Forum menu
Just to reply to big n daft the redwalls have not changed the centre of gravity in the Tory party they are no more than useful idiots.
No actual attempt will be made to deliver anything to them other than rhetoric. They will fade away over the next couple of GEs.
A few were asking where Blair was for his insight - just arrived - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58295384
So basically some retarded, bigoted knuckle draggers from a previous century have taken their country back.
Please don't bring up Brexit on this thread - we are trying to discuss Afghanistan.
Just another in the long list of countries who owe their existence to empire and colonialism and the practice of divide and rule.
Ehhhh - modern Afghanistan is a clear successor to the Durrani Empire of the 1700s. It's not a square drawn on a map over cigars. But in any case all states and borders are constructs. There are no "natural" countries (except maybe Iceland, and even then...)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire
The global stepchange since the end of WW2 has been slow but steady. The US is no longer the global enforcer
The citizens of democracies have limited appetites for foreign wars that make little to no sense on a human scale, have no clear goal, have no clear end point, and have no real "bad guys"., but still fill up endless hours of broadcast news It has also always been a requirement since the end of WW2 of the armies of democracies with volunteer armed forces to limit casualties and self-enforce "limited actions" on the battle field. The lesson that fails to be learned time and again from Korea onward is that armies can't be used like that and be successful.
Strange that it took Afghanistan to bring some of this into the light.
Replace Afghanistan with Korea, Vietnam, Malaya, Iraq...the list is endless.
The citizens of democracies have limited appetites for foreign wars that make little to no sense on a human scale
It's a common misconception that autocracies are strong and democracies weak, but democratic countries won WW1 and WW2. One interpretation of that is that leaders in democracies are constrained by popular opinion and democracies are more adaptable when things go wrong. By 1944, it was very obvious that Japan and Germany were doomed, but there was no way of changing leadership except by assassination. The British and American public (after Pearl Harbor) understood that WW2 was an existential fight, so leaders didn't have to persuade the public to support the war effort.
The problem for the U.S. now is that it is an unbelievably wealthy country and the public didn't have to make any real sacrifices for the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. There was no draft, so middle-class families didn't have to worry about their sons getting killed, and there was no rationing or economic shortages. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were genuinely brutish and cruel, so it was easy for people at home watching tv news to support humanitarian intervention without any real understanding of what was going on.
Politecameraaction,
Look at the map of the Durrani Empire you provided. It includes the Tribal lands of ****stan, going all the way down to the Indian Ocean...kind of makes my point.
When it comes to 'constructing' countries, the British Empire provided the instruction manual. A bit like IKEA, it all comes flat packed but when the various components get strewn about the floor and vital pieces get lost under the fridge the final product always ends up a bit wonky.
kind of makes my point.
No, it doesn't. Many borders change over time. Empires rise and fall. Afghanistan is a completely different proposition to the straight line bordered countries of the early and mid 20th century. Not everything happens with the Brits at the centre of the story.
kind of makes my point.
No, not really
Politecameraaction,
Stop being a clever dick. You know I'm generalizing, of course empires existed before the British.
My original point was about imposed borders interfering with tribal affiliations. The southern half of Afghanistan was ceded to the British Raj when the Durrand line was 'drawn' after the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war in the late 1800's, dividing the ethnic Pashtun and Baloch territories.
So the Brits we're the last people to define the borders of Southern Afghanistan, creating that rather troublesome and porous border with modern day ****stan.
kind of putting Britain at the centre of the (recent) story.
My original point was about imposed borders interfering with tribal affiliations.
Borders practically always end up splitting populations because very few populations are completely homogenous (Japan and Iceland are good counterexamples) and because identities are multilayered.
Stop being a clever dick.
ooooOOOOooooHHHHHhh!
No, not really
It kind of does though.
It’s a common misconception that autocracies are strong and democracies weak, but democratic countries won WW1 and WW2.
Soviet Union...
Just to reply to big n daft the redwalls have not changed the centre of gravity in the Tory party they are no more than useful idiots.
No actual attempt will be made to deliver anything to them other than rhetoric. They will fade away over the next couple of GEs.
Oh so very much this.
Some retired General Melchet character (Tim Cross) is on Five Live saying that 'we' should be summoning up the spirit of the Falklands and have British troops (or 'Our Brave Boys' as I believe they're now known) 'hold' the airport for a week or two after the Americans have pulled out, so they can rescue all the translators etc.
