Afghanistan Options

[JeffG]

Another five soldiers brought home today . I thought I'd do a few calculations:

CODE

Country     Casualties     Population (m)  Casualties/million pop

Denmark       26               5.4               4.8
Canada       124              33                 3.7
UK           179              61                 2.9
US           731             304                 2.4
France        28              61.5               0.45
Germany       33              82                 0.4
Italy         14              58                 0.2

Seems a little unbalanced, doesn't it?

[GMR]

Another five soldiers brought home today . I thought I'd do a few calculations:

CODE

Country     Casualties     Population (m)  Casualties/million pop

Denmark       26               5.4               4.8
Canada       124              33                 3.7
UK           179              61                 2.9
US           731             304                 2.4
France        28              61.5               0.45
Germany       33              82                 0.4
Italy         14              58                 0.2

Seems a little unbalanced, doesn't it?

Yes, it is a sad day for our soldiers and i agree that the contribution from other countries is a bit unbalanced.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

R.I.P. all that have fallen in service to this country, including today in Afghanistan.

[Iommi]

Does anyone know what the objective is in Afghanistan!

[Guest_Bill1_*]

Does anyone know what the objective is in Afghanistan!

To get shot of the Taleban?

Easier said than done I know.

[Iommi]

To get shot of the Taleban? asier said than done I know.

That will be a lot harder done than said (eh! ). The world will have to kick it's 'poppy' dependency first, for a start!

[Andy]

Does anyone know what the objective is in Afghanistan!

I believe it's to stop the Taliban and so end their cultivating and distribution of heroin, from which the profits go towards funding Al Qaeda and terrorism. At least that's what I hope they are trying to achieve.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

I'd rather people took drugs than blew other people up.

Simplistic but fair i'd say.

It's a strange and sometimes deeply unpleasant world.

[Iommi]

I'd rather people took drugs than blew other people up. Simplistic but fair i'd say. It's a strange and sometimes deeply unpleasant world.

That is OK, but these drugs mainly come from Columbia and Afghanistan (and elsewhere), so in a small way, dealing in these substances, is helping to fuel the problem.

[Guest_noobree_*]

I really do hope that Brown and Blair lie awake at night with images of the shattered bodies of the young men and women they have put in harms way hauting their every waking moment. And that they do so for the rest of their lives. This 'war' is unwinnable. Coventional forces can never beat fanatical insurgents. The senior military personnel who sit in Whitehall, complicit in this tragedy, are as much to blame. How can they live with themselves?

[Darren]

I really do hope that Brown and Blair lie awake at night with images of the shattered bodies of the young men and women they have put in harms way hauting their every waking moment.

When you join the military, you accept that it will happen. 64 years of relative peace has made for a population who have no concept of war and sacrifice. Do you honest believe that Churchill slept soundly every night in 1940-45?

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

[Guest_noobree_*]

Do you honest believe that Churchill slept soundly every night in 1940-45?

Of course not. But you've missed the point. The country knew exactly what our aims were in WWII. In Afghanistan, we don't.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

The campaign in Afghanistan could easily have precisely the opposite results. It will ensure a steady flow of recruits for the Taliban and will provide plenty of ammunition for those who wish to inflame suicide bombers to launch further attacks on the UK and the US.

Incidentally. Churchill, old solider that he was, demonstrated his own bravery many times during WWII, crossing the Atlantic frequently and standing on the roof of the Treasury building during the blitz. Famously he also wanted to be present at the D-Day landings but had to be told by Eisenhower that he'd just get in the way.

[GMR]

When you join the military, you accept that it will happen. 64 years of relative peace has made for a population who have no concept of war and sacrifice. Do you honest believe that Churchill slept soundly every night in 1940-45?

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Good post.

Soldiers join join up and expect action anywhere in the world. None of the soldiers were forced to do it. As you said; no leader finds it easy to send soldiers to war, but sometimes it is a necessity.

[GMR]

Of course not. But you've missed the point. The country knew exactly what our aims were in WWII. In Afghanistan, we don't.

I think they know exactly what they are fighting for in Afghanistan. Remember they had a unanimous thumbs up by the United nations to invade Afghanistan. Russia before them tried and failed. Besides, allowing the Taliban to get a foothold was not an option.

The campaign in Afghanistan could easily have precisely the opposite results. It will ensure a steady flow of recruits for the Taliban and will provide plenty of ammunition for those who wish to inflame suicide bombers to launch further attacks on the UK and the US.

There was already a steady flow of recruits into Afghanistan before hand.

As for attacks on the uk and the US; what did America do to provoke 9/11? What you are saying is we do nothing which will encourage them even more.

Incidentally. Churchill, old solider that he was, demonstrated his own bravery many times during WWII, crossing the Atlantic frequently and standing on the roof of the Treasury building during the blitz. Famously he also wanted to be present at the D-Day landings but had to be told by Eisenhower that he'd just get in the way.

Some historians and people of the time said Churchill’s actions were stupid; if he was killed who would have led us?

[Guest_noobree_*]

"What you are saying is we do nothing which will encourage them even more."

Nonsense - I didn't say that at all.

"Russia before them tried and failed."

Quite. And they weren't the only ones.

Any attempt to fight insurgents using conventional forces is doomed. The Taliban/Al Qaida also know that the UK tends to give in when enough pressure is applied. That's how this former terrorist ended up being paid a handsome salary by the British taxpayer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness

Meanwhile, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...-a-shadow-army/ and http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34866

[GMR]

"What you are saying is we do nothing which will encourage them even more."

Nonsense - I didn't say that at all.

"Russia before them tried and failed."

Quite. And they weren't the only ones.

Any attempt to fight insurgents using conventional forces is doomed. The Taliban/Al Qaida also know that the UK tends to give in when enough pressure is applied. That's how this former terrorist ended up being paid a handsome salary by the British taxpayer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness

Meanwhile, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...-a-shadow-army/ and http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34866

I agree with you about using conventional methods/ forces is shaky, however, the United nations/ America have a far stronger force than the Russians. They've also managed to dislodge the Taliban, which the Russians couldn't do.

what is the alternative? Give up? Whatever one decides there will be complaints all around. However, if we leave now before the Afghan troops are ready then all those deaths would have been for nothing.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

I really do hope that Brown and Blair lie awake at night with images of the shattered bodies of the young men and women they have put in harms way hauting their every waking moment. And that they do so for the rest of their lives. This 'war' is unwinnable. Coventional forces can never beat fanatical insurgents. The senior military personnel who sit in Whitehall, complicit in this tragedy, are as much to blame. How can they live with themselves?

Check out a Black Sabbath song called War Pigs, or at least Google the lyrics.

[Iommi]

I agree with Darren, he said we don't seem to have an aim, a goal. Knowing why we are there is a different point, albeit valid, but when you launch a campaign, presumably, you evaluate risk, cost and objective. Presumably, there is no goal as such, but more a form of containment. That is to say, stop the Taliban from running the country as they wish and provide a training ground for more terrorists. But can we, the West, keep starting new Afghanistans? Training camps just start else where.

For there to be any chance for Afghanistan, we need a lot more commitment from other countries and mainly Middle Eastern ones.

Another thing, I understand that the supply of opiates from Afghanistan soared upon the 'invasion'. I would have thought one of the things to do would be to try and kill off, or suppress Afghanistan as a main supply of opium, but in reality this seems like a hopeless task. Afghanistan's opium production is in decline, but they have been cultivating twice as much as demand. It is believed they are stockpiling.

It is easy to look at the atrocities at the start of the century as a memorial for future conflicts, but it only addresses one part of the 'war'. While we have not had another 9/11 or 7/7, it has come at a cost of freedom of movement, typified by the Panorama program the other night. We have become a lot more paranoid, possibly exacerbated by Government - who like a 'good' enemy!

For there not to have been a subsequent 9/11, 7/7 or similar, has possibly got just as much to do with internal policy as it has to do with the actions in Afghanistan.

I have a hunch that the occupation of Afghanistan is more than just a regime change. I'm inclined to think it goes beyond that. I think is as strategic placement, as much as anything else.

Some historians and people of the time said Churchill’s actions were stupid; if he was killed who would have led us?

While I don't wish to cheapen his contribution to the outcome of WWII, I have read he spent a lot of the time sloshed. I have also read that he was haunted by the ghost of Gallipoli and might have been desperate to redeem himself for his mistakes in that conflict.

While we all can speculate, I wonder what the outcome of WWII would have been if Hitler hadn't put on ice, the invasion of Britain and not focused on Russia. I suspect the success for Churchill in WWII had as much to do with luck as his strategic acumen (not to mention the bravery of the coalition's troops).

[Guest_noobree_*]

what is the alternative? Give up? Whatever one decides there will be complaints all around. However, if we leave now before the Afghan troops are ready then all those deaths would have been for nothing.

Fighting a fanatical enemy which is recruiting young men who are willing to commit suicide for their cause is incredibly difficult. The situation is made even more intractable (if you can have degrees of intractability) by the war lords and drugs barons.

I think the only strategy which has any chance of succeeding is to subvert their networks, use terror to fight terror, set one group against another, take out their leaders, bribe those who are bribable and make the alternative to what they are currently doing more attractive.

It's worth bearing in mind that - as usual - many of the problems in Afghanistan were caused by the US and UK, particularly when we supported insurgents during the Soviet occupation.

[GMR]

Fighting a fanatical enemy which is recruiting young men who are willing to commit suicide for their cause is incredibly difficult. The situation is made even more intractable (if you can have degrees of intractability) by the war lords and drugs barons.

I agree.

I think the only strategy which has any chance of succeeding is to subvert their networks, use terror to fight terror, set one group against another, take out their leaders, bribe those who are bribable and make the alternative to what they are currently doing more attractive.

I agree totally; the problem is we use the Geneva convention when we fight, they fight as they see fit. To fight fire we need fire. A civilized society cannot use civility to fight animals.

It's worth bearing in mind that - as usual - many of the problems in Afghanistan were caused by the US and UK, particularly when we supported insurgents during the Soviet occupation.

I agree and the same could be said about Iraq; however, it was a case of needs must at the time (I am not saying I agree with that approach, but understand it), today we have to look at things differently. Remember; at one time America was our enemy and we fitted their enemies out with our weapons, now they are our partners. We have to look at each case on its merit.