The British resolved to invade Afghanistan, and the Army of the Indus, a formidable force of more than 20,000 British and Indian troops, set off from India for Afghanistan in late 1838.
On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. Leaving the city were 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away.
CIA created/trained the Taliban to fight Russian invaders in the 1980's and kill about 50,000 Russian soldiers in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been historic rock that military powers have shipped wreak on. The might of the British Empire failed in the early 19th century, the Russian bears failed in the eighties and sadly the American, British and NATO allies are also doomed to fail. I support the British soldier out and hope that the politicians will see sense before they let their pride kill more of our soldiers.
100 Welsh Twitters
2 months ago
5 comments:
You are quite right to point out this appalling imperialist history. You certainly won't get it from the mainstream media. Military and diplomatic experts are quite clear that most of the Afghan fighters are local resistants to the latest round of foreign invaders. After all, they have been at it for generations. It is claimed that NATO is quite prepared to negotiate with these people anyway. Hard line extremists are apparently few in number. Another fine British mess with so many wasted innocent lives on both sides. Shame on them!
The UK probably has more to lose than any other country if the Taliban retake Afghanistan. If the Al-Qaeda training camps are re-established hundreds of enthusiastic but utterly inept homegrown jihadis will travel there to find out all about the Talibs' newfound IED skills. We'll all be much safer then, won't we?
Lyndon gives the faux Brit line. It is public knowledge that NATO wants to negotiate 'withdrawal' with what they call moderate Taliban, i.e. the majority. Not my cup of tea, by the way. After all, they know who they are 'cause they supported them under Soviet occupation.
Foreign occupation is what's driving this largely home-grown insurgency. British imperialism across the globe is what makes the UK vulnerable. QED.
Thanks Henry, I'm not a "faux Brit" but a lifelong Plaid supporter and occasional activist. Unfortunately much of Plaid's foreign policy is of the infantile, Independent-reading, concerned social worker level displayed in your post. Jihadi activity against western targets began in the early 90s, which muslim countries were under "occupation" at that time? "British imperialism across the globe!", British imperialism barely reaches Scotland mate, grow up.
Lyndon's line on this issue is 'faux Brit' despite occasional Plaid activity. Plaid's international policy is extremely sensible: anti-NATO, nuclear weapons, pro-UN. More people are subscribing to these ideas.
What's this throw away 'Jihadi' label and the canard that Muslim countries can be lumped together? We all remember the 'international Communist conspiracy', the 'domino theory' and other fictions of post-1945 international affairs. See Robert McNamara's comments on the Vietnam debacle and Iraqi WMDs, for example.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, the promoters of permanent war have been searching round for another bogey to frighten people in 'The West'. Now it's Muslim extremists (only). Aren't there Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Shinto nutters too?
Post a Comment