h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>I've never quite understood this argument. Afghanistan is landlocked so controlling it would give the USSR access to exactly no ports at all, warm or otherwise. Surely no one though the Soviets would have contemplated an invasion of Pakistan; that's the sort of thing that would have sparked off a nuclear standoff<<

How about Iran? Russia has always had three areas it's always sought to control, regardless of who is in charge: Poland, the Bosporus and Iran/Persia.

Influence in Persia has tended to come from the Caucuses and Azerbaijan but the Islamic Revolution presented Russia with an opportunity: predominately Sunni Arab Balochistan which has always been a bit restive. Would the world really have raised that much of a fuss if the persecuted Balochis would have sought protection from persecution by radical Shi'ites?

They would have had the choice of Afghanistan or Pakistan and in the 70s, Afghanistan would have been the safer bet, it seemed more functional as country. The allies of Pakistan, the West, had a pretty shoddy relationship with most Islamic nations, whereas Afghanistan's ally, the USSR, got on well with most of the Sunni regimes.

Realistically, who would have stuck up for Iran in a situation like that? I'm not saying that's why the USSR invaded Afghanistan, but being there gave them opportunities like that.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a totally different beast to the current occupation.

>>It's always been The War For The Caspian Sea Pipeline Route<<

If it was, we'd have invaded Iran. Much easier task and less rebuilding would be needed. Such a venture would also enjoy the support of most, if not all, of the Middle East.

I also see it as wrongheaded to compare the current conflict directly with all the previous foreign adventures. This smacks somewhat of Edward Said's 'Orientalism': viewing your Pashtun as some proud-but-violent alien other whose historical role is to get in the way of imperialist plans.

Yes, Afghanistan has often featured in power conflicts (The Great Game and all that) because of its unique geographical position: low enough in the Hindu Kush to be passable, not so high in the Himalayas to be impassable.

But to see all the conflicts as variants of the same...well, that ignores the dynamic nature of Afghanistan itself and defines their role for them as constant global puppets. I guess I give some reluctant support to intervention in that a (secondary? tertiary? quaternary?...) aim has ben to facilitate democratic self-determination for the Afghanistani people. Although we seem to be making a bit of a pig's arse of that, also.

Unpalateable though this is, we must face up to the fact that our presence is only making things worse. We must withdraw and leave Afghanistani people to work out their own future. If they have any sense (and why shouldn't they?) they'll see where their true interests lie.

HI:
>>If it was, we'd have invaded Iran.

Imagine what that war would look like.

Actually...we don't have to imagine that hard: just look back to when western-backed Iraqi forces were fighting Iran. Not nice. Not nice at all.

Surely what happened is that the Bush administration wrongly believed that a weak, Taliban-misled Afghanistan would be a walkover, compared to Iran? They were wrong.

The smart money would be in US-Iranian reconciliation. That would solve a lot of problems.

It would also be within the realm of the possible.

>> Out of interest...straw poll...why do we think we're in Afghanistan?

One of the few interesting and intelligent things posted in this thread.

I'm naive enough to have assumed the American's invaded Afghanistan

(1) because Bush's wounded ego meant he had to invade someone; read the 9/11 threads in this very site if you don't think that was a factor and

(2) no matter how you define it, geography makes Afghanistan a pivot

Not saying I'm right. You guys are significantly better informed than I am, and have agendas to push as well.

As I said, I'm naive, and have no great faith in my opinion here. These are the reasons I thought at the time and I've not thought deeply since.

Ah yes...the old passive-aggressive 'I'm no expert' tactic. I have no agenda to push here than my own.

Yes, Afghanistan is geographically pivotal. Politically - it's so non-pivotal it's not true. (Where were the Afghans' friends?) The trick is to work out *why* it was pivotal at that particular moment. The need for a Caspian Pipeline as an alternative to Russian-dominated supplies is the obvious one.

I actually *hope* that was the reason. At least it makes short-mid term economic sense (but see my Copenhagen comments: if we actually *use* Caspian oil, we're all dead).

I'd be really...is disappointed too weak a word? how about 'sickened'...if it were all a Bush ego trip.

