Well Done Obama, Well Done Cameron

#1
The BBCs John Simpson has just spoken to the spokesman for the Taliban in Afghanistan. The turnbaned one said

"Why should we talk if we have the upper hand, and the foreign troops are considering withdrawal, and there are differences in the ranks of our enemies"

Many thanks to our leaders for giving succor to the enemy.



Big topic on the Beeb now.
 
#2
What a surprise.

The Taliban guess correctly - based on the overwhelming stream of whiney, defeatist shite coming form the Western media - that NATO/ISAF (or more correctly their political masters) don't have the stomach for the fight and are falling over each other to 'lay down a timetable for withdrawal' (i.e. cut and run), so they rightly decide that negotiations would be pointless. From their point of view it's a no-brainer - they have time on their side.

When are the politicians going to learn that telling the enemy you cannot wait to leave is idiotic?
 
#3
gallowglass said:
When are the politicians going to learn that telling the enemy you cannot wait to leave is idiotic?
when they care more about peoples lives than about votes.
 
#4
Proper_Gander said:
gallowglass said:
When are the politicians going to learn that telling the enemy you cannot wait to leave is idiotic?
when they care more about peoples lives than about votes.
Ah yes, DEMOCRACY, that's what this is all about...apparently. I hope the dead appreciate the irony.
 
#5
It's not just the media, is it. There's an enormous chunk of public opinion that would like to see troops withdraw. And the troops come from democratic countries so their political leaders begin to see chinks in their electoral armour when public support falters.

I find it ironic that the public has such little stomach for our actions. The military machine isn't falling apart in Afghanistan, and the public, on the home front, don't actually have to "stomach" the war at all.
 
#6
Hot-Crumpet said:
the public, on the home front, don't actually have to "stomach" the war at all.
the public don't want people killing eachother to make rich people richer.
 
#7
Proper_Gander said:
Hot-Crumpet said:
the public, on the home front, don't actually have to "stomach" the war at all.
the public don't want people killing eachother to make rich people richer.
er....the public don't want muslim terrorists murdering people either.

Please explain how a taliban suicide bomber killing people makes a rich person richer ?

Please explain how security forces killing a suicide bomber makes a rich person richer ?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#8
Nor do they truely wish to do anything for the truely benighted of the world, they only pay lipservice to it: when it comes to doing anything proactive they run away saying its not their responsibility, feckin hypocrites.
 
#9
Politicians - who would trust them eh?

What was that last bit of paid emplyment you tried to get Whet? Oh that's right - elected local politician!

Did any politicians stand on a principled ticket of "we will stand firm for what is right and fight until the job is done"? Clegg, Broone, Cameron, Salmond, Griffin, whoever is claiming to lead UKIP? Nope - none of them have moral courage, just an eye on the latest opinion polls. Hasn't it ever been thus?
 
#11
'Winning' in Afghanistan doesnt really lie in either the US or UKs best interests, the costs and scale of losses needed for such a victory far far far outweighs any possible security risk offset or importantly the moral victory of creating a state in a country that doesn't want one.

There is no longer the political capital to sustain a war, nor is there sufficient military resource in a cash strapped economy.

Leave the savages to their self-imposed orthodox fate and smash AQ, the actual enemy, where ever they pop up.

There is no moral courage for winning in afghanistan, such statements fit the crass patriotic jingoism of the Yanks but we British have always had a rational eye for war. We don't even have the motivation of protecting our Indian interests and holdings, we have an ephemeral domestic security threat which has largely moved elsewhere AND worries about Pakistan's security. Which as a country which is involved in its own civil war and is largely orchestrating the enemy in Afghanistan I say leave them to it and wait for the Indians to sort it out.
 
#12
No_Duff said:
Proper_Gander said:
Hot-Crumpet said:
the public, on the home front, don't actually have to "stomach" the war at all.
the public don't want people killing eachother to make rich people richer.
er....the public don't want muslim terrorists murdering people either.

Please explain how a taliban suicide bomber killing people makes a rich person richer ?

Please explain how security forces killing a suicide bomber makes a rich person richer ?
Sadly the Islamic terrorist threat comes from much closer than Afghanistan. Our own cities.
Not many people believe that war in Afghaistan makes the UK a safer place.

Just this once I find myself in areement with Whet, both Obama and Cameron are showing a great deall of stupidity on this.
 
#13
No_Duff said:
Please explain how security forces killing a suicide bomber makes a rich person richer ?
2 words; arms industry

not to forget oil and gas

Kitmarlowe said:
Proper_Gander said:
gallowglass said:
When are the politicians going to learn that telling the enemy you cannot wait to leave is idiotic?
when they care more about peoples votes than about lives.
Fixed that for you....
whoops that's what i meant!
 
