Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
with the number of troops killed in the last 9 days circa 15,should our troops be withdrawn from afganistan all together or should they stay with more deaths to come.the deaths have 184 thats more than the iraq war.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes Brian you beat me to it with this one...I cannot see the need for this war at all. It is an odd situation, the Afghan war quietly slipped on full throttle, almost hidden under the umbrella of the Iraq situation. No fuss no mess kind of thing. Before we hardly knew it we were in there in a very tricky war, a war were warring factions for endless centuries couldnt succeed in making the region socially habitable. Its a barren deathtrap and everyone knows it.
We have thousands and thousands of troops there and are getting nowhere at all, now we are being re-inforced by the Americans in the hope that that will make some difference. But what difference??
Nobody seems to know what we are after, what we are chasing there, what our goals are. Some vaque idea about keeping terrorists of our streets here seems to be the soundbite...but I feel that to be poppycock
If we pulled out of the region altogether no muslim terrorist would be interested in blowing us up. Its us being overthere that causes them to want to do so.
One of the lads who died this week was quoted as saying "it's here or it's on the streets of the UK", and he is probably right. Us leaving the Middle East is not going to change a thing for those wanting to annihilate the West and would only remove us from proximity, reducing our knowledge and route in. Our troops are brave and strong, and know they are needed there, much as it pains me to say so. Historically we have been led to this point by previous monarchs and governments on all sides, and we have to take up the consequences.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
every time allied airstrikes hit innocent villagers we create another bunch of fanatics, how else would they react?
even the commanders see no end to it.
like all before us, most recently the mighty soviet war machine, we will find a way of making it look like a victory, then scuttle away quietly.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,698
If we stay we need to start doing the right things right. We also need to remember that this is a UN mandated operation and as such has a legitimacy that the Iraqi actions did not.
There are 3 things that were promised would be done as part of this campaign, firstly take on the Taliban and neutralise them, secondly development work in towns and villages to improve their lot and thirdly train up and develop the Afghan Army and Police so they can progressively take over from the Allied forces. Sadly, it is clear from those on the ground that we are only just about doing the first one. The development effort is frankly non existent and lip service is being paid to the third.
We need to examine why this is the case.
Part of the problem is lack of government commitment and support for our armed forces, resulting in them struggling to take on and push back the Taliban due to lack of equipment or the right sort of equipment etc.
This lack of commitment has impacted on the developmental works, as has the US desire to eradicate poppy and cannabis fields as part of the campaign; a well intentioned but poorly thought out action that does little to reduce the opium and hash coming out of Afghanistan but has massive local negative impact on farm incomes, leading to rural poverty etc. The western allies need to be providing alternatives to the poppy and cannabis crops and providing income support whilst farmers change, as well as providing other essentials like equipment, fertilizers etc.
Finally, much greater effort and funding needs to be put into the Afghani police and military in terms of training, uniforms, equipment and pay as well as ensuring that they are as apolitical as possible to ensure that as organisations they have the greatest chance of acceptance by the ordinary Afghani people.
Sadly if we do not sort all of these things, this will end the same way the Soviet action ended and previous British interventions ended - abject failure.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Ross, again you talk sense. It is different to Iraq and that is often forgotten, and the USAs addition of extra goals that are not properly planned for adds a burden that we, as civvies, cannot understand. As with everything, it is the management and planning that will make or break, and sadly the USA seems determined to disregard this, and yet it is what the UK forces are good at.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
If it is a UN mandated venture, why are there not more troops from the member countries of the UN ?
Many more troops, better equipment and a proper co-ordinated strategy would ensure victory - on all those fronts mentioned earlier.
It would be a total waste of those soldiers lives to just slink away in failure, but it must be a real victory not a hollow one.
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
another sad day for our service personell with the return of 8 brave souls being brought home to there loved ones.rip.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Indeed Brian.
Roger while it is a UN mandated action it is NATO who have been given the task. Sadly most NATO countries are indeed not pulling their weight and are keeping their troops in the safer areas of the 'ghan.
That does not excuse our own Government for not putting enough resources into the Armed Forces. I note that it was Brown himself who as Chancellor cut £1.4bn from Defence that was meant to purchase more Chinook helicopters that are desperately needed now. I also see today that the Army operations have been limited by having to use smaller Lynx helicopters to support the Chinooks that cannot cope with the heat and dust so they can only fly in the cool of the mornings and evening. Mad, utterly mad way to run a war.
To add to that, I hear that they are currently relying on no more than 6 operational Chinooks and 4 Lynx helcopters in support of 3,500 troops. The US Marines incidentally have 120 large helicopters supporting 8,000 troops and on the ground have some superb anti-mine vehicles offering their formations protection against IEDs, our troops have none and are having to dismount to deal with them, vulnerable to attack.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Correction to the above post. I have found out that the Lynx helicopters have been withdrawn to the UK because of their problems. More info about what is happening in the 'ghan can be found here for those interested.
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
all labours fault barry i thought so
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
It is Labour who have been in Government for over 12 years. They have set the tasks for the Armed Forces and determined their funding (or lack of).
As I said it was Gordon Brown who vetoed £1.4bn to be spent on more Chinooks in 2004 and it is a lack of these that is the core of the problem now. This is a matter of fact and public record.
So yes, it is Labour's fault, there is no-one else who can be blamed it is clear cut.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just a minor point here barry, the present armed forces incumbent is the choice of the armed forces leaders.
another minor point that has been raised recently in the press has been the pm's refusal to commit more soldiers to afghanistan.
less reported is the fact that he is putting pressure on the afghan leadership to put more of their own troops into the action.
final minor point, i find it regrettable that on a day when bodies of youngsters arrive back in the uk that keith and yourself go back to your petty party point scoring.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is a debate raging in the media howard and relates directly to why we have so many dead.
By encumbant you I presume are referring to the Minister of Defence. What you say is simply not true, it is spin put out by Labour that has been totally and thoroughly discredited.
Again your explanation is no more than a spin. The Army commanders asked for 2000 more men, Brown asked for more options and the one chosen 700 for a limited period was the cheapest. Brown just went for the cheapest not best option. As I say he and his Government do not understand defence and we are all well aware that Brown does not accept advice from experts.
The bottom line is that our troops are, as part of their jobs and duties, in the firing line for us, and some are making the sacrifice of their lives. That we have let them down in terms of equipment is not in dispute, neither is our failure to ensure moral support at its highest level, although many individuals and groups have made up for that, such as in Wooton Basset. Most of us would agree, if we looked at the evidence, that Afghanistan is indeed different to Iraq, and that we need to be there in our own interests, and not just economic. All governments have been responsible for underfunding, although the government of the day bears responsibility for current issues.
I would just like to say a thank you to all those serving there, all their families and friends who are supporting them, and to all those who will never return.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,kieth,i agree with howard here.lets keep politics out of this and show some respect to thoseswho lost there lives in this awfull conflict.lets have the fall out after this awfall conflict is finished and not before.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The politics is inescapable Brian. Its the politicians who send them there and determine their funding and equipment. You cannot divorce the tragic loss of lives from the politics. The solution to these problems and indeed to the whole Afghan mission again is politics. War fighting alone will not be enough, even if we were to get the politicians to properly address the shortcomings in equipment, personnel and funding.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,if you are that way inclined to think that way,why not start a seprete thread on the ins and outs of goverment policy on defence cuts and other things that the goverment [s] have done or not done.