Since there seems to be an ethical debate on why we are there, the question that some of those who think we should pull out is what happens to the Afghan population after we leave and will your ethical stance be able to accommodate that.

Before you answer, you may need to get off your high horses first.

They are there to do a job, good one too, so that you can sit comfortably at home watching Hammer Horror. (why or why they have to show it so late at night?)

Imagine if Pakistan falls because their neighbour starts to attack them for the nuclear weapons, then everyone will regrets doing nothing.

The soldiers fall NOT only for you but for people all around that region. Even if you do not want the soldiers to fight in your name at least consider the possibility of a war in that region which will result in more people dying.

When i served there in 2001.2002, 2004 and 2006 i believed and still do that the aim was to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, you know the type that flies jets into buildings and blows up busses and underground trains because they think our culture is wrong, please excuse me but do some people not realise the link between training camps in AFG, Pakistan and these events, oh and to really hit home at the PC lot i get wound up when some "innocent" guy detained in AFG who was on a cultural trek, visiting relatives, went to get married, got lost in Pakistan and found himself in AFG complains that his 4 years in Gitmo were not nice, correct answer pal, and it is not nice to leave a country like the UK that supported you through education, health etc and return to a country that preaches it is right to lop of heads of people that dont live their lives the way you think we should and it is not nice that you beat/rape/abuse/disfigure (insert as applicable) your women as a matter of course or prevent girls from going to school and slit their throats if they defy your wish, or maim young kids because they steal bread by driving trucks over their arms or by slashing their tendons, they steal because they are hungry because you think growing Poppies is far better than growing wheat because it funds your activities and buys you favours with your corrupt Government pals.

It is also no coincidence that 90% of the heroin that winds up in Europe comes from AFG the money from that crop alone basically finances the Taliban (war lords, Governers, President, Police Chiefs and anybody else who can get there stinking mitts on it, 90% of the crime in the UK is drugs related another reason to be there IMO, Solution, i did my 22 yrs and when i left AFG was to me the new Northern Ireland but with greater losses, in that any Military person now will complete multiple tours of the Operational Area, this one will run on and on but if we let them run riot again over there we will not have the Intel links that are now winning the conflict and preventing jets and trains and busses from fragmenting all over our streets. I cannot see a solution in the short / medium term, places in AFG are like the Iron ages it took us hundreds of years to change from barbaric practices to what we determine civilised so we are there for the long haul.

Deaths of our troops or any other nations troops get me, i have carried a bloke off a plane at Lyneham, not nice but if you look back in history tell me a year when this country was not involved in conflict since WW 2, Malaya, Borneo, Palestine, Aden, Oman …..and some we dont know about yet.

All i ask is that we support the Military but remember they are there because the politicans failed.

Its an fight that will never be won as its not war in the conventional manner. Think on the lines of Vietnam and Northern Ireland, conventional wisdom of a force on force action does not work hence why moderate taliban are being bought to the negotiating table.

If WMD's being in the hands of unstable governments with dubious human rights records is the issue here (the post about taliban moving into Pakistan) then why have we not invaded North Korea, Iran, India, China and Pakistan?

Genesis – I suspect your answer relies on the fact that North K, India, China, Pakistan may have WMDs but have not directly flown planes into towers etc but prefer to indirectly back other countries to do it for them. It would seem once you step out of the crease you become fair game.

I left Iran of that list, i suspect they may get an arse slapping before too long. Israel has just bought a shed load of the US latest bunker busting kit and fitted it to their bombers.

There's a whole different can of worms, Israel.

As for state sponsored 'indescretions' we've all been at it both East and West for years with black ops I mean just look at the work the Det did in Ireland, CIA with the Contras and the Taliban, the Russians with the IRA…..

Oh and I forgot, the Yanks raising money for their freedom fighting brothers in Ireland.

You join the forces to serve. You dont get a say or a choice where you serve and you cant question commands.

Spineless Politicians should be lined against a wall and shot.

Gordon said in his speech that 3/4's of the terrorist plots against the UK enemaniate from within the Afghan/Pakistan region. Is this WMD again Gordon? Plus, if you have an occupying force within a country of course its going to make the occupiers homeland a legitimate target sadly.

