Why Afghanistan is the wrong war

**JAD_333** · 04 Oct 09,, 17:25

Originally Posted by tankie

At last , an admission as to why we are there and not the usual B/S politico rubbish that Brown/B,liar spew out .We may now see the troops being looked after properly in as much as equipment and strength .

Do you think it will sway the British public? I guess it depends on whether they believe it. The opposition here is good at coming up with a 100 reasons for throwing in the towel without once mentioning the threat of abandoning the mission.

**tankie** · 04 Oct 09,, 17:32

Originally Posted by pChan

Sir, Britain has been a victim of Islamic terrorist attacks. The restoration of taliban sanctuary to jihadi elements is certainly not in British interests. The extent of the impact of such an event on internal security of Britain is debatable. In light of this, do you believe Afghanistan is a necessary war w.r.t Britain? If you don't believe so I would very much like to know your POV & why you came to that conclusion.

Hi , myself and friends i served with and people currently serving have repeatedly asked why are we there , it is only today that the new Cmdr Sir David has told why we are there , and M.H O is , we should concentrate on THE UK , and the attacks in the UK have been by home grown terrorists , granted influenced by Pakistan and the current climate by a/g and Iraq ,so wy dont the Pak govt get to grips with them where they are ?? so anyway , thanks to Sir David for his frank and bold statements i find we are fighting to put down an islamist regime ,and not just to give them democracy

, cos that will never happen there , but ok then ,whilest there give the Army the troops they need and equipment to do the job , BUT IMO they will never win in A/G and when the pullout is final it will revert to whatever it was before we went there . Same as Iraq . IMO .

**tankie** · 04 Oct 09,, 17:39

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Do you think it will sway the British public? I guess it depends on whether they believe it. The opposition here is good at coming up with a 100 reasons for throwing in the towel without once mentioning the threat of abandoning the mission.

Hi Jad , i hope the public get behind the lads n lasses and give all the support they can , i do , help for heros etc etc , there has never been a threat of abandonment here , only Generals telling the govt how wrong the war is going , no,one fighting is wanting to throw in the towel ,a lot of civilian parents are wanting their sons home tho ,i have always stated i dont think in its present force that its winnable , i would be happy to see the lads home and let A/G get on with it , but i dont think it makes a jot of difference in swaying either way , the govt is hell bent on its mission , but the lads ,they want the tools and support to do the job they have been tasked for . Personally until todays admission (i had my suspicions ) no,one knew why we were there ,yes i have rants about politicos who WONT listen .
edit

Thinking more about this , it may sway some public opinion in the UK , that opinion of the Islamists ,

**~~Kodiakmarmoset~~** · 04 Oct 09,, 18:44

I don't think that the invasion of Afghanistan was a wrong move. I think the ongoing occupation and war to date has resulted in little other than a slow bleed of resources.

Take the gloves off or get to hell out. The war of occupation being fought now is a freaking joke, you don't ever want an army thrashing around in an occupation. Armies are not police forces. We give the corrupt governments over there billions of dollars only to see it shot right back at us.

I read an article about an Afghan contractor who was building a bridge. I guess he got a phone call from a representative of the insurgents who said that if the bridge was built it would be destroyed. It turns out they struck a deal. The contractor would finish the bridge and collect the payment and give a cut to the Taliban who, when the bridge was finished, had it destroyed.

Have we learned anything from this?

Solve the problems there OR GET OUT.

**Kernow** · 04 Oct 09,, 20:59

General McCrystal outlines Crucial Next Steps for Afghanistan.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | General McChrystal outlines crucial next steps for Afghanistan

**JAD_333** · 05 Oct 09,, 02:28

Originally Posted by Kodiakmarmoset

Take the gloves off or get to hell out. The war of occupation being fought now is a freaking joke, you don't ever want an army thrashing around in an occupation. Armies are not police forces.

Have we learned anything from this?

Yes. You can't run the war from Seattle.

General McChrystal talked about the complexity of the situation in Afghanistan saying:

"I discount immediately anyone who simplifies the problem or offers a solution, because they have absolutely no idea of the complexity of what we are dealing with."

**n21** · 05 Oct 09,, 18:43

Can anyone tell me how much has the US spend on buying equipment for Aghan Army? When I say equiqment I dont mean AK 47's.

Stuff like armour vehicles,choppers etc. Any news about raising a Afghan air arm?

Most of the time I see the Afghan forces either on a pick up truck of along with international forces.

**~~Kodiakmarmoset~~** · 06 Oct 09,, 02:09

No you can't run the war from Seattle but I seriously doubt the people there know how to run it.

It's my opinion. We've been there almost 9 years and the situation has changed little. I just heard McCrystal say the situation is deteriorating further.

Gimme a break, give the taxpayers a break. My country is run by idiots.

Can anyone tell me how much has the US spend on buying equipment for Aghan Army? When I say equiqment I dont mean AK 47's

Got no idea. They'll probably say 10s of millions, most of which is siphoned off by our friends and allies there. That pickup cost a cool million at least and it ain't gold plated.

**Kernow** · 06 Oct 09,, 03:35

A Pick-Up for a Million!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you from? A Challenger 2 cost about $7 million so a Pick-up would cheap as.

**JAD_333** · 06 Oct 09,, 04:39

Originally Posted by n21

Can anyone tell me how much has the US spend on buying equipment for Aghan Army? When I say equiqment I dont mean AK 47's.

Stuff like armour vehicles,choppers etc. Any news about raising a Afghan air arm?

Most of the time I see the Afghan forces either on a pick up truck of along with international forces.

Use your browser. It only takes a few seconds.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Military of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**JAD_333** · 06 Oct 09,, 05:12

Originally Posted by Kodiakmarmoset

No you can't run the war from Seattle but I seriously doubt the people there know how to run it.

Elaborate.

It's my opinion. We've been there almost 9 years and the situation has changed little. I just heard McCrystal say the situation is deteriorating further.

Read all of what he said and consider context.

Gimme a break, give the taxpayers a break. My country is run by idiots.

Money is not the end all and be all of everything. Also, there is no time limit on countering a threat to national security. The Cold War lasted almost 60 years and we spent trillions on staying ahead of the USSR militarily. If you want to argue for leaving Afghanistan, ok, but at least couch your argument in terms of it having no impact on our national security. And finally, the fact that a war is not run well is not a reason to throw in the towel, but rather to find competent leadership. It took Lincoln 4 years to find the right man.

Got no idea. They'll probably say 10s of millions, most of which is siphoned off by our friends and allies there. That pickup cost a cool million at least and it ain't gold plated.

How can you have a firm opinion of what needs to happen with respect to US involvement in Afghanistan. but no idea how much the war costs the US. It's all on the record. $100 million a day. True, some of that goes into the wrong pockets. Never been a war where some didn't, but no where near more than half. What's your source for that claim?

I understand you are out of a job. Sorry to hear it. Hope things turn around for you.

S2 · 06 Oct 09,, 07:34

Kodiakmarmoset isn't missing anything here.

All the nice, thoughtful, reasoned responses offered by our sanguined, dispassionate professionals have ABJECTLY FAILED.

Failed to such a degree that reconstitution of our plan and objectives is impossibly lost in a morass of bureaucratic meddling and bleeding hearts bent on rehabilitating our foes before having defeated them.

One thing at a time and until my government can recognize the corrosive effect of permitted sanctuary, we're spinning our wheels and using blood for the lubricant.

Stop this nonsense and withdraw in utter inglorious defeat.

Then get ready to fight...

...with earnest and serious purpose.

The survivors can reconstruct themselves one pebble at a time.

**tankie** · 06 Oct 09,, 10:04

The Government refused a request for a troop surge in Afghanistan, the former head of the Army has said.

Government 'refused troops request' .General Sir Richard Dannatt said a call for 2,000 extra British soldiers was rejected earlier this year, leaving the Army to fight the Taliban with "at least part of one arm" tied behind its back.

In an interview with The Sun newspaper as he takes up his new post of Constable of the Tower of London, Sir Richard said he was "disappointed" with ministers' support for the Army.

"The military advice has been for an uplift since the beginning of 2009. If the military says we need more troops and we can supply them, then frankly they should take that advice and deploy up to the level we recommend.

"If it means finding more resources and putting more energy in, let's do it.

"If you're going to conduct an operation, you're doing it for a reason - to succeed. Don't let's do it with at least part of one arm tied behind one's back."

He added: "That said, we have gone from 8,000 to 9,000 this year - albeit with 700 as a temporary surge."

Sir Richard's comments follow a report by US and Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal that calls for more combat troops to be deployed in Afghanistan.

It is thought that Gen McChrystal wants a further surge of up to 45,000 additional fighters to help defeat the Taliban. But President Barack Obama has indicated in recent speeches a need to focus on strategy in the region as opposed to numbers.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We have long said that we would review troop numbers after the Afghan election, in light of military advice, the situation on the ground, and the outcome of international discussions on the McChrystal review. Any decisions on future troop levels would be subject to sign off by NSID and discussions with allies

Since Sir David has spoken out , seems like the bandwagon is beginning to roll , now why wont Brown LISTEN FFS

**zara** · 06 Oct 09,, 10:43

Since Sir David has spoken out , seems like the bandwagon is beginning to roll , now why wont Brown LISTEN FFS

[/QUOTE]

Cause hes far more interested in getting re-elected than he is about the fate of Afghanistan. Now that hes taking a beating from the conservatives theres no way he'd announce something as unpopular as sending more troops.

**tankie** · 06 Oct 09,, 11:29

Originally Posted by zara

Since Sir David has spoken out , seems like the bandwagon is beginning to roll , now why wont Brown LISTEN FFS

Cause hes far more interested in getting re-elected than he is about the fate of Afghanistan. Now that hes taking a beating from the conservatives theres no way he'd announce something as unpopular as sending more troops.[/QUOTE]

I dont think you understand Zara , by boosting troops he would be showing he care,s and and understands the situation and listening to his GENERALS one of which Clown is not , the public IMO would understand why , at the moment the bull headed idiot is costing lives by his inadequate bumbling and is ill advised and arrogant , thats what makes him unpopular over this war , ,an old saying , ya cant make an omelette without breaking eggs ,heres an old military saying for you Zara , we call it the 7 Ps

Prior Preparation and Planning Prevent Piss Poor Performance , which one of the Ps applies to the govt ?? Hint its the last 3 , foremost , but for the govt all 7 apply lack of the 1st 4 makes the last 3 relevant, on their part .