Afghanistan: “There have been great achievements since 2001”
Dear Tom Coghlan,
I read with interest your piece “The Big Question: Why are British troops back in Afghanistan five years after the war?” (Independent, 13 June 2006)
Just a few questions, if I may.
You write: “The British are looking to the experience gained from decades of fighting counter-insurgencies around the globe”. What do you mean? Can you provide some examples?
You write: “As well as fighting the Taliban, British soldiers will have to win the battle for hearts and minds. This will be far from simple in one of the most conservative, opaque and dizzyingly complex tribal societies on earth.(...) British commanders believe that a more sensitive approach to local custom, combined with the prospect of peace and imminent prosperity will do the trick. The Taliban's increasingly active propaganda machine seeks to counter that by portraying the British as infidels who have come to pillage Afghanistan for their own ends, strip the impoverished opium farmer of his livelihood and impose immoral Western values. It also stresses the historical enmity Britain has with Afghanistan after three imperial invasion attempts; Afghans are great students of history and all know they beat the British every time.”
It seems that the Afghans didn’t need the “Taliban's increasingly active propaganda machine” to oppose the “three imperial invasion attempts”. What does make you think (and write) that this time is different?
You also write that “There have been great achievements since 2001”. In 2003 BBC wrote:
Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini
I read with interest your piece “The Big Question: Why are British troops back in Afghanistan five years after the war?” (Independent, 13 June 2006)
Just a few questions, if I may.
You write: “The British are looking to the experience gained from decades of fighting counter-insurgencies around the globe”. What do you mean? Can you provide some examples?
You write: “As well as fighting the Taliban, British soldiers will have to win the battle for hearts and minds. This will be far from simple in one of the most conservative, opaque and dizzyingly complex tribal societies on earth.(...) British commanders believe that a more sensitive approach to local custom, combined with the prospect of peace and imminent prosperity will do the trick. The Taliban's increasingly active propaganda machine seeks to counter that by portraying the British as infidels who have come to pillage Afghanistan for their own ends, strip the impoverished opium farmer of his livelihood and impose immoral Western values. It also stresses the historical enmity Britain has with Afghanistan after three imperial invasion attempts; Afghans are great students of history and all know they beat the British every time.”
It seems that the Afghans didn’t need the “Taliban's increasingly active propaganda machine” to oppose the “three imperial invasion attempts”. What does make you think (and write) that this time is different?
You also write that “There have been great achievements since 2001”. In 2003 BBC wrote:
A small sample of Afghan civilians have shown "astonishing" levels of uranium in their urine, an independent scientist says.Thank you for your attention and I hope you will have the time for a reply.
"The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf veterans tested in 1999.
"If UMRC's Nangarhar findings are corroborated in other communities across Afghanistan, the country faces a severe public health disaster... Every subsequent generation is at risk."
It says troops who fought in Afghanistan and the staff of aid agencies based in Afghanistan are also at risk.
Afghans' uranium levels spark alert
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini
posted by The Cat's Dream at 11:59 AM
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
<< Home