Article

2010-05-23 Britain

Broke Britain 'can no longer afford role in Afghanistan'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2010-05-23 05:42|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 There could be some thruth in this as Labour overspent leaving the new Govt in record debt.

Thank Labour for allowing in lots of immigrants living in social housing and claiming welfare benefits!

Posted by Paul D 2010-05-23 09:55|| 2010-05-23 09:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Coming soo to the US, thanks to the "healthcare" bill and the "Stimulus" bills, and other Dem legislation they want to ram through

Posted by OldSpook 2010-05-23 10:44|| 2010-05-23 10:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Broke Britain 'can no longer afford role in ~~Afghanistan~~ Western Civilization'

Posted by KBK 2010-05-23 12:02|| 2010-05-23 12:02|| Front Page Top

#4 "The problem is that the Afghan troops are not yet ready to take over, and training them up is not something the Afghan government can afford."

How is that possible? It's a warrior culture. They've been fighting each other for centuries. When are the Afghans going to be able to stand on their two feet? Probably never.

Also, we are supporting an opium based society that spreads misery throughout Europe.

It is sad to say, but to me the Afghan people are not worth the money it costs to save them. Just let the Islamic Fascists know that we will still bomb them with alacrity and vigor if warranted. I'm also in favor of UAVs spraying a 21st Century variant of Agent Orange all over those poppy fields.

I would rather we beef up our southern border and help the Mexicans fight their issues. Much more of a threat than the Taliban.

Posted by Penguin 2010-05-23 12:09|| 2010-05-23 12:09|| Front Page Top

#5 How is that possible? It's a warrior culture

A warrior is not a soldier.

Just let the Islamic Fascists know that we will still bomb them with alacrity and vigor if warranted.

Voiceless it cries
Wingless flutters
Toothless bites
Mouthless mutters

Posted by Pappy 2010-05-23 12:48|| 2010-05-23 12:48|| Front Page Top

#6 I know how Britain could easily afford it.

To start with, their prisons are filled to the brim. If they were emptied, it would save the government a huge fortune. And if they were emptied the way I'm thinking, it would also put a serious damper on other crime, saving money on policing.

In that there are probably about 5,000 or so they would never, ever let out of prison, for any reason, that still leaves another 80,000 that could be given uniforms, rifles, and to guard isolated outposts with simple orders.

"Fight off Taliban attacks, or they will butcher you. Your choice."

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-05-23 12:54|| 2010-05-23 12:54|| Front Page Top

#7 Pappy, I know that being a warrior is different than being a soldier. However, one would think that some of the skill sets are mutual, and therefore after multi-year training the ANA would have some teeth.

But is that the case? How many more years till they are ready to stand on their feet?

If we had the money, and we didn't have other concerns more pressing, I would say stay there. But we have no money and more pressing concerns in the Western Hemisphere. Too bad we can't sell the problem to the Chinese.

Posted by Penguin 2010-05-23 13:42|| 2010-05-23 13:42|| Front Page Top

#8 However, one would think that some of the skill sets are mutual, and therefore after multi-year training the ANA would have some teeth.

IIRC, the British were still able to burn down Washington D.C., over a decade after the US established its Consitution.

But is that the case? How many more years till they are ready to stand on their feet?

How long did it take for the US to field a quality, federal-level army? Mid to late Civil War? Four score and nine years after Independence?

Posted by Pappy 2010-05-23 14:55|| 2010-05-23 14:55|| Front Page Top

#9 Fielding a truly national army supposes something that still is NOT true in Afghanistan : the idea that the individual is part of a nation. Afghanistan is still a collection of tribes located in an artificial geographic entity, not a nation. That is the biggest roadblock on the path to a national army, and that is another 20-30 year project.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2010-05-23 16:47|| 2010-05-23 16:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Afghanistan is still a collection of tribes located in an artificial geographic entity, not a nation. That is the biggest roadblock on the path to a national army

Seems to be a feature of many gulf state muslim countries also.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-23 17:51|| 2010-05-23 17:51|| Front Page Top

#11 How long did it take for the US to field a quality, federal-level army?

Fielding a truly national army supposes something that still is NOT true in Afghanistan : the idea that the individual is part of a nation

Wasn't true in the US for a good long while either.

One of the most important outcomes from the founding of West Point (US Military Academy) in 1802 was the gradual creation of a national (vs. state) identity in graduates who became important leacers. Coupled in part by the way in which the Academy's graduates spearheaded the creation of roads, bridges and railways across the frontier, this identity took a generation to fully forge. It was tested in the Civil War, renewed and reaffirmed in the reconciliation of grads who fought on both sides, afterwards.

The National Military Academy of Afghanistan was founded in Feb 2005 and admitted its first class later that Spring. After touring Sandhurst and other academies, the Afghans decided to model theirs on West Point. It offers 4 year bachelors degrees, like USMA, and has a carefully chosen mix of tribes among its cadets and faculty.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-23 18:20|| 2010-05-23 18:20|| Front Page Top

#12 However, one would think that some of the skill sets are mutual, and therefore after multi-year training the ANA would have some teeth.

Shooting guns, using knives, that sort of thing, represent the "skills in common" you're thinking of. But the drivers are different, which is why a warrior can beat up a soldier in an alley 7 out of 10 times but will lose a military engagement 99.9 percent of the time. The .1 percent is always due to either overwhelming numbers -- Custer's 7th Cavalry "Regiment" had a troop strength of 700 men, if I recall (270 of whom ended up deaders), on the day he decided he wished he'd studied harder at West Point, while Crazy Horse "commanded" something like 3,000 warriors who were probably high-fiving each other before the first shots were fired -- or pure luck: Honorius having Stilicho murdered as the Vandals are about to attack, for instance.

Warriors rely on individual bravery and individual skill with arms: Achilles and Hector type stuff. Soldiers rely on planning and discipline and training to win battles. Soldiers occasionally question orders; when warriors don't like what the chief sez they go find another chief. Soldiers have to train all the time; warriors already know it all.

Posted by Fred 2010-05-23 22:09|| 2010-05-23 22:09|| Front Page Top

#13 Fielding a truly national army supposes something that still is NOT true in Afghanistan : the idea that the individual is part of a nation

Same thing up to and during nearly all of the US Civil War - most soldiers considered themselves citizens of a state before they were citizens of a country.

Just think of Afghanistan as libertarianism writ large.

Posted by Pappy 2010-05-23 22:52|| 2010-05-23 22:52|| Front Page Top

#14 Broke Britain pulling back? Could've seen that one coming a year ago. I recall a few exchanges with Bulldog on this very point.

More to the point, can a broke America afford Afghanistan?

How long before Barry plays hardball with a GOP-led Congress and makes major retrenchment on defense spending a condition of deficit reduction?

Posted by lex 2010-05-23 23:19|| 2010-05-23 23:19|| Front Page Top

00:02 JosephMendiola
23:45 gorb
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:19 lex
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:11 tipper
23:06 Frank G
22:52 Pappy
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:16 borgboy
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:09 Fred
22:05 JosephMendiola
21:48 JosephMendiola
21:34 JosephMendiola
21:30 JosephMendiola
21:22 JosephMendiola
21:13 phil_b
20:44 Asymmetrical
20:37 Asymmetrical
20:31 Asymmetrical