UK steps up support to help British nationals leave Afghanistan

Mr_Pink

War Hero
Our presence denies the likes of Al Qaeda. Is it worth 5 British soldiers a year to save 250 British civilians a year?

Well, yeah. That’s exactly what soldiers are for.
 

riksavage

War Hero
A difficult question to answer.

What will be the fall out from the US and UK withdrawing its military presence from Afghanistan ?
The Great Game mrk 2., India vs. China. There’s a lot of Indian investment/construction projects in Afghanistan, much to the annoyance of Pakistan. China wants access for its belt and road initiative to link up its growing transportation links through Pakistan. Add Afghanistan routes linking Pakistan and Iran and you help spread the joy of cheap Chinese products. China may look to push India out, with a little help from the PAK ISI and their Taliban buddies.
 
Surely the US and UK ( and other NATO countries) could keep a modest force in Afghanistan? If every country kept a relatively small number of troops there, the Taliban could be kept at bay?
Wouldn’t that be the better solution rather than having a massive refugee crisis, let alone having the Taliban have a free run...
 

exspy

LE
Surely the US and UK ( and other NATO countries) could keep a modest force in Afghanistan? If every country kept a relatively small number of troops there, the Taliban could be kept at bay?
Wouldn’t that be the better solution rather than having a massive refugee crisis, let alone having the Taliban have a free run...

1) Twenty years of a full-scale US, UK and NATO presence could not keep the Taliban at bay.
2) The Taliban are having a free run. That's what happens when one side wins.
3) The fact that the airport in Kabul is open is only due to the Taliban allowing it.
4) The only thing keeping all those US, UK and other western nation troops at the airport alive, is the Taliban.
5) Why would the Taliban, who have won, allow those they defeated to keep a military presence in their country to keep them at bay?

The Afghanistan adventure is over. Nothing more to see here.
 
1) Twenty years of a full-scale US, UK and NATO presence could not keep the Taliban at bay.
2) The Taliban are having a free run. That's what happens when one side wins.
3) The fact that the airport in Kabul is open is only due to the Taliban allowing it.
4) The only thing keeping all those US, UK and other western nation troops at the airport alive, is the Taliban.
5) Why would the Taliban, who have won, allow those they defeated to keep a military presence in their country to keep them at bay?

The Afghanistan adventure is over. Nothing more to see here.

But I thought the Taliban were kept under control by NATO Forces?
 
Surely the US and UK ( and other NATO countries) could keep a modest force in Afghanistan? If every country kept a relatively small number of troops there, the Taliban could be kept at bay?
Wouldn’t that be the better solution rather than having a massive refugee crisis, let alone having the Taliban have a free run...
When you consider that in 2010 the USA alone had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, just how 'modest' a force do you believe it would require for the Taliban to 'be kept at bay', considering they currently control all but one of the provinces, all the major population centres, have all the LLOCs and are within small arms range of the one ALOC left in Western hands?
 

ACAB

LE
Surely the US and UK ( and other NATO countries) could keep a modest force in Afghanistan? If every country kept a relatively small number of troops there, the Taliban could be kept at bay?
Wouldn’t that be the better solution rather than having a massive refugee crisis, let alone having the Taliban have a free run...
You've obviously never been there. I have.

It would take a massive military presence.

Which we can't afford, for ever.
 
Sorry, my point is being missed.
Playing devils advocate here.
Wasn’t this ‘deal’ with the Taliban done when the US announced it was leaving Afghanistan?
Prior to this, the coalition forces were still operating effectively there, to a degree anyway?
Hasn’t this shit storm happened since the yanks announced their withdrawal?
 
Our presence denies the likes of Al Qaeda. Is it worth 5 British soldiers a year to save 250 British civilians a year?
Perhaps we need to defend our borders more efficently then and not allow the equivelent of a battalion sized group to land over our south coast beaches every day.
 
Perhaps we need to defend our borders more efficently then and not allow the equivelent of a battalion sized group to land over our south coast beaches every day.

