Insanity rules after ten years of war in Afghanistan

This article illustrates why Eureka Street is the only journal I read. Thank you, Irfan Yusuf...

Fascinating history lesson.

Western Foreign Policy: dim-witted, short-sighted and self-centred

Irfan Yusuf shows well how alliances can swap and change according to political priorities. He also shows how not doing things can come back to haunt you later. The treaty of Versailles at the end of WW I, the alliances made and broken by the West, the Axis powers and Soviet Russia befoore and druing WW II are grander examples of the same theme.

However, I find his analysis deficient as it seems he blames the whole mess on the West. Their sins of commission and omission are responsible for the bloodshed and mayhem. There is no blame laid at the feet of the brutal Taliban. The role that this bloody-thirsty, misogynistic pack of fanatics is overlooked. This is curious as other authors at Eureka Street note that most of the Afghani refugees are Hazaras who are fleeing the Taliban.

Whatever mistakes the West has made, billions have been spent trying to rebuild Afghanistan. It is dishonest to imply that the coalition forces' sole purpose in going into Afghanistan was to " drop huge bombs on their villages and towns."

BTW any future posters, I supported neither the war in Iraq nor Afghanistan.

While this article highlights the twists and turns of us and our allies it completely ignores the changes in the Taliban, Isb-i-islami, Afghanistan etc. You pride yourself on being a voice for the countercultural but ignore the balance. Shame on you.

Thanks Irfan, timely. I seem to remember the anti-Jihadists became the Northern Alliance who, many years ago espoused similar conservative views on women, girls' education, that former pro-jihadists now ascribe solely to the Taliban. And the jihadists also fought each other in a brutal civil war of which you still see spectacular evidence in Kabul. The sadness of all this is that, as the Taliban ramps up its international PR insurgency in Kabul and the rural insurgency grinds on, Afghans are looking for exit doors that are fast slamming in their faces. Irfan I'd like to see you review "Pakistan, a hard country" by Anatole Lieven for Eureka Street.

Yes and I still don't know why we had to mass murder Afghans because of the crime of some Saudis.

"And hence we sent our own planes to drop huge bombs on their villages and towns."

No, we didn't.

Terrorist cells and terrorist training-grounds are forensically targeted, not civilian homes. If terrorists use the homes of civilians to carry out their operations, or to hide in, or to make their deadly arsenal in, then they have militarised them, and can legitimately expect those places to become targets.

Whose side are you on, exactly?

Should we simply not respond when terrorists bomb and burn civilians? Or perhaps say "tut-tut"?

Where do you think terrorists learn their trades, create their bombs, get money to buy weapons? It is a deadly industry, staffed by murderous fanatics.

Have you talked to the Chief of our Defence Force? Did you interview anybody actually involved in the response to terrorism? Are you aware of the training our troops have in the Law of Armed Conflict? Did you know that Australia has ratified - and abides by - the Geneva Conventions?

Afghani men are meeting our serving soldiers, being taught trades by them, and are impressed by them. Why do you think they are coming to Australia?

Have you spoken to survivors of terrorist attacks? Or to families of victims? There have been an estimated 17 000+ fatalities from extremist attacks throughout the world since 9/11. Extremism is the enemy.

Yes, it is strange when odd alliances have to form, to strategically defeat a powerful evil force. Once defeated, the alliance dissolves and new allegiances form, based on altered interests. To defeat Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt had to join forces with Stalin. Once Hitler was no longer as a threat, Stalin became the enemy.

This article is a poorly researched biased article insulting every single Australian. I fail to understand why Eureka Street gives a voice to such peddlers of hatred.

Ali, you make many assertions in your short comment, but what evidence can you give for them?
1. How is the article poorly researched?

2. What bias, apart from that inevitable in arguing a particular case, does it show?

3. How does it insult any Australian to say their country has been engaged in a misconceived war? How can it insult all Australians, including those who agree with the author?

4. What hatred does the writer show? Anger, certainly; regret, too; but hatred?

5. Why should Eureka Street give a voice to you and to me, if it refuses a voice to the writer?

To Dan: Please make an effort to read this article in details! You may not about what he did not write about, mainly the ongoing mass murder of innocent people in many counties across the world. He seems to have forgotten mass murder in Bali, Pakistan, India, Iraq, England, and USA etc. of innocent people and lies about “our own planes to drop huge bombs on their villages and towns.” I wish for him to qualify that statement and give one single example where our armed forced ever bombed a village in Afghanistan!

This site estimates the human damage done since 2001. Neither side can claim the high ground. There's been some talk of negotiation with the Taliban, wish they'd get a wriggle on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

In the initial airstrikes and invasion, most of the direct civilian deaths were the result of U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire. In the years since 2005, the mounting insurgency has resulted in more direct civilian deaths being caused each year by insurgent actions than by coalition military action. Overall, however, the number of direct civilian casualties that have been attributed to insurgent forces by the available estimates remains less than the number that have been attributed to U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire since 2001.