As a direct response to the September 11 attacks, NATO acted upon Article 5 of the NATO Articles for the first time in its history. An assault that would pan out for longer than a decade was started in Afghanistan, the basic aim of the initiative being the removal Taliban from power, finding Osama Bin Laden & destroying Al-Qaeda completely.

Troops from 42 countries were sent as NATO took charge of a mission outside north Atlantic area for the first time in history. After the initial attacks, prominently Torra Borra & Operation Anaconda, NATO was given control of ISAF (international Security Assistance Force), and by 2006 NATO forces had expanded the mission throughout Afghanistan.

In May 2011, after the US-NATO led undercover operation in Abbotabad, the death of Osama Bin Laden was confirmed. One major milestone was achieved, though at the cost of numerous lives. There on, a plan to evacuate NATO forces from Afghanistan was endorsed during the 2012 Chicago Summit, it was agreed that all the troops will be removed from the Afghan Region by the end of 2014.

The initial step towards removal of forces from the region was taken by US when President Barrack Obama announced to call back 10,000 troops by the end of 2011, shortly followed by Canada’s withdrawal of all their armed forces from Afghanistan. Following them, France, Belgium and other countries who have also announced the removal of their army. Though the United Kingdom has voiced to follow suit, they have not yet specified the figures or timing. The long term plan is to evacuate completely the region when the timing and situation allow and hand over control to Afghan National Army.

Though according to an article in Washington Post, NATO is seriously considering the retention of some 350,000 troops in Afghanistan till the end of 2018, the ultimate and complete withdrawal is eminent. The topic is being thought upon in lieu of the current unstable situation which the Alliance wishes to resolve before they leave.

The total strength of roughly 450,000 (as of October 2012) army men fighting against the Taliban has a fair share of ISAF and other Alliance forces, and it is being viewed that the removal of forces may leave the country in a state of mayhem. The expected general atmosphere is being viewed as dangerous, and some of the analysts are of the opinion that US & NATO together have failed to deliver.

For starters, Afghanistan has no air force and so forth they have been relying heavily on the external military aid for containing the insurgencies. Afghanistan on their own is hardly up to the mark in matters of wealth or expertise, shown evidently by the fact that out of the latest 68000 new Afghan recruits, 48000 have quit.

According to Pentagon, out of Afghanistan’s 23 Brigades only one is capable to work on its own. The situation is being taken as highly volatile as the country’s looming economic distress. Military slackness coupled with the looming fear of “re-talibanization” will hardly amount to a desired outcome.

About the author

View the Original article

The police have today used their powers under the Public Order Act to prevent a counter demonstration to the presence of the right-wing and anti-Islamic EDL from going ahead in Bristol City Centre tomorrow (Saturday). Organisers of the rally, which had significant trade union backing, have been issued with legal notices enforcing restrictions on the counter demonstration, and have been told that they face potential prosecution if the rally goes ahead as planned. A statement from 'We are Bristol' reads,

Today's Bristol Evening Post includes information from police statements about a change of venue for tomorrow's (July 14th) counter demonstration against the EDL, moving the timing and location of the counter demonstration to Castle Park.

We Are Bristol wish to make clear that the police have imposed conditions on our demonstration backed by legal orders. This has placed the organisers of the counter demonstration under extreme duress, no agreement was reached with the police, and legal advice has been sought to defend our right to protest.

The original plan had been for counter demonstrators to meet at the Fountains in the centre of Bristol at 11am. The police have insisted that the demonstration must now start no earlier that 1pm, and will take place at Castle Park, some distance to the North of the centre.

Plans for the EDL demonstration are unchanged, and this will take place as planned at 1pm, in a central location. Other counter-protests, which have been organised separately to the 'We are Bristol event' are still expected to take place in the city centre, despite police opposition. Demonstrators have been called on to 'line the route' of the EDL march from 11am onwards.

The move to stop the 'We are Bristol' rally is merely the latest attempt by the police to undermine and restrict the rights of Bristol residents to protest against the presence of the EDL. Earlier this week, Bristol activists accused Avon and Somerset police of deliberately dissuading local people from attending any demonstration. Bristol Anti-Fascists claimed,

Avon and Somerset Constabulary have made appeals for locals not to attend any counter-demonstrations. These have often been targeted at Bristol's Muslim community. The police should not determine who is and who is not able to exercise their rights to protest.

Activists have also highlighted the police intention to use a 'heavy handed' approach with anyone demonstrating or assembling in the City centre without police approval. Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham has warned that those taking part in unauthorised protests, "must not be surprised at the policing response on the day."

Netpol have documented similar police strategies in other areas of the country, notably Leicester, where police strongly pushed a 'stay at home' message to Mosques and community forums, and distributed 20,000 leaflets to schools and youth centres warning young people not to attend protest related to the EDL. The leaflet also contained the statement; "There may be people who will try to get you involved in the event. They are doing this for themselves, not you."

Netpol are concerned that the police are operating an on-going strategy to undermine and reduce participation in lawful demonstrations against the presence of the EDL.

The police are quick to use the fear of violence and disorder to justify their actions, but their treatment of local communities, Muslim youth and anti-fascist protest groups can only increase the potential for confrontation. The police are perceived as operating a policy of appeasement towards an extreme right-wing, anti-Islamic organisation, which is permitted to have the run of City centres while local people and protesters are confined to the outskirts. This inevitably creates anger and resentment and heightens community tensions, setting the stage for more serious conflict.

Netpol, 13 July 2012

This Is Bristol has posted a statement by Zaheer Shabir, chair of Building the Bridge, who says that "the Muslim community did not encourage anyone to sign the e-petition demanding a ban on EDL marching in our City of Bristol" and "also met with UAF and We are Bristol to clarify our position on the counter protest requesting them not to confuse and entice Muslim youth to join their counter protest".

Further, "the Muslim community leadership have met with the EDL to create a pathway for future dialogue. This was the first of its kind in the UK and positive assurances were given by the EDL representatives".

It would be unfair to hold Zaheer Shabir and his colleagues entirely responsible for this spineless response to the threat from a gang of violent anti-Muslim racists. They are clearly following police advice as outlined last year by Adrian Tudway, head of the national domestic extremism unit at Scotland Yard, who in an email to a Muslim organisation stated that the EDL are "not extreme right wing as an organisation" and suggested that the Muslim community should open a "line of dialogue" with these racist thugs.

View the Original article