Is a policy of HM goverment in Afghanistan right?

A policy of British government in Afghanistan...

  • is absolutely right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • is mainly right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • is right only partially

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • is rather wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • is wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
I would like to initiate a thoughtful discussion about Afghanistan.

Should the UK have its own position toward Afghanistan? Or follow American policy?

What is a goal of the war in Afghanistan? Is Afghan problem mainly military or political one? Are negotiations with Taliban possible?

Please, answer these questions and add your ones.

Thanks!
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#2
Add Question:

What's it to you ?
 
#3
we have a policy? no offence to the lads on the ground but hopefullynot a shotfireddid'nt really worktowelldid it
 
#4
Goatman said:
Add Question:

What's it to you ?
Goatman, on another thread essetially the same questions (as my ones) were hold by (allegedly) BBC's journalist and most of replays are being concentrated around causes of the interest and causes of not to answer.

So I answer your question. Initiating this thread I tried to help our friend Jonathan and (as he) I'm interesting in answers.

Returning to the theme I would like to express my own vision. It is a right time to negotiate with Taliban. For many reasons it would be a hard decision for our American friends. And British diplomacy could lead the process.

If Taliban agrees not to support international terrorism in any form then what would be a problem with this organisation?
 
#5
Before I vote, can someone tell what the government's policy is in Afghanistan? I'm not being silly, thick maybe, but I am unaware that we have a policy.
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
I would like to initiate a thoughtful discussion about Afghanistan.

Should the UK have its own position toward Afghanistan? Or follow American policy?

What is a goal of the war in Afghanistan? Is Afghan problem mainly military or political one? Are negotiations with Taliban possible?

Please, answer these questions and add your ones.

Thanks!
It may be better to post some well informed information on UK foreign Policy - Southern Afghanistan before getting people to vote.

I see last years campaign in Afghanistan as a sad success. We come out on top at the end of the year but at a high price. Hopefully this year we see more of the dramatic footage of the battlegroup getting stuck in but less of the "A Tragic death" type headlines.

What is your opinion on the policy? What do you "think" the policy is?
 
#7
I find it dificult to believe we will have the long term political will to stay the course for what's reported to be a requisite 10 to 20 years, especially if a major ally such as the Canadians pulls out.

However, I'm not sure what the answer is, mainly because, like most of the rest of the UK, I don't know what our policy regarding 'Stan actually is and what results will be regarded as a 'victory'. Perhap something similar to the 'victory' in Iraq maybe?
 
#8
Sadly we don't win wars anymore. We just walk off with a smug grin on our faces knowing we earn't more LSSA days and got some gucci photo's.

Ask the RUC (Sorry PSNI) What they think of the state of NI!
 
#9
We're actually not doing much in Afghanistan, because our force is so small. It's really hard to swallow, but HM's army will only play a supporting role for the foreseeable future.

I don't really see the Taliban as a threat. They are getting butchered left and right. They are crude and bumbling.

The problem, as it always has been, is the duplicity and extremism in Pakistan, which has a population 7 times of Afghanistan.
 
#10
Sergey, I was going to post a thoughtful and pertinent response to your first question
Should the UK have its own position toward Afghanistan? Or follow American policy?
until I realised that the UK doesn't have consistent policy with itself, let alone with the US.

PB
 
#11
We should of course follow Russia's policy in Chechnya - plow 40% of the population into the ground (literally), bomb the cities to **** (and then rebuild a city centre for propaganda) and then lie through the teeth about casualties and the absymal performance of our soldiers, who had been sacrificed on the altar of unimaginative generalship and corruption.
 
#12
Far from clear to me what HMG policy foreign policy is anywhere beyond suck up to the yanks and get the foundations of a retirement lecture circuit built.
 
#13
If it took us 30 years to pacify a tiny region just next door, why criticise the Americans for tardiness in leading an effort into only its 6th year to pacify a 25 million strong nation 10,000 km from home?

The Indians need a six-figure army to control 6 million strong Kashmir on its border, NATO is using only 30,000 for a country many times in size and population in a totally foreign region. Where does all this whining come from???
 
#14
The original war aim was to make sure that Al-Qaeda was no longer able to operate from Afghanistan. This has been largely successful although the problem has to some extent been displaced as now the core AQ group is operating in the AFG/Pakistan badlands, albeit with a much reduced capability.

Now the focus of the war has shifted to extending the actual (rather than nominal) rule of the government in Kabul across the whole country, in order to make sure that AFG does not relapse and once again become a base for AQ or related groups.

This is a much more difficult task and HMG seriously underestimated the problems in extending Kabul's writ into the southern provinces. We got sidetracked into issues like destroying the poppy crops and were not tough enough on corruption in our allies. The muddled thinking on opium production is a classic case - we were told beforehand by press spokesmen that the British Army would not engage in poppy eradication. In fact, of course, the Army provides protection while the ANA does the dirty work - the effect is the same: lost livelihoods, angry farmers, increased support for the Taliban.

I think the HMG view is that "victory" will be achieved if ANA and police have control of the southern provinces and local government is able to function without needing a heavily-armed Coalition presence. And yes, that'd be years and years.

PS. I'm not an expert but you did ask!
 
