Defeat In Helmand?

[flipster]

BBC News - UK troops leave Helmand's Sangin (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11367931)

Is this another defeat for our underfunded and under-resourced forces?

[Jabba_TG12]

Guess it depends on what happens now the USMC are running the show on the ground.

I dont think defeat is how it is going to be spun, but considering

a) there were reservations expressed about the platoon house policy in the first place, (although it didnt come out until the casualties started coming back)

and

b) If I recall correctly, we've already lost lives gaining Sangin, leaving it and taking it back again

it doesnt look particularly good. The end result will be more of an indication though as to whether their sacrifice was "worth it". Too early to tell.

[Saintsman]

Was it really a place that we could win?

Even when we eventually pull out of Afghanistan it won't be a victory. The troops can leave with their heads held high but I doubt all the lives lost were really worth it.

[FantomZorbin]

If we take note of History what else should we (or anyone else for that matter) expect!

[Load Toad]

Well the first question is 'What were they specifically in Helmand to do?' and 'What were we in Afghanistan to achieve?'

[Pelikanpete]

The troops in Afghanistan are a facilitator. Their role has been to establish and preserve an environment that is safe and stable enough for agriculture, industry, education and society to have a chance to get going whilst a strong enough Afghan Government, Police and Army prepare to take over the responsibility.

The Taliban and other extremists thrive on the population's disaffection, desperation and poverty, removing it dislocates them from the population that they rely on for recruiting and sustenance.

Militarily eradicating the Taliban by defeating them on the battle field was never the plan or even possible to achieve. We just needed to have enough troops to provide a continuous presence on the ground in every town and village - no matter how small to keep them out (preferably by having small or medium sized, permanent bases shared with Afghan Police/Army and the resources to sustain ourselves). The problem has been not having enough manpower to achieve this and also the usual ever diminishing lack of public support at home for seeing the mission through (even though pulling out early means the lost lives have been wasted). The mission was entirely achievable but needed a Government who were prepared to pay the bills to do it properly and not leave our military with one arm tied behind their backs.

The lesson is clear and is that if we are not prepared to commit ourselves fully or don't have the stomach for it as a nation, then we should not get involved in these kind of ventures in the first place. Once committed though, we should not have a change of heart.

[Double Zero]

if it is a defeat, it sure as hell isn't on account of the people actually there; as Pelikanpete says, it's the duty of any government to fully back the military once they have been committed.

Still it's nice to know our bankers get unwavering back-up.

[Load Toad]

So in a nutshell - militarily not defeated but politically a waste of time and money (& lives)?

[Mike7777777]

I don't accept that the British have been defeated in Helmand, we are there as part of NATO. Yesterday, NATO was in Helmand. Today, NATO is in Helmand. Tomorrow, NATO will be in Helmand.

Defeat of NATO can certainly be avoided, it will cost a few billions, and there will be losses and collateral damage; the missing element is the political will to win.

[Lonewolf_50]

Pelicanpete:
The troops in Afghanistan are a facilitator. Their role has been to establish and preserve an environment that is safe and stable enough for agriculture, industry, education and society to have a chance to get going whilst a strong enough Afghan Government, Police and Army prepare to take over the responsibility.

The Taliban and other extremists thrive on the population's disaffection, desperation and poverty, removing it dislocates them from the population that they rely on for recruiting and sustenance.
It is easier to tear something down that it is to rebuild it, particularly when, during the rebuilding, one has vandalism running amok on the construction site. The Taliban can achieve a lot of their ends via denial, rather than having to achieve/build much of anything. That perspective on the asymmetry of this form of war doesn't seem to get as much coverage as the asymmetry in means.

Double zero
If it is a defeat, it sure as hell isn't on account of the people actually there; as Pelikanpete says, it's the duty of any government to fully back the military once they have been committed. Still it's nice to know our bankers get unwavering back-up.
A bitter pill to swallow, but for my money, that’s how it has ever been … Smedley Butler had a few things to say about this. ;) So did Lt General Batiste, more recently.

Load Toad
So in a nutshell - militarily not defeated but politically a waste of time and money (& lives)?
No. Nutshell’s don’t lend themselves to this campaign, why limit your thinking purposefully? :confused:

In particular, politically the decision to go in was not a waste of time. That decision was made in the UK back in 2001 or 2002 (I'd have to go back and look, I think it was 2001). This political choice was part and parcel to the NATO mission, which has morphed significantly since early on.
(Heck, when I was involved, there were Kiwis to work with ... but never mind).

The military means serves the political end. If it isn’t intended to, one needn’t bother. Getting clarity on the political end, an end which evolves, which isn’t a fixed quantity, makes your reductionist stab miss the mark.

The nutshell is found badly wanting.

Since the political motives of any government can and will change over time, a sore point in this campaign for the folks on the ground from more than one country, what you deem successful is heavily weighed by context.

So, since there was at one point a political aim, a political end, was that achieved? Was some or part of it achieved? Is it relevant still?

Mike7777777 (http://www.pprune.org/members/135010-mike7777777)
I don't accept that the British have been defeated in Helmand, we are there as part of NATO. Yesterday, NATO was in Helmand. Today, NATO is in Helmand. Tomorrow, NATO will be in Helmand.

Defeat of NATO can certainly be avoided, it will cost a few billions, and there will be losses and collateral damage; the missing element is the political will to win.

Hadn’t thought of it in that context, but it makes sense from the political end, given that the Alliance was appealed to for assistance early on, and assistance was given. But as I asked Load Toad, I wonder how clearly the political ends are, or ever were, and on what time line?

Moving target.