Afghanistan - the reality

[french frank]

Meanwhile, in a speech in Israel, Mr Blair is back. Okay, sc?

Mr Blair - who is the Middle East peace envoy for the "Quartet"...

[Frances_iom]

Yes Israel must be deeply concerned even with its estimated 90 nuclear weapons - Syria with Russian anti aircraft protection will prevent another pre-emptive Israeli airstrike + also allow a corridor for significant arms to reach Lebanon when Assad has to repay debts - Blair as peace envoy is I suspect the biggest joke to have been made this decade however it got him away from anything more worrying.

[scottycelt]

Meanwhile, in a speech in Israel, Mr Blair is back. Okay, sc?

Stick to the topic, mine host ... we are supposed to be talking about Afghanistan, remember? :whistle:

The Syrian issue is a quite separate matter. I share the grave doubts of those who are urgently advising caution here.

Still, as John Reid correctly says, taking no action doesn't necessarily mean the outside world is absolved of any responsibility in such matters.

Moral dilemmas, ff ... ?

[french frank]

Stick to the topic, mine host ... we are supposed to be talking about Afghanistan, remember? :whistle:

The Syrian issue is a quite separate matter.

Your first sentence is correct, but to the extent that Blair's attitude seems to be opening up the prospect of another Afghanistan (and another Iraq too - about which a recent poll reveals that the general UK public seems largely unaware of the massive number of deaths to date) it is not quite separate. Afghanistan is merely a narrow, single example of a wider issue.

But it seems a convenient moment to repeat the announcement about the new Politics & Current Affairs forum (see Announcement). I was loth to start a separate thread on Syria when the potential issues of death, destruction and huge financial costs seem to loom yet again.

[scottycelt]

Your first sentence is correct, but to the extent that Blair's attitude seems to be opening up the prospect of another Afghanistan (and another Iraq too - about which a recent poll reveals that the general UK public seems largely unaware of the massive number of deaths to date) it is not quite separate. Afghanistan is merely a narrow, single example of a wider issue.

But it seems a convenient moment to repeat the announcement about the new Politics & Current Affairs forum (see Announcement). I was loth to start a separate thread on Syria when the potential issues of death, destruction and huge financial costs seem to loom yet again.

I take your point but the number of deaths in any war does not necessarily signify any degree of justification or lack of it.

There was death, destruction and virtual UK bankruptcy involved in the fight against Nazism.

Was it worth it ... ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Meanwhile, in a speech in Israel, Mr Blair is back. Okay, sc?

A singularly inept piece of timing, given Iran's election of its new President.

[teamsaint]

blair is a peace envoy?
Orwellian.
God help us if we ever get a war envoy.

[french frank]

I take your point but the number of deaths in any war does not necessarily signify any degree of justification or lack of it.

There was death, destruction and virtual UK bankruptcy involved in the fight against Nazism.

Was it worth it ... ?

The fight against Nazism was a world war mainly taking place in Europe. Does the name of Operation Sea Lion have any resonance with you? Our involvement was different.

[amateur51]

Of course there will always be those who oppose certain actions (often for purely political reasons).

Here are some of the facts, though:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1510

So we know 49 countries contributed forces to the huge Nato-led operation (up to Dec 2012). Even that number doesn't include the list of diverse nations who lent support to the operation in other ways, including Iran & Russia. All with the unanimous blessing of the United Nations Security Council.

It could be that the leaders of all these countries are either 'insane' or total mugs, completely failing to see the 'incredibly obvious'.

Yes, that must be it ... :ok:

You have not addressed RB's points scotty but I admire your use of that auld Naval tactic - "Make smoke!" :winkeye:

[french frank]

I've only just got round to listening to the interviews - in the final 6 minutes of the programme ... sorry to cut you off there ...

The two points I took away from the ex-ambassador's comments:

1. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. We had no quarrel with the Taliban.

2. It has cost the British taxpayer £40bn.

Neither interviewee believed we had achieved anything. I don't believe they mentioned the death toll on either side.

[Richard Barrett]

The fight against Nazism was a world war mainly taking place in Europe.

Not only that, but in 1940 Britain was directly attacked from the air and threatened with invasion, after the Netherlands, Belgium, most of France, Czechosloviakia and Poland had already been invaded. Which is a little different from the situation with the Taliban which was not a military threat to any of the countries which (under massive pressure from the US) took part in the invasion.

[french frank]

Not only that, but in 1940 Britain was directly attacked from the air and threatened with invasion, after the Netherlands, Belgium, most of France, Czechosloviakia and Poland had already been invaded. Which is a little different from the situation with the Taliban which was not a military threat to any of the countries which (under massive pressure from the US) took part in the invasion.

And for the benefit of those who were unaware of Operation Sealion, it was Hitler's plan for the invasion and conquest of Britain. So we had a slight interest in getting involved - unlike in Afghanistan or Iraq (or Syria). Other than the special relationship which is proving expensive in more than money.

[amateur51]

I've only just got round to listening to the interviews - in the final 6 minutes of the programme ... sorry to cut you off there ...

The two points I took away from the ex-ambassador's comments:

1. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. We had no quarrel with the Taliban.

2. It has cost the British taxpayer £40bn.

Neither interviewee believed we had achieved anything. I don't believe they mentioned the death toll on either side.

The ex-ambassador also said Al Qaeda had been forced to leave by January 2002 (and thus the West's primary job was done) and after that there was substantial mission drift into nation-building, encouraged by General Danatt for UK etc.

The ex-ambassador also supported what Philip Hammond apparently said the other day: that we went in to Afghanistan with no idea about how to get out, having taken on far too much.

The nation-building will be tested severely by the Taliban over the coming months :sadface:

[scottycelt]

The fight against Nazism was a world war mainly taking place in Europe. Does the name of Operation Sea Lion have any resonance with you? Our involvement was different.

No it wasn't that much different.

It was Great Britain and France that declared war with Nazi Germany, not the other way around, and there is plenty of evidence that Hitler didn't really want a war with us ... we were a rather annoying distraction ... and his main target was the communist USSR. It wasn't exactly a world war at that stage.

Poor Chamberlain (so despised by the Left) did everything he could to avoid war but eventually had to accept the inevitable. Furthermore, all the evidence shows that Chamberlain had overwhelming public support in his desire to avoid war. Quite right too!

However, in retrospect much of the free world ended up being somewhat grateful for the previously seemingly belligerent likes of Winston Churchill ... ?

[amateur51]

No it wasn't that much different.

It was Great Britain and France that declared war with Nazi Germany, not the other way around, and there is plenty of evidence that Hitler didn't really want a war with us

But we didn't declare war on Afghanistan, did we?

So really rather different, scotty