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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jan 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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
  2. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    15 Years? Is that when we collectively realise its an impossible task and far too expensive?
  3. When we find out there is no oil there
  4. We got an oil advantage by invading Iraq did we? We was I paying £1.20 a litre then?
  5. prices now are too shabby are they?
  6. Which has something to do with our invading Iraq?
  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. 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. 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. 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. It wasn't :?

  14. 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. 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.