Troops OUT of Afghanistan NOW - UNCONDITIONAL?

[solvitquick]

i believe our gallant troops are being slaughtered without reason in Afghanistan and am sick of politicians' crocodile tears. Apparently they are there "to turn a tribal country into a democracy" - rubbish! The once USSR lost 11,00 to try to suppress moslem maniacs but failed. Every week we hear of deaths (6 today) or so-called injuries (this means loss of legs, arms or both). We are blackmailed by armchair philososophers who say criticism of the "policy" will demoralise the our cannon-fodder heroes. Lies as usual. When I say out now I mean out now - i.e. announcement this week. Anyone agree or not?

[Philtaz]

I agree. We really are p!ssing into the wind on this one and have been since day one. This is a society that deep down does not value or want Western democracy and it's bound to fail in any respect.

Do our Field Marshall's REALLY believe that once our troops leave that the Afghan Army and Police Force will seriously be able maintain law and order and repulse the Taliban at the same time? Footage of both appear to show them as a rag-tag group of people who easily succumb to drug use and/or corruption. They're easily infiltrated by the Taliban, as the cost in UK servicemen's lives have shown as a result of 'rogue' policemen.

The lives lost and money spent fighting the Taliban insurgency would and could be put to more and better use in intelligence gathering and proper border control/security in the UK mainland in order to prevent terrorism. The Taliban are just moving around freely at will and have a safe haven and endless supply of manpower in Pakistan, who in turn ought to be taking a far stronger stance again extremism than they currently do.

[sp1814]

Ummm...nope. Not me.

But that's because I'm not a military expert and would fall into the group commonly known as 'armchair generals'.

Also, guess who the US funded in the Afghan's fight against Russia?

Osama Bin Laden.

True!

We in the West get involved in Middle East politics to 'protect business interests' and it always, always, always goes hideously wrong.

Remember Suez?

[Gromit]

Yes, after 11 years and 400 deaths let's give up and hand it to al Qaeda, you know it makes sense.

[anotheoldgit]

Totally agree, but since this is never going to happen, isn't it time we took the bull by the horns?

We are a 21st century fighting force, and they are just tribesmen armed only with rocket launches, Russian rifles and home-made bombs.

These bombs are having the most success it seems, so the answer stop all these unnecessary patrols, many are only conducted to have friendly chats with the 'civilians'.

If we must go out on patrol, shouldn't the area be scanned for these devices before our troops step on them or their vehicle run over them, surely that is not impossible with today's technology?

Finally forget the one hand tied behind our backs hearts and flowers approach, move forward and run the Taliban to the ground, and when we find where they are, instead of taking pop shots at them from afar, utilise aircraft and artillery, to destroy them.

Just a suggestion, any better ideas?

[Philtaz]

So you believe they'll have the security personnel and mechanisms in place to counteract the Taliban and act as a democratic society in 2014 do you Gromit?

Seriously?

[sandyRoe]

If they left today they'd still be 400 deaths to late.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't believe we should have gone in, in the first place; but now there, I think we need to know what the exit criteria is before we can reasonably say whether now is the time to come home. With any military activity loss of life is a possibility, one can not allow losses to unreasonably dictate policy or, as a military power you are sunk.

[sandyRoe]

In less than 2 years our troops will be out because the Americans will be gone. The Taliban are still there and will be there when this war joins the 19th Century one in our history books.

[Zeuhl]

Old Git usually gets all tetchy whenever I place situations into historical context, but I think it is particularly relevant here.

The Afghan experiences of Britain in the 19th century and USSR in the 20th - not forgetting US experiences in Vietnam or even German experiences in WW2 Greece/Balkans- teach us over and over that no matter how advanced or highly resourced an army is, or even how ruthless it is prepared to be - it can never defeat a determined, local guerilla force.

We may wish it was different - but it is ultimately pointless and therefore a dreadful waste of our people.

Even if we made more use of air strikes and artillery the improvement in results would be negligible but we would succeed in killing and maiming a lot of civilians including women and children who are stuck in the middle.

Hands up which service families would be happy to see that handywork on the evening news.

If the 'point' is to keep international terrorist training out of the area then the reality is we will have to stay there ad infinitum. If that reality was faced maybe the debate on whether it is a sound strategy would be on a more honest basis.

[jake-the-peg]

The original brief was to remove Al Qaeda which has been done

They might return true but they are well ensconsed in other countries such as Somalia and Yemen.

The aim of stabalising the country was worthwhile but the elections there proved that wasn't a realistic objective. That was the point when we should have left.

We've outstayed our welcome and it's time to go.

All this "canon fodder Heroes" and "lying politicians" BS doesn't help though. - such decisions are coldly based on objectives.

Guess what? - here's a news flash - Soldiers get killed

I know it's amazing isn't it? they all thought they were signing up for a sewing circle!

400 British deaths? There were 11,000 British casualties at Arnham alone people weren't knocking in their knees then and calling for their "brave boys" to be brought back home.


Maybe people were more supportive of the armed forces then

[Zeuhl]

Re Arnhem:

Maybe people understood and believed in the objectives then

[Philtaz]

People and the UK public in general are behind our Servicemen jake, but they're understandably more scepltical and even possibly cynical of late about the deployments they've been tasked with, as no doubt are many of the Forces themselves.

But yes, Servicemen and women have little or no choice as to where they're deployed, they're fully understanding of that. Doesn't mean they're not allowed to question whether or not they've been of any use during that deployment and whether or not they have actually made a mark on 'the bigger picture'.

[Philtaz]

Sceptical even.....

Wish AB had a spell checker!

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhi

I don't get all 'tetchy' when the historical context, truly fits the correct situation.

I notice that you only Greece and the Balkans, in your WW2 Nazi Germany example. They apparently managed to control the rest of occupied Europe for almost 5 years without much loss of life.

/// but we would succeed in killing and maiming a lot of civilians including women and children who are stuck in the middle. ///

Sorry but that is the perils of war, ever been through one?

/// Hands up which service families would be happy to see that handywork on the evening news. ///

The choice being between them or their loved ones, I don't think there would be any contest.

Which one would you choose?

[Zeuhl]

You've been through a war Old Git though i don't know whether you were conscripted or were a professional

How many women and children did you kill?
If there were some, how happy are you that you did it?

Let's ask philtaz - his experiences are a bit more recent

would he have been happy calling in air strikes knowing they would hit children?
would his children have been quite so proud of him?

[Zeuhl]

Perhaps Old Git can explain his contradictory views.

On this thread, British troops calling in an air-strike that will kill muslim women and children is just a 'peril of war'

But on the 'Kony' thread he has just stated that muslims commit atrocities against christians but not the other way around because we are more 'civilised'

If that's 'civilised' no wonder the world has been such a bl00dy mess the past hundred years

[Philtaz]

As a famous (some say infamous as his exploits are very much open to question) former member of UK Special Forces once wrote, " I joined the SAS, not the SS". He had been faced with the quandry of killing a young goatherd who had stumbled upon his covert position.

We don't do indiscriminate collateral damage as a matter of course. We don't bomb schools nor actively target hospitals. Islamic fundies, insurgents and terrorists will openly use women and children to transport arms etc as they know our forces will not engage unless fired upon. That's the difference between them and us.

[Zeuhl]

Thank you philtaz for reinforcing our high opinion of our armed forces

Just as i would have expected

It's a disgrace that certain armchair generals are happy to adopt the characteristics of the SS on your behalf

cheers

[rov1100]

Its a brave politician who admits defeat and retreats from a war. Its not in their nature. They did it in Vietnam and the US exited with their tails between their legs. We did it in Suez and Eden has been criticised ever since. To exit prematurely gives the signal that going into Afghanistan was wrong. The public know they were wrong but how do you convince them?

Look at the fuss about the new health reforms which they refuse to budge on. The sale of the forest debacle was only changed because the PM was not the one who suggested it. When the spotlight is on the PM we will go through hell and high water so he is not proved wrong.