think they are 'hanging out' not waging war.

Isnt the reality 'dramatic enough' at the moment. What would you say to all those who line the streets at Wootton Bassett?

[Huguenot]

Is Wootton Basett the most important issue? Where do you draw the line? Do you think we should leave Northern Ireland to the IRA and Srebrenica to Mladic and his goons?

Or are those too close to home to ignore? Would you just like to ignore Afghanistan because they're far enough away and muslim?

It may be that our differences are more fundamental. I believe that we have a responsibility to intercede with our neighbour if he slaps his wife around. If we accept that underlying premise, then there's no logical statute of limitation based on how far away their house might be, or what religion they are. There's also a complete abdication of responsibility if we don't do anything about it because he might give us a slap too.

Clearly intercession doesn't make you safer, and it might get messy.

We have an additional incentive if every now and then he likes to slap our own wives around, and then go running home and close the door. Combine that with the fact he is using his home as a base from which persuade the easily led that wife-slapping is a good thing, and it's kind of in our own self-interest to intercede.

I think 'Stop The War' campaigners don't take on that responsibility and consequently invent hundreds of ways to prove that the neighbour isn't a wife-beater. The overwhelming guilt trip that approach creates means that in a bizarre volte-face they turn their wrath not on the wife-beater, but on the altruistic neighbour who argues for intervention.

It's quite frankly naive to suggest that the man is beating women because you've provoked him, and downright ridiculous to suggest that wife-beaters don't exist and that all the violence would stop if we stopped drawing attention to him.

Maybe put your cards on the table - what do you think it's all about reggie?

[mockney piers]

It's a lovely tale Huguenot but a total straw man as you well know. You can't have it both ways, is it about resources and maintaining our lifestyle or is it about stopping out neighbour beating his wife.

I thi k you're the first to suggest that either of these wars are about moral responibilities, which is a leap too far for me.

[Huguenot]

No, but there is the practical challenge that there were a number of criminals based in the Afghan back-yard waging death and destruction against civilians in the west for ideological reasons.

These attacks showed no sign of abating, were likely to escalate if the criminals operated with impunity, and the local Taliban regime demonstrated no willingness to curtail their activities, since it shared their goals if not their methods.

The 'provocation' revolved around several thousand years of malpractice and religious mistrust, and offered no hope of a practical resolution since it resolved around the creation of a greater global caliphate and the subordination of the population to an extremist medieval theology.

Hence, from reggie's perspective, there was no reasonable hope of 'amending our ideology' to meet their requirements.

After a significant number of horrific attacks and foiled attacks resulting in the deaths of thousands, it was clear that 'do nothing' wasn't an option.

Regime change was the best of a host of extremely unattractive ideas, and the task of disarmament is virtually insurmountable given the rugged terrain and the desire of competing wealthy suppliers to see America's nose rubbed in the mud.

The mess with the various warlords nationally is a reflection of a strategy that genuinely tried to 'do the right thing' and felt that sponsoring a murderous bunch of thugs wouldn't go down well with the electorate back home. A case of biting off more than one can chew.

Either way, the presentation of the conflict as a crusade that needs to be terminated forthwith really isn't helping matters.

And of course 'altering our ideology' isn't really going to help unless we welcome tyranny.

[SeanMacGabhann]

so, to take your first paragraph H, do the actions of western governments over the last 6 or so years increase or decrease the number of these criminals?

[Huguenot]

I don't think that's an easy question, and I think it's too polarised - you're not reviewing the alternative.

The question is, which would have created more global mayhem:

Option 1: a successful, 'untouchable', well resourced, well connected growing terrorist organisation with a successful track record of high profile attacks on major targets, in a failed state where it goes unpunished.

Option 2: a stifled, incoherent, poorly funded terrorist organisation with weak communcations channels pegged back in both the countries where it provisionally has the most support: Pakistan and Afghanistan

I can see why traditional strategies would favour the second position.

Clearly there has been a rise in talk about radicalism recently, but it's difficult to know what would have happened without Afghanistan. My bet is that most of it focuses on Iraq, which I'm not discussing.

In addition, it's impossible to tell whether the radicalisation necessarily leads to more attacks in the west, as the lack of resources means that potential attackers go unfunded and undirected. Would no UN involvement in the Afghanistan conflict have actually resulted in fewer, but much more effective attackers?

Fewer coalition soldiers have been killed in the last decade in Afghanistan than civilians died at the World Trade Centre.

It's difficult to count Afghanistan civilian casualties in isolation. It needs to be remembered that there is an essentially civil war underway in Afghanistan, much as is taking place in the north-Western frontier in Pakistan.

The Taliban currently kill 700-1000 civilians annually, but many of these are women, school teachers and aid-workers who are murdered for their opposition to the regime and theocracy. They would also have been murdered had the United Nations forces not been present. This figure may well be less than those murdered whilst the Taliban regime was in ascendancy.

[reggie]

Huge not... here are my cards.

We never ever were going to 'win' against the Taliban.

Going to Afghanistan was about breaking up (punishing) bin laden training camps which has happened.

In the end in Iraq the USA realised it was smarter to employ the enemy than fight them.. hence a bit more peace.

We used to work with the Taliban when it suited us..why not again? This will have to happen one day to get a bit more peace.

Rememeber when Libya was the enemy?

Paisley said 'never never never' then changed his mind...in the end.

In the end you have to work with your enemy but only after enough have died.

I think enough have died..hence call off the troops.

ps

Bush and Blair have furthered bin laden's cause more than bin laden could ever have dreamed of.

First rule of combat..use your opponent's strength against itself.

[Huguenot]

All of it good sense, and not one bit of it that could be exploited with a unilateral instant pull-out of the armed-forces.

Afghanistan needs a new strategy, but 'Troops Out Now' is a daft one.

[HAL9000]

If history is anything to go by, western military occupations tend to withdraw after taking a massive hit.

Sooner or later a large number of troops will be killed in a single strike. Such an event would be likely to catalyse a pull out.

Even if the insurgents can't execute such an attack on their own, there are many covert avenues whereby battle-weary coalition members could engineer a face-saving reason to retreat.

I?d hate to be a pawn on that chessboard right now.

[reggie]

H...Its the west that needs a new strategy not Afghanistan.

[Huguenot]

What are you talking about reggie?

You think that a global caliphate with a medieval theocracy supported by escalating terrorist strikes on soft 'western' civilian targets is a 'good strategy'?

Training educationally sub-normal teenage boys in suicide attacks, subjugation of women to the level of farmyard animals is progressive?

It takes an extraordinary overdose of relativism to suggest that this is comparable with western strategies.

That's what disturbs me with 'Stop The War' organisations, they've utterly lost the plot on issues like this.

[reggie]

H..you are right that Afghanistan needs a new strategy.

but so does the west.

In the words of Malalai Jaya 'freedom cannot be exported'

[vinceayre]

What war, we aren't at war.

[Santerme]

vinceayre Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What war, we aren't at war.

I have some nicely shredded CBA which would prove you wrong....I get the irony btw!

[reggie]

vinceayre Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What war, we aren't at war.

waste of time then