Wasn't I right ? The British Army is scrambling out of Afghanistan with desperate haste?

Question

The Americans too - they're getting the UN to carry the baby.

No Debbi - not as an afterthought : I just didn't have any more space in the original question.

Answer 1

The UN OUGHT to be carrying the baby.

Afghanistan is a very conservative, very religious, very warlike, and fiercely independent country. The very best outcome we can expect is to see a strong central government and a concerted effort to keep active terrorist training bases out of the country.

What we cannot reasonably expect, and should not even ask for, is "strong support" from Afghanis for western concepts of democracy or for our efforts in Iraq. It is completely unrealistic and turns the civilian population against us - convincing them (quite correctly IMHO) that we are more interested in our own geopolitical interests than in their rights or issues.

The British already tried once and failed to conquer Afghanistan. The Russians attempted to occupy the country with forces even larger than our currently deployed troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq - and were forced out militarily.

Anything resembling a military occupation of Afghanistan is doomed to failure and counterproductive to the real war - the fight against terrorism.

Edited to add: Does anyone who has responded really think that "kill ratio" figures mean anything at all in occupying a country? The Talibanis and Taliban supporters can afford to 'out casualty' the Brits and Americans better than a hundred to one, indefinitely. No military person of sound mind would think that it is possible to suppress a widespread guerilla movement in a country the size of Afghanistan with a force of 20,000 Western troops - it's absolutely insane.

Rumsfeld and the "I think I can I think I can..." wishful thinking brigade surrounding Bush have told him that the villagers and countryside would be supportive of American and British forces but that has not proven to be the case and is becoming less so every month. We have succeeded in making ourselves even less popular than the Taliban, and that is some accomplishment.

It's a shame because, in the long run, failure of a central government in Afghanistan is far worse for Western interests than failure of one in Iraq. Internationalizing the efforts and changing the mindset of the average Afghani to regard Western forces as something other than occupiers are the best hopes for success.

Answer 2

Peter

No you were not right. The presence of the British Army in Helmand has brought the Taliban out to fight, and we have always known they would be a formidable enemy.

If they are to be defeated however it can only be in battle so there is precious little point chasing them around the mountains for another ten years.

Yes we have lost 10 soldiers but the estimates of Taliban losses are many many times that.

As for your question, I see no evidence of a British pull out, in fact only last week the deployment was expanded in terms of troop numbers and vital equipment.

By the way the Brits are there in two capacities. Special Forces are operating there as part of JSOC with the Americans and the bulk of British forces are heading up a Nato deployment which includes the Canadians.

The U.N have been there in a different role since the fall of Kabul in 2002.

The U.S (and I will ignore Debbies Anti British rubbish) are still commited in the east of Afghanistan in co-operation with the Pakistanis.

Answer 3

Debbi
War against Terrorism did not start in 2001 ,for the British it go's back 30 years. Rainbow soldiers comes to mind, Ture no one can remove the impact of 911 on the US but 30 years of bombs across the UK take a toll on peoples resolve.

By maintaining Armed forces in Afghanistan will not stop this War, it will move to others counties like its moved to Iraq. Africa could be next, or even the South Americas. Also note Britain entire armed forces is less than the US Marine Corpse, it is extremely over stretched.

As for who carries the baby, our own children as this will take a generation or two to burn itself out

Answer 4

Debi K, its obvious you are an American. London was attacked by terrorists and over 50 British people were killed. You really think we want to go easy on terrorists? You are clearly ignorant so i recomend you get an education before you criticise other countries because there are plenty more people criticising the US on this site than there are British.

Answer 5

The British army should get out of Afghanistan. Why should we waste our boys lives in that hellhole? Leave the Afghans to **** up their own country on their own.

Answer 6

they wouldn't if the british public was not scared to be a part of stopping the fight of terrorism. it will be visited in briton even more, since they have shown themselves to go easy on terrorism. and, you are wrong. americans are even more commited. you posted that as an afterthought, because you knew you were wrong.

Answer 7

I am not hearing about anyone running....where do you get this info? and they may be getting the UN to take over...but that is the way we do things.....they will be the "peacekeeperes", like that has ever worked......but what is this crap about the US and British running, I would like to read or hear about this...so I know

Answer 8

Your wrong,the British Army are doing better then anyone else and there is no way they are cowards,unlike the US.

Answer 9

And did you expect, or want, Afghanistan to become the 51st or 52nd state in the Union?

Answer 10

what are you talking about we are doing better then the US and we are not pulling out. yes we have lost ten the US have lost around 100 but the Taliban have lost 800 most of them we have killed. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT