AFGHANISTAN - Do We Never Take In The Lessons From History?

[FJJP]

We botched the Afghan war a century ago. The Russians got suckered in long term and got a bloody nose without making a shred of difference [the RUSSIANS, for God's sake - with their endless quantities of troops and equipment]!

The Americans clearly don't want to be there on the ground [bombing from high level is ok, though].

And we send a small force, with questionable kit? What are we doing? And does anyone believe that we have a cat in hell's chance of making a difference?

I truly dispair...

[flipster]

Seconded! We should have got out and stayed out -now its a farce.

[soddim]

What? This govt failing to deliver? Surely not!

Need to be a bit wary now the economy is looking a bit pear-shaped and all these minor scandals at home. Might be a good idea to be a bit more adventurous abroad and take the electorate's mind off what's happening under their noses.

As if they are interested.

[Fortyodd2]

No,

Never,

Worse than that, it appears that General Melchett :\ and his "unwillingness to stare facts in the face" now has a seat in the Cabinet................

:ugh:

Take care out there people.

[rafloo]

Having recently recovered from a period of schooling at Shrivenham... I can now tell you that the Armed Forces no longer have a "Lessons Learnt" process after Operations or Exercises. We now have a "Lessons identified" The change came about a couple of years ago as it seemed that we never "Learnt" from lessons anyway so why bother with the process.



However, It is right and correct that we are in Afghanistan trying to help bring law and order to that country. The work that the British Armed Forces are doing is looked upon and admired by many countries. The work that has been completed by 216 Signals has been paramount to achieving succes for the ANA. Remember that the UK is commited to helping Afghanistan secure democracy. If the Armed Forces are not going to help them then who should we send....The Fire Service maybe?

[brain fade]

A few years ago I saw footage (on the telly) of our troops . They came across a large wall type thingy in he desert. (It was in Iraq)

They approached it to find that writ upon it was the names of their regimental fellows from 1917.

Same regiment

same names!

At the bottom it said

'lest we forget'

They seemed to have forgotten.

it was not repeated.

[mbga9pgf]

Having recently recovered from a period of schooling at Shrivenham... I can now tell you that the Armed Forces no longer have a "Lessons Learnt" process after Operations or Exercises. We now have a "Lessons identified" The change came about a couple of years ago as it seemed that we never "Learnt" from lessons anyway so why bother with the process.



However, It is right and correct that we are in Afghanistan trying to help bring law and order to that country. The work that the British Armed Forces are doing is looked upon and admired by many countries. The work that has been completed by 216 Signals has been paramount to achieving succes for the ANA. Remember that the UK is commited to helping Afghanistan secure democracy. If the Armed Forces are not going to help them then who should we send....The Fire Service maybe?

How about we just leave them to it? After all its THEIR country, not ours, with very few British interests over there. So why shold we risk spilling British blood for a complete S**thole? I tell you why we are likely to fail in Afghanistan.

1) We are a warfighting force, not a low intensity conflict world police force. That is the fault of the SDR, and although we would like to think that the SDR was a golden bullet to solving all the worlds woes, it AINT. The last time we had a world police force, we had an empire.that is the whole idea behind NEC and scaling back our forces. NEC gives us absolutely NO advantage over this assymetric threat, just look what has happened to the yanks. We are affectively fighting a war of attrition. Look at how the yanks consider sucess. Body count. Didnt they teach you at Shriv about how considering body count as a measure of sucess? whell te last time they tried it was Vietnam. We have no easily identifiable centre of gravity to fight against to bring this one to a swift conclusion, what are we going after? The drugs? Tribal leaders? Who knows. I dont think anyone does. I think we have been foolishly placed in the desert by a political leadership that has us by the knackers who completely misunderstands the way we work.

2) The Kabul region may of been one thing. However, we all know Khandahar and the other southern regions are a different kettle of fish. They are highly tribal, something that is ingrained in them since the beginning of time, so how exactly are we going to get them to tag along to our neo western style democracy, teach them to be "nice taliban" pay your VAT on your heroin trade? Lunacy. We should just leave them to it.

[airborne_artist]

And since our guys are being tasked to reduce the herion trade, the vacuum that is left behind will just increase the Afgahns motivation to get rid of the occupying forces.

[nigegilb]

VIETNAM-British style

[Mead Pusher]

Remember that the UK is commited to helping Afghanistan secure democracy. If the Armed Forces are not going to help them then who should we send....The Fire Service maybe?

How about securing a bit of democracy back home in the UK before we start preaching to the rest of the world?!

[nigegilb]

The time to establish democracy was immediately after the Afghan conflict in 2002. The Afghan people were happy to see the back of the Taleban and we were accepted in the short term. What happened next? We threw away our golden opportunity by embarking on a ridiculous war in Iraq that sucked in all of our assets and energy. Whilst our backs were turned the Afghan people struggled and the Taleban crept back. 4 years on and we are facing the enemy again. I thought the Americans had learnt their lessons, obviously not. I fear for this mission. This is a strategic screw up that stems from the decision to invade Iraq, something we will live to regret.