Tony Ben said it best. 39 countries and 8 yrs have not defeated such a small force as the Taleban. We never will.

having just spent 2 months in tajikistan, a politically unstable, mildly islamic country on AFGs boarder, which is suffering from islamic fundamental terrorist attacks, the spread of the taliban is and will greatly affect the area.
the southern boarder is relatively heavily guarded, despite this 80% of AFGs heroin leaks through (incredibly corrupt state). the semi-autonomous GBAO region in the pamir mountains, near the wakhan corridor has areas closed to foreigners, where currenty the tajik army are fighting taliban backed islamist forces, including recently the head of one of the groups which was accountaible fr some of the worst atrocities in the civil war 10 years ago.
while i was in dushanbe there were 3 bomb attacks supposedly done bu the IMU (islamic movement of uzbekistan) which i believe has links to the taliban. and many people there i spoke to believe that there will be a 2nd civil war within 2 years, thanks to the spread of fanatical islamic groups.

which would be a real shame given how messed up the country is already.

imo the war in AFG has much more sensible reasons than the iraq war. IF the taliban were left to their own devices they would spread further into pakistan, further destabalising the pakistan/india relationship. thats not good. neither would their spread into other central asian countries such as tajikistan. these countries are poor and hungry, with bad infrastructure – its a perfect breeding ground for extremism. people don't benefit from the spread of the taliban, not the international community nor the internal population.
imo those are the reasons why i support the war against them.

Genesis – Your right but that is just the tip of the iceberg is the stuff you mention.

Hungry Monkey agree 100% with you.

All i ask is that we support the Military

I would suggest it were more sensible for no one at all to support the military, then the politicians would have to fight it out between each other – though I suppose it does act as a kind of asylum for people who like fighting and shooting and wearing uniforms…

hungry monkey the Taleban governed Afghanistan from 96-01. Were they expanding then as well? Who was instrumental in overthrowing them? A mix of powerful warlords? Are Warlords still present in Afghanistan now? Prospering from war and corruption?

SFB. Yes, support our military but target the Politicians with your views.

Gordon said in his speech that 3/4's of the terrorist plots against the UK enemaniate from within the Afghan/Pakistan region.

If that's true, why don't we pull out of Afghanistan/Pakistan, and use the troops to secure our borders? If terrorists don't get into the country then they can't cause havoc, and our soldiers have a good chance of staying alive.

SFB – That asylum as you put it allows you the freedom to post drivel on the internet, ride your bike where you want to and take photos where and when you see fit, it also means you dont have to go and wear uniform, you should be grateful mate

it also means you dont have to go and wear uniform

you'd have to shoot me first 🙂

Thinking back to the Peterloo Massacre commemorated last weekend, I think the military just serve whoever will pay them…

Funny how the poppies still get through to the UK though. Guess thats down to the corrupt Afghan Government and the numerous and powerful Warlords again.

The Taliban tried banning Poppy production. The Warlords werent happy with that. Its nice having an enemy that you can name as 'The Taliban'. Gives you an enemy and the voters at home a label. Something evil. When in reality there are many evils within Afghanistan competing for control with our troops trying to create/maintain order with crap equipment, promises and soundbites from Politicians who really care? Look at the treatment of returning soldiers.

Thinking back to the Peterloo Massacre commemorated last weekend, I think the military just serve whoever will pay them…

Soldiers don't have a choice. Remember, there are two names on the WWI memorial in Manchester Victoria station who were shot for desertion/cowardice.

somonfbarnes – Good for you. Sit up there on your high horse and judge that all people in the military are looking for a scrap and therefor shouldnt be supported. What a cosy little life you must have.

My 12 years in the Royal Marines was the best thing i have ever done in my life and turned me from a bit of a muppet into someone who without blowing my own trumpet is doing very well in life. And i thank the military for giving me that.

Sit up there on your high horse and judge that all people in the military are looking for a scrap and therefor shouldnt be supported

that was partly a joke, my real criticism is that there's no point being brave and self sacrificing if your actions just support corrupt governments and/or make the situation worse

Since there seems to be an ethical debate on why we are there, the question that some of those who think we should pull out is what happens to the Afghan population after we leave and will your ethical stance be able to accommodate that.

Honestly? I don't really care any more.

I cannot see a solution in the short / medium term, places in AFG are like the Iron ages it took us hundreds of years to change from barbaric practices to what we determine civilised so we are there for the long haul.

That bit I DEFINITELY agree with. For that reason we will never win.

if they didn't want to expand, how would you explain their activities in pakistan etc?

They are fighting to distract people from the real problems at home, like an incompetent government and failed economy. Sadly the next one will be no better.

hungry monkey, displacement.

Honestly? I don't really care any more.

