John Hutton Afghan war will shape century

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Mar 15, 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. Afghan war 'will shape century'

    John Hutton: Fundamental extremism is "a risk to our country"

    Defence Secretary John Hutton has said the Afghanistan war is a "fundamentally important" one which will "define much of the politics of the 21st century".

    He said Nato's European members must do more if it was to "come through this test of its resolve and character".
    Lessons learned there and in Iraq would lead to a "transformation" of policy by the UK Ministry of Defence.
    He also told the BBC troops could leave when Afghan forces could "manage the insurgency at an appropriate level".
    Mr Hutton sought to set out the goals of the mission in interviews for BBC One's Politics Show and BBC Radio 4's the World this Weekend ahead of meeting his US counterpart this week.
    He said UK troops, whom he paid tribute to, were in Afghanistan "first and foremost to tackle fundamental extremism which is a risk to the security of our citizens and our country".
    More on the link
  2. What a myopic amateur.
  3. Without wishing to sound flipant, because I am absolutely not being, the only impact I can see the Afghan Campaign having in the UK is an increase of membership in BLESMA and an increase in the workload for SSAFA and the RBL.

    Anyone that knows me will know that the above is not an anti military statement. I support my colleagues in whatever they are doing, politics is for politicians, soldiers just do as they are told and I will always be behind them, no matter what .

    Outside of that, can anyone actually think of a difference that Op Herrick or Telic will make to the UK?
  4. my thought was, start funding it properly then! It's all well and good saying how important it is, but to then continue to run the effort at the minimum level is disingenuous at best. If it's important, increase the army to 160,000 so troop levels can be maintained for the forseeable future and procure all the equipment required. Not to mention, give the military the AFG aid budget so they can put in some development projects.
  5. The greatest benefit I can see, is that the battle is being fought over there, rather than in luton or brum. I would also say that getting rib of the AQ 'safe haven' that was afghanistan under the taliban was no bad thing.

    n.b. being a civvie, i could be talking out of my arrse .....
  6. Yep, if we fail to hold our end up, which is happening on GordonTony's shoestring war, then we are likely to lose our place as a serious player and US best mate.
    Obama is unlikely to invade places and will not need us along to help provide a semblance of legitimacy.
    I read that already with Gordon's dithering and lack of enthusiasm to up the ante in Afg. then The White House is not regarding the UK as serious any more.
    Thanks Tony and Gordon.
  7. Pararegtom

    Pararegtom LE Book Reviewer

    [Outside of that, can anyone actually think of a difference that Op Herrick or Telic will make to the UK?[/quote]

    Apart from the training it provides for the troops on the ground. No
  8. Do you fancy an islamic extreamist cresent running from the Atlanic coast of Morocco to the India/Pakistan border? Or if you don't think that would be an issue, maybe the tens of millions of refugees runing from said arrangement and turning up on YOUR street would hammer the issue home? I'm sorry but if you want to change the future history that WILL happen as we've already seen via the Algerian Civil War and the take over of Gaza by Hamas, we need to pull our fingure out and leave the Guardian dream world that says if we say out of it then everything will be OK.
  9. Does that mean that the proposed renaming of the UK to Airstrip one wont be going ahead?
  10. Oh so thats why we went to Iraq :roll:
    As for Afghanistan they have been fighting each other for hundreds of years without them bothering us much
  11. I'm wondering if either of you have an IQ exceeding that of a glass of water.
  12. Yes it is.

    Yes, because nothing from Afghanistan could ever touch us. Oh, wait...
  13. Of course,you can always kill an idea with a bullet. :roll:

    Or perhaps a better long term approach to things would be to stop wasting blood and money overseas and use the cash to R+D technology that does'nt require UK PLC to go cap in hand to medieval madmen.

    It would be nice to get there before Japan for a change,we used to be good at inventing things.
  14. Of course it is Saddam Hussein couldn't move for Al qaeda in his country and there was me thinking we just went because Blair had his tongue up Bush's arse.

    What touched the British from Afghanistan before 2001?
  15. Parapauk if you believe the problem that we need to fight is in Afghanistan you are delusional, it is in the neighbouring countries, Iran and Pakistan. I see no stomach for a fight with or in either of those countries. Afghanistan is a war and a country we cannot win, if we are to fight it on the scale we are doing today. Either equip our troops better, increase the numbers significantly and make a fight of it, or as we are now, losing good men for an unwinnable aim.

    Talking of which - what is the aim of our involvement in Afghanistan - it used to be Reconstruction (well it was when we sent troops there in 2005/6)