Blog powered by Typepad

« One little corner of the swamp has been drained - jolly good show! | Main | 'HillBilly' is such a delicate little flower! »

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Our Prime Monster is also making noises about sending more Aussies into that G-D forsaken country. Since our involvement we have sent 26,000 there in support of "the cousins".

Why anyone would want the bloody place is beyond comprehension.

The Helmand operation was a complete disaster, as was predictable and predicted from the start.

As Hastings rightly says the presence or not of British troops in this surge will have minimal military impact, but an important political one on several levels.

What has to be avoided is just sending them there. They have to have a clear mission and to be resourced accordingly.

As usual it is infantry that is required and we have some of the finest in the world nowadays, but too few of them, so let this be a wake up call to the MoD to reverse that horribly mistaken policy.

I thought the NRO article balanced and well argued. Trump had to choose between a rock and a hard place and has probably chosen the option with fewest disastrous outcomes, but of course plenty can go wrong.

If they are going to be used for nation building forget it and bring 'em home. If they are to be used to stiffen ANA units engaged in specific operations killing bad guys then they will have a morale building effect as well as providing welcome extra firepower, so good.

Cuffley If they are going to be used for nation building forget it and bring 'em home.

It is my understanding President Trump isn't interested in nation building. He is interested in finishing a job as quickly and efficiently as possible with minimal collateral and get the hell out of there.

Diplomad weighed in pretty well on this:
http://www.thediplomad.com/2017/08/afghanistan-done-right.html#comment-form

Amazing isn't that the combined editorial board could not figure out that George Bush had negotiated and signed the status of forces agreement that required the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. And unilaterally overturning such a deal turns an alliance into an occupation. How soon we conveniently forget. But let us pass to the next point. Donald Trump has decided to do exactly what Obama was doing and the people not being honest about it is the NRO. It was easy to talk Trump into this. All the generals had to do was preview their books on how they could have won the war but were betrayed by politicians. And the guy they were gonna name was Trump.

So I noticed your one eighty. Now you are cool with Trump following the Obama strategy. And you seem to have realized your slim hopes for avoiding a humiliating Brexit may hinge on sacrificing troops to placate Trump. Now that is Conservative courage!

Sadly Cuffley what they mostly will be doing is force protection. As in guarding themselves and their bases. And waiting to get shot by an allied Afghani.

Once Mrs May commits more troops she will own the war as far as the British public is concerned. It would not be a political move without risks.

In exchange for a face saving trade deal with the US, a few more grenadiers' bones will do nicely.

SoD

Yes she will Bob. And what will she get in return. Well let's see. First thing Trump did was shoot down the TPP on which so many agricultural red states were relying to increase markets. Last night in the demented fur ball he called a speech he effectively announced the end of NAFTA. So I guess all those Canadian soldier's lives didn't get us much consideration. And we even let the Americans bomb our troops with good grace. Soooo....won't actually get anything out of it but will get puppy slapped for not jumping through hoops. Good times.

Bob:
"Once Mrs May commits more troops she will own the war as far as the British public is concerned. It would not be a political move without risks."

Absolutely right. And one of the major risks is that it will encourage still more home-grown or imported Islamist nutters to blow up buses and mow people down over here - not that they need all that much encouragement. But DD makes an important point. We are going to need all the help that Trump is prepared to offer. This is one of those cases where "joined up thinking" (i.e. between the MoD, FO, and those negotiating trade deals) will be needed. An important test for May, if ever there was one.

Up2L8 - I wish I could share your optimism.

I'm not sure Trump does "focus".

I'd say you were right Whyaxye. You are going t need all the help Trump is prepared to offer. The problem is that he is not prepared to offer any. If he isn't willing to help Americans who helped elect him, as those Midwestern agricultural states did, what makes you think he will give a rodent's rectum about you?

What are Our strategic interests in Afghanistan? If there is no clear benefit to ourselves, we can do as well by simply closing the borders to the denizens of that part of the world without very stringent tests. I cannot easily recall any mission to Afghanistan that brought us any benefit at all so why bother now?

Alas Michael you are wrong. If Afghanistan becomes a safe haven for terrorists they won't be from that part of the world will they? That's not where Bin Laden was from was he? So banning people from Afghanistan won't do any good at all.

It will be where they go to train and prepare for assaults local or around the world. They might even come from the US for training and support. How will you stop that? The stupidity arises from believing that if they stop this from happening in Afghanistan terrorist organizations won't find another venue. Which history has shown they always do. That spectacular idiot Bush showed exactly how to do that by invading Iraq and destabilizing it to the point of civil war. Which created the perfect breeding ground for terrorist recruitment and support.

Seen it the light of those facts there is no reason to stay in Afghanistan except the unwillingness to accept that people will say you lost. Which isn't true unless you were planning on staying as conquerors forever. Maybe the Donald thinks the natural resources of Afghanistan belong to the US now and he wants to stay long enough to try carting them away?

Nation building is an unnatural endeavor and always leads to hatred, violence, and interminable chaos. The reason is that the rise of relatively stable nations is an emergent phenomenon, not unlike that of self-organizing life.

Feel free to dispute my assertions, dear colleagues, but spare me link-laden retorts. I have neither the time nor the inclination to follow such links. Besides, I always value my own opinions over those of other (less well-informed) individuals.

Nevertheless, I believe that all peoples deserve unbiased consideration ab initio. Except, of course, the insufferable French.

Geez Henry, you'd think you would show some gratitude. Without the French your country probably wouldn't exist. Or didn't they teach that in your special school.

Eh ... Whitewall?

You are I suspect familiar with the "Wasserman Test"?

Debbie Hyphen Shultz perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassermann_test

Pompous G's parentage, with a high degree of confidence resulted, as I understand, failed - the rabbit died in other words.

Which - I can only surmise - left us with this latest "troublesome" visit?

The comments to this entry are closed.