British withdrawal from Afghanistan

[Azog 150]

Following the rising death toll of British soldiers in Afghanistan, the killing of 5 British soldiers by a member of the ANP, the re-election of Hamid Karzai and the fraud surrounding the election, the refusal of other NATO nations to contribute more men and finally the reluctance of Barrack Obama to commit the 40,000 US troops that McCrystal wants, serious questions are being raised about Britain's role in Afghanistan.

I know there have been threads of a similar nature in the past, but I want this to be the definitive answer of what the British members of TWC think about Britain and Afghanistan (I will also include options for non-British members as I know people like to vote in polls)





My personal opinion is that, although I don't think we should ever have gone in the first place (Whether or not something is UN mandated makes little difference to me), now we are there and now we have destabilised the country even further, it is our duty to stay.

I don't buy into this idea that stabilizing Afghanistan will stop the threat of terror on Britain's streets. For starters the majority of terror plots involving Islamic extremists are formed either here in Britain, in Pakistan, and, increasingly, in places like Somalia and Yemen- not in Afghanistan. However, the mission in Afghanistan directly affects that of Pakistan, and I believe any withdrawal allowing the Taliban to come back to power will spell doom for Pakistan. Obviously not a good thing for a nation with a nuclear arsenal.

I also think that withdrawing now or before Afghanistan is relatively stable will make the sacrifices of those lost so far, as well as the sheer amount of money spent on this conflict in terms of the armed forces and aid (By aid I mean giving it to corrupt government officials) will be rendered pointless. I think we owe it to those that have died so far to stay to the end in order to make their sacrifices more worthwhile








On the other hand I am increasingly starting to move towards the option of withdrawal. Our government obviously isn't all that committed otherwise we would have enough choppers which our soldiers have been asking for the last 3 years. It just seems a very half-arsed effort, and if the government can't be bothered, then why are we even there?

There is also the fact that Britain, the US and just a handful of the 40+ nations there are actually pulling their weight while the rest are are leaving the burden to this handful and generally being half-arsed. Why should we have to take this burden in what was supposed to be a joint effort? Not only that, not everyone even has the same goals. Its a complete shambles of an alliance.

Then there is the question of Hamid Karzai and the general corruption of Afghanistan. We are pouring billions into this corrupt regime and getting little results, with a large amount of that just being pocketed.

Finally, I am no longer sure if this war can even be won, and if it can, it will be a long time away with a lot more blood spilt and money gone. If it can't be won, again, what are we even doing?




Anyway, I am rambling. What do our British members think about the option of withdrawing from Afghanistan?

[Aru]

Last option for NB members.

You went there, did the mess, now clean it up.

[Azog 150]

^^Thats the way I see it as well.

But there are plenty of other nations who went in and helped mess things up, and yet its Britain and a handful of others that have been charged with cleaning up. So far Britain has pulled its fair share of weight, and now its time for others to step up to the plate.

I would suggest Britain downsizes its effort- some other Euro country could have their share of the fighting. But what would be the point in staying if we weren't going to do it right?

[Ishoss]

^^Thats the way I see it as well.

But there are plenty of other nations who went in and helped mess things up, and yet its Britain and a handful of others that have been charged with cleaning up. So far Britain has pulled its fair share of weight, and now its time for others to step up to the plate.

I would suggest Britain downsizes its effort- some other Euro country could have their share of the fighting. But what would be the point in staying if we weren't going to do it right?

Everyone should upsize their troop-numbers, and the Germans should have all restrictions lifted.

We can't leave, it's too late. The Taliban would take control of Afghanistan, and then we're back to were we were!

[Tiberios]

Excatly. Leaving now will achieve nothing and would simply have been a waste of lives.

[Poach]

I think we should stop taking on as major a role as we do atleast until the other countries that are slacking step up their game.

Personally I'd prefer we left right now but I understand the situation and why we must atleast stay until the ANA/ANP can handle themselves.

[Katsumoto]

Well you can't say let other countries help out, I mean they are already, maybe not enough, but it was the USA's idea supported by Britain to go into Afghanistan, so surely they should be doing most of the fighting (which they are)

[Azog 150]

Well you can't say let other countries help out, I mean they are already, maybe not enough, but it was the USA's idea supported by Britain to go into Afghanistan, so surely they should be doing most of the fighting (which they are)

It was no more Britains idea then it was Frances, Italys or Spains.

That, and i'm tired of Brown using the excuse that we're in it to make Britain safer. Despite the fact any terrorist attack that even has a chance of succeeding here would in all likelyhood, be carried out by British citizens. That, and if we do win in Afghanistan, I see no reason why they wouldn't just move elsewhere (Somalia seems a nice place), so we'd solve nothing.

Precisely. I just don't buy into that reason whatsoever. I think the main benefit of Afghanistan is that it is helping keep Pakistan from falling to the Taliban and Al Qaeda which would be a disaster. The trouble is that thr Taliban are not a single entity and those Taliban that are being helped by Pakistan to fight in South Wiziristan and the other border provinces are also those sending thousands over to fight us.

The whole situation is so ed up I can't even get my head around it. Its just so complicated. I would advocate destroying Pakistan's nukes and getting the out if it came to that. Not sure that would go down too well though.....

[ShockBlast]

Well Afghanistan is a land that must be stabilized.I say that UK must stay and continue the fight.Afghanistan is a important source for drugs so UK is doing something for it's citizens back home too not only for the Afghans.Germany,France,Italy and Spain should bolster their forces.I hope the Germans get over the WW2 thing and act like the important country they are.The Spanish should bolster their numbers a lot they only got 10 more soldiers then Romania.The important thing is that USA should bolster it's own forces too before we make anymore contributions.

The war isn't going well.

Well you can't say let other countries help out, I mean they are already, maybe not enough, but it was the USA's idea supported by Britain to go into Afghanistan, so surely they should be doing most of the fighting (which they are)

The mission in Afghanistan is under UN mandate,i think you are mixing it up with Iraq.

[Katsumoto]

The mission in Afghanistan is under UN mandate,i think you are mixing it up with Iraq.

Yeah I know officially it's under UN mandate, but it was the US who pushed the agenda AFAIK.

[ShockBlast]

Yeah I know officially it's under UN mandate, but it was the US who pushed the agenda AFAIK.

And they are doing most of the fighting because they represent more then 65% of the ISAF forces there.They didn't have any reason to invade Iraq but Afghanistan is hell on earth and lowering the opium crops is a good reason for staying but it's hard with 100.000 ISAF and 100.000 ANA soldiers Afghanistan can't be tamed so easily.

[Musthavename]

I've wanted to stay for a long time, but now, i've had enough. Karzai's fraudulent election has been the last straw.

That, and i'm tired of Brown using the excuse that we're in it to make Britain safer. Despite the fact any terrorist attack that even has a chance of succeeding here would in all likelyhood, be carried out by British citizens. That, and if we do win in Afghanistan, I see no reason why they wouldn't just move elsewhere (Somalia seems a nice place), so we'd solve nothing.

[Katsumoto]

I think the main reason we are still there is because we dont have the option to leave, imagine British forces pull out and Afghanistan just goes back to the way it was pre-invasion, Britain would lose any credibility it still has.

It was no more Britains idea then it was Frances, Italys or Spains

Are you sure? I was under the impression it was the USA's decision, and Britain was obviously going to support them.

[Syron]

Leave immediately.

Staying will achieve nothing, and not a single British life should be wasted on a such a thing.

[Lysimachus]

Considering the sheer loss of life, it would kind of make it in vain and i'm pretty sure there'd be an uproar if we were to pull out.

< Gets ready for sexual references >

[Tiberius Tosi]

Oops accidentally voted for "we" instead of "Britain", but I vote that they should stay either way. My bad.

[Vizsla]

None of the poll options fit my view: Stay but do things differently then leave as soon as is practicable.

I don't think we can leave now. I wish we could. Not because of any of this sunk cost fallacy illogic. If leaving would save lives then we should leave. It won't so we can't. Nuff said. We're there for better or worse and we've got to resolve things.
That said the current strategy is not going to work. Wars are not won by sticking doggedly to a particular set of strategies and tactics. Wars are won by learning from mistakes and coming up with plans that work. Politicians find it difficult to switch strategy because by doing so they admit they made mistakes in the past, which is electorally problematic. Obama could have been the catalyst for change when he first got in but by sticking with the status quo he has lost that momentum. If the UK gets a new government in 6 months time maybe we'll have another chance to change things.
We will never be able to create a state in our own image and we will never be able to defeat corruption; because that is the culture. We cannot rely on most of our so called allies because they will not fight in any meaningful way or, worse, are actually prepared to bribe the enemy to leave them alone and kill us instead. So military victory is impossible and we must find alternative methods. NATO is almost certainly defunct after this, if not before.
There are people with workable solutions out there. I suspect ditching Karzai and bringing tribal elders round to our way of thinking, even those who support the Taliban, is one way to achieve our goals.

[Yorkshireman]

I agree and support the reasons why we went. We went as allies of the US after the attacks on 11th Sept and I think the initial aim to destroy AQ in the region was justified. We're now suffering from what they call 'mission creep' where the primary goal has been extended and we're trying to transform a country thats been fractured for centuries into some sort of functioning, western style democracy, whilst at the same time attempting to keep Pakistan on its feet.. The incident the other day when 11 British squaddies were gunned down by a member of the force they were trying to train maybe shows we've a long way to go before whatever section of Afghans are ready to take the reins themselves. Possibly its an impossible task, especially as there is virtually no committment from our 'European partners' who were happy to be under the NATO umbrella for decades but now don't feel the need to risk any of their own troops when they're actually called upon.

I'm not certain now how we should proceed, do we give it more time or do we cut our losses ?

[skag]

I agree and support the reasons why we went. We went as allies of the US after the attacks on 11th Sept and I think the initial aim to destroy AQ in the region was justified. We're now suffering from what they call 'mission creep' where the primary goal has been extended and we're trying to transform a country thats been fractured for centuries into some sort of functioning, western style democracy, whilst at the same time attempting to keep Pakistan on its feet.. The incident the other day when 11 British squaddies were gunned down by a member of the force they were trying to train maybe shows we've a long way to go before whatever section of Afghans are ready to take the reins themselves. Possibly its an impossible task, especially as there is virtually no committment from our 'European partners' who were happy to be under the NATO umbrella for decades but now don't feel the need to risk any of their own troops when they're actually called upon.

I'm not certain now how we should proceed, do we give it more time or do we cut our losses ?

For all of what in not underlined, I agree, I was rdy to rep you until :
the underlined ... please don't say BS ... italians are there, french are there and others also, and lot of us are loosing soldiers there. For sure not in the same % as the UK are, but hey, you are the US puppet, we aren't !
Basically, it was a US war, not European.

And btw LOL, who voted the first option ?...

[uzi716]

You should stay because all those troops will have died in vain

and because America joined 2 world wars for Britain so it would return the favor