British troops in Afghanistan: stay put or bring them home?

[daveinprague]

Can anyone explain to me why it was wrong for the Russians to be in Afghanistan (Thatcher wanted us to boycott the Russian Olympics cos of it, remember?) but it's right for us to be there?

Especially as the Russian presence was requested by the Afghan government.

Always wondered what was the difference...
America is invited to South Vietnam by the government and its military assistance.
Russia is invited to Afghanistan by the government and its an invasion.

 

[ROKERITE]

Can anyone explain to me why it was wrong for the Russians to be in Afghanistan (Thatcher wanted us to boycott the Russian Olympics cos of it, remember?) but it's right for us to be there?

Well, like you and the rest of us, I'm no expert on the situation. However, I'd suggest that the Soviets went in to shore up a communist government that had virtually no support from the Afghan people. The NATO alliance went in to overthrow a deeply unpopular, evil and barbaric regime. Unfortunately Karzai's corrupt bunch seem rather unpopular too and this is making a very difficult job still harder. Still it does appear that a majority, though hardly an overwhelming one, of the Afghan population still support and are grateful for the presence of foreign troops; something that was never the case when the Soviets were there.

 

[bullshit detector]

Well, like you and the rest of us, I'm no expert on the situation. However, I'd suggest that the Soviets went in to shore up a communist government that had virtually no support from the Afghan people. The NATO alliance went in to overthrow a deeply unpopular, evil and barbaric regime. Unfortunately Karzai's corrupt bunch seem rather unpopular too and this is making a very difficult job still harder. Still it does appear that a majority, though hardly an overwhelming one, of the Afghan population still support and are grateful for the presence of foreign troops; something that was never the case when the Soviets were there.

The PDPA (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan) were instigating land reform in favour of the poor in the countryside, improving conditions for the poor in the cities, had made education for women compulsory (instead of banned!) and were massively popular in the urban centres - especially among women. They were very unpopular in the backward rural areas, especially because of their policies towards women (they wanted them to be equal members of society rather than illiterate slaves) Unfortunately there was massive infighting between two wings of the party, the Parcham (flag) and Khalq (masses) which led to instability verging on civil war - and as Dave in Prague says, the PDPA leadership INVITED the Russians in to sort it out.

Once the Russians were there, of course, it became a Cold War issue. The US and UK Governments decided that any regime backed by the Russians needed to be overthrown by any means necessary - so they funded Bin Laden (there are photos of him shaking hands with Chaney!) and what became the Taleban - to fight the Russians. But they didn't just help them fight the Russians. They helped them commit acts of terrorism, throw acid in the faces of women being educated, murder teachers going into the countryside to further the literacy programme and turn rural Afghanistan back into the primitive tribal nightmare it is today. The urban centres, however, remained radical and loyal to the PDPA - so much so that after the Russians withdrew in 1992 and everyone predicted the collapse of the leftist regime in months, it survived for FOUR YEARS. Because the urban population LOATHED the Taleban (or what became the Taleban) and fought alongside the army to keep their education, their rights as women, their schools, hospitals, music..all the things we take for granted. Women went into the trenches, prepared to die rather than live under a medieval theocratic regime. Eventually, of course, the sheer weight of weaponry provided by the West to the fundamentalists overpowered them - and then the fundamentalists turned the weapons on the West. British squaddies are still being shot with UK and US made weapons.

The whole thing is a bloody outrage. If the West hadn't intervened to SUPPORT the very people they are now FIGHTING, the Russians would have smashed the fundamentalists abd there would be NO problem of Islamofascism in Afghanistan today.

 

[drew]

Not our war.
Home immediately.

So which wars have been ours then?

Who gives a shit whether the Taliban rules Afghanistan? Just get the British people out.

Home, defend our borders on our shores. Defend our economy (and oil) on our terms.

Those men and women who have died should not have died in a war of attrition which people have forgotten why we are fighting. Bring them home so we can remember those who can't come home and move on.

Well from what I recall, this war is about neutralising, as far as is possible, Al Qaeda who were protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Since the war started, Al Qaeda have moved into the mountains of Pakistan but if we just pull out tomorrow, they will move back.

As for the Taliban, they are an oppressive regime. Just to remind you that they did not allow the education of women nor allow the to work. If they incorrectly wore their Burga they could be flogged in public. Now, I am not saying we should just take out those governments we don't like but in hindsight, do you think the world should have acted quicker in relation to the Kymer Rouge and the killing fields, or the ethnic cleansing in Srebrenica and Rwanda?

It's easy to say it's not our war but just to remind those that may have forgotten, if it wasn't for Al Qaeda, there wouldn't be a REMF!

And finally, just to put it all in perspective, Pakistan is a nation that is accused of supporting the Taliban, especially the Pakistani secret service. What would happen if the Taliban were allowed to take over the vacuum that would exist in Afghanistan should we just pull out. What may happen if their influence in Pakistan is allowed to prosper and what if they became involved in the administration of Pakistan, a nuclear state where there is a mutual distrust of their neighbour, another nuclear state, India.

I'm no expert but I would have thought the only path to success is to win over the hearts and minds and I suspect that the only way this could be done would be for the people of Afghanistan to prosper from the countries mineral wealth. Whether that is likely to happen is debatable bearing in mind that the Sceptics will probably look to exploit that for their own end.

It's far to simple to say let's just bring the boys home.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

drew - how will we know when we have succeeded in what it is we are trying to do ? And what is it we are trying to do ?

 

[daveinprague]

Originally Posted by daveinprague
Not our war.
Home immediately.

So which wars have been ours then?

