PDA

View Full Version : Mission Accomplished


Orion Man
17th Dec 2013, 00:12
BBC News - Afghanistan mission accomplished, says David Cameron (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25398608)

Really ?

Glad we're pulling out but did we really achieve much ? Like Iraq, the killing continues. At least Bin Laden met his end eventually. At what cost to the coalition military lives and economies ?

What a waste of money with so little achieved. The opium fields will flourish once more, women are still treated like s**t, Al Qaeda are still in business and the Taliban are not defeated (Russia learnt its lesson with the Mujahideen).

What an abject failure.

Regards

Orion Man

meadowrun
17th Dec 2013, 00:18
Reminds me of Bush standing on an aircraft carrier somewhere.

500N
17th Dec 2013, 00:31
Orion

Not wanting to crimp this thread as it is in Jet Blast but in the MILITARY FORUM, a good thread on Afghanistan already exists and this is being discussed in there.

Dak Man
17th Dec 2013, 02:19
Before making a statement like "Mission Accomplished" I would first need to understand the metric against which accomplishment is measured - in the case of Talibanistan (and Iraq) I have absolutely no clue whatsoever to what or how they [metrics] are referenced.

Once again and not for the first time history has repeated itself in Talibanistan.

In the context of bringing some semblance of democracy to the country then it's my opinion that it has been an abject and absolute failure, but as above how is mission accomplished being framed?

500N
17th Dec 2013, 02:29
The other question

What was the mission.

From what I could see, the mission kept changing every few years,
not because or for military reasons but Political.

Torque Tonight
17th Dec 2013, 02:57
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg

I believe over 95% of the 3400 coalition deaths in Afghanistan have occurred since Dubya's mission accomplished speech. Mission accomplished is a poisoned expression; the journalist laid a trap for Cameron - Cameron faceplanted straight into it.

RatherBeFlying
17th Dec 2013, 04:18
The Brits first invaded Afghanistan in 1839 and got a bloody nose -- and came back for a few more:ugh:

The same lesson got administered to the Russians, Yanks and various Coalition allies.

Nothing new here.

TWT
17th Dec 2013, 05:27
Vietnam has been good at handing out bloody noses too

sitigeltfel
17th Dec 2013, 06:39
I believe over 95% of the 3400 coalition deaths in Afghanistan have occurred since Dubya's mission accomplished speech.

I am not surprised. The speech was in reference to Gulf war II.

Flap 5
17th Dec 2013, 07:18
As usual this was a set up question by the press. Cameron didn't actually say that it was 'mission accomplished'. In answer to a question from the press he agreed that the soldiers could consider they had indeed accomplished their mission. Not the same thing.

John Hill
17th Dec 2013, 08:36
I dont know what the mission in Afghanistan was ever defined as but one thing for sure is that not much has been accomplished.

Flap 5
17th Dec 2013, 09:03
It was a politicians answer to the soldiers standing in front of him. I am sure the soldiers he referred to had accomplished their mission that they had gone there to do.

Otherwise it is correct to say that it has been a political fiasco which the soldiers have done their best to deal with.

Torque Tonight
17th Dec 2013, 17:40
sitigeltfel, whoops, the dangers of posting while fatigued! To set the record straight, over 96% of the 4800 coalition deaths in Iraq (round 2) occurred since Dubya's mission accomplished speech. Therefore I think Cameron would have been wise to avoid that expression at all costs when talking about Afghanistan. You are setting yourself up for a fall.

I have the greatest respect for all allied forces that have worked in the hell-hole that is Afghanistan, including many good mates and former colleagues. Unfortunately, I have doubts as to whether all the effort, lives, and expense will make any long term difference. I have a nasty feeling that Afghanistan in 2015 will be much like Afghanistan in 2000 (and 1900 and 1800 etc).

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2013, 18:04
I believe the original mission parameters for Afghanistan was the capture of Osama bin Liner, the destruction of Al Qaeda and its training camps in that country and the removal of the Taliban as the governing entity from the 'Stan.

