Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - sorry but that is simply not the case. The documentaries I refer to are set in Helmland and Kandelhar the two areas where the Taliban have traditionally been strong and outside major cities. Great progress is being made but the only worry expressed by the British troops on the ground is whether the Afghan forces will be ready to be fully in control in time for the deadline. That said they are taking a bigger and bigger role and in some areas on the frontline are in control of operations.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, I didn't mention or imply the Brit Army is in Afghanistan to occupy that country.
The soldiers are there because they've been given orders, but the majority of the public here do not see any reason for their presence there.
Personally, I believe that the soldiers don't openly express opposition to their mission in Oxonia for fear of being out of the Army with no pension and on the dole signing on.
After being unceremoniously expelled from the Forces, they'd have little chance of finding a job, and that chance is little enough anyway even if they left the Army with honours.
You say the mission should be finished, but even western governments openly say the Taliban cannot be defeated and will eventually have to participate in peace talks and power-sharing.
The Soviet Union tried training an Afghan army. They and the communist government of Afghanistan also openly preached the equality of women and the virtues of all children going to school, and actively (but through voluntary decision) encouraged women not to wear burkhas.
Nurseries were opened for children to attend, schools were opened for all levels of education, and the Mujahedeen murdered thousands of Afghan teachers because of it.
Barry, the mission you mention will never be achieved in Afghanistan by imposing force.
Why not let us leave it to God and the Gospel? Jesus doesn't require anyone to bring enlightenment by force of arms.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
How long did it take Britain to evolve from a feudal territory ruled by competing warlords to a homogeneous modern democracy? Over a thousand years. Why are we Westerners so arrogant, and so cocksure of the supremacy of our model of national governance, that we attempt, in less than a generation, to impose it on an area which in developmental terms is like Britain before the Romans came?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Peter - I agree with you and I certainly would not measure or expect success to be a western style of modern democracy. That is not what this is all about. It is about leaving a more stable Afghanistan with leaders who are less extreme and anti-west than the Taliban and who will not sponsor terrorism.
Alexander: speak to professional soldiers, present and ex soldiers, indeed look at the former professional soldiers on this forum who know how their colleagues think and about their attitudes. What you are saying is very wide of the mark. These people are highly professional and take great pride in doing the hob they are paid for and want to do it properly. They know doing that job means going into harms way when they join.
You also cannot possible compare them or their mission to the Soviets - it is totally different. This missions is not about imposing force but is about hearts and minds and support for the moderate Afghans equipping them to be able to deal with their security. That does mean tackling the militants, terrorist and extremists with brutal force when necessary.
We can see what our troops and the Americans are doing and take great pride in them and what even the newest recruits are achieving. All of us watching these well made front-line documentaries can see that. I am staggered by maturity, actions and the massive responsibility one 21 year old Royal Marine lance-corporal had when leading a patrol having to deal with diplomatic situations with the locals and to defend against Taliban attack. At one point a local approached him, at risk of his own life, warned this lad about a IED and led them around it. That one incident in Helmland showed how they are winning this hearts and minds.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
"Winning Hearts and Minds" sounds so much like the Americans in Vietnam, before they pulled out. In areas with a Western presence there will be those who want to support a 'moderate' regime and some prepared to openly show their support but it will not apply to the majority. Most people are averse to change and want nothing more to live in the 'traditional' way and if that means they have to work with whoever holds the power at that time then so be it.
The West supported a rebel insurrection in Libya and as a result we have seen war graves desecrated and the country beginning to split in two (probably three or four before it is over). Afghanistan has a number of traditional tribal regions and it would be easy to see the same thing happening if left with a Western biased government.
The British troops are doing what they always do, their very best with the situation they have been given but any dream of leaving them with something the West would consider a stable government is just a dream. They are not a Western country and will probably never be one. The Afghans still tell stories about the evil Alexander the Great, how soon before the evil Britain and America join the saga's?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Chris - no, for 'hearts and minds' a better comparison would be the Mayasian emergency than the American farce of Vietnam. Mi Lei (?spelling) hearts and minds!!!
Again I do not think your Afghan comparison is good either. One Afghan elder in one of the recent documentaries had nick-named a British interpreter a version of Alexander as a tribute to him, not as an insult! Regardless the mission as I said is not to leave behind a western clone and you have no evidence to suggest that the majority of Aghanis would support the Taliban and living traditional lives does not necessarily equate to support for the Taliban either.
Interesting, I heard the other day on the Beeb that one of the leading contenders to succeed Karzai (?) is a woman. What a change that is....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that would never happen, difficult enough to get girls into education.
i am in agreement with peter on this, afghan culture and thinking will not change in our life time and why should it?
they have their ways and we have ours.
less than a year ago there were serious problems in folkestone with young afghan lads trying to kill each other simply because of ethnic differences,
6 different dialects were spoken by the small group involved.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
But it is not about changing Afghan thinking and culture. Remember, the Taliban do not represent the majority of Afghans, any more than fundamental christians represent you.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
A couple of points to make here. Actually I brought them up recently on the Forum when the news came out in public after a secret NATO report was revealed.
The Pakistani secret service is believed to be not only tolerating the Afghan Taliban's presence in Pakistan, but actively supplying them with material to blow up allied soldiers, and even telling them when and where to strike. As I've stated, Pakistan has stopped the passage all supplies to allied forces in Afghanistan.
Most of all, and this I say to Barry, no-one is suggesting the Taliban supporters in Afghanistan are a majority. The Uzbeks and Tajiks in the north are not Taliban supporters at all. It is only among the Pashtun population where they have support. Even if this support were a minority among the Pashtuns, it still mathematically equates to a certainty that, if British soldiers stay there till 2014, we will see hundreds more dead and hundreds more wounded soldiers returning home.
Add to this the numbers of our allied soldiers, such as Americans and Canadians.
As for winning hearts and minds, it is simply so: our Government has NO RIGHT to sacrifice our soldiers to win hearts and minds in a foreign country! It should be considered illegal, as no British constitution or law allows it!
Another point to be made, also expressed in the revealed secret NATO report, is that many Afghan officials paid by the Afghan state are in fact cashing in on the opium trade, are corrupt, and have alienated many among the Pashtun population.
But again I repeat, the public in Britain is becoming mightily disgusted with this senseless sacrifice of our soldiers in Afghanistan, that war is becoming increasingly more unpopular.
If this goes on, one day the public will have had enough.
One more note, for Barry: I was born in the British Army, literally, and lived many years in army homes and only knew the Army as my home. I probably know at least as much as you about professional soldiers and their children, their families... I lived with them!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
on a lighter note when an american president was trying to explain about the battle for hearts and minds to a mr hoover, the reply came back "when you have them by the b*lls the hearts and minds soon follow.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Sadly that is an expression of the gung-ho attitude that so bedevilled them in 'nam. The good news is that in the 'ghan the Americans seem to have learned some lessons so they are not so bad as then and it seems to be working. That said they are now professionals not conscripts as in 'nam of course.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Last year, Barry, the US lost 418 soldiers in 'Ghan. The year before 499, the year before that 317. Each year before then the figure gets lower, the reason being, the US started off with 5,000 troops deployed in Af'stan, to go gradually up to well over 100,000.
Have ye not noticed, Barry, that the West began in that honourable country with well under 10,000 soldiers, to then gradually increase their military presence by tenfold?
The clue: the situation got year by year worse, not better, so this actually disproves the idea that they are winning hearts and minds!
Too many hearts have been broken, judging by the fatalities lists of Ours, the Americans and other allies. That does not include the wounded, who are a story apart. A very heartbreaking one.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander. The whole mission was started with too few troops to do the job. Too much ground to be covered with too few troops. Now the numbers are better and more appropriate for the task in hand.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
And that benighted land will never become a happy united nation under a central government in Kabul. Not in a thousand years. There are too many ethnic factions, languages and cultural traditions for that ever to happen. We are wasting our time, our money, and most importantly, the lives of our soldiers on a project which was damned from the very beginning.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Are you saying that we should not have moved in to destroy the terrorist training camps and to unseat the mad mullahs Peter? What if they went on to undermine Pakistan from 'ghan and got hold of nukes?
What carnage would have been done in the UK if those training camps were not destroyed of if the Taliban were still in control and sponsoring more terror. We and our allies did what was necessary and still are doing so. There may be some legal and moral issues regarding the Iraq invasion but there are none of those regarding Afghanistan.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
But where next? Somalia? Puntland? Yemen? And when will we learn that when we cut off the head of the snake, it grows several more?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
It is easy to find an excuse not to act Peter in a particular instance, that is not necessarily a reason though not to do so. The US Marines have been in action in Somalia and may well have done so elsewhere. Naturally we will only get some of the story.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
US Marines are a joke. When they first hit a Somali beach about 20 years ago there was a CNN news team waiting to interview them.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
After my original posting and reading the first few I was going to post, but I saw the new rules thread.
I shall decline to say any more.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Our troops are the best of the best and are doing their utmost in a very difficult situation. Shame on our politicians of all colours for prosecuting this American war which will eventually become another Vietnam. Our soldiers deserve better. Lions led by donkeys.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
