You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My view is that western military intervention to stabilise other countries comes with the responsibility of not leaving them less stable.
Maybe - but the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was not intended to stabilise the country. It was not a humanitarian intervention to begin with.
The problem came after having bombed the shit out of the Taleban government, destroyed Al Qaeda, and captured ringleaders (as well as many innocent farmers) - what would happen next for the US? Go home - and let the country become a platform for future terrorist attacks? Cut a deal with the least worst Taleban leaders and get them stay in office so long as they promise not to do anything anti-US in the future? Or try to support an anti-Taleban government to stabilise the country - but knowing the Taleban (or some iteration of it) will never go away? The US tried option #3 and then a mix of #3 and #2 for many years - and is now choosing option #1.
d42dom
Full Member
There are risks of life to many jobs and you’ve more chance of dying or being injured in construction or farming than in the Armed forces but yes you could call it an occupational hazard. Maybe they could’ve done something different but it is their choice.would you say the same for the ~150 NHS staff who’ve died of Covid in the last year…
It's no really the danger part of it I've got an issue with.
It’s no really the danger part of it I’ve got an issue with.
fair enough, probably not the right thread anyway
I musta been lucky and skipped that national service we all had to do..
The army is very much a choice.
I wish all the "something must be done" lot remember that when the stories of life under the Taliban come out.
Choosing to serve doesn't give you the right to pick and choose the conflicts you are sent to, that's what politicians do. Sadly many politicians would run a mile from service and actively undermine those who do.
I work with a lot of ex-servicemen in my job, several of whom served in Afghanistan.
General feeling of dismay and anger at this happening. Many lost friends out there and seeing it all be for nothing has hit them hard.
And concern of course for the interpreters, many of whom they kept in touch with and are all currently trying to flee the country.
I did 3 tours of Afghanistan whilst in the RAF, was sat 100 metres away from where the battle of bastion happened.
I've sat and watched the MERT cab lift of at all times of the day collecting wounded or dead soldiers and bringing them back to the hospital on camp.
I've seen the looks on my mates faces after they have been sent out to collect parts of other soldiers that have been blown up.
I've also seen the aftermath when back in the UK and guys have had no support after dealing with some of the things they saw over there.
Tonight, sat here in my lounge feeling sick to the pit of my stomach wondering how it all came to this and really.... What was the ****ing point.
RIP to all of those service personnel that lost their lives.
Let's also not forget all of the Afghan people that lost their lives too.
It all makes me feel incredibly sad.
Sadly many politicians would run a mile from service
Why "sadly"?
Army is a big employer just some folks without prospects wanting a job ffs !!
Given a choice I’m sure they’d happily wander round the world doing drills/training etc.
this shows that the main issue was the advice given to Biden and Johnson was hopelessly optomistic. I suspect some senior militay folk are now going to find themselves in trouble for this.
~given what Biden was told taking the troops out quickly seemed reasonable. trouble is what he was told was false. You cannot make good decisions without good information. He got bad information so made a bad decision
RIP to all of those service personnel that lost their lives.
Let’s also not forget all of the Afghan people that lost their lives too.
It all makes me feel incredibly sad.
Pretty much sums it up and there will be a lot more deaths of Afghan people in the coming weeks and months.
Would a slower retreat of US forces make any difference in the long run or just delay the inevitable.
The US tried option #3 and then a mix of #3 and #2 for many years – and is now choosing option #1.
IMO Afghanistan wanted the West to be their army while they deal with the political or administrative (money etc) stuff and continued with their way of live (slowly modernise). It will take at least 5 generations to see some improvement in mentality change (build up the confidence of the people as the people are broken at the moment unless they are radicalised). During this time a system can slowly put in place to reduce the "wild west shootout" culture. All this provided that the neighbouring countries remain stable. That's why 20 years is just a very short time. Most of the central Asia countries have the strongmen in charge to keep things in control and without them the region will easily succumb to radicalisation. It is not a matter of if but when once the strongmen depart or die. Therefore, it is in the interest of the West not to stick their nose into the affairs of the strongmen in that region. Forget about the human rights etc as that concept is seen as diluting or corrupting their way of life. The purpose of being in that region is, again, to keep those radicals in check even if it means keep them on the edge. It is a slow grinding process and a battle of wits and endurance, a tactic they all know in that region so nobody makes a move. Hence, "peace" with undercurrent ...
Would a slower retreat of US forces make any difference in the long run or just delay the inevitable.
Just a delay of the inevitable. There should be no retreat at all for at least 5 generations as they need help in building up their confidence first.