Osama bin Liner was successfully taken out. Not in Afghanistan, as we all know, but in our "allied" country of Pakistan, where he had been hiding, in plain sight, for many years. This part of the mission was indeed successful.

The destruction of Al Qaeda is an on-going process. Al Qaeda, however, was removed from Afghanistan in the earlier days of the war and it's training camps and assorted infrastructure destroyed as well. The fact that AQ beat feet across the border into the badlands of Pakistan is irrelevant here as they they were ejected from Afghanistan. This part of the mission was also successful.

The Taliban was indeed removed from government in Afghanistan in the early days of the war. However, once certain misguided visions of Iraqi conquest were acted upon, focus was lost on keeping the Taliban out so they eventually returned. This part of the mission has failed.

Afghanistan is now the #1 narco-trafficking state in the world. No other country cultivates as much poppy as Afghanistan does. Hamid Karzai (King Crook) is intimately involved in this narco-trafficking as is his brother. Although this was never a mission parameter what it does show is just how failed a state Afghanistan is, was and will always be. One can argue, however, that at least with the Taliban in power (as unseemly as that is) narco-trafficking was kept to a minimum.

Have we, the West, succeeded in Afghanistan? We took out OBL, we sent AQ packing and destroyed their training camps in that country. We also took the Taliban out of governance but they have since returned, in force, to the 'Stan.

Arguably we have succeeded in 2/3 of the mission parameters in Afghanistan.
HOWEVER. Afghanistan is still a failed state, still has no real government outside Kabul, still have no real, and professional, standing army, still is rife with corruption and still has no semblance of a democratic form of government.

With 2 of the 3 mission parameters having been successfully met, you decide if that constitutes "mission accomplished." (To me, it does not.)

Dr Jekyll
17th Dec 2013, 18:58
I believe over 95% of the 3400 coalition deaths in Afghanistan have occurred since Dubya's mission accomplished speech.

He didn't say 'mission accomplished' though did he?

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Note the 'we do not know the day of final victory'.

If the commander of the ship happened to have raised a banner to celebrate the fact that the SHIP's mission was accomplished and they were heading back home, that's his business.

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2013, 19:36
It might well be that Mr. Bush did not utter the words "mission accomplished."

What is a fact is that he did state, on that carrier: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Which was far from being an accurate statement.

Torque Tonight
17th Dec 2013, 20:16
From wiki,In January 2009, Bush said that "Clearly, putting 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake"

It's a phrase that bit Bush on the a--e, and may well bite Cameron on the a--e when the 'Stan returns to anarchy in quick time.

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2013, 20:23
It is my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that Mr. Cameron did not use the words "mission accomplished" but when asked by a media reporter if he thought British troops could come home with "mission accomplished" he replied:

"Yes, I think they do. I think they can come home with their heads held high."

Torque Tonight
17th Dec 2013, 20:41
You are right; neither GWB or DC used those words themselves but they both effectively endorsed the statement (Bush with the photo above, DC by a agreeing with a journo's leading question). The effect is the same as if they said it themselves and such statements can very easily make you look foolish.

Cameron: Afghanistan 'Mission accomplished' - Europe - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/12/cameron-afghanistan-mission-accomplished-2013121715116889801.html)

When the next British soldier is maimed or killed in the Stan, what will it have been for, if indeed the mission is already accomplished. Will the mission still be accomplished when we pull out and the country remains a cesspit of corruption, anarchy, terrorism etc?

ChrisVJ
17th Dec 2013, 22:14
Have to say I am getting tired of the habit every one has today of taking words out of context to create a dramatic headline or crucify some poor politico for a remark in a casual conversation. (And I don't like politicos!)

What was DC supposed to say? "No, I don't think our soldiers are coming home with mission accomplished." He would have been crucified for that.

As to whether the mission has actually been accomplished, depends on who you ask. Apparently no one is capable of reporting or at least publishing without an agenda. Can't believe any of them.

500N
17th Dec 2013, 22:16
I think most people couldn't even state what the mission was originally
and probably the mission now.

