15 dead in 10 days !

[vernon99]

the answer to the poppy fields, is to initially buy the crops from the farmers, so they get used to trusting us to pay, and then ask them to grow something else and pay more for it, maybe they could they grow food crops, if not maybe crops to make BIO fuels? Either way the farmer simply needs money to survive.

It is strange that the newspapers are not reporting a reduction in drug use/importation, you would have thought by now we would have had an effect, maybe another region is picking up the shortfall?

[Co-Captain]

NSF - quite an alarmist stance you have there. Similar to one held by the American government in dealing with the 'menace' that was Vietnam! That country and its people, not to mention the world, seemed to cope eventually once its western occupiers left en masse. I have no doubt that Afghanistan will return to how it was when we leave and the locals will shrug their shoulders at yet another failed military campaign inflicted on them.

Yes, 'global terrorism' will once again have a foothold there but 'twas ever thus. While we're there, it will simply go elsewhere, and so we may as well try and empty a river with a bucket. Its time to accept that this notion of going back to "good old fashioned soldiering", so sought after when we first went in, has backfired spectacularly. Lets pool our resources into a world class, terrorist defeating intelligence system and bring an end to this half-baked operation in the desert.

A parting shot from the late Robert McNamara: The US government, knowing Vietnam was un-winnable, planned a withdrawal years before it decided to action it. In that time, thousands of troops died. He is quoted as saying "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion" and that quite simply, they [the politicians] did not know what they were doing. Sound familiar?

[Two's in]

...not to mention the virtual guarantee of a return to a terrorist training camp on vast scale. We need to recognise that this is going to run and run - we simply have to win here.

Errr, win what exactly? The single lack of a Military Objective is the main reason for the nature of the conflict, and has been since the real terrorists were allowed to return to Pakistan during the 2001 Tora Bora hide and seek finals (which Al Queda won). Lack of decisive Military action then set the scene for today's farrago.

When Johnny Taliban can pop out and fire a few RPG 7 rounds, set a few IED's and be back in time for tea, the only thing that will thwart his success is the lack of viable targets. This Government's policy seems determined not to deny him access to those targets, or frustrate him by protecting those targets in any meaningful way.

By perpetuating this myth that we must "win" something that has no attainable objective, we simply ensure that some of the most unswerving loyalty and courage by today's Forces is squandered on some cheap political face saving exercise.

[Sunfish]

Wall the whole place off and forget about it. Pay the tribes like was done 100 years ago to keep peace along the border.

[Brian Abraham]

the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion

From what I understand McNamara did not quite say that. In his book "Argument without End" Mcnamara asked the question in Chapter 7 ‘Was military victory in Vietnam a dangerous illusion?’. Colonel Schandler (West Point graduate who served two combat tours in Vietnam, later took a PhD at Harvard in history, has written several books on Vietnam for the last ten or twenty years, has taught as a Professor of Military Strategy at the National Defense University) was asked by McNamara to write the chapter and in part he wrote,

‘The achievement of a military victory by US forces was indeed a dangerous illusion. At no time, beginning with the increase of US military advisers early in the Kennedy administration to the final withdrawal of American troops during the Nixon administration, would it have been possible at acceptable cost in terms of American and Vietnamese lives lost and without the risk of war with China or Russia to achieve a military victory in Vietnam.
The American failure in Vietnam was not a failure caused by the limitations placed upon military action. The American failure was caused by a lack of realisation that military power could not solve what was fundamentally a political problem. In the last analysis the US effort in Vietnam failed largely because it could not sufficiently revamp or adequately substitute for a South Vietnamese leadership, administration and armed forces inadequate to the task.’

As a participant, whose family paid dearly, I'm more inclined to the sentiments expressed by another,

The anti war movement in the US and the political pressure put on the politicians by the draft dodging peace loving crowd and the liberal media and their non support for the war is what ultimately brought down the US efforts to be successfull in South Vietnam

Many would argue that the military did win. Tet 68, for example, was played by the media as a humilitating defeat for the Allies when in fact it was a resounding win (militarily).

[kaikohe76]

As I have suggested before, if the CDS & his Senior Colleagues are getting absolutely nowehere with the present shower of a Government, bypass them & approach the Queen directly. I am sure the most gracious lady would be interested to learn of the state of the Armed Forces at present, in particular those presently in any active operational theatre. For sure, HMthe Q will not & is not being given the full & correct situation in any briefings she may get from Gordon's & his cronies.

God Bless all of the members of our Armed Forces who have tragically lost their lives, you & your families are forever in our thoughts.