~given what Biden was told taking the troops out quickly seemed reasonable. trouble is what he was told was false. You cannot make good decisions without good information. He got bad information so made a bad decision
Bay of Pigs scenario perhaps?
2 to 3 thousands of years ago Chinese emperor was fighting a losing battle in that region even after so many attempts, until they got fed up and sent in their heavy army to put an end (keep them at bay more like) to the "insurgents". Peace lasted for few generations until the collapsed Chinese dynasty given the insurgents confidence to dominate to region again ... the situation repeated over and over until today. Insurgents in those days came from the south and north ...
What a mess. Just reading some stuff about how we, US and Afghans themselves have messed up, it just seems it was/is hopeless and always will be.
Interesting Twitter thread by Paul D. Miller, also relevant to some of the posts made in this thread so far:
As Afghanistan collapses, I see a few myths taking root. I'd like to respond to some of them.
And a thread on the hopelessness of trying to suppress poppy cultivation https://twitter.com/jeffreypclemens/status/1426930889271877633
Other stuff about training up an army to use modern western weaponry... first job is to teach the recruits to read. Corruption diverting soldiers/police's wages and food away from them. All that western tech now in the Taliban's hands with trained operators, and even if they can't use/sustain it they can sell it to Russia/China.
NATO contracts were given out to up to 50 years. NATO missions go on for a long time such as KFOR (Kosovo) which is also still going. NATO were not due to pull out of Afghanistan for a long time yet.
What a mess. Just reading some stuff about how we, US and Afghans themselves have messed up, it just seems it was/is hopeless and always will be.
The west did not make a mess by being there but they lack endurance and wits to remain there. There is no way a system can be changed in one generations.
Would a slower retreat of US forces make any difference in the long run or just delay the inevitable.
Just delay the inevitable. The border region with ****stan is unconquerable. The area is filled with arms. All the bad guys had to do was wait in their caves until the yanks pulled out.
The problem is the sheer amount of military hardware, blood already shed, hardened fighters and regional players with their own agendas.
Looks a complete mess tbh.
The UK is at fault, the US especially and there doesn’t seem to have been much fight in the Afghan army - supposedly had 300,000 troops compared to 80,000 of the Taliban but looks to have given up without any fight.
Just listened to Biden. Lots of re-writing history of course, but basically unless a planeload of Americans gets downed leaving Kabul, I get the impression he will weather any short term political storm in the US. Comparisons of images with Saigon are visually the same, but in terms of visceral connection with the public it is very different: Vietnam was very much a 'holy crusade' and not 'reluctant self defence', and in Vietnam: c.58k US dead (out of a pop of c.200million), Afghanistan: 2.5k US dead (out of pop of 330m). So, save a massacre or plane downed at Kabul airport, or a major terrorist attack on US soil clearly linked to Aghanistan, he'll get away with it.
Not saying it is right, of course, just that my guess is that politically, it will be forgotten almost as quickly as the Taliban took over...
The west did not make a mess by being there but they lack endurance and wits to remain there. There is no way a system can be changed in one generations.
I wonder how we could ever maintain endurance/resolve on a matter for the duration needed (80+ years?), in face of political attrition and public opinion at home. China is the only country I could envisage being able to.
Vietnam: c.58k US dead (out of a pop of c.200million), Afghanistan: 2.5k US dead
Why do people only ever measure these wars in US or UK dead?
The UK is at fault, the US especially and there doesn’t seem to have been much fight in the Afghan army – supposedly had 300,000 troops compared to 80,000 of the Taliban but looks to have given up without any fight.
Why is this the fault of the UK and the US?
"Not saying it is right, of course, just that my guess is that politically, it will be forgotten almost as quickly as the Taliban took over"
That's why he did it now, to get it out of the way over a year before the mid terms.
Should have stayed in whatever limited capacity, there is the moral obligation and I'm afraid the cost (In all senses of the word) will be far greater in the long run. Spending billions to train the ANA was always a red herring, though good business for some.
Basic security that can provide a modicum of normality, alowimg the economy to continue to grow and for some of the population to get an education would have at least left some Afghans with hope for the future.
Instead we've sent a nation back to the middle ages.
doesn’t seem to have been much fight in the Afghan army – supposedly had 300,000 troops compared to 80,000 of the Taliban but looks to have given up without any fight.
Not paid, not supplied, not fed, corrupt leaders/middle, no belief in the cause to risk death fighting for it, deployed to some area you have no connections/loyalty to. Just swap jobs and work for the Taliban, put up with their rule, survive. Most recruits won't be quality people (not that they are to blame for that), but given these stories it's quite hard to blame them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/world/asia/afghanistan-rapid-military-collapse.html
"Every nation has the government it deserves" ?
