Afghanistan imploding again

[VinRouge]

And on a lighter note....

Video: Banksy releases 'Rebel Rocket Attack' video - Telegraph

[VinRouge]

We could have saved ourselves a whole heap of heartache and treasure if we stuck to the original model of using SF teams on the ground and B52s in racetracks overhead.

That didn't give the army generals a reason d'être to justify a large army budget for the next couple of decades though. We went boots on the ground for one reason. Large land armies have become irrelevant.

I hope those in the decision chain hang their head in shame over the suffering they caused, that's on both sides.

[Alber Ratman]

Quality find Vin Rogue..

Biggest problem is the country next door to Afghanistan.. They have nukes though and isn't the one one to the north.

[melmothtw]

That didn't give the army generals a reason d'être to justify a large army budget for the next couple of decades though. We went boots on the ground for one reason. Large land armies have become irrelevant.

I hope those in the decision chain hang their head in shame over the suffering they caused, that's on both sides.

It's very easy to be wise after the event, but during the early years (before the West was distracted by Iraq) there was widespread public support for our efforts in rebuilding Afghanistan. Indeed, it was often said that Iraq was the 'bad' war, while Afghanistan was the 'good' war.

[AtomKraft]

There were plenty of folk who were wise BEFORE the event.

And not just on Afghanistan.

[VinRouge]

It's very easy to be wise after the event, but during the early years (before the West was distracted by Iraq) there was widespread public support for our efforts in rebuilding Afghanistan.

Thats stretching facts. Before Iraq, ISAF were involved in a very limited basis in Afghanistan. It wasnt until October 2003 that the UN authorised a much expanded mission, which included delving into Helmand province around 2006, which as anyone who has been there will know, is a much different kettle of fish to the areas we were involved in prior to that point. Before then, much of our efforts were focussed in the north, as commented above here on a much tighter set of terms of reference which were focussed primarily on fighting terrorism in the middle east. I dont see much of that going on in the south.

To my memory, the only British public who wanted to expand the mission were those who were lifelong knuckle dragging labour voters, who fell for John Reids "no shots fired speech". Didnt exactly go to their plan, did it?

At what point was it explained to the british public that we were transitioning from a terrorist fighting force to one that targeted an ethnic pashtun organisation that has to my knowledge, never been involved with terrorism in the west?

[Thelma Viaduct]

Can't remember Afghanistan asking to be invaded, much like Iraq.

It was bound to fail again, not sure where the surprise is??? Same wankers on here saying it was legitimate, honest etc etc

Not sure I'd fancy dieing for a ****hole, even if it did bring 'democracy' or whatever that means. Again like Iraq, hundreds of UK forces dead or maimed for no real reason, families left to suffer with their politician/media implanted version of heroism. Dieing for no reason is not heroic, it's tragic.

As a side note, it cost billions, so a big well done to those that decided invading another ****hole was a good idea.

[melmothtw]

Can't remember Afghanistan asking to be invaded

I don't remember the US asking to be attacked on 9/11. If the Taliban had given up the al Qaeda leadership in the immediate aftermath, as they were asked to do, then there would have been no reason to invade Afghanistan at all.

Whether or not we should have stayed after having routed the Taliban is open to speculation, but the reason for going in in the first place is pretty clear cut.

Same wankers on here...

Ha, you got my number!!

[melmothtw]

Thats stretching facts. Before Iraq, ISAF were involved in a very limited basis in Afghanistan. It wasnt until October 2003 that the UN authorised a much expanded mission, which included delving into Helmand province around 2006, which as anyone who has been there will know, is a much different kettle of fish to the areas we were involved in prior to that point. Before then, much of our efforts were focussed in the north, as commented above here on a much tighter set of terms of reference which were focussed primarily on fighting terrorism in the middle east. I dont see much of that going on in the south.

To my memory, the only British public who wanted to expand the mission were those who were lifelong knuckle dragging labour voters, who fell for John Reids "no shots fired speech". Didnt exactly go to their plan, did it?

At what point was it explained to the british public that we were transitioning from a terrorist fighting force to one that targeted an ethnic pashtun organisation that has to my knowledge, never been involved with terrorism in the west?

It seems from your response that you feel the mistake to have been our involvement in Helmand, rather than our wider involvement in Afghanistan.

Our expansion into southern Afghanistan was a mistake in so far as it was underplanned and undermanned. That's not the same as saying it was a mistake to have attempted it, however, as you can't build a stable country (which is what everyone wanted to see in Afghanistan) if half of its territory is outside of government control.

To my memory, the only British public who wanted to expand the mission were those who were lifelong knuckle dragging labour voters, who fell for John Reids "no shots fired speech".

I recall events differently (and no, I am not and never have been a "knuckle dragging labour voter"). At the time, the mainstream media and the majority of the public saw Afghanistan as 'the good war', and were keen to see it succeed. Hindsight skews our perceptions of Afghanistan in that we assume it was always unpopular. This just isn't the case.

Didnt exactly go to their plan, did it?

No, it didn't.

