1.        "Au contraire - in each of the situations you mention you have a resurgent and radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently to resort to violence."

Do you work for the BBC Gervase? I ask because they're awfully keen on that word "resurgent" when talking about the Taleban, so much so that the OED is going to have to alter the commonly understood meaning of it from:

Resurgent: - increasing again, or becoming popular again

To

Resurgent: - Timid cave dweller

As to there being any "radical Islamic movement buoyed up sufficiently" – Well Gervase if you have the people behind you don't need the terrorism to get what you want.

One would think after so much "resurgence" for all these years the Taleban would have been a bit further down the road to accomplishing their goals, but they're not are they? They've gone backwards.


2.        "In most cases it is the hard-line, anti-Western element - the one which wants to establish the Caliphate - which is doing the running."

Oh, they most certainly are doing the running Gervase mostly in an easterly direction, out of Afghanistan and into the FATA and NWFP of Pakistan. Where having arrived and settled down for a nice cup of tea they get whacked by a Hellfire missile from a Predator Drone –life must be an absolute bitch for them.

3.        "I'm willing to wager that the course of the campaign in Afghanistan would have been entirely different and far more successful had Bush not sent the troops into Iraq. As it is a course of action that I initially supported (albeit with some misgivings, given the historical record of actions in that region) seems to have degenerated into a never-ending exercise in putting fingers into lots of holes in a very large, crumbling dyke, with little chance of success."

Pure supposition of course but sending more troops into Afghanistan would have accomplished what exactly. It most certainly would not have addressed the concerns of the United States of America with regard to what was identified as being potentially the greatest threat that they faced. And that is the prime responsibility of the President of the United States of America the protection and security of his country.

When the Russians went into Afghanistan they went in mob handed 154,000 combat troops complete with armour, artillery and air support. They stayed there for nine years and were defeated in detail by the "Mujahideen". There were many reasons for their defeat but one factor was that like the US Forces in Vietnam their soldiers were conscripts, who basically did not want to be in the Army in the first place and most certainly did not want to be based outside Mother Russia fighting Afghans.

Now compare that to the current situation in Afghanistan in terms of actual combat troops NATO/ISAF and the US "Enduring Freedom" Force have about one quarter of the strength that the Russians had if that. Unlike the situation that faced the Russians the entire country is not up in arms against NATO/ISAF, much of it is pretty quiet. NATO/ISAF and the US has been there for seven years, where are the Taleban? You will find them largely, over the border in Pakistan. What towns and districts do the Taleban control? None MusaQuala was the last and they got booted out of there some time ago, they haven't returned. Differences our technology is far better and a great deal more sophisticated and advanced than anything the Russians had. Intelligence gathering and monitoring is absolutely amazing, as is the ability to handle the information gathered. The majority of the troops are "professional" soldiers. There is talk these days of "Stalemate" – anybody ever hear that when the Russians were there.

The new President of the United States of America and his Vice-President have been foolish enough to come out with statements that could only ever be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy – strange thing for the "Commander-in-Chief" of any Army to do – but still he's new to the job, he might just improve, had he done that in this country he'd be guilty of treason.

But say Obama sticks to his plan and puts three more combat brigades into Afghanistan on the ISAF side of the equation, that almost doubles the size of the "fighting" troops in country and Gervase if what we've got there at present is holding the "resurgent" Taleban to a stalemate, then with an 85% increase in troop numbers the Taleban are in for a pretty torrid time – and they know it.

4.        "To a large swathe of the world, the Taleban are the good guys, holding out against the infidel."

As somebody said if you have the people behind you don't need the terrorism to get what you want. So I don't think the swathe is all that large, specially not in Swat where when the Taleban came in almost everybody fled, that is how much they are thought of as being "good guys"


5.        "Why do you think they have attracted volunteers from all over the world?"

I actually didn't think the Taleban as such took in foreigners. Al-Qaeda has and no doubt still does. I haven't actually ever heard of anyone flocking to Taleban training camps. The Arab Jihadists are universally despised by the people of Afghanistan as were the Taleban themselves once they got into the swing of things and nobody wants to see them return to power.


6.        "And now, it seems, their brand of militant Islam is spreading. Pakistan's not looking too good at the moment, is it?"

Ah, the Taleban have their own brand of militant Islam do they, how nice to know. But its not really spreading is it Gervase. The only reason it is now being seen in the FATA and NWFP of Pakistan is not because of its popularity amongst "swathes" of people who think that the Taleban are "good guys", its primarily because the Taleban have had their sorry arses kicked out of Afghanistan and they have been forced to flee to the only refuge open to them, it's not been spread you Pillock, it's merely been temporarily transferred.

7.        "I am aware of the semantic distinctions you make, old fruit. Fatwa, by the way, is a judicial term, not a military/political term."

Care to point out when and where I stated that "Fatwa" was a military/political term Gervase??

8.        
"Let's have a straight answer to this question:
Has US foreign policy since 2001 inflamed or moderated Muslim militancy and has there been an increase or a decrease in terrorism?"

Oh good, I like these - Straight Answer:

Forget 2001 Gervase, US foreign policy since 1948 has inflamed Muslim militancy. Muslim militancy regarded 2001 as the year they scored their greatest achievement. Don't for one bloody minute think that Muslim militancy arrived on the worlds doorstep as a result of the election of GWB or as a result of actions taken by him. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world Gervase, it is the second most followed religion in the world after Christianity. And guess what Gervase, by and large very few Muslims are militant, the ones that are tend to be Arab, and what they seek to achieve is the second Caliphate.

Ah Gervase, the "racist" card you must be losing it. Or is this another attempt to put words into my mouth? Let's see we've had:

•        Militant Islam when I only ever mentioned terrorism
•        Fatwa as a military/political term when I said no such thing
•        That those PIRA attacks not aimed directly at the security forces on the UK mainland were not acts of terrorism – when I have never said anything of the sort
•        That the Taleban would actually be quite happy to have Afghanistan become a moderate democracy? - when I have never said anything of the sort
•        And finally I must be a racist, pathetic really.

If you are going to argue the toss stick to what has actually been said.