Can’t say I disagree with anything Biden said. Reading between the lines the message was that he wasn’t willing to carry on lining the pockets of corrupt Afghan politicians and generals who don’t give a shit about the people they rule.
They should have setup and funded female only militias and political institutions. They would have put up more resistance and wouldn’t have been so corrupt and self-serving.
Fella on the Radio today said that the Afghan Army training by the West was repetitive and low-level. Each successive group just taught the Afghan soldiers basic rifle skills, basic first-aid, etc. Before going away and the next lot doing the same again.
They should have setup and funded female only militias and political institutions. They would have put up more resistance and wouldn’t have been so corrupt and self-serving.
Afghan's aren't Kurds
The fundamental issue is that the investment didn't create a society that Afghan's were prepared to fight for. The leaders aren't there.
The reasons may be complex but it's the reality.
It's unlikely that there will be a "resistance" to the Taliban. If there isn't it's pointless making another intervention as there isn't the appetite for the pain that change will necessitate.
It's a tragedy for those who embraced the opportunities the investment created but if an Afghan isn't prepared to fight to keep his sister in education and out of a burqa then why should the lad or lass from the UK sink housing estate?
for some of the population
the ultimate problem, you can't just nation build for some of the people.
"Can’t say I disagree with anything Biden said."
That's because he forgot to mention that the USA spent a decade funding the mujahedin sowing the seeds of what was to become the Taliban.
Blaming the Afghans for this shit storm is shameful. a nation that has been under constant foreign occupation for 40 years (Taliban=****stan).
"The fundamental issue is that the investment didn’t create a society that Afghan’s were prepared to fight for"
I've commented on the competence of the ANA a couple of times but over recent years they have died in their thousands whilst US casualties have been very low. So it's not really fair to characterise Afghans as not being prepared to fight for their sisters to get an education as plainly thousands have given their lives.
They were prepared to fight whilst the US military had their backs. Now they have been abandoned the choice isn't to fight or not it's to die or not.
It's a shitshow, that's for sure, but there would/could never be a good time to withdraw western armed forces.
US gets involved in foreign conflict - possibly for good reason - and takes some allies with them but, despite examples of what happens when you don't have an exit plan, they don't have an exit plan.
The only surprise in this is the speed at which the Taliban have taken control.
I wonder how we could ever maintain endurance/resolve on a matter for the duration needed (80+ years?), in face of political attrition and public opinion at home. China is the only country I could envisage being able to.
80+ years is not enough. 100 years minimum and 200 years there is hope.
China and Russia have already given their views. i.e. no intervention in Xinjian while Russia says no radicalisation of Uzbeks and Tajikistans (historically they gobble up one another to form a major force that cause problems in that region). The Talib are willing to negotiate because they want the technologies for more devastating effect. Remember Talib are in for the long haul and have time on their side so long as they keep growing and someone is going to continue their legacy.
West leaving can be seen Biden's old tactic of targeting Russia & China. i.e. I bet US will aid the Talib again when Russia and China exert too much dominance or influence over Asia. What they all don't realise is that as they all focus on each other, the Talib will use this opportunity to
employ their divide and conquer tactic again where they will be the main beneficiaries of the fight between the West and Russia/China. They will be armed from both sides and that's where they start to dominate them one by one. The tactic will be similar to that employed many centuries ago with great effectiveness. Yes, the Talib has a great plan for the world and with time on their hands. They are now trying to get central Asia on board as many in that region have already been radicalised. The seeds are sowed. One wrong move from the regional strongmen will mean a door opens for a replacement ideology. They know all those strongmen will not live forever. Oh ya they will target the weaker nations first, consolidate their power then move on to the next target.
Afghan’s aren’t Kurds
Actually if the Afghan women are trained well they could probably be a force to reckon with as being women in those region mean the steak is higher for them. Being women there can only mean one thing. For the pleasure of men and slave. But they are also prone to redicalisation.
“Every nation has the government it deserves” ?
A pretty sneery statement - especially considering how many unworthy governments the UK has imposed on other nations.
Maybe – but the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was not intended to stabilise the country. It was not a humanitarian intervention to begin with.
