Afghanistan ifs and maybes

Nick, all these statements are (from Brown AND Milliband) are soundbytes aimed at fooling the public. As you rightly say, that any fundamental difference in the deployment of British Troops in Afghanistan will happen before the election. Saying stuff like this now serves a number of purposes for GB, but it won't change that fact.

What it DOES do, is allow the following scenarios to play out:

1. When, as looks the case, Labour are in opposition next year, GB or whoever the leader then is can blame the Conservatives for not following through on Gordon's pledge to pull troops out (nicely avoiding the fact that it's an impossible pledge to fulfil).

2) If, by some perverse miracle enough of the british public buy into this guff, and Labour cling to some semblance of power, then the ends justify the means - Gordon will have his election win and to hell with the poor troops. It wouldn't be the first election pledge that Labour have reneged on once in power, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

It's a desperate attempt to build some very unstable moral high ground to cling onto - nothing more.

And in the meantime, the only way that troops come home will be in hospital flights or in boxes.

It's amazing how many things are going to happen 'next year'. Afghan pull out, credible budget,sensible governance....

Each time GB has hosted a conference on the international stage, he gets a short term opinion poll bounce which lasts a little longer if he is photographed smiling with President Omaha, Sarko and Mrytle.

These announcements are pure pre-election posturing; in fact the clever ones of you out there can probably work out the date of the GE based on the date of the conference (assuming that the PBR is not counted as a 'proper' budget and therefore no 3 month rule applies).

GB knows that the war is going to take him down with the economy so if he can rely on 'Britain coming out of recession' and 'Troops out of Afghanistan', his chances of re-election, sorry election, will be better than they are now.

GB with TB were responsible for both so let us hope that the electorate do not suffer political amnesia when it matters.

The Election campaign has started in earnest...a few good old fashioned populist 'policies of lies' that will never see the light of day.

And what for?

Simply to try and hang on to Power.

Disgusting

Maybe time Labour were straight with the electorate and put some realistic numbers on their new PR campaign. Then we might see how the new announcements are nothing more than spin and none of the underlying problems have been addressed.

It is a "bad war" and is being badly managed by our politicians and our troops are paying the price with their lives and taxpayers are paying the bills. Time Labour actually did something about this.

Exactly who is coming to this conferance ?

Has Obama, who is the one who will make the decision when to pull out agreed to this did he even know about this?

Or is Gordon Brown chasing favourable headlines again ?

You know the answer Nick, we all do hence the tone blog which actually does you great credit.

I agree Bobhead, next year, it's going to be brilliant the Queens speech will be a Masterclass of a Party Political Broadcast

Milliband's approach is more realistic than the wishful thinking of Brown but such an approach should have been taken 3 to 4 years ago. The problem is that that approach will require time, organisation and determination qualities sorely absent from HMG Afghanistan campaign so far.

At least our leaders now seem to have realised that most members of the public are not so stupid as to believe the various excuses for the war that the government have put out.

They would be wise to get out as quickly as possible. It will be humiliating, but since the Taliban know exactly what they are fighting for, while we do not, the longer it is put off, the worse it will be. Whoever wins next year's election should do so immediately.

As in Vietnam, it is unlikely that the corrupt regime will last long, once NATO military support has been withdrawn, but short of having the CIA organise a coupe against Karsai, this is now unavoidable.

Instead of hosting another conference, why doesn't GB stick another item on the agenda of the planned conferences - say the next G8 summit. A little sub-committee of attendees?

Oh, I know the answer: this is a bit of posturing. He thinks he can look important by calling a meeting here. Pathetic!

What Brown said is pretty scary; he said that he has plans to talk about a strategy sometime next year.

Now, if we've already been at war for something like 8 years, but our government's never even bothered to talk about an overall strategy then I find that fairly terrifying.

It's the same non-action/negligence that labour use across the board; setup endless committees, get someone else to formulate some kind of plan, then debate it endlessly but never actually do anything.

How come we've been at war for many years and yet our government hasn't even bothered to even think about an overall strategy? That kind of negligence is absolutely mind-blowing.

You need to try and equate this kind of negligence with something like a private sector company to get a grip on how negligent it really is, ie you need to use an analogy to illustrate the negligence.

Say a private sector company is losing too much money because their bank fees are too expensive. What would they do? Would they setup endless committees to come up with a selection of potential plans, then spend years debating those plans, and then put it to a shareholder vote? No; if they had that kind of approach then the company would go bust.

Instead, the directors would talk to their own bank and some other banks and try and strike the best deal they could, then they'd move to the best bank, and they'd do that within a couple of weeks before their company lost any more money. The directors would do that because it is their job to do that. That's what they're employed to do; formulate and implement strategy. If the directors were not doing that then they should be fired on the spot because it'd be a clear case of negligence.

The same kind of approach needs to be taken here; the government are supposed to govern; they're supposed to consider things and then make decisions, and they're supposed to do it within a reasonable timescale.

Our government has shown negligence on every front by not bothering to consider/implement any strategies on anything.

With economic negligence nobody dies, but with the same negligence also being shown by our government when it comes to war that leads to death and serious injury. It's unforgiveable.

Labour; stop just talking about things, get some advice from some experts, and just do it, and do it now.

West london willy sums it up perfectly there, he's done this now so that when their in opposition they can just claim that the Torys aren't following through with Labours (ill thought-out) plan.

