There’s little that’s ‘neocolonial’ about fighting terrorism
■ Barry and Sally (MetroTalk, Wed) are wrong about the reason for the West’s invasion of Afghanistan. Far from ‘neocolonial interference’, US and allied troops were sent to Afghanistan because it was a base from where terrorist group Al Qaeda operated.
If anyone thinks that, following 9/11, it was business as usual for the US, they’re very much mistaken.
Do you think the US and the rest of the Western world would not take steps to prevent that happening again? It’s called protecting your citizens.
Ironically, the 20 years of occupation has seen Afghanistan progress tremendously, all of which is now put at risk as the Taliban imposes its own cruel and inhumane values on the population.
Still, let them get on with it and don’t get involved, lest we should be accused of ‘neocolonial interference’.
John Daniels, Redhill
■ Sally says that while the West should never have interfered, we should now remain until it is safe for Afghans and it is therefore ‘entirely consistent’ to have protested against troops going in but now want them to stay (MetroTalk, Wed).
It is not. After thousands were killed and injured in 9/11, the UN voted 15-0 to send troops to Afghanistan to stop a barbaric Taliban killing thousands and allowing Al Qaeda to train and plot attacks on the US.
Had the allies not entered Afghanistan and destroyed both groups’ capabilities at the time, many thousands more innocents in London, New York, Paris etc would have been murdered.
As Al Qaeda and Isis-K are already in Afghan provinces, the withdrawal of US and other Western troops, including those of the UK, is entirely inconsistent with UN Resolutions 1378, 1383 and
1386, which authorised the actions taken to eradicate Afghanistan of terrorists.
We should thank all those who have kept us safe from Islamic terrorism planned in Afghanistan for the past two decades and worry about what might occur and originate as a consequence of the decision to leave fully.
The US and allies have had about ten times more soldiers in South Korea and Germany than in Afghanistan since their respective wars. Why?
Richard, Mansfield
■ People can carry on demonising the Taliban in the hope that the US will send troops back to Afghanistan but this will not happen.
It’s clear the Americans have decided that propping up the previous Afghan government does not serve its interests any more and has struck a deal with the Taliban, allowing them to take over.
The Afghan army may have collapsed quicker than the US anticipated but it makes no difference to the end result.
The question to ask is, what did the Taliban offer the Americans in return?
Afghanistan practically sits between China, Russia and Iran, so will the Taliban be the Americans’ proxy in causing problems for these countries?
Mudher Al-Adnani, Harrow
■ For those who think the Taliban will rule with compassion and justice, it’s worth noting there are hundreds of thousands trying to leave Afghanistan and, as far as I know, not a single person is trying to get in.
Also, women are being asked to stay at home for their safety. Why are they in danger and who from? They could go around freely before the Taliban regained control.