Reply With QuoteWhat hoopla. I'm surprised at myself for reading all of it.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
So why ARE British troops in Afghanistan?
Just what IS this vital interest we have in what takes place there?
Could it just possibly be a fear that devout Islam in the shape of the Taliban, and remember Taliban means student of Islam, is infiltrating Pakistan in a way that the people actually rather approve of as it brings a pure form of Islam not “tainted” by Western influences?
And could that in turn have given the cold horrors to our government when they put two and two together and realised what that would do to the burgeoning Islamic communities in our country?
Because for the life of me I can’t se the sense of having goodness knows how many of the cream of Britain in a hell hole fighting an unwinable war, a war with no clear war objectives other than “defeat the Taliban”.
An objective somewhat surreal since most of the population are, or support the Taliban in the first place.
There is an exit strategy. Spend the billions we are presently spending on putting our armed forces through the mincing machine hell that is Afghanistan into arming the existing government whoever they are, and the do an America in Vietnam and bug out in a matter of days if not hours and leave them to sort themselves out.
Then deal with whatever emerges and wherever it emerges if it emerges in OUR country
It worked for the Yanks in Vietnam, Afghanistan has turned into OUR Vietnam, we should use the same solution as the US did and GTFO.
We OWE it to our armed forces.
kallistē
What hoopla. I'm surprised at myself for reading all of it.
You could very well be right. I make no claim to infallibility.Originally Posted by Draconian Monarch
I would be interested in the way that others see it though.
kallistē
Bear shouldn't that be slightly different from "Afghanistan is our Vietnam"? Looking at the Russians rather than the Americans, it should be "Afghanistan is our Afghanistan".
Good point. The fact remains in my opinion we really should not have the cream of our nation stuck in there and if we do the question is WHY?
What IS this vital interest.
kallistē
The British Army are in a stalemate at the moment in Afghanistan. Hence why Obama has sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, most heading into Helmand province to aid the British Army in trying to secure the main areas of Helmand. Only time will tell if this is a success.
According to our defence secretary, the British Army is in Afghanistan to aid Britians security. Whether you believe that or not is your prerogative.
To prevent it from becoming a nationwide terrorist training camp like it was before. The way they want to do it is to set up a democratic government that the people will believe in and so not choose the Taliban like they did before.
Military success may or may not come but it worries me to hear of so much corruption in the Afghan government. Its this sort of thing that will undermine any progress made by the West and open the door again to the Taliban...
But WHY are we there?
What benefit to us is there?
As for being in a stalemate, that's only true insofar as the Brits are essentially holed up and being picked off like flies.
As for being a success, what is the war aim that needs to be achieved for it to be said to be a success? When we’ve run out of personnel and money?
If bugging out and adopting what could be interpreted as a Neville Chamberlain “far away country” etc line is seen as appeasement that people in power do not want to repeat then what is the equivalence to Nazism that they see as a threat to our country.
Where is this threat, how is it a threat, and most importantly, how has it come about that this threat now exists.
If there IS none, then we really should get our troops back out of harms way.
kallistē
The official reason - terrorist training camps and the Taliban supporting them. I presume that you do not buy this.
I do think that the whole picture has been confused by the incursion into Iraq. The justification for that was spurious and the justification of going into Afghanistan seems to be affected by this.
The benefit? Officially it is to prevent future terrorist attacks. The reality is the diametric opposite. Quite ironic really. I was listening to some Minister recently (think it was yesterday on R5 on the post PMQ bit) who said that the Allies are not trying to make some western styled democracy. He then went on to say that the remit is still concentrating on the Taliban, and he linked it to their potential on taking over Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. It seems that the goalposts (or reasons) seem to move whenever someone questions why we are there.
If HMG turned around and, for example, said that we are there to wipe out the heroin industry as it was costing £x billion (Drug use costs UK £15bn a year | Metro.co.uk) then that to me would be more justification than what is now going on.
Bear - you mention the Taliban and Pakistan in the original post. I would counter this and say, as above, that this is one of the new aims, but would ask whether it was a valid reason back in 1991? What reason do you think?
Bookmarks