Blair fears Afghanistan will disintegrate into another Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Oil_Slick, Jun 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. He's got to be taking the p1ss saying that surely?? What planet does he live on???!!!!! :threaten:
  2. Wow ! Didn't know he was that perceptive. But who put us there ?
  3. Exactly what happens when you take your eye off the ball and split your objectives with insufficient resources. Just wait until some clown reintroduces the opium poppy dimension.

    What a stateman; what a state!
  4. Re: Blair fears Afghanistan will disintegrate into another I

    Even a brief glance at history would tell you something about Afghanistan and Iraq...don't touch 'em with a barge pole mate!
  5. Obviously didnt watch 'Carry on up the Kyber',another farce!
  6. I don't know what planet some of you lot are on. So we withdraw from both those theatres of operation tomorrow. Pull up the draw bridge and hope bad things happen to someone else. Or better still you hope someone else will sort it before the bad people get to you and your family.

    If you advocate that approach may I suggest you move to France as it is government policy there. Doesn't reduce the terrorist attacks on French citizens but at least the French tax payer doesn't have to pay to try and prevent it. That's alright then!

    It is easier to criticise government policy than to suggest more effect alternatives.
  7. Put it another way then.
    The action in Afghanistan is sanctioned by the UN and has some sort of purpose.
    The action in Iraq was little else but an invasion, based by all accounts on the flimsiest of evidence.
    Any military action has to have to my mind three things:
    A goal
    Attainable objectives
    And, most important, an exit plan.
    The invasion, and it is that, of Iraq started with none of these.
    We spent decades building up the UN to have the thing shafted by a few governments.
    That is a very great shame.
    ps the French and the Spanish and no doubt other goverments have considerable resources in Afghanistan because it is sanctioned by the UN.
  8. It's my inalienable right as a citizen to criticise Government policy, no matter which Party's in power: as for alternatives, when did any Government listen to the people ? - besides, they get PAID to make policy. There are (allegedly) enough intelligent men in Parliament to make sensible decisions.
  9. We have ended up in the present mess because we failed to criticise enough. Behind The Bliar's toothy grin is a brain that was sharp enough to realise that he could fool the great unwashed British public and lead them into Iraq by the nose without a whimper.


    Afghanistan has been lost needlessly and Karzai is barely functioning as the Mayor of Kabul let alone as a national leader.


    Bummer :thumright:

  10. So if he's that concerned - why doesn't he upgrade the levels of personnel, kit and other resources in the area? Christ knows those in charge there have been screaming for better and more vehicles for bloody ages. That would be a good start.


  11. You're right Phil, it is always easier to be critical of government policy than suggest more effective alternatives. You only have to stand at any bar in the country for five minutes or take a taxi ride to get first hand evidence of that! However, in direct contrast to the usual political apathy of our countrymen and women, millions of them got off their arses to march, protest, lobby and in any other way possible demonstrate their concern over the planned war in Iraq. It's also easy to employ 20-20 hindsight against government policy, but in the case of WMD it wasn't just Joe Public who didn't buy it. Numerous experts in the field, including UN inspectors, intelligence experts and Cabinet briefed politicians were lining up to tell Blair that they didn't buy it either. No wonder then, that other nations' governments came to the conclusion that it was a fool's errand. Yeah, I love to bash the French as much as the next red blooded Englishman, but which government proved to be wiser in the end?

    As for Afghanistan, well what the hell is all that about? It started off as a remove the Taleban operation, following 9/11. Seemed simple didn't it? Get rid of the Taleban, insert friendly government in Afghanistan and deny Al'Qaida its operating base. Perhaps while we're at it we can do something about the growing instability in Russia and central Asia caused by radical Islamist movements. Then there's the access and security of those new central Asian old fields and transit routes for their pipelines. Oh, and what about those poppy fields and the narcotics trade? Well to be fair the Taleban had done more than anyone to put a stop to all that nonsense, but anything they can do we can do better!

    So what went wrong Phil? Iraq is in meltdown and even George Bush and his fellow neo-Cons have stopped pretending that they've got things under control. The fact is, they're busy looking for the quickest way to pull out and leave the poor bastards who have to live there to sort it out for themselves. This country has lost good men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives to that fool's errand and I've personally lost good friends, but our loss (as great as it is) is a numerical drop in the ocean to the thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who have already perished and are yet to die in the years of conflict that lay ahead of them. I can't help but wonder who or what will fill the Iraqi vacumn, when the last US helicopter lifts off their embassy roof in the Green Zone?

