But in the cantonments Macnaghten and Elphinstone (Elphy-bey, as Flashy would say ~spk) continued to vacillate and agonise, wasting even more precious time. . . By now it had become clear to everyone, even Macnaghten, that this was something far more serious than a rabble out of control. Word was coming in that thousands of Afghans were joining the cause byt eh hour, and that similar disturbances were taking place in the surrounding countryside."
~ Peter Hopkirk, page 243 The Great Game
In today's NYTimes Carlotta Gall writes essentially the same thing, only it is about events occurring 150 years later:
The Taliban are running checkpoints on secondary roads and seizing control of remote district centers for a night or two before melting away again. In the most blatant symbol of their dominance of rural areas, the Taliban have even conducted trials under Islamic law, or Shariah, outside official Afghan courts, and recently carried out at least one public execution.
Yet others, foreign and Afghan officials, were far more pessimistic in their assessments and said urgent and strong action from the coalition and government forces was needed to stem the Taliban advance.
One question is who will our (or the Canadian) Bukhara Burnes be?
Another is who will the villagers who are fed up with the resumption of fighting side with?
Writes Gall:
Yet Afghans reported that security had become so bad that people said they did not care which side won, as long as someone took control and ended the fighting.
"We are going mad now," said Lala Jan, 19, a farmer from Deh Rawud in Oruzgan Province, one of the most strife-torn areas and a Taliban stronghold. "From one side we have the government and Americans, and on the other side the Taliban. When the Taliban come in, they enter without asking, and it's the same with the Americans. We cannot tolerate any of them."
Seriously, think about human nature who are you ultimately going to side with? A foreigner who isn't really committed or a fellow tribesman who is?