Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Afghanistan
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
As we see the dead coming home, I must wonder, has any country/Empire ever beaten the Afghans. We failed (More than once at the hight of the greatest empire the world had ever seen) and the Russians to learned fighting the Afghans was like trying to fight the wind. So who if anyone won there? Again, does not todays war prove once again that the Duke of Wellington was correct when he suggested that the greatest enemy the British soldier would ever face would always be the British treasury.
-
Message 2
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
Can I suggest this way to deafeat the Afghans (and yes I've shameless stolen this from either ChickenHawk or Dispatches - I can't remember which) - you take all the good people and put them on boats - then destroy the country and everything living in it - then sink the boats.
But seriously I think the fact that it's fror NATO surrounded by less than helpful nations isn't helping whatsoever and the simple fact that we don't know if the population of our nations will keep on supporting the war - the sad truth is that so long as the UK has troops there the more chance of there not being attacks in UK as "fighters" would rather take on UKLF there then attack here AND security in UK because we are there is so so tight - the big fear is the first 365 days after we've left that wretched rock pile. -
Message 3
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
Grumpy,
I don't think anyone has ever beaten the Afghans, but I have to remind you (at the risk of being declared topical) that the Taliban are not all Afghans.
The majority of Afghans didn't want the Russians in their country, but could they have achieved what they did without US help ?
Would the Taliban be as effective without financial and military support ?
And we shouldn't forget that their recruits don't just 'appear' from nowhere. Someone radicalises them, trains them, and points them in the right direction.
So please, remember that the majority of Afghan people do not want the Taliban controlling their lives, and the casualty figures for the indigenous people and their armed forces is testament to this.
I also remember the 'Troops Out' movement of the early 70's, when the casualty totals for British troops in NI far exceeded those of Afghanistan.
We didn't pull out then because we knew what would happen.
The same applies to Afghanistan. -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
Isn't always a case of factions out there, and one faction is likely to change side as soon as the wind blows. We learned this the hard way (Twice) in the first and second Afghan War. The U S supported the Anti Russian factions, only to find their new found friends were indeed their enemies. Will the same thing happen again?
-
Message 5
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
Grumpy,
The Taliban is more than a 'faction'.
It's a bronze-age, Islamic fundamentalist theocratic movement that sees the world (all of it) as the enemy.
They have little support that isn't the result of intimidation, brutality, and fear.
The Russians were pussies compared to them. -
Message 6
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
It is important to keep in mind that the goal of the current operations in Afghanistan is not "to beat the Afghans". The goal is to create an Afghan government that is stable, that can effectively fight the various insurgent and terrorist groups, and is on reasonably good terms with its neighbours and the West.
This, at least, is something for which there are historical precedents. Dost Mohammed Khan (1793-1863) managed to bring most of the country under his control. He was at one point ousted from power by the British, but in the end they saw no better solution that reinstating the wily old man. Fiercely independent, sometimes the ally and sometimes the enemy of the British in India, he was at last recognized as a ruler who could bring some stability to his country and with whom diplomatic relations were possible. I think most people today would settle for that.
The core of the problem, as usual, is the complex relation between the government of Afghanistan and the foreign forces that are in the country with a nominal mission to assist it. For this to work, the NATO troops would have to really accept the authority of president Karzai and his government, who after all have been appointed after more or less credible elections. But in practice this doesn't happen and the president is reduced to impotent protests, from time to time, against the killing of civilians. Thus the NATO troops risk doing as much to weaken Karzai's government as to strengthen it. -
Message 7
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Hi,
Obviously Afghanistan is in the headlines at the moment - and that's bound to spark renewed interest in it's history.
As usual this does run the risk of going off-topic and also attracting current-affairs trolls and flamers so can you please be careful to keep to the OP rather as opposed to letting it become a thread on current policy/events.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Thanks Andrew, Afghanistan has been in the headlines as far as the U K goes for over 200 years.
-
Message 9
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Grumpy,
Apart from the gap between 1919 and the present.
The first two Afghan wars were in the mid 19th century, and were part of the dispute between Russia and the UK for control of that part of the world.
Big difference. -
Message 10
Posted by caveman1944 (U11305692) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Someone radicalises them, trains them, and points them in the right direction.
Does that go for our 18 year olds ?
They don't pull out because they don't want to be seen as beaten.
ivvy -
Message 11
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 13th July 2009
I thought you were 'Dave' ?
A ridiculous, pathetic statement, on a par with your recent 'Falklands' one.
You may have had a point in the 1850's, or even 1919, but the UK doesn't have secular madrassas, and the tribal/clan system disappeared 150 years ago in Scotland and Ireland, and before then in England and Wales.
You call yourself a 'researcher'.
Please do some. -
Message 12
Posted by pc1973 (U13716600) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Anyone else find it annoying when you watch the news and you see a constant thread of Afghans (mainly men of fighting age) in Northern France trying to get to the UK.
Running from there own country while our boys are dying for it! -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 13th July 2009
I should imagine even now, somebody in the Treasury is looking at all those bullets being fired, and wondering whether they should re issue Brown Bess Muskets, with their 3 shots per minute rate of fire. Again, we live in different times. Up to the On the spot reporting, the army would loose men in battle, and nobody except the family would ever know. No reporter demanding interviews, no people lining the streets to pay their respects. The dead would lay forever in a wargrave. The figures lost so far, fade when compare with the Somme, or D Day. But each one lost is somebodies son husband or father.
-
Message 14
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Grumpy,
Not any more, but one of the big problems of the Bloody Sunday incident was that because troops had to account for every bullet fired, the number issued compared with the number fired didn't tally.
Having recently read books about the Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I'm confident that there have not been any financial restrictions placed on ordinance, although I've no doubt that this gives the Whitehall/MOD bean counters sleepless nights. -
Message 15
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 13th July 2009
I must wonder, has any country/Empire ever beaten the Afghans.Β
Timur.
Afghanistan has been conquored by other Central Asian powers. Their method, however usually involved vast amounts of slaughter which clearly isn't acceptable in the modern world. -
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 13th July 2009
The Treasury has always interfered. Even today, they suggest after a contract is signed, that perhaps instead of delivery in say five years, it is put back a bit. Then the costs goes up, and they suggest downsizing or scrapping. If you take the delays over the likes of the Merlin and Typhoon fighter,which took 20 years from order to delivery, and put them in context, the R A F would have been taking delivery of its first Spitfires in 1955.
-
Message 17
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Grumpy,
Yes, I can agree with that.
But you were specific in you post - bullets, not Spitfires.
There was always the inter-service bunfight too :
Had the Navy and Army got their way, there would have been no Marines or Paras for the Falklands, a few Harriers would have been operating from the decks of nuclear submarines, and 500 tanks would still be bogged down in the Falklands peat after having been taken to the South Atlantic by Channel ferry and a fleet of borrowed Russian trawlers. -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Agreed. The scrapping of the fleet carriers was down to remarks made by senior RAF personal who stated they could cover the navy anywhere they landed. It was a tit for tat because Montbatten undermined the likes of the T S R 2 and other RAF projects, hoping to get the money transfered to the navy.
-
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Afgnistan was reknowned since antiquity for its mountainous warrior tribes but indeed has been conquered repeatedly. Jenkis Han for example had tamed the lands albeit by employing really large and very mobile armies (numbering in the 100s of 1000s and of course using the traditional Mongol violence. Alexander the Great holds probably the record with taming the region of Afganistan and northwestern Pakistan in a 3 years campaign by using 2 surprisingly small military bodies of 20,000. It is interesting that even back then Afgani tribes had posed guerilla troops against the Greek armies and not standard armies like Persians had done, something which posed a lot of difficulties (and back then Greeks had not much more technology than Afgans had, compared to USSR and now US-and-allies). Of course most of the "good work" was done not by Alex himself but by his excellent generals who to achieve total control - of course - could not do otherwise but to employ very violent methods (burning of cities to the ground and death or enslavement of the people for all those who resisted - just like with Tyre).
USSR had invaded very successfully Afganistan, installing a communist government that tried to modernise the country (in the communist paradigm). However, they got intermingled with... John Rambo and his mates... well, anti-communist guerilla troops that were increasingly uniting under the religious banner - a tedency supported by the US which gave birth to the Talebans (a US creation), quite an inspirational move since today US utilise them as an excuse to be present in the area themselves (I have explained my view in the other thread).
... anyway for Britain 200 dead soldiers in 8 years of campaign are not really a lot, actually are very very few, I would not even sit down and discuss it. If you want 0 dead soldiers you might as well dissolve your armies and go cultivate tulips, or even better just stick to droping nuclear bombs. It goes withoutsaying that for every professional soldier, it was a professional choice that carries the well known risk. -
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
So to add to this, what if? You are the new P M and decide that money is no object for our troops and will buy only the best regardless of who makes it. Where would you start? The A 10? regarded as the best ground attack Aircraft in the world. The Hind which not only can carry troops, but is a flying tank The South African troop carrier, designed to withstand the road side bomb. What else?
-
Message 21
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Guys, let's try to keep this discussion about Afghanistan's history....
Nik, your point is a good one. Wasn't there a famous battle once in the 19th century, when a British force was annihilated to a man? -
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
First Afghan War. The British Force (Their allies having changed side) holed up in Karbul, then having beenn given Safe Passage were attacked as they made their way to and through the Kyber Pass. Just a handfull of survivors made it back. But the British (Mostly Indian) force was incumbered by the fact they had women and children with them. During the Second Afghan War, the British once again suffered a great loss when their Afghan Allies switched sides.
-
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Some months ago I flew 2 times to Indonesia for professional reasons. Twice on the way back we passed daytime over Afganistan, twice with a crystal clear sky (though winter), and twice I had the chance to see down the amazing view... it was winter but surprisingly not much of snow - and I give food now to all those saying that Americans have now the tedency to ionise the atmosphere to provoke the weather changes that suits them (I am an engineer but not so knowledgeable on the field of forced meteorology), still the absence of snow (both in December and February) made me wonder. Anyway, this absence of snow permitted me to admire fully the view... mountains, mountains, mountains, tall, short, all hostile - the short being the worst ones since they were a labyrinth of passages. Seeing that you understand that this is the dreamland of every guerilla warrior (jungle is ok but it is more vulnerable to Napalm bombs).
Seeing that you also get the clear impression that to fight a war there, either you will just have to stick to your camp, defending it from guerilla attacks rather than going out to attack, or just go out and burn everything with the most extreme violence to as to achieve full submission. There is no middle way apart trying to lure as many Afgan tribes as possible (and Afgans are not one nation but several vastly different ones ranging from northern Persoiranian to Mongol-like to Indo-Pakistani). In the current war it is mostly the third group of tribes in the southeast that give most of the guerillas and that is why you find the Talebans both in south eastern Afganistan and north western Pakistan, mostly being the nation of Pashtuns, a traditionally warrior nation. -
Message 24
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
"First Afghan War. The British Force holed up in Kabul, then having beenn given Safe Passage were attacked as they made their way to and through the Kyber Pass."
They never made it to the Khyber. The retreat was to Jalalabad, where there was a sizeable and secure British garrison. Most of the casualties were indeed suffered in the passes of Koord Kabul and Jugduluk. The best first-hand account of the retreat was by Lady Florentia Sale, wife of General "Fighting Bob" Sale, the commander at Jalalabad. She was captured on the retreat and later released. Her "Journal of the disaster" has been recently (and timely) republished:
One has to admire a woman who could write such lines as "Today we fought our way through the Jugduluk Pass. Fortunately, I was only wounded once".
"Just a handfull of survivors made it back."
The most famous being Dr Brydon, the only Service survivor of the retreat, who staggered into Jalalabad and, on being asked who he was replied "I am the Army of the Indus". Dr B was rather unfortunate, as he also found himself in Lucknow in the early summer of 1857 when the Indian Mutiny erupted. He ended up living right through the seige there too!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.