[brain fade]

mbga9pgf

The Americans have learnt a lesson.

They no longer count the dead.

[Mr Rotorvator]

It would be interesting to know whether any of our Strategic masters, both civilian and military, have bothered to read the Russian General Staff Report, The Soviet-Afghan War (How a Superpower Fought and Lost) translated and edited by Grau and Gress, 2002.

It pretty comprehensively sets out most of the pitfalls and problems associated with an invasion to prop up an unpopular (or irrelevant) regime in the area...a not dissimilar situation to the one UK PLC may well be facing within a year.

It makes very interesting and disturbing reading. On a lighter note Flashman (George MacDonald Fraser) seemed to have a good handle on the problems associated with Afghanistan, they mostly revolved around incompetent Civil Servants, Politicians, Policy and Generalship...

Mr R

[nigegilb]

Would like to read it. I read an account of first Afghan war. Same names even, extraordinary!

[Liam Gallagher]

Just to balance the argument up a bit. A couple of other lessons of modern history.

Firstly, I recall visiting Bergen-Belsen Memorial a few years back and above an exhibit of photos is a quote along the lines of.."first they burn the books, next they burn the bodies.." What lessons can we learn from this dramatic, if not most dramatic, event of modern history? You may recall the Taleban was keen on book burning, religious monument destruction, persecution of minorities....

Secondly, perhaps there was merit in the idea of leaving the Taleban alone; out of sight, out of mind. However, the Taleban allowed, alternatively, actively encouraged, the establishment of Terrorist Training camps within its borders. We now know that persons trained at these camps had direct involvement in 911, perhaps the most dramatic event of the passed 10 years. Were the Taleban ever out of sight, out of mind??? Would they have been content to leave it at 911 or would they have moved on to even bigger and better things??

I am not saying the campaign in Afganistan has been a huge success, however what I am saying is there are many lessons in history and anyone can quote any lesson to support any argument

[nigegilb]

I am not arguing that it was wrong to go into Afg in the first instance. My argument is the opposite, we should never have turned our backs. The Americans turned their backs at the end of Russo/Afg war and look what happened as a result. We all know how fierce and proud Afg people are. The tragic mistake, in my view, was to largely ignore Afg after the Taleban had been overthrown. Afg was the centre of terror training, the country needed our help and support on a much wider scale. Instead we invaded another country! History has shown that Afghan people only tolerate foreigners for a finite amount of time. In the Last 4 years Karzai has been mayor of Kabul and that's about it. We took our eye off the ball and got sidetracked and bogged down with an unnecessary war in Iraq. That's my pennyworth anyway.......

Try and get a copy of the kite runner. Amazing book.

[rafloo]

How about securing a bit of democracy back home in the UK before we start preaching to the rest of the world?! I think that you'll find that you live in a democracy...thats why you can come on this site and spout of utter tripe and why the people of this country voted in favour of the war in Iraq and of the conflict in Afghanistan when they voted in the Labour party into government.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

that's why ... the people of this country voted in favour of the war in Iraq that and we were told that there were Ws of MD pointed at us...:bored:

How many of those people would have voted for it if they actually had to attend?

[JTIDS]

A quick quote on what happened on one of the last occasions the British Army was in Kabul.

"On January 1, 1842, the British in Kabul and a number of Afghan chiefs reached an agreement that provided for the safe exodus of the entire British garrison and its dependents from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the British would not wait for an Afghan escort to be assembled, and the Ghilzai and allied tribes had not been among the 18 chiefs who had signed the agreement. On January 6 the precipitate retreat by some 4,500 British and Indian troops with 12,000 camp followers began and, as they struggled through the snowbound passes, Ghilzai warriors attacked the British. A Dr. W. Brydon is usually cited as the only survivor of the march to Jalalabad,out of more than 15,000 who undertook the retreat."

1 man left (and his donkey) out the 16500 who started!

[nigegilb]

err, if I am correct his life was spared so he could tell the story....

[ZH875]

.....And the donkey could breed and produce Prime Ministers and Politicians.

[SASless]

Seems the British have a long history in that part of the world beyond just the 1842 war.

http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html

[Mead Pusher]

Rafloo: You have been brainwashed into thinking we live in a democracy! We live in a Republic, and a poor one at that.

In a democracy all citizens have an equal say in the running of the country. Do you have an equal say in the running of the country as Tony Blair or any of his cabinet? No, of course not - democracy was discarded as being unworkable in a modern, large and complex society. The only way it could be achieved now if is all points of law were debated and voted on not in the commons but on the internet, with all British citizens voting and the majority winning.

In a Republic we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf - this is the form of government we have now. But it is fatally flawed in this country for 2 reasons:

1. We do not have proportional representation, so despite the majority of British citizens voting for the Conservative party in the last general election, Labour still took power.

2. We have political parties. In an ideal republic the representatives that we elect would all be independant, that way they are free to vote in a manner that represents their constituents rather than being encouraged to vote in a way that benefits their party.