Erm... NURSE!!!.. he's off his medication again
It’s a common misconception that autocracies are strong and democracies weak, but democratic countries won WW1 and WW2
Yes agreed. I don't think that democracies are necessarily weak per se, it's that they have different pressures than dictatorial or repressive regimes do when it comes to war. One of those pressures is public opinion. The problem with comparing any modern conflict with ww2 is that it's probably unique as the high water mark for justifiable war that could be easily understood by just about everyone. Since then the wars that western democracies have tended to get involved with have at the very least either a vague strategic or resource element (Middle East, Afghanistan), or they tend to be limiting revolutionary demands and propping up rather distasteful and corrupt regimes (see Korea Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama etc etc.) these are not easy to understand, have vague outcomes, and are generally interdiction or guerilla based
Korea is a really good example for how all future wars would be fought in the nuclear age. MacArthur (admittedly a nutcase) wanted to chase the Chinese all the way over the Yalu, bombing the bridges and taking the fight to the them into China itself. Truman naturally thought this was madness from a global strategic sense, and so a pattern develops from there. Limited use of hugely powerful armies in containment actions. Never endling and never winnable. I doubt that lesson has even been learned even by this experience, history and evidence appears to say so as well
In an nutshell 🙂
The problem with comparing any modern conflict with ww2 is that it’s probably unique as the high water mark for justifiable war
Afghanistan had more justification than any other recent conflict. Only time Nato article 5 has been evoked, 90-0 senate vote, "endorsed" by the UN etc. It was thought to be an extremely necessary action at the time with great public support. Obviously it's ended in disaster but did start off with more legitimacy than anything in post WWI history.
Afghanistan had more justification than any other recent conflict.
I think the first Gulf War is an interesting example. Kuwait is as difficult to like as most of the rich oil states, but Saddam Hussein was worse, their was broad international support for kicking him out of Kuwait, the goals were limited just to that, not regime change and nation building. Whatever you think of George H. Bush, he wasn't stupid enough to get drawn into trying to impose democracy at gunpoint on a country that had no experience of it.
Obviously it’s ended in disaster but did start off with more legitimacy than anything in post WWI history.
Korean War was started by an unprovoked Northern invasion. It was similarly widely supported to begin with, and had arguably equal legitimacy. It just dawned on everyone that in order to "win" you had to take on the PLA in China, probably using nuclear weaponry. At that realisation, an "honourable" stalemate was always going to be the best (and only) option That pattern has repeated itself endlessly ever since. As thols2 points out; at least Bush Sr. had the good sense to not invade Iraq.
Afghanistan occupation failed because dealing with the two things that destabilize it; Corruption and ****stan are politically too difficult/inconvenient to resolve, Like in the Korea war, a "win" in Afghanistan would have involved at least the invasion of Northern Pashtun areas of ****stan in strength to take on the Taliban there as well.
At that realisation, an “honourable” stalemate was always going to be the best (and only) option
Well:
China's envoy to the UN said the US, UK, Australia and others "must be held accountable for the violation of human rights committed by their military".
Chen Xu told an emergency session of the Human Rights Council: "Under the banner of democracy and human rights the US and other countries carry out military interventions in other sovereign states and impose their own model on countries with vastly different history and culture."
He claimed this has brought "great suffering" to Afghanistan.
Somewhat ironic, but their intervention is only going to push Biden to harden his line.
Thats top trolling there from the Chinese.
They've obviously been taking some pointers from Putin
Next stop Taiwan then, eh?
At the risk of being cynical, what makes you think that this is not at least part of the Chinese end game?
They know there are a tonne of minerals in the country and that the heroin goes to western nations where it causes a problem. They can afford to be generous and make the right noises, maybe build some bridges or a dam, get some contracts, pay off the right people. Claiming war crimes (possibly quite honestly) against NATO might even be broadly true given evidence like SEAL Team 6 and some of the shit that the Australian SAS got up to, so it has a ring of truth to people that got bombed, then abandoned. Soft power and good marketing...
Inside the velvet glove though, the Chinese Communist Party _know_ that they have the capability to suppress any outcry within their own borders, they can also suppress things at the UN if they need to. They could send in thousands of troops to protect their investments (if/when they happen) and not care about individual lives if it pushed China into a more powerful position. Democratic nations and NATO might care about losing soldiers, does China? They harvest organs from prisoners and are trying to breed out of existence an entire ethnicity.
Excellent summary of Trump's deal
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1430049853569216514?s=20
Well worth watching.
Foreign Office ignored frantic pleas to help Afghans
Thousands of urgent messages from MPs and charities had not been read by the end of the UK evacuation from Afghanistan
“They cannot possibly know [how many people have been left behind] because they haven’t even read the emails. Even among those who’ve been registered, many have been left behind. But there’s also a much, much larger group of people who just haven’t been dealt with at all.”
/blockquote>
Someone noticed!
If it had been a different govt in power it would have just been a different set of "cretins" to blame.
It's always the fault of the person you hate the most.
ooooh the ninfan rap
Right, let’s move away from Johnson and Raab. Everyone knows they are both utterly unsuitable for the more important aspects of their jobs, even their supporters, it’s one of the reason they like them. Let’s look more widely at the mess we (mostly the USA really, let’s face it) are leaving behind…
https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/taliban-kill-squad-hunting-afghans-with-americas-biometric-data/
Taliban kill squad hunting down Afghans — using US biometric data
The Taliban has mobilized a special unit, called Al Isha, to hunt down Afghans who helped US and allied forces — and it’s using US equipment and data to do it.
