What is Meant by "Afghanistanisation".

Morning commuters reading Metro were presented with pictures of grief stricken relatives as more British troops came home in body bags. Whilst terrible for them , Afghan casualties, both civilian and in the NATO sponsored ANA are seldom mentioned because the idea persists that our deaths are not futile.

But what about the deaths of Afghan people ?

An interesting piece by Zurah Bahman has appeared in The Guardian today on the ANA which shows the real meaning of what Gordon Brown meant by "Afghanistanisation" when speaking of the supposedly "high " death toll amongst British troops in Kandahar, through which the TAPI pipeline is scheduled to be built this very year.

It shows why the attempt is essentially doomed to failure,

I spoke with a large number of injured ANA and police members from southern and eastern Afghanistan. Contrary to the praise they anticipated at having gone through so much while serving the country, they were faced with a humiliating situation where the hospital beds and medical attention went to a senior staff member of the defence ministry who was getting his haemorrhoids removed, while the battle-injured soldiers lay two to one bed as their families chased doctors for attention. Those that sustain serious injury get $400 (£260) compensation, and there were arguments over whether losing a limb and losing a kidney both remitted $400.

While these men lay in bed waiting for attention, they recounted their battlefield antics in gory detail; some had filmed deaths of their comrades. One showed me the footage of what looked like minced meat and explained that it was the chin of his best friend blown up by a suicide bomber. There was no one at the army hospital to look after the mental wellbeing of these men.

They showed deep resentment towards their mentors. They gave each other the hero treatment while ridiculing their international colleagues for being cowards and not getting out to take on the Taliban "like men".

I can picture many of these men being capable of killing their foreign counterparts – their mentors – out of resentment, out of jealousy, out of anger over being hard done by, and not even feeling remorse, since they have learned their lessons in inflicting violence so well.

The simple fact is that Afghan lives are being sacrificed for geopolitics and the securirity of Afghanistan as a pipeline transit route or "energy bridge" intended as competition to the rival IPI pipeline which would bypass Afghanistan completely.

NATO, especially, the USA, cannot have that for two reasons.

The first is that it would thwart the longer term strategy of diverting Turkmenistani gas south to Krachi where it can be turned into LNG and shipped to the USA and to certain nations in NATO still fighting a "New Cold War" against Russia.

Secondly, the IPI would link up Iran , Pakistan and India without the West having a stake as the IPI could be extended to China, a major competitor for diminishing fossil fuels and intent of breakneck industrialisation. If NATO gains more control in Central Asia, it can retain global hegemony.

In this Great Game, the lives of Afghans count for less that those of the USA as the doctrine of "force protection" and the fact that formal democracies have to be aware at least partially of public opinion are wary of putting the lives of their troops were their "vital interests" lie.

Having Western troops die for oil and gas does not seem so very noble. So it's excluded from "public diplomacy " in the West, where the same repetitive mantra of national security continues to be the ostensible reason why "we" are there.

Yet for those who bleat about isolationism, the real question has to be how to find energy alternatives and cut down on the high octane consumer economy the West has and which is unsustainable. Unless a nation has energy independence, resource wars will go on.

Nor is is sufficient to claim that Afghanistan is an "Evil War" as Chomsky and Pilger claim, though the latter has shown the difference between the promises the USA made and the fact most money has been sunk into military solutions.

Yet instead of legalising opium, thus depriving the Taliban of most of their revenue, Pilger has merely made populist comments about how "at least" under the Taliban, opium production was banned. Until, of course, it offered a way of financing the insurgency against NATO forces

This situation could go on for decades without respite. The claims of "liberal interventionists" in Afghanistan were, in a few cases, well intentioned but it was stifled and destroyed by the way the USA has colluded with Islamists in Central Asia since the late 70s as a counterweight to the Communists.

Contrary to the myths spun, Afghanistan was already threatened by Islamists prior to Brzezinski making things even worse by deciding to arm and give aid to the mujahadeen in 1979 before the invasion of the Soviet Union. The place was a Cold War proxy ground with investment pouring in from both.

One of the most obvious ways out is to legalise all drugs. Yet just like the ANA, who have chosen out of poverty to join up, the Afghans have no choice in how their country is governed despite the facade of democracy. Those who chose to inject heroin in London or Glasgow do.

Ultimately, Western politicians will always put the lives of those who elect them first. Few politicians are brave enough to suggest depriving the Taliban of opium revenue. But, as Misha Glenny points out, this is probably the one big factor that could help and that will not be done.