# "We could be in Afghanistan for the next 40 years"



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8191018.stm

Almost at the same time we hear the news that 3 Paras have been killed and one badly wounded, the new British Chief of Staff has said we could be in Afghanistan for 40 more years providing assistance. I'm sure this wasn't the idea when troops were first deployed there. How many more coffins will we be welcoming home or will it just become so taken for granted that it's ignored?
Has any American politician or military leader given any similiar indications of the length of time they think it will take to 'settle' the country? I'm hoping someone will say 'no, we're coming out in the next year'!

Something that also caught my eye was someone asking why the burden isn't falling more squarely across the board. It seems America, Canada and the UK are taking the brunt of this both in the cost of lives and money. I know some countries such as Japan and Germany because of their pasts are restricted in what they are allowed to do militarywise though they have sent medics but surely other countries should be in there as well? 

I don't support this war but dear lord I support the troops out there, literally and figuratively.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 8, 2009)

Mums the word over here, on any talk, of any significance, pertaining to Afghanistan. We hear bits and pieces, but it is not in the interest of the present Government leaders, to dwell on this subject. At this point in time, the economy is most at hand. It would seem that a line has been drawn in the sand, so to speak, where sides have been taken in regards to, for or against, this war effort. I too, fear for the safety of the troops that are in harms way.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2009)

Of course there is going to be a LONG TERM US and/or UK presence in Afghanistan AND Iraq! 
The US still has troops in Germany, Italy, North Korea...


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Of course there is going to be a LONG TERM US and/or UK presence in Afghanistan AND Iraq!
> The US still has troops in Germany, Italy, North Korea...


 


The circumstances are different, we aren't at war with Germany, Italy or South Korea, the bases are used there for operational reasons to allow you to 'reach' further not to keep the local population down. You still have bases here leased from us. You could have left your European bases at anytime but chose to keep them on.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 8, 2009)

How long did Russia try this before giving up?  Afghanistan is a losing battle.  There is no way to win there, all we can do is keep slowly chipping away at a culture that has been dealing with outsiders for decades.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> How long did Russia try this before giving up? Afghanistan is a losing battle. There is no way to win there, all we can do is keep slowly chipping away at a culture that has been dealing with outsiders for decades.


 

This is our third war with Afghanistan, didn't win the first one, the second we did but at a cost but then promptly withdrew and the third......?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 8, 2009)

Afghanistan needs a political solution; it can not be and can never be won strictly through military means. 

The Pashtun people are 40 % of the countrys population, (30 million in the border provinces of Pakistan and Afghanistan), they make up 100% of the Taliban, and yet have no representatives in the National Government. You can not alienate 40% of the population and expect to have peace.

Hamid Karzai needs to make a deal with the Pashtun warlords if long term peace will ever be achieved.

Until that happens I think some of the other Coalition forces, specifically some of the NATO ones need to up the ante by contributing more resources and taking responsibility of the more violent provinces. A disproportionate amount of the fighting is being done by 3 or 4 countries. If NATO is to survive and still be viable, roles need to change.

Pakistan also needs to keep the pressure up on its side of the border, but again, a political solution, short of a heavy casualty war, is the only viable answer.

I would be surprised if NATO forces are still in Afghanistan in 10 years. I think you will see a political settlement, and then you will see a great deal of cash flowing in for infrastructure projects. 

Canada is committed to pulling its troops out in two years, and for domestic political reasons may have to follow through.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 8, 2009)

I heard on NPR news an interview with the President's Chief Of Staff... he was saying that the terrorists have moved next door and are in Pakistan. So how come we're not jumping the border too and going after them? I mean isn't it what we are supposed to be doing according to Prez W. Bush's 9/12 speech? Chasing them down, hunting them? 

Who gets the idea that the Afghan people *want* to have a democracy? They're *tribal*... have been for thousands of years. Leave 'em alone, let a culture develop on it's own. 

Too damned bad we don't have a prime directive.

There's $$$ in war so we're going to keep fighting as long as it's turning a profit for the ones making $$$ from the weapons and equipment sales.