The problem came after having bombed the shit out of the Taleban government, destroyed Al Qaeda, and captured ringleaders (as well as many innocent farmers) – what would happen next for the US? Go home – and let the country become a platform for future terrorist attacks? Cut a deal with the least worst Taleban leaders and get them stay in office so long as they promise not to do anything anti-US in the future? Or try to support an anti-Taleban government to stabilise the country – but knowing the Taleban (or some iteration of it) will never go away? The US tried option #3 and then a mix of #3 and #2 for many years – and is now choosing option #1.
The bit in bold comes with responsibility.
I think what disappoints everyone is that after 20 years and trillions spent that the Afghani government and military were not ready to defend the country from the Taliban.
That is a failure of responsibility, everyone is out to blame Biden, or Trump, depending on your political persuasion, I don't think that matters, Biden didn't want to be there in the first place, Trump wanted the troops out, doesn't matter, what matters is a rich powerful country entered a poor country for whatever reason and left an entire population stitched up and in danger, and that's ok?
That is a failure of responsibility, everyone is out to blame Biden, or Trump, depending on your political persuasion
Bush mostly, for getting into it without any coherent objective. Then Obama for just muddling through rather than changing course on what he should have seen as a failing mission. Then Trump for thinking he could negotiate a peace deal with guys who have zero interest in a peaceful resolution. Biden's responsibility is limited to messing up the travel arrangements when it was time to leave.
Why is this the fault of the UK and the US?
because we went in as an occupying / colonial power and tried to impose a government on them
@seosamh77, @tjagain, having grown up and left school in June of 2001 its fair to say the army was seen as one big piss about at that time. There had been no war since the Gulf War and the Falklands before that, both of which were well equipped and light on casualties (on our side). In between you had piss, sorry peace, keeping in Germany, Belize and Cyprus plus a bit of UN work here and there and the usual exercises in Canada and Norway.
So what was to follow was a shock, it's easy to look back in hindsight but as a naiive school leaver (even coming from an all forces school) it just didn't enter people's heads that we would enter a war so unprepared and unsupported and end up being so unwinnable.
Maybe think about that before getting so high and mighty.
Should have stayed in whatever limited capacity, there is the moral obligation and I’m afraid the cost (In all senses of the word) will be far greater in the long run.
But stay at what number of troops? The Taliban were already taking back control of the provinces the US had withdrawn from, it was already at a point the troops still left (training the ANA and carrying out air support etc.) were vulnerable. It was a matter of when not if the Taliban would start more coordinated attacks against military bases and when that happened the US would either need to surge troops again in order to have enough boots on the ground to properly protect themselves (as they couldn't rely on the ANA) or do a rapid complete withdrawal. I don't think there was a middle option to either keep the same number of troops there or gradually withdraw them as either of those would have put US troops in increasing danger.
Yes, the Taliban held off their attacks because the Trump administration agreed that all foreign troops would leave the country. Biden actually delayed that withdrawal, but cancelling the agreement would have required surging tens of thousands of troops to fight the inevitable Taliban offensive. That would need to be an open-ended commitment, not a short-term surge. U.S. voters do not support that. Biden's options were either to go back to full-on combat or to leave the country, there was no viable middle option.
Anyway, voters will pretty quickly forget all about it.
https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1427401604274298885
https://twitter.com/collierwhite/status/1427403195584704515
Actually if the Afghan women are trained well they could probably be a force to reckon with as being women in those region mean the steak is higher for them. Being women there can only mean one thing. For the pleasure of men and slave. But they are also prone to redicalisation.
You are being optimistic, Afghan's are not Kurds, their cultures/ society are radically different.
I’ve commented on the competence of the ANA a couple of times but over recent years they have died in their thousands whilst US casualties have been very low. So it’s not really fair to characterise Afghans as not being prepared to fight for their sisters to get an education as plainly thousands have given their lives.
The willingness to fight wasn't there, it needs to be at all levels with the support of the people. The reality is that corruption had made to the ANA a hollow force. It would fight with others but their was no real political or military leadership. There will have been some brave soldiers who will have wanted to fight and may well have done so. Undoubtedly there will be exceptionally brave ANA, but there wasn't enough and they didn't have any leadership.
squirrelking
Whereas to me at that time it was obvious that there would be this sort of debacle. Maybe just going to the local comp rather than a forces school ( and being 25 years older? ) gave me a more realistic view?
I actually wanted to join the airforce but my eyesight was not good enough to be a pilot
With neighbours like these...
China - interested in plundering mineral deposits.
****stan - seeking as much Pashtun influence as possible whilst co-owning a non-existent border.
Iran - seeking to become a nuclear power whilst waging proxy wars elsewhere.
Dominic Raab has just been on Radio 4 after he finally deemed this important enough to come back off his holiday.