Expect to see more of this posturing which doesn't actually say anything over the next couple of months.

*BONG* Labour claim end to street muggings if they can confiscate all the knifes in the country.

There's always going to be wriggle room in politics as theres so much left up to other people but to make it such blatent posturing when this is one of the most important issues of the day is just disgraceful.

This is nothing more than political posturing.

More spin from a failing and terminal government. 7 months to go.

Nick thank you for this blog. I actually filed a complaint with the BBC News this morning regarding the headline coverage of what was more a dream than a reality coming from Gordon Brown last evening. This is classic headline grabbing stuff from No 10 with no ability to deliver. One has to ask:
1. Do Nato leaders want to come to another Brown "my way" lecture when they will all realise that he is just electioneering
2. Who will fund the security needed to host such a meeting ? The Labour Party since this is obviously just another attempt by GB to create a photo opportunity.
I sincerely hope that the BBC doesn't continue to make every little whimper and statement from Brown over the next few months a headline.

So they're not actually going to pull the troops out next year, they're going to have a conference next year to talk about pulling troops out.

It's straight out of "Yes Minister", isn't it?

Here we go again. Another blog subject about Afghanistan and the complainers now suddenly oppose the pullout of troops from Afghan.

Gordon took the troops out of Iraq under a similar strategy.

Blessed are the complainers for they shall complain against their own complaints.

The last thing Afghanistan needs is another pointless conference just so Gordon can flutter his eyelashes at Obama, we certainly need to spell it out to "The Mayor of Kabul" that if he doesn't root out his corrupt cronies we'll pull out causing the Taliban to regain control over Helmand and the surrounding provinces.

This whole war has lacked a coherrent strategy from day one. Afghanistan could have been in a much better state today if Cheney and Rumsfeld had given it the full commitment it needed after 2001 instead of simply viewing it as a warm up for the main event in Iraq. The Americans apparently blocked the reinstatement of the former King Zahir Shah who still had considerable loyalty in the country and instead imposed the corrupt and incompetent Karzai. We then had John Reid announcing at the start of the Helmand mission that he hoped the troops would come home without a shot being fired, while at the same time Gordon refused to increase the military budget to equip the troops preferring to spend the money on diversity co-ordinators and rubbish inspectors.

We're now at the stage where we are looking for the least worst rather than the best option. No more troops should be sent unless Karzai is prepared to agree to reform of the government and there is a timetable for the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Brown can host conferences and postulate as much as he likes... the only Western decision maker that ultimately counts in this conflict, is the US.

As the KIAs increase so the politicians' message changes... from 'this is a war we cannot afford to lose'.. to more realistically... 'this is a war we cannot afford'.

derekbarker 15

"Here we go again. Another blog subject about Afghanistan and the complainers now suddenly oppose the pullout of troops from Afghan."

That is utter tripe, Barker. If you are going to advertise so openly that you haven't read any of the other posts in the thread, how can you possibly expect people to read what you write?

Sick electioneering from Brown and Miliband. Who is coming up with this drivel, Mandleson?
How much more of Brown and his cronies do we have to put up with.

A conference in London in January to discuss Afghanistan. I thought the world leaders were suppose to be busy people. I dind't realise they had so many holes in their diaries to enable them to attend a drop of the hat conference!!!

As for the Afghan government and corruption. It is a waste of time demanding an end to corruption within the government as it is part and parcel of every day life in afghanistan, across the middle east and the southern former Soviet republics. What is really needed in Afghanistan is a reconstruction based around security for the people. This requires joined up thinking between the military and the civilian organisations and government departments tasked with the reconstruction. Only then will the taliban influence begin to disappear amongst the afghanis.

"derekbarker wrote:
Here we go again. Another blog subject about Afghanistan and the complainers now suddenly oppose the pullout of troops from Afghan.

Gordon took the troops out of Iraq under a similar strategy.

Blessed are the complainers for they shall complain against their own complaints."

People don't oppose the pullout of troops from Afghanistan, and lets be honest this announcement isn't that troops will be pulled out of Afghanistan but that plans will be put into place to organise a conference to discuss troop withdrawl (in other words a photo op with other head of states in the run up of the general election)

This is a Labour attempt at positive headlines and hoping that the naive and stupid will buy it.

If you remove the red-tinted glasses, do you honestly think that the situation in Afghanistan has improved so much since the end of October when the Head of the British Army said that British numbers in Afghanistan are unlikely to fall significantly before 2014.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6409451/General-Sir-David-Richards-five-more-years-of-fighting-in-Afghanistan.html

Or is it possible that Gordon Brown might be playing politics?

I just loved the quote from Miliband saying that there had to be a "clear political strategy".

What a shame they didn't think of that 8 years ago.

#18
Perry, I dont think I will excuse your piffle and tosh.

What part of having a political strategy dont you understand? Perry.

I see you still advocate the tory position to send in another 2,500 troops, when America and other NATO forces have still to make up their minds?. Perry, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree! Eh!.

15 Derek,

If you think the situation and people of Afghanistan are similary in anyway to those in Iraq.

You are more Naieve than I had you down for, which is a lot.

Commanders on the ground (the guys doing the day to day stuff and who have not got a pollitical agenda), are predicting 5 - 15 years (subject to what Obama commits to.

If you want to know what's going on and you can read between the expletives go to the ARRSE website, don't listen to Generals Brown and Miliband.

