How goes the battle?

Even when the Afghanistan war was going well (remember those days?), there was a strong undercurrent of unease about what the US and UK were doing, and where they would stop.



Now then, the War Against Terror (trademark of the US Government); what's going on with that particular package of fun at the moment? The news when last I checked was rather good from a western point of view; the Taliban have effectively ceased to exist, every city (such as they are) in Afghanistan is under Non-Taliban control, an interim government had been agreed, food aid is starting to arrive in the capital, and the search for that nice Mr. Bin Laden has begun in earnest. So it would appear that everything is going swimmingly, correct? Well...

One can usually rely on the American government to take a silk purse and from it construct a pig's scrotum and the war in Afghanistan is no different. Before going on, I will give credit where credit is due; despite all that was said about the tactics used, from a battlefield perspective they worked. The enemy government is not in control any more and is scattered to the four winds. Coalition troops have freedom of movement on the ground. And it was all achieved before the onset of the worst of the Afghan winter. So here's a huzzah to the coalition for the good news.

Now let's start to have a look at the less welcome events of the last couple of weeks. I suppose we could start with that old favourite of the US air force; friendly fire. That's a lovely phrase isn't it? It sounds almost like an all-American cartoon character ("Casper the Friendly Ghost? Meet George the Friendly Fire.") Admittedly, cock ups in the field resulting in the deaths of one's own troops is nothing new in warfare but the American army seemed to have taken it to new heights of ineptitude. Consider, for example, the incident last week, which saw the American military give it's opinion of the interim Afghan P.M. Hamid Karzai as well as demonstrating some of the methods of effectively prosecuting a modern conflict. Or, to put it another way they dropped a bomb on their own troops (killing three of them; the Taliban have so far failed to kill a single soldier in the Coalition military and have had to limit themselves to a few journalists and a member of the CIA) and also managed to injure the most important Afghan in the world at the moment. Mm, nice work boys. Maybe next we'll see the US army help to quell the Marxist rebellion in Nepal by bombing the royal palace. Perhaps they'll even start gunning down more of their own troops to show the Taliban how it's done...

Of course, we are a cynical generation and one that was probably half expecting more wacky friendly fire mishaps and so this is not a subject on which one can dwell for long before it becomes boring. Something which is altogether more interesting (interesting = scary) is the US and it's determination to extend the War Against Terror. Over the last week there ever louder voices from the US in favour of some sort of punitive action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been promoted up the hierarchy of world evil by an American government that would seem to have had its appetite for warfare whetted quite nicely by the war thus far. He has gone from being the beaten but still irritating thorn in the side of the West to a super villain masterminding the manufacture of more and better weaponry regardless of the consequences to world peace. He is the despotic head of an unrepresentative government that came to power by dubious means who has no interest in anyone's opinion but his own. He uses terrorism to further his own aims and is unapologetic about doing so. We have been warned that we leave him undisturbed at our peril, for he will surely pay no heed to the UN or any other organisation that may seek to limit his mischief.

I'm not going to try and become Hussein's cheerleader at this point. I have no doubts that the man is an evil and bloated old swine and I look forward to reading his obituary in the papers one day. I'm not even going to disagree with the fact that his removal would be a fundamentally good thing; Paul Wolfowitz (American Deputy Defence Secretary and renowned warmonger) wrote a paper in the late 70's calling for the removal of Hussein and stating that he was a menace to Western security. Whilst I'm not in any position to question Mr. Wolfowitz's academic credentials (which in any case are impeccable; Wolfowitz is respected throughout the political world for his foresight and acumen if not for his ideologies) I am rather concerned at the sight of a powerful man using his position to try and fulfil what is to all intents and purposes a prophecy from a school project. I mean, dear lord, I confidently predicted a nuclear holocaust that would wipe out mankind when I was 14 but I'm pretty damn sure that you wouldn't find me beavering away to bring that to fruition.

The main thing I take issue with however is the implication that the US government is going to simply do whatever the hell it wants and consequence be damned. There was some pretty intense negotiation to secure the, well not the support but the non-interference of the Islamic World in the Afghan war. Even then, there have been waves to rock the boat; Rudolph Giulianni refused a $6 million donation from the Saudi Crown Prince because he dared to hint obliquely that the US government was less than even handed in it's dealings with the Middle east and that may have contributed to the Sept 11th disaster. The fact that this is true doesn't seem to have troubled Rudi's conscience in refusing the money. And whilst the various Moslem governments have given their approval there remain several doubts as to whether they represent the views of the majority of their people. All this occurred to the backdrop of an horrific and unjustified attack which saw the sympathies of the world with America. So one can foresee trouble ahead if the US decides to trample all over the delicate and volatile political situation in the Middle East in order to rectify their mistake in failing to remove the tyrant at the first time of asking (if nothing else they'll be less well informed about the Iraqi military capacity seeing as America doesn't sell them weapons anymore...).

That said the Pakistan based opposition to this war was vociferous in its denunciation of American aggression yet it has failed thus far to destabilise and topple the military government of Pervez Musharraf (in fact the only real trouble he is currently facing stems from the dispute with India in Kashmir). Admittedly this is because he has access to all of the guns and has the support of the army, but then that is the story across a large portion of the Islamic world. Is the American government about to gamble the stability of the governments of the Middle East against removing a threat that, though it exists, is currently held in check?

As a parting shot, I'd like to go back to my earlier description of Hussein and see if it holds true elsewhere. The US government has at it's head a man who came to power by dubious means (thanks to his good old brother Jeb in Florida), who is developing more and better weaponry no matter what the consequences to world peace (the Son of Star Wars missile system continues to roll on despite the fact that it doesn't work and is annoying the hell out of China, Russia, Europe etc), and who has no interest in anyone's opinion but his own (Kyoto is the tip of the iceberg as far as agreements that he has reneged on go). He supports right wing anti-government terrorists in Central America in order to promote his own agenda (because Uncle Sam doesn't want any nasty left wing governments on his own doorstep, no sir-ee!). He hasn't even deigned to make reference to the UN other than to berate other nations for not doing as he told them. If America wants another Boogeyman to frighten it's children with then it would do well to start looking a little closer to home.