Can someone explain to me in very simple terms why we're sending troops to Afghanistan?

[Pennies]

Why, exactly, are we at war?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Isn't it America's war then?

5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. NATO
7/7

ops....messed up link but you get the gist

Because if we leave them all to it, then Al Qaeda will use it as a base from which to launch more atrocities on the rest of the world. Or something like that.

I'm deeply uncomfortable that the US and UK govts are in bed with a man as corrupt and unsavoury as Hamid Karzai. I think that the 'election' did no favours to anyone in this whole sorry affair. However, despite horrific loses (which can at least partly, be laid at the door of GB et al for lack of proper resources) I do think we need to keep the troops in and try to put in place some sort of democracy. Personally (if I ruled the world) I would devolve power from central government so that the various areas could practice self-government.

Well if you think Hamid Karzai is a bit dodgy, I'm still wondering why it was exactly that Osama bin Laden was trained and funded by the US govt to fight the Soviets.....

"I'm still wondering why it was exactly that Osama bin Laden was trained and funded by the US govt to fight the Soviets"

A somewhat blind application of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle. The West got to needle the Soviet Union, learn a lot about Soviet Military tactics and to prevent a successful invasion by their military of another nation.

Both sides in the Cold War had a habit of finding a proxy to fight their enemy, Osama was just one of them.

Because Pakistan has nuclear capabitlites so the West has a deeper interest in ensuring the region is stable.

Because US told you to.

What does Afghanistan have to do with future attacks in the West, the vast majority of which are carried out by Western nationals only remotely inspired by Al-Qaeda?

That there will be further attacks in the future if the state is allowed to collapse is one of the reasons given for us continuing to be there but the reason we are there is because of the 9/11 attacks which Al-Qaeda were involved with (or so they claimed) and who