"Why we will lose in AFG"

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Rumpelstiltskin, Nov 16, 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. More sh1t from the Booker-North axis of idiocy in the Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6570380/Why-we-will-lose-in-Afghanistan.html

    A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing... Having learned that- guess what?- they have tribes and sh1t in Afghanistan- North/Booker then propound an outmoded, staggeringly facile argument that the Durranis are the 'good Pashtuns' and the Ghilzais the naughty, Talibanny ones.

    For a taste of the more complex reality, see:

    http://www.registan.net/index.php/2008/07/15/the-myth-of-taliban-tribalism/

    http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/papers/19weapons.pdf


    Edit: Richard North, you are a fcuking idiot. Stop talking. You're doing more harm than good.
     
  2. Sh1te how? Is it factually incorrect? (I'm no expert on Afghan history)

    I hestitate to argue with the headline, I think he's right in that we won't/can't win. Thats not me being pessimistic, thats me being realistic.

    If the goal was to give the Taliban a kicking, then we've done it and we should leave. Surely its cheaper in men and material to go back every 3/4 years and kick them again rather than set up shop perminently (as we have done).

    What is it now, 8 years, and no real democracy established? I've said it before and i'll say it again - you can't force democracy on a country, they have to choose it and they have to defend it.

    The real fact of the matter is the UK has spent billions in Afghan, on the basis of protecting UK citizens, because of one undefendible al-Qaeda attack that killed 56 people on 7/7.

    Do you honestly think we're winning?

    A macabe thought springs to mind, but if you translated this into say a government policy of our involvement in Afghan as an insurance against future attacks... does the premium match the cover? I don't think so.

    TB
     
  3. At work, so I can't give this the detailed answer I ought to; apologies for any seeming abruptness...

     
  4. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

  5. ^ I'll believe it when I see it.
     
  6. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    SNIP
    What is it now, 8 years, and no real democracy established? I've said it before and i'll say it again - you can't force democracy on a country, they have to choose it and they have to defend it.
    SNIP

    Hmmm, there is post-1945 Germany and Japan...

    SNIP
    A macabe thought springs to mind, but if you translated this into say a government policy of our involvement in Afghan as an insurance against future attacks... does the premium match the cover? I don't think so.
    SNIP

    An interesting analogy, regardless of whether you price the premium in blood or gold.

    To put it another way: I think the UK stands to lose more soldiers on the ground in Helmand than we have lost/stand to lose in any Al Queda-related terrorist attack.

    As for getting out next year:
    If the PM is setting an exit STRATEGY (ie setting forth the conditions to be met for an exit): Great
    If the PM is setting forth the TIMING of an exit (regardless of conditions): It is another Basra-style humiliation.
     
  7. Either way, given the now inexplicable (militarily if not politically) delay in getting a decision out of the White House, I would not be surprised if the US will not be trying to beat you to the door.