Although a quick review of ISIS links them to a group referred to as ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) although this is different to the Pakistani ISI
It sounds like the book could be an interesting read. I have previously read The Places In Between: Amazon.co.uk: Rory Stewart: Books Which gives a good insight into Afghanistan, although the author was there in 2003.
I haven't ready any books on Afghanistan, but I've spent a lot of time there. It needs a huge step change in order to modernise but this step change will only come about through a new generation that have been raised with an innate understanding of justice, fairness, entitlement, human rights and freedom. It's too late for the men of the current generation.
An Intimate War: An Oral History of the Helmand Conflict: Amazon.co.uk: Mike Martin: Books The summary certainly coincides with Rory Stewart's book, in that the conflict within Afghanistan was essentially tribal in origin.
How far back do you want to go? Afghan tribes do fight amongst themselves, with blood feuds lasting generations but do you count the invasion of Britain and Russia during the great game? Or the invasion by Russia again in the 80's? The subsequent power vacuum filled by war lords, the eventual establishment of the Taliban as a power in response, the invasion of Afghanistan by the US in 2003, the beginning of conventional warfare a few years later? Do you count the division of an ethnic group by Britain during the creation of the state of Pakistan? You can go all the way back to Alexander the Great for examples of invasion, destruction, oppression and slaughter. The entire history of the area is strewn with reasons, you can take your pick if you want to champion one, but in reality they all lead in to each other. As an aside, there is a fortress in Zabul Province built by Alexander the Great and now it has another military base inside. There also used to be a base in Helmand that contained the ruins of a fort built in the first Anglo-Afghan war. Both very interesting to see
This is one of A the G's forts. Sorry for the resolution but it was taken on an iPhone, from a long way away. This is the kind of Afghanistan that you often don't see. Ignore the militaria and see the colours, the mountains. It looks even better in real life. Sunset... The first moments of sunrise... And lots of mountains. And snow, in the Winter. It's a beautiful country with some wonderful things to see. It's just let down by it's populace. (Unusually, these Afghan pictures don't show the mishandling of any opposing forces. Sorry about that but it's not my thing.)
I was working with an ex infantry Captain recently who mentioned the beauty of the Afghan countryside.
In the spring and summer there are places that could be confused with the English countryside. In Helmand at least. The mountains are a bit of a give away that this isn't Kansas everywhere else.
I have real trouble forming a positive opinion on this. I have done a great deal of travelling over the years, spent a lot of time in the far east, middle east, africa, the americas. I enjoy the different cultures and especially enjoy trying to understand how different cultures think and what different logic they apply to different situations. They are all very different which all goes to make up the very rich tapestry of the world. Are we right to go into Iraq/Afghanistan, remove governments and try to influence them with western culture and education? Would we be right to stand by and let Dictators abuse the human rights of their populations and harbour terrorists who are set on blowing up the west while we enjoy our very privileged lifestyles? People entrench themselves in one camp or another and it's a subject that exceptionally emotive. I can just see both sides, don't like to see populations abused and the west threatened but am equally uncomfortable with the west inflicting their culture on a population that has it's own that goes back thousands of years no matter how primitive we may think it is. Problem is I can't see a middle way that preserves their cultures but stops the abuse and the buggers blowing us up. Does not diminish my respect for those that go over on our behalf and put their lives on the line, just unsure whether the politicians have made the right call or are going about it in the right way.
Preserving their culture is not our responsibility and I am not sure in what way they were a threat to us.
The mission evolved, so regardless of what the plan was at the start, it ended up being to train and enable afghans to provide their own security in order to enable long term change. It took almost a decade to realise that this was the key.
How do you reconcile your belief that the government won't last 15 months and enabling long term change ? If Afghans providing long term security is the key, and we believe that they are not capable of providing it, have we not handed them a poisoned chalice ? What will happen to the hopes and dreams of the Afghan people who have embraced education, and particularly the girls, if the government falls.
The mission evolved? What are you on about. Are you blinded by your own propaganda? What do we think we are doing walking around the world getting involved in Wars? You think its because the people need help etc. Bullshit, War is about finance, profit, investments, natural resources. Get a grip man, Iraq is a mess, Afghan will go the same way.
Was it Colin Powell who said "if you break it you own it", but we don't, we break it, patch it together with a sticking plaster and leave.
I mean the full extent of the situation wasn't known at the outset. That doesn't seem like a far fetched idea. I'd imagine that there are many, many occasions in life when things don't go to plan and the method, the means and the objective changes. The afghans have been trained, from having no army to having a highly capable one. The afghans will work hard if you drag them to the coal face by the ear. If you stop taking them there then they stop working. Before the mission; no government, no ability to provide security. After the mission; a functional (if corrupt) system of governance. The machinery and the training to provide security. The phrase about leading a horse to water but not being able to make it drink springs to mind. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well but it seems pretty clear to me, but then I guess it would.
I understand the mission creep and the final objectives, what I am trying to get at is is what has been put in place fit for purpose and, not just capable of, but likely to stand the test of time. What will happen when the West 'withdraws'.
Indeed. And in the meantime we've ploughed in billions of dollars (primarily encouraging corruption and vested interests) and flooded the country with modern weaponry, so that the resulting bloodbath is even more brutal. We are - at least partly - responsible for the chaos that is likely to reign for the next several generations...
Some might argue, and it would be difficult to counter, that the military industrial complex has achieved it's objectives. I sincerely hope and believe that is not the case but it isn't as far fetched as some might have us believe.
The United States needs war to fund itself. A large segment of it's economy is based on the development, manufacture and sale of war fighting materials. And the equipment and training provided were fit for purpose but the people trained were of a low quality. You can only work with what you have. And afghanistan's population mostly consists of low motivated, illiterate, uneducated peoples. All the smart people upped and left already and live elsewhere
The way you walk around Afghan is with a shit load of cash in your belt and hand it out. The Afghans are warriors, they fight and fight hard. They will always fight.