But cared just enough to post that you don't care on a thread with a subject that you don't care about.

Jolly good.

They are fighting to distract people from the real problems at home, like an incompetent government and failed economy.

This thread would be incomplete without a moronic statement like this.

El-bent:- my answer is that I don't care about what happens to the people of Afghanistan. I do, however, care about the soldiers and their families who are suffering every day for what is becoming more and more clear is a pointless and un-winnable war.

But cared just enough to post that you don't care on a thread with a subject that you don't care about.

flaperon provided enough context to indicate he/she didn't care about the fate of the Afghans post withdrawal, which isn't the same thing as not caring about the topic.

One may be appalled by the way people in other countries (or this one for that matter) treat each other but treating them even worse is unlikely to improve the situation 🙁

If that's true, why don't we pull out of Afghanistan/Pakistan, and use the troops to secure our borders? If terrorists don't get into the country then they can't cause havoc, and our soldiers have a good chance of staying alive.

While I don't pretend to be any kind of military strategist, surely it's better to take the fight to the other side than fight a defensive war on your own doorstep?

I'd imagine that our military presence in Afghanistan ties up an awful lot of fundamentalist man power on the ground. Man power that would otherwise be winging its way over here to blow up targets in the UK.

As selfish as it sounds, I'd much rather the bloodshed was on a foreign shore. Sure the odd attack is going to take place in the UK still, but better one or two in eight years than one a week for eight years……

Man power that would otherwise be winging its way over here to blow up targets in the UK

ever hear of paranoia ?

Can we make a distinction here.

Thinking you dont want involvement/our troops in Afghanistan is in no way being unpatriotic or disliking Soldiers. OK?

heres my solution to the problem

legalise heroin,give it on prescription to the junkies
government buys it from the big medicianal suppliers like australia

afgahn warlords/ taliban stop getting money and cant fund their war

added bonus of drug related crime in the UK dropping too

flaperon provided enough context to indicate he/she didn't care about the fate of the Afghans post withdrawal, which isn't the same thing as not caring about the topic.

The point I've been making, which still has not been answered by the likes of you is what happens after we leave. No one from the lets leave camp has answered what the consequences will be, but are quite happy to go on about the circumstances of the events that have lead us back into Afghanistan.

One may be appalled by the way people in other countries (or this one for that matter) treat each other but treating them even worse is unlikely to improve the situation

Eh? Treating them worse than the Taliban?

I do, however, care about the soldiers and their families who are suffering every day for what is becoming more and more clear is a pointless and un-winnable war.

Erm, they are soldiers. They and their families knew that by joining up that they could be involved in conflict. What I've said sounds cold and callous, but that's reality.

Pointless? Those soldiers deaths would be more pointless if we leave and let the Taliban back into control again. As for un-winnable…depends on what would be classed as a victory, and it appears no one has the foggiest idea what that is.

I can remember talking on the phone to a friend in the States just before the "coalition" went into Afghanistan and wondering what would happen after the population had been "liberated". He was ever so uncomfortable about the conversation and how long it would be before he had a visit from a concerned person (how paranoid is that for a free country? although it was at about the time of oxymoronic talk of freedom fries).
In Afghanistan as far as I can see we're reaping what we sowed in the 80s and as far as where the real probelem is coming from I'd suggest looking closer to Saudi than anywhere else. obviously Pakistan is a bit worrying with their links with north Korea and selling of nuclear technology – but that's the way it goes.
I'm just sorry for all the families of British servicemen dying for a conflict which has had little or no effect on what it was supposed to be countering.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7883532.stm

you'd have to shoot me first

And interestingly in many countries including Afghanistan that would be a distinct possibility in the cirumstances. As the man said you have the freedom to muppetise wherever and whenever you please.

I don't pretend to understand the full scope of the issues that we are up against, nor the logic behind them, and I'm guessing that we won't know the full 9 yards for at least 50 years if ever. One thing however that I am totally certain of, is that the purpose of the Taleban tactics is to undermine the morale and the will to fight of not only the soldiers on the ground, but the public back home. Seems to me reading the above that they are having much more success on the home front than with the Squaddies on the front line.

