British PM defends Afghan mission

As this report notes, the original intention of coalition forces in Afghanistan was to suppress al-Quaida, but it was not to indulge in nation-building, the establishment of democracy, the eradication of heroin production, to get involved in an intractable civil war between a number of tribal groups and factions, or to go to war with Pakistan. But now we are told these are the objectives, though it is unclear at what point, if ever, any or all of these goals will be met. Perhaps a majority of Afghans welcome the presence of the American airforce and the massive amounts of aid disappearing into the warlords' bank accounts, but I don't believe the British electorate want any more of this.

Britain will be out of Afghanistan in twelve months.

Does anyone know which unit this was? I thought that Rupert Thorneloe was the commander of one of the Welsh Guards battalions. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago they lost a Company Commander (Major Burchill) whose brother is a somewhat famous professional wrestler in the US.

Anyway, as a professional soldier you always have it in the back of your mind that people are going to get killed when you go on active service. At the same time, however, it is always a shock when S actually hits the F.

Read or saw somewhere that the top people in the Russian military consider the western countries completely nuts for allowing themselves to get sucked into Afghanistan. Their attitude is along the lines of "weren't you paying attention to what happened to us?"

I agree with GJDailleult. Afghanistan is unconquerable. It is lawless and largely ungovernable. It is a tribal area, not a nation-state. It should be left alone to its fate, not propped up with aid and foreign soldiers' lives. The best possible way to defend against Al-Qaeda or the Taliban is to protect national borders and maintain a stringent immigration policy. And I mean really, really stringent. Britain is an island - protecting its borders should be easier for Britons than for other countries. Unfortunately the immigration policy pursued in Britain over the past 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular, means that there are now potential jihadis aplenty already in the door.

The UK has lost 184 people since the beginning of the war. Spain lost 191 people in a single day when terrorists attacked trains in their own country.

Afghanistan can't be left as an open terrorist camp or else larger attacks will take place in our home countries, not to mention the danger of letting the Taliban continue to chip away at the government next door in Pakistan. And no one is trying to "conquer" Afghanistan. I don't think anyone really cares who lives where and what they're doing as long as they aren't linked to global jihad. Russia lost (conservatively) 15,000 troops, the US and UK are under 1,000.

And let's be real.....if the Europeans weren't funding the enemy through their addiction to drugs then things would probably be a lot better at this point. For them to simply pull out while they contribute to the problem and while their people are getting killed on their own soil isn't a sound decision, it's one being made simply because they know the US can't pull out so someone else will just do the job for them.

Good to see some people don't subscribe to the cut and run philosophy which seems to be all the rage with regard to Iraq, after people realize that we should not have invaded the country in the first place.

At the same time, however, instead of hunching behind your computer screens and being armchair warriors, I would suggest that anyone who is able bodied and of military age consider signing up for the fun in Afghanistan.

Increasingly people are asking the question "if "princes" Harry and William are supposed to be in the forces and are too scared to go for more than a few weeks with full protection why should anyone else?" These troops are mercenaries, they fight for money so Brown is quite wrong to say they are fighting for is worthwhile, if it was worthwile we wouldn't have to pay people to do it would we? These people don't fight for the UK they fight for money and they deserve everything they get. And no true soldier, one fighting for nothing, would deny my right to hold this opinion but many of these "troops" and their families do deny my right to think this, another proof they are completely in the wrong.

I fail to understand what the British are doing in Afghanistan. In spite of having been told by the old guard and other British Colonial era experts the present government is determined to continue this senseless occupation of Afghanistan and getting the young soldiers killed. The British are cleverer and wiser and should know better. As for the Americans, well I feel sorry for them, their leadership and the generals learn the hard way, as usual.

[another proof they are completely in the wrong] -- so you are saying that they are wrong for having a different opinion than yourself? You are being hypocritical here. If you can have your opinion their opinion that they are doing good is also valid. Your "proof" BS is just that. They don't "deny" your right. They may disagree with it but no soldiers at your door taking you away yet are there? Man you people gotta stop doing drugs.

"And let's be real.....if the Europeans weren't funding the enemy through their addiction to drugs then things would probably be a lot better at this point"

Why is it perfectly intelligent people come out with comments as ridiculous as that?

If anything, the so called war on terror had caused record opuim harvests, with the Taliban reversing their earlier policy of banning the damned stuff to selling it to fund their resistance...