Cable Forum - UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role' (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33653799)

ginge51

08-08-2009 05:09

UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

Quote:

The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.

Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times the Army's role would evolve, but the process of "nation-building" would last decades.

Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.

"There is absolutely no chance of Nato pulling out," Gen Richards added.

Gen Richards commanded 35,000 troops from 37 nations when he was head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan between May 2006 and February 2007.

He will take over from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as the UK's chief of the general staff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8191018.stm

40 years in Afghanistan?
When will these wars ever end?

Tarantella

08-08-2009 06:46

Re: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

Hmm lemmesee, Russia invaded and left, America and Britain(Tony Blair) invaded and will leave at some point.

Now, what other regional powers have borders with Afghanistan and fancy their chances?

The Afghans will quite happily fight any incomers and sticking a name like Taliban on them doesnt change their nationality. They've done it for millenia. They were doing it when Alexander the Great wandered through.

http://www.afghanland.com/history/alexander.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Afghan_War

frogstamper

09-08-2009 03:34

Re: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

The real sad part of all this is that Britain has already fought two unsuccessful Afghan wars in the nineteenth century, surely history would have taught any invading army/coallition that no matter how well intentioned your on to a hiding for nothing.
We are fighting in the Talibans backyard, they aren't going anywhere, the only way this conflict can be resolved is politically not through military force.
And when we are dealing with a government that is as corrupt as Karsi's it doesn't instill confidence.

injuneer

09-08-2009 10:35

Re: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

There's bound to be more wars somewhere else during that time period, conflict, it's what the human race excels in.

Tarantella

09-08-2009 10:57

Re: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

It's simpler than that. You can spend billions of tax payers money on maintaining standing armies, navies and airforces but for them to be combat effective you need wars.

Dai	09-08-2009 11:12

Re: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarantella (Post 34850589)

It's simpler than that. You can spend billions of tax payers money on maintaining standing armies, navies and airforces but for them to be combat effective you need wars.

And it suits the western world to have a military force in the middle east.
Not far to move when the oil starts to run short and you want to safeguard your supplies.

injuneer

09-08-2009 11:38

Re: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

The pressures are already mounting for numerous prospective conflicts, a continually growing world population & increasingly dwindling global resources. A prediction was made not long ago that there will be a global crisis of some sort before 2030.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:11.