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

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
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

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
11,253
Reaction score
1,232
Location
Lives in Texas
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.
 
Last edited:

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
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...
 
OP
Tez3

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
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

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
108
Location
West Melbourne, FL
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.
 
OP
Tez3

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
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

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
131
Location
Guelph
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 countrys 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

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
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

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
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

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
18
Location
Great Britain
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?

_45540898_6_3_cortege.jpg
 

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
131
Location
Guelph
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

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
18
Location
Great Britain
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.
 
OP
Tez3

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
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?

_45540898_6_3_cortege.jpg


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

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
18
Location
Great Britain
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.


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

That would be an enormous leap forward IMHO.
 
OP
Tez3

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
:) :) Sorry. Guess I'm just bitter about Gen. Dannatt.




That would be an enormous leap forward IMHO.

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

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
54
Reaction score
1
Location
Fort Polk
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

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
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

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
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

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
48
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

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
54
Reaction score
1
Location
Fort Polk
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.
 

Latest Discussions

Top