Britain can no longer afford role in Afghanistan

#2
Well, fancy that, a politician with common sense! It's refreshing to see this government actually saying what most have known for ages, and I loved that reference to Afghanistan being a 13th century country. Bet the usual suspects are complaining before lunchtime?
 
#3
Ignoring the rest of the article for a moment I'd find question at least in part with the assertation that Britain 'can no longer afford role in Afghanistan'. As the sixth largest economy in the world we're more than capable of affording something like this it's just that at current funding levels that were screwed, unfortunately there isn't a political will to match resources with needs.
 
#5
maguire said:
'British soldiers in Afghanistan are "horribly over-extended" and being killed for "no good reason", a senior military figure admitted last night. He said talks are now under way with US commanders that would pave the way for Britain to begin scaling down its commitment to the war, bringing about a change of emphasis in its deployment.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...onger-afford-role-in-afghanistan-1980687.html
Just like in Basrah we'll be popping smoke soon enough. No matter what the politicians say we will not have 'won' and it will not be a success.

The sad truth is that like Basrah we will leave the country with a poor reputation in the region. Although it will be a political defeat based on little public support it will be remembered as a military defeat whether we like it or not.

The only thing we can take from it is Up To Date soldiering experience to give to the next generation of troops and a good photo album.
 
#7
Brick said:
Ignoring the rest of the article for a moment I'd find question at least in part with the assertation that Britain 'can no longer afford role in Afghanistan'. As the sixth largest economy in the world we're more than capable of affording something like this it's just that at current funding levels that were screwed, unfortunately there isn't a political will to match resources with needs.
Well they are closing hospitals down in my neck of the woods and unemployemnt is rising rapidly.

Do you live in the affluent South East perchance ?

Just get our lads out of Afghanistan, Pronto !

Let Afghanistan rot in the 13th.Century where it belongs.

The only thing that seems to have occured since our lads where sent out there was a massive increase in Opium production. Now I can see unruly folk like the CIA being very interested in that sort of stuff !
 
#8
I,m going to be totally blunt....Afganistan is a waste of our good Troops lives....fullstop.
Why are we losing excellent young People in that 3rd World dump....to protect our National security back home....but not expelling known Pakistani nutters back to Pakistan,because of their Human rights?
Why have 2 time served Marines been booted out of their jobs,and lost their pensions for hitting a bomb planter with a Welly,when *********,not British,but Pakistani,who planned to blow up British citizens in Manchester are not deported?
Our blokes should be manning our own home borders and anyone who wants to hurt our Country should be deported and if they get tortured or executed.....tough S***.....they chose the life!!!
 
#10
oscar1whisky said:
Well, fancy that, a politician with common sense! It's refreshing to see this government actually saying what most have known for ages, and I loved that reference to Afghanistan being a 13th century country. Bet the usual suspects are complaining before lunchtime?
Regarding bold and underlined above: correct. The BBC (Dir Gen: P. Mandelson) Radio 4 has not stopped dripping poison and trying to stir up trouble over this factual remark.

What the BBC (Dir Gen: P. Mandelson) cannot comprehend is that Labour lost the General Election and that Dr. Fox has this hitherto unknown attribute for a politician of speaking the truth.

Furthermore, the BBC (Dir Gen: P. Mandelson) Radio 4 has not lost an opportunity in days of getting some failed Labour twerp to spout on 'knowledgeably' on all manner of subjects. Never a Tory or a Liberal within earshot.

Yesterday this travesty of a public broadcaster - overpaid by our tax-money - gave lengthy airspace to Jack Dromey MP, now there is an intellect to reckon with! The Treasurer who failed to notice £1,000,000 being paid into an account he was responsible for! All he did was criticise the Coalition - in existence for a few days only - never a constructive word. The failed oiks standing for the Labour 'leadership' ('Labour' and 'leadership' are words I do not associate together) are given hours and hours of air-time. Why? We have had thirteen disastrous years of Labour dogma based mainly on envy, malice and spite.

When the business of Afghanistan is properly addressed; when the bankruptcy of the nation is properly addressed; when the parlous and dirty state of the NHS is addressed; when the soviet style 'all down to lowest possible level' of our shameful state education is seriously addressed, then I hope the Coalition will turn on the BBC and sort out the bias and bollocks resident therein!
 