Interesting enough I was listening to an article on Radio 5 Live this morning in respect of a wounded scot who was opening the new rehab unit in Edinburgh. He pretty much verbatim said what I said as to the squaddies doing their job, thats what they've been trained for and so forth. When pushed about the overall politics and rights and wrongs he responded with "thats way above my pay scale". Good line and sums it up pretty well. Suspect the same is true for a lot of the contributors to this thread…… including me incidentally.

el-bent Pointless? Those soldiers deaths would be more pointless if we leave and let the Taliban back into control again. As for un-winnable…depends on what would be classed as a victory, and it appears no one has the foggiest idea what that is.

Here is another success story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8192669.stm

Thank you for that link hora ( this one )
It's definitely the most useful contribution to this thread so far imo.

Although I fail to understand how the BBC can claim on the one hand, that in September '79 the Afghan president, quote : "Requests for large numbers of Soviet forces to combat the growing insurgency continue under Amin's administration", and then on the other, that in December the Soviet Union, quote : "decides to invade". Why is it an invasion – if the government of one country asks another to send combat troops ? 😕

Still never mind, it's pretty accurate chronology of key events. Although by far the most important one imo, is the last one :

1989 15 February: The USSR announces the departure of the last Soviet troops……. Civil war continues as the mujahideen push to overthrow Najibullah, who is eventually toppled in 1992.

This is hugely important because it speaks volumes about the political situation in Afghanistan at the time. It shows that despite receiving no further help and assistance from the Soviet Union, and facing an enemy heavily financed and armed to the teeth with some of the most advanced weaponry available in the world, Najibullah's secular government was able to remain in power for over 3 years.

It has been expected that Najibullah's government would collapse the moment that Soviet troops withdrew. But although the mujahideen controlled vast areas of the countryside, all the major Afghan cities remained in government hands for several years. This could only have been possible if Najibullah's secular government enjoyed widespread support amongst the Afghan population.

I have no doubt that if the corrupt Afghan government which we are now propping up in Kabul suddenly had to stand on it's own two feet, it wouldn't last 3 months – never mind 3 years. Which is precisely why we must stay and prop it up.

If instead of doing everything at our disposal to undermine and overthrow it, we had supported Mohammad Najibullah goverment's attempt to build a modern progressive society in which all it's citizens received basic rights such education and healthcare (we supported the mujahideen when it attacked schools teaching girls) today Afghanistan might be a stable secular country, instead of being one ruled by corrupt warlords, drug dealers, and religious lunatics.

It's all history and totally irrelevant now, you might argue. It isn't, the lessons are there to be learnt – still we are making the same mistakes.

.

btw, despite being eventually overthrown by the mujahideen, Najibullah was, surprisingly, allowed to live freely in Kabul – no attempt was made to even arrest him. When Kabul fell to the Taliban about 4 years later, the Taliban beat Najibullah to death and hung his bloody body from traffic lights in the centre of Kabul. An act which drew widespread condemnation not only from the Muslim world, but also from his close ally India. And an act which we are, at least partially, responsible for.

Here is another success story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8192669.stm

Here you go Hora, a little bit of news as well. It's an older article, but one like many others that don't get the headlines because it's not bad news, but shows the effort going into rebuilding.

A good article and good for the morale for the families where the Regiment comes from.

ernie_lynch, its tenous but possible to draw at least a basic comparison between the South Vietnamese government supported by the US in the Vietnam war? Werent they also corrupt to the eyeballs with a (perceived) weak SVietnemese army trained by the US?

I've been reading an interview with Ed Butler, recently retired commander of British forces in Afghanistan. He said he thought British forces would have to stay in Afghanistan for 10 or 20 years to "prevent the direct threat of al-Qaeda launching an operation from Afghanistan" (presumably against the UK). But I wonder how he knows this and suspect it's more of a guess. Wouldn't it be much cheaper to exchange the certainty of death or traumatisation to British troops and "unfortunate collateral damage" for the unknown risk of zero or more terrorist casualties in this country ? What better way to support the troops than to remove them from harm's way ? The recent terrorist bombing in this country was carried out by British citizens, not Afghans, and they may all have better things to do than wasting their time trying to kill a few Brits. We could spend some of the money patching up those damaged by the war.

recently retired commander of British forces in Afghanistan. He said he thought British forces would have to stay in Afghanistan for 10 or 20 years

That's funny …… because General Sir David Richards, the new head of the British Army believes that conflict could last 40 years.

Afghanistan conflict could last 40 years, says new head of British Army

.

Although our Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said our troops could be off the front line within a year.

Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt dismissed Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth's prediction our troops could be off the front line within a year as unrealistic

.

Nice to know that our generals and politicians are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I wonder if there's any chance of them agreeing why we are in Afghanistan ?