Why the job must be finished in Afghanistan.

Some ex UK commodore to Afghanistan on the Today programme this morning predicted an inevitable civil war once western troops leave. Couldn't find a link but this kind of backs up what he was saying -

Afghanistan: "There Will Be Civil War" | ZeroHedge

This has always been my expectation right from the get go and I think history will judge the whole thing a complete waste of money and lives.
Regarding this soldier who went on a killing spree - The Afghan government want to see him tried in Afghanistan - and I can see why. I suspect the USA will insist on a military tribunal and, once he gets medical treatment and a short sentence, I bet he will be released. If this is what happens the outrage will be enormous in Afghanistan..
 
Or he might get multiple life sentences like this guy:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...ay-ex-soldiers-appeal-iraq-killings-rape.html

I've had a look from Mai Lai onwards and I can't find any particular evidence of leniency. The head of the Pentagon says he might get the death penalty...

Still you speculate.

As for civil war etc you have once again missed the main reason for us being there. Ultimately it was about ending terrorist training camps and threatening the rest of the world. Stopping poppy production, democracy, equality for women was all a 'bonus'. To be honest sometimes a civil war is needed to sort out some countries. We had one and it gave us the parliment-monachry we have now.
 
Last edited:
Oh and it is the case that any UK or US soldier breaking the law will be tried by their country. You are told this on pre-deployment.

Don't forget he has also broke laws regarding the Geneva convention and military law, US law, Afghan law etc.
 
I dont expect any leniency towards this individual any more than there was towards Dale Green who is nothing more than a psycho. The US need to be much more careful about screening applicants
 
Or he might get multiple life sentences like this guy:

Supreme Court turns away ex-soldier's appeal in Iraq killings, rape

I've had a look from Mai Lai onwards and I can't find any particular evidence of leniency. The head of the Pentagon says he might get the death penalty...

Still you speculate.

As for civil war etc you have once again missed the main reason for us being there. Ultimately it was about ending terrorist training camps and threatening the rest of the world. Stopping poppy production, democracy, equality for women was all a 'bonus'. To be honest sometimes a civil war is needed to sort out some countries. We had one and it gave us the parliment-monachry we have now.

I hope you are correct on both counts - however everything you list as a 'bonus' will disappear in a civil war and everything we meant to eradicate will in all probability re appear.......wasted lives and wasted money !!

If you think ending one war to permit another to begin is a success then I think you are very very wrong..!
 
I hope you are correct on both counts - however everything you list as a 'bonus' will disappear in a civil war and everything we meant to eradicate will in all probability re appear.......wasted lives and wasted money !!

If you think ending one war to permit another to begin is a success then I think you are very very wrong..!
I agree. The war in Afghanistan has been a total waste of time, money and - above all - lives. The advances made (and there have been some), will be transient and will evapourate once Western forces leave. Whether that takes 5, 10 or 20 years is moot - it will all reset as it has always reset. And on top of all this, one can argue that our involvement has damaged this country badly.

And if we are invoking the example of the War of Three Kingdoms (the English/British Civil War) then I think that shows us that Civil Wars solve very little. As any historian knows, it was the Glorious Revolution that cemented Parliamentary democracy in England (and subsequently the UK).
 
A civil war might end up with the people killing off their leadership if they see them as corrupt. Or standing behind them if they agree with them. People who are willing to die for what they believe in can count for a lot when it comes to them getting the country you want.

Oh and no Bishi you don't “hope I'm correct.” You seem to be hunting for anything negative you can find as you want to say, “look, I told you so” or some such. The country is in a mess from years of war (a lot of it from the Soviet invasion and from general poverty) so lower your expectations but no one is saying it will be a western democracy. Positive news tends not to make the news as it doesn't sell papers or get Internet hits but it is there if you look. Are you looking? Ever read the Isaf website etc?

As for “a success” the success is if we don't get terrorism hitting us here. At present we are training the Afghans to look after themselves and we have a timetable for ending the military phase. There will be a withdrawal of most of the troops. There will still be troops in the country though as ongoing training will still be happening and America won't stand for another 9/11 to happen. Ever. If it ever looks like the country is breeding terrorists to hit America then expect the US to be back there in full force again. Perhaps with us and other countries too but the US will be there again.

And if we are invoking the example of the War of Three Kingdoms (the English/British Civil War) then I think that shows us that Civil Wars solve very little. As any historian knows, it was the Glorious Revolution that cemented Parliamentary democracy in England (and subsequently the UK).

