"40 years in afghan"

ruud36

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
932
Reaction score
111
Location
walsall
UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'


_46175401_richards_afp226b.jpg
Gen Richards said the Afghan Army and police force must be built up

The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said. Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times the Army's role would evolve, but the process of "nation-building" would last decades.
Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.
"There is absolutely no chance of Nato pulling out," Gen Richards added.
Gen Richards commanded 35,000 troops from 37 nations when he was head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan between May 2006 and February 2007.
He will take over from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as the UK's chief of the general staff.
'Campaign winnable'
Gen Richards' comments come a day after it emerged that three servicemen, from the Parachute Regiment, had been killed north of Lashkar Gah, in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, on Thursday afternoon.
Their deaths - in an attack on a Jackal armoured vehicle which left a colleague critically injured - take to 195 the number of British troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001.
The Army has suffered its heaviest losses of the entire campaign in recent weeks, but its soon-to-be chief said he strongly believed the campaign was "winnable".
"Demanding, certainly, but winnable," he said.
o.gif


inline_dashed_line.gif



He added: "The end will be difficult to define; it won't be neat and clear-cut like the end of some old-fashioned inter-state war might have been."
He said it would take "a long time and considerable investment", adding: "We must remember, though, that we are not trying to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland."
Gen Richards said great efforts must be made to expand the Afghan National Army and build up the police force - only then could the UK's military role "decline".
Equipment
"I believe that the UK will be committed to Afghanistan in some manner - development, governance, security sector reform - for the next 30 to 40 years," he said.
"It is not just reconstruction; jobs and simple governance that works are key, and there has to be a strong reconciliation element to the latter."
Gen Dannatt has called for the government to commit more troops and equipment to Afghanistan, but Gen Richards said he would not be presenting a "shopping list" to ministers.
However, he said the Army and the government needed to "continue to respond flexibly and quickly to the evolving requirements of our campaign in Afghanistan".
 
40 years...HA.HA......HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA laughing my bollocks off They wanted it,they GOT it...........good luck to em
 
40 years...HA.HA......HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA laughing my bollocks off They wanted it,they GOT it...........good luck to em

I don't really see whats funny about it mate..
 
I did.....a while back. Biggest load of moronic bollocks I've ever watched.

you really must watch a load of moronic bollocks for that to make No1 nara.
 
We should nuke the place and be done with it. The taliban have nothing to offer the world aside from hatred and intolerance.
 
We should never have left Iraq after the gulf war. A lot of this could have been avoided.

In 50 years time, and if the west keep their teeth, Afghanistan and Iraq will be Japan-like in its development, becoming contributing nations on the world stage.

Then, all the 911 truthers and 'blood for oil' tossbags will be dead or dying, and the world will be a better place.
 
A 50 year occupation of Afghanistan is the solution mozr? Why would one wish to do such a thing?
 
Not an occupation.

My comparison is with WW2 Japan. A nation or radical fundamentalists prepared to commit suicide for their cause.

Now the only thing they do that is remotely racy is wanking whilst sniffing used schoolgirls knickers in a business suit, whilst watching Mothra.

I hope in 50 years time, Afghanistan to be the same.
 
I want to be Japanese businessman when I grow up.
 
We should never have left Iraq after the gulf war. A lot of this could have been avoided.

In 50 years time, and if the west keep their teeth, Afghanistan and Iraq will be Japan-like in its development, becoming contributing nations on the world stage.

Then, all the 911 truthers and 'blood for oil' tossbags will be dead or dying, and the world will be a better place.

I agree with you on the point that we should have done the job right in the first place.

However to say that Afghanistan and Iraq will be Japan like in 50yrs is a huge ask and i don't see that happening!
There are huge differences between them.
The Japanese culture after the war was united in building Japan to what it is today and maintaining its status as an industrial powerhouse.
Iraq is far from united and is splintered into tribal factions who hate each other.

The first Gulf war was justified in the fact that Kuwait had to be liberated and the brutal truth is we did need a stable oil flow to the west.
However the reason cited for the second war was WMD and to control terrorism.
No WMD have ever been found Mozr and you will never beat terrorists as they are cowards.

Personally i don't know what the solution is but i do know that Iraq and Afghanistan are not in a better position today than they were before the war.
 
Back
Top