Excellent point. What’s the point in securing our airports/ ferry ports if we’re letting god knows who arrive by dingy every day ?
The home office need to get a grip on this.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The old Afghan Thread is now locked but in a rare moment of Media Conjuction both the Mail and Guardian are leading with the same story tomorrow



Will link to stories when they become available online
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Hairy-boab

Old-Salt
Stories now live



This is an interesting story, which to my mind highlights the impossible task faced by government in today's media world.

I suppose that those planning/managing the evacuation had a list of priorities, which I speculate were something like:

1- Avoid scenes of total national humiliation, e.g. overrunning of the embassy, diplomatic staff dragged through the streets etc.

2- Avoid major loss of intelligence materials/assets to the Taliban/other foreign powers.

3- Avoid casualties to British troops.

4-Rescue as many British/allied nation citizens associated with diplomatic/military missions.

5- Pick up UK nationals who were floating around for weddings, charities etc.

6- Other (to include various charitable cases, foreign nationals etc).

Now, it looks to me that parts 1-5 were achieved pretty bloody remarkably. What might we say, about 90 % of the job well done?

However, what we see is well-meaning bien pensant 'whistle blowers' and media types absolutely slaying the government on #6. It also says a lot that somebody who got into the FCO after studying history immediately after graduating in 2018 would sacrifice their career like this. I tried (and failed) to get on the CS fast stream with significant relevant working experience. I wanted to do it to serve my country, not for five minutes of fame.

People need to get some ******* perspective IMV. And we need to stop appointing people to important jobs because they went to Oxford. That place is clearly no longer a source of reliable people for HMG.
 
Last edited:

Hairy-boab

Old-Salt
This is the little shit btw (already named/photo in media):

https://www.linkedin.com/in/raphael-marshall-605890102/?originalSubdomain=uk

His only qualifications are:

Degree in ancient and modern history (2018)
  • Best Speaker in the World and Grand Finalist, World Universities Debating Championships 2017
  • Chief Adjudicator of around 40 Debating Competitions.
What the actual **** are they smoking in the FCO to put somebody like this in a position of responsibility? Oh right, I forgot, Oxford...
 

GDog

Old-Salt
Now, it looks to me that parts 1-5 were achieved pretty bloody remarkably. What might we say, about 90 % of the job well done?
The entire event was a humiliating shit-show and trying to pretend otherwise doesn't do anybody any favours.

On point 1 I would argue that the failure to secure the runway during a takeoff - leading to scenes of people falling to their deaths over Kabul - was humiliation enough.

On 2 we have left behind God knows how many HUMINT assets and the embassy left CVs and local staff contact details lying around the office to be found by the Taliban, when it should have been disposed of as part of a STRAP destruction plan.

On points 4 & 5 we could only evacuate a fraction of what we should have done due to time and capacity constraints that were at least partially self-imposed and were known about months in advance.

I don't say this to denigrate the people working incredibly hard in impossible conditions during the withdrawal, but it does irritate me to see a situation that should never have happened in the first place get described as "90% of the job well done".

A job well done wouldn't have involved a chaotic, last minute evacuation in the first place.
 
The entire event was a humiliating shit-show and trying to pretend otherwise doesn't do anybody any favours.

On point 1 I would argue that the failure to secure the runway during a takeoff - leading to scenes of people falling to their deaths over Kabul - was humiliation enough.


On 2 we have left behind God knows how many HUMINT assets and the embassy left CVs and local staff contact details lying around the office to be found by the Taliban, when it should have been disposed of as part of a STRAP destruction plan.

On points 4 & 5 we could only evacuate a fraction of what we should have done due to time and capacity constraints that were at least partially self-imposed and were known about months in advance.

I don't say this to denigrate the people working incredibly hard in impossible conditions during the withdrawal, but it does irritate me to see a situation that should never have happened in the first place get described as "90% of the job well done".

A job well done wouldn't have involved a chaotic, last minute evacuation in the first place.
Just on your point 1, it wasn't up to the military initially to secure the airport. We only had the North part with the Afghan civil side their responsibility. Of course once people started to hitch a lift on C17's that changed. RS/ISAF always trod a fine line in meddling with the Afghan way and wanted the Afghans to run themselves which included the airport.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top