howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the taleban have now taken over a large area of pakistan, the security forces have given up and gone.
sharia law is in force, the locals love it, as it means an end to lawlessness.
the pakistani pres denies it, but knows there is little he can do in such a province, with its tribal loyalties having no connection with the cities of islamabad, karachi and lahore.
do the people that still insist that having a military force in afghanistan finally see the pointlessness?
new recruits to the taleban(and eventually al-qaeeda) are signing on by the hour.
a former commander of our forces there, only last week, cast doubts on the effectiveness of the allied campaign.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I would agree the allied campaign is not effective. It is under resourced, there are far too few troops, many of our allies are half hearted and there is little political will to do what is necessary.
The Taliban in the wilder regions of Pakistan is as much a threat to the Pakistan Government as it is to the West. It is time that the Pakistanis realised this and were much more fully signed on the the war allowing cross border pursuit and pin point bombing of Taliban forces in Pakistan. Then of course our Western allies need to wake up to the threat.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes the whole thing is beginning to look more and more like a pointless procedure.Only this morning a report on R4 talked of the wide spread corruption in the newly recruited police force. So where once we thought we were making progress in that area ...well even that now appears fluid. The finger in the bowl of water syndrome again. As soon as you pull out the police force would be working with the Taliban not arresting them. So its futile to have soldiers losing their lives in such a situation. Even with massive american forces you can only ever hope to keep a temporary lid of it. And now with former ally Pakistan on the verge of disintegration the whole region is a total powderkeg.
Interestingly Mr Obama talked of an exit strategy the other day. That was a first in terms of Afghanistan and might be the best option of all.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The whole point here PaulB is the threat we have to the West is a very real one.
The best defence against that threat is to keep the Taliban on the move, kill them wherever possible, destroy their camps, stopping them from establishing secure bases and training camps from which to plot terror attacks.
That is really the best that we can achieve, unless..... and this is the weak point, the legitimate Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan can re-establish themselves as the legitimate authority in these areas and be those to whom the local people look for protection and all the things that people normally to to their Governments for. This is probably why our own military have said that we will be there for 30 years! There is little or no faith in the current generation of politicians tere.
If we pull out then within a year or two we could be subject to devastating terror attacks on our cities and may well find ourselves having to return there in more force.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the ocupying forces have two [2] options 1,withdraw compleatly or 2,swamp the area with troops and iradicate the whole lot in one go,if this means going into pakistan then do so.the idea is to start from the outside [borders]then working inwards,thus contaning the enamy to a small area.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Brian, no that is simply not possible. This is not a conventional war and there is no such thing as a conventional win to be achieved in the sense of capturing and holding on to ground and forcing the enemy to capitulate.
It is far too fluid and complex for that and the terrain much too difficult. The Russains found that out.
You are right though about the need to cross over the border into Pakistan and the need for the agreement of the Pakistani Government for that.
This is very much a containment exercise and one aimed at preventing the more complex terror attacks, such as 9/11 and 7/7 on western targets.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
yes its a possabilaty but my point was and still is that either you withdraw and do nothing or go in hell for leather and get the job done properly once for all.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are willing to accept in significant increase in terror acts in the UK and the USA then Brian?
Yes we need more resources put into the field and this is down to the politicians, but just to withdraw will simply provide bigger problems and it may just encourage them.
I despair sometimes: the very presence of western forces (or even benign western bodies) in the middle east is inflammatory enough to some there to provoke attacks on Western countries. The (very complex) reasons for us to be there are some of the (many) reasons we are under threat anyway. But the withdrawal of same would be equally inflammatory to others and equally provocative. And then there are the moral and ethical questions. At heart we all simply want to be free of the threat of unjustified violence against us and people about whom we care. I guess that counts for all groups, whatever creed, race or faith we have.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
I don't have any solutions.
I often wonder whether our presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan is counter productive.They must view the Allies ie Us and the Yanks as occupying forces and like any proud citizen they are doing their utmost to rid their country of the 'infidels'.
I am sure that we Brits would have felt and acted likewise had the Germans succeeded in invading Britain at the beginning of WW2.