And another thing,

We are going to see a severe drop in casualties soon, because during the Winter months those fighting for the Taliban go home for a break, as it is too cold.

It will be interesting how the Gov spin that, while our fellas are stagging on.

#21 Mark-WE

Mark, it's what governments do. Nothing is infinite and there should always be an end-game strategy.

Try to subjective on other issues Mark?.

15. At 1:23pm on 17 Nov 2009, derekbarker wrote:
Here we go again. Another blog subject about Afghanistan and the complainers now suddenly oppose the pullout of troops from Afghan.

********

Again, misrepresentation of the highest order from a funded lap-dog of the Labour spin-machine.

Derek, nobody opposes pulling troops out of harms way. And everyone appreciates that this needs to be done in such a way as to provide masximum sustainability for a credible and effective Afghanistan. Everyone except Gordon Brown, that is. And apparently you.

If you bothered to read posts before commenting on them, it's just possible that you might make some sense.

23 derekbarker

More tripe Barker. I haven't advocated anything except you reading the earlier posts. Seems you didn't even bother to read mine before responding to it!

Your contribution would be laughable, if the subject matter wasn't so serious.

Does anybody believe anything newlabour say anymore?

Referendum on Lisbon promised and reneged upon.

An end to child poverty that just meant endless state handouts

An end to boom and bust that ended in the biggest bust for eighty years.

The golden rules that were tron up as soon as it suited.

Education, education, education that lead to the persistent, year upon year lowering of educational standards so that sensible universities no longer accept exam qualifications.

24 hours to mend the NHS - with three times as much money and a foolish devotion to meeting targets.

An end to the lost generation of unemployed but the highest amount of youth unemployment on record, ever.

The list goes on of newlabour over promising and underdelivering; we haven't even started on Gordon Brown's an end to spin which ended in the firing fron Downing Street of one of his attack dogs.

The government is spent, busted, a national laughing stock and yet still their apologists come on these posts in a vain attempt to portray them as the party that cares about the 'less fortunate' in society. Gubbins; total guff and gubbins. What was the abolition of the 10p tax charge about? How come the gap between rich and poor got even wider iunder newlabour.

Never has so much been paid for by so many to so few - this is the legacy of newlabour. Unelectable.

Call an election.

23 Derek Barker:

What? at least you could stay off the pro-plus long enough to make some kind of coherent statement....

24 Harry

Harry, stop being a pleb and read the posts right!

It's a policy to reduce the troop numbers and then a final pull out.

26 derek yet again:

actually, I agree that an end-game strategy is important. I'm glad you admit that what we are seeing here is another ploy in New Labour's end-game strategy in the run up to their election defeat.

31. At 2:02pm on 17 Nov 2009, derekbarker wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

Derek, I'm guessing that whatever you have written will be wrong, mislreading, and dumb. I bet I'm right......

#28
Perry, only you could suggest such a topic to be laughable!.

If you oppose the war and want the troops out then say so or is conservative head office holding you against your thoughts?.

For once people can't we just have a conversation about the issues and just ignore the Labour stooge?

#30

Willy, Hague has just been on BBC news 24, saying that Britain should have and should continue to build up troop levels in Afghan.

Willy, do you just like it slip off the tip of your tongue?.

35 calmandhope:

Unfortunately, the Labour Stooge won't ignore us - this thread now has 2 types of comments (not counting those of Mr D. Barking), which are reasoned comment and those telling him to read the reasoned comments.

Honestly, his lack of interest in any informed commentary or educated opinion reminds me of the debacle that is the Home Office's handling of the Drug Advisory Board.

"derekbarker wrote:
#21 Mark-WE

Mark, it's what governments do. Nothing is infinite and there should always be an end-game strategy."

If you mean that Governments often go against the recommendations of experts for political gain then sadly you are correct.

While I agree that there should be an end-game strategy, wouldn't it have been best if we had this strategy before we started the game?

37

Willy, always the last to know tory! LoL.

Worrywart Willy, just try and be more clear about what you would like to see happening about troop numbers in Afghan?.

derekbarker 34

At long last you acknowledge that you have no interest in the subject beyond concocting an anti-Conservative line from it. Since you previously admitted you were reading from a Labour script, I think, finally, we know all we need to about the integrity of your posting - there isn't any.

36 Barker:

Start at the top. Read the comments. Think. Then Post.

It's not difficult, unless your eyesight is failing. Maybe you are typing with the end of a felt-tip pen - that's why your posts make no sense and you continually avoid answering any direct question.


Let me spell it out for you. Gordon Brown has said that in January, he wants to host a meeting of all the Nato Leaders and their associated press agencies, where they can discuss the possibility of planning a strategy for maybe withdrawing some of the troops from Afghanistan's less dangerous areas. And it has to be in London. Clear enough for you?

In plain english, this means he wants an expensive, pointless photo opportunity with world leaders so that he can be seen as the global statesman he stupidly believes he is. And it has to be here so he can get maximum press coverage in this country in the run up to the election. And nothing will be achieved.

Is it any wonder that so many people in this country want him gone?

If it wasn't for the restrictions on fre speech that they want to impose on us all, I'd suggest that Jeremy Clarkson was right. But I'm not allowed to say that, so I won't....

MORE Liebour garbage before next Election. These idiots have proven they can NOT run the UK - we r broke and PRINTING money. Why should any sane person believe a word of what they utter. Roll on 2010 and goodbye to those champions of education, tough on crime, and cleaner than clean - whiter than white shower.