    And as for Afghanistan, well what a success story that's turned out to be. The Taliban removed from official government, but for large parts of the country still a governing force and more importantly, expanding their influence and not only maintaining, but many would argue increasing their combat capability against one of the most professional armies in the world. And has Al'Qaida been brought to its knees? Has its international web of terrorism been destroyed? Has the Global Jihad fizzled out? Well not quite! Then there's the official Afghan government looking more and more like an isolated puppet government each day (No wonder they're pleading for us not to leave!). The British Ambassador warning us that our operations in the area will be a marathon not a sprint. [Note to desk wallahs in the MOD and PJHQ: Get yourselves to work on that 30 year roulement programme] And despite all our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, central Asia doesn't appear any more stable. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it's a bloody potmess! Look at Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, They've all either got their fat fingers in the dyke or are busy manipulating the situation, depending upon your point of view.

    But hey Phil, none of this is new. It's all just the latest chapter in what the Victorians dubbed 'The Great Game'. The story of two great empires, Britain and Tsarist Russia, fighting for dominance in Central Asia. More recently, perhaps you remember when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan on the 27th December 1979 with the aim of installing a puppet government under Babrak Karmal? A newspaper of the day noted that Afghans have traditionally resisted foreign pressure and interference. The Soviet Union may find it difficult to subdue them and install a new government. They got that right didn't they? Just a few weeks later in late January, the same newspaper was reporting that the Soviet Army were facing fierce opposition from the Mujahideen. The rest as they say is history.

    But isn't that the reason History and Politics always seem to go together in University. I've always laboured under the illusion, rather naively as it turned out, that our political masters would at least have the ability to avoid the pitfalls of history. After all, it's not exactly mensa stuff is it? Superpower goes in to Afghanistan in 1979 and get's its arse well and truly kicked! Soviet Army discovers very quickly that the advantages of modern weaponry are lost against a determined and highly motivated guerrilla enemy who is completely at home when fighting in difficult terrain. And isn't that pretty much the same lesson the US learnt in Vietnam just a few years earlier? Would it be going too far to suggest that we're having that very same lesson rammed down our collective 'Coalition of the Willing' throats in Iraq and Afghanistan today? It sure as hell looks that way to me when watching the ten o'clock news each evening.

    So would I pull up the drawbridge and let them get on with it? Damn right I would, because ultimately that's what we'll be forced to do anyway. That's another lesson from history Phil - The US voting public have a limited tolerance for body-bag TV - and in my humble opinion, they've almost reached that point. Will there be a civil war in Iraq? Damn right there will be, but some would argue that's happening already. Will Iran and Saudi Arabia get sucked in? Probably, but some would argue that's happening already. Will that in turn lead to a truly global Jihad? Probably, but some would argue that's happening already. Might we all have to learn to live without middle east oil sooner rather than later? Probably, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

    As for what planet I'm on. Well Phil, as far as I'm aware, I'm on the same planet as this bloke ....

    'I am just a poor slave of God. If I live or die, the war will continue' Osama bin Laden Dec 2001

    ..... and every day we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting a war which, even to many western Europeans is seen as illegal, unnecessary and unjustified, brings further muslim support to the banner of radical and extreme Islam and what might ultimately become a truly global Jihad.
  12. Re: Blair fears Afghanistan will disintegrate into another I

    Good article over at Pen & Sword about Iraq and Afghanistan. What should worry everyone is the blithe way in which politicians are suggesting that British forces will be there for another 10 years.

    Did anyone else think that The Bliar's knighthood for Mr. Rushdie was simply a political statement designed to give Iran a poke in the eye? Pretty stupid really with our troops the meat in the sandwich between Pakistan to the East and Iran to the West; the two countries who have reacted with most anger to the knighthood.

    Anyway...........extract from Pen & Sword [Herding Cats]

    Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace now rank Iraq as the second most unstable country in the world. Sudan just eked out the number one rating, a remarkable accomplishment considering that it doesn't have the advantage of being occupied by 150,000 U.S. troops to help destabilize it. Somalia ranks right behind Iraq for instability, which makes a certain amount of sense. U.S. troops are in Somalia conducting combat operations, but not nearly as many U.S. troops as are fighting in Iraq, so you can't really fault Somalia for not being more unstable than

    The two non-African countries in the top 10 unstable states are Iraq and Afghanistan, and we pretty much know what those two have in common, don't we?

    Shoot, if a fellah didn't know any better, he might come to the conclusion that the number one cause of instability in the world is the United States of America.

    Full link >


Share This Page