#14
I would disagree with Jag and Whet though, Obama is clearly trying to snap the Karzi administration out of its malaise at best, at worst its a rallying call to the Northern Alliance to get ready to give the Pashtun a bloody big slap when ISAF pulls out.

In the end we cocked up trying to get the Pashtun involved when we should have just supported the Northern Alliance to the detriment of the Taliban south. Divide and Conquer would fit far more succesful models for victory in Afghanistan than the 'Comprehensive approach'. Also it gives an internal enemy to focus on - not sure how well abusing ethnic and tribal politics would go down in the West though.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
ASICarrot said:
I would disagree with Jag and Whet though, Obama is clearly trying to snap the Karzi administration out of its malaise at best, at worst its a rallying call to the Northern Alliance to get ready to give the Pashtun a bloody big slap when ISAF pulls out.

In the end we cocked up trying to get the Pashtun involved when we should have just supported the Northern Alliance to the detriment of the Taliban areas. Divide and Conquer would fit far more succesful models for victory in Afghanistan than the 'Comprehensive approach'.
You may have point there ASI, worked for us in the past. Hit & Run.
 
#16
Imperial Victories, especially in India were very much more about protecting interests than any lasting 'moral' victory. If we had the approach of just smashing the place up every time it got uppity then we would be in and out quick fast.

But that is essentially what Hague and co have been saying is new British policy since day 1 of the coalition, democratic state building is dead and buried for at least the next parliament so Cameron is more than right in saying we are leaving as our only real cemented goal in Afghan (the destruction of AQ) is pretty much done. It will probably save lives as the Tb dig in in N. Pak and wait for us to leave.

We are still caught up on the mindset of the WWII 'good war' with the post war rebuilding of Europe to create a democratic future for all blah blah. The only reason that took place AND Worked was because Europe was a ****ing huge market for American goods which they needed as they ramped down wartime over production and surplus.

Our entire mindset has been****ed by that mad Papist Blair and his failed policies of liberal interventionalism.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
But leaves us open for my plan in Somaliland, which could be entertaining:

Recognise independence,

Ohh ta new Naval Base at Berbera, control the straits, easy to strike into Somalia proper and Yemen. That's where the buggers are hiding now.
 
#18
Cameron needs to articulate the mission in Afghanistan; he needs to link this with denying the terrorist the opportunity to strike the UK and he needs to justify the mission. The vast majority (I suspect) of the people in this country have absolutely no idea what the obj is, what the msn is and how it is going to be achieved. Actually, I sometimes wonder whether our politicians know why

The Msn: ISAF, in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.

Does Obama really believe that ISAF can leave the Afghan govt capable of maintaining a a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population within five years? If 120,000 US led soldiers are struggling with an insurgency, I doubt an unsophisticated Afghan army will be confident and resourced sufficiently to meet this insurgency in the next five years.

Winning is difficult to define or quantify and is probably the wrong phraseology in this context, but, by laying out a timetable for withdrawal the politician potentially increases the will of the insurgent to continue through the current phase. Five years to the Taliban is but an Afghan interlude in the constant struggle (as they see it) against foreign invaders. Why would the Taliban talk, why not wait until the British and American populous force the hand of the politician to leave a vacuum in afghanistan that Karzai and his successors will be unable to fill.
 
#19
The problem is, that mission is complete bollocks. The South Vietnamese were utterly defeated with the discontinuation of overwhelming US air superiority - the NVA were re-armed by China and back in the fight after their drubbing during the Tet Offesnive. With the Taliban recieving backing and support from the ISI all our ongoing efforts are similarly for naught in the long term.

Similar approaches in conflicts with invested third parties have never been succesful without significant standing forces in country.

Cameron is quite right to refocus the mission on leaving as quickly as bloody possible.

The amount of dead and broken men (including several of my closest friends) is shocking, but the blood and shame are not Cameron's and he should not reinforce failure.
 
#20
-How is this any different from any other previous attempt to intervene in Afghanistan?Can any one honestly say that the majority of Afghans are committed to the same (albeit vague) objectives that the U.S. and 'Coalition Partners' claim to have for the future of their country?The people of the U.K. still number some who fought a war for survival against incredible odds while sustaining terrible losses, and then rebuilt their country.That's why many feel the cost of each and every death and injury our troops incur in our name.While I hope Afghanistan finds its way to prosperity I can not see why this should be paid for with the lives and futures of our soldiers.It will be humiliating not to 'win' but is success possible?If it is not then why waste one more drop of blood?The world has become a much more dangerous place in the 21st. Century and we as a nation will need all our military assets to secure our own future.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top