#16
Yellow_Devil said:
The original war aim was to make sure that Al-Qaeda was no longer able to operate from Afghanistan. This has been largely successful although the problem has to some extent been displaced as now the core AQ group is operating in the AFG/Pakistan badlands, albeit with a much reduced capability.

Now the focus of the war has shifted to extending the actual (rather than nominal) rule of the government in Kabul across the whole country, in order to make sure that AFG does not relapse and once again become a base for AQ or related groups.

This is a much more difficult task and HMG seriously underestimated the problems in extending Kabul's writ into the southern provinces. We got sidetracked into issues like destroying the poppy crops and were not tough enough on corruption in our allies. The muddled thinking on opium production is a classic case - we were told beforehand by press spokesmen that the British Army would not engage in poppy eradication. In fact, of course, the Army provides protection while the ANA does the dirty work - the effect is the same: lost livelihoods, angry farmers, increased support for the Taliban.

I think the HMG view is that "victory" will be achieved if ANA and police have control of the southern provinces and local government is able to function without needing a heavily-armed Coalition presence. And yes, that'd be years and years.

PS. I'm not an expert but you did ask!
Its okay having the ANA in place. Thats the easy part as every man and his job wants a job. But its eliminating corruption within the rank and file, not to mention the government. The only way to do this is to create jobs and money so that the Afghan people don't feel the need to be cnuts everyday of their life sitting around asking for handouts.
The Police and the army need to be a well trained force to be reckoned with and i feel this is were foreign soldiers can leave their mark.

However when i say foreign:

I believe that we as the white western army are too foreign. They see us as a bunch of kids who are iincapable of teaching them anything they don't already know. So what we do need to look at is what countries in the region could we get on side who are proffessional enough to train them well and local enough to blend in amongst the locals and the troops.
 
#17
[quote="KGB_residentReturning to the theme I would like to express my own vision. It is a right time to negotiate with Taliban. For many reasons it would be a hard decision for our American friends. And British diplomacy could lead the process.

If Taliban agrees not to support international terrorism in any form then what would be a problem with this organisation?[/quote]

are you mad????????????? have you not read what the Taliban do to people? they have stopped with brute force children going to school, murdered teachers, condemned women to die in childbirth etc etc etc - surely we need to eradicate the taliban completely and ensure a government who will respect their citizens right to health and education at the very least
 
#18
One thing is certain, there is not a clear policy.

Troops were reconstructing, then they were then war fighting, apparently poppy eradication is on the agenda whereas previously it was not. The US are running Enduring Freedom (the first part of the codename was correct) next door, the less motivated amongst NATO are sampling the delights of Kabul and British troops are taking ground from the Taliban and then giving it up because there are not enough troops to hold it.

Admittedly, Reid's "leave without a shot being fired" comment was flowery rhetoric rather than a genuine goal, but the government have not the slightest idea what to do in Afghanistan, other than to send troops to do something as long as the Americans are still hanging around (ie until 2009).

I don't believe the UK is achieving anything by rolling over and sending more troops because the rest of NATO don't want to play at soldiers. There should be a phased UK withdrawal to prompt political action. If there is no political will, why should the UK bear the brunt of casualties?
 
#19
Yellow_Devil said:
The original war aim was to make sure that Al-Qaeda was no longer able to operate from Afghanistan. This has been largely successful although the problem has to some extent been displaced as now the core AQ group is operating in the AFG/Pakistan badlands, albeit with a much reduced capability.

Now the focus of the war has shifted to extending the actual (rather than nominal) rule of the government in Kabul across the whole country, in order to make sure that AFG does not relapse and once again become a base for AQ or related groups.

This is a much more difficult task and HMG seriously underestimated the problems in extending Kabul's writ into the southern provinces. We got sidetracked into issues like destroying the poppy crops and were not tough enough on corruption in our allies. The muddled thinking on opium production is a classic case - we were told beforehand by press spokesmen that the British Army would not engage in poppy eradication. In fact, of course, the Army provides protection while the ANA does the dirty work - the effect is the same: lost livelihoods, angry farmers, increased support for the Taliban.

I think the HMG view is that "victory" will be achieved if ANA and police have control of the southern provinces and local government is able to function without needing a heavily-armed Coalition presence. And yes, that'd be years and years.

PS. I'm not an expert but you did ask!
Good summation (imho) of general HMG 'policy' but I would also add that Pashtun rejectionism of Karzai government has to be addressed if some sort of stability is ever to be achieved. I'd also say that if the Pashtun want a return to Taliban theocracy then why not? It will just be another phase before some sort of original Pashtun moderation returns.
 
#20
The thing that worries me, particularly with the increased commitment announced today is that we may be being strategically out-witted by the jihadists. As is commonly suggested, 9/11 may have been a provocation to try to lure the US into an Afghanistan ground commitment in an attempt to visit upon them what was visited upon the USSR - look where bin Laden and his boys learned their trade.

The jihadist plan was scuppered to an extent when the US used 9/11 as a justification to sort out Saddam and actually sorted out the Taleban largely by Northern Alliance proxy. The plan to enmesh the US in a costly ground war while at the same time polarising/radicalising Muslim opinion is arguably being fulfilled quite nicely in Iraq.

Given what may be emerging as a US/UK Iraq/Afghanistan division of labour, I worry that apparent mission creep will bog down the UK in the original trap meant for our allies just as we decrease our involvement in Iraq.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top