#11
The way I see it the real centre of the terrorism threat to this country is probably nowhere near Helmand, Luton and points north would be a better bet
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#12
maguire said:
'British soldiers in Afghanistan are "horribly over-extended" and being killed for "no good reason", a senior military figure admitted last night. He said talks are now under way with US commanders that would pave the way for Britain to begin scaling down its commitment to the war, bringing about a change of emphasis in its deployment.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...onger-afford-role-in-afghanistan-1980687.html
Is this a hint that everybody is going to pull out, like everyone does in the end !!!
 
#13
What a waste of life to leave with our tail between our legs, most of the Army now probably joined after 2002, so they knew what they were getting into, dare I say, some even will have joined because of current ops.

The politicians and British public are cowards and they're making us look bad.
 
#14
My brother has a good friend who is an out and out Labour supporter.
I can always tell when brother has been speaking to him for I Get, The Army will be defeated in Afghanistan, no ones ever won there.
I answered well Alexander is still remembered and then some weeks later after brother had been reindoctrinated it changed to well not in modern times.
So my reply was, Er can you tell me when the policy changed from defeating the Taliban to Nation building ?
Think it's still being worked on for answer.

john
But I think we can't afford Labours Wars any longer.
 
#17
Brick said:
Ignoring the rest of the article for a moment I'd find question at least in part with the assertation that Britain 'can no longer afford role in Afghanistan'. As the sixth largest economy in the world we're more than capable of affording something like this it's just that at current funding levels that were screwed, unfortunately there isn't a political will to match resources with needs.
Unfortuneately you seem to be forgetting the moron that is the walking disaster BROWN, has virtually bankrupted Britain, leaving massive debts that can only be repaid if CUTS are made. Our troops have already suffered from the lack of resources Labour made available and Cameron has not got the resources to make up the huge defecits in the MoD spending that Labour left! Unless you think it is acceptable to ask our brave troops to just soldier on without sufficient top quality equiptment? :x
 
#18
Brick said:
Ignoring the rest of the article for a moment I'd find question at least in part with the assertation that Britain 'can no longer afford role in Afghanistan'. As the sixth largest economy in the world we're more than capable of affording something like this it's just that at current funding levels that were screwed, unfortunately there isn't a political will to match resources with needs.
If you mean "afford" as in actually be able to fund it properly Britain was never able to do that in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

It would have been helpful if we'd had a government with the sense to see that these wars were highly likely to be costly long term commitments with limited tax payer support.

Our involvement in both wars was predicated on the political capital of re-enforcing the special relationship. We'd have been better opting to commit fully to the first war and urging the US to do the same. They would still have gone to Baghdad of course.

Tony Blair's lack of long term strategic judgment may have earned the gratitude of the less hawkish parts of the Bush Administration and some extra name recognition on the US speaker circuit but the Pentagon's gratitude for our overstretched efforts in Basra has proved to be rather limited.

As it is we now face an escalating Pashtun war with a huge deficit, a structurally flawed economy, a disgruntled public, a government that talks about a 25% defense cut and is prone to recklessly decreasing the tax burden. Barry O has set a ridiculous timetable based on his run for a second term and no clear idea of what victory looks like other than achieving that. That's a recipe for an embarrassing failure.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#19
mark1234 said:
msr said:
mark1234 said:
The politicians and British public are cowards and they're making us look bad.
We are their army...
Then they shouldn't have sent us in the first place, Tommy pays the blood price and they are the ones that lose stomach. It p1sses me off.
I think the only people who really value soldiers' lives are their friends and family; for everyone else talk is cheap.
 
#20
The War in afghanistan the second it breached two major milestones.

1st the expenditure on propping up the ISAF effort and preventing the spread of conflict to Pakistan (which it failed) was greater than the amount needed to be spent to prevent security threats domestically. e.g. If we spend 4 billion a year fighting a war over there or 2 billion a year on resources over here to achieve the same measure of security.

2. The reason we normally fight wars outside of a liberal interventionist agenda (Blaire bible) is for some form of economic, territorial or political gain. The political brownie points were gone the secnd the Northern Alliance took Kabul and Bin Laden****ed off to pakistan. The territory was important to the Raj 70 years ago but not now and NO contracts being awarded by the Afghan government to UK firms nor private resouce exploitation projects can match the sheer long term economic expense of said war.

So basically unless we are trading blood for oil or some other barbaric but vital formula of legitimacy, we can never really 'afford' war.

Thank god Blair's era of liberal interventionism and nation state building for humanitarian not economic reasons is over.
 

Latest Threads