It's quite an achievement to make Gavin Williamson seem smart and astute, but he somehow managed it. He didn't seem overly concerned with the situation, though was simultaneously very surprised by it. But then this is the man who was surprised that we were so dependent on Dover/Calais for trade with the EU. His quote: "we did not see this coming"
If I was an interpreter or someone who'd been working with UK forces in Afghanistan, then I'd hardly be confident if staying alive for the immediate future was down to that dimwit
Why hasn't Blair popped up to offer his unwelcomed opinion? So many random subjects the media like to swoon around him.
Is it because this is part of his legacy?
Melts like D.Milliband (earning 1 million in a charity position) offering up their centrist solutions too. Ugh.
About 7 years sgo in my local pub just before Christmas about 60 soldiers from the Highland Regiment including officers and NCOs were in having their Christmas do (i live not far from Catterick)they had not long been back from Afgan as they called it, they had lost people and had many wounded.
My daughter was waiting at tables and she said they stacked all the plates and cutlery at the end of each table to help the waiting staff.
When they all moved into the bar the middle class locals all *ed off home. My wife and me drank with them all night and yes they were a bit rowdy but no real harm. Mostly teenagers with very old heads on their shoulders and NCOs who did nothing but watch over them.
I put a thousand pounds behind the bar and told the barman to just keep giving them beer until it was gone- it was all that i could afford at the time and it was a poor gesture but it was better than the *s in my village who went home.
I put a thousand pounds behind the bar and told the barman to just keep giving them beer until it was gone- it was all that i could afford at the time and it was a poor gesture but it was better than the ****s in my village who went home.
That is insanely generous. I don't agree with the war or armies at the best of time. I feel sorry for this lot they just went and did a job and due to poor management it was basically for nothing.
Just a thought. How would those who think that "we should do something" propose to go about it? Handwringing is unlikely to work. It is obvious that military action won't work, espcially when you chuck in the religious aspect. Talking nicely probably won't work. To my mind the only action is to make the new leaders want to join the rest of the world that we feel is so wonderful. Carrot or stick? Aid or embargo? Either way wailing isn't going to fix it.
As I’ve said a fair bit on here before, I’m a former soldier, from a military family (multiple generations). I’ve lost friends and family members to the recent wars.
I know there are other former soldiers on here who have also served and who will also have lost family.
My reasons for joining the military were very much about defending my country and my people. I did not join up or go to war to make rich people richer. Very naive I know, but at age 17 my knowledge of the world and of politics was very limited.
A lot of soldiers would give up their life for what we consider noble reasons. But what was asked of us was something entirely different.
Ridiculous comparisons between soldiers and NHS staff is pointless. NHS staff made the choice, they didn’t have to become employed as doctors or nurses and then they wouldn’t be fighting the pandemic…..see how ridiculous that statement reads?
I just wish folks on here understood better why a person who makes a decision to be a soldier doesn’t mean they should accept they will lose their life or limbs due to political money grabbing…..(yes as a 50 year old I can now see it happen, but don’t expect teenagers to be so aware)
Ridiculous comparisons between soldiers and NHS staff is pointless. NHS staff made the choice, they didn’t have to become employed as doctors or nurses and then they wouldn’t be fighting the pandemic…..see how ridiculous that statement reads?
If that is aimed at my previous post then you have misunderstood my statement. It's was about risk not expectation. People seem to think that because you joined the Armed Forces you should expect to be injured or die, and when it does happen you should've expected it. This is not said of other jobs which probably carry a higher risk of life or injury.
When I joined the Army on my 17th birthday it was because I saw my GCSE results and thought it was the best option for me. Did I think about having to go to war and dying? no. I saw it as a career choice and have done alright by it. I was teaching phase 2 training in 2009 for a few years and the majority of people I taught joined the Army to serve in Afghan. These weren't all teenagers either, some in there latter 20s.
I didn't serve in Afghanistan, after my time, but I still work with soldiers everyday in the MOD and know people who are out there at the moment in varying roles
Just a thought. How would those who think that “we should do something” propose to go about it?
It's clear that it needs a 20+ year plan.
In Afghanistan itself.
Mass investment in education.
Infrastructure projects employing as many locals as possible, with the long term aim as being totally maintained and run by Afghan people, rather than just poring money back into western contractors.
The withdrawal should obviously have been much better planned and included long term air support to suppress the taliban.
In the region
Stop the political support and uneven handling of despotic regimes.
Much more severe penalties for countries financing the spread of radicalisation
A much more restrictive arms embargo into the whole region.
This should have started a long time ago, a big part of leadership is to plan for an outcome and the steps to create the desired outcome, not just make speeches and expect outcomes to miraculously happen because of they said it on TV. In this regard we are going through a long barren spell.
Just a thought. How would those who think that “we should do something” propose to go about it?
Maintain a small presence (up until last week, the numbers the west had there were pretty small anyway) in the country, for as long as it takes for the country to be stable and able to stand on it's own two feet. If it takes decades, so be it, we were part of making the mess.
Would be a small price to pay to avoid what will happen to the poor innocent people now.
Maintain a small presence (up until last week, the numbers the west had there were pretty small anyway) in the country
I think that's OK until the Taliban decide to start attacking US troops.
They were able to have a small number because there wasn't any actual fighting to do. If the Taliban had started attacking the numbers would have to be ramped up very quickly just to hold their positions.
If they wanted to 'defeat' the Taliban then we're back to 2001.
No real solution to this, imo.
My wife's friends are predominantly left leaning and many work in the charity sector, hold memberships for Campain against the arms trade/CND etc. Here are some of the comments I've heard from them over time.
"Do you get let out at the weekends?"
"You get paid HOW MUCH?! I didn't think you did."
"Have you killed anyone?"
"Thats cool you have your own room. I thought it was like full metal jacket."
So when I hear people lamenting the armed forces and those that join, I realise they do it from position of utter ignorance and have learned to s**** instead of reason with them.
As for my views on the current situation, if you can find the Canadian ambassadors interview for the BBC, it sums it up for me.
I put a thousand pounds behind the bar
I once had to endure an evening in the pub listening to a mouthy ex-special forces guy (who had invited himself to watch the football with us) brag about how many 'tea-towel-heads' he'd killed in Afghanistan. He was a terrible human being, a total psycopath, and not someone who should ever be given the responsibility of deciding between life and death. I hope none of your cash went towards 'rewarding' someone with similar motivations.
Not one soldier mentioned anything about their service in Afghanistan that night. Quite the opposite a lot were leaving and were asking me about what jobs/trades they should look/train/for.
There was not an ounce of special forces bollocks..
Having a friend who served in the Parachute Regiment in NI, Bosnia, West Africa he also never speaks about it.
a mouthy ex-special forces guy
I'd put a thousand pounds on him having not been anywhere near the special forces, apart from seeing a lot of action on TV.
How would those who think that “we should do something” propose to go about it?
A concerted campaign of carpet tack bombing.
Not a typo.
I note from the news articles that the majority of the Taliban insurgents seem to be heavily armed sandal wearers. My experience of sandals is that every 3 steps I seem to get a stone under my foot. If they weren't stones but carpet tacks, i reckon we could halt their advance in no time at all.
I once had to endure an evening in the pub listening to a mouthy ex-special forces guy
You know there's no such thing, right?
If he was special forces or had actually been anywhere near the pointy end of an armed conflict, he certainly wouldn't be gobbing off about it.
I was the only one of the group of mates who I grew up with who didn't go into the forces. All but one have served repeated tours in Iraq/Afghanistan, NI and Bosnia back in the day, etc and have the PTSD to prove it. They NEVER talk about it.
One is a total gobshite, wears all the 'I'm in the Army, me' gear from Thrudark and talks as if he taught Ant Middleton everything he knows. He is in fact in the Army, but in some desk job that mean he's never been out of Catterick
I suspect you encountered the latter
a mouthy ex-special forces guy
Did he know the colour of the boat house at Hereford?
just for a bit of other info, the Taliban (IEA) have been running a shadow government for a few years now in preparation for this and the fact it happened so quickly shows how little love there was for the existing 'government'. Although it looks like a bunch of random fighters taking over the place they already have experienced liasons in many places to try and have a smooth handover. Up in the north they are already pushing for foreign NGOs to resume their work and trying to help enable it (albeit without their women staff for the moment). A lot of the chaos that is happening in Kabul is armed criminal gangs exploiting the space. Outside of the area around the airport the streets are a lot calmer and quieter as people keep their heads down until things settle.
What we really don't know at the moment is what they are going to be like on human rights. There are plenty of countries that we deal with from day to day and where many folks are happy to go and work that have truly appalling human rights but we are happy to work with because they buy our stuff 🙁
Maintain a small presence (up until last week, the numbers the west had there were pretty small anyway) in the country, for as long as it takes for the country to be stable and able to stand on it’s own two feet.
