It was announced earlier today that 2 more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan yesterday. This takes the total to 173 including accidents and illnesses, with 144 directly killed in action.
Two more families and friends have to bear the intense burden of grief which accompanies the death of loved ones, who have died serving and protecting their country. I offer them my sympathy.
As most of my regular readers know I have an interest in defence matters and I've spent some considerable time informing myself about today's conflicts throughout the world.
All things considered, I suggest the west won't win in Afghanistan, not only because of past history, but it appears to be a war where we constantly move a step forward and two back. This is a political war, as was Iraq, and no matter how much I read about the reasons why we should have our troops there, I'm not convinced.
Is the sacrifice worth it? Not to me. Until someone can provide a honest argument, instead of the constant propaganda issued by governments and those in their pay, my opinion will remain against our involvement.
Posts
22 comments:
There is a case to be made for it I think subrosa, on the very basic level.The fighting there attracts young idealists who may otherwise become "martyrs" in planes and tube stations in the Western world.
At least the troops there are armed and very capable of defending themselves.
The sacrifice would be worth it if we were making a proper go at achieving the aims of why we are in Afghanistan. We are there, amongst other things, to stop it being the haven and training post of terrorists. The problem is that we are not fully committed to these aims. All we are doing is providing a place for terrorists to experience warfare and train against highly trained soldiers. Without a total commitment, which we will not get from Gordon Brown and his stooges, we and our allies will never win and as such we should just get out unless we mean it.
They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die thirftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?
"Mesopotamia"
by Rudyard Kipling
no apologies for repeat post
only one
"thriftily to die" sorry!
You're right, it isn't worth it.
There is no coherent military strategic objective. Principle of War #1 - Selection and Maintenance of the Aim.
Resources are completely inadequate for the tasks that have been set - in particular, men and equipment. Need to hold ground that has been taken and need 24/7 air cover. Battle group/brigade attacks come and go, but the Taliban will always return once the troops have left.
There's nothing that could be attained by force that could not be attained by other means (bribery, or gratuities, to local leaders) as was the case well over a century ago.
This has been completely mishandled - the Taliban were a nationalistic fundamentalist movement with no interest whatsoever in any global jihad....those types are next door in Pakistan, which is being destabilised by the Afghan war.
We've already lost Afghanistan, we are on the brink of losing Pakistan.
I'm with Jess on this Conan. Pakistan has a great influence on Afghanistan and Pakistan is very quickly slipping away.
I still think we shouldn't be there Fitaloon. If anything we should have been assisting Pakistan.
Thank you Billy.
A dead statesman
I could not dig: I dared not rob;:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
rudyard kipling
Fight them there, or fight them here.
They will not stop while the bile of radical Islam keeps seeping out of Saudi.
Once the US stops cosying up to the Saudi Royal family(Democracy anyone? Hey shit no, we need their oil!)
Then, and only then, there may be a chance of peace.
There is a rational reason for the fighting in Afghanistan and there is a grand strategy but both the reason and the strategy are for and run by the US.
The invasion of Afghanistan had two components one was to gain a client state on Iran's Eastern Border and the other was to secure a gateway to Central Asia, more specifically to get influence, a client state and troops close to the huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Basin which is to the East of the Caspian Sea and is just to the north of Afghanistan.
Currently the only way to get these reserves out is through Russia who who holds the tap on the pipelines. China has proposed a pipeline through China to the coast and the only alternative land route out to the west is south through Iran which is a non-starter. They could build a pipeline to the west across the Caspian to Azerbaijan but Russia is not playing ball with rights to cross the Caspian Sea.
Pipelines have been planned across Afghanistan but the current instability has put them on hold. Part of the problem is the US strategy went no further than using air power to allow the Northern Alliance to smash the Taliban on the ground. After that the US strategy seems to have been based around the wishful thinking that all the Taliban would go home to the farm and stuff the AK47 back into the rafters. However in the short term a potential US client state and US troops close to the reserves is just as valuable.
The reason the UK is fighting there is to ensure that the US can secure its energy supplies in Central Asia and reduce Russian and Chinese influence over these reserves. If the current Government have got round to actually working that one out beyond slavishly doing what the US Gubberm'nt tells them then they are not telling us because selling a war for US energy supplies to the UK is going to be a difficult one.
Both wars were initially justified, the fault lies in the half-hearted and kack handed way the politicians have dealt with them.
I live in a military town and the service-persons that I meet have no time for the sympathy mongers ( apologies SR ) who emote whenever one of their number sadly dies; they know the score when they sign up.
What makes you think I'm a 'sympathy monger' banned? I've very aware how the military and families feel when someone is killed in action believe me.
Ask anyone with more than 15 years service if they ever thought they'd spend so much time in the middle east.
I think the idea of being a sympathy monger’ is not quite right. It’s not just about sympathising with individuals or their families although obviously anyone who doesn’t sympathise with them must have a screw loose somewhere. It’s more about regretting the sheer waste of life and resources.
It’s a pointless conflict. There is nothing in it for the UK – as Doug the Dug has pointed out it is being fought to protect US economic interests. Why is the UK involved? The UK has no real strategic or economic interests in the region. What are UK troops dying for? There is no rational explanation, except an embarrassingly naïve desire to please the US.
I can just about understand how military families can live with the knowledge that their loved one died for some purpose – even a purpose they may not agree with. But when there is no clear purpose? It’s not like losing someone in an accident, you can put that down to random fate. In Afghanistan they are dying for nothing. No-one even knows any more why they are there. I realise that’s a harsh thing to say and may be offensive to some people but I am afraid that is the way I see it.
SR,
In one word, NO!
Crazy D
No.
I see Conan's point of course, but I can't help feeling that if we got on with running our part of the world, and left them to run their part of the world their way, without our (incompetent) interference, then maybe they wouldn't hate us so much.
At the moment we make a mess of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we make a mess of running Britain. Perhaps we could concentrate on just one thing at a time and make a bit more of a fist of it.
Further, if we have to do this war in Afghanistan (and I am against any war ever) please can we give the people who go out there the equipment to do the job. These men deserve the maximum protection that we can possibly give them, and shortage of money is simply not an excuse. As long as there is money being spent on frivolities in the UK, it is not only not an excuse, it is a diabolical and shameful travesty.
DougtheDug
I agree - but there are the unique and vast quantities of rare metals, industrial minerals, precious gems and metals and radioactive elements also to be mined from Afghanistan's bedrock to shore up the US need for sustaining a commercial and homeland power-base. Why else is Dick Cheney et al so involved in the establishment of mining ventures over there? The Chinese and Russians have Africa and large areas of South America ring-fenced, so the US needs the (their?) Middle East reserves 'protected'.
It must be terrible to live in a small country so rich in natural energy reserves and potential only to have them exploited by others with no or little benefit repatriated to the place of origin? What irony to have Scottish armed forces involved in such mortal hypocrisy.
I can find no words adequate to descibe my feelings over the suspect political deployment, sub-standard resourcing and the continuous losses and injuries suffered by all of our armed forces and their families.
It is pointless Indy. All the propaganda about they are protecting us citizens of the UK is just that.
Time we stopped behaving as if we owned half the world.
I don't know how military families can live knowing that their nearest and dearest died for no reason - I certainly couldn't.
Tris, the Americans put us British to shame with regard to equipment for their troops. In fact most other countries put us to shame.
Clarinda, we've discussed this before and you're absolutely correct.
Indeed it does sadden me too that Scots are involved in this but they have to do their job.
Subrosa, Please rad this article from a friend of Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe
Many thanks for the link Fitaloon. That could well have been written by someone I know too.
Post a Comment