Afghanistan.....
Discussion
Vietnam was winnable but public opinion forced it to be called off. There is a knee-jerk reaction for any conflict to be dubbed 'so-and-so's Vietnam' - even the Falklands, which was a swift and sound drubbing for the Argies.
Afghanistan is not winnable, and you onl have ot look at history to see that. There is no objective, no end-game. IMHO if you declare war you do it properly - either conquer completely or don't bother. As it is, British soldiers will keep being picked off and for no good reason. The idea that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a western-style democracy is patently ridiculous. We do not have the ability to police the world; we'd do better to stop telling other countries what to so and concentrate on patching up our own sick land.
Afghanistan is not winnable, and you onl have ot look at history to see that. There is no objective, no end-game. IMHO if you declare war you do it properly - either conquer completely or don't bother. As it is, British soldiers will keep being picked off and for no good reason. The idea that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a western-style democracy is patently ridiculous. We do not have the ability to police the world; we'd do better to stop telling other countries what to so and concentrate on patching up our own sick land.
Simpo Two said:
Vietnam was winnable but public opinion forced it to be called off. There is a knee-jerk reaction for any conflict to be dubbed 'so-and-so's Vietnam' - even the Falklands, which was a swift and sound drubbing for the Argies.
Afghanistan is not winnable, and you onl have ot look at history to see that. There is no objective, no end-game. IMHO if you declare war you do it properly - either conquer completely or don't bother. As it is, British soldiers will keep being picked off and for no good reason. The idea that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a western-style democracy is patently ridiculous. We do not have the ability to police the world; we'd do better to stop telling other countries what to so and concentrate on patching up our own sick land.
this.Afghanistan is not winnable, and you onl have ot look at history to see that. There is no objective, no end-game. IMHO if you declare war you do it properly - either conquer completely or don't bother. As it is, British soldiers will keep being picked off and for no good reason. The idea that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a western-style democracy is patently ridiculous. We do not have the ability to police the world; we'd do better to stop telling other countries what to so and concentrate on patching up our own sick land.
Nearly three years ago to the day I posted this thread:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
mcg123 said:
OK -Im not a political person, I just have seen that three more of our lads have died..... is this our Vietnam... are we doing any good out there?
No disrespect, the family of every dead soldier is devastated; however, in Vietnam, hundreds may have died in a day....on both sides. We have become so sanitized that our expectations for results are very high and our thresehold for war casulties is unrealistically low. Again, to the families of those three fellows, this is of no comfort.mcg123 said:
are we doing any good out there?
Was doing good part of the mission?There was never a clearly defined mission, so how do you judge when it's over? When there's a peaceful Western Democracy in place, no more poppy fields, no anti-western preachers?
At the rate we are going the results are going to be a failed state in Afghanistan and to destablalise pakistan. Pull out and let the yanks do the job if they want, the're are already doing the lions share of the work and don't really need us.
.... is a nightmare. We are stuck in an unwinable conflict of our own making. This was never a winable war. Sadly, I think that we will have troops there for the VERY long haul. Wh'da though it eh? It's not like there's any recent history of a long, fruitless, drawn out campaign in Afganistan is there?
The failure of the UK and US governments to think beyond the first round of bombings, to what the long term objectives were in Afganistan and Iraq is lamentable. Why can they not be held to account is beyond me.
The failure of the UK and US governments to think beyond the first round of bombings, to what the long term objectives were in Afganistan and Iraq is lamentable. Why can they not be held to account is beyond me.
Jimbeaux said:
mcg123 said:
OK -Im not a political person, I just have seen that three more of our lads have died..... is this our Vietnam... are we doing any good out there?
No disrespect, the family of every dead soldier is devastated; however, in Vietnam, hundreds may have died in a day....on both sides. We have become so sanitized that our expectations for results are very high and our thresehold for war casulties is unrealistically low. Again, to the families of those three fellows, this is of no comfort.Compare that to WW2. Some 380,000 British troops were killed in 6 years. That's an average of 175 people killed every single day of that conflict.
To look at it from another angle, 52 soldiers in the British Army died as a result of gunshot wounds between 1992 and 2000 in training accidents, suicides and other incidents where no enemy was involved.
As Jimbeaux pointed out, the death of any soldier is tragic, but in reality, our engagement in Afghanistan has, in my mind, been quite remarkable for the sheer lack of British deaths.
I agree that there should be more clearly stated objectives, but that doesn't, in my mind, excuse the media attempts to portray one of the most bloodless engagements in British military history as some sort of horrific carnage.
Kermit power said:
Jimbeaux said:
mcg123 said:
OK -Im not a political person, I just have seen that three more of our lads have died..... is this our Vietnam... are we doing any good out there?
No disrespect, the family of every dead soldier is devastated; however, in Vietnam, hundreds may have died in a day....on both sides. We have become so sanitized that our expectations for results are very high and our thresehold for war casulties is unrealistically low. Again, to the families of those three fellows, this is of no comfort.Compare that to WW2. Some 380,000 British troops were killed in 6 years. That's an average of 175 people killed every single day of that conflict.