Descartes said of our system that we are only truely free when we are voting in the general election, and then we throw that freedom away by voting for a party.

When I say we should spread some democracy here in the UK, I mean that we need to change our system of government to better represent the desires of the people, and to stop people like Blair running roughshod over us all because he is in the 'ruling party' in the Commons.

Hmmm.... maybe this should be a separate thread!

[nigegilb]

Wished I could find better news, but this article suggests something is up in Afghanistan.

http://www.afghannews.net/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=653

[Pontius Navigator]

Mead Pusher,

man after my own heart.

Now the next bit is serious.

A fantasy government. We have the election and we vote for the best man for the job, so Austin Mitchell gets in despite previously being a shade left.

Now who do we want as PM? Then HS, FM, MOD?

Lets leave Soames out of the MOD. We don't have any C17 on the Royal Sqn.

Also without parties we have Goverment and the Opposition. As the Opposition is not a party they will not have a Leader of the Opposition etc - save a fortune.

[nigegilb]

Interesting article in today's Times with a historical context.

There should be no surprise at Taleban resistance in Afghanistan. History is simply repeating itself

ON JANUARY 13, 1842, a lookout on the walls of Jalalabad fort spotted a lone horseman, weaving towards the British outpost, on a dying horse. Part of the rider’s skull had been removed by an Afghan sword; his life had been saved only by the copy of Blackwood’s Magazine stuffed into his hat to stave off the intense cold, which had blunted the blow. This was Dr William Brydon, the sole survivor of a 16,000-strong force that had left Kabul a week earlier, only to be massacred in the mountain passes by rebellious Afghan tribesmen.

FULL ARTICLE ON THIS LINK

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-2259708,00.html

[ORAC]

Mead Pusher, I´d suggest that we live in a represntative democracy, and a constitutional monarchy, none of which are mutually exclusive. The term democracy covers a broad church (sic) and your variant has it´s own problems.

Do a search on "the tyranny of the majority" to see what I mean and the checks and balances required.

[Oblique96]

ORAC

Shades of my favourite T shirt (bought in the USofA, of all places), it reads
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups".
I do have to be careful when and where I wear it!

O96

[WorkingHard]

1) Mead Pusher we do indeed elect REPRESENTATIVES to Parliament who immediately and miraculously decide they are then DELEGATES and have no real need to REPRESENT the people who voted for them. That in my mind is not very democratic.
2) IF (as we are told) part of the reason for being in Afghanistan is to stop the heroin trade why dont we just destroy the bloody poppy crops? What am I missing?
3) How much are the hand of our troops tied with idiotic rules of engagement? Can they not be given a free hand? (leave political correctness aside please)

[Tigs2]

A liberal scattering of agent orange, no more poppy crops, bring the boys and girls home. I reckon it would take about a week.

[South Bound]

Tigs, and can we please shoot anyone that gets in the way, please, please, please?

[Tigs2]

Only if they look at you in a funny manner.

[BEagle]

Couldn't we just buy up all their sodding poppies, then burn them?

Or, even better, contaminate them with poison and let all the druggies kill themselves.

Probably cheaper in the long run...

[ralphmalph]

hate to say it but:

Why are we even really there?

Let them crack on!

If that is the seat of int terrorism then i'll eat my hat!

waste of time and guys!.

Ralph

[MarkD]

Beags - exactly. Buy them out. It would probably end up cheaper than "eradication". Sell the product to the pharmas as a morphine substitute. The problem is that the guys attacking HM's Forces (UK and Canadian) are probably not the farmers but the exporters who would still be left out of that arrangement.

[FJJP]

Then bring them into the arrangement. Identify the chain from grower to processer to distributer and pay them slightly more than the existing rates. Then supply the pharma houses with the raw material to make painkilling drugs that can be sold cheaply, especially to third world countries where there is a shortage [because they can't afford the existing brands].

If you acknowledge the hierarchy and work with them, rather than try to wipe them out, we might see less conflict and more cooperation [and therefore less casualties].

But then again, I'm guilty of thinking logically. Again.

[nigegilb]

This is the most sensible thing I have read for a while. It is a link to a feasibility study to license opiate production in Afghanistan

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/afghanistan_initiatives/feasibility

[JessTheDog]

The Afghanistan operation is war-fighting that was sold to the House of Commons and the UK population as peacekeeping and reconstruction.


Lies, incompetence, confusion and contradictions. Des Browne = General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett.

- John Reid's deceitful quote about hoping troops could leave with "no shots being fired."
- No clear statement of the mission - Melchett's latest statement about "facing down the Taliban" beggars belief. Poppy eradication perhaps, or perhaps not. Reconstruction perhaps, or perhaps not. Cluster-fcuk with mission creep - certainly.
- Lies about the Taliban strength - "fragmented remnants" and "not more than a thousand" spring to mind.
- Lies about troops in theatre - HMG were pretending that there were 3,000 troops in theatre, when in fact the teeth element comprised of four rifle companies or 600 troops, for an area the size of Wales.
- Who are British troops working for? NATO? The UN? The Kabul regime? The US? Not the UK taxpayer, that is for sure.
- Melchett could not even be bothered to speak in the House in person on Monday 3rd June on the Afghan situation, claiming constituency work, even though no change to his surgery dates was publicised on his website.
- Nowhere near enough air support, whether rotary transport or fixed wing.

No more troops should be committed without a debate and a vote in the House of Commons, and troops should be confined to self-protection operations until the mission and resources are identified. This operation must be accountable to Parliament and Melchett's statement that those questioning the operation are "almost criminally negligent" are the lowest and most self-serving attempt to suppress legitimate debate for reasons of political self-interest. Next he'll be smearing the dead by saying "we owe it to them" or such tripe...the man deserves beating to a pulp.

[nigegilb]

Max is very mad about it too;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=394640&in_page_id=1787

[Tigs2]

Nigegilb
Thanks! that is a really good article you have linked to. Worth a read everyone.

[Selac66]

No examination of the Afghanistan situation is complete without touching on the subject of oil.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/oilwar1.html

[Jaguar001]

Hi all,

Can someone explain something to me regarding persistant reports that Pakistani security forces' support the Taliban. So how are the NATO forces supposed to fight the enemy supported by their main "ally" in the region. The enemy forces attack NATO forces but run back into pakistan when chased and cannot be engaged within pakistan. I read somewhere that US has occasionally fires missiles from UAVs at the Taliban within pakistan. But this draws protest from pakistan. This situation cannot be helpful for NATO. So in my opinion this mission in Afganistan is doomed to fail as all previous foreign intervensions in that country.

[Jaguar001]

A question to the british. Do you anticipate any change in foreign policy and military intervention overseas with a change in government, say a new Tory government?

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Jaguar001, your first question is very pertinent. It is usually something glossed over by US and UK media and governments. The loyalty of the Pakistanis in general in the so-called 'war on terror' is highly uncertain and fluid. Sure, Pervez and high levels in the government do pay lip service to the anti-terrorist cause and occasionally serve up apparently wanted terrorists on a plate to mollify the West.

However, it's been an open secret that middle ranking officers in the Pakistani army, the intelligence agency and in civil law enforcement, especially in the provincial cities and closer to the Afghan border, supported the Taleban when they were in power and tend to support them now. Partly it is due to tribal and ethnic similarities, partly it is a matter of financial and political convenience to do so. The Pakistani government has been fairly successful at marrying these two competing demands. I am given to understand that Pakistani civil society and social stability does depend to some degree on not alienating the Muslim "street" which is very supportive of Islamism, the Taleban, al-Qaeda and OBL, especially in cities such as Lahore or Quetta.

None of this is really a secret, but one does wonder how much this was all mulled over at the higher levels of government in London and Washington.

Remember, Pakistan is a highly unstable county and potentially dangerous to Western interests. Oh, and they also have nukes.

[dallas]

A question to the british. Do you anticipate any change in foreign policy and military intervention overseas with a change in government, say a new Tory government?

Personally I wanted shut of Blair at the last election, but he pulled off a victory Houdini would have been proud of. A major contributor to Blair's success last time was Michael Howard in opposition - an old school Conservative who was a stereotypical politician; quite simply I didn't trust him for PM. I really don't like Blair but I wouldn't have voted for Howard.

Now Cameron is in the seat Blair is under threat, but the problem with Cameron is while he's from a different pod to Howard, if you took Cameron out of the picture the same old Tory faces are lurking not far away. The reason I'm giving you a politician's answer is to say that right now I would risk gambling on Cameron - quite simply to stop Labour - but that's not to say the majority would.

If Cameron gets in he'll be wanting British Forces to get out of their current battles, but he's not reckless and recognises the need to at least appear to help rebuild from the chaos we've left behind. Hopefully by then the Americans will, for the most part, have Iraq to themselves, while we've agreed to have Afghanistan. Cameron's already said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, but I think even the most arrogant of politicians has to admit the aftermath has been appalling. Iraq is far worse off after the invasion and Cameron will be glad to be out.

As for Afghanistan, I think the UK will go heavy on diplomacy once we realise we're not going to convince the locals to replace heroin with coffee. If we try and destroy the people's income - no matter how good our motives - we're going to have the entire population against us. As has been mentioned before, the soultion may be for us to look into buying the heroin crop and destroying the bulk, with a long-term aim of weening farmers off producing drugs. Nobody seems to have given that serious thought yet, but control will cost far less than destruction - in both money and lives.

In the mean time, while we're buying/burning heroin - and by 'we' I mean all first world countries - Afghanistan as a nation will either develop some form of tribal assembly or fragment in the same way the Stans broke away from the USSR. In real terms I think we're already closer to the latter than anyone will admit.

The US is unlikely to cut and run in Iraq while there's any danger of Iran annexing Iraq and forming an islamic superstate, so the US is stuck for the foreseeable future. The British are also committed to Afghanistan for the immediate future, but with Afghanistan already fragmented and uncontrollable by anyone - let alone Iran - I would expect a couple more years of overt effort to control drugs/Taleban before we accept we're not going to achieve our already foggy objective(s). This will be delivered in true Labour spin fashion with a few parades in Kabul, a couple of PR shots of the Afghan Army taking over British positions, equipped with new shiny kit and a graph of how heroin production dropped by 36% during the British operation.

[Jaguar001]

Golf Charlie Charlie, I agree with your assessment of Pakistani involvement. It must be tricky for Pervez to keep the muslim "street" at bay and at the same time be seen to be doing something against the terrorist groups to appease the west.

One can't help but get that sinking feeling that this mission is going to be one long and protracted drama.

Hope it does not end like it did for the Soviets.

[Tigs2]

Jag
fair point. My concern is that if the might and massive amount of resources that the Soviet Union put in place did not work, then for us to put 3000 to 5000 troops in theatre with woefully inadequate air support is folly. I dont see how we have a chance, its not good enough that our troops are quality, they just have not got the resources for the environment.

[dallas]

Tigs

The only difference I can see is the Russians didn't have smart weapons or stuff like NVG, so we have a technological advantage - provided we deploy enough of the right kit!

You can also argue the opposition can buy off-the-shelf technology relatively simply too though...

Air would seem to be the only sustainable advantage.

[Tigs2]

Dallas
good point. You know i didnt really give consideration to the technology advantage, but as you say a lot of the new kit (and definitly night optical devices) can be bought by the right people with enough money. I am not aware of to many poor drugs lords, so they definilty have the cash.

[dallas]

Technology is the whole basis - or perhaps gamble - of British defence policy over the past few years. I think it was Hoon who said we'll need less troops on the ground because spending will be focused on equipment, making troops so much better equipped; although I'm not sure he completed the sentence by saying "...than the enemy."

The cuts have certainly taken place, so I'm sure the spending on equipment is just around the corner...:hmm:

[Jaguar001]

Dallas
Even though I said "Hope it does not end like it did for the Soviets". I know the situation is different now. The rebels are not supported by a rival superpower. They also lack the sophisticated equipment that the NATO forces have. But I agree with Tigs2 that NATO troop levels are too low.
I also agree about the need to help the poor farmers who grow the poppy drops for the durg lords and introduce them to other cash crops.

I however feel pessimistic about the future of Afganistan because it seems the poeple in that country are too entrenched in a life that has adapted to a war way of life. There are too many warlords with personal agendas to see that the current status quo is maintained.

I may be wrong but did the Taleban not actually destroy the poppy production, and some of these durg warlords actually assist the american invasion just after 9/11. So now they are back to their old ways.

I also read that the Afgan national army are poorly equiped and are out matched by the Taleban forces. Maybe NATO should provide the Afgan national army modern arms. I saw on tv they carry russian arms.

[dallas]

Jag001

I'd say on the ground the rebels are pretty evenly matched in terms of technology - portable TI/NVG/IR kit is all buyable from Russian arms dealers for the right price. What the rebels do lack is platforms to deliver the goods ie. air power, although if CAS is so stretched as to be half an hour away they would certainly hold a temporary advantage from a hillside.

As for the farmers, I can see them becoming beneficiaries of EU subsidies in a similar fashion to farmers in Europe who get paid not to produce less contentious crops! That would be an immediate solution to Afghanistan, but we'd have to accept the stuff would just be grown elsewhere to meet market demand. In the longer term we would have to find something sustainable or simply keep paying a subsidy. Apart from growing diamonds, nothing immediately springs to mind.

Ironically the US invasion of Iraq has put that country into a very similar state as Afghanistan - tribal feuds and warlords - so logic would follow that we need to exile Saddam to Afghanistan...and perhaps put him in power! In both countries simply marching in and announcing democracy was just never going to work; with Iraq you could argue it was worth a go, in the absence of knowing any different, but we should have known better in Afghanistan. But then we should also know better than to expect to be able to burn people's livelihoods without then getting a bit anti - but I haven't heard a definitive policy yet...

I don't know if the Taleban burned poppies - you would expect so, in line with the Islamic directives on intoxicants, but then drugs still came from there in large quantities during their regime. Perhaps they found it too difficult (even with far harsher prevention methods than us), or perhaps they got over their morals when they realised the proceeds could be used to fund pious enforcement! Let's not forget the Taleban's version of Islam was only their interpretation and, as such, is open to convenient revue!

Re-equipping the Afghan Army is undoubtedly required, but there's no point doing so now unless they have a good reason to fight. While the Taleban were universally hated, so are other invaders and a common enemy has tended to focus tribal attentions over the centuries. If I joined the Afghan Army tomorrow I might get a bit of action against the Taleban, but I'll probably also get to help burn my uncle's business. In terms of ideology the only thing the Afghans tend to get motivated and united for is to repel a foreign invader.

Currently that's us.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

In terms of ideology the only thing the Afghans tend to get motivated and united for is to repel a foreign invader.

Currently that's us.

Indeed. No-one has ever been able properly to subdue Afghanistan since Alexander the Great failed to do so 2,300 years ago. The country is a harsh environment, highly tribal with loyalties to clan and village, not to any notions of statehood. The people tend to be brutal in defending their interests against central government and its outside protectors. The British fought and lost three wars in the country in the 19th century for the same reasons. They should know better than to have dived into this devil's brew so nakedly. But no-one reads history any more in the internet age. I am absolutely amazed (and despondent) that the UK has got itself into this situation.

It's not that nothing can be done or should at least be attempted to help build a better society there. While some things are going well, eg. growth of small businesses and the service sector in Kabul, the bulk of the economy, and the country, remains dependent on opium, foreign aid and foreign remittances. With reductions in reconstruction funds pledged by the US, the international community seems to be on the verge of neglecting the need to promote concepts such as civil society, law and human rights, while the security situation is deteriorating rapidly due to unwillingness or inability to commit the right military assets (eg. air transport and helicopters), as recent events are painfully showing us.

[FormerFlake]

Do not forget that the only reason Brittian got envolved with Afghanistan 150 ish years ago was to defend India. Once we fell out with Russians and their empire spread we got a bit woried about India. Afghansitan was always a buffer zone, and we rarely put a suitable amount of manpower towards defending it. The current situationn is completely different poltically etc, yet we are still not putting another manpower into defending it!!

We need to find a source of income for Afghanistan that is not drugs, if that ends up being oil it is a win, win situation for the Spams.

[dallas]

But no-one reads history any more in the internet age. I am absolutely amazed (and despondent) that the UK has got itself into this situation.

I'm equally amazed. I didn't know much about Afghanistan until recently and only write here now with a combination of what I have read intermingled with a spattering of common sense. But I'm not running the country and committing British Forces to battle.

What are our processes when invasion/liberation is considered? Who do we ask for background and analysis? Surely our advisors on Iraq and Afghanistan are now looking elsewhere for work?

On 10 Sep 2001 you'd never have believed the state we now find ourselves in and our government needs to understand this isn't just another facet of governing that can be managed with spin, initiatives and sound bites. If they get this one wrong there'll be more than embarrassing headlines, waiting lists or wasted taxes; people will die and blame can only rest at the door of the British government for being so ill-prepared and ill-equipped.

[FormerFlake]

If they get this one wrong there'll be more than embarrassing headlines, waiting lists or wasted taxes; people will die and blame can only rest at the door of the British government for being so ill-prepared and ill-equipped.

Our forces where well equiped and prepared, just for a different war. A war that was never going to take place, but that BAE were happy to provide substandard, expensive and late equipment for.

[212man]

Not sure about that, see here: http://www.khyber.org/publications/011-015/brydonreport.shtml

What an horrendous account of misery:(

[dallas]

The first of more sucked in...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5163900.stm

[Des Browne said] They would not be acting as a drugs police, or destroying poppy fields, he said. Instead they hoped to provide the stability which could allow the Afghans to tackle it.

I'm sure the locals will appreciate the subtle difference. We're not destroying the family business, just helping other people do it. I'm sure that'll make them think twice before opening fire. :hmm:

[nigegilb]

Quite. This additional reinforcement is formulated outside of harmony guidelines. What is the point of harmony guidelines if they are immediately brushed aside by the Chiefs of Staff and Defence Ministers at the first opportunity? Retention? May as well remove the word from the dictionary.

[SASless]

It was not all that long ago the British lost a similar number of troops in Iraq as in the Good Doctor's experience. More survived than the Afghan disaster but just as many perished if I remember my history correctly.

The situation today is much different than in the past. Technology gives Western forces a much greater advantage so long as the tactics employed capitalize on our strengths and the Taliban's weaknesses. When we try to fight them in the old ways....that is bound to be a bad way to go.

They are resourceful and brave fighters, you do have to respect that.

I do wish the Politicians and senior Military Commanders would settle upon a certain goal for our presence and tailor every effort towards accomplishing that.

Stopping the Poppy business is just plain Poppy Cock. Look to the Coca business in Central and South America....how many billions of dollars have we spent on that and still have no real progress in that "war".

[boogie-nicey]

It's a sad and dirty state of affairs Tony Blair will sleep smug and sound in his bed even while 'his team' at No. 10 starts filtering out the body counts and stats from Afganistan.

Bring the troops home VERY soon or else start shoring up the dam before it gives way. Once that happens, it's over.

Where are the Indian troops (their armed forces are significant).. why no contribute ... even a small gesture would be more than helpful. Where are the Brazilian, South African, Mexican, Italian troops ...? This is no game these poor troops in the Afganistan mountains are like placing a small defenceless child in a bad area of your local town at night and leaving them to fend for themselves.

