The point of it all

[AtomKraft]

I'm an old 'Cold War warrior' myself. (so I know what SFA means)

At the risk of sounding even a bit 'left of centre'- which I'm not btw- a small 'C' tory sounds about right, what have our Forces really done in the last ten years or so in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Just to be clear- I'm not dissing what the troops actually did- in any way. They've clearly worked hard and taken the worst of outcomes in their strides- but we all know that all that work comes under a 'tactical' heading.

Strategically though, what have we achieved?

Loks a lot like SFA to me.

Or worse.

[China Flyer]

Power and politics. That's all war has ever been about. Maybe a dash of control thrown in.


A bit blunt, perhaps, but I'm getting a bit old in the tooth myself (also a cold war warrior) and don't seem to have the same amount of "get up and over those trenches with my trusty stick" like I used to.

[parabellum]

Strategically though, what have we achieved?

reminds me of:

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

How about ten years of relative peace? Women allowed to have education, the major cities/towns returning to a form of normality, murderous Taliban groups kept subdued, saving hundreds, if not thousands, of lives, just for a start, but there is more.

From an alternative point of view, what state would Afghanistan be in now if the West had not become involved? Possibly the entire country would be back in the Stone Age and there is little doubt it would be a hot bed of terrorist training camps leading to many more terrorist attacks on the West.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And, in a couple of months for some, and a couple of years for others to 'pull out', what do you really think is going to happen then...??

Really.....

[parabellum]

I'm talking about what has been achieved, not what may be lost sometime in the future, there will still be twelve years of relative peace and a lot of lives saved.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Operation Eagle's Summit - 2008 delivery of the turbine to the Kajaki Dam. Claimed to be vital to development, and the major operation of the year.

Turbine delivered!

2013. The turbine is still in its wrapping paper. Unassembled, uninstalled.

With US Aid budget cuts, it may now never be installed.

[just another jocky]

Originally Posted by Fox3WheresMyBanana

Operation Eagle's Summit - 2008 delivery of the turbine to the Kajaki Dam. Claimed to be vital to development, and the major operation of the year.

Turbine delivered!

2013. The turbine is still in its wrapping paper. Unassembled, uninstalled.

With US Aid budget cuts, it may now never be installed.

That's very frustrating. I hadn't realised.

[Fitter2]

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Chinese had a go at colonising Afghanistan sometime in the next 50 years.

If you regard geopolitics as entertainment, that would be a real get out the popcorn and settle back moment. Irrestistible force/immovable object confrontation. However, I credit the Chinese with a higher degree of intelligence and a greater ability to learn from history than our politicians.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

When was the last time the Government produced a follow-up report which was bad news?

When was the last time a Government minister resigned because they'd screwed up?
(24 Oct 2002, Estelle Morris, I think)*

When was the last time the BBC did a major feature on something other than the BBC doing a major feature on the last BBC major feature that they'd screwed up on?

Simple rule. If there's no Government/media follow up, it's bad news.

*Estelle Morris. Failed her own A levels first time round. Was a PE teacher and Head of Sixth Form so prepared a grand total of zero pupils for exams. Ideal background for becoming Education Secretary. Having resigned from that because she did not feel up to the job (her words), she is then put in charge of Art (briefly, knew naff all about Art by her own admission). She then gets appointed ProVice-Chancellor of Sunderland Uni, then made a Baroness.

And I digress to give detail on Estelle Morris to make the point that a large percentage of politicians these days, including assorted Defence Secretaries, do not have a f#cking clue what they are doing. And having cluelessly screwed up but supported the PM, they get rewarded with a comfy post or two and a Lordship.

Which goes back to the OP's point. In 1982, well over half of Thatcher's Cabinet had had military service. Well over half of the current government have degrees in PPE or History and wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other,much less how to run a war. Blair even skived off the school Combined Cadet Force.

We have achieved SFA because our elected leaders know SFA.


To follow up Fitter2's point, I think almost every member of the Chinese Politburo has an Engineering degree. You may not like what they are doing or how they are doing it, but it is working.

[CoffmanStarter]

F3WMB ... right on mate

As my late Dad once said ... "The current crop of bloody Politicians couldn't lead anyone out of a paper bag."

He was awarded the MC by FM Montgomery for bravery and outstanding leadership during the initial hours of D-Day.

[E L Whisty]

General Smedley Butler had some views on such matters.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by msbbarratt

China would certainly like to get land access to Iran's oil and Afghanistan minerals.

Along these lines: Central Asia

or

Asian Highway Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we can accept that as a given.

[Evalu8ter]

IMHO Afghanistan will become the setting for a new round of
'the great game' as rising regional powers all flex their muscles. China is an obvious player, but so is Iran with significant tribal/familial ties along a long and porous border. The growth of Iranian cities near to the border and the extensive trade/financial links also point to a significant Iranian involvement. Pakistan is a given for interference given their already deep influence, the huge (and largely ungoverned tribal area) and the rich history of smuggling. Plus, I think the US will seek to retain some significant regional bases in-country to keep Iran/China on their toes. The big unknown is India; Bollywood movies and Indian aid are already flooding into Afghanistan and the rivalry between China/India/Pakistan could well be played out by proxies on Afghan soil. To me, Afgahnistan reminds me of a more primitive and brutal Yugoslavia; it's not really a country - more an imperial device. It's so fractured along tribal and ethnic lines that maybe, just maybe, self determination should be applied and the country dissolved. Not what the bereaved and the injured would want to hear, but just a thought.....

