Afghanistan - Why ?

[minestrone]

Do you think Caesar convinced the citizens of Rome that invading Britain would make Rome a safer place? Do you think he stood and told the senate that a pict spear could land in Rome in 45 minutes? The whole thing is a load of balls and too many people are too stupid to see that.

It was only a matter for time...

But Mr Miliband dismissed calls for UK forces to withdraw, saying they were stopping Afghanistan becoming "a launch pad for attacks" by terrorists.

"This is about the future of Britain,"

linkoids

Does anyone actually believe this zoomer?

[GreenerGrass]

the Germans killed 10 random civilians for every one of their Soldiers killed by the resistance.

Yeah, I was going to mention that. It was a pretty good deterrent.

It is often said "we're in it for the long haul" in Afghanistan, but I wonder if after the latest push the Taliban just reclaim villages within 6 months yet again people in Whitehall might finally get it into their thick heads how pointless this war is.
They have really learnt nothing from the Russians who had much more manpower and couldn't pacify them even with chemical weapons.
I feel so embarrassed when I see that ***** Miliband on TV trying to talk tough.
I think the war is a combination of not just being America's bitch but also political correctness, as far as the public are concerned the Islamic terror threat has to be perceived as a foreign-based threat rather than something growing within this country.
If it was just about British security they could just divert more resources to monitor or stop people travelling to Pakistan, so basically the troops are dying fighting people who pose no threat to Britain rather offending those who do. But even that backfires as British Muslims get angry anyway with the war, so it still increases the risk of terrorism.

[Fred Bloggs]

Must be honest, I really feel for the poor bloody squaddies. They're on a hiding to nothing. The Afghan tribes have been fighting for hundreds of years and they're not going to stop now. Very sad actually.

[Menelaus]

As an ex-squaddie, I've stayed out of this thread until now, because, like most of us, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've been to Afghanistan - and then, in my case, only as far as Kabul (not south into Helmand where the guys are getting killed).

Our political leaders opinions (e.g., that our being in Afghanistan is protecting the future of the UK) is ridiculous. We're there to perform a job that NATO have approved, nothing more, nothing less.

If one recalls, in the aftermath of September 11th 2001, NATO decided that the NATO Charter had been enacted - in that, an attack against one is considered an attack against all.

The primary concern that I have with relation to Op HERRICK is this: MoD have requested certain vehicles be provided. The spec of these vehicles (Viking, in particular), whilst making them less vulnerable to landmines and to small arms fire and "direct action" by civilian populations (e.g., as seen in al-Basrah), they remain vulnerable to IED attack. Hence ~58% of UK hostile deaths have been as a consequence of IED.

[RichardCranium]

IED

IED = "Improvised explosive device, an explosive device often used in unconventional warfare". Wikipedia page.

[minestrone]

We were told that aysymetric tactics were the way of winning this war, now that aysymetric tactics are being used against british troops it is cowards way. They leave bombs on the road side, we drop them from drones flown from a base in the USA like I chuck grenades when playing Call Of Duty on the xbox.

[TriggerHippy]

A rough indication of just how futile this campaign is ....

Northern Ireland is roughly 13 800 km2 and was occupied by 27 000 UK troops for about 38 years ..... and the only time progress started was when the dialog began.

Afghanistan is roughly 647 500 km2 and is occupied by about 7 700 UK troops .... the chances of a military victory are ..... ???

[minestrone]

And why is the army suposedly 'stetched' as we keep hearing. 10,000 troops looks like the maximum we can put on the ground, 32 billion a year to fight angry muslims in one small part of one small agricultural country in the arse end of nowhere.

[AlfredJPruffock]

In my mind, the invasion of Afghanistan was a war on terror. An attempt to make sure there were no more planes flying into prominent buildings in the west, and an attempt to stamp out the breeding grounds of terrorism and possibly to capture the leaders. If you can draw all of the taliban from all over the world into one spot, you might have a chance of eliminating them, a sort of honeypot.

If you consider that there were no people from Afghanistan on board the planes of the Sep 11th attacks - they were in fact Saudis - and there is much evidence from that shows the Saudis financed these groups - how can we explain that there has been - no enquiry of exactly what the Saudis involvement in 9-11 was - no invasion, no trade embargo and no call for regieme change in Saudi Arabia - in fact we still sell them a vast amount of Weapons ?

Until I can be persuaded why the Saudis have remained not only unpunished but rewarded with ever increasing arms deals despite their role in the attacks - the concept of a War on Terror in Afghanistan lacks crediblity.

Surely this indicates that the motives for the Invasion are related to commercial and strategic objectives - rather than anti-terrorism, in effect the current conflict is revival of the 'Great Game.'

[bogeyman]

In my mind, the invasion of Afghanistan was a war on terror. An attempt to make sure there were no more planes flying into prominent buildings in the west, and an attempt to stamp out the breeding grounds of terrorism and possibly to capture the leaders. If you can draw all of the taliban from all over the world into one spot, you might have a chance of eliminating them, a sort of honeypot.

If you consider that there were no people from Afghanistan on board the planes of the Sep 11th attacks - they were in fact Saudis - and there is much evidence from that shows the Saudis financed these groups - how can we explain that there has been - no enquiry of exactly what the Saudis involvement in 9-11 was - no invasion, no trade embargo and no call for regieme change in Saudi Arabia - in fact we still sell them a vast amount of Weapons ?

Until I can be persuaded why the Saudis have remained not only unpunished but rewarded with ever increasing arms deals despite their role in the attacks - the concept of a War on Terror in Afghanistan lacks crediblity.

Surely this indicates that the motives for the Invasion are related to commercial and strategic objectives - rather than anti-terrorism, in effect the current conflict is revival of the 'Great Game.'

Precisely.

There is a big, fat, smoking gun with 'Saudi' written all over it, yet the US and the UK simply choose not to see it. Why can that be, I wonder?

You just can't see our boys storming into Saudi, can you?

When you have enough money and influence I suppose you can get away with practically anything.