Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
It is very sad to see that 3 soldiers were killed yesterday by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. It is very sad in many ways but particularly in the hoplessness of it all. There are few, other than politicians in Westminster, who see any point to it. And on top of that very few countries want to send troops there to help out. Not because they are all of a tremble over the prospect, but more that they recognise the utter pointlessness of it all.
The Russians were there for years and years and found it to be a painful killing field. They eventually left having achieved nothing. It's rather like nature isnt it....five minutes after the humans depart, nature begins to take over again.
So when the current troop committment pull out, having lost lives during that committment, so far 100 dead British Soldiers, all will immediately return to nature and nothing will have been achieved. The ivy will grow over the burnt out tanks and the poppy laden donkey will amble by, urged gently forward by its afghany master. Much as it has always been.
There is an alternative..stay there forever.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB. This is a very difficult one. Remember the reason we are there is because the Taliban regime helped and supported Bin Laden in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Our troops are helping support a pro-Western regime in Kabul and without us the Taliban may well be resurgant and get control back. If that happened Bin Laden will be able to re-group under their patronage and plan and carry out attacks on the West unhindered. Indeed they will be encouraged by our weakness and spurred on.
While we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq to resources of Bin Laden and the Taliban are focussed on these places and, perhaps, diverting them from attacks on USA and European targets.
100 individual tragedies in Afghanistan may well be the price for not having 1,000 more tradegies from terrorist attacks on the West.
I believe that the fighting in Afganistan is therefore achieving two things: It provides intelligence to defend against further terrorist attacks and diverts the terrorists attention from attacks on Western civilian targets, reducing the number of attacks.
What the long term solution is I really do not know. Clearly we have to destroy the ability of the Taliban to defeat the pro-west Kabul Government and that means a hearts and minds operation. Likewise we need to kill and destroy Bin Laden's organisation.
Pulling out would clearly be a serious problem for us. The opposite is probably the best route, get more troops into the front line and be more aggressive and active against the Taliban while making sure 'hearts and minds' projects among civilians are boosted.
The way things are the other NATO countries wouuld have to provide the troops, we have none.... We must significantly increase our Defence expenditure and increase the size of our armed forces.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the problem here is that first of all it is a country that has never been conquered by outsiders, probably never will.
the terrain is only known by the tribes.
the tribes are fiercely determined to run things as they see it.
the pro-west government is no different to the taliban, as proved by the death sentence passed on the young journalist
that publicised a website giving a feminine view of islam.
the lovable top man mr karzai personally turned down an appeal and issued immediate execution.
women are still under the cosh and have to do as they are told by the men.
we are helping to prolong this.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
The devil you do, the devil you don't is this one.
If the troops are there or not the only thing that comes from within that country is evil, DRUGS AND TERRORISM.
There is no quick fix solution.
I have a feeling it will be a long stay for our boys.
Ian...
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard, it is a savage country that does not have our values. Karzai may be a ba****d but at least he is ours and does not sponsor terrorists.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the same thing was said about president for life idi amin, and mr mugabe.
good old idi was a product of sandhurst, the disgusting obote in uganda wanted all sorts of evil things for the population, like schools and hospitals.
like others we have sponsored, karzai is from the stone age, would it not be better to freeze him and others likehim out?
in the long term our image in the world and respect from others will suffer when we sponsor that type.
is one dead soldier worth the political game?
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
I Hate to be a pain in the bum on this one Howard but....If NO ONE tries to control this situation you could end up with a lot more dead civillians on our hands on a regular basis.
Ian...
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mugabe and Amin were not barriers against terrorists. Mugabe anyway was not sponsored by the west, his predecessor was, who's Government did not survive long, he is often overlooked. Amin was at first looked at as a better option, that was wrong as it turned out.
The Afghan situation is totally different. Besides its a matter of culture as much as anything.
You ignore totally the terrorist threat that would escalate if we pulled out.
Strange that its me defending this usually indefencable Government....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This article is a good reminder of why we are there in Afghanistan and well worth reading:
www. telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/10/do1001.xml
As usual I have put a couple of spaces in after the
www. so I can paste it. Just copy and paste removing the spaces.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB. I have just read the following in the Guardian (not a paper I particularly like!!)
Corporal Lachlan MacNeil, a section commander in the locally based (in Canterbury) Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, has been writing a diary for the paper. The Argylls are part of 16 Air Assault Brigade. I understand also that the 3 Paras that were killed were also part of 16 Air Assault Brigade though I stand to be corrected on that one.
This is from today's edition and he paints a different picture to the one many understand is the case.