They were able to do that as Trump had signed an agreement to allow the withdrawal
Ridiculous comparisons between soldiers and NHS staff is pointless. NHS staff made the choice, they didn’t have to become employed as doctors or nurses and then they wouldn’t be fighting the pandemic…..see how ridiculous that statement reads?
I don't see anything ridiculous in that
As a former NHS worker I know damn well that by choosing that career at times I would be put at risk by it.
the root cause here of the dissatisfaction is twofold IMO
1) taking young gullible people and telling them what a wonderful opportunity military service is without telling them that it could well end up in "kill or be killed"
2) Political leaders who have no military experience
Gulf war 1. there still were politicians who had military backgrounds. They all told Blair it would be a disaster as was obvious. he said " they just don't get it" being sure that the neo colonial forces bombing a country back to the stone ages would be welcomed as liberators
the answer of course is that our military should only be used for defense of these islands or for properly constituted multinational efforts that have the support of most of the world and clear achievable objectives
I think the only western military interference in other countries in my lifetime that actually made any improvement might be the conflicts in the former yugoslavia. Everything else our actions made the lives of locals immeasurably worse
in the former yugoslavia.
The ending of the Civil war in Sierra Leone was pretty much as a result of the Paras.
I'm sure people join up for many different reasons and as has been pointed out, we are often talking about the reasoning of a 17 year old.
I once saw a lieutenant (whilst returning to Afghanistan) say that the reason someone joins up is "to test themselves". That's a good enough answer for me.
The last ex squaddie I knew / worked with was a lovely fella, diamond geezer in fact. I'm sure some are absolute ****'s.
Soldiers can be remarkably like the general population when it comes to levels of dicheadery but it's the dickheadery amongst the political class (and perhaps the generals) that is responsible for this mess.
Sometime in the future we might see a 'Blackadder goes fifth" come to our screens.
You know there’s no such thing, right?
I strongly believe that idiot wasn't in the special forces, but do think he was in Afghanistan in the forces in some form. Either that or he had constructed an incredibly detailed alternative reality for the purposes of bragging to strangers in pubs. In actual fact almost everyone else I've come across who served in Afghanistan or somewhere else were exactly the opposite and I'd buy them a pint any time.
a mouthy ex-special forces guy (who had invited himself to watch the football with us) brag about how many ‘tea-towel-heads’ he’d killed in Afghanistan.
Australian SAS? they seem to have been at the forefront of hearts and minds
Political leaders who have no military experience
TBH, political leaders with military experience are probably worse. Until Bill Clinton, modern U.S. Presidents all had military experience. Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George H. Bush all served in WW2 or just afterwards. Problem with WW2 is that it's the poster child for military intervention, along with Korea. The guys who screwed up in Vietnam assumed that what worked against Germany and Japan would work against the Viet Cong, so they bombed the shit out of the place. Being military veterans just made them think that foreign policy problems could be solved through firepower.
It’s clear that it needs a 20+ year plan.
In Afghanistan itself.
Mass investment in education.
Infrastructure projects employing as many locals as possible, with...
Literally what happened in the last 20 years in Afghanistan. You are not the first person to have this idea and Afghanistan is not the first country people wanted to develop.
PS how many high voltage or geotechnical engineers do you think there are in Afghanistan, where 55% of the population is illiterate? Are you going to wait until the unis are fixed so they produce engineers - or until the high schools are fixed so they produce mathematicians - or until primary schools are fixed until they produce literate kids - or until agricultural markets are fixed so that small farmers can sell their surplus and get out of labour-intensive subsistence farming and afford to release their kids to school...? Holy shit, who'd have guessed that improving regional security through economic development would be so difficult?!?!
Problem with WW2 is that it’s the poster child for military intervention, along with Korea.
I think you could probs. take Korea out of the WW2 frame and stick it into the Vietnam frame. While it wasn't the total dogs dinner that Vietnam turned out to be, it wasn't a massive success either. At best it's a draw, and that's only after control of UN forces was wrestled away from the Mad loon MacArthur, and the dawning realisation that communist Asia wasn't going to be as easily defeated as the US thought at the time.
centrist solutions
Are usually the best ones. Extreme solutions are what folk like the Taliban deal in.
Dominic Raab is genuinely thick enough to be 'surprised' at how quickly it has turned to rat shit. Others are expressing 'surprise' as a sop to others or their own conscience. Anyone with any knowledge of Afghanistan and/or swift pullouts by major powers knew it was blindingly obvious 'our' Afghans would fold in five seconds flat without Messrs McDonnell Douglas, Fairchild, General Dynamics et al stood behind them.
