Are Britains enemy your friends??

[bearhunter]

wasp said:

As for some of the more extreme comments here, WASP, you've clearly not met many soldiers if you think the British Army are "moral"

;.

I certainly have met and know many soldiers but that is another stroy. Anyway I have never claimed they are perfect, never said they didn't make mistakes etc but when it comes to a role such as in the Balkans etc then there are few who could do it better.

I think you'll find there's a hell of a difference between "moral" and "good at their job". Any soldier I've met (from a number of countries) has tended to be a great laugh and very good company, but not the sort of person you'd trust with a sixpack and your girlfriend.

[Harry]

bearhunter said:

To return to the thread topic, no Britain's enmemies are not my friends. Nor are they the friends of the Irish state. The rhetorical flourish in the thread title harks back 90 years and while that might be the blink of an eye for some here, it isn't in the real world. As for some of the more extreme comments here, WASP, you've clearly not met many soldiers if you think the British Army are "moral". Even their C/Os wouldn't claim that. I know several and I drink regularly with three ex-squaddies and I can tell you they are about as morally upright as a sack of snakes; and quite proud of that fact as well.
As for neutral nations being mealy mouthed cowards who hide behind the skirts of brave Britain and USA forces, Harry I must raise the issue of NZ/Australia here. NZ is a neutral country (our PM told us so not long ago) yet NZ troops are delpoyed in Sinai, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The reason they are so popular is precisely because they are neutral and carry no colonial/neo-colonial baggage. In Aghanistan the engineer regiment is rebuilding bridges, roads and water supplies, a far more useful task than many I could imagine. And they are not just builders as this link proves:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Apiata

Sorry BH it was an oversight by myself and i know and met many aussies soldiers during my time. I never came accross any NZ soldiers but then if they weren't involved in the Iraq war i wouldn't of anyway. Again no offence was meant to NZ or Australia but i simply missed them out by my own mistake.

[Harry]

I'm not sure AFD that i believe it is all about oil and i want to believe that we have some good intent out there. Its a mess, no doubt and the tretament our Soldiers get is also a disgrace. I just want to believe that we can do some good and help the Iraqi people and that our Soldiers are being used to simply secure oil for us. No matter what the reasons are the ordinary soldier on the ground has no hidden motives but is merely doing his/her job and to hear people say that they have empathy with those killing them is hard to take.

[Harry]

setanta said:

Harry do you think after 5 years that Western military might will get the job done?

It looks like it could drag on for decades in all honesty. I believe Afghanistan could be won and will be won if we commit the troops that are needed.

[Jim]

I can see the age old british tradition of drawing lines through countries happening, at least in Iraq.

[An Fear Dubh]

What you mean partition of the north Jim??

[An Fear Dubh]

I have to admit that I know even less about Afghanistan than I do about Iraq. But what I have read and gathered seems to support some of what Setanta has been saying. Their society is feudal in structure, and that is mainly due to the constant wars and invasions that have interrupted natural development, as 'development' is being imposed by outside forces and even the good and the bad is being resisted for the reason it is being imposed by outside forces.
I do not believe that and a conflict can be won by military might unless you intend to totally eliminate those opposing you, or disperse them in such small numbers outside of the area. In todays world the media spotlight does not allow nations like America and Britain to take such sever action. So I believe the number of troops committed is irrelevant, to find a long term solution it must come from those who live there, and will continue to live there.
This view is often pushed about in the British press. Often coming from people from a military background, who have experience of being in Afghanistan with limited (maybe even insufficient) resources, to do even basic operations. The reason for this is not because the British government are running a tight budget or policy is restrictive. It is because the objective is to put a loose lid on the situation and a level of violence is acceptable.
When you look at the Russian experience in Afghanistan, and at various points their full scale commitment was far greater than the west has been so far. You must question why they did not succeed with this greater commitment? And if Western forces decide to deploy they must do to a greater extent than Russia ever did. And even then the question remains will they achieve anything constructive and definitive. Or will things just be brought to a head and a situation like Iraq will then exist?

[Blue Angel]

the reason russia did not succeed is partly rooted in the russian armies methods and recruitment procedures. My future brother in law is a russian army officer cadet (the family have a tradition army service on the male side) and would point out that the army suffered from years from endemic poor morale due to conscription whereby it had a large number of recruits who had no real desire to be there - also a culture of bullying was and still is present in the army. We all know about hazing in the british army or other armies but this is way beyond that with gang rapes been a common punishment for infractions in some barracks apparently. Also promotion was often subject to whose good books you were in as oppossed to actual competence as a leader and this is relfected not just in afghanistan but in the experience the russians had in checyna where even with overwhleming force they came of worst first time around. It is only in the last few years the russian army has started to try and stamp out it's internal problems and install a proper command hierachy. That said, no foreign force has ever had much luck in afghanistan - for britain itself it is the scene of one of their worst military defeats ever where a force of 30,000 or so were almost totally destroyed. While the conditions that allowed that to happen don't exsist now it should not be forgotten that afghanstan is a society where much of the male population is used to fighting and has no real fear of dying fighting foreign armies.

I agree that an acceptable level of violence is tolerated also - so long as it does not get too out of control it is possible to say that the west is 'keeping a lid on it.' Western involvement in Afghanistan has been fairly disastrous.

As to involvement in iraq, well we were all suppossed to cheer for deposing saddam and one of his many crimes against humanit was supposed to be gassing the kurds. But few people bothered to point out that churchill did exactly that in iraq many years before. Saddam was a brutal and unpleasant leader but as others have pointed out here so long as he was useful he was tolerated - nor is this a particular reflection on british or us political morality. If history was retroactively altered tomorrow and ireland had owned an empire of possessed the clout of the us it would probably act the same. I've said before imagining large govts. make decisions based ultimately on morality is in my opinion naive.

[Harry]

setanta said:

what's the difference between now and various other invasions there?

I think that NATO has the ability to do it if others pulled their weight. All countries within NATO should be involved with each country playing a vital role. Whether it be clearing the Taliban, preventing drug smuggling, rebuilding the infrastructure, all of NATO has a role to play. At the minute to much is being done by too few. This isn't my own opinion, NATO itself is calling for others to pull their fingers out. US/UK could pretty much win any war in fighting terms but its what happens after the fight is over that will decide how the country develops. Better Intel on the ground, cutting out civillian deaths, faster redevelopment of the infrastructure will show the Afghan people the good that can come from riding the Taliban. The turn outs at the Afghan elections shows the will of the Afghan people to have a say on the future of their country. Very few would want the Taliban back in power. More resources is exactly what is needed and simply because of the history of Afghanistan is no reason to doubt that a good result can be achieved

[Blue Angel]

i think the history of afghanistan is every reason to show why a good result is unlikely myself which is where we differ harry. i think afghanistan and iraq are both neo-imperial ventures doomed to failure ultimately. Nor do i think the us or uk could win any war on purely military tems - i think they could beat most opponents but that there are instances in which they would lose or be caught in a stalemate. Iraq has already cost more US soldiers in a shorter time frame than Vietnam for example and the total gets fairly large if we include Iraqi forces killed by insurgents in there to. I see no credible reason for other NATO countries involving themselves in this mess to be honest. I can't see even see it as credilbe that the US/UK are winning militarily as the estimate of insurgents killed by the US is 19,000 and the number of new Iraq army troops killed is getting on for 8,000 and the number of coaltion forces is approaching 4,2000 - sure they've killed more insurgents but it's not an overwhelming ammount more and they are bogged down for now in a stalemate. The new Iraqi army is a joke and desertion is endemic for example.

[Harry]

blueangel said:

i think the history of afghanistan is every reason to show why a good result is unlikely myself which is where we differ harry. i think afghanistan and iraq are both neo-imperial ventures doomed to failure ultimately. Nor do i think the us or uk could win any war on purely military tems - i think they could beat most opponents but that there are instances in which they would lose or be caught in a stalemate. Iraq has already cost more US soldiers in a shorter time frame than Vietnam for example and the total gets fairly large if we include Iraqi forces killed by insurgents in there to. I see no credible reason for other NATO countries involving themselves in this mess to be honest. I can't see even see it as credilbe that the US/UK are winning militarily as the estimate of insurgents killed by the US is 19,000 and the number of new Iraq army troops killed is getting on for 8,000 and the number of coaltion forces is approaching 4,2000 - sure they've killed more insurgents but it's not an overwhelming ammount more and they are bogged down for now in a stalemate. The new Iraqi army is a joke and desertion is endemic for example.

Because NATO started the job in Afghanistan and all countries pledged to do their part.

[Blue Angel]

i am always glad we didn't join Nato when Ireland was offered this - a iit seems in many ways to have a)outlived it's purpose and b) to really not be very well co-ordinated. I think we are better sticking ot peacekeeping missions in any case as we could not contribute much force to any other venture even if we wanted to.

[Jim]

anfeardubh said:

What you mean partition of the north Jim??

The partition of Ireland/Cyprus/Palestine/Indian subcontinent. It allows Britain to wipe its hands off the matter.

[Blue Angel]

to be fair cyprus's partititon can not really be blamed on the british as te turkish invaded 14 years after independence had come.

[Shades40]

JP is a legend, here he visits Afghanistan a country that the US gave 300 million to rebuild and run after they attacked, ffs we got 6 billion to run NI.

video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3092205108464176495