That figure is now 325.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....d-in-Afghanistan.html

Yet another British soldier has been blown to pieces in the attempt to de-fuse a bomb.

It would seem that his superiors are prepared to still let their men risk their lives messing around with these lethal devices.

A few months ago it was announced that they were to blow these bombs up by using robots, thus saving lives, why hasn't this idea been put into practice?

/// Spokesman for Task Force Helmand, Lieutenant Colonel James Carr-Smith, paid tribute to the latest British casualty:///

/// He died seeking to improve the lives of local Afghans.///

I am sure this will be a great comfort to his family, if not a little surprising, I guess they were under the impression that he was out there risking his life, to keep the streets of Britain safe.

R.I.P. soldier.

[sandyRoe]

I agree. Another life wasted. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the countries where this violence is fermented.

[New Judge]

It is quite true, AOG, that the purpose of our presence in Afghanistan seems to change with the weather.

I have heard variously throughout the past few years that (among other things) our presence there:

was to keep Britain’s streets safe;
to improve the life of the ordinary Afghans;
to enable Afghan girls to be educated;
to disrupt the breeding ground for terrorism;
to enable the Afghans to police and govern themselves;
to stabilise the country

Every time a politician or senior soldier speaks a different reason for our presence is given. Nobody outside government or the senior ranks really knows why we are there (and in truth I don’t know that many of them do). There has been no clear objective explained to the British people. There is no indication of what measures of success will enable us to leave.

Our involvement (and, apart from the Americans, we have more troops there than the rest of the world put together) was part of the knee jerk US reaction to 9/11. Any terrorist of any significance left immediately the US occupied the place, and they have since been left undisturbed to go about their business in places such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Afghanistan could be returned to a stable, peaceful democracy tomorrow and it would make not one jot of difference to the safety and security of the UK – or indeed anywhere else. Since this is the only reason our troops should be involved we should leave forthwith.

[McMouse]

Hitting opium production was another goal.

[jno]

New Judge, I'd query the inclusion of Saudi Arabia on your list: most of the top Al Qaeda people were Saudi dissidents (those who thought the country's leaders were too chummy with the west); if caught back in Saudi, I imagine their fate would be unpleasant.

They're not really left undisturbed in Pakistan and Yemen, if you're implying official connivance; both countries would be happy to capture them, but neither government is in control of all regions, and it's in those beyond-the-frontier areas that the Taliban and their like are (as far as I know!) hiding.

[jake-the-peg]

There is only one reason for our presence there it is your first reason

to keep Britain’s streets safe;
That is because of the need to

to disrupt the breeding ground for terrorism;

That has now been largely achieved in Afghanistan there seems to be little or no Al Qaeda there.

However to maintin the situation it is necessary to stabilise the country

Which means we have to enable the Afghans to police and govern themselves;

Doing so will improve the life of the ordinary Afghans;

enabing Afghan girls to be educated is kind of part of that but I don't believe you've ever heard a politician say that were fighting a war to educate female Afghans

Other than that I don't see any contradiction in any of that - but then I'm not deliberately trying to make out contradictions

[jno]

from memory, I think Bush made something out of the need to free Afghan women, though it was long after the invasion and only in the context of 'but it doesn't seem to be happening'. Other than that, it's as jake says: Afghanistan was protecting the Taliban, who'd just attacked New York and were clearly in a mood to do so elsewhere in the west. Given that London is an obvious target, the invasion made sense. In fact the biggest attack on London came from Brits, but they seemed to have been prompted by the subsequent invasion of Iraq, not Afghanistan.

[Zeuhl]

We only need to read a few history books to make a good guess about how this campaign is likely to end.

When the idea was mooted to invade and get Al Quaeda, presumably someone asked, 'when they move on to somewhere else what do we do?'

If the only answer was 'well all we have to do is establish a modernising, democratic, secure government who will keep out The Taliban' that person should have been taken outside and slapped repeatedly.
.

[youngmafbog]

Except of course by fightinh in Afghanistan it ensures the terrorists do not return there for training.
There is more to this war than meets the eye, which is not surprising.
Lfties like to gob off like they know everything, but they dont. Much of this is secret and will stay so.

[Zeuhl]

///Lfties like to gob off like they know everything, but they dont. Much of this is secret and will stay so. ///

If this sort of fantasy world gives comfort to some people, so be it.
.

[Zeuhl]

I meant to add that history -including the opening of 'Top Secret' files - reveals that most of the decisions that at first examination appear to be stupid mistakes, actually turn out to be ... stupid mistakes.
.

[jno]

Zeuhl, I think the original master plan involved sealing off the border territories (Tora Bora and all that) through which terrorists might sneak away. This clearly failed; but it needn't have. For me, the really stupid mistake was taking our eyes off the ball and launching a pointless invasion of Iraq. If we'd restricted our attention to Afghanistan we might - might - have won. Even if we'd lost, I don't think it was a mistake from the start, as Iraq was.

[Zeuhl]

Agreed.

The motivations and rationale (?) for invading Iraq are a very dark and unpleasant area to delve into.
.

[New Judge]

I hope you don't include me in the "Lfties [who] like to gob off like they know everything", youngmafbog.

jake will be very surprised at my overnight conversion!

[Zeuhl]

Think you are NJ.

Lfties (it's pronounced Lufties) stands for Logical-Factual-Thoughtful.

We seem for some reason to antagonise youngattillathehun!
.

[New Judge]

That's OK then, Zeuhl. For one awful moment I thought you numbered me among the "Lefties"!

[mike11111]

If the British Empire at its height in the 19th C failed on three occasions to subdue Afghanistan, as did the mighty Soviet Union towards the end of the last century, I think prospects of success look bleak.