Why is the news reader saying the soldiers in Afghanistan are risking their lives for us?

[FabBakerGirlIsBack]

Are the Afghan's a threat to us?

I don't understand at all what is going on or what they mean by the soldiers are risking their lives for us.

It's not propaganda littleducks; Pakistan is in danger of falling to the Taliban. If they can be stopped in Afghanistan (polite euphemism for killed), then hopefully the same will happen in Pakistan. Pakistan is a nuclear state and we don't want the Taliban to get their mitts on WMDs; ergo, they HAVE to be stopped.

The Taliban are not just a nasty group of people, they are extremists who would like to introduce their particularly revolting interpretation of Islam to the West. That would mean that as a woman you would have no rights at all. You would have to wear a burka; only be allowed to leave your home if accompanied by a male member of your family; if you have a profession, you would not be allowed to pursue it; should you do anything to upset a member of the Taliban, or go against their rules, you could be lashed, or shot.

You have the freedom to go on marches without fear....who won that for you? Who maintains that freedom for you? The Taliban do not understand liberalism - they perceive it as weakness. They understand strength and firepower and we have to demonstrate or get the US troops to do so, that our firepower and will to succeed is greater than theirs.

The journal of Lt Evison is on the comments page of the Daily Telegraph website. The author wouldn't have been on the Big Question as he is dead - killed by the Taliban defending your right to go on protest marches in freedom - but he didn't die in your name!

What pisses me off is that DC has said he will ring fence overseas aid, and that defence will have to take a cut like other depts. It would serve the buggers right if all the Armed Forces went on strike on the same day - they'd be stuffed then well and truly, and what could they do? Sack the lot or put them all in the glasshouse? Who would fight their battles/go on their patrols then?

One of my husband's CO's (now sadly dead) used to say the the Forces should go onstrike and march on Whitehall - how would they stop us? They'd listen to us then!

Seriously, the Forces community has such a small political voice because of the restrictions placed upon us that we're always going to suffer. Defence simply isn't as "sexy" as saving the NHS or "Education, education, education". We need a CDS and Staff prepared to speak out, even if it's unpopular with the government, of the day and we need a government who understand the realities of the global situation.

1SL has been doing some speaking out pre retirement; I hope he continues to do so after, unlike Lord (I'm a govt poodle ex Admiral) West who just seems to toe the Labour line.

Agree about a CDS who will speak out. I do think though, that the govt underestimates just how low they have sunk in the esteem of the Armed Forces at their peril.

Funny......without the US the Taliban would not have been in power in the first place.

Exactly ScaryT - and Pakistan is a nuclear state! If the Taleban get their mitts on Pakinsan, it s game over.

FM...thing is they are and therefore need to be dealt with! Simple!

"Funny......without the US the Taliban would not have been in power in the first place."

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Yes, foreign policy mistakes in the past have - in part - led to the situation today. However, we are where we are and we have to do something about it. Wringing our hands and saying "Well, if we hadn't done such-and-such, we could have avoided this..." accomplishes nothing.

Hear, hear, Bloss.

But watch out: last time on MN I said something similar I was told that I was giving way to 'unthinking patriotism'.

Funnily enough I was thinking of my husband: who missed being blown up on 7/7 by minutes.

I think, sometimes, people naively believe that if there wasn't any Armed Forces, that we wouldn't have wars or somehting like that....personally, sadly violence is part of human nature and can be motivated by a wide variety of things...
I do not like violence....but I always supported my dh,who was in the Army until last year and still is in the TA, because I know he never went into it because he wanted to kill other people and is a violent person, but because he believes our and otehr people's freedom is worth protecting and fighting for....

now, of course wouldn't it be lovely if country's that disagree would put their leaders in a boxing ring and let them fight it out between them ...not going to happen of course...

Don't blame the US - blame Russia who were in there in 1979 and the subsequent fracturing of the Mujahadin which allowed the Taliban to take control. Blame Islam for allowing such extremism to grow.

It is way too simplistic to blame the US all the time for the woes of the world; they are our allies, and I would far rather be allied with them than some of the others out there.

The ebb and flow in Afghanistan has been going on for centuries - it used to be called the Great Game, the diplomacy and politicking about that region, so nothing is new; except that modern communications mean that radicalisation spreads more quickly, and that IEDs are more effective at killing a larger number of our troops than the tribesmen were with knives.

What those against involvement in Afghanistan fail to realise is that the Taliban want the establishment of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, and that there would be compulsion in religion, whatever the Qu'ran and the Hadith say, because they interpret both to their own ends. If they get hold of Pakistan as MT states, it's game over, or the level of the game is ratcheted up to a level not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs incident, as the potential for it all to go nuclear is huge. You also have to remember that death in such a cause to the Taliban is a martyrs death and some of them believe that they will go to Paradise instantly, and they don't give a damn about who they take with them.

