Britain 'cannot afford to send more troops to Afghanistan' because of the recession

telegraph ^ | 24 Apr 2009 | James Kirkup

[Flavius]

Britain cannot afford to send more troops to Afghanistan because of the mounting costs of dealing with the recession, military commanders have been told.

[Flavius]

[Brilliant]

Not because of the recession. Because of socialism.

[angkor]

Sorry, I don’t buy the arguments for the Afghan adventure.

The real threat to the West is Pakistan, a nuclear-equipped psychotic Muslim narcoeconomy.

[SampleMan]

They couldn’t afford weapons in 1936-38 either. That turned out to be a big money saver, didn’t it?

[bgill]

Whatever the real reason, they’ve just announced to their enemies they can’t afford a military.

[neb52]

That’s because Mushie was forced out and what should of been predictable, a weak government was elected.

[yawningotter]

We need a presence in the region to be able to counter whatever happens in Pakistan. Unfortunately, we do not have a president who knows how to handle the situation or form a coalition to fight a serious threat to the entire world.

[kabar]

We are heading down the same road. Obama is reducing DOD by 10%. The third largest item in the annual federal budget is the $400 billion to service the national debt. Entitlement programs are first and DOD second.

With the huge increase in our national debt resulting from TARP, the stimulus package, and Obama's budgets we will double the national debt in less than a decade. As a result, we will be spending over $800 billion a year on debt servicing. And our entitlement program costs are increasing as our population ages. By 2030, one in 5 in this country will be 65 or older.

As a result, we will be forced like Great Britain and the rest of the Europe to choose between guns and butter. Butter will win out because the politicians want to stay in office. The US cannot afford to be the world's lone superpower or global policeman. The numbers won't allow it.

[neb52]

Yes, both Britain and France had successive Center-Left Governments after WWI. Both went into severe recessions that lasted all of the 20s and 30s. That meant socialism that shifted necessary defense money to social welfare. France had the best planes, tanks and military R&D coming out of WWI and it was all scraped for “peace”.

[org.whodat]

That's what we should have told them when Hitler was knocking on their door!

[org.whodat]

That's what we should have told them when Hitler was knocking on their door!

[Radl]

We don’t need them. We can always rely on our good friends from Spain.

[org.whodat]

Yes, but Spain and Britain both have their share of good folk, just they are not in charge at the moment!!

[lt.america]

You have to read between the lines here. Obama ran on Afghanistan since it was the more “popular” war. The whole time he refused to acknowledge the reality of Afghanistan, in that there are no good solutions for sustainable stability without a large military presence on the ground. Don't want to turn this into a dissertation so the point is, the Brits are not willing to send more troops because of recession, but because they don't want to keep beating their heads against the wall.

[Radl]

Can’t really argue with that.

[angkor]

The money which supports the psychotic jihadis and “tribal regions” in Pakistan is entirely from the heroin business.

They are semi-peasants with no jobs and no resource, yet they have the funds to sustain training camps, weapons purchases, terrorist operations, and day-to-day personnel expenses.

Afghanistan produces raw opium and (at best) low-grade morphine. It's all sold at wholesale locally in Afghanistan. Whereas the purchase, refining, shipping, and wholesaling of opium/morphine as heroin is a Pakistani phenomena.

The most simple solution has always been for the West (EU and the USA, which are the prime markets for refined heroin) to buy the annual crop at $2 billion or so, and then to dispose of it as free medical analgesics and whatever else.

Whatever the details, defunding the opium trade would upset many apple carts, including Afghan/Pakistani/Taliban/AlQaeda warlords; the wealthy heroin lords of Pakistan (e.g. Hamid Gul and Nawaz Sharif’s brother in law); the Russian, Balkan, USA, and EU criminal syndicates; and of course the Iranian mullahs.

In other words, buying out the opium trade of Afghanistan is too simple and too potentially destabilizing to actually consider doing.

[angkor]

>>>>> the Brits are not willing to send more troops because of recession, but because they don’t want to keep beating their heads against the wall. <<<<<<<

Pakistan is the Cambodia of the 21st century.

Afghanistan “appears” to be the problem, but without the sanctuary, funding, and safe-haven provided by Pakistan, the problem would not exist.

[neb52]

So if their Government collapses and Pakistan breaks up, do you think the ensuing tribalism/warlordism going to keep things in line, tampered down by constant infighting?

[angkor]

I don’t know what the outcome could be, but right now I’m seeing these strategic similarities:

Afghanistan = Vietnam
Pakistan = Cambodia
India = Thailand

It’s a very rough sketch and history DOES NOT repeat itself to this level of detail, however if you meditate on the situation it is nearly identical.

Many have agreed (including NVA Col. Bui Tin who’s long retired in France) that had we stopped the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia and Laos, that would have ended the Vietnam War right on the spot.

Waziristan, NW Frontier Provinces = Cambodia border and Tay Ninh/Parrot’s Beak area of South Vietnam.

[Kakaze]

I look at the maps. I see Iraq as the central pivot point of the region, not the trigger point the pivot point.

To me Iraq is the American Military Launch point for the next century, much like Germany was after WW2

Leaving Iraq is a mistake, trusting Pakistan is something only to be done in public and Afghanistan, like always, is nothing more than a battle field zone.

I'm not the smartest guy around but I can look at a map.