[His dudeness]

Can't remember Afghanistan asking to be invaded

I don't remember the US asking to be attacked on 9/11.

I don´t remember Afghanistan being involved in 9/11 at all.

If the Taliban had given up the al Qaeda leadership in the immediate aftermath, as they were asked to do, then there would have been no reason to invade Afghanistan at all.

So, for example, if we Germans think the Heads of the Russian Mafia are in in Russia, we are okay to invade them ? Or the Italian Mafia ? Invade Italy ?

(remember that the US made us regret having invaded 'some' countries?)

How is it that a complete country is responsible for an act of terror by Saudi Arabians? And why have the US not invaded Saudi Arabia?

Sumthin does not add up here, IMHO.

[VinRouge]

you could argue afghanistan was a stable country under the Taliban. Abhorrent maybe, but for the layperson in the street, arguably more stable than it is now.

[melmothtw]

you could argue afghanistan was a stable country under the Taliban. Abhorrent maybe, but for the layperson in the street, arguably more stable than it is now.

Yes, you certainly could argue that. However, I think that's largely down to how the war has been conducted and managed rather thay why it was waged in the first place.

I don´t remember Afghanistan being involved in 9/11 at all

You answer yourself HD in quoting my reference to al Qaeda's relationship with the Taliban directly beneath. I see what you're saying about invading Russia and Italy to get at criminal gangs operating in those countries. You could put the same argument about the UK invading Ireland to get at the IRA.

However, I feel your analogy is flawed. Let's be clear - al Qaeda were not operating in Afghanistan in defiance of the Taliban's wishes (as is the case with the examples you cite), but were there as the Taliban's guests.

Afghanistan under the Taliban was internationally recognised as a failed / pariah state (in much the same way as Somalia is now). This is the reason why there was a concerted campaign to stop the Taliban taking up Afghanistan's seat at the UN pre-2001. In such cases, you cannot enter into inter-governmental judicial treaties that cover extradition and the like. The only alternative was to go in and flush them out ourselves.

[Thomas coupling]

Iraq was also "stable" under Saddam until Kuwait. Libya was very stable under Gadaffi too.
Why do we westerners think we can make a difference?

Syria is the way ahead: Let them get on with it and wipe eachother out. Saves us time, effort and loads of money to pour back into the debt ridden democracies we live in.

All these 'well wishers' suggesting we "help these and aid those". Not a whisker of a difference comes from it except the loss of life and destruction brought on by western societies on eastern life styles.
Well wish for something constructive will you? Wish for literacy and poverty levels to stabilise and reverse; for young people to get a foothold in society, for debt to be eradicated in OUR OWN WORLD!

I pray and hope that remote and clinical warfare takes over - sooner than later and the politicians can "work from Home" by destroying who the hell they like from the comfort of their own laptops!

[Thelma Viaduct]

"I don't remember the US asking to be attacked on 9/11."

The definition of naivety.

[melmothtw]

Can't remember Afghanistan asking to be invaded...

Right back at you PP.

[Torque Tonight]

Our money, time and lives would have been better spent just building a 50ft wall right around Afghanistan's border. They can live the medieval, tribal, fundamentalist dream to their hearts' content.

Mr Karzai said his priority for his remaining days in office was to forge a peace agreement with the Taliban and said the insurgents could eventually take up roles within the government.

"They are Afghans. Where the Afghan president, the Afghan government can appoint the Taliban to a government job they are welcome," he said.

Nothing we can do can drag this dump into the modern, civilized world, and neither do they want to be dragged that way. I wait with interest to see which will be the next empire to waste a decade or two in the Stan. There is a certain pattern to this place. Nothing changes.

[AtomKraft]

Americans. There was no excuse for the attack on 9/11.

But, if you think that someone just woke up one morning, and decided, for no good reason, to mount the attack....well, that would be naïve.

It's fun to **** down their neck for decades, but don't act all outraged if they jump up one day, and bite you in the ass.

Because that's precisely what happened on 9/11.

[melmothtw]

Americans. There was no excuse for the attack on 9/11.

But, if you think that someone just woke up one morning, and decided, for no good reason, to mount the attack....well, that would be naïve.

It's fun to **** down their neck for decades, but don't act all outraged if they jump up one day, and bite you in the ass.

Because that's precisely what happened on 9/11

Agreed, but then don't act all surprised and outraged when the Americans decide to respond in kind...


PS; I'm not American.

[AtomKraft]

Melmoth Thanks for clearing that up.

I think the behaviour of the US as a State, rather neatly mirrors the behaviour of the average US infantry platoon.

Someone fires a couple of shots in their proximity and suddenly the air is filled with 5.56 flying in every direction, and hitting all and sundry-apart from the desired target.

Result?

Ammo expended, no of enemies increased, progress made? Bugger all!

[VinRouge]

from now on, one is hoping no more regular boots on the ground. the message should be that the west can and will execute ops to take out those who mean to do the west harm. very much like a child can fry an ant with a magnifying glass if they so choose.

I can only see one way out of extreme salafist views. leave them to their country, then squish them wherever they pose a threat, using air power, using completely disproportionate force.