General Sir David Richards: 'We can't afford to lose the war in Afghanistan'

The Telegraph ^ | Sunday, October 4, 2009 | Sean Rayment

[kristinn]

General Sir David Richards – a 57-year-old father-of-two and keen amateur historian – is in buoyant mood. Settling down for his first interview since being appointed Chief of the General Staff in August, he leans back in a grey leather armchair in his private office, overlooking the river Thames on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence's headquarters, and points at a television screen. According to a news headline, Gordon Brown is now "open-minded" on troop increases in Afghanistan.

SNIP

"Taliban and al-Qaeda know that the conflict will not be lost in Afghanistan, it will be lost in Britain, America and France, and their tactics are designed to get at that vulnerability. If you look at the geopolitical consequences of failure, it's not just in the short term on the streets of the UK. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda – and, believe me, they are one and the same – think they have defeated us, what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan?"

He earmarks Pakistan, with its nuclear capability, as a "tempting target" and a "terrifying prospect": "Even if only a few of those weapons fell into [enemy] hands, they would use them."

Failure in Pakistan and India, with its sizeable Muslim population, would, he says, have a catalytic effect on militant Islam in the region and around the world. "The message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

[kristinn]

Britian is talking about upping their forces from 9000 to about 10,000 contingent on what out Ditherer-in-Chief does. Thank goodness some over there get it.

[SoCalPol]

Was on one of the anti war, cut and run threads last night.
The amount of people on FR who support the far left progressives buy into their drip drip propaganda.

They don’t have a clue about the Taliban and Al Qaida who are also across the border in Pakistan.

Afghanistan falls, so does Pakistan and its nuclear weapons to the IslamOfascists.

[tioga]

I would still like to see 0’s pass port for his trip to “Pockistan”.....something is fishy there.

[MinorityRepublican]

We’ll probably pull the troops out. President Obama will order us to pull the troops out probably around ‘11 just in time for total withdrawal by the election season in ‘12.

[xzins]

10000? That’s 1/2 of a measley division. I wouldn’t call that much of a commitment.

And upping it about a 1000 is barely 2 battalions added.

I’d say they aren’t committed at all.

Also, I can agree that we can’t afford to lose in Afghanistan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I support the current plan to win.

[Soothesayer9]

As a last ditch effort, cut and run..with a few well placed nukes going off.

Course Barry will rid us of any of those eeeeevil nukes long before we get a chance to use them on Al Queda.

[Edgewood Pilot]

BTTT.

[mtntop3]

Muslims, and especially the militant, view everything in two dimensions: strength and religiosity.

A defeat of non-Muslim forces anywhere, and especially in Afghanistan and the Middle East, is to Muslims a “sign” that Allah is on their side—and that terror and murder are Allah’s path.

And that they are destined to rule Earth.