The big lie of Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by msr, Jul 25, 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. msr

    msr LE

    Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

    You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.
  2. That’s bad, but what would have been the alternative?
  3. Are there any who the people might elect?.......No it's all ex warlords
  4. It's gone wrong. No doubt. What would you suggest now?
  5. Oh yet another article from The Guardian insinuating we shouldn't be there . Haven't seen that in the paper since ...oh 24 hours ?
  6. And the cost to the UK is ...???

  7. 'The big lie of Afghanistan'. Quite so and totally predictable when one considers which liar committed us to the stupidity.

    Bliar didn't 'do history' because he wasn't in it - he is now! He will stand in history (a footnote only) as the second worst prime minister of Great Britain.

    The worst? You get one guess and one clue - he has only one eye.
  8. Whom Mr. J. Clarkson has again referred to in the vernacular.
  9. I had an army officer quoting Sun Tzu at me the other night - "Strategy without tactics is a slow route to victory. Tactics without strategy results in disaster". Problem is, with Afghanistan is there any available strategy which would produce anything you would want? It's easy to say, "Abandon all notions of democracy, and even liberty, aim for order. Exploit local identity to create fiefdoms which make it impossible for zealots to gain a foothold. Then promote development, again caring not a jot for democracy and liberty".

    But with the raw materials this "best strategy" isn't workable. The warlords wouldn't be content (in the way that at least some of the Sunni militia in Iraq seem to be).
  10. I'd argue what I've highlighted is tactics masquerading as strategy.
  11. FAR better people than you and I have been debating the essence of 'strategy' for centuries. There is no definitive answer.

    However, if the 'policy' is to prevent Afghanistan becoming a safe haven for terrorists, then the 'strategy' of bringing stability and security via some il-liberal means expressed above may well do the trick rather than the current 'strategy' of forcing a pluralist democratic society upon an audiance with little or no understanding or appreciation of what's involved. The operational 'tactics' employed by various commanders to implement this 'strategy' and achieve the 'policy' goals will vary upon circumstance. For example, the 'tactics' necessary to bring stability and security in Helmand are quite different from those in Mazar.
  12. I agree, its all been one big funking lie, by you know who, just like the 45 mins W.M.D bullshit. ---- Duped again!! --- What is Labours game?
  13. The biggest lie? The Afghan Government are WITH us.

    Once that lie is admitted and everyone stops fooling themselves, we may make progress.
  14. Just before we Brits took responsibility for Helmand, the then Secretary of State, John Reid, downplayed fears and said he hoped we would not need to fire a shot. It follows that he totally misjudged the situation. It also follows - surely? - that we Brits were under prepared. I'm not a lawyer - but is there a case for criminal negligence here?
  15. I hope when I go shopping that I won't have to pay. That doesn't mean I don't expect to.