[AGS Man]

Following on to Fox 3s reply why was Liam Fox Minister of Defence? As an ex GP I would have thought Minister of Health would have been better.

[AtomKraft]

Well......maybe we've made some sort of 'long lasting' change for good in Afghanistan.
Personally, I doubt it. I'd certainly accept that while we're there, things are different- and better.
The acid test though is how long it will take to revert to 'how it was before we came', after we leave.
I asked a pilot pal who'se done a lot there, he said ' about half an hour'.

As far as Iraq goes, the dust is settling a bit now, so apart from the 100,000 there who aren't breathing (including SH), have we done any good?
I know Iraq oil is no longer traded in Euros (that's a change) but are there any other significant benefits that UK involvement has produced?

I dearly hope so.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by AtomKraft

As far as Iraq goes, the dust is settling a bit now.

And all is peaceful and light, as it is in Libya, Egypt and Palestine, or are the media looking elsewhere?

[Melchett01]

Strategically though, what have we achieved?

Well that depends on your point of view and which of the various government lines to take on our involvement you actually want to look at.

If you want to consider our involvement in terms of defeating AQ and limiting Afghanistan's utility as a terrorist training base, then strategically we achieved most of that within a few short months of having gone in to Afghanistan. So quick and successful was the initial round up that I believe the USAF ran out of targets to bomb quite early on. However, taken from the perspective that an awful lot of the terrorist training facilities either moved over the border into Pakistan's tribal areas or belonged to groups other than AQ Core, then strategically, the fact that many of these groups are still running, that the Pakistani authorities still haven't got a grip on the tribal areas, nuclear weapons security remains a problem etc suggests to my relatively tiny mind that the broader area is still as insecure as it was in late 2001 / 2002 and thus success was once again more tactical than strategic

However, we didn't stop there - possibly spurred on by criticism that we didn't finish the job in Iraq in 91 and should have rolled on up to Baghdad - we can also take a view on Afghanistan from the perspective of nation building. Shortly after we had rolled up the majority of AQ Core's presence and capability, the Bonn Conference shifted focus to ensuring Afghanistan was developed into a peaceful and relatively prosperous society (they could be stinking rich if they wanted - think Saudi but with minerals rather than oil).

At the Bonn Conference, different countries took the lead for the different areas deemed essential to building the future Afghan nation. For its part, the UK took on the lead for counter-narcotics. Hmmm well that went well didn't it. And after much fanfare and publicity about CN being HMG's strategic aim, that quickly died the death and was never really heard about after probably about 2006/7 - roughly tying in with our insertion to Helmand and sudden surprise when the narco-bosses who had up to then been left alone suddenly felt threatened and put up a fight and violence levels suddenly and surprisingly sky rocketed.

Ever since then, when the lefties have cried out what are we doing there, the standard response has been ensuring security at the local level to enable the Afghan government to extend its capability to govern from the major cities and into the towns and rural areas. In doing this, it will deny the 'insurgents' the space they need to operate and in doing so will increase freedom of movement and stability and thus confidence amongst the populace. The only snag being, it's all well and good sorting people out at the local level if the government is still dysfunctional at the national level and can't stand the politicians or the stabilisation force trying to assist it at the strategic level.

And this is the crux of the current problem. Tactically we, in a broad coalition sense, have been largely successful and have managed to deny 'insurgents' the ability to operate in many local areas. But the politicians - Afghan, 'western' and NATO / ISAF leaders at the strategic level have such a dysfucntional political relationship that unless they can put aside their differences, they will never ever move Afghanistan from where it is now to where it could be in 20-30 years down the line if they really put their minds to it.

[Ali Qadoo]

Don't vote, it only encourages them

Coff, F3WMB, be careful what you wish for. Here's a list of politicians who've served in uniform, some with great distinction, but have also done enormous damage to the UK:

Clement Attlee - father of the something for nothing society
Duncan Sandys - produced the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper
Anthony Crossland - promised to, "destroy every f*cking grammar school in England." Sadly, even the Blessed M (PBUH) couldn't stop what he started
Jim Callaghan - crisis, what crisis? I know he didn't say exactly those words, but yeah, him.
Denis Healy MC - disastrous Sec of State for Defence, even worse as Chancellor
Ted Heath - where do I start?
Fred Mulley - reported by Private Eye as having slept with the Queen at Finningley
Michael Heseltine - spent long enough in the Army to know better

I'm sure there are plenty more, but even this little list shows that having worn dark blue, khaki or light blue doesn't mean you'll make a good politician.

Don't think this means I'm any great fan of the current crop of sociopaths and no-hopers. I think it's a simple fact that, with a few honourable exceptions, politics tends to attract people who should never be put in a position of power.

[Two's in]

Wars, by their very nature, are simply an extension of political policy. The only measure of "success" is whether the original politcal aim has been achieved. Given the apprent lack of a single, cohesive political aim in both Iraq or Afghanistan, it's hard to see how a grading of anything but "SFA" is warranted.

If, on the other hand, the political aim was "be seen by the public to be doing something", then all the politicians involved in the farrago of the last 10 years should give themselves a resounding slap on the back.

[Biggus]

I think politicians are a bit like Staneval - nobody should be allowed to do the job if they actually want to or apply for it..!







A case of not trusting their motive!