What are our main aims and objectives. Surely not to destroy the country. Maybe we should start by improving the infra structure.Building new schools hospitals.Provide crops that would be an alternative to the evil Poppy fields.
Only by rebuilding our bridges both metaphorically and physically will we ever convince or persuade the people of these countries that we can all share this planet and live in harmony together regardless as Bern wisely states " of our race creed colour or religion".
But fighting our way through countries not only appears to me to be barbaric but pointless and does more harm than good.
We should also look closer to home where this country is now one of the worlds major suppliers of not only arms but home grown British born Asian terrorists.Pakistan have recently identified at least 20 British born terrorists that are currently active in these troubled areas.
Maybe the Yanks will consider invading Bradford and Oldham in an attempt to quell the export of terrorists from the UK. How many of us then would be supporting this 'War on Terror'.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
marek,good point as ever.but the question is do we stay and fight this war of terror or do we just up and leave and let them get on with it.
Mareks lateral thinking should make us all ponder. What if....is often a good question to ask.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes excellent post Marek. Fighting your way through other peoples countries will never win the hearts and minds the west are forever going on about. Its all baloney this hearts and minds thing anyway, clearly makes a good soundbite for countries who can never know or remember what it was like to have an occupying force walking up their high street.
Brian we did try the old carpet bombing on the Taliban just a few years back, but they are still thriving. Do you remember? They got the huge lumbering B52's out of mothballs and the death demons of the skies carpet bombed everything with indescriminating inaccuracy from something like 30,000 feet. The B52's cant be seen, they cant be shot down, and they blitz everything in their path. It's called saturation bombing, but that didnt work either. You cant kill a virus with a hammer.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
an invasion of pakistan territory would mean more recruits to al-qaeeda and even outright declarations of war from other countries in the region.
it has even been suggested that we invade zimbabwe to get rid of the president, something that would set most of africa
against us.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
so much for bushes legacy of lets bomb and blitz the crap out of the middle east,the hear6ts and minds thing a bit nannyish.so what do we do now nuke the entire middle east friend and foe,nope cant do that either might upset people.so what do you suggest we do to combat terrorism.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
we can start at home brian. that is where a lot of the present and most of the future terrorists come from.
besides the home grown ones, we give food and shelter to some of the most vile overseas ones, the borders security people made a statement today on this subject.
let us also not forget when the eqypt resort bombings happened, the eqyptian authorities demanded to know why we gave homes to the people that were wanted in eqypt for terrorist offences.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I think you are right there Howard, we do harbour terrorists, we let them spout on about hatred and killing, but do nothing about it.
These evil people keep stretching their demands all the time and all the time we give in.
There is no one in Government (or in opposition) who has the balls to say what we all feel - get these people out of Britain. We keep saying we can't do it for legal reasons or it will infringe their human-rights - what human rights can there be for these people ?
The vast majority of Muslims living here want to live in peace, work, pay taxes live normally and these people are very welcome here; those evil people who promote killing us should be deported to any middle east country: we want to live in peace too.
Think of the Australian attitude on another thread - live here by all means, but live by our rules, respect our customs and religions, learn our language, work, pay taxes etc. and all is fine.
Keep your religion abnd your customs, but this is England, not the middle east; don't try to change us to suit you.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
What human rights, Roger, those provided by Labour's Human Rights Act, thats what. It must be the most counter productive and worse drafted legislation in british history.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Guys you are missing a vital point here in that most of the terrorist on our soil are from here. theyre British. Only last night SKY News, who are doing their main Jeremy Thompson anchor progamme all week from pakistan have yesterday uncovered intelligence information that 20 British people have just in the recent past left Pakistan to return to Britain. All now fully trained in explosives and weaponry. All from a training camp in Pakistan. Not Afghanistan or anywhere else but Pakistan, our one time beacon of hope in the region.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Yes, thats right PaulB and that is why cross border action is necessary and why the Pakistani Government needs to recognise the threat to itself and co-operate in that. It is one thing to keep them on the run in Afghanistan but to then be able to unmolested set up training camps in a 'friendly' country is not acceptable.