BEATEN BY THE TALIBAN AT HOME...
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 08:14AM Britain is at serious risk of losing its way in Afghanistan because rising defeatism at home is demoralising the troops on the front line, military commanders have warned.
High-ranking officers, including a former commander of the SAS, have expressed deep concern that the country is in danger of "talking ourselves into a defeat back home" as the war reaches a critical stage. They say there is "surprise and disappointment" among members of the forces at the constant pessimism in the UK over the conflict, and what looks like a lack of appreciation for what they are achieving at great personal risk and in extremely difficult circumstances.
I agree. The media and the political class are largely to blame for this mood of public defeatism.
The Government - espeically under Brown - has been less than enthused about the objectives of the war on terror and focus has been lost. The media also agitated to get us out of Iraq and fight the war in Afghanistan. Now it agitates to get us out of Afghanistan. The truth is that the liberal media is essentially pacifist but yet very powerful with the advent of the 24/7 news cycle. The drum beat of surrender from the media has been relentless here in the UK and it has an impact on public opinion. The liberal media want us out. The Taliban want us out. Meanwhile our soldiers fight on - but are being beaten by the media at home - demoralised and depressed at the lack of support on the home front.
Afghanistan., Armed Forces, MSM 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (19)
The last thing we need is to demoralise our troops, but they're the ones I care about.
History shows that the Afghans have never been defeated: why do we think we can succeed where others have failed?
(we got a bloody nose last time..)
These young soldiers are being used to fight a disastrous war on terror; "The "Axis of Evil!"
Great soundbite..!!
"Shock and Awe"
...another one..
Take a look at these young soldiers coming back in boxes or minus limbs. Look at the way some of them are treated here by their political masters and some of the people they have been risking their lives to defend..
You think those soundbite causes justify that??
We should use our military resources to keep the enemy OUT of our homelands, instead of holdiing 'Open House' to all and sundry...
We're fighting out the front door,whilst leaving the backdoor wide open.
I really don't understand this policy of trying to impose western solutions on 'eastern' mindsets.
If we have to strike back, do it well and then pull out.
Trying to change people who don't want to be changed is patronising and futile.
In most cases the people want the material benefits of a western lifestyle, NOT the philosophy it is built on...
Rant Over..
Were you also saying that kind of thing back in 2001, Danny?
Yep!
With all respect Noel,
I make a difference between protecting the civilisation I was born into..
and respecting other peoples' cultures and their sovereignty.
I don't believe all cultures are equal..
If they were, why the rush to emigrate to the USA and Europe??
I think the biggest threat to the survival and future of the Western world is the woolly minded thinking of intellectual idiots who struggle with a sense of guilt over our own culture's achievements..
They assuage that guilt by pretending that we can maintain our freedom, whilst importing ideas and values which are morally and philosophically opposed to our own.
Such as they beat their own people over the head with an (intellectual) stick, from the safety and security bought in blood by previous generations. Their values were so simple and direct, they were prepared to die for them.
I would have a lot more respect for "modern liberal thinking" if they went and lived amongst those whose rights they so nobly defend....
Instead, they blog....!!
The Sunday evening Danny:
"If the radical Islamists succeed in destabilising Pakistan, if the US/UK etc forces make an ignominious retreat from Afghanistan, then the push for a more aggressive Islamic stance to the Kaffurs will receive a major boost."
The Monday morning Danny:
"We should use our military resources to keep the enemy OUT of our homelands, instead of holdiing 'Open House' to all and sundry...
We're fighting out the front door,whilst leaving the backdoor wide open.
If we have to strike back, do it well and then pull out.
Trying to change people who don't want to be changed is patronising and futile."
You are missing the point Noel,
It's not Sunday/Monday Danny here!
First off;
We shouldn't go around trying to impose our modern western intellectual values on people who don't want them!
We should sort ourselves out at home. We protect our way of life. If that means we sometimes have to attack abroad, we do it and pull back again.
It's the interfering, patronising way we try to change OTHER nations which doesn't work for me.
WE are the ones who are giving radical Islam a reason to believe they can overcome us.
We are no longer able to impose our will on the rest of the world. The days of the Briish Empire or Pax Americana are over, finished.
Our weakness shows when we arrogantly suppose that we can defend our interests abroad, whilst playing "pattycake" with them at home...
You can't chalk this one up to the government so much as you can to armchair generals back home and our media all of whom think you cannot win in Afghanistan which is patently NOT what the troops say or think at all. They love to speak onb behalf of our troops. Why not let our troops speak for themselves? It is easy enough to share what they are saying and thinking about their situation. Our troops know, see and understand the need to be there. Michael Yon, when he wasn't have a handbags at dawn session with the MOD, was all over this months ago and reported how pissed off 2 Rifles were with folks back home.
Okay Alison,
We can't let the troops speak for themselves, because they are the executive military arm of a democratically elected government.
To allow that opens the gates to anarchy.
Our brave young men an women fight on our behalf, as directed by our elected representatives.
(now if THAT system has become corrupted, it's another issue)
But supposing that the military did prevail??
We chuck in all kinds of resources, all kinds of manpower,
and then... what?
How long does it take to really change a people's attitudes??
How many years?? How many lives?
They just ain't going to turn round and kiss our hands and say,
"Thank you, thank you for teaching us the error of our ways!)
Nope,
they will just wait,
and wait,
until we get bored
or broke......
The troops are pretty candid through various press embeds. You can start with Yon. Earlier this year Ross Kemp got some good footage and feedback. There are also a number of videos available and forums.
Re the outcome. The better question is what if we don't prevail. Pakistan is a nuclear armed country which borders Afghanistan. It would quickly turn back into a lawless playground and expansive area for an newly emboldened Taliban to work from. With nuclear weapons.
What of a Nato defeat? To NOT succeed or to withdraw would easily be worse.And to extensively negotiate with the Taliban (as opposed to the Ten Dollar Taliban) gives succour to terrorism globally. Years more of it. NO thanks.
The Afghan people dont want the Taliban there. They also recently turned in favourable responses re ISAF prescence and democracy in general (89% want a democracy with gender equality! A poll of over one thousand Afghans).
No it wont be a western style democracy and frankly I couldnt care less if it is.
All I want to see is that whole area firmly secured. And countries as a result of stability better able to provide for their people so that frankly we dont have to. Not just in terms of this bloody and costly war. But in terms of immigration and asylum also.
A poll of 1,000 from a population of 12,000,000+ - now that is convincing..
America: FUCK YEAH, freedom is the only way YEAH! LOL!
The troops can be as candid as they like, and of course they should speak out in their own channels.
That doesn't take away from my first point.They are young and full of life and confidence, and they tend to see things in black and white!
They still get a raw deal though..
The Afghans may not want theTaliban there, but I don't think they're that keen on us being there either!
Where, O where are the moderate peace loving Muslim nations who might be willing to step in and act as "peacekeepers" Alison?
Where the heck ARE they?
Exactly, Muslim nations tend not to do that sort of thing...
So why are we sticking our noses in?
To say it's to keep us safe back here is a joke!
I we have to hit, hit hard and get out.
Let's concentrate on making our homelands safer before we do the "superhero" bit to others..
So why are we sticking our noses in?
Because if Afghanistan became an Al Queda base once more than might not be so wonderful. They'd be more brazen and confident than ever, having beaten back the feckless Great and Little Satans.
And, as Alison notes, Pakistan, next door, has nuclear weapons.
Stop sticking your nose in to your own peril
A poll of a thousand Afghans is a good sample. A survey of 1000-2000 respondents is a standard sample size for national polls.
The post was about troop morale Danny so their view from the ground is relevant to this particular discussion.
It's a NATO operation so you'd have to put that question to Nato on troop nationalities. Do you want those nations in Nato.
I went back to get the Asia Foundation source out of curiosity and it was actually a poll between June & July of 2009 of 6,406 Afghans.
Confidence in Military: Afghanistan: 91% (69% believe ANA need ISAF help)
80% Agree with the following statement: "Everyone should have equal rights under the law, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, or religion." 59% in Southwest Afghanistan where Taliban hold sway
85% Agree: "Women should have equal opportunity to education as men" 73% in Taliban areas
83% Agree: "Women should be allowed to vote." 61% in Taliban areas
My thoughts on installing democracy and all that jazz above - but I still think the poll is interesting. And encouraging regards security in the region.