The Afghans are not born with a predisposition to extremism any more than we in the UK are - it is just that their circumstances mean that a few extremists can wield irresistible power. Irresistible unless you've got the guys mentioned above in your corner.
Being military veterans just made them think that foreign policy problems could be solved through firepower.
Reagan spent his military service making films and narrating training videos - hardly a veteran.
Carter spent his career in fairly cushy positions onshore and in submarines - and then went on to broker peace in the Middle East. Not a grizzled firepower-obsessed missile slinger.
Bush Sr headed the CIA and didn't think a military solution could fix the Saddam problem.
I know you like to selectively quote THM, but the whole of my post was important, a couple of points in isolation don't work.
Bush Sr headed the CIA and didn’t think a military solution could fix the Saddam problem.
Bush Sr flew torpedo planes in WW2. He was shot down by the Japanese.
I'm no huge fan of the Army as I've seen how it changed plenty of the lads I grew up with, not for the better. I also work with plenty of ex-Forces, with one lad on my watch and have heard stories of Afghanistan and the horrors they saw.
There was a soldier on morning telly a few months back that had lost most of his limbs. My mate at work just casually mentioned he'd been in the troop behind this poor bloke and knew him. That conflict has left deep scars on him, with demons he's yet to conquer, as it has with other friends. The saddest thing for me now is that they all feel it was for nothing.
Its not called the "Graveyard of Empires" for no reason
Anyone who didn't see this coming hasn't paid any attention to history.
This article published four years ago and the writing was well and truly on the wall then.
The best outcome was a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and a power sharing agreement in Kabul. Defeat of the Taliban wasn't on the agenda since most of the US troops left in 2014.
But the Taliban had time and support on their side. They are backed heavily by ****stan, who seem them as a key ally in stopping any Indian influence in Afghanistan. Iran and Russia were also providing support.
Ironically Taliban were also being financed by the US. Corruption in the ANA meant that arms and material supplied to them regularly flowed straight into the hands of the Taliban. More money to the ANA would simply mean more of it going to the Taliban.
What now?
Afghanistan has a huge amount of mineral wealth. It might have the largest lithium reserves in the world along with vast reserves of copper, silver and gold. Could that wealth be used to modernise the country?
Not a chance. Look at the deal FDR struck with Ibn Saud on the Great Bitter Lake "We will sell you our oil if you leave us alone to rule how we please"
Countries where the wealth is dug out of the ground make for the best dictatorships. You build a road from the mine to whoever is buying what's dug up (China). You distribute your new treasure to keep your followers happy. You don't invest in infrastructure or education. Because, illiterate villagers with naff all infrastructure make piss poor revolutionaries.
And so it goes.
The guys who screwed up in Vietnam assumed that what worked against Germany and Japan would work against the Viet Cong, so they bombed the shit out of the place. Being military veterans just made them think that foreign policy problems could be solved through firepower.
that's simply not true, we have recordings of Kennedy and Johnson stating it was an unwinnable war well before any major US deployment, they knew exactly what they were getting into.
China has been quick to recognise the Taliban leadership. Expect to see some Chinese investment in infrastructure to support miming operations in the coming years.
Will Chinese dams need protecting more than American dams?
that’s simply not true, we have recordings of Kennedy and Johnson stating it was an unwinnable war well before any major US deployment, they knew exactly what they were getting into.
The Ken Burn series on Netflix had amazing recordings of those discussions. Sadly it wasn’t still on there last I checked. What was also clear though was that they felt like they were getting sucked into it as they couldn’t be seen to let the communist North have free reign.
China has been quick to recognise the Taliban leadership
They'll be shiting themselves given the way they're currently treating the Talibans Uighur friends.
What was also clear though was that they felt like they were getting sucked into it
Yep a Fait Accompli
It’s clear that it needs a 20+ year plan.
In Afghanistan itself.
Mass investment in education.
Infrastructure projects employing as many locals as possible, with the long term aim as being totally maintained and run by Afghan people, rather than just poring money back into western contractors.
The withdrawal should obviously have been much better planned and included long term air support to suppress the taliban.In the region
Stop the political support and uneven handling of despotic regimes.
Much more severe penalties for countries financing the spread of radicalisation
A much more restrictive arms embargo into the whole region.This should have started a long time ago, a big part of leadership is to plan for an outcome and the steps to create the desired outcome, not just make speeches and expect outcomes to miraculously happen because of they said it on TV. In this regard we are going through a long barren spell.
I'm told that the situation in Scotland is even more desperate.
https://twitter.com/fedtanyl/status/1427589067450068993