So if Al Qaeda has moved it's forces to Iraq and set up shop, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

[Toots]

Or are they saying the threat of Al Qaeda has actually grown and is spreading across the globe? It was not in Iraq when we invaded but has developed a safe haven there now. Safe haven in Pakistan that was non-existant in 2001. Are they telling us the threat is spreading now?

[babylonsister]

1. I thought Afghanistan was the hub of democracy in the region.

That's what the blivet said.:shrug: :sarcasm:

[madokie]

2. Actually they don't know what they say

they just throw all this shit and then wait to see what sticks

[bahrbearian]

3. Exactly

We shuld pull our troops from Afganistan and then we can Blame it all on Nato.

[Lasher]

4. And what's with Chertoff and his predictions that terrorists will strike in the US soon?

I thought we were fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. So if the flypaper is not sticking to the terrorists in Iraq, we need to get out of there, right? :shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

5. Losing.

Slowly losing--that's what we're doing--and thereby setting up the implosion of Pakistan.

Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror, say generals

Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.

Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, highlighted their fears in public last week when he warned of a 'strategic failure' in Afghanistan. The Observer understands that Inge was speaking with the direct authority of the general staff when he made an intervention in a House of Lords debate.

'The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise,' Inge told peers. 'We need to face up to that issue, the consequence of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise.'

Inge's remarks reflect the fears of serving generals that the government is so overwhelmed by Iraq that it is in danger of losing sight of the threat of failure in Afghanistan. One source, who is familiar with the fears of the senior officers, told The Observer: 'If you talk privately to the generals they are very very worried. You heard it in Inge's speech. Inge said we are failing and remember Inge speaks for the generals.'

A consequence of losing control of Afghanistan is that Islamist militants in the region will be able to take down the Pakistani government, which seems increasingly unstable under General Musharraf. Musharraf and the Pakistani military have ceded control over Waziristan to Islamist and tribal elements. Of course our good buddy Pakistan has the bomb and has been the world's worst nuclear proliferator, which makes its downward spiral into instability troubling for anybody to contemplate, whatever one thinks about Western imperialist policies in the region. Indeed the fears at the top of British military and political circles extend to scenarios of region-wide clashes between Sunni and Shia, should Pakistan implode as predicted. With a large Pakistani immigrant community, the UK could only expect to be swept along in a tide of terrorism associated with Sunni v. Shia conflict, Muslim v. West conflict and Pakistani v. India conflict.