Afghan Fiddlers

[mollag]

Well instead of sending them all around afghanistan to get killed, and then allowing the taliban to retake the same ground etc. they are all dying unnecessarily for - stick em on the afghan/pakistan border in a UN role (and just inside in the taliban/sympathiser terrotories in Pakistan too). Meanwhile, train the Afghan and Pakistani forces so they are more capable of anti-insurgency and maintaining their own security. Locate and bomb the sh1t out of any talibans attacking near the border - remotely.

 

Your way will go on forever, and a solution will never occur.

My way!!! Think I'm a staffer or something???!!! Unlike you I'm just telling it how it is.

 

According to that nice Mr Churchill "You can take the ground any way you like but you can only hold it with men".

 

You've already been told that this is NOT a war of occupation so holding the ground with boots is simply not an option. There 's far too much of it in any case. So you let them concentrate to come to you at the same time creating a very nice target for air power. Having lost serious amounts of manpower trying that the Taliban are now reduced to roadside bombs and so forth. Victory of a sort i.e they can only take on soft targets and not actually threaten the country. Before you ask it is what it is.

This method really fails to succeed, as in Vietnam, preping and training an unwilling local army also has a poor track record, imho i reckon the wheels are half of the pram now as we are retreating to the towns after 8 years---8 years of a wrong policy. Someone wants sacking

 

PS my grammar are poor also.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That isn't really true. During the Malayan Emergency the British authorities actually did very well at training local policemen and some combat units.

 

Vietnam was just a mess - the Americans didn't understand how to conduct an effective counter-insurgency campaign.

[P.K.]

I've told you before I respond in kind - "brainless Brown basher' I think were your words.

 

Don't get so worked up...here's a picture of a squirrel for you to look at:

That was a reference to the way a lot on here, yourself most definitely included, like to try and blame Brown for everything such as the casualties in Afghanistan and the price of fish.

 

Hmmm a rat with a fluffy tail. Cute but extremely damaging.

[John]

Shit I thought this was a thread about people molesting long haired hounds

 

 

I pictured men with beards joining Mike in teh street one saturday afternoon..

 

Gutted now

[La_Dolce_Vita]

8 years of a wrong policy. Someone wants sacking

British foreign policy has been wrong for...well...a very, very, long time. Firstly in the long-term because of its meddling, belligerency, and terrorism it supports. And over the past fifty years in the specific course it has taken in choosing to become utterly subservient to the United States.

[mollag]

That isn't really true. During the Malayan Emergency the British authorities actually did very well at training local policemen and some combat units.

 

Vietnam was just a mess - the Americans didn't understand how to conduct an effective counter-insurgency campaign.

If Vietnam was a mess, how would you rate Afghanistan 8 years on?

Malaya was very different from Vietnam, the communist rebels were essentialy ethnic chinese with no great ground support from the ethnic Malays, hence they lost, one of the few instances of terrorists being roundly defeated.

Not the case in Afghanistan, we spiningly call them "foreign fighters" or insurgents--ffs what he hell are we? .

We will leave in defeat again, we only have to start the fantasy machine so we can call it a victory, lets hope its sooner rather than later.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If Vietnam was a mess, how would you rate Afghanistan 8 years on?

A mess. But at least Vietnam had a clear purpose.

 

 

Malaya was very different from Vietnam, the communist rebels were essentialy ethnic chinese with no great ground support from the ethnic Malays, hence they lost, one of the few instances of terrorists being roundly defeated.

Not at all. The Chinese originally had some support from other Chinese. And the Chinese ensured support from the Malays through the use of punishment if they were not helped. The reason why the British were so successful was because the British army was better at learning how to adopt new tactics and strategies as per the situation. The American army is not the same.

[P.K.]

If Vietnam was a mess, how would you rate Afghanistan 8 years on?

Malaya was very different from Vietnam, the communist rebels were essentialy ethnic chinese with no great ground support from the ethnic Malays, hence they lost, one of the few instances of terrorists being roundly defeated.

Not the case in Afghanistan, we spiningly call them "foreign fighters" or insurgents--ffs what he hell are we? .

We will leave in defeat again, we only have to start the fantasy machine so we can call it a victory, lets hope its sooner rather than later.

The Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan. That's a major victory. Had the Taliban still been in control god knows what would be happening in Pakistan and the rest of the region by now. Total chaos I would guess. So expect to be in Afghanistan for many many more years to come with combat continuing for at least another 5 years probably.

 

It is what it is.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What? The Taliban were not interfering in Pakistan prior to the Aghan War. There were Taliban elements in Pakistan but these were not the people who were in power in Afghanistan.

 

With respect, you do seem to have this habit of justifying British intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of consequences that have resulted, which are as yet ambiguous to say the least, and with little reference to the original justifications of these conflicts.

 

The Taliban are out of power. That is good thing in respect of the fact that the general population is no longer oppressed to the same degree they were but this come about by bombing the shit out of country and costing lots of lives. The result will be more oppression but of a less harsh kind when whatever government finally starts to consolidate power and control. But this wasn't the original justification for the conflict and I have to ask just how much the Afghan people have benefitted and what the future will hold for them.

 

Moreover, the fact that the Taliban has gone is good in the sense that there is no ability for them to harbour Al Qaeda. However, in respect of the manner in which they oppressed the Afghan people - this war was never about the Afghan people and doing right by them.

[bluemonday]

Shouldn't you be in London fighting the Nazis?

[mollag]

Oddly our "side" tells us they are re asessing the Taleban, Karazai has been negotiating with them and it seems the Italians have them on the payroll.

 

Nice Mr Taleban "light" back soon maybe?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't know about this. But if the Taliban can make it possible for the USA and NATO nations gain influence in Afghanistan then there is little reason why a deal cannot be struck.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not the case in Afghanistan, we spiningly call them "foreign fighters" or insurgents--ffs what he hell are we? .

Terrorists.

[P.K.]

With respect, you do seem to have this habit of justifying British intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of consequences that have resulted, which are as yet ambiguous to say the least, and with little reference to the original justifications of these conflicts.

Very fair. I agreed with both interventions at the time. I still do despite the fact that they have developed into nasty little insurgencies. Some people still have to realise that in some parts of the world power comes from the barrel of a gun. If the Taliban can be bought off then fine. It's a cheaper option BUT be aware a lot of the local populace remember their excesses at places like the football field.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well yes, military power do offer the ability to maintain or gain power. I don't understand the significance you are attributing to this in respect of justifying the war.