At just what point does the death toll become intolerable and unsustainable? - or does it reach a point where we have no option other than to escalate the war to something more intensive, perhaps even nuclear.
While the UN pontificates and NATO prevaricates it is the US and the UK that bears the brunt and cost of battle, do we have to suffer the loss of yet another generation before our European allies, - and I use that term very loosely, - finally take this war seriously enough to make a commitment to and unreservedly declare a desire and intention to do all possible to win this war.
The definition of 'war' is 'a fight to the end', and at whatever cost. If that cost isn't acceptable then the war should not be waged. You do not wage war to make friends, you do so to get rid of enemies who intend to harm you.
Somehow I don't see bringing a distorted form of democracy to a people who do not want it or even understand what it means, as sufficient reason, that they seem unready and ill prepared for it is another matter.
If things do get even nastier with threats of nuclear conflict, why then have we maintained all that hardware at great expense for so many years, if there is no intention of using it, should the need arise? It doesn't even seem to scare them any more, - why - because they know full well that the West has neither the will nor the inclination to do so, - and personally, I am glad that it is so.
If 'regime change' is illegal and immoral, then surely 'culture change' is equally so, - if genocide is the destruction of a people, isn't the destruction of a culture doing pretty much the same thing?
Changes in culture are made because the people want it to happen, it is part of a nation's 'growing up', by learning from others, it isn't done by force or diktat, and it doesn't happen over night.
I think the word pacifism should be replaced with realism. It's OK for those commanders who are fighting the war from the back. For once I don't think the media is the reason for the way public opinion is moving. I think the public have more common sense than we are given credit for. We can see that this is an unwinnable war. We can see that our soldiers' lives are being wasted. We want it to stop and if the goal really is victory then we should use air power. Surely if the Russians failed to win a war in Afghanistan, what chance do we stand particularly as we are fighting with an ill-equipped force.
I know David deplores pacisfism and appeasement and so do I, but I am able to differentiate between giving in to an enemy and fighting a real war. And as always Ernest makes more sense than anyone particularly with his remarks on culture and democracy.
Good postings by Ernest and marlroy, both of which I agree with.
I don't believe in pacifism or appeasement either, but if you're going to use military force to protect your homeland or interests, you should also have clearly defined goals and an exit strategy. Not just throw your armed weight around and hope the recipients are suitably impressed...
Regarding the "gospel of democracy",
If I had a neighbour who happened to be a gardening fanatic, and after he got his garden looking beautiful, he might just cast his eye on my garden, which happened to be neglected and full of weeds...
Well, he might just decide to come on in and make mine like his..
Would I thank him for it, or would I resent his interference?
"So why are we sticking our noses in?
Because if Afghanistan became an Al Queda base once more than might not be so wonderful. They'd be more brazen and confident than ever, having beaten back the feckless Great and Little Satans."
Phantom,
WE have allowed the muslims to colonise western nations...
We in the UK even tolerate and subsidise the activities of radical muslim groups which have been OUTLAWED in their country of origin!
As I have said previously, we are fighting out of the front door whilst leaving the back door open...
Make sense to you?!!
(what would have been the consequences in WW2 if we'd have allowed "disaffected Nazi supporters" to flood in on "humanitarian" grounds??)
Does anyone really think that by tearing Afghanistan apart it will stop Al Quaeda, or any other terrorist organisation from gaining access to nuclear technology? - of course not, it is going to happen one day, and possibly sooner than later.
Which raises the question; do we effectively deal with it now, and if so how will that be done? Given that so many countries already have the technology, any cure will have to be pretty much of an apocalyptic type of operation, because that is what nuclear weapons do.
As it stands global politics could not even consider such action, - Pandora's box has been opened, and such half-hearted 'policing, and hearts and minds actions' as are being used in Afghanistan, will only encourage other terrorist groups to get nuclear status. Obama's, and indeed NATO's indecision on the matter have only done further damage to the effort to find an equitable answer.
One thing is sure, the longer it takes the more draconian the answer will be, - I was going to write 'the final answer will be', but somehow that seemed too pessimistic...