We're almost there... just another 15 years 

Anyone who believes the U.S had any form of victory whatsoever in Afghanistan would have to be living in a fantasy land. The U.S and their lapdog Karzai will soon be openly begging the Talibaan, before they finally plop their tails between their legs and scamper back to whence they came. The Talibaan were prepared to risk losing power for one single man... I doubt they're going to just roll over and compromise now. Either there's gonna be another 15 years of worsening conditions for the U.S, or they'll realise the benefits of cutting their losses and bolting now.

---

Hamid Karzai: Afghan forces 'could need 15 years' help'

Afghanistan could need foreign support for its security forces for up to 15 years, President Hamid Karzai has told the BBC, as key talks open in London.

Mr Karzai is in Britain for a one-day summit on the future of Afghanistan, where a possible offer of talks with moderate Taliban is high on the agenda.

He is also set to unveil detailed plans on tackling corruption in the country.

Foreign ministers from 70 nations are expected to give renewed momentum to nation-building in Afghanistan.

Opening the conference, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it was a "decisive time" for the future of Afghanistan.

"By the middle of next year, we have to turn the tide in the fight against the insurgency," Mr Brown said.

'Financially able'

The talks are being hosted by the UK, UN and the Afghan government.

Speaking to the BBC before the talks got under way, Mr Karzai said: "With regard to training and equipping the Afghan security forces, five to 10 years will be enough," Mr Karzai said.

"With regard to sustaining them until Afghanistan is financially able to provide for our forces, the time may be extended to 10 to 15 years."

Donor countries are expected to set up a fund to help lure Taliban members back into Afghan society.

     
An Afghan man (The face-palm says it all  )

What will happen at the conference?

But Mr Brown told the BBC any effort to reintegrate insurgents could work only if Afghanistan's own army and police were strong enough to take charge of security from international forces

"The first thing is to strengthen the Afghan forces, and then to weaken the Taliban by dividing them," he said.

"You cannot have a situation where you are making advances to those people who are prepared to renounce violence and join the democratic process and say they will have nothing more to do with the activities they have been involved with in the past unless you have a strong Afghan army and police."

Mr Karzai has won general support for his plan to reintegrate, but Western nations are expected to ask for more details on the strategy at the summit.

The proposed fund would help reintegrate defecting foot soldiers with the promises of jobs, cash and protection.

The Taliban responded to news of the conference with a statement saying that no talks would be possible until foreign forces had left Afghanistan.

Anti-corruption drive

The BBC has also learned that President Karzai is going to produce detailed proposals on how to tackle corruption in Afghanistan.

A recent UN survey found that corruption is seen by ordinary Afghans as the biggest problem in the country. It has also been a long-standing concern with Afghanistan's Western backers.

The BBC's Martha Kearney, in Kabul, says there has been scepticism about the president's political will to tackle corruption.

One of the most significant proposals is the creation of an external watchdog composed of anti-corruption experts from around the world.

Hard fighting ahead

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the timing of the London conference is critical.

According to most military analysts the Taliban is riding high, but the US surge in forces is under way and weeks and months of hard fighting lie ahead, our correspondent says.

More work will be done on bolstering Afghanistan's own security forces, as well as setting goals on development and governance and a renewed emphasis on setting Afghanistan's problems in a wider regional framework.

A follow-up conference will be held in Kabul in a few months.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has named a long-serving UN diplomat, Staffan de Mistura, as his new representative in Afghanistan.

Mr De Mistura, who holds Swedish and Italian nationalities, will replace the outgoing head of the UN mission in Kabul, Kai Eide, when he steps down in March.

Mr Eide was accused by a colleague of being too close to President Karzai and his government, and of downplaying fraud during presidential elections last year. Mr Eide always denied the allegations.

Source: BBC

Quote:


No actually that would be you.

I vehemently oppose militant terrorist murderers like Bush, his successors and accomplices.

There is more to this than simply 'US versus Taliban'. Nobody cares whether Afghanistan has a nice government or a nasty one as long as they are minding their own business within their borders.

But being militant islamist nutters, they are dreaming of the Ummah and of exporting their ideology and influence. That is what will not be allowed. That is why they will be subject to bombardment and financial an economic blockade, a la Iraq in the 1990s, should the Taliban 'convince' the US to pull out without they themselves cutting out the jihadist ummah-mongering.

If Iran gets involved, it will be wacked as a matter of principle and long-overdue payback for 1979. Iran is careful because it is now surrounded by US hardware. Any show of acctive belligerence would also satisfy Israel's need for a concrete excue to wack Iran and its puppets, Hezb'Allah and Hamas.

If the Pakis are also drawn into the conflict, India will be there too. And then Uncle Sam will truly be able to go home and let them wage war, supporting India while it is useful. If China gets drawn in, then we'll be living in interesting times because any tentative expansion by China ill be watched by Russia with its finger on the trigger.

America's vital intrest is not to have a formidable geopolitical rival. An Asian conflagration will weaken only America's rivals.

The taliban and the Afghans generally are only the pawns in this game. It matters not whether there is an Afghanistan. What matters to the US is that if Afghanistan is to be devasted, it be devastetd at a time and in the manner of the US's chosing, not anyone else's. There are more important things at stake here than the taliban.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

Religion is ineradicable and the West has no more an interest in eradicating Islam than in wiping out Astrology.

Islam, however, is being used as a device to rally Muslims to Middle Eastern causes that owe their existence rather to a perceived sense of historical injustice and disenfranchisement than religion.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:

Instances of religion have been superseded by others  or morphed into other instances of religion...

Instances of religion are also ineradicable unless their respective adherents abandon their belief system for another... But I must qualify... An instance is eradicable where all its adherents are killed.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:

It's certainly true that secularist states encourage separation of religion and state. I've heard that (ironically) Shi'ism historically separated itself from state affairs. Is this true?

Quote:


The same will happen this time. Except it won't be on the terms of a minority of extremist people, but on the terms of the majority of the people.

Quote:


Isn't that your tripe? Every time the Afghan people choose something good for themselves, you say it is mere'y US puppets imposing the will of the US on them.

Quote:


The majority of the people on both sides are Muslims. You simply don't make sense Abu.

Quote:


That doesn't make sense Abu. Our allies are turning Afghanistan from a bunch of warring tribes that no-one in Afghanistan could bring together in anything mmore than a loose coalition, into a unified, functioning state, where the majority of the people will get to choose their own destiny. Neither resembles the Caliphate, but a unified functioning state is closer.

Quote:


We are giving power to the Afghan people for the first time. That they choose something different to you seems to trouble you, as you can only blame it on some giant conspiracy, rather than the will of the people. You go to great lengths to put together any kind of argument that a small minoirty seeking a return to the violent and brutal ways of the Taliban is in fact the majority expressing itself, when it clearly is not.

Not just us. It seems most self declared muslims want it abolished. The claim that we have been able to prevent, for a few centuries, what muslims in the middle east want with some targetted interference is nothing short of absurd. That we would hand them deocracy on a platter as a way of preventing them from getting what they want is even more absurd. It rteally makes the mind boggle - the sort of mental gymanstics people will go through to maintain their world view.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 12:20am:

I can't find the site that described the historical secular tendencies within Shi'ism but it seems there is currently a strong preference by Shi'ites for separation of religion and state...

Quote:


Interesting that this taste for separation of religion and state is popular among Shi'ites if there is no historical tradition... Unless Shi'ites have only recently been turned away from theocracy by the excesses of the Islamic Republic.