For those people on HYS complaining about derekbarker - give him a break - someone has to try and put across Clown`s view - why not another one!!!!!!!!!!

@37

At least he's sticking to the Labour policy of ignoring other peoples advice and points of view.

Have we been convinced by Brown and Milliband who are trying to save their political necks by their feeble attempts to pursuade us that they and they alone know what to do with Afghanistan.

Knowing what they would like to see happen and how they need to go about making it happen are poles apart.

They're in big trouble and they know it. Afghanistan was ignored for years by Blair and Bush which gave the enemy lots of time to regroup.

And regroup they have on a very effective scale which makes the job in Afghanistan much more difficult now than it was when we first went in.

Not only that but the insistence that Musharef step down in Pakistan in favour of a so called democracy has opened up an even worse scenario there. It is turning into civil war on both sides of the Afghan/ Pakistan border.

Foreign troops are making the situation worse by their continued presence and if they do not come out soon the whole thing could escalate across the Middle East.

I'm sure that is what Obama and his advisors are really discussing and Brown and Milliband trying to gain some elctoral advantage by pretending all will be well if we leave it to them is farcical.

31 Derek

Yes I understand the post, it was you who made the comparisson.

Answer this what has changed in Afghanistan that has envoked Brown to make this statement?

The statemen flies in the face of What McCrystal is doing, who is the Commander there, and also in everything the UK Commanders are trying to achieve decounting of course Jock Strirrup, Gordons Puppet.

Right now and bear in mind the empty vastness of Helmand, we are occupying small villages securing them, pull back, the villages are then taken back over by the Taliban.

You must be aware, we are dealing with a Feudal state, there can never be a true Govenment in Afghanistan. It is like fighting a war with people of a mind set some 400 years in the past with mobile phone and 4 x 4's. The education of the security and law agencies (Army is working, Police forget it.) will take years and years. It is correct that there should be a stratergy, but it is one that needs to be consistant. If it is a simple pull out as is the inference (comencing next year), than it is a con from the PM.

If we are to achieve what the Governemnt have initally committed us to achieve (whatever it is this week). A final pull out isn't on the cards for the forseeable future.

The change is a political one and that is Brown has a campaign in his hands that he has never had any interest in or taken seriously (5 Defense Secretaries in 4 years, ending to Bob Ainsworth - god help us). Every death is an embarrasment to him to because of the fact that he had never taken the Armed Forces seriously until now. Read the SDR report at the start of this Government and see what has been addressed within it. Brown and the government do what they always do, knee jerk reponse to bad press, issue a headline grabber, in a cheap attempt to save some face, but with not reason of substance to it.

Pleb I may be, that however That much preferanle to being the blind puppet mouthpiece of a Charlatan as you seem to be Derek.

"derekbarker wrote:
#30

Willy, Hague has just been on BBC news 24, saying that Britain should have and should continue to build up troop levels in Afghan."

Considering that senior members of the Army both here and the US are actually saying the same thing it doesn't seem such a bad policy.

The last thing we want to do is to withdraw troops only to find that Taliban just stroll back in and take over again.

From what I have read people who know what they are talking about sare saying that we need more troops and will be stuck there for years, however Brown thinks that a plan could be put in place for a full withdraw starting next year.

Oddly enough the one calling for a vote winning withdrawl is the one who has to fight a general election next year!

Pandora told the Olympian's banquet that she wanted to host a conference on the box in Athens next year which should "identify a process for transferring all the evils in the world back into the box" and "if at all possible, set a timetable for transfer starting sometime after Sisyphus gets his boulder to the top of his hill".'

39 Derek:

As you ask a direct question (albeit with one of your pathetic attempts at making up a nickname, like that will make you more credible...) I will answer it - as long as you also answer one from me.

What do I want to see happening with troop Numbers in Afghanistan? Simple. I want them to be treated with respect by their political masters. I want them to be told honestly what the plans are, what their objectives are, how they are valued and how they are being equipped. I want them to be told the truth about the lack of support, both political and logistical, that they have received from Gordon Brown. I want them to be reassured that whatever equipment they require (whether that's body armour, weapons, trucks, helicopters, or even more troops in the short term) then they will get it. And once the job is done, I want them to know they will be able to come home quickly, to the heroes welcome they will deserve.

Clear enough?

Now - my question to you: Given the current situation throughout Afghanistan, and the information from all military leaders directly involved in the conflict, what do YOU think should be done regarding Troop deployments in afghanistan, and what is YOUR end-game strategy.

I await your answer with interest.....

It definitely cannot be next year! With the Pakistan push into the Taleban heartlands in Swat etc. The last thing we can contemplate is leaving a vacuum in Afghanistan for them to fill. This would not support Pakistan (who have finally realised that appeasement doesn't work with Terrorists) and makes a mockery of the Pakistani public who bear the brunt of an Al-Quaeda/Taleban bombing campaign which they are only being subjected to because they are now active in a campaign against Terrorism.

More scraps of red meat for the back benchers, the lobby and the dogwhistlers to drag the core vote off their sofas. Utterly meaningless.


Derek:

You are hopelessly out of your depth here mate. Its up to you if you want to keep on digging, but you're going to need more than just that old red shovel to get out of this one.

#41

Willy, Jeez! the conservatives signed up General Dannatt and his advise to increase troop numbers in Afghan.

The Americans and other NATO countries have still to make a decision about sending extra troops to Afghan.

I guess your one of those imperial conservative minded folk, that still believes that Britain should go it alone.

I read in this column the dedate on should we or should we not withdraw our troops from Afghan. Nobody has asked this Government why the terroist are targeting Britian. It is my belief our continous support of the gun sling nation from across the pond is the reason. They only use us to their ends. The longer we support them the longer we will be tared with the same brush. Being a Eurofile I strongly believe as our ancesters are of European origins (Please excuse me Wales) we should ingrate ourselve deeper into Europe and forget the US. I often wonder how much of the US Ambassy is for the Ambassador and who much is for the CIA.
It may be that the BBC Spooks has it about right with it's sly comment within is scripts.

Whilst I yield to no one in criticising Labour's economic mismanagement I don't feel obliged to take up every opportunity to criticise Gordon Brown.

The problem that any UK Government faces at the moment is, sadly, Obabma's unwillingness to make any sort of decision as to US strategy in Afganistan. What began as a sensible weighing of the military and diplomatic options by the US Democratic Administration is rapidly becoming plain political dithering. Obama is hanging his NATO allies out to dry, and without US leadership it is very difficult for Brown or anyone else to defend the UK's involvement.

Although as a social liberal I support Obama I have to say that his presidency is in danger of becoming a strategic disaster for the West. And that makes two US presidents in a row.

This is all calculated political postering and delaying tactics.
A country with a trillion pounds in debt cannot afford such niceties and fighting other country/people's war at our expense.

Be decisive, completely pull our of Afganistan and Iraq by this Christmas and pass a constitution that as long as the country is in debt, there will be no more military forces send oversea, no if's, no but's and no exceptions. There is too much to do at home.

52 Derek:

I still await your answer to my question raised in Post 49.

52 DB

"I guess your one of those imperial conservative minded folk, that still believes that Britain should go it alone."

Well is very much depends on the motives of your Government, they sent them there.

You are right why is it that we have had the second largest force in Iraq and Afghanistan? Another question to dodge Del. We certainly haven't got the second largest army, by any stretch of the imagination.

It isn't the Army who made the commitment to these campaigns it was however lilly livered cowards like Blair, and Brown.

Nick.
This is an election broadcast by the all new and friendly Labour Party.
"Dear people Gordon Here"
Just to let you know I am going to end the skirmish in Afghanistan"
GB Waits for round of applause.
"First troops will be gone" and on way home by May 2010"
GB waits for applause.
"I told you to trust me. I am your world leader and I save d the world once and I have done it again"
GB Waits for applause.
Nick guess what.
There is nothing like the sound of silence.
It must be April Fools day again.
Afghanistan a vote winner, with so many of our brave soldiers not coming home alive.

@48

Classic! (no pun intended)
Which minister gets the Promethean role (and gets their liver pecked out by a giant eagle for 'bringing fire' to the people)?

#49

Willy, an end-game is the withdrawal of our troops, Willy what experts are you quoting? many experts say that the Afghan war is unwinnable.Yes! you can train an army and leave but there is no certainties that the taliban wont return once the allied troops go. So your left with having to decide if you want to permanently occupy Afghan or you apply a strategy, train the troops then leave and let the will of the Afghan govern?.

G.Browns promise Troops out by end on next year, is it the same as his other promise that we are best placed to ride the storm, and that we will be out of recession by the summer, by Autum and now his current grantee by the end of the year.

I would like to remind people that he never stated which year!

You do have to wonder what the US Ambassador is reporting back to Washington...

Obama's taking a long time to decide what to do about troop deployment. I just wonder if he is concurrently thinking about the strategic objectives and forward political possibilities?

Oh,no. Silly me, he's waiting for the UK's great military, economic and political strategist to "call a meeting".

I'm sure everybody would love the Afghan situation to "self heal", so all the troops can go home. I still have no idea whether the underlying issue - which is essentially like a civil war between groups within Afghanistan - will simply heal. Meaning that, even if we walked away leaving an apparently peaceful place, how long will it take for it to go pear-shaped again?

Whatever. At some point, as soon as possible, we need our troops out. There were press reports of a £1BIL purchase of helicopters, most of which won't be available for quite a while.
What's the STRATEGIC purpose behind the purchase, if Brown believes we can start pulling troops out next year, before the copters are even delivered to the UK to be "upgraded" (which will take a while...)?
Or was Brown feeling guilty and just signed off a purchase he turned down/red-lined a few years back?

I'm glad Brown and Miliband are starting to think about Afghanistan. Just wonder what our intellectually superior ministers have been doing ever since sending our troops in years ago?

Sorry to be cynical. Especially if DerekB reads this.

But if Brown "leads the way" out of Afghanistan with the same success he "led the whole world" out of global recession, out troops will probably still be in Afghanistan years after all the others have gone home.

"44. At 2:22pm on 17 Nov 2009, calmandhope wrote:
@37

At least he's sticking to the Labour policy of ignoring other peoples advice and points of view."

More than that, Brown currently has a policy in which he can claim to be promising both to increase troop numbers AND to pull the troops out.

Nick, I thought that actually this is a real announcement.

It is abandoning Kharzai saying there will not be a whole state solution. It is acceptance that the Afghan war cannot be won. And that the method for achieving a hand over is to limit the areas we are in. So the clear dividing line is between Labour saying this is a war that cannot be won and we need to hand over the districts and the Tories who are saying lets increase the troop numbers and we need to stay as long as it takes.

However I am not sure how long the policy will last for hours or days.

60 Derek:

Hope I'm not jumping the gun here (something tells me I'm not) but I still await your answer to my #49....

60 Derek

....so the point of the occupation was?...........

60 Derek:

Thought not.

Can you please provide the answer to the question put to you in post 49?

By that, I don't mean some caffeine-riddled moronic rant, like your response in #60, or in fact most (if not all) of your posts today. I mean an actual answer to the question.

I await your response with indifference....

So it's official. We lost in Afghanistan. Again.

to carry over the parlance from the previous thread ...

on Afghanistan, I'm definitely a Quitter not a Fighter

I think that what many are most concered about in the UK (after the safety of British troops) is the incredible naievety of both the government's entire dialogue and the UK's strategy.

Since Rt. Hon Gordon Brown just does not 'have it' regarding getting involved in a war (or successive wars in his own case), although he is a not so secret 'Wannabe Winston' as only that mindset can explain his willingness to keep getting the UK entangled.

What I also find so deeply insulting is the pathetic and completely crass explanantions coming from Brown, other Ministers and senior members of the millitary.

We know that the UK needs to have a presence with other NATO members in the vicinity of Afghanistan - but to keep saying this current mess makes us safer in the UK means that the whole lot of them need their heads examining. The strategy can be just keep a presence somehwere in the vicinity of Afghanistan - and make it a safe zone for NATO troops - our soldiers do not need to keep going out parolling every sand dune and camel track in case there may be IED's - we know the IED's/Taliban are there - leave them alone and do something else - and then carry out the unexpected - the current strategy does not keep the 'enemy' guessing (the enemy being poor, undeducated farmers, scratching a living in third world conditions and who are trapped in a feudal culture).

'Yes Man smirky Stirrup' says the 'patrols will have to continue' - guess what - I've got an idea - get Brown, Ainsworth, Stirrup the lot of them, a flak jacket and other basic army issue equipment for each of them and let them lead 'the patrols over no mans land' and then let them decide whether a new strategy needs to be implemented now and not in e.g 'X' years time.

We know the troops cannnot be pulled out overnight Mr Brown - we're not as stupid as you think we are - We Know! We Know! We Know!

You're going to be remembered long, long after you're gone Mr Brown - but not for what you would prefer to be remembered for.

Can you believe the UK is a series of islands and should be easier to defend, make safe, control its borders, people entering and leaving the country - that is where the focus should be?

@63

Come on you know what will happen, he'd reduce the number of "front line troops" and just increase the number of "reserve troops".

Training an Afghan. then allowing them to take over 1 sector at a time seems like a good idea to me. Do some of you maybe the Afghans too foreign to be able to look after themselves? Conservative policy is whatever Brown says they are against. If the Conservatives have a strategy they think should be followed maybe they should tell some one rather than keep it to themselves.

More importantly...on behalf of whom is Gordon Brown speaking, or this just another one of his lurches into a monologue of proposals about which the subject knows absolutely nothing?

How many times does this man have to go dangerously off piste with remarks he cannot substantiate before his party and the country dump him for good?

Call an election.

"sagamix wrote:
to carry over the parlance from the previous thread ...

on Afghanistan, I'm definitely a Quitter not a Fighter"

Government policy on Afghanistan should really have been "Don't even go there".

Problem is that now we are there we can't just up and leave as it would endanger the very people we supposedly went there to help.

We don't want to be left in the situation where we pull out and the Taliban just roll back in and kill everybody who helped the coalition troops and remove the freedoms that our soldiers died to give them.

The whole of Afghanistan is not worth the bleached bones of one British Grenadier.....

I feel most sorry for the relatives of the dead. They comfort themselves with the belief that their loved ones 'will never be forgotten' but although that is true for those immediately affected, the sad truth is the rest of us will soon forget and the even sadder truth is that in 50 years time (when many of these young men would otherwise have still been alive and looking back on long happy lives) their deaths will have made little if any impact on what followed.

more playing fast and lose just to cling to power.

how corrupt can we get, maybe its a race between Gordon Brown and Kassi

#67

Willy, for godsake man! what part of this strategy are you not getting.

Willy, do you want the war to go on and on or do you accept that the Afghanistan politicians must take responsibility for their own land?.

I find the whole situation increasingly unpleasant. The probability of "victory" looks increasingly close to zero meanwhile our soldiers are dying at the rate of two a week (and each one gets just £13 per day in extra money can you believe). This excludes the much higher number who are horribly injured.

It is obvious we are going to get nowhere in meeting any useful objectives, military or political, so why are we prolonging this agony?

Maybe its to please Obama? In any case I wish the politicians (including the Tories) would actually listen to the electorate and as they say "declare victory and get out asap".

77 Derek:

For gods sake man, what part of "please answer the question put to you in my Post #49" do you not understand?

I still await your answer, however now with increasing despair of ever receiving it.....

#79

Willy, As I've made clear on so many posts, NATO-members must provide additional troops, we should train the Afghan police and army then leave and let the Afghans govern themselves.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND.....LEAVE THE AFGHAN'S TO KEEP THE PEACE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

Wow! will Willy get it?.

re 72 dhwilkinson wrote:

"Training an Afghan. then allowing them to take over 1 sector at a time seems like a good idea to me."

It also seems like a good idea to me. In fact it's the obvious solution/strategy which should have been applied all along.

The question that you, me, and the BBC should be asking Brown is why it's taken 8 years to even consider having a strategy in the first place? This should have been the strategy from day 1.

Even now he's not adopting it as a strategy, he's just going to talk to other people in a couple of months about perhaps adopting it, and then perhaps start the process of actually starting to do it about 6 months after that.

Nick; please can you ask Brown why he's been funding a war for 8 years and only now has decided that having a strategy would be a good idea?

He doesn't need to talk about it, he just needs to do it, and he can start doing it now.

Here's a cleaned-up version of what I posted on guido's blog:

The solution is simple, and can be done without talking to nato or the un, we can do this off our own backs:

1) In the regions that the UK is currently responsible for in Afghanistan, you train a handful of Afghanistanis to the level that those people can then train more Afghanistanis.

2) You get out of their country and leave them to it.

Once again Brown & Miliband fail to answer the only question that matters. The current troop levels needs urgent support, why are we waiting to deploy these troops?. The more they dither the more danger the lads face already out there,it just beggars belief. It must be obvious even to Brown, NATO will not send anymore & Obama looks out of his depth.
These extra troops as nothing to do with Britain going alone as suggested by DerekB, its about supporting our own, if we dont nobody else will.

#59
How about Gordon Brown as Tantalus? Everything he's ever wanted is always just out of reach.

"What he calls "a winning political strategy" would have three elements:"

Spot on except for one thing, al-Qaeda don't fight, they are a support organisation for those who want to. Sort of like a TUC for Islamic terrorists. If people don't get that they don't know what they are talking about.

Strong regional governors, excellent. A central government of Afghanistan maybe decades away.

Once foreign troops (thats us, folks) are out of Afghanistan, there is far less reason for the locals to fight and indeed Pakistanis and other Arab fighters who go looking for trouble in Afghanistan may regret it.

The Afghans have a corrupt police force to deal with but that can be sorted and indeed a decent Afghan army built - just a shame that the Afghans have just been re-equipped with US equipment which is probably the wrong tools for the job.

Add in a controlled buy of the Afghan poppy crop and I think we are in business for a solution.

The American and 'allied' politicians have had several years to get their strategy right in what is loosely known as Afpak.

Only now, with both our and the US public becoming weary of the returning body count, are they actually focussing on the issue.

Both sets of politicians have, by their incoherent approach to date, especially in Afghanistan, indirectly caused loss of life of our people.

That knowledge should be a very heavy burden to bear but I cannot see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Blair losing too much sleep over it.

But moving forward, it has to be resolved such that we end up without having the peoples of yet more countries, namely Afghanistan and Pakistan, being tortured by a theocratic dictatorship.

#69 sagamix..

of course you are quitter not a fighter just like your party is quitting:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6918059.ece

not a hope for you and the reason you should abandon the Queen's speech and;

Call an election.

Derek so you're in favour of putting more troops into Afghanistan even if its only for a short period?

80 Derek:

As you've NOT made clear on ANY posts, I still want to know what YOU want for the troops there. Let me make it simpler for you, by making it binary:

1. Is the security situation in Afghanistan of such a state that plans (with dates) can be made now? YES / NO {delete as applicable}

2. If required for their safety and to ensure a better chance of success in their role, should the additional equipment that has been requested through the Military commanders to Gordon Brown be supplied as soon as possible? YES / NO {delete as applicable}

3. Given the public outrage over the way that our troops are under-funded and under-equipped, and given Labour's track record of listening to both the public and invormmed industry experts, is it too much to expect that instead of political posturing, Gordon Brown could bring himself to listen and act, rather than ignore people and do nothing? YES / NO {delete as applicable}

4. Given that all recognised experts, in the military, in politics, in the Taliban and Islamic Fundamentalism, in Afghan History and Culture, and in economics, all agree that simply pulling troops out would create a vacuum into which the Taliban would swarm, is there a level of Afghan civilian loss of life that you would personally find acceptable, were your 'end-game' to be implemented? YES / NO {delete as applicable}

5. I doubt you have bothered to read this far, but there's only one more question: are you ever going to think for yourself, and write what you think rather than simply copy off the crib-sheet supplied to you by your party political paymasters? NO / NO {delete as applicable}

I await your answer (but not in hope of getting anything coherent)

andy @ 75

"The whole of Afghanistan is not worth the bleached bones of one British Grenadier"

under the counter racism in facile and florid "nineteenth hole" language

Brown is running scared in case Obama, who sees his position in the popularity stakes falling away, pulls out his troops without reference to dear Gordie. It is looking increasingly likely that there will be no extra troops from the US if congress has it's way. Methinks the American people no longer see the point of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan and losing young men in the process. This seems to be something that doesn't bother Brown and his sidekicks however and they are still pursuing a policy of talking about negotiating (surrendering ) with the Taliban instead of either destroying them or pulling the troops out before any more die for nothing. Wars are not won by cosying up to the enemy, wars are won when the enemy is destroyed or no longer has enough troops left to fight with. Let the army do what it is trained for without hindrance or recrimination, and the threat from the Taliban will disappear.

89. At 4:41pm on 17 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 75

"The whole of Afghanistan is not worth the bleached bones of one British Grenadier"

under the counter racism in facile and florid "nineteenth hole" language

*****

Doesn't mean he's not right, Saga.... although I'm fully expecting that your calling Andy a racist will get you reported.

80. derekbarker

"..we should train the Afghan police and army then leave and let the Afghans govern themselves."

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND.....LEAVE THE AFGHAN'S TO KEEP THE PEACE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY."



So it's that simple? Why hasn't anyone thought of that since the invasion in 2001?
Who was governing before the invasion? The bad guys? Who will be left to govern? The good guys? And the police and the army will be resilient in their task and stand as a bulwark against corruption and evil.
And the lives of our soldiers and innocent Afghani civilians would not have been lost in vain... is that how it's going to be, derek?

#54 johnharris

I don't think anyone could disagree with you that Obama is hanging his allies out to dry. The purpose of the mission for us, and other NATO members, has been to provide men and equipment in order to maintain good relations with the US broadly speaking. Sure, there may have been other considerations such as humitarian but it's always been clear that our presence has made things worse. Germany and France would not be there unless it was about relationship building (with the US).

Anyway, the three reasons the British public has been given for being there have always been flimsy, besides we'd need troops in many more countries than Afghanistan and need to wait several generations before we could judge the expedition a success which just won't work politically and is morally questionable.

Your disappointment in Obama is tangible, I feel the same way. His speeches and outlook gave me so much hope, but in practice, his foreign policy amounts to chaos - he's making things worse, same old hegemonic US serving itself.

I just hope that he can do something about universal healthcare back at home.

One of the things still going for Obama is that according to his daughter, Dick Cheney is thinking of running for president in 2012!

This means to me that a person [Derek Barker - whoever he may be] has taken over this blog from Nick. In the meantime numerous bloggers write to oppose.

I accept that blogs evolve, but this is ridiculous. Where are the Moderators when they are really needed? Many have views on what Brown said last night but cannot get a word in for this internicene battle.

"89. At 4:41pm on 17 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 75

"The whole of Afghanistan is not worth the bleached bones of one British Grenadier"

under the counter racism in facile and florid "nineteenth hole" language"

Actually, it is a paraphrase of a quote from Otto Von Bismark about the Balkans but I couldn't have expected you to know that.

And how in any way whatsoever is that racist? Only someone looking for racism and determined to find it could find that comment in any way racist. I am quite happy for you to disagree with what I say but that is an insulting cheap shot entirely without merit.

I guess in Sagamix's Republic anyone of a different opinion to yourself is labelled an "ist" of some sort so as to avoid having to counter their arguments (or for that matter even try to understand them).

So, in simple words, I don't believe we have achieved or will achieve anything worthwhile or lasting in Afghanistan. That being so, the death of a single soldier is a waste.

If you are still struggling to understand, I'll see if I can re-write it in words of one syllable.

To borrow a phrase from Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown's speech is "crude politicking" at it's very worse.

After a lack of leadership, lack of defined mission objetcives, equipment shortages, pay as you eat support for the troops, helicopter shortages, issues with manpower levels - Gordon Brown has now finally reduced the Afghanistan situation to a pre-election election stunt. Shameful.

@83 Poprishchin

Nice! Fits quite well, though whos son he boiled and fed to the Gods is open to debate!
I quite like the idea of Will Lewis (Telegraph editor) for Prometheous, he certainly brought 'fire to the people'.

#91

I did consider reporting it, but I guess the moderators deem it acceptable to make wild, groundless accusations of racism and who am I to disagree with the moderators?

Besides, if my comment and the accusation are there for all to see, people can make their own mind up.

Am I a racist for paraphrasing a reasonably well known quote or is Sagamix the sort or person who makes groundless, insulting accusations? I'll let the readers decide.

#85 JohnConstable

What about those other oppressive theocratic dictatorships like Saudi? Do we just leave them because they've got oil and also the sophisticated weapons we've sold them?

What about oppressive dictatorships in general?

Anyway, the argument that claims by staying, we are significantly improving Afghan human rights, especially for women is strong one but it's a failed one. The Taliban are indeed one of the vilest forces in the world, imprisoning women in their homes and torturing them for the "crimes" of showing their faces, expressing their sexuality, or being raped. They keep trying to kill women for the "crime" of being elected to parliament.

One of these women, Malalai Joya, states that our governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords. Outside Kabul, vicious Taliban who enforce sharia law have merely been replaced by vicious warlords who enforce sharia law. She has said recently that the situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women. Any Afghan president – Karzai, or his opponents – will only ever in practice be the mayor of Kabul. Beyond is a sea of warlordism, as evil to women as Mullah Omar.

That is not a difference worth fighting and dying for.

#87
Calmandhope, I'm in favour of reducing British troops and a final withdrawal.

#88 Willy, you have lost the plot son! are you advocating we go into North Korea because of their human rights abuses and Britain declares war on all those ruthless nation through-out our world?.

"4. Given that all recognised experts, in the military, in politics, in the Taliban and Islamic Fundamentalism, in Afghan History and Culture, and in economics, all agree that simply pulling troops out would create a vacuum into which the Taliban would swarm, is there a level of Afghan civilian loss of life that you would personally find acceptable, were your 'end-game' to be implemented? YES / NO {delete as applicable}"

I choose your point 4 as a prime example of the nonsense you speak.

Hey Willy, all the experts in the Taliban wants us to stay? get a grip Willy, of course the Taliban want us to stay, it just happens to be their strategy to try and keep us their.