ScaryTeacher, you mean the Mujahideen that were armed and financed by the US? The same Mujahideen that were left to try to rebuild a shattered country on their own as the US had unhelpfully buggered off minutes after the last Russian soldier walked off Afghan soil?

Groups such as the Taleban have such a downer on the West not because we're perceived as liberal, Christian ne'er-do-wells who need to be shown a better way of life. It's because millions of people in that region are terminally pissed off with the West in general and the US in particular for stomping in, supporting puppet regimes, playing favourites, directly or indirectly killing tens of thousands of civilians, and generally causing merry hell left, right and center.

The UK is now such a target for terrorism from these regions not because they've taken a dislike to our underground system, but because we stand shoulder to shoulder with a country that has caused huge amounts of trouble in the middle east. Even our own anti-terrorism experts recognised that the UK being associated with the invasion of Iraq would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack on UK soil rather than decrease it.

The way that the Teleban treats its citizens, and women in particular, is not hugely different than the way Saudi Arabia has done for ages. The big difference, of course, is that Saudi has oil and so they're our friends.

I have a huge amount of respect for our armed forces and the people on the front line doing a downright crappy job in miserable conditions with shoddy kit and antique equipment. They are brave beyond my capacity to explain. I just wish their commanding officers showed a fraction as much courage in publically questioning what the hell it is we're trying to achieve there and why we're going about it so badly.

We get upset, and rightfully so, for every one of our English dead and each one is named and mourned. So many civilians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan that no-one's been able to produce accurate numbers. Whichever side of the fence you stand, that can't be right.

Whilst I entirely understand why you are strong in your support for the individuals you know scaryteacher, please don't assume that those of us against some overseas deployment don't understand. Our views are carefully thought through and evidence-based. Of course I am aware of the Taliban's human right abuses. It is facile to equate my condemnation of some practices of the armed forces with support for the Taliban. Just as it would be facile for me to assume that you "celebrating" the alliance with the US means you approve the use of cluster bombs.

However, this thread is about respect for the dead. I repeat my orginal point that the BBC should know btter than to imply that soldiers are risking their lives for "us" because not everyone in the country supports what is happening. It is the BBC's responsibility to reflect the spectrum of opinion.

"I just wish their commanding officers showed a fraction as much courage in publically questioning what the hell it is we're trying to achieve there and why we're going about it so badly."

It's not the commanding officers that need to explain, it the politicians. The Forces are trying to do their best with whatever resources they're given. It's the politicians who need to explain why those resources are inadequate.

"We get upset, and rightfully so, for every one of our English dead and each one is named and mourned."

What about the servicemen and women of other nationalities who serve in the British - not English - Forces? Not worth a mention?

If the armed forces aren't getting the resources they need, and if private talks between the commanding officers and the politicians aren't working, then I do think it's the responsibility of those commanding officers to make a public stand.

The politicians are saying "All the commanding officers need do is ask us for whatever it is they want and we'll supply it." If the heads of the armed forces stood up in public and said "Actually, no, that's not true - we asked for x, y and z and we've got nothing" then that would make a very profound point. Sure, it might ruin their careers and their chances at a knighthood, but lives are at stake.

I didn't mean to deliberately snub other nationalities - it was a nod to Shakespeare's Henry V. Apologies for any inadvertent offence.

"The politicians are saying "All the commanding officers need do is ask us for whatever it is they want and we'll supply it." If the heads of the armed forces stood up in public and said "Actually, no, that's not true - we asked for x, y and z and we've got nothing" then that would make a very profound point. Sure, it might ruin their careers and their chances at a knighthood, but lives are at stake."

Some of them have done just that! Brig Ed Butler, Gen Dannet et al have all spoken out recently over troop and equipment shortages. It's simply that the politicians stonewall and prevaricate and fudge what has been given to make it sound as though demands/requests are being met. Butler resigned over the issue and Dannet's career has been effectively halted when he could reasonably have expected to have a shot at CDS after his stint as CGS.

I agree totally with ScaryTeacher and Jcscot. Gen Dannet is certainly making a noise at the moment in his last few days - although from what I understand his comments are very biased towards the army at the expense of the other services.

Re our current Defence Secretary who imho is a most unimpressive man, ranked 21st in the cabinet....I cannot believe on one level that in the current times defence is so unimportant that we have a politician of this calibre and come way below dept of culture etc etc.

however, bear in mind the amount of money spent on defence. It is peanuts. It is approx 2% of gdp. Everything comes down to money.

My husband was a young subaltern in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. They used helicopters to transport troops because the roads there were so dangerous. He was stunned to see how often roads are used in Afghanistan.

Surely lives would be saved if they could rely less on road transport.