The current mission and situation in Afghanistan.

jm745

Loafing Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Posts
3,627
Reaction score
7
As someone who has wanted to join the military for a long time, I've always backed our participation in Afghanistan, but lately I've been questioning if it's worth it. After the burning the Qurans incident, the urinating on dead Taliban soldiers, the six soldiers who recently died in a single incident, and the shooting of civilians by a US soldier recently spoke about in another thread, things seem to be getting worse, in terms of casualties and relations.

Osama bin Laden is dead, relations are worsening, and British soldiers are still dying. What's everyone else's take on this? Anyone still 100% committed to the conflict after 11 years?
 

Anthony_H

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Posts
787
Reaction score
9
I too am in the sort of mind frame. But to be honest I've been proberly best described as on the fence through the whole thing. You read one thing listen to some public smart ass philosopher, read somthing else hear this and that and make opinions on it. Then you research some more, then change it again. I give up thinking. I find myself at the moment well we owe it to rebuild the country after so many innocent civvies have lost lifes and also isaf troops have died we owe it to them to succeed. But i think i feel that because i don't like think that over 400 of out guys have died for nothing. But then when is enough, we are inevitably going to lose more lives if we carry on is it worth it. Id love to be able see Afghanistan thrive and give the middle finger to the people chanting we are killing innocents and the Afghanis don't want us there.

I don't know anymore, I just want to pass prmc then RT that's all I'm focussed on now. If I get out there I'll do what am told, and make what ever difference I can make. Whilst hopefully not urinating on any talibs, and burning books. I realy think i don't care what i think anymore about it, whatever view i take someone some where wants to argue and tell me am wrong.

I got funny looks of mate the other day whilst he was going on about hating the talibs etc. I said can you blame some of them though. Ok fair to say some do bad and horrible things, but some are just like us what would you do if an apache rolled up and took out your family.

Same for the us guy on his killing spree, crazy or not if came into my house and shot my family id do somthing about. Those people ain't going to see it like some here look he has been posted for 12 months and gone crazy. Those afgan civvies have had put up with same crap everyday for 11 years. Not 12 or 6 months tours 11 years and more, but there defenceless they get battered shot and blown up by talibs. Then shot, blown up, urinated on, and insulted by isaf. Accidents or not it is only fair say they might be little more screwed up mentally effected and annoyed than us.

like said before im finding it hard to even care anymore, all care about is the guys losing limbs and lives for it. Because I think of it from our view point i have and opinion, when think of it from afghans point of view it changes. Then think about extremists here I get angry and want do some damage. Not abit confused atall haha.
 

mkelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Posts
140
Reaction score
1
Totally agree with anthony H. Seems like we have put a lot into Afghanistan and the last thing I want to see is, in 2014 we pull out and overnight it is back to how it was before the war, under taliban rule. But at the same time so many young men have died, and been injured and there will be people, (stupid people) who say that 'they were soldiers and they knew what they were signing up to and the risk' but surely its up to us and our government to ensure that the risks taken and lives lost are worth the end result. There are places on earth that need our help just as much as Afghanistan.

I personally think there is no such thing as 'acceptable losses'

When will enough be enough and we have given more than we should have? The fact that nowadays it takes a massive tradgedy such as the death of six soldiers at once last week to make frontpage headlines anymore! most soldiers who are killed now get a quick sentence between sport and weather and appear around page 10. But the injured don't even get noticed. Disgraceful.

All to often people stick their head in the ground and choose not to take notice of the sacrifice these men and women are making for their safety.
But then you have to ask, are we really protecting britain by being in afghanistan? If not then thats fine, we should be there to protect people from oppression and from living under an evil organisation's rule, but at least be honest about it.

I for one would have no reservations about risking my life to help others from living in harms way, (personally I feel we should be in the congo) but I wouldn't particuarly feel great about doing it for oil.
 

Jbc

Royal Marines Commando -Moderator
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Posts
1,892
Reaction score
28
But at the same time so many young men have died, and been injured and there will be people, (stupid people) who say that 'they were soldiers and they knew what they were signing up to and the risk' but surely its up to us and our government to ensure that the risks taken and lives lost are worth the end result...

I personally think there is no such thing as 'acceptable losses'
Whilst agree with most of what you've said in relation to the mission statement drifting from its original tennet 11 years ago..

You are suggesting that mission success is principally about zero casualties over actually actually achieving aims. I'm not for one minute saying that casualties don't matter but at the end of the day - an operation that achieves success on its aims and casualties within the "acceptable losses" range is still a success.
 

Tanter

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Posts
308
Reaction score
1
I think the war in Afghanistan has become much less important that other issues that we could be dealing with, such as piracy and Syria, however, we have to remember that it has had it's uses. It has kept many military personnel in jobs, who would have otherwise lost their jobs due to things such as being unessecary and the cuts. Although it sounds heartless, everytime a soldier gets killed or injured, it creates another job space, keeping a steady inflow and outflow. Simplicity of it is, we need war to keep a military, and when/if we pull out in 2014, I am not looking forward to the massive job cuts, and the decreased chances of getting into the forces.
 

mkelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Posts
140
Reaction score
1
I didn't mean that at all, sorry if it came across that way, I fully agree that the mission is what matters. I'm just not sure exactly what the mission is anymore?

I do not think that a mission should only be considered achieved if no casualities are taken. Although that is obviously the ideal outcome. I just feel that the casualites so far are very large in numbers, as they are and are only going to grow the longer we are there.

Some casualties are unavoidable, and are a natural part of war but those that aren't should not be able to happen. If soemething can be done, it should be. Wether that be more helos or better body armour or whatever, don't send a soldier to war without everything he needs to do his job and come home.

I realise that its alot better now with equipment etc, but as far as those in whitehall are concerned its almost over. Just hope the lessons learned in the deserts and fields of Afghanistan are not soon forgotten.

I would like to see that the sacrifices being made are actually achieveing something in the long term. We could pull out in 2014 and it go back under taliban rule, then it was all for nothing. At the same time we could stay there for decades and lose hundreds more. Which would be worse? Its a tricky one.

I know that If ever get the chance to go there, I will do my duty and try to help make a difference in the area any way I can. I think if I make it in the corps I'll leave the politics to those who make the decisions.
 

alex18

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Posts
277
Reaction score
5
If you look at polls taken back in 2001/2002, the majority of the UK population was pro-Afghanistan.

I find it disgraceful that as soon as we ran into trouble people began saying we should back out.

Saying that, I think that we should pull out now and leave Afghan to self-destruct. The frustrating thing is that if Western politicans were not so concerned about their personal popularity rating then we could have had the whole Afghan 'situation' sorted out literally years ago.
 
Top