Wars resulting from attacks on Britain or British interests.
This war involves an attack on the USA as a result of US foreign policy. Not British. We had not been attacked or threatened by the Taliban, or Al Qaeda.
There is no need for British or any other nations troops to be there. If the Americans want to fight shepherds, they have more than enough troops in their military to do it.

Frankly, I couldnt give a shit on Taliban policies towards women, education, culture in their country.
If the Afghans want a civil war to fight the Taliban, let them get on with it. Should be a short war, if, as everbody says, the Taliban are not wanted. Its not Britains right to go around the world with America deciding who should run what.

China has a bad rep regarding human rights, I dont see any great charge towards invading China.

 

[drew]

drew - how will we know when we have succeeded in what it is we are trying to do ? And what is it we are trying to do ?

With nuclear weapons around, you can never rest on your laurels. First phase is establish a modicum of security and then to hand over more and more control to the Afghan police and army. The sooner that happens the sooner more troops will be coming home.

 

[glasfryn]

Originally Posted by daveinprague
Not our war.
Home immediately.

So which wars have been ours then?

Wars resulting from attacks on Britain or British interests.
This war involves an attack on the USA as a result of US foreign policy. Not British. We had not been attacked or threatened by the Taliban, or Al Qaeda.
There is no need for British or any other nations troops to be there. If the Americans want to fight shepherds, they have more than enough troops in their military to do it.

Frankly, I couldnt give a shit on Taliban policies towards women, education, culture in their country.
If the Afghans want a civil war to fight the Taliban, let them get on with it. Should be a short war, if, as everbody says, the Taliban are not wanted. Its not Britains right to go around the world with America deciding who should run what.

China has a bad rep regarding human rights, I dont see any great charge towards invading China.

precisely put

 

[Pavilionaire]

First phase is establish a modicum of security and then to hand over more and more control to the Afghan police and army. The sooner that happens the sooner more troops will be coming home.

Sounds easy, except for the fact the Afghan troops are shit, ill-disciplined and poorly motivated.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Can't really be bothered to read the whole thread ... so what did we decide, in or out ?

 

[ROKERITE]

precisely put

Tritely put.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

With nuclear weapons around, you can never rest on your laurels. First phase is establish a modicum of security and then to hand over more and more control to the Afghan police and army. The sooner that happens the sooner more troops will be coming home.

So we are trying to nail down a jelly. Meanwhile our sons and daughters come home in boxes and without limbs.

 

[drew]

So we are trying to nail down a jelly. Meanwhile our sons and daughters come home in boxes and without limbs.

So your solution is to bury your head in the sand and ignore what goes on around the world? If it doesn't happen on these shores it's none of our business.

 

[algie]

Originally Posted by daveinprague
Not our war.
Home immediately.

So which wars have been ours then?

Wars resulting from attacks on Britain or British interests.
This war involves an attack on the USA as a result of US foreign policy. Not British. We had not been attacked or threatened by the Taliban, or Al Qaeda.
There is no need for British or any other nations troops to be there. If the Americans want to fight shepherds, they have more than enough troops in their military to do it.

Frankly, I couldnt give a shit on Taliban policies towards women, education, culture in their country.
If the Afghans want a civil war to fight the Taliban, let them get on with it. Should be a short war, if, as everbody says, the Taliban are not wanted. Its not Britains right to go around the world with America deciding who should run what.

China has a bad rep regarding human rights, I dont see any great charge towards invading China.

If the Afghans want a civil war to fight the Taliban, let them get on with it. Should be a short war, if, as everbody says, the Taliban are not wanted

Totally disagree with that. No matter how much training the British give to the Afgans it simply won't be enough. So if you think it will be a short war you are very much mistaken. As soon as the UN and Brits pull out there will only be one winner and that's the Taliban. With there own training methods and funding they will over throw the Afgan army in no time. It will only take a few rogue Afgans on the inside to destabilize the army before you see some of the soldiers swapping sides.

 

[daveinprague]

I was saying it would be a short war with a touch of sarcasm.

People on this board have stated that the Taliban have no support, and the very same people fear the Taliban taking over power in Afghanistan and getting a foothold in Pakistan? Make your minds up.
Anyway, if people in those countries support the Taliban and fundamentalists, its not our right to tell them that we wont stand for it.
The reason these people hate us, is because we are constantly interfering with them.

 

[ROKERITE]

I was saying it would be a short war with a touch of sarcasm.

People on this board have stated that the Taliban have no support, and the very same people fear the Taliban taking over power in Afghanistan and getting a foothold in Pakistan? Make your minds up.
Anyway, if people in those countries support the Taliban and fundamentalists, its not our right to tell them that we wont stand for it.
The reason these people hate us, is because we are constantly interfering with them.

Ofcourse the Taliban haven't got NO support, they have substantial support; but the overwhelming majority oppose them and dread the prospect of them regaining power. They already have much more than a foothold in Pakistan. They're as firmly entrenched there as in Afghanistan. There have been hundreds of Pakistani casualties, both military and civilian, over the last year, to testify to that.
We might be horrified by fundamentalism but as you say we have no right to tell people how to run their countries, unless it affects the outside world. It did, and that's how and why the current conflict began, with 9/11; an attack not just on America, but on the entire free world: which is why virtually the entire free world supported the intervention to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan a few months later.

 

[daveinprague]

The attack on 911, as Bin Laden consistantly stated, was in response to infidel (American) troops iin Saudi Arabia. He was quite specific about it. It wasnt an attack on the 'free world'. It was an attack against US foreign policy, and who is telling you that most people dont want the Taliban? Americans? Kharzai's government who even the Americans consider corrupt?
I dont know who wants power there, or who the population want in power. Frankly, I couldnt give a flying feck who runs the place.
Its a tribal culture, and wont change because we and the Americans want it to.