Even More Afghan?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the 16 years which have elapsed has anyone found a scintilla of evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by Afghans?
The Iraqi government quite certainly wasn't involved either, but we attacked them anyway.
We have created the terrorism which now afflicts Britain and other European countries.
It's time to admit our mistake and learn from it.
The Iraqi government quite certainly wasn't involved either, but we attacked them anyway.
We have created the terrorism which now afflicts Britain and other European countries.
It's time to admit our mistake and learn from it.
From The Times today:
Send British troops to Afghanistan, urges ex‑forces chief Lord Richards
Britain must send more troops to Afghanistan to support President Trump’s new strategy, a former head of the armed forces has told The Times.
Despite indications from the British government that it has no plans to reinforce its troops there at present, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, a former chief of the defence staff and commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, said that an offer of additional soldiers would help to win back influence in Washington.
“Should Britain contribute more men and resources to the revamped US strategy in Afghanistan? Most certainly the answer is yes,” Lord Richards said.
Before retiring in 2013 and becoming a life peer, he had served for three years as chief of the defence staff, Britain’s most senior military appointment. From 2006 to 2007 he was Nato commander of 50,000 international troops in Afghanistan, and was responsible for expanding the alliance’s remit across the country. He once warned that the military and diplomatic mission in Afghanistan could last at least 30 years.
“The prize for us all is huge in the war against extremism but just as importantly, having lost much of our strategic influence in Washington and around the world in an era when our armed forces have been slashed, this is an opportunity to regain it,” he said.
On Monday Mr Trump urged Nato members to send more troops to join America in boosting the military presence in Afghanistan to maintain pressure on the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Islamic State. “If a post-Brexit ‘global Britain’ is to mean anything, it means playing a significant role in this new US-led Afghanistan strategy,” Lord Richards said.
However, he warned: “My fear is that the army in particular is now so small [fewer than 80,000] that words and more token efforts will expose the reality of a Britain that is no longer able to play the proud role on the world stage that has been our privilege for hundreds of years.”
Britain has 500 military personnel in Kabul, serving at a Sandhurst-style training establishment for Afghan officer recruits. An additional 85 are due to be deployed in November.
A small contingent of British special forces serves alongside US and other coalition commandos in a separate counterterrorism operation.
Lord Richards said that it was always going to take a long time to build an Afghan army. For the first ten years of the 16-year campaign, the allies “were not given the necessary resources and time to get this right”, he said.
Then, just as the army was beginning to take shape, President Obama and David Cameron “took the strategically illiterate decision to wind down our campaign to an almost token effort”.
“President Trump’s decision to back his generals is the right one. It will take a few more years but it will work,” Lord Richards said.
“It will allow the government of Afghanistan and the moderate Taliban to reconcile themselves to working together in the interests of the country as a whole.”
Britain must send more troops to Afghanistan to support President Trump’s new strategy, a former head of the armed forces has told The Times.
Despite indications from the British government that it has no plans to reinforce its troops there at present, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, a former chief of the defence staff and commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, said that an offer of additional soldiers would help to win back influence in Washington.
“Should Britain contribute more men and resources to the revamped US strategy in Afghanistan? Most certainly the answer is yes,” Lord Richards said.
Before retiring in 2013 and becoming a life peer, he had served for three years as chief of the defence staff, Britain’s most senior military appointment. From 2006 to 2007 he was Nato commander of 50,000 international troops in Afghanistan, and was responsible for expanding the alliance’s remit across the country. He once warned that the military and diplomatic mission in Afghanistan could last at least 30 years.
“The prize for us all is huge in the war against extremism but just as importantly, having lost much of our strategic influence in Washington and around the world in an era when our armed forces have been slashed, this is an opportunity to regain it,” he said.
On Monday Mr Trump urged Nato members to send more troops to join America in boosting the military presence in Afghanistan to maintain pressure on the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Islamic State. “If a post-Brexit ‘global Britain’ is to mean anything, it means playing a significant role in this new US-led Afghanistan strategy,” Lord Richards said.
However, he warned: “My fear is that the army in particular is now so small [fewer than 80,000] that words and more token efforts will expose the reality of a Britain that is no longer able to play the proud role on the world stage that has been our privilege for hundreds of years.”
Britain has 500 military personnel in Kabul, serving at a Sandhurst-style training establishment for Afghan officer recruits. An additional 85 are due to be deployed in November.
A small contingent of British special forces serves alongside US and other coalition commandos in a separate counterterrorism operation.
Lord Richards said that it was always going to take a long time to build an Afghan army. For the first ten years of the 16-year campaign, the allies “were not given the necessary resources and time to get this right”, he said.
Then, just as the army was beginning to take shape, President Obama and David Cameron “took the strategically illiterate decision to wind down our campaign to an almost token effort”.
“President Trump’s decision to back his generals is the right one. It will take a few more years but it will work,” Lord Richards said.
“It will allow the government of Afghanistan and the moderate Taliban to reconcile themselves to working together in the interests of the country as a whole.”
The prize for us all is huge in the war against extremism but just as importantly, having lost much of our strategic influence in Washington and around the world in an era when our armed forces have been slashed, this is an opportunity to regain it,” he said.
At this latter stage of my life I have come to the realisation that I don't give a monkeys what part Britain plays on the world stage.
Do we honestly think that the Belgians are any the less happy because their country isn't a world "player"? Or the Swedes? Or the Spanish, Italians or Danish?
I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination, I want us to have effective armed forces to defend our homeland and our shipping lanes (MRA anyone?) but I want us to consign "empire" to the history books and to stay out of the Middle East and Afghanistan completely from now on. Any idea that there is a "prize" to be won in the war against extremism by getting involved there must surely have been disproved years ago.
At this latter stage of my life I have come to the realisation that I don't give a monkeys what part Britain plays on the world stage.
Do we honestly think that the Belgians are any the less happy because their country isn't a world "player"? Or the Swedes? Or the Spanish, Italians or Danish?
I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination, I want us to have effective armed forces to defend our homeland and our shipping lanes (MRA anyone?) but I want us to consign "empire" to the history books and to stay out of the Middle East and Afghanistan completely from now on. Any idea that there is a "prize" to be won in the war against extremism by getting involved there must surely have been disproved years ago.
Do we honestly think that the Belgians are any the less happy because their country isn't a world "player"? Or the Swedes? Or the Spanish, Italians or Danish?
I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination, I want us to have effective armed forces to defend our homeland and our shipping lanes (MRA anyone?) but I want us to consign "empire" to the history books and to stay out of the Middle East and Afghanistan completely from now on. Any idea that there is a "prize" to be won in the war against extremism by getting involved there must surely have been disproved years ago.
I'm with you TTN!
