Troops OUT of Afghanistan NOW - UNCONDITIONAL?

[solvitquick]

i believe our gallant troops are being slaughtered without reason in Afghanistan and am sick of politicians' crocodile tears. Apparently they are there "to turn a tribal country into a democracy" - rubbish! The once USSR lost 11,00 to try to suppress moslem maniacs but failed. Every week we hear of deaths (6 today) or so-called injuries (this means loss of legs, arms or both). We are blackmailed by armchair philososophers who say criticism of the "policy" will demoralise the our cannon-fodder heroes. Lies as usual. When I say out now I mean out now - i.e. announcement this week. Anyone agree or not?

[EcclesCake]

I'm sorry but your username says it all, 'solvitquick'. There is no quick solution to a hearts and minds battle.

My husband has done a tour in Afghanistan (and Iraq) and I fully support what the coalition troops are working towards.

As a wife,I also accept that a loss of life is a possibility but know that my husband and his colleagues have chosen their path, knowing the potential consequences. I will not denounce the Governments efforts, despite what is reported in the press.

Having been on the inside myself I know the utter twaddle that is reported and have more faith in the MOD and it's commitment to service personnel than I have in the Daily Wail and its ilk.

[jake-the-peg]

Personally I don't think we should have gone into Afghanistan but I can see why the decision was made.

The intention was to remove Al Qaeda but after that happened there was mission creep and it became stablising the country - OK you can see why that was in Western interests.

But he last set of elections were not encouraging and you have to ask a question.

Do the ordinary Afghans want us in Afghanistan?

If the answer is No - and I tend to think it is we are an invading force and should leave.

Yes, Al Qaeda may return but they have other bases in Yemen and Somalia and are strong in areas of North Africa so it really doesn't make much difference.


As for military casualties they are laughably light

Less than 40 deaths a year? and everybody wants to run around and give up because of that?

Are you kidding?


There are good reasons for going but a few dead soldiers are not amoungst them.

There are a bunch of people on here who would gladly go to war with Argentina over the Falklands because their childish National pride has been insulted and are whining about the current deployment in Afghanistan!

255 Service men were killed there in one year but I never hear all this "cannon fodder" BS about that one.

That was a patriotic war! - seems Afghanistan isn't patriotic enough

[DTCwordfan]

Short memories around here.

9-11, 7-7, Madrid, Nairobi, Paris, several more.

I just hope that those who believe that this is an unfortunate necessary that we have to invest in get nailed when the bombs go off again, especially with the events happening this summer in the UK...but, really, it doesn't make any difference to when.

[jno]

our gallant troops have signed up to do the govenment's wishes; it's not the other way round. They're volunteers, not conscripts. They have no more say than anyone else in deciding the nation's foreign policy; that's for elected politicians, and rightly so.

[DTCwordfan]

Sorry I am cracking up this pm - that's my third error, let me reprint.

Short memories around here.

9-11, 7-7, Madrid, Nairobi, Aden several more.

I just hope that those who believe that this is an unfortunate necessary that we have to invest in do not get nailed when the bombs go off again, especially with the events happening this summer in the UK...but, really, it doesn't make any difference to when.

[Zeuhl]

So DT

are you saying that maintaining our commitment in Afghanistan will guarantee no more islamic terrorist attacks gainst western targets

If so - then fair enough. Let's stay at it - clearly it's then worth it.

[DTCwordfan]

No didnt say that.....that is trying to put words in the mouth....

But it helps prevent it though, along with several other investments such as covert and overt espionage.....

[Lonnie]

Have to agree with you sp1814, also, as I've said a few times before, the only way to win a war against Terrorist, (albeing that's what they are), is if you have the total support of the natioal population. We don't have that, never have, so we can't win.

Unfortunately, us armchair Generals don't have any weight with the goverment.

[Philtaz]

As I've said, in short the money used would be far better spent in tightening UK border security and anti-terrorism strategy.

Until Pakistan (and some other Islamic countries) actively and firmly tackle them on their own soil the Taliban have a safe haven.

[DTCwordfan]

I agree with the 2H of your statement Phil and the reason for "Kettling" them as much as can be achieved - and also taking out the opium centres as to finance.....I would accept that Al Qaeda or "sons of" ould also break out elsewhere - N Somalia and N Sudan being cases in mind...the reason for the investment in Espionage.