Or as Wikipedia and its various links put it:

Although the monarchy was restored, it was still only with the consent of Parliament; therefore, the civil wars effectively set England and Scotland on course to adopt a parliamentary monarchy form of government.[133] This system would result in the outcome that the future Kingdom of Great Britain, formed in 1707 under the Acts of Union, would manage to forestall the kind of often-bloody revolution, typical of European republican movements that followed the Jacobin revolution in 18th century France and the later success of Napoleon, which generally resulted in the total abolition of monarchy. It was no coincidence that the United Kingdom was spared the wave of revolutions that occurred in Europe in the 1840s. Specifically, future monarchs became wary of pushing Parliament too hard, and Parliament effectively chose the line of royal succession in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution and in the 1701 Act of Settlement. After the Restoration, Parliament's factions became political parties (later becoming the Tories and Whigs) with competing views and varying abilities to influence the decisions of their monarchs.[citation needed]

Though I'm sure the English civil war is well known to you anyway.
 
Or as Wikipedia and its various links put it:

Although the monarchy was restored, it was still only with the consent of Parliament; therefore, the civil wars effectively set England and Scotland on course to adopt a parliamentary monarchy form of government.[133] This system would result in the outcome that the future Kingdom of Great Britain, formed in 1707 under the Acts of Union, would manage to forestall the kind of often-bloody revolution, typical of European republican movements that followed the Jacobin revolution in 18th century France and the later success of Napoleon, which generally resulted in the total abolition of monarchy. It was no coincidence that the United Kingdom was spared the wave of revolutions that occurred in Europe in the 1840s. Specifically, future monarchs became wary of pushing Parliament too hard, and Parliament effectively chose the line of royal succession in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution and in the 1701 Act of Settlement. After the Restoration, Parliament's factions became political parties (later becoming the Tories and Whigs) with competing views and varying abilities to influence the decisions of their monarchs.[citation needed]

Though I’m sure the English civil war is well known to you anyway.
As I said then, the Glorious Revolution was what made the change then, not the Civil War.

An interesting info bite for you - proportionally population to death-rate, the War of Three Kingdoms was equivalent to WWI in the carnage wrought. Let's hope the same doesn't happen in Afghanistan then regardless of whether it will "sort out" (onic quote) the country.

Ironically if the end-state the West was seeking was Civil War, we could probably have achieved this at a fraction of the cost in lives, equipment and money.

A total and unforgiveable failure :thumbsdow
 
As I said then, the Glorious Revolution was what made the change then, not the Civil War.
As is said the monarchy was restored with the consent of parliament and Britain was on course to adopt a parliamentary monarchy form of government. Britain was also spared revolutions, future monarchs had their power curtailed and then later the Glorious Revolution happened.
An interesting info bite for you - proportionally population to death-rate, the War of Three Kingdoms was equivalent to WWI in the carnage wrought.
An interesting info bite for you - as I tell you often, I know...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/13349266-post136.html

The biggest war the UK was ever involved in in our history was the English Civil War. It has the highest ratio of deaths per population at the time. It wasn't religious. Even back then the struggle for power and politics was a bigger deal than religion.

The Civil War resulted in 85,000 British soldiers dying on the battlefield with 100,000 dying of their wounds later making up 10% of the adult population at the time. I thought it was well known.

Let's hope the same doesn't happen in Afghanistan then regardless of whether it will "sort out" (onic quote) the country.

I'm a little surprised at you though. I thought you supported civil wars.

What about this one:

Libyan civil war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were quite vocal here:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/politics-economy/1427173-libya-no-fly-zone.html

814 posts and 200 were from you alone and not one against it. Way in excess of anyone else. In fact in that thread you still backed it as the casualties among the civilians mounted.

Ironically if the end-state the West was seeking was Civil War, we could probably have achieved this at a fraction of the cost in lives, equipment and money.

A total and unforgiveable failure :thumbsdow
Civil wars in the country are nothing new. There was one in 1989 and again in 1996. Saying Afghanistan might have another one is hardly news.

More recently in Enduring Freedom US jets backed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and stuck Kazai in power. It was ISAF that came later to carry on against the Taliban and train the Afghans as the government had little control outside of Kabul.

Oh and the Gruniad gets it journalists to slate Afghanistan? This was a paper that did an article saying we should get rid of our armed forces altogether. Funnily enough trying to sort out Afghanistan is a bit of a job. There was no other option as bombing and supporting local forces had been tried already. The UN decided to do what it did and 40 odd countries couldn't come up with anything else and joined in as well.
 
