I agree with Matt Woods, get out, and stay out! We simply cannot win and the British people whilst having great respect for our troops do not appear to support this futile war. If the Yanks wish to stay and die, that is their choice.
Obviously five days isn't on, but I was trying to stress that we should be pulling out as soon as possible. I don't think the Afghan conflict is serving our security needs.
I again repeat the reference to 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force' written by WS Churchill in 1897. Little has changed in 113 years.
There is no clear way for a soldier from the 'coalition of the willing' to differentiate Al Qaeda from Insurgant from Taliban from civilian bearing arms as part of local custom.
In this context it is we who are regarded as the 'insurgents'.
Every instance of 'collateral damage' (what a lovely euphemism for slaughter of innocents) serves only to exacerbate feeelings against us - not only in Afghanistan but in radicalised Islam at home.
So all the debate about what a success might look like, all the lives lost for an undefined but allegedly critical national interest, all this will be reduced to a timetable.
If Cameron had been PM in 1939 he would have said, well the war is critical to Britain's national interest, lots of troops must die but were out of it by 1943.
Should be five weeks or, better still, five days.
Posted by: Matt Woods | June 25, 2010 at 07:51 PM
Yes, let's just drop everything and run in five days.
I mean, who cares about military tactics and such when you obviously have such a great grasp of the issue that we can leave in five days?
Posted by: Ultimo Tiger | June 25, 2010 at 08:03 PM
We'll be out of there about half an hour after the US leaves. If Pres. O pulls the plug next year we'll be out much, much sooner than in 5 years!
Posted by: Allan | June 25, 2010 at 08:47 PM
I agree with Matt Woods, get out, and stay out! We simply cannot win and the British people whilst having great respect for our troops do not appear to support this futile war. If the Yanks wish to stay and die, that is their choice.
Posted by: Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street! | June 25, 2010 at 08:48 PM
Obviously five days isn't on, but I was trying to stress that we should be pulling out as soon as possible. I don't think the Afghan conflict is serving our security needs.
Posted by: Matt Woods | June 25, 2010 at 08:52 PM
Get the Afghan army upto speed asap and then get out except for special troops support.
Posted by: MG | June 25, 2010 at 09:19 PM
I again repeat the reference to 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force' written by WS Churchill in 1897. Little has changed in 113 years.
There is no clear way for a soldier from the 'coalition of the willing' to differentiate Al Qaeda from Insurgant from Taliban from civilian bearing arms as part of local custom.
In this context it is we who are regarded as the 'insurgents'.
Every instance of 'collateral damage' (what a lovely euphemism for slaughter of innocents) serves only to exacerbate feeelings against us - not only in Afghanistan but in radicalised Islam at home.
Posted by: Richard Tebboth | June 25, 2010 at 09:24 PM
So all the debate about what a success might look like, all the lives lost for an undefined but allegedly critical national interest, all this will be reduced to a timetable.
If Cameron had been PM in 1939 he would have said, well the war is critical to Britain's national interest, lots of troops must die but were out of it by 1943.
This man is Prime What?
Posted by: Andrew Smith | June 25, 2010 at 10:20 PM
yeh yeh yeh, he wants us out of the European Union too.
More SANTANDER anyone?
Posted by: anoneumouse | June 25, 2010 at 10:36 PM