Agree re the way the media twist words to get a headline.

vulcanised
17th Dec 2013, 22:23
I think most people couldn't even state what the mission was originally


Misguided would probably cover it.

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2013, 13:38
vulcanised

Misguided? In what way? By its very nature? Should we have not struck Afghanistan? Should we not have gone after OBL? Should we not have removed the 9th Century-living Taliban from power?

Dak Man
18th Dec 2013, 15:04
Afghanistan war: Max Hastings: Mr Cameron is deluded. The tragic truth is that Britain accomplished NOTHING in Afghanistan | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2525463/Afghanistan-war-Max-Hastings-Mr-Cameron-deluded-The-tragic-truth-Britain-accomplished-NOTHING-Afghanistan.html?ico=home^editors_choice)


Mr Cameron is deluded. The tragic truth is that Britain accomplished NOTHING in Afghanistan

vulcanised
18th Dec 2013, 15:17
Should we have not struck Afghanistan? Should we not have gone after OBL? Should we not have removed the 9th Century-living Taliban from power?


No to all of those. It has achieved nothing for us except probably stored up trouble for years to come.

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2013, 16:01
Lone Ranger:

If the removal of OBL - a mass murderer by any sense - isn't considered a success then I don't know what is. Or should we just have caved in, begged him for forgiveness, and sat around with the rest of his band of thugs singing kumbayah?

Dak Man
18th Dec 2013, 16:09
What has killing him achieved?

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2013, 16:17
Dak Man:

His death.

StressFree
18th Dec 2013, 16:21
"The secret to happiness is freedom... And the secret to freedom is courage."
Thucydides

Whether we have won or lost is open to debate but at least we tried.

To have done nothing would have been a dent in our integrity, I fully agree that the results of our enterprise in A'stan perhaps aren't in line with our expenditure in lives and money, but if you're a freedom loving human you must try to spread that to your fellow human for he too will cherish the value of a precious freedom.

Often not easy, often a disaster, but a noble cause nontheless and one I approve of because of its inherent aim to benefit the cause of civilised humanity.

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2013, 16:32
StressFree:

:D:D:D:ok::ok::ok:

StressFree
18th Dec 2013, 16:50
RGB,

Sir, I thank you, but I'm reminded of recent troubles when if we had done nothing then the world would be a so different place with the Nazis controlling Europe and exterminating non-desirable people.

Humanity has much to thank the USA for by them ensuring victory in Europe and Japan, obviously along with many other allies, but the fact is that we faced a hugely powerful foe with no guarantee of success, but they did it it and humanity was saved from a very dark period. As a Briton I will be forever grateful to the many Americans, Canadians, Australians etc. etc. that came to our continent to save us. Now its been our turn to try to save others from another dark age.

Such are our similar efforts in other areas these days, we owe it to our fellow man to face down and defeat disgusting regimes that seek to impose upon our fellow humans a horrible life.

It's a dignified cause for which we should be proud to have tried to resolve, success or not, at least we tried.......

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2013, 17:04
StressFree:

Do keep in mind, though, that the current crop of kumbayah-ians are quite similar, in mental outlook anyway, to those who were screaming for appeasement with the Austrian corporal back then.

To the kumbayah-ians a request to keep in mind:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night ONLY because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

StressFree
18th Dec 2013, 17:24
RGB,

Spot on sir, spot on!

Whilst we're on quotations, one more from Thucidydes:

"The strong do what they have to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."

Dak Man
19th Dec 2013, 00:20
So, on that premise OBL should be considered as strong or weak?

mikedreamer787
19th Dec 2013, 01:45
Humanity has much to thank the USA for by
them ensuring victory in Europe and Japan,You betcha.

The USA saved Australia's arse from Jap
domination. While latter day investigation
shows the Japs may not have planned any
full scale invasion of Oz, it would've cut
off any effective trade with the world and
therefore would've been subject to Japan's
policies of trade and most likely with the
so-called 'Co-prosperity Sphere'.

