Blair and A'stan

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Bloody betrayal

22:01pm 7th July 2006

In this furious denunciation, military historian Max Hastings argues that ministers have contemptuously lied about Afghanistan - leaving our desperately undermanned army to make good Blair's bad cheques in blood.

Just before leaving for my first trip to Vietnam in 1970, I telephoned a veteran correspondent for advice. "Just remember," he said, "they lie, they lie, they lie."

By "they", of course, he meant American politicians, diplomats and commanders, and he was absolutely right.

The "credibility gap" in Vietnam - the chasm between what Americans claimed was happening and what actually did - contributed mightily to the final debacle.

Britain's involvement in Afghanistan is minuscule compared with Vietnam, where 600,000 American troops were committed in the worst days of 1968.

Our deployment in Helmand province has scarcely begun. Yet already the British Government has opened a credibility gap as shameful as the Americans sponsored in Saigon. It lies, it lies, it lies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=394640&in_page_id=1787

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Who is this Max Hastings? Does he have any military experience? Is this Daily Mail a respected news organization? Basically, all we have is a kind of rambling commentary on all things related to the GWOT.

I see him throwing around figures, for instance:
Adding an extra battalion or two to the 3,300 British troops on the ground in Helmand is a token.

To do the job for which the Government has signed up its hapless soldiers, they do not need 4,000 or 5,000 men on the ground. Realistic planning would demand 50,000 or 100,000. These troops do not exist.
Is that based on an assessment originating from somewhere other than his brain?

We're helping the Afghans develop their own army.


They were uninterested in what happened to Afghanistan once the Taliban were deposed, except to maintain an open season for Bin Laden-hunting, with laser-guided munitions and U.S. special forces who make do with slaughtering the odd wedding party when they are unable to find any guerrillas. Apparently he has no difficulty making an a$$ out of himself.



European Nato nations claimed to be willing to help rebuild the country - and have betrayed their commitments.

They have sent only token forces. They have been parsimonious with mere money, never mind blood.

We shall all be the losers if, as seems likely, the West is eventually forced to abandon Afghanistan to become, once again, the anarchic haven of terrorists and drug traffickers.

We shall have shown that we lack the will and skill to restore a failed state. This will be a shocking indictment of what we laughingly call 'the international community'.

Great nations such as Germany and France make gestures, but in reality have turned their backs on Afghanistan. They hope that if they can avoid getting their soldiers killed and keep their distance from U.S. adventures, they can save themselves from the murderous wrath of the Muslim world.
Acutally, I agree with most of that.

[KB]

Max Hastings is a noted British military historian and newspaper columnist. At one point he was the editor of the Daily Telegraph; his political views tend to be on the right side of the spectrum in the UK, pro Tory.

He covered the Falklands campaign in 1982 and was "embedded" with 2 Para, where he observed their historic assault on the Argentine garrison at Goose Green. He previously served in the British Army and IIRC served in one of the TA battalions of the Parachute Regiment.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Max Hastings is a noted British military historian and newspaper columnist. At one point he was the editor of the Daily Telegraph; his political views tend to be on the right side of the spectrum in the UK, pro Tory.

He covered the Falklands campaign in 1982 and was "embedded" with 2 Para, where he observed their historic assault on the Argentine garrison at Goose Green. He previously served in the British Army and IIRC served in one of the TA battalions of the Parachute Regiment.
Thanx for the info :)

While I do show more respect to a commentator with a solid service record, I don't think that means he is the world's authority on all things military and political in the GWOT.

I think he made a few reasonable remarks, but I thought much of it was just conjecture. And I really didn't like that comment about the wedding party.

50-100k troops! Wouldn't that basically be occupation?

There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if everyone (US, Britain, and others) would just pour enough troops and money into Afghanistan that that country's problems would disappear in short order. Fixing a society like Afghanistan will be a protracted affair. It's problems didn't develop overnight and they won't be fixed overnight either. It's a real burden for Western soceities like ours where I think we place great value on expediency.

[oldsoak]

Max Hastings is a noted British military historian and newspaper columnist. At one point he was the editor of the Daily Telegraph; his political views tend to be on the right side of the spectrum in the UK, pro Tory.

He covered the Falklands campaign in 1982 and was "embedded" with 2 Para, where he observed their historic assault on the Argentine garrison at Goose Green. He previously served in the British Army and IIRC served in one of the TA battalions of the Parachute Regiment.

pro Tory=anti Labour
and vice -versa. Unfortunately a common theme in UK politics is that one side down plays the other out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Look at Labour dragging their feet in the Falklands and Tories doing the same now.

[fargo]

I have alot of time for Max Hastings (try amazon to see some of the many books he has written). He is right wing, and firmly on the side of the soldier, although, by his own admission, he was never cut out for life in the army, it did not stop him trying, and he has been there and done that in terms of his reporting.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I have alot of time for Max Hastings (try amazon to see some of the many books he has written). He is right wing, and firmly on the side of the soldier, although, by his own admission, he was never cut out for life in the army, it did not stop him trying, and he has been there and done that in terms of his reporting.

IIRC he was actually the first man into Port Stanley back in 1982.

[fargo]

Thats him, he got a right bollocking from one of the (IIRC) RMC officers for that.