Nawazuddin Haqqani, one of the brigade commanders over the Al Isha unit, bragged in an interview with Zenger News that his unit is using US-made hand-held scanners to tap into a massive US-built biometric database and positively identify any person who helped the NATO allies or worked with Indian intelligence. Afghans who try to deny or minimize their role will find themselves contradicted by the detailed computer records that the US left behind in its frenzied withdrawal.
Right, let’s move away from Johnson and Raab. Everyone knows they are both utterly unsuitable for the more important aspects of their jobs, even their supporters,
Unsuitable for any aspect of their role. And no you can’t just move away from them. They are responsible. It’s what their role is. Brads is wrong, it is clear that the Tories have been particularly wanting in their response. They’ve been in power for years. This is entirely of Tory making. And neither can you just blame the USA. The bottom line is that the U.K. and Tory Westminster has been an enabler of a failed US foreign policy that encompasses Afghanistan and Iraq.
Simply saying it’s the big kid what made me do it is frankly the sign of a weak and useless government.
Brads is wrong, it is clear that the Tories have been particularly wanting in their response. They’ve been in power for years. This is entirely of Tory making. And neither can you just blame the USA.
In the 20 years of the latest Afghan war there has been approximately 4 years of Tory majority government.
Furthermore more whilst the Tories might have been fully supportive of the decision to go to war in Afghanistan they were not the government at the time that the decision was made.
To blame the Tories "entirely" is not just frankly ridiculous but it also provides no constructive basis to learn lessons from what has proved to have been one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of recent times.
Trillions spent on a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of brown people and left the "enemy" in the same position as they were 20 years previously, except significantly stronger.
This isn't the 19th century ffs, you can't restrict your criticism to the logistical failures of the war.
And btw Kelvin saying :
"Let’s look more widely at the mess we (mostly the USA really, let’s face it) are leaving behind…"
Isn't the same as "just" blaming the USA.
Is it just me that is delighted to find out the head of the US Army overseeing the mission is Ken McKenzie
Preposterous!
Popping a bit of positivity into this thread:
https://twitter.com/bbcyaldahakim/status/1432003264396992520?s=21
Dover Dom has just been on R4 where he quietly and surreptitiously as possible threw the UK intelligence services under the bus and dismissed the accusations of retired senior military officers as false. Whilst painting the FO as a paragon of foresight and sympathy.
It would be lovely if a few of the chaps were to start having chats about whether some footage of Dover Dom could be rustled up or if some of those apparently disappeared WhatsApp messages could be un-disappeared.
C'mon lads, he's called you liars and incompetents - do him over.
Just saw the American's working dogs behind left behind in one of the newspaper DailyM ... this boil my urine.
To blame the Tories “entirely” is not just frankly ridiculous but it also provides no constructive basis to learn lessons from what has proved to have been one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of recent times.
No surprise there for blaming the Tories from certain people.
Blame seems to be the bigger interest at the minute, and it seems strangely round and round the houses, perhaps because this started with 911 and Bush, and the UK under Blair, and passed through several US and UK governments, Trump was the genius that negotiated and signed the deal..not with the Afghan government but with..er..the Taliban that they spent 20 years and a trillion dollars trying to get rid of(is it only me that finds that perverse?) and Biden seems to want to carry the can.
That's just about all of us, no excuses, we all voted for one of them and they all fkd it, some well meaning, some just for political kicks, the responsibility is with 'the West' now because we all had a hand in it, we all paid tax to crush the Arab spring at some point, blaming one or other US president or political party is avoiding the inconvenient truth, we did it and our governments managed it so badly it didn't achieve it's goal for more than a week.
So rather than waste bandwidth predictably arguing which of our various arch political enemies are to blame, consider for a moment why we vote and enable our leaders to play with peoples lives.
In the 20 years of the latest Afghan war there has been approximately 4 years of Tory majority government.
And many more years of tory based coalitions. Its disingenuous of you to keep on saying this one - yes the DUP and Limp dems have some responsibility but its mainly the tories
Edit - and the last 5 years of blair / brown was also a right of centre government
This year will be the 20th anniversary of 9/11, i suspect the commemorations will be even more solemn than in previous years considering we are now essentially back where we started. What a sad tragic waste across the board.
And many more years of tory based coalitions. Its disingenuous of you to keep on saying this one
So in the last 20 years there have been Labour governments about half the time. Its a bit disingenuous to keep denying that.
Blaming the Tories entirely for the mess that is Afghanistan is ridiculous.
And learning the lessons of a failed war which achieved almost nothing and yet cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people is important. Although not for everyone.