(I don't think it was, btw. That may have been a significant factor in Iraq - but less so in Afghanistan)

You constantly over-estimate me Edward. I'm not employing tactics: I am merely open about what I think, why I think it, and the level of conviction I think it with. Which makes me persuadable, especially as I do not seek to persuade.

It regularly confuses you, and you start attacking me as if what I say was a posture. Which suggests to me that much or most of what you say is a posture. You remind me strongly of Piniped in this: he once expressed complete astonishment at the realisation that everything I've said on this website has either been true or intended as a cheap joke. Oddly, SoRB got it straight away.



What I say is what I think
What you see is what you get
What I feel shows on my face
And yet you're *still* confused, my Pet?

I am no expert on this subject, and have said so. On other subjects I am, and say so. No passive aggression there, merely weary exasperation.

Step back from Iran...nothing to see here...move along...

Oof! No attack intended - just mild joshing.

The idea of my having an agenda to npush confused me, mind. Whose?

Yours, you fool!

I'm sorry - I get immensely irritated when people assume I'm fart-arsing around trying to be clever.

Hey ho. It's past my bedtime, so I'm tired and a bit crabby.

B

>>It's always been The War For The Caspian Sea Pipeline Route<<


There is already a pipeline connecting the Caspian to the West: the Baku-Ceyhan (pronounced Jayhan) pipeline via Georgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline

Interestingly, Britain's BP are the main force in Azerbaijan.
Allegedly something to do with their ability to use bribes to land deals in the 1990s when American companies were held back by the USA's anti-bribery laws (at the time British laws against bribery applied only in the UK. Don't know whether that's still so).

A British company involved in bribery? I thought it was only tinpot African states that did that sort of thing. .

(You're right, thoufg, Ghengis: the law was changed as part of Robin Cook's 'ethical foreign policy')

As for an independent route via Georgia...last year's events demonstrated that Georgia is not entirely safe from Russian expansionism. Even without that, though, the eastward route is politically complex, passing as it does through nmultiple states - and largely states which Russia still regards as being within their sphere of interest.

Azerbaijan is firmly in the western sphere (we're covering up their dodgy elections) and from Azerbaijan it goes straight into Turkey. No Russophile states there apart from where it's actually coming from.

to Mrs Z. When you say someone 'has an agenda to push'...is that the same as their 'having an opinion'?

Honestly - *not* wanting to do battle...but your formulation might have sounded a bit more loaded than you intended?

Yes - I suppose I *do* have an agenda to push/ opinion: that British troops are dying needlessly (and killing. more killing than dying, actually) in Afghanistan and that our obligation is to witdraw immediately, rather than remain in the vain hope that we may accidentally do some good.

I disagree wholeheatedly with the notion that now we're there we must see it through. No! We're part of the problem, not the solution.

HI:
>>Azerbaijan is firmly in the western sphere (we're covering up their dodgy elections) and from Azerbaijan it goes straight into Turkey. No Russophile states there apart from where it's actually coming from.

From the W***pedia link that Ghengis posted:

1) The pipeline crosses Georgia (see my previous about the possibiliuty of Georgia coming under Rusiian control).

2) The part of Turkey that it enters is not regarded by all of the locals as Turkey.


It's a politically volatile route. Other routes are sought.

I'd be interested in views on why the US/UK/one or two others invaded, though. What did we think we were doing *at the time*? (My recollection is that we were after a smooth decapitation of the Taliban, after which The Good Guys would take over.) How do those reasons compare with the current mission?

I think this sums up the current mission:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/cartoon/?cartoon=6532393&cc=6491467

RF

Well let's just say that it deviates somewhat from The Powell Doctrine which said that the US should only engage in wars where:
- Which are easily winnable due to overwhelming force.
- There is a clear exit strategy.
- There is no mission creep.

Sorry...but democracies cannot be built at the end of a gun. Our troops are dying because of a vapid belief that they can be. And Aghanistani civilians are dying in even greater numbers - except we seldom see the coffins of Afghanistani women and children being paraded through the local equivalent of Wooton Basett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTQTXbxOEeA&feature=related




I now resume you to your usual programming