In essence - if America had not entered the
War, or entered far too late if those carriers
had've been at anchor on the 7th December,
then Oz probably would've ended up being
run by remote control from Japan and with
maybe handfuls of Jap envoys and diplomats
despatched to Canberra under some sort of
'peace treaty' by fait accompli, to ensure the
Jap policies were carried out, and no doubt
to initially set up ports for the IJN such as
Darwin and Brisbane. Bamaga, up at the tip
of FNQ would also become a strategic Jap
airfield as would Darwin.

Arguable, but my theory anyway if not for
the Yanks.

G-CPTN
1st Mar 2016, 18:19
Bin Laden's will has been published (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35699349) and there is, apparently, $29 million 'for jihad'.

Who will ensure that his wishes are carried out?

Why didn't the Americans 'lose' it?

If the Americans are holding the original, will they have to implement it?

Mr Oleo Strut
1st Mar 2016, 18:34
A soldier is given a mission - be it either to attack and hold an objective or dig a hole and sit in it. How to do this is contained in the Rules of Engagement. Unless you know what these are you cannot judge if the task has been accomplished. As has been written, Afghanistan has been a running sore for centuries, and despite the sacrifice of many brave people, it still remains so. David Cameron is not strong on history so may not realise this.

parabellum
2nd Mar 2016, 03:59
Two things that have been achieved in Afghanistan are: one entire generation of children have been able to receive an education, mainly in the more densly populated areas, granted, also, for fourteen years, the wanton slaughter of innocents has been much reduced.


It would be a good outcome if the educated generation and the Western trained military were able to keep the Taliban at bay, possibly with a little help from their friends!

KenV
3rd Mar 2016, 17:16
You are right; neither GWB or DC used those words themselves but they both effectively endorsed the statement...Interesting how this is developing.

Neither GWB nor DC used the statement "mission accomplished".
Neither GWB nor DC stated they "endorsed" this statement made by others.
So there are multiple degrees of separation between the statement and both GWB and DC.
But somehow, through some magical sleight of hand word parsing, they "effectively" said/endorsed the statement.
So it does not really matter what GWB and DC have actually said or actually endorsed. The only thing that matters is what others decide they have said or endorsed.

And that makes sense? Really?

KenV
3rd Mar 2016, 17:41
You betcha.

The USA saved Australia's arse from Jap
domination. While latter day investigation
shows the Japs may not have planned any
full scale invasion of Oz, it would've cut
off any effective trade with the world and
therefore would've been subject to Japan's
policies of trade and most likely with the
so-called 'Co-prosperity Sphere'.

In essence - if America had not entered the
War, or entered far too late if those carriers
had've been at anchor on the 7th December,
then Oz probably would've ended up being
run by remote control from Japan and with
maybe handfuls of Jap envoys and diplomats
despatched to Canberra under some sort of
'peace treaty' by fait accompli, to ensure the
Jap policies were carried out, and no doubt
to initially set up ports for the IJN such as
Darwin and Brisbane. Bamaga, up at the tip
of FNQ would also become a strategic Jap
airfield as would Darwin.

Arguable, but my theory anyway if not for
the Yanks.Besides OZ, America's Pacific campaign freed Indonesia, Korea, China and several other nations from Japanese occupation. And freed the Japanese people from an oppressive and corrupt military government. Germany, Italy, and Japan are almost certainly better off today than they would have been under fascist rule. And Russia is almost certainly better off today than it would been under continued Soviet rule. Can anyone claim that Germany, Turkey and the other Central Powers were better off after WW1 than before? Clearly having the USA as a victor in a war has its benefits, even for the defeated.

LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unlpRJh6eEA)

parabellum
3rd Mar 2016, 22:32
So it does not really matter what GWB and DC have actually said or actually endorsed. The only thing that matters is what others decide they have said or endorsed.

Been happening for years, the main culprits are the media, read what they claimed Enoch Powell said, (Rivers of Blood), compared with what he actually said and was the obvious intent of his speech.