[sp1814]

Something else that needs to be taken into consideration (and was touched on earlier) - there's a huge difference between fighting a war against an enemy country, and waging a a war 'on terror'.

Who decides when we've won? Who surrenders?

You absolutely cannot win a war against terrorists - by their very nature, they are an amorphous entity, with cells which may or may not be connected.

[solvitquick]

Thank you all for this intelligent discussion but please do not twist this to by referring to losses in previous CORRECT wars which had defined objectives. To refer to Arnhem is irrelevant. So many poor memories of the past. What is the evidence that Al Qeada is really centred in Afghanistan? Is it "The Intelligence" who told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
And what about our guts as civilians? Are you so scared that you are prepared to send your troops ANYWHERE to protect you? Remember the IRA killings when we all gritted it out. Some may say "to save us let's go and kill thousands of the Republic of Ireland". Also what about our withdrawals from Cyprus, Malayia, Africa versus Mau-mau etc., etc? My argument has nothing to do with saving money but about our troops' lives and Afghan women and children. It's SOLELY about the wrong-headed lunacy of this 8-year invasion of another independent country who do not want our idea of democracy - unacceptable to a tribal-based country.

[solvitquick]

Oops, seem to be asking myself question. Do not yet understand how this system works, just wanted to answer some comments.

[andy-hughes]

I have not, do not, and imagine I never will, understand the imagined connection between Islamic terrorists and the invasion of Afghanistan.

To me the two are not really connected at all - and if they were, and the government seriously seems to suggest so - then do we really imagine that the Taliban will vacate their home because we have imposed 'democracy' by propping up a weak and corrupt government? If it were not so tragic, it would be laughable.

It simply needs one fundamentalist - born anywhere in the world, to decide to commit a terrorist atrocity in the name of the Taliban, and the whol house of cards collapses.

We no longer have an Empire - it is time to stop pretending that we do, and behave as though it is our right to force our system of government on other nations. We watched Viet Nam - did we learn nothing?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "If we must go out on patrol, shouldn't the area be scanned for these devices before our troops step on them or their vehicle run over them, surely that is not impossible with today's technology?"

It actually is. The MOD admits that the mines used by the Taliban are far more sophisticated that were used at the beginning of the conflict, not least because they use far less metal in their construction, rendereing their detection seriously difficult, and often impossible - hence the fact that a seriously large IED could be set to kill a vehicle full of soldiers, and succeed in doing so without advance detection.

[solvitquick]

Thanks all for anwering, wiil not chose best answer yet, vey difficult, as so many have in general if not precise agreement.

[Kromovaracun]

"teach us over and over that no matter how advanced or highly resourced an army is, or even how ruthless it is prepared to be - it can never defeat a determined, local guerilla force."

Actually, that's not -quite- true. There are genuine examples of successful counter-insurgencies - none of which (except possibly Kitchener in South Africa) have used AOG's proposed strategies. Chief among them was the British handling of the Malayan Emergency, which took about 10 years but was extremely successful. Put briefly, it was based on a recognition that insurgents inevitably rely on either passive or active support from the local population, and (successful) attempts to give people an incentive to report them or otherwise work against them.

A little-known fact is that the US actually consulted various British leaders who had been involved in Malaya - and ignored them. They eventually ended up adopting simialr policies in the very, very late stages of the Vietnam war (with under-reported results - people forget that the VietCong had more or less been destroyed after the Tet Offensive).

[Kromovaracun]

"hey apparently managed to control the rest of occupied Europe for almost 5 years without much loss of life"

Except Poland.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

When I said scanned I did not necessarily mean scanned in the usual way, by use of electronic or ultra sound 'mine detectors'.

I was think more of an advanced device, say a robotic vehicle that is driven in front of the patrols path.

A very simple device was implemented in WW2 that being a rotary flaying chain device, in front of a tank.

But with today's technology an unmanned robotic vehicle the size of a Warrior armoured vehicle could take the lead of a any patrol.

[Zeuhl]

^^
Nice idea but I think the military realise they'd run out of 'robotic vehicles' before the Afghans ran out of explosives

Men can locate and neutralise the ied's. Sadly not every time.