« Hot air and empty threats? | Main | You couldn't make it up »
July 11, 2006
Learning from History
The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. - Friedrich Hegel
BBC - Minister admits forces stretched
The defence secretary says the UK's commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq is testing military resources - but denies they are being overstretched.
Des Browne was giving evidence to MPs a day after announcing 900 more UK troops were being deployed to Afghanistan.
It doesn't seem that long ago that Afghanistan was the frontline in the war on terror, with US and UK forces relentless pursuing the Taliban, overthrowing their regime and replacing it with a pro-Western government. The first victory in the war on terror. It wasn't all good news though, with one consequence being a significant increase in output for the opium trade, an industry which the Taliban had fought when they governed the country, but subsequently capitalised upon after their defeat.
Then the focus switched to Iraq, and Afghanistan become the forgotten front, apart from continued efforts by special forces to capture Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.
And now we find ourselves once again commiting forces in an effort to control the Taleban.
Yet we shouldn't be surprised by the diffiulties encountered in bringing order to Afghanistan. In the years between 1838 and 1842, the British fought what became known as the First Anglo-Afghan War. Ostensibly involved merely to help Shah Shuja regain his throne, British troops were actually attempting to invade the country as part of the ongoing dispute with Russia. That war came to an end after the massacre of 16,000 troops and camp followers in January 1842, a resounding defeat for the British Empire.
The Second Anglo-Afghan War kicked off in 1878, and the British initially met with success. By 1879, the British occupied a significant portion of the country and the Afghan government was forced to aquiesce to British demands. Then in a repeat of the first war, the British managed to have their garrison in Kabul wiped out and by 1881 they withdrew again.
The Third Anglo-Afghan War ran from 1919 to 1921 and was effectively a stalemate, though the British had the advantage of air power which helped them to reverse earlier Afghan successes.
So after three wars spanning a period of more than 80 years, the British Empire failed to subdue Afghanistan.
When, in 1979, Russian forces invaded Afghanistan, it could be argued that they had no real history to learn from. Nevertheless, by the time the last Russian troops were withdrawn on 15th Feb 1989, the Soviet forces had suffered more than 15,000 deaths and the loss of large numbers of aircraft and vehicles. And they had effectively failed in their original objective, that of maintaining a pro-Russian government in Kabul.
Given that the only experience the US had in Afghanistan was supplying weapons and training to the Mujahadeen, it isn't too surprising that they underestimated the effort required to control the country. But Britain, with its long history of botched involvement in the area, has no excuse for misjudging the commitment necessary. At some point the losses will become too high, the cost too great and then the politicians will find some grounds for proclaiming the whole exercise a great success, despite the obvious failure. The tragedy is that the ultimate price will not be paid by politicians incapable or unwilling to learn from history, but instead by the poor sods sent out there with inadequate equipment to perform an impossible mission.
Posted by Clive on July 11, 2006 4:48 PM in the category War
Comments
However, only about 300 are combat troops. The rest are engineers and support personnel.
The request for more helicopters from commanders in Helmand province has also been met with a promise but no instant deployment.
One senior defence source admitted that it would be a question of “teasing out” an extra Chinook or Puma helicopter from another operation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2264236,00.html
Didn't the US adandon a chinook today because there were no jump-leads?
Posted by: Friendly Fire at July 11, 2006 9:36 PM
While it is true America helped the Afghan resistance against the Russian army, American's assistance went to the Northern Alliance, not to the Islamic jihadist militants.
The Islamic jihadist militants were funded and trained not by America, but by Mosques, Islamic schools of "religion", and Islamic nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
This radical support from within established Islam has been the pattern for Islamic terrorists for nearly 1500 years, and it has not changed.
Why change a pattern that works? So far, 1.2 billion people have submitted to the terror of Islam. From Brittain to the Phillipines, the pattern continues.
Posted by: Friendly Fridley at August 10, 2006 3:15 PM