Brits in Iraq to redeploy to Afghanistan

#1
New labour leader could withdraw troops from Iraq and double the Army’s strength in Afghanistan.

That is what a number of influential figures are whispering.

the Prime Minister’s abandonment of Britain’s national interests in his blind obedience to President Bush

almost all Labour activists and most voters have come to detest and distrust Mr Blair because of his support for US foreign policy, not only in Iraq, but also in Lebanon, Israel and Iran.

If Gordon Brown sticks to Mr Blair’s foreign policies, he will lose the next election. If he can present a credible alternative, then he could easily win, whatever his personal quirks or psychological flaws.

Mr Blair’s crime was to continue backing President Bush after it became obvious that his policies were criminally negligent, politically cynical and doomed to failure.

The next prime minister will have to do better. There are many constructive ways to do this. He could withdraw troops from Iraq and simultaneously double the Army’s strength in Afghanistan, where there is still some hope of success, especially if the West temporarily abandons its futile effort to destroy the opium economy at the same time as fighting the Taleban


Article in full

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2356714,00.html
 
#3
Pillager said:
How large was the Russian Army in the mid eighties?

Going to need some more defence spending before we try and do Afghanistan alone!

good money after bad Im sad to say.
There were about 100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan in 80's. And pro-Soviet Afghani army was a real force, not something like current Iraqi 'army'. Pro-Soviet rulers were able to stay at power 2 years after the Soviet withdrawal. And only after the collapse of Soviet Union, without Soviet support they were unable to withstand against US-backed ter..err... freedom fighters.

Now Nato forces fight against exatly the same fre... err.. terrorists. So Soviet experience would be valuable. First of all creat a strong puppet army. Without it the war is unwinnable (even with it is would be a hard task to win).
 
#5
So Soviet experience would be valuable.
Only if we intended to invade and impose our will at all costs, creating around 6 million refugees, killing around a million locals, and sowing mines randomly. Otherwise it's not strictly relevant to what's going on.
 
#6
Nibbler said:
So Soviet experience would be valuable.
Only if we intended to invade and impose our will at all costs, creating around 6 million refugees, killing around a million locals, and sowing mines randomly. Otherwise it's not strictly relevant to what's going on.
Yeh, let's do it. I propose France as it's close enough for us to have our holidays in after we conquer them.

Hoorah
 
#7
This isn't news. The aim wa to draw down from IZ in order to reinforce the 'Stan back in mid 04. Drawing down has occured, but not as fast as probably hoped.
 
#8
Dilfor said:
This isn't news. The aim wa to draw down from IZ in order to reinforce the 'Stan back in mid 04. Drawing down has occured, but not as fast as probably hoped.
True but only now has it become politically expedient and feasible as a 'clean break' with Our Dear Leaders military campaigns. What better way for the new PM to please the voters, give two fingers to Tone while not looking soft and contributing to a UN sanctioned mission?
 
#10
Eh luvvly, we can send the troops ta Ganistan or SUDAN.
Marvelous F-sking Marvelous.
john
Look take away all their nasty guns and retrain them as Social workers.
Ya know it makes sense.
 
#11
When Blair goes the next leader can make large changes in deployments without getting egg on his face. Though I suspect that nothing much will change.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top