[MarkD]

Indian troops on the other side of Pakistan... yeah that'll work. :hmm:

[nigegilb]

Agreed, but Turkey could make an immense contribution. A secular state but majority muslim, a fact Afghans would be more comfortable with.

[An Teallach]

I suspect many in Helmand and other provinces give as much of a toss for the Afghan state as occupants of the Gaidhealtachd did for the Scottish state up to the 18th Century. Therefore it would matter not a jot which particular 'Johnny Foreigner' tries to tell them how to live their lives, the answer will come in 5.56 mm calibre.

[SASless]

An T,

I believe you refer to the locals response when you say 5.56....however the AK is 7.62 caliber. Our side uses the 5.56....maybe that is the final answer however.

[An Teallach]

My goof, Sasless, I stand corrected. However, given the current performance of the ANA, I wonder how long it will be before some of this lot (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060703-104832-6977r.htm) ends up in the hands of the taliban / narco-lords?

[SASless]

Don't sweat that kind of gear....IED's are the way to rightousness. Easy to plant...very effective....and makes wonderful news headlines.

Just ask yourself how many dead and mutilated troops are the Western societies willing to suffer before the war becomes intolerable to the citizens in general and they begin to demand the troops come home.

Standing and fighting is a losing deal for an insurgent.

[tornadoken]

Saudis cut off from the oil trough are using poppy power to attempt regime change in Riyadh. If they succeed and control the Gulf fields they won't drink it, but will sell only to friends. Our Mission is Energy Security, which is just as critical as a military Threat - in 1973 our friend the Shah tried to freeze Holland. So: interdict their money and managers, and gangsters wither. Then a State can be constructed, with such novelties as electricity and roads. Lots of people in Brussels know how to dish out Set-aside money to replace the opium crop.
It's all one energy chain, Af-Chechnya-Iraq-Kosovo, maybe Somali/Sudan. Boots on the ground are part of the fix, but so is closing down Bank accounts. Brits, Canucks, Aussies, Poles and US are enough - the EU Force in ex-Yugo suggests that many cooks at the same pot simply confuse. Putin, Japan, Germany, India, Pakistan are helping in other ways - money, logistics, Intell. I expect the French are too.

[Roadtrip]

What westerners don't understand is that Muslims basically hate us because of our religious and political beliefs. Western civilization's values of individual freedom of religious choice and thought is antithical to Isalm's desire for total control of the individual and state.

We have been suckered into believing that the corrupt regimes of the Saudi princes and other sheikdoms are also fighting fundamentalism when they themselves put out all kinds of vile filth and lies about the west, Christians, and especially Jews in their own children's classrooms. They are out for self-preservation and the majority of islamic population tactity supports the terrorists.

The idea of "Your either with us or against us" holds a lot of merit.

And if anybody thinks that the fanatics that run Iran won't actually use a nuclear weapon to cripple Israel, they need to put down the crack pipe. These Islamic fanatics mean to do exactly what they say. Remember, they think they're on a holy mission.

[Reach]

Muslims basically hate us

Do you include the muslims in the US and coalition military with that broad brush of yours Roadtrip?

[dallas]

Hey if you're talking about the drunken Big Brother watching morons who have no respect for anyone, let alone other members of the society they milk, who are too busy reproducing for a living to bother with work, who sneer at other races and cultures, thinking them below 'us', then I hate 'us' too.

Muslims have their issues, but we can hardly claim to have the moral high ground...

[Lucifer]

What westerners don't understand is that Muslims basically hate us because of our religious and political beliefs. Western civilization's values of individual freedom of religious choice and thought is antithical to Isalm's desire for total control of the individual and state.
Not according to all the Muslims I work with, who value the liberty to practice their religion free from persecution in the UK.

Get to know a few and you might find you are mildly surprised.

[SASless]

How do you deal with this kind of logical thinking?



http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/02/03/protest1.jpg

[Tigs2]

Come on SASless
I know after all these years you are an intelligent guy, i have seen just as many Christian protestors with plaques outside the Whitehouse as ANYWHERE else in the world by 'so called uneducated people holding anti weatern /Western plaques'. What are you trying to do?? You make yourself an idiot by trying to portray that all this is one sided. You are better than this SASless!

[SASless]

Tigs,

You make yourself an idiot by trying to portray that all this is one sided. You are better than this SASless!

I asked a simple straight forward question based upon a photograph taken in London of a protest by UK Muslims. The demonstration was over the "insulting cartoons" done by a cartoonist in Denmark.

The sign says "Freedom of Expression Go To Hell" which I find a bit odd considering the dumbass holding the sign is using that very freedom to protest.

The same mindset gets all humpy over the Quran and raise unholy hell if a mere infidel touches the thing.....all the while ignoring the fact the same book has been run through a printing press, moved by conveyor belts, been glued by a machine, bound, boxed, trucked, and sorted at the book store or where ever he obtained the thing. Is there a (for want of better words) a "kosher" Quran print shop somewhere west of Mecca?