A civil war might end up with the people killing off their leadership if they see them as corrupt. Or standing behind them if they agree with them. People who are willing to die for what they believe in can count for a lot when it comes to them getting the country you want.

Oh and no Bishi you don’t “hope I’m correct.” You seem to be hunting for anything negative you can find as you want to say, “look, I told you so” or some such. The country is in a mess from years of war (a lot of it from the Soviet invasion and from general poverty) so lower your expectations but no one is saying it will be a western democracy. Positive news tends not to make the news as it doesn’t sell papers or get Internet hits but it is there if you look. Are you looking? Ever read the Isaf website etc?

As for “a success” the success is if we don’t get terrorism hitting us here. At present we are training the Afghans to look after themselves and we have a timetable for ending the military phase. There will be a withdrawal of most of the troops. There will still be troops in the country though as ongoing training will still be happening and America won’t stand for another 9/11 to happen. Ever. If it ever looks like the country is breeding terrorists to hit America then expect the US to be back there in full force again. Perhaps with us and other countries too but the US will be there again.

All I am doing is trying to counter your 'over optimism' at the 'perceived success' of a wasted 10 years.

'SUCCESS....!' All we have done is polarize miltant islam accross the globe and within our borders againsy us...! o me that is a failure. As for training camps in Afghanistan - wel they have all moved across the border into Pakistan and look at the political friction that is causing - can't see Uncle Sam sending troops in there can you..?
 
Over optimism? I think we and certainly the US will have a prescence there for probably another decade. They will keep troops there for training and out of fear of another 9/11. I am amused you feel the need to do this countering though. Are you bringing balance to the force?

As for the militant Islam, destroying terrorist training camps is why we went there. Did we go for a holiday and then it all started?

Pakistan? They have sent troops over the border. You remember taking out Osama perhaps? A full scale invasion won't happen, as oh I don't know, they have nukes or something.
 
Pakistan? They have sent troops over the border. You remember taking out Osama perhaps? A full scale invasion won't happen, as oh I don't know, they have nukes or something.

EXACTLY...!!! End result - we have driven the terrorists out of a place where we can get at them to a location where we can't.....:facepalm:

And this is supposed to make our world safer.....!

Epic fail IMO..!
 
Last edited:
Couple of interesting articles about China filling the power vacuum in the region when the west pulls out. China will see the whole affair as a failure of western policy and military projection and be quick to speed up its already creeping influence. This has the potential to strengthen Chinese power, diminish the Wests and put China and India on course for potential conflict.

China is quietly seeping into the Af-Pak power vacuum | The Moderate Voice

Abandoning Pakistan: Can China Fill the Vacuum? - Focus discussion - People Forum
 
EXACTLY...!!! End result - we have driven the terrorists out of a place where we can get at them to a location where we can't.....:facepalm:
Funnily enough it’s a little difficult to get terrorists to just quit. They were around before Afghanistan and will be around after.

Not sure what you mean by place we can’t get at them. Do you follow the news?

War in North-West Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aid and weapons has been supplied to Pakistan by the US and the US has carried out drone attacks. Some in conjunction with the Pakistan military and some without.


And this is supposed to make our world safer.....!

Epic fail IMO..!
How exactly are you in danger? Are you afraid?

We're not Afraid!
 
There were terrorists before - and there are probably many more now thanks to the occupation and regular **c* ups that keep happening, the latest being one of the worst...!!!
If the whole point of this war was to take them out it is still an epic fail..!!

Regarding Pakistan - a few cross border incursions is a totally different thing to an occupation do you not think..? Look at the outrage the Pakistani government and population expressed at the unsanctioned incursion to kill Bin Laden - the link you provided clearly shows how little stead the Pakistanis put in the relationship with the USA inspite of the billions in miltary aid sent to 'fight' terrorism - but in fact being used to bolster defence against India..!

Am I afraid....? well thats not really what I said is it..! Is the world more stable because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...........No...!
But 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about visiting Egypt,Pakistan, Jordan or many other North African countries - I wouldn't go anywhere near them today and plenty of other people think the same...... so to answer your question, I am not afraid..........but I'm certainly more cautious.!
 
EXACTLY...!!! End result - we have driven the terrorists out of a place where we can get at them to a location where we can't.....:facepalm:

And this is supposed to make our world safer.....!

Epic fail IMO..!
+1

In addition, the place we have driven them out of will simply revert to type a decade or so (if that) hence. A waste of hundreds of British lives, thousands more who have been maimed and billions pounds of money. On top of that long term damage to both the UK military structure and its future deployability.

'Epic fail' doesn't even come close to how badly things have gone wrong in Aghanistan.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom