Britain should be prepared for a 15-year struggle in Afghan

#1
Britain should be prepared for a 15-year struggle in Afghanistan
05 January, 2009 10:30:00Thomas Harding

The death on New Year's Eve of Corporal Liam Elms, a 26-year-old Royal Marine from Wigan, took the total number of British fatalities in Afghanistan last year to 51, making it the bloodiest year of the campaign by a wide margin. The following day saw the first British death of 2009, as an explosion in the province's Garmser district accounted for another soldier's life: Sergeant Christopher John Reed, a Territorial Army soldier with the 6th Battalion The Rifles.

In the context of our deployment in Afghanistan, every year is a vital one. But there is a growing sense that 2009 will be more decisive than most. So much hangs in the balance: will the local population reject the presence of foreign forces? Will the Nato alliance hold together, despite the in-fighting that is weakening its command structure? What difference will be made by President Obama, and by the presence of 20,000 more American troops, in a "surge" of the kind that worked so successfully in Iraq? And, most importantly for those of us in Britain, will we be able to sustain another year of high casualties without seeing any tangible gains on the ground?

The numbers of dead are harrowing – but they do not tell the whole story. This is a counter-insurgency campaign, in which the measure of success is more likely to be determined by the miles of new roads built than the numbers of Taliban – or Britons – killed. And even though we have been in Helmand for four years now, almost as long as the First World War, military planners are preparing for a prolonged campaign.
More on the link
www.military-world.net...n/952.html
 
#7
yes you are quite right, because iraq is now selling its oil reserves the barrel price came down, I am merely stating that Afghan has no resources worth footing a 15 year bill for operations in that theatre, perhaps a UN mandated mission to bring peace and stability in the region may be more effective but as the Russians proved over 10 years it was a fruitless adventure, something out politicians should also reflect on

So Sven your point is?
 
#8
Sven said:
BIPOLAR77 said:
When we find out there is no oil there
We got an oil advantage by invading Iraq did we? We was I paying £1.20 a litre then?
I wouldn't worry too much, it was the taxpayers money anyway. The government gave it to you then you gave it back.
 
#9
it's good then that the number of helicopters in hm armed forces will fall by at least 40% over the next few years. well done labour.

ive said it before. If it's worth fighting, it's worth funding.
 
#10
BIPOLAR77 said:
yes you are quite right, because iraq is now selling its oil reserves the barrel price came down, I am merely stating that Afghan has no resources worth footing a 15 year bill for operations in that theatre, perhaps a UN mandated mission to bring peace and stability in the region may be more effective but as the Russians proved over 10 years it was a fruitless adventure, something out politicians should also reflect on

So Sven your point is?
That Iraq was nothing to do with oil - which is what your initial comment was all about, wasn't it?

We should stay in AFG until the place is stable, if it means staying there 15 years then we should.
 
#11
Sven said:
BIPOLAR77 said:
yes you are quite right, because iraq is now selling its oil reserves the barrel price came down, I am merely stating that Afghan has no resources worth footing a 15 year bill for operations in that theatre, perhaps a UN mandated mission to bring peace and stability in the region may be more effective but as the Russians proved over 10 years it was a fruitless adventure, something out politicians should also reflect on

So Sven your point is?
That Iraq was nothing to do with oil - which is what your initial comment was all about, wasn't it? :arrow:

We should stay in AFG until the place is stable, if it means staying there 15 years then we should.
Fcuk's sake, Sven - not even you can still believe it was about WMD's... :roll:
 
#12
the place will never be stable, its a tribal infrastructure, Russia couldnt tame it and its on their doorstep, not to mention the fact that Russia probably has more of a clue about the region that dictates its policy, by stability do you mean the iradication of taliban? How would you bring stability there?
 
#13
Werewolf said:
Sven said:
BIPOLAR77 said:
yes you are quite right, because iraq is now selling its oil reserves the barrel price came down, I am merely stating that Afghan has no resources worth footing a 15 year bill for operations in that theatre, perhaps a UN mandated mission to bring peace and stability in the region may be more effective but as the Russians proved over 10 years it was a fruitless adventure, something out politicians should also reflect on

So Sven your point is?
That Iraq was nothing to do with oil - which is what your initial comment was all about, wasn't it? :arrow:

We should stay in AFG until the place is stable, if it means staying there 15 years then we should.
Fcuk's sake, Sven - not even you can still believe it was about WMD's... :roll:
It wasn't :?


:roll:
 
#14
BIPOLAR77 said:
the place will never be stable, its a tribal infrastructure, Russia couldnt tame it and its on their doorstep, not to mention the fact that Russia probably has more of a clue about the region that dictates its policy, by stability do you mean the iradication of taliban? How would you bring stability there?
So being on Russias doorstep was an advantage was it?

Eradication of the Taleban is not necessary, sidelining them is - militarily and politically.

Tell me BP, was AFG stable before the Russians invaded, was the country run by religious bigots who facilitated world terrorists?
 
#15
Sven said:
BIPOLAR77 said:
When we find out there is no oil there
We got an oil advantage by invading Iraq did we? We was I paying £1.20 a litre then?
A cunning plan me thinks to tighen the reigns on that other country that's in the same parish that's been quietly knocking together a nuclear weapon.

Show em what's available (high oil prices), then take it away if they don't play ball. Seems to have done the trick. Plus it also hurts a few of there nasty allies as well.
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Tell me BP, was AFG stable before the Russians invaded, was the country run by religious bigots who facilitated world terrorists?
Who will take over again just as soon as we all pull out. When we realise there is no way to govern such an inhospitable land, where the rule of law does not exist outside Khandahar and Kabul. They know the Talibs are there permanently, and any ground the Allies take is surrendered after a token occupation. Knowing full well that they kicked the arse of the Mighty Soviet machine (with all its heavy armour, Hinds, ground troops, etc), they are fully aware it is just a waiting game until the USA and Lapdog U.K. (and friends) pull out when it becomes and endless and wasteful money pit.
 
#17
ONLY 15 years, does that start from now?

Unless there are enough feet on the ground out there, the west can whistle Dixie!

We tried in the 1900's to take the land, we had our arses kicked, the USSR tried it, they had a land bridge.

What make our tactics now superiour? Should we be looking in other directions?
 
#18
Command_doh said:
Tell me BP, was AFG stable before the Russians invaded, was the country run by religious bigots who facilitated world terrorists?
Who will take over again just as soon as we all pull out. When we realise there is no way to govern such an inhospitable land, where the rule of law does not exist outside Khandahar and Kabul. They know the Talibs are there permanently, and any ground the Allies take is surrendered after a token occupation. Knowing full well that they kicked the arse of the Mighty Soviet machine (with all its heavy armour, Hinds, ground troops, etc), they are fully aware it is just a waiting game until the USA and Lapdog U.K. (and friends) pull out when it becomes and endless and wasteful money pit.
So you are saying the Taleban were the de facto government before the Russian invasion?
 
#19
We won't last 15 years. Much as I hate statistics, public opinion won't hold out. We know it's a bone mission. Joe public thinks it's a bone mission. The second the Yanks say lets pull out the troops and try bribery, which is a language every Afghan, whether Pashtun, Tajik or Hazara speaks very well, our Politicians will be falling over each other to clame credit for the withdrawal of troops from the bonest mission since....the last one.
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Sven said:
Command_doh said:
Tell me BP, was AFG stable before the Russians invaded, was the country run by religious bigots who facilitated world terrorists?
Who will take over again just as soon as we all pull out. When we realise there is no way to govern such an inhospitable land, where the rule of law does not exist outside Khandahar and Kabul. They know the Talibs are there permanently, and any ground the Allies take is surrendered after a token occupation. Knowing full well that they kicked the arse of the Mighty Soviet machine (with all its heavy armour, Hinds, ground troops, etc), they are fully aware it is just a waiting game until the USA and Lapdog U.K. (and friends) pull out when it becomes and endless and wasteful money pit.
So you are saying the Taleban were the de facto government before the Russian invasion?
No. But they will be runnign the place when we pull out. Najubullah was the last Russian installed joker before they took over, and look what happened to him.

The Jihadi/Radical Islamic World is polarised on Afghanistan, and it is seen as the 'proving ground'/righteous fight against the Crusader. Ironically, the Afghani people were never so Islamisized before the Soviets, and didn't really care for the Talibs.

But since the Soviet times, the place has become a waystation for Muslim fighters worldwide. The Talibs are hell bent on making the entire place a 6th Century recreation, and with the aide of Saudi/Arab oil State cash, its only a matter of time before they revert to beating up women trying to go to school and shelling Buddha's - well, if they had anything worthwhile left to destroy that is. Oh, wait they will. All the improvements the Allies are making now.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top