To look at it from another angle, 52 soldiers in the British Army died as a result of gunshot wounds between 1992 and 2000 in training accidents, suicides and other incidents where no enemy was involved.
As Jimbeaux pointed out, the death of any soldier is tragic, but in reality, our engagement in Afghanistan has, in my mind, been quite remarkable for the sheer lack of British deaths.
I agree that there should be more clearly stated objectives, but that doesn't, in my mind, excuse the media attempts to portray one of the most bloodless engagements in British military history as some sort of horrific carnage.
Simpo Two said:
Vietnam was winnable but public opinion forced it to be called off. There is a knee-jerk reaction for any conflict to be dubbed 'so-and-so's Vietnam' - even the Falklands, which was a swift and sound drubbing for the Argies.
Afghanistan is not winnable, and you onl have ot look at history to see that. There is no objective, no end-game. IMHO if you declare war you do it properly - either conquer completely or don't bother. As it is, British soldiers will keep being picked off and for no good reason. The idea that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a western-style democracy is patently ridiculous. We do not have the ability to police the world; we'd do better to stop telling other countries what to so and concentrate on patching up our own sick land.
Utter sense!Afghanistan is not winnable, and you onl have ot look at history to see that. There is no objective, no end-game. IMHO if you declare war you do it properly - either conquer completely or don't bother. As it is, British soldiers will keep being picked off and for no good reason. The idea that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a western-style democracy is patently ridiculous. We do not have the ability to police the world; we'd do better to stop telling other countries what to so and concentrate on patching up our own sick land.
mcg123 said:
OK -Im not a political person, I just have seen that three more of our lads have died..... is this our Vietnam... are we doing any good out there?
It might be? Vietnam wasn't winnable, and I don't think this is. As others have stated no clear objectives, combined with the level of support from a public who are not sure if we should be there.From wiki it states.
"1. to neutralise and to destroy Al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden himself,
2. to destroy the opium industry in Afghanistan, which supports and finance all Al-Qaeda operations,
3. to stop opium traffic from middle east to US and UK.
The stated aim of the invasion was to find the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organisations and nations or governments that harbor them.
Two military operations in Afghanistan are fighting for control over the country. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is a United States combat operation involving some coalition partners and currently operating primarily in the eastern and southern parts of the country along the pakistan border. Approximately 28,300 U.S. troops are in OEF.[2][3][4]
The second operation is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which was established by the UN Security Council at the end of December 2001 to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003. By July 23, 2009, ISAF had around 64,500 troops from 42 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force. The United States has approximately 29,950 troops in ISAF.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_in_Afghanistan
I am not sure what good will come out of this war. I think it will raise chances of terrorism and help recruit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/28/pakistan....
bullies180 said:
Considering that the army now reckon we could be there for 40 years then yes quite possibly. But then if we pull out the Taliban will welcome back the jihaddis to plan some more attacks on the UK and USA. Respect to the guys out there though!
This is the bit that makes no sense..that the planning of all anti west plots happens mainly in the Afghan province. Surely anti west planning can be cooked up anywhere/anytime, even in a cave network in the Northern Swat region, all it takes is the leadership to plan any attacks & the access to a laptop or indeed any established communications network with the movement in the wider area to convey instructions to the men in the field. The training camp infrastructure were fodder for airstrikes & the Taliban have surely scattered into a widespread guerrilla resistance that the west will not commit the resources to properly eliminate. The main problem as I see it regarding the national security issue would be the filtering of the influx of Afghan or pakistani nationals who have an intent to kill making it through the safeguards of the immigration system or airports & going AWOL with the technical ability & knowledge to gather the raw materials & implement civil attacks that at worst, mirror the events seen in Iraq recently.
Edited by FM on Friday 14th August 12:53
The comments regarding the number of soldiers killed are valid ones. Whilst no death should ever be trivialised, deaths in combat are inevitable and Afganistan has been remarkable for the small number of UK soldiers killed. By way of perspective, the following people were killed over the same period of time:
In police custody 302
Children by their own parents etc 432
On the roads c25,000
Kind of puts it into perspective.
In police custody 302
Children by their own parents etc 432
On the roads c25,000
Kind of puts it into perspective.
On the 1st day of the Somme in WW1, 50,000 men were killed or wounded.
Tragic though each death is, what is the real alternative when dealing with these nutters. By saying troops out will only give the Taliban etc. reasons to keep going.
Does anyone really think these guys are going to stop what they are doing if all the troops are pulled out?
Speedyman
Tragic though each death is, what is the real alternative when dealing with these nutters. By saying troops out will only give the Taliban etc. reasons to keep going.
Does anyone really think these guys are going to stop what they are doing if all the troops are pulled out?
Speedyman
speedyman said:
Does anyone really think these guys are going to stop what they are doing if all the troops are pulled out?
Speedyman
They are doing what they are doing whether we are there or not. The British army is not capable of finding all the Taliban (jihadi terrorists) and killing them, nor is the US. To combat the 'whole situation' will need more than soldiers on the ground. pakistan, India, Indonesia and China need to involved, and we (the UK/West) need to be more open aboot our plans in that area. That's what I think anyway.Speedyman
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff