Why do our soldiers have to go to Afghanistan?

[willman]

People appear to have an issue with the thread content - please refrain from hurling the race card

[Smithster]

Why do our soldiers have to go to Afghanistan? Or perhaps I think what the OP is actually asking is Why did Britain get involved in the Afghan conflict?

 

Well... where to start, where to start. Essentially it is because Blair bent over and duly did what he was told by Bush and his neo-con government. Americans, as a result of the litigious society in which they live, have this deeply ingrained need to have someone to blame when bad things happen. When 9/11 happened, and casting aside here any question about whether or not the Bush government were complicit in the attacks, the general public demanded that somebody pay dearly for what happened - 'Closure' I believe is the term that is over-used these days.

 

There is little doubt that during the late 90s and early 00s, Al-Qaeda were operating their training camps mostly in southern Afghanistan under the relative safety of the Taleban government who, while not necessarily sharing AQ's agenda of global jihad, they certainly believed in the same version of fundamentalist Islam. The Taleban themselves were no threat to the USA. Indeed, the US had previously held lengthy negotiations with the Taleban government under Mullah Omar about running gas and oil pipelines through Afghanistan. But when Omar decided not to hand over Bin Laden to the Americans and protect him instead, in one foul swoop he doomed the Taleban because from that point on the US propaganda machine went into overdrive making them out as being just as evil as Al-Qaeda themselves. The American public would no longer see the distinction between the two groups and the full fury of the revenge-seeking US would be unleashed on them both. From then on it was inevitable that the US would begin an invasion of Afghanistan.

 

The problem was the way they went about it. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all laboured under the false belief that they could exact a swift and crushing defeat on the Taleban and Al-Qaeda without actually needing to put any large numbers of troops on the ground. They relied too heavily on airstrikes, which as we all know leave far too much collateral damage killing too many civilians and consequently creating a whole new generation of suicide bombers wanting retribution against the American invaders. But the big, big mistake the US made was to use $millions to pay the disaffected warlords from groups such as the Northern Alliance to do their fighting for them. This strategy presented two major problems. The first was that it empowered the very people who had kept Afghanistan in a perpetual state of civil war until the Taleban took control in the mid 90s. The second was that the militia men hired by these warlords were far too corrupt and huge numbers of senior Taleban and Al-Qaeda figures were able to escape across the border to Pakistan, where they were protected by the ISI and allowed to rebuild their infrastructure, by offering bribes to the foot soldiers of the warlords. This would not have happened had the US deployed their own troops instead of relying on the locals, and in my opinion it is the main reason that the conflict has gone on as long as it has.

 

Getting back to the original point, it was agreed in around 2007 that the British troops would take responsibility for the southern regions, including Helmand which is occupied mostly by Pashtun tribes who were in general more sympathetic to the Taleban than other tribal regions. The reason that British forces have born the brunt of such heavy fighting and taken so many casualties in this area is because the Taleban and Al-Qaeda were given free reign by the Pakistani government, under the leadership of the two-faced president Musharraf, to re-group, recruit and re-train, with the assistance of the ISI, in the North West Frontier Provinces (NWFP) most especially in the town of Quetta. From here they have been able to launch their attacks across the border safe in the knowledge that the coalition forces cannot cross into Pakistan to strike back at their bases.

 

So why are we really there? I guess only the neo-cons who have now left office will really know the answer to that. One thing that is certain though is that Blair was so accommodating to Bush's requests because he wanted to continue with the so-called 'special relationship'. He knew that by refusing what the US was proposing, Britain would become outcasts in the international stage and his arrogance would never allow that.

[Harleyman]

Why do our soldiers have to go to Afghanistan? Or perhaps I think what the OP is actually asking is Why did Britain get involved in the Afghan conflict?

 

Well... where to start, where to start. Essentially it is because Blair bent over and duly did what he was told by Bush and his neo-con government. Americans, as a result of the litigious society in which they live, have this deeply ingrained need to have someone to blame when bad things happen. When 9/11 happened, and casting aside here any question about whether or not the Bush government were complicit in the attacks, the general public demanded that somebody pay dearly for what happened - 'Closure' I believe is the term that is over-used these days.

 

There is little doubt that during the late 90s and early 00s, Al-Qaeda were operating their training camps mostly in southern Afghanistan under the relative safety of the Taleban government who, while not necessarily sharing AQ's agenda of global jihad, they certainly believed in the same version of fundamentalist Islam. The Taleban themselves were no threat to the USA. Indeed, the US had previously held lengthy negotiations with the Taleban government under Mullah Omar about running gas and oil pipelines through Afghanistan. But when Omar decided not to hand over Bin Laden to the Americans and protect him instead, in one foul swoop he doomed the Taleban because from that point on the US propaganda machine went into overdrive making them out as being just as evil as Al-Qaeda themselves. The American public would no longer see the distinction between the two groups and the full fury of the revenge-seeking US would be unleashed on them both. From then on it was inevitable that the US would begin an invasion of Afghanistan.

 

The problem was the way they went about it. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all laboured under the false belief that they could exact a swift and crushing defeat on the Taleban and Al-Qaeda without actually needing to put any large numbers of troops on the ground. They relied too heavily on airstrikes, which as we all know leave far too much collateral damage killing too many civilians and consequently creating a whole new generation of suicide bombers wanting retribution against the American invaders. But the big, big mistake the US made was to use $millions to pay the disaffected warlords from groups such as the Northern Alliance to do their fighting for them. This strategy presented two major problems. The first was that it empowered the very people who had kept Afghanistan in a perpetual state of civil war until the Taleban took control in the mid 90s. The second was that the militia men hired by these warlords were far too corrupt and huge numbers of senior Taleban and Al-Qaeda figures were able to escape across the border to Pakistan, where they were protected by the ISI and allowed to rebuild their infrastructure, by offering bribes to the foot soldiers of the warlords. This would not have happened had the US deployed their own troops instead of relying on the locals, and in my opinion it is the main reason that the conflict has gone on as long as it has.

 

Getting back to the original point, it was agreed in around 2007 that the British troops would take responsibility for the southern regions, including Helmand which is occupied mostly by Pashtun tribes who were in general more sympathetic to the Taleban than other tribal regions. The reason that British forces have born the brunt of such heavy fighting and taken so many casualties in this area is because the Taleban and Al-Qaeda were given free reign by the Pakistani government, under the leadership of the two-faced president Musharraf, to re-group, recruit and re-train, with the assistance of the ISI, in the North West Frontier Provinces (NWFP) most especially in the town of Quetta. From here they have been able to launch their attacks across the border safe in the knowledge that the coalition forces cannot cross into Pakistan to strike back at their bases.

 

So why are we really there? I guess only the neo-cons who have now left office will really know the answer to that. One thing that is certain though is that Blair was so accommodating to Bush's requests because he wanted to continue with the so-called 'special relationship'. He knew that by refusing what the US was proposing, Britain would become outcasts in the international stage and his arrogance would never allow that.[/QUOTE]

[Harleyman]

Why do our soldiers have to go to Afghanistan? Or perhaps I think what the OP is actually asking is Why did Britain get involved in the Afghan conflict?

 

Well... where to start, where to start. Essentially it is because Blair bent over and duly did what he was told by Bush and his neo-con government. Americans, as a result of the litigious society in which they live, have this deeply ingrained need to have someone to blame when bad things happen. When 9/11 happened, and casting aside here any question about whether or not the Bush government were complicit in the attacks, the general public demanded that somebody pay dearly for what happened - 'Closure' I believe is the term that is over-used these days.

 

There is little doubt that during the late 90s and early 00s, Al-Qaeda were operating their training camps mostly in southern Afghanistan under the relative safety of the Taleban government who, while not necessarily sharing AQ's agenda of global jihad, they certainly believed in the same version of fundamentalist Islam. The Taleban themselves were no threat to the USA. Indeed, the US had previously held lengthy negotiations with the Taleban government under Mullah Omar about running gas and oil pipelines through Afghanistan. But when Omar decided not to hand over Bin Laden to the Americans and protect him instead, in one foul swoop he doomed the Taleban because from that point on the US propaganda machine went into overdrive making them out as being just as evil as Al-Qaeda themselves. The American public would no longer see the distinction between the two groups and the full fury of the revenge-seeking US would be unleashed on them both. From then on it was inevitable that the US would begin an invasion of Afghanistan.

 

The problem was the way they went about it. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all laboured under the false belief that they could exact a swift and crushing defeat on the Taleban and Al-Qaeda without actually needing to put any large numbers of troops on the ground. They relied too heavily on airstrikes, which as we all know leave far too much collateral damage killing too many civilians and consequently creating a whole new generation of suicide bombers wanting retribution against the American invaders. But the big, big mistake the US made was to use $millions to pay the disaffected warlords from groups such as the Northern Alliance to do their fighting for them. This strategy presented two major problems. The first was that it empowered the very people who had kept Afghanistan in a perpetual state of civil war until the Taleban took control in the mid 90s. The second was that the militia men hired by these warlords were far too corrupt and huge numbers of senior Taleban and Al-Qaeda figures were able to escape across the border to Pakistan, where they were protected by the ISI and allowed to rebuild their infrastructure, by offering bribes to the foot soldiers of the warlords. This would not have happened had the US deployed their own troops instead of relying on the locals, and in my opinion it is the main reason that the conflict has gone on as long as it has.

 

Getting back to the original point, it was agreed in around 2007 that the British troops would take responsibility for the southern regions, including Helmand which is occupied mostly by Pashtun tribes who were in general more sympathetic to the Taleban than other tribal regions. The reason that British forces have born the brunt of such heavy fighting and taken so many casualties in this area is because the Taleban and Al-Qaeda were given free reign by the Pakistani government, under the leadership of the two-faced president Musharraf, to re-group, recruit and re-train, with the assistance of the ISI, in the North West Frontier Provinces (NWFP) most especially in the town of Quetta. From here they have been able to launch their attacks across the border safe in the knowledge that the coalition forces cannot cross into Pakistan to strike back at their bases.

 

So why are we really there? I guess only the neo-cons who have now left office will really know the answer to that. One thing that is certain though is that Blair was so accommodating to Bush's requests because he wanted to continue with the so-called 'special relationship'. He knew that by refusing what the US was proposing, Britain would become outcasts in the international stage and his arrogance would never allow that.[/QUOTE]

 

But not so safe any longer thanks to drones

 

As far as Britain being an outcast not very many of their fellow members of NATO were very enthusiatic or willing to commit their troops. The French and Germans so long under NATO protection had no interest since the threat from the Soviet Union had disappeared. We're alright Jack was the word

[andyofborg]

Does any one remember opium wars?

 

...

 

do you mean the one where britain declared war on china because the chinese didn't want to import our drugs?

[Smithster]

 

But not so safe any longer thanks to drones

 

As far as Britain being an outcast not very many of their fellow members of NATO were very enthusiatic or willing to commit their troops. The French and Germans so long under NATO protection had no interest since the threat from the Soviet Union had disappeared. We're alright Jack was the word

 

Not strictly true as Germany has played quite an active role in the conflict. Although their troops are not actively engaging any enemy fighters and they are on more of a peace-keeping mission in areas not heavily affected by the Taleban insurgency. But Germany took responsibility for training the newly-formed Afghan police force after Hamid Karzai's completely ineffectual government was installed.

 

Not sure about the French though. It's widely known they did not want to get involved in Iraq but I think they have a few thousand troops in Afghanistan.

[andyofborg]

 

Not strictly true as Germany has played quite an active role in the conflict. Although their troops are not actively engaging any enemy fighters and they are on more of a peace-keeping mission in areas not heavily affected by the Taleban insurgency.

 

 

i may be wrong but i believe the german constitution places some quite severe constraints on how the german military can be utilised in these sorts of operations

[Mecky]

You don't se the point? Dear Lord no.

[Zaytsev]

OOOOh soldier boy is getting upset because he doesn't know history of the conflict. I mentioned this point 'Both attacks you mention were not carried out in name of religion but politics. You of course are unable to differentiate that' what is your response soldier? Stop twisting like worm on a hook now and and let me educate you.

 

Just what has the fact of him being a soldier got to do with anything.

 

You may very well disagree with him but you do your standpoint no favours by resorting to childish insults based on the term 'soldier'.

[Harleyman]

Just what has the fact of him being a soldier got to do with anything.

 

You may very well disagree with him but you do your standpoint no favours by resorting to childish insults based on the term 'soldier'.

 

Pay no attention to him. He's demented. I anticipate that he will soon rip his keyboard in two and attempt to flush it down the toilet.