Meet the new head of the Army General Sir David Richards who takes over as Chief of the General Staff on 28 August.
In this morning's Times General Richards sets out his vision of the army's role in Afghanistan.
“The Army’s role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years.”
“I believe that the UK will be committed to Afghanistan in some manner — development, governance, security sector reform — for the next 30 to 40 years,”
So now we know the masterplan. Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary said that 30 to 40 years in Afghanistan was "unaffordable".
“Any idea of maintaining military involvement for that length of time is not a runner. It would require a total rethink of our foreign and security policy,”
Goodnight Vienna has a theory which sounds about right to me. Will the British people continue to support this war for two generations? I certainly hope not.
Posts
10 comments:
I think GoodnightVienna has it right when he notes the this 30-40 year timescale is about the expected useful lifetime of the oil pipeline.
A US Vietnam expert is saying that the US Army will be there until 'the American public grows tired of it'. At the current rate of attrition, that's a lot of dead servicemen.
Aye exactly Vronsky but then we all know this is about oil don't we. Many thanks for the link, candid article.
Between giving swine flu vaccinations with vaccine which hasn't been reasonably tested and sending our young to this hellish war, they'll keep the population numbers under their control.
All part of the New World Order.
Liam Fox is one of my least favourite people in the world, but I agree with him here. This is completely out of the question. It will be interesting to see if Mr Cameron has the nerve to defy the US and make his own foreign/war policy, or if this is simply Dr Fox saying what he thinks we want to hear....
Read GV's piece. Quite agree.
The trouble is, to the extent that it really is about energy, they are attempting to give the US consumers what they want - 'cheap gas' so that they can consume other things too - good for all business - behind the conscience-salving mantra of 'fighting terrorism'. Public opinion, and not just in the US, has a habit of soothing itself, and reconciling itself to 'regretful necessities' as long as things are comfortable at home.
The anti-Vietnam protests were inspired to quite some degree by the draft and those who didn't want to be drafted. Now that the US has a volunteer army, public opinion may turn out to be slightly more stoical.
Morning Tris, he's not someone I'd want to have round for dinner either.
I think the tories will bottle it and just let it continue as it is.
Morning Jim
There is that right enough. Many people think that way here with the excuse 'if you join the army you know you can be killed' reasoning. They don't want to look at the broader picture to see that this war isn't protecting them in the least.
I find the most annoying part of reports in the mainstream media about Afghanistan is that it is treated as if it was happening in a bubble, apart from Pakistan which is treated as if it were some kind of Afghan overspill where Pakistan has had no history in arming or supporting Afghanistan groups or regional strategies of its own.
In the news Afghanistan is some isolated conflict that has no impact on and is not affected by the US strategic aims in the Gulf and the Middle East, aims which are driven by energy and Israel, and how these aims intertwine with the US strategies aimed at China and Russia in Central Asia. Russia and China both have an interest in Afghanistan but only in stopping the US in creating a gateway into Central Asia and its energy supplies.
If the US continues with its policy of hostility to Iran which shares a huge border with Afghanistan and actually tries to implement the proposed petrol blockade on Iran then even though the Shia Iranians dislike the Sunni Taliban they would consider them as the enemy of my enemy and start to support them with money and arms and inflame and prolong the conflict. The situation in Iraq could get even worse if Iran uses the Shia there as its proxy army against the US.
We may very well be there for forty years but the idea that it will be a war fought in isolation from the rest of the world is very wrong and at the end of it the UK Government will be as clueless as to why they were there as they are now. I have no faith in this government's ability to think beyond tabloid headlines and to follow US orders without a murmur.
For those of us who have some independent thought it's simple, in the end all you have to do is follow the money, and in this world energy is the root of all money.
What a splendid comment Dug. Indeed it is all about energy and of course it isn't in isolation, although the media try to convey it is with little reference to what's going on in the countries surrounding Afghanistan.
Some months ago now I read an article about the British army undertaking their biggest ever challenge and that was ensuring a major pipeline was laid. It had taken weeks for them to convey the pieces to the site. I do wish I could find the piece again as that was the only time I read a good assessment of the Afghan situation.
As I continually say we should not be there in the front, not only because the situation is explosive but with our high profile presence Britain will be the first target for revenge attacks.
I agree with Dougthedug - and there is an additional rationale behind the Russian concern with US troops on the border potentially destablising the religious and cultural tentative calm in the ex-USSR territories bordering Afghanistan, eg Kyrgyzstan, in which the US has a large base, Manas. Russia appears relatively happy to enable the US to re-equip via some its territory as it is in Russia's interests to have it's trouble-makers kept at bay. It is, however, a tricky balance which could easily tip into conflict if the US utilise insensitive and heavy handed methods - or is that a forgone conclusion which the Russians have calculated hence their highly active re-configuration etc. of their armed forces.
It has been noted that some Scandinavian countries, under NATO organisation, bordering Russia are taking part in specific defence training exercises in Afghanistan to strengthen their national border interests back home.
The potential global catastrophe that may result from the critical mass of complex financial, cultural and national vested interests currently mounting in the Afghan imbroglio makes me terrified. If only it was only about oil. Not that our latest PM impersonator seems to care while sipping his ouzo under a Corfu sunset - creepy man.
Clarinda, it seems as if all the Scandanavian countries bordering Russia are quietly upping their skills at the moment. Was talking to a well-informed Norwegian this week about it and he also knew quite a bit about the reorganisation of the Russian forces. Scarey stuff.
Post a Comment