From liberation to warlordism, the west's plan for Afghanistan

The headline of Max Hastings' article in today's Guardian reads 'Afghanistan's best hope is for controlled warlordism'. What an admission of defeat compared to the supposedly high ideals which accompanied the bombing and occupation of the country seven years ago. Then it was promises of democracy, modernisation and women's liberation. Now it's hanging on to what remains of the shambles the western intervention has become.

The problem is there already is a government of warlords, put in place and backed by the west. Corruption is rife in Afghanistan and goes right to the top of the Karzai government. This, and the increasing dependence on the opium crop, and the refugee problem, and the continued appalling situation of women, were all tolerated just as long as the Nato forces looked like they were on top.

Now they don't and there has been a change in western opinion. Already diplomats and top military have admitted the war can't be won and they must talk to the Taliban. Now the Financial Times editorial has joined the assessment. It's clear that everyone has given up on Karzai but no one knows what to put in his government's place, apart from a 'benevolent' dictator. And the economic crisis now hitting the world must raise questions about bankrolling failed wars and occupations when governments are having to bankroll the banks.

So more misery for Afghans, and Pakistanis. And that has a knock on here. Stop the War in Scotland are holding a protest to complain at the treatment of Afghan and Pakistani travellers going through Glasgow airport. They are often held 2-3 hours there, then asked to go for further questioning by Special Branch. Questions range from 'do you know where Osama bin Laden is ' to 'do you pray' to 'which mosque do you go to'.

It seems a bit unfair on Afghans travelling home for weddings or family visits to be asked the whereabouts of bin Laden, a question to which the world's biggest surveillance systems and agencies cannot find an answer. But hey. Tens of thousands have died, hundreds of thousands are refugees following the war over an issue which had nothing to do with ordinary Afghans. Why break the habit?

Losing the war in Afghanistan

Gordon brown called it ‘the most noble cause of the 21^st century.’ But today the commander of UK troops in Afghanistan has presented a rather different assessment. According to Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith ‘we’re not going to win this war’ and that talks with the Taliban are the way forward.

His remarks follow on from leaked remarks attributed to the British ambassador in Kabul, the exotically named Sherard Cowper-Coles, that foreign troops were part of the problem and that what was needed was an ‘acceptable dictator.’

It’s seven years tomorrow since the British government, along with the US and its other allies launched the war on Afghanistan _ the first war in the war on terror. An estimated 10,000 died during that war, but since then things have gone even further downhill. Many thousands more have died, there is a mass refugee problem, there has been virtually no reconstruction, despite the extravagant promises of Tony Blair seven years ago that ‘we will not walk away.’

No wonder dictatorship is the favoured British option. The Karzai government is corrupt and holds little sway in the country. Free elections would not produce a pro western government. So what’s needed is someone who runs the country on behalf of the occupiers.

What a lesson in humanitarian intervention Afghanistan is. No women’s liberation…no reconstruction..no peace….no democracy…dependence on the opium crop. It’s like a Brecht play except there’s no interval and no end.