----------



## jarrod (Aug 8, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Who gets the idea that the Afghan people *want* to have a democracy?



if the majority wants democracy, they'll fight for it.  if the majority fights, they will probably win.  

if the majority doesn't want it...well, they have democratically decided that they don't want it, ironically.  this is the only way democracy can be born from conflict.  anything else is a form of tyranny from an external government.  

jf


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 8, 2009)

General Sir David Richards will take over from General Sir Richard Dannatt (the HERO) as the Chief of the *General* Staff.

Who will replace Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff, I don't know now that this "government" has done away with General Sir Richard Dannatt for being good at his job.

Gen. Richards of course has recently commanded out there, so should have a good idea what is needed.  Alas he seems to have distanced himself from some of the outspoken remarks of Gen. Dannatt.  I just hope he has the same _cohones_.  Time will tell.

We shouldn't forget the efforts that other countries have made.  The German's actually have the third largest contingent.  The Estonian's are in Helmand with British forces.  That said, I take your point.  We have the worst areas, but can you blame other countries governments for not wanting this?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 8, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> We shouldn't forget the efforts that other countries have made. The German's actually have the third largest contingent. The Estonian's are in Helmand with British forces.


 
The size of the contingent doesn't matter. What matters is where your troops are. How about rotating out some UK, Canadian and US troops and putting other NATO countries into the provinces where the hard fighting really is?

Total coalition deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 8, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> The size of the contingent doesn't matter. What matters is where your troops are. How about rotating out some UK, Canadian and US troops and putting other NATO countries into the provinces where the hard fighting really is?
> 
> Total coalition deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan



I think the quantity does matter.  Some on that list really are taking the pi**.  

I agree with what you say there 100% about location.  Can you blame their governments though?  Also as I said above, the Estonian's have got blokes where it matters.  (I'm sure they're not exclusive in that, they just come to mind).

It shouldn't be, and isn't just NATO either.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> General Sir David Richards will take over from General Sir Richard Dannatt (the HERO) as the Chief of the *General* Staff.
> 
> Who will replace Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff, I don't know now that this "government" has done away with General Sir Richard Dannatt for being good at his job.
> 
> ...


 

I didn't want to put too much emphasis on titles ( it gives the correct title in the article) as we have a fair few and it's confusing to non military non Brits so was being 'general' about it.

I think the quantity matters but it should be in proportion to the size of the country, you wouldn't expect the Danes or Dutch to be able to muster as many as Canada or America, even our forces are small compared to what America can turn out but all countries can turn out the same percentage of their troops. 
I think there should be a far greater input by the largest and wealthiest Muslim countries, brokering a peace deal would be a good start.

Caver, American troops are attacking in Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4619422.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7396366.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090300523.html


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't want to put too much emphasis on titles ( it gives the correct title in the article) as we have a fair few and it's confusing to non military non Brits *so was being 'general' about it.*


    Sorry.  Guess I'm just bitter about Gen. Dannatt.




Tez3 said:


> I think there should be a far greater input by the largest and wealthiest Muslim countries.



That would be an enormous leap forward IMHO.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Sorry. Guess I'm just bitter about Gen. Dannatt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I know what you mean but the government has a habit of elbowing out of job anyone who doesn't toe the line doesn't it. Can't have the troops having opinions can we! Their lot is to do or die.. . . .  quietly.


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 8, 2009)

IMHO...

We (and by saying we, I am referring to Americans) are the worst. We always do this. It seems we aren't happy unless we are spending vast amounts of money killing people far away. Thats what Americans do, we throw either money or ordinance/troops at a problem. Sometimes it's both. I don't know who told America that it was our job to police the world, especially since our own country is about as jacked up as it can get. 

We have privatized prisons, allowing corporations to make money jailing our own people.

Our education is pretty bad when compared to other industrialized nations. We score #15 and #14 in science and math respectively in the world.

We are totally addicted to foreign oil when the technology exists for us to be completely self sufficient.

And there is even other crap that should be fixed before we should ever think that other people need fixing. Besides I honestly feel that "we were attacked first," isn't our only reason for being there. Americans as a whole aren't that bright. They gripe and moan about communism or socialism when the idea of using tax money for unversal health care for our own people, yet we are all cool and excited to spend those same tax dollars killing non-Americans.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 8, 2009)

DergaSmash said:


> We are totally addicted to foreign oil when the technology exists for us to be completely self sufficient.


We are NOT addicted to foreign oil we have NO CHOICE but to use foreign oil because all that technology that was created and invented decades ago (especially during the so called "energy crisis")  was bought out and repressed by those who import the oil and now slowing the wheels of progressive advances to alternate fuels... cars are hybrid instead of full on electrical or natural gas or hydrogen fueled. Get rid of the friggin oil companies and we can possibly have major and RAPID advances to alternate and cleaner fuels and only use a small amount of fossil fuels (which would be from the U.S. supply) to create some of the fuels needed for more grander ventures... such as space travel/exploration.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The circumstances are different, we aren't at war with Germany, Italy or South Korea, the bases are used there for operational reasons to allow you to 'reach' further not to keep the local population down. You still have bases here leased from us. You could have left your European bases at anytime but chose to keep them on.


We were at war with Germany and Italy immediately before establishing our presence there. We were at war with NORTH Korea immediately before establishing out presence in South Korea. (BTW, You all know the Korean War isn't over, right?)


----------



## still learning (Aug 9, 2009)

Hello, Today newpaper mention so far 223 billons spent for Afghan/Irag wars...

what will be the cost for the future? ...all about getting their OILS..

Don't we have enough OIL in America gulf coast and Alaska lands?

Imagine if we use that money to search for oil in America and using that money for more research in solar power and better gas milage cars?

TAXES you pay..is going overseas.....and to all our foreign friends...thanks to our governament beliefs...this is a good thing!

....Afghanistan....future Vacations spots for Americans....
--------------------------------

In Iran? ...they are allow to offical have 4 wives...and 4 or more sub-wives...$$$$
Their banks pays about 20% interest rates for savings? .....according to this Iranian in Hawaii...(college student)..Who never wants to go back there too..

Aloha, .....traveling can be fun!


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 9, 2009)

Oil isn't just used for gasoline in our cars. Some fertilizers, plastics, drugs, rubber, etc, are all petroleum based. Americans ARE addicted to oil. Everyone doesn't need their giant SUV. If everyone who didn't need one traded theirs in for a hybrid, it would cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. It would also cut consumption by 60%. Does everyone need to drive to work?? What about trains, subways, and buses? We are addicted to oil, it's a fact. You can buy electric cars/motorcycles. There is a car in development in Europe that runs on compressed air. You can also get license to produce your own ethanol and there are car mods that will allow you to run that.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 9, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I think the quantity does matter. Some on that list really are taking the pi**.
> 
> I agree with what you say there 100% about location. Can you blame their governments though? Also as I said above, the Estonian's have got blokes where it matters. (I'm sure they're not exclusive in that, they just come to mind).
> 
> It shouldn't be, and isn't just NATO either.


 
Im a Canadian of British parents so

The Coalition is made up of troops from NATO and other allied countries. The US asked for aid, from NATO members after September 11, 2001 as they had a right to do and as they should have done. NATO and other allied countrys came to the aid of the US.

I understand the position of some of the allied nations not wanting to put their soldiers into harms way, but I know damn well that if it had been London, or Paris or Toronto or Brussels or Lisbon that had been attacked instead of New York, the Americans would have gladly put there troops in harms way for the rest of us. I think it is hypocritical of many of the allied nations to send troops only if, they can police the Kurdish provinces, or run the air fields, or run the transports. The Americans have put themselves in the line of fire for many in the past, its bloody well time some of the other allied countrys come out from behind cover and help them out.

BTW. The biggest supplier of oil to the US, is Canada. Afghanistan has no oil, and Iraq was a huge mistake.


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 9, 2009)

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I get that after we blow a country up, kill it's people, and destroy property, that we owe them to help rebuild and all that. That part I understand.

Yet America wasn't attacked by a country. We were attacked by a super far right religious group, not all that different from the religious groups we have here that blow up abortion clinics.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 9, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> I&#8217;m a Canadian of British parents so&#8230;
> 
> The Coalition is made up of troops from NATO and other allied countries. The US asked for aid, from NATO members after September 11, 2001 as they had a right to do and as they should have done. NATO and other allied country&#8217;s came to the aid of the US.
> 
> ...


 
London _was_ attacked by bombers. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings


----------



## geezer (Aug 9, 2009)

DergaSmash said:


> We were attacked by a super far right religious group, not all that different from the religious groups we have here that blow up abortion clinics.



Yep, but the government of Afghanistan at that time, that is to say Mullah Mohammed Omar and the taliban, offered Osama Bin Laden sanctuary and support, making his country complicit in the act. 

Interestingly, historically the Brits had to deal with their own equivalent of the taliban. Ever hear of Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads? Oh, and what became of _those _religious fanatics? Their descendants, the Puritans founded our country. And contrary to our national myth, they didn't come here religious freedom, but to establish an oppressive theocracy. From what I see and read, they never quite died out!


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 9, 2009)

geezer said:


> Yep, but the government of Afghanistan at that time, that is to say Mullah Mohammed Omar and the taliban, offered Osama Bin Laden sanctuary and support, making his country complicit in the act.
> 
> Interestingly, historically the Brits had to deal with their own equivalent of the taliban. Ever hear of Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads? Oh, and what became of _those _religious fanatics? Their descendants, the Puritans founded our country. And contrary to our national myth, they didn't come here religious freedom, but to establish an oppressive theocracy. From what I see and read, they never quite died out!


 
I think you need to have a closer look at the subject especially the history of religions here. Not all Roundheads were Puritans, they were however all Parlimentarians.


----------



## geezer (Aug 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think you need to have a closer look at the subject especially the history of religions here. Not all Roundheads were Puritans, they were however all Parlimentarians.


 
Sorry if my attitude seems a bit... er Cavalier.


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 9, 2009)

It's all good. I just think that sometimes the U.S needs to scale down the pride a bit and admit it when we're wrong or when we make mistakes instead of staying deployed even longer to correct them. Besides why is it 'tyranny' when another country uses their military but it is 'defending freedom' when the US does it?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 9, 2009)

geezer said:


> Sorry if my attitude seems a bit... er Cavalier.


 
Well as long as you don't lose your head over it!

We've had a long history of religious fighting here and if you want to compare anything we had to the Taliban I'd suggest the IRA, they bombed both the Province and the mainland many times causing death and mayhem. Thousands were left dead, even this year we had soldiers killed. American money was funding the IRA, not the government but sympathisers raised the money for the arms to be sent to the provos to kill innocent British and sometimes not just British people.
If you look at that you will also see the connection to Oliver Cromwell.


----------



## Flea (Aug 10, 2009)

"Americans are trying to beat down the Taliban uprising.  And they think that by sending in their troops and Pakistani troops, that they'll be able to squash these people down. Good luck!  These people live in caves ... they make guns with their bare hands.  You can't beat them.  They've been doing it for centuries, and they will continue to."

[yt]kWA4s4p7Ttc[/yt]


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 10, 2009)

If Obama nickels and dimes Afghanistan like Johnson did in Vietnam, yea we could be there 40 years.

The SURGE in Iraq was a real SURGE. Obama isnt doing a surge like Bush. He is just throwing in a few here and there to act as a stopgap.

I'm afraid we are seeing history repeat itself, "First time as tragedy, second time as farce."

And GI's are dying cause Obama simply want's out of Afghanistan.

He cares nothing but for himself cause in his view, it really is about him.

Deaf


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 10, 2009)

I really like all the armchair military historians....

It is possible to "win" in Afghanistan..if we had the will and the nerve to do so. Sometimes though the cost of victory is at the expense of our ideals. Look at Saddam..he was able to "control" all of Iraq for a long time. We could do it too if the necessary methods were not so repugnant. War has been of THAT nature FAR longer than it has been of the current one..you know, the whole reporting of every single soldier death as if THAT is proof that we are loosing, making our military look like villains every time there is an accidental civilian death, comparing the beheading and execution of OUR soldiers taken prisoner with our troops making theirs stand naked for a while... Stuff like that.


----------



## Flea (Aug 10, 2009)

It looks like my video above failed to embed.  Here's the link:


----------



## Flea (Aug 10, 2009)

> comparing the beheading and execution of OUR soldiers taken prisoner with our troops making theirs stand naked for a while


Neither decapitation nor sexual humiliation are acceptable treatment for prisoners of war.  When both practices being compared are so repugnant, a discussion of which is worse loses meaning.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I really like all the armchair military historians....
> 
> It is possible to "win" in Afghanistan..if we had the will and the nerve to do so. Sometimes though the cost of victory is at the expense of our ideals. Look at Saddam..he was able to "control" all of Iraq for a long time. We could do it too if the necessary methods were not so repugnant. War has been of THAT nature FAR longer than it has been of the current one..you know, the whole reporting of every single soldier death as if THAT is proof that we are loosing, making our military look like villains every time there is an accidental civilian death, comparing the beheading and execution of OUR soldiers taken prisoner with our troops making theirs stand naked for a while... Stuff like that.


 
Armchair military historians? 

Dude, there are many of us posting here with extensive practical military experience, plus serious education in strategic studies, foreign policy and defence policy, we actually may have a clue as to what we speak

Is it really a victory if we kill every man, woman, child and salt the fields of Afghanistan? Machiavellian tactics are quite abhorrent IMHO.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 11, 2009)

Flea said:


> Neither decapitation nor sexual humiliation are acceptable treatment for prisoners of war. When both practices being compared are so repugnant, a discussion of which is worse loses meaning.


 
I think that murder and humiliation (which SHOULD be punished...dont get me wrong) are on VASTLY different levels of "repugnance". As different as life and death. Believing that the the two are somehow equal is a bit mind boggling. In civil law would they be punished equally?

Hmm..death or sexual humiliation? Ill take the sexual humiliation please...I know that someone is somehow going to interpret what Im saying as "awww. Abu Graib wasnt so bad" and that the soldiers there shouldnt have been punished. They got what they deserved, but they were scapegoated for people WAY up the chain IMO. What Im saying is that the media makes things like Abu Graib front page news that we STILL talk about, while the rapist/murdering infantrymen that were recently convicted are a temporary blip on the radar. Why? because one is trying to paint our entire military as "being as bad as them" while the other is an obvious example of evil individuals doing evil things.

What we did to Japanese Americans in WWII seems repugnant to our current sensibilities but are they on the same level of "repugnance" as the German extermination camps were? 

The vast majority of our population get their opinions about War served to them by their media of choice which gets to pick and choose what is served up on our idiot boxes and laptop screens. When it's come to the point that we think that an enemy that beheads prisoners on camera for propoganda are somehow "on par" with what happened at Abu Graib we have a serious disconnect going on IMO.

When did this start? Its my opinion that the media first got its taste of this power during Vietnam. When Cronkite was able to take what was in military terms a tactical defeat for the Viet Cong..the Tet offensive and what could have been the turning point of the war..and rephrased it as proof that Vietnam was "unwinable", turning it into a decisive defeat for US and the power balance was shifted. IMO all reporters ever since have been salivating at the chance to drop a Cronkite bomb on the next American war.

I defer of course to the "many of us" with extensive military theory and foriegn relations experience here...I will be returning to the Pentagon shortly.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 11, 2009)

Looking at went on at Abu Ghraib purely from an intelligence point of view not a humanitarian one, it is a complete waste of time trying to get reliable information out of people that way. Picking low ranking soldiers out for torture is also pointless, it was just an excuse for sadism. It was sheer stupidity to think that it was a worthwhile exercise in intelligence gathering as is Guantanamo, sloppiness and lazy thinking. Again if you want to think cold bloodiedly, all they've done is lower ourselves to Saddams standards and made us look no better than him. In todays world of instant access to media the propaganda war is as equally important to win, this doesn't do it. We must appear to be better than that which we've cast out, hearts and minds are as important as weapons in winning these wars.  

I don't know how the conversation turned to a diatribe against American media but there you go. America shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place never mind whether it was a winnable war or not. Thats also the view of a Vietnam vet I know, he can't see why he was there ( being injured twice) in the first place. It's the general view thats the problem not the media.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> America shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place never mind whether it was a winnable war or not. Thats also the view of a Vietnam vet I know, he can't see why he was there ( being injured twice) in the first place. It's the general view thats the problem not the media.


 
The South Vietnamese sure as hell didnt think we shouldnt have been there and many of them paid the price when we backed out....we "shouldnt have gone there" if we were not willing to win in the first place. Exactly the case in Afghanistan so it is appropriate here....

As to individual soldiers and their opinions as to "why they were there" well those are going to vary widely. Im betting more than a few WWII vets asked the same question...

BTW if you dont think that the media influences the "general view" well I dont know where THIS discussion can go.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The South Vietnamese sure as hell didnt think we shouldnt have been there and many of them paid the price when we backed out....we "shouldnt have gone there" if we were not willing to win in the first place. Exactly the case in Afghanistan so it is appropriate here....
> 
> As to individual soldiers and their opinions as to "why they were there" well those are going to vary widely. Im betting more than a few WWII vets asked the same question...
> 
> BTW if you dont think that the media influences the "general view" well I dont know where THIS discussion can go.


 

The question about Vietnam is simply that North Vietnam was communist and America hates communists therefore it's right for American troops to die for that belief. Vietnam was frankly none of America's business, other countries such as Zimbabwe have to sink or swim without interference from 'superpowers'. 

You are talking about American media, the OP was about a British commander stating we'd be in Afghanistan for the next forty years.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 11, 2009)

I understand what your point is and from a purely military point of view I agree with you. You do what you have to, to win a war.

But as Carl Von Clausewitz once said, War is the continuation of politics by other means. 

War has been and will always be political. 

Soldiers and para-military forces only ever make up a small percentage of a States population. What do you do when you defeat them? When you kill or capture enough of them? You still have 95% of a population to deal with, generally a population that will slip a knife into your back at the first opportunity.

Afghanistan has at least 8 separate ethnic groups, some allied with us some not. The Taliban are almost exclusively made up of the Pashtun people, who make up 40% of the country, and who encompass huge areas into Pakistan. They do not recognize a border between the two countries. The Pashtun are for all intents and purposes not represented in the National government. 

The Taliban have never carried out a terrorist attack outside of Afghanistan, that is al Qaeda. They are two separate and distinct organizations. The Taliban are only interested in Afghanistan, and kicking out the foreign invaders.  

You can not kill off 40% of the Afghan population, therefore you need to find a political solution that appeases the Pashtun people.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 11, 2009)

Good post Ken.  It should be noted that Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun.  

This is interesting on just that subject.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 11, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Good post Ken. It should be noted that Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun.
> 
> This is interesting on just that subject.


 
The Token Pashtun face. One who has been strongly anti-Taliban in the past.


----------



## blindsage (Aug 11, 2009)

How is it that recognizing and holding ourselves accoutable to the unnacceptable acts that our own people commit is somehow making those things equal to the heinous acts of a terrorist and/or insurgent group that we have already acknowledged as being of the worst kind by sending our military forces to stop them?  We cannot run around the world constantly stating and implying that our culture and way of life is the best, most moral, and most 'developed' and then, when we fall short of those ideals, not hold ourselves accountable for them.  This isn't about comparing the mental and emotional trauma of sexual humiliation to video taped beheadings and determining which is worse.  It's about not being hypocrites.  We either hold ourselves to the standards we present to the world or we shove them aside and stop pretending our way is any better than anyone else's.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The question about Vietnam is simply that North Vietnam was communist and America hates communists therefore it's right for American troops to die for that belief. Vietnam was frankly none of America's business, other countries such as Zimbabwe have to sink or swim without interference from 'superpowers'.
> 
> You are talking about American media, the OP was about a British commander stating we'd be in Afghanistan for the next forty years.


 
Thats right, I forgot that the only nations that shouldnt be left to their fates are European ones....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 11, 2009)

The problem is that, although we are slowly (too slowly) learning the lesson, we are treating this with the mindset of a conventional war.  If we continue to do so, the problem will never actually be solved.

However, even if we do wage a successful 4th generation war mindset, it will still take us at least a generation, probably two, to successfully deal with the problem.  Even then, there will be pockets of discontent, people who will remember that their grandfathers/uncles/parents, etc, fought died due to U.S./British involvement.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Thats right, I forgot that the only nations that shouldnt be left to their fates are European ones....


 
Snarky aren't we? You got paid for all the help you gave in the last war, your economy was bust before the war and booming afterwards so don't whinge that we were ungrateful, we've only just finished paying you millions of pounds a year for the privilege of your help.



I don't mean to offend anyone else here, I'm just really really fed up of everytime a non American says something, one or two people have to say exactly what Archangel has said. We are grateful for the help we received and we honour thoise who died but there's no denying America prospered while Europe had to rebuild, both due to the war.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 12, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The problem is that, although we are slowly (too slowly) learning the lesson, we are treating this with the mindset of a conventional war. If we continue to do so, the problem will never actually be solved.
> 
> However, even if we do wage a successful 4th generation war mindset, it will still take us at least a generation, probably two, to successfully deal with the problem. Even then, there will be pockets of discontent, people who will remember that their grandfathers/uncles/parents, etc, fought died due to U.S./British involvement.


 

As I said it's not our first war there so it's likely great and great great grandfathers who died against the British are remembered. I think it's a war we are fighting differently from you as sadly we've had more experience than yourselves at this type of warfare. We've fought this guerilla type action in Malaya as well as Northern Ireland before. Before that we've fought all alone the North West Frontier plus we thave the Gurkhas who are doing brillianty out there, liasing with the locals who respect them as everyone knows who they they are there. Their fighting skills are phenomenal, totally nice guys and totally scary.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/hearts-and-minds/


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Thats right, I forgot that the only nations that shouldnt be left to their fates are European ones....



    :disgust:


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 12, 2009)

It was a disturbing but not entirely unexpected statement to be made with regard to the length of time it is being envisaged for us to spend on Afghan soil.

It was never going to be any different with a country so heavily balkanised along political, ethnic and religious divides.  Attempting to homogenise such a country into a state amenable to the economic ambitions of external bodies is not quite a forlorn hope but pretty close to one.

The distressing thing is the lives that will be lost and the money expended to achieve a foreign policy goal that is not, in my opinion, in our best interests.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 12, 2009)

Off topic, slightly.

I think if you read my posts I&#8217;m pretty neutral and pragmatic when it comes to most things (&#8230;.except religion&#8230;)

I feel that some of the allies in Afghanistan need to come out and relieve the UK, Canadian, Dutch and American troops doing most of the combat. I am most thankful for American aid when Canada and the world has needed it, as I&#8217;m sure the US is thankful for Canadian and world help during its hard times. (Yes we were/are there during Katrina, 9/11, forest fires, etc, etc. There is one Hell of a lot of cross border cooperation.)

But why is it you get the odd person stepping up and throwing WW2 and American involvement in Europe into European faces every once in a while?

I don&#8217;t see Canadians, Australians, South Africans, New Zealanders, and other countries &#8220;throwing&#8221; it, and holding it over the UK, why do some Americans get their knickers in a knot about it? No one has ever, as far as I know not been grateful for the help. 

At the end of WW2, Canada had the worlds 4th largest navy and 3rd largest air force, with over 1.1 million Canadians serving in the military, out of a population of just over 11 million. We are damn proud of helping rid the world of fascism, but I&#8217;ll be damned if I&#8217;ll hold it over the heads of the Europeans just to make myself feel good


----------