The current wave of terrorism we are experiencing is being brought to us by Muslim Fundalmentalists who are doing their Jihad with the goal of converting or destroying the rest of the world to Islam.

Excuse me if I hold no truck with that.

Outsiders hit us.....not so you folks in the UK. When 40% of the UK Muslim community is said to favor Sharia law in the UK then I would suggest there is more support for the fundamentalists than one accepts.

[Tigs2]

SASless
i am for everything, I am for Humanity, I Know you are!! SASless i ask you to look, independantly, at Middle Americas Views on all of this PM me if you wish and we can talk or meet up for a beer. But at the end of the day you must accept, we have created this.

[An Teallach]

SASless:
Outsiders hit us.....not so you folks in the UK

Quite apart from the UK citizens killed on 11 September 2001, there was an attack on London on 7 July last year.

If we are to deal with lunatic religious fundamentalism by invading countries, which country should we bomb into the stone age to deal with this lot?

http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/2006/20060709_missouri6.jpg

[South Bound]

AT - SAS was saying that the nutters responsible for 9/11 were not Americans, while the guys that did 7/7 were British, it was an inside job and a situation that we allowed to develop with our lily-livered attempts to be tolerant and not to upset anyone (apart from hard working people that are proud to call themselves English...).

Everyone is entitled to a view, to a religion etc UNTIL those beliefs stray outside the bounds of the country's acceptable limits. Believe in what you will, just make sure that you are totally happy with letting others do the same. If not, time to leave I'm afraid.

[Almost_done]

Is there a (for want of better words) a "kosher" Quran print shop somewhere west of Mecca?
The current wave of terrorism we

I believe the appropriate term is "Ha'lal".

[boogie-nicey]

Lets not allow this post to get out of hand. However I agree somewhat with Roadtrip though not in such an extreme manner. SAS-less also raises some good points too.

The disticntion here is not the religion but the nutters that follow it and then misinterpret or misconstrue what's being said. We need to deal with them not shy away from it because it's a sensitive issue otherwise we're feeding the problem with our blissful ignorance.

[Dave Martin]

SASless,

I do recall seeing on television not so long ago a susbstantial crowd of American Christian zeolots who made it their mission to stand by the roadside and cheer.

All very nice, but they people they cheered were the passing funeral processions of HIV/AIDS victims.

Apparently gods justice had been done.

I guess Christians all hate freedom then?

[SASless]

Boogie,

Sadly there are some that look for broader agendas when responding to posts.

They at times have personal issues that motivate their reactions to events that then find their way into the discussion here.

Dave missed the point being made and attempts to take the discussion away from the matter at hand. He ignores my objection to dealing with zealots as I consider it hopeless in that the zealots will not listen nor understand. At no time did I suggest all Muslims are zealots. He took that upon himself I suppose by his comments.

The Westboro Baptist Church bunch Dave and An T refer to are just that zealots. In previous posts and one thread I started here....I went on record noting how dispicable those folks are. I am deeply offended by their tactic (WBC) of protesting at funerals of servicemen killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. An T I imagine has other reasons to object to WBC and their activities.

The important point both Dave an An T should acknowledge.....as objectionable as the WBC folks are....they are using their freedom of speech rights to protest. The Muslims in the other photograph are decrying the very freedom that allows them to protest. If they had their way...there would be no freedom of speech and thus they would no longer be able to protest.

That seems simple enough for rational minds to discern from what has been said.

To answer your question Dave....if it were legal I would remove the WBC and all its members from this life. However, they are within their rights to believe and think in this country due to our concept of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion as our laws allow. Try that under Sharia Law and see what happens to you?

[An Teallach]

SASLess

With my gay hat on (prior to their new-found love of IEDs and protesting at Mil funerals) I found Phelps' WBC laughable and largely constituting the blindingly obvious rantings of a classic self-loathing closet homosexual.

With my ex-Mil hat on, I find the whole 'We love IEDs' and funeral protest thing objectionable in the extreme.

Either way, I think whatever the gay lobby group is in the USA should give him an award as the man who has probably done more than any to advance the 'gay agenda' in the USA.

As for UK (or USA) muslims wishing to introduce Shariah law in the UK or USA, I would gladly see my taxes used to transport them to Saudi / Iran / Pakistan or wherever where they can hang, stone and mutilate each other to their heart's content.

[SASless]

An T,

I have suggested over a few pints of beer at the Legion Hall, the way to deal with the WBC crowd would be for the Gay Pride bunch to attend church....with the Reverend Phelps....by the thousands! Hopefully, they (the Gay Pride bunch) would be Penecostals who believe in the "laying on of hands".

On a serious note, people with such warped views as WBC and religious whacko's that believe in killing and cutting off heads as a way to salvation worry me more than a little. Equally disturbing is the fact so many of our fellows attempt to mitigate what these extremists do in the name of religion.

The old saying here is "your freedom ends where my nose starts!" holds more than ever. They can believe what they care too....but when they (the zealots) harm others then they should be reined in however it has to be done.