Comments on: Clegg on Afghanistan: Government strategy “over-ambitious and under-resourced” http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:55:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html#comment-94576 Geoffrey Payne Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:15:07 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=15631#comment-94576 There is no shortage of people who will give you good reasons as to why we should fight in Afghanistan. But all that means nothing if we do not not have the ability to bring stability and peace to that country. There is no sign at all that we have that ability. Many times we have had propaganda telling us how well we are doing in Afghanistan, but 7 years on and there is no end in sight. The kind of choices we face today if we carry on are; do we go for air strikes that will kill many civillians and turn people against us, or do we send in our troops and experience high casualties ourselves? Dammed either way. In fact we are dammed whatever we do. This occupation is every bit as disasterous as our invasion of Iraq. It is worth considering that whilst militant Islamists can inspire militias dispite of our efforts to erradicate them, there are no significant counter militias who are prepared to fight for what we believe in; human rights and democracy. Which all goes to show that as a foreign force in a foreign land we are wasting our time, and we should leave with haste. In my opinion the Liberal Democrats leadership are not really showing any on this vital issue. There is no shortage of people who will give you good reasons as to why we should fight in Afghanistan. But all that means nothing if we do not not have the ability to bring stability and peace to that country.
There is no sign at all that we have that ability.
Many times we have had propaganda telling us how well we are doing in Afghanistan, but 7 years on and there is no end in sight. The kind of choices we face today if we carry on are; do we go for air strikes that will kill many civillians and turn people against us, or do we send in our troops and experience high casualties ourselves?
Dammed either way.
In fact we are dammed whatever we do. This occupation is every bit as disasterous as our invasion of Iraq.
It is worth considering that whilst militant Islamists can inspire militias dispite of our efforts to erradicate them, there are no significant counter militias who are prepared to fight for what we believe in; human rights and democracy.
Which all goes to show that as a foreign force in a foreign land we are wasting our time, and we should leave with haste.
In my opinion the Liberal Democrats leadership are not really showing any on this vital issue.

]]> By: Neale Upstone http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html#comment-94562 Neale Upstone Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:55 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=15631#comment-94562 I dunno what it is about having a baby due any day now, but seeing the most recent young victims out in Afghanistan had me close to tears in the work café. What hit me was just how overstretched our military is, and that most of the people dying are innocent. We're making it far too easy to convince otherwise peaceful people to become 'rebels' willing to die or to set bombs to kill 'infidels'. It's about time we stopped supporting the government line, as it's a fair reflection on what's happening across the country. We've had enough and want to know "why"! I dunno what it is about having a baby due any day now, but seeing the most recent young victims out in Afghanistan had me close to tears in the work café.

What hit me was just how overstretched our military is, and that most of the people dying are innocent. We’re making it far too easy to convince otherwise peaceful people to become ‘rebels’ willing to die or to set bombs to kill ‘infidels’.

It’s about time we stopped supporting the government line, as it’s a fair reflection on what’s happening across the country. We’ve had enough and want to know “why”!

]]> By: Simon R. http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html#comment-94542 Simon R. Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:41:55 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=15631#comment-94542 eurgh- 'are' equals 'our' eurgh- ‘are’ equals ‘our’

]]> By: Simon R. http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html#comment-94541 Simon R. Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:41:16 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=15631#comment-94541 In the States, Petraeus came to Congress and answered questions. British journalism hasn't stepped up to investigate what are strategy is, whether it is the right one, and how we are performing against it. I hope that parliament might be able to do a better job. Also, where are the British academics? Or are they just not being given air time? I've seen Toby Dodge's analysis- but in American media. Where are the thinktanks? the British equivalents of the Small Wars Journal etc? In the States, Petraeus came to Congress and answered questions. British journalism hasn’t stepped up to investigate what are strategy is, whether it is the right one, and how we are performing against it. I hope that parliament might be able to do a better job.

Also, where are the British academics? Or are they just not being given air time? I’ve seen Toby Dodge’s analysis- but in American media. Where are the thinktanks? the British equivalents of the Small Wars Journal etc?

]]> By: Herbert Brown http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html#comment-94521 Herbert Brown Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:46:00 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=15631#comment-94521 <i>"The decision by Nick Clegg to break the political concensus by questioning British military strategy in Afghanistan, combined with further tragic casualties in the past week, has seen the conflict propelled to the forefront of national debate."</i> I think we can be reasonably sure that it is the casualties, not anything that has been said by Nick Clegg, that have propelled the conflict to the "forefront of national debate". And I think Clegg needs to be extremely careful to avoid being perceived to be playing political games with a very difficult and tragic situation. If the party's line on Afghanistan is going to be changed, the party needs to be very clear about what has caused that change. After seven years of consistent support for the government's line, isn't <i>"recent events have led me to question, <b>for the first time</b>, whether we're going about things in the right way"</i> just a little bit inadequate? “The decision by Nick Clegg to break the political concensus by questioning British military strategy in Afghanistan, combined with further tragic casualties in the past week, has seen the conflict propelled to the forefront of national debate.”

I think we can be reasonably sure that it is the casualties, not anything that has been said by Nick Clegg, that have propelled the conflict to the “forefront of national debate”.

And I think Clegg needs to be extremely careful to avoid being perceived to be playing political games with a very difficult and tragic situation. If the party’s line on Afghanistan is going to be changed, the party needs to be very clear about what has caused that change.

After seven years of consistent support for the government’s line, isn’t “recent events have led me to question, for the first time, whether we’re going about things in the right way” just a little bit inadequate?

]]> By: Brian Wright http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-on-afghanistan-government-strategy-overambitious-and-underresourced-15631.html#comment-94518 Brian Wright Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:57:04 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=15631#comment-94518 Thw issue on Afghnistan is that there are two inter-connected agendas- the military and the political. We may di better in the military but we an never win the political. When the US first invaded they reputedly gave a lot of money to the various regional warlords-one of whom has a long history of changing sides- and that this has prevented any form of national government being set up and has allowed corruption to flourish. The result is that the President is called the Mayor of Kabul becase that is the only place where he has any influence. If there is no possibility of political progress then there is no point in or soliders being there. Thw issue on Afghnistan is that there are two inter-connected agendas- the military and the political. We may di better in the military but we an never win the political. When the US first invaded they reputedly gave a lot of money to the various regional warlords-one of whom has a long history of changing sides- and that this has prevented any form of national government being set up and has allowed corruption to flourish. The result is that the President is called the Mayor of Kabul becase that is the only place where he has any influence. If there is no possibility of political progress then there is no point in or soliders being there.

]]>