"""""While at Base Delhi I saw a copy of the Guardian. The Pakistan correspondent had come down and done a few interviews and the headline on his story was 'UK forces fighting losing battle' or some rubbish like that. The facts are simple. We are now dominating Garmsir. We have killed Taliban, taken no casualties and have now pushed and secured further south than any other British army unit. Garmsir is now opening its hospital again. If you ask the locals they said they thought they would never see it again. As I write this, the Taliban in our area of operations are in turmoil, taking heavy casualties every time they feel brave enough to pop up. I don't see this in any way as losing any battle.
"The media need to understand we didn't ask to come here; we were sent and we're doing a difficult job in extremely harsh surroundings. I drink at least nine litres of warm water a day (due to the lack of fridges). I have over 100 mosquito bites on my body. Nobody here moans about it, we just get on with it. What does annoy us is being misquoted and giving the British public the perception we're losing.
"If you want the truth, I'm writing it for you now. The British army is doing an outstanding job out here in very difficult circumstances. I'd like to thank the British public for their support, the welfare parcels just keep flooding in. A special thank you must go to the mayor of Warminster, who is sending us at least 50 a month. It's very much appreciated."""""""""
More power to their ellbows!!!
I hope that when they return Canterbury gives them a huge welcome.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes a good post there BarryW. I think the point though is not that they are losing on the ground but how can it ever be sustained. Unless you annexe Afghanistan for ever, the tide of normal life will surge back in when the 'foreign troops' eventually pull out.
I know Gordon Brown keeps telling us there are more kids in school but the poppy industry is still huge and in fact on ITN the other night they said it has in fact grown over the past few years. Something like 93% of the worlds heroin comes from there and still does. It's the only crop that will decently grow there. Take that away and all will starve.
The troops are a steadying presence, in a policing role, maintaining a weak and corrupt government, and taking casualties and unfortunately will go on taking more...but at the end of the day will it make any difference to an almost neanderthal state that essentially still survives on the drug trade.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
The conflict in Afghanistan will to my reasoning go on forever, it has become a way of life what with tribal factions and 'warlords' carving out 'no go' areas for themselves, which seems to have gone on for centuries. The 'foreign infidels' of which our troops play a major part in a hearts and minds and policing campaign will continue to inflict major damage to the Taliban.
But, there it ends, without our troops the Taliban will move back in to the misery of the afghans, it's a no win situation I feel that our lads will be there for a long time to come, sadly.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
If the Taliban get back in its not just the Afghan (women in particular) who will suffer. They will return to arming and sheltering Al Qaeda providing a base for increased terrrorist activity against the West. More bombs on the London tube, planes, maybe ferries would be the likely result. Better I think to keep the Taliban on the run and under pressure in Afghanistan.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
Point taken BarryW, they have connections with a vast range of terrorist groups, Al Qaeda only being one of them, with the added bonus of an endless supply of opium to pay for arms and explosives.
With the main supply route through the mountainous regions of Afghanistan to the Pakistan border to evade the allied troops when things get too hot for them it must be a game of 'cat & mouse'
I've just looked at the Soviet forces casualties in their 9 year war with the Mujahideen, 15,051 dead, 53,753 wounded, 417 mia, 415,932 sick (that's not including the Afghan army.)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
your post sums it up baz, the might of the old red army was completely out of its depth.
there is no way that we or anyone else could control such a country.
all anyone can do is suppress things until such time that they eventually go.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
We do have a different situation. look at the casualty figures indeed and compare them with our own 100 dead. Yes we have not been there 9 years yet but if you pro-rata it then you can see the difference. There is also a difference in objective and method. The Soviets adopted some brutal tactics and did not bother with hearts and minds stuff.
The key at the end of the day is hearts and minds, somethign we are better at than our American cousins and perhaps there is the weakness....
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Sadly all too soon the figure at the top of this thread is already out of date. As of yesterday we are now standing at 102. The mason on the war memorial chips on....
One expert yesterday said that we are holding our own in a 'stalemate' and thats all we can hope for.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
some good points made on this thread, there is not a simple answer to things.
i think that eventually we will decide that enough is enough, the government will decide it is an unpopular campaign,
and the tribal warlords will get back to their day to day running of the country.
Popular or unpopular, people of all kinds need to resist oppression and meglomania, terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise) and fear. Sometimes unpopluar decisions have to be made in order to defend humanity. So we have to suck it up and get on with it, all the while celebrating those fantastic men and women who dedicate themselves to the protection and support of our civilised but flawed countries.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Well said Bern - and others.
Trying to inflict our Christian ways on an Islamic state can never work, but as well as fighting the Taliban, perhaps there ought to be people out there actively destroying the poppy fields.
Roger