Sunday, July 15, 2007

Brits Say Afghanistan Almost as Big a Failure as Iraq

posted by Bill Arnett @ 10:54 AM Permalink

From RawStory via the Guardian Online:
Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.

Amid fears that London and Washington are taking their eye off Afghanistan as they grapple with Iraq, the generals have told Number 10 that the collapse of the government in Afghanistan, headed by Hamid Karzai, would present a grave threat to the security of Britain.

Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, highlighted their fears in public last week when he warned of a 'strategic failure' in Afghanistan. The Observer understands that Inge was speaking with the direct authority of the general staff when he made an intervention in a House of Lords debate.

'The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise,' Inge told peers. 'We need to face up to that issue, the consequence of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise.'[…]

Inge made a point in the Lords of endorsing a speech by Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, who painted a bleak picture during the debate. Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq.

'The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,' he said. 'If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. The security problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I think you could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off in warlordism but it would become essentially a war in the end between Sunni and Shia right across the Middle East.'

'Mao Zedong used to refer to the First and Second World Wars as the European civil wars. You can have a regional civil war. That is what you might begin to see. It will be catastrophic for Nato. The damage done to Nato in Afghanistan would be as great as the damage done to the UN in Bosnia. That could have a severe impact on the Atlantic relationship and maybe even damage the American security guarantee for Europe.'
I have long maintained that bush will be the first president in American History to lose two wars simultaneously, three if he's insane enough to attack Iran.

It's sad that I appear to have been totally correct and I take no joy from saying this, but America is not any longer the best nor most powerful country on earth. bush is steadily weakening our forces to the point of being inconsequential.

Were Russia or China either one to decide to attack us they could beat our depleted and demoralized military with relative ease (they could field an army of over a billion men in very short order), unless we immediately resorted to a catastrophic nuclear strike which would cause both countries to immediately respond (remember M.A.D. - Mutually Assured Destruction?) Given the sheer size of the two countries I believe it would not be possible to stop an invasion of foreign forces after a nuclear war and that we couldn't possibly destroy both countries before retaliation.

Moreover, if Pakistan, the "new safe haven and protector" of Osama Bin Laden falls to a terrorist group they will instantly possess nuclear weapons to use against America and American interests. Great, through malfeasance bush may give al-Qaede exactly what bush wanted to prevent - possession of WMDs.

bush and clan have relegated America to the status of a third-world banana republic - one that doesn't grow bananas at that. Our allies see it. The world sees it. Our enemies see it. Apparently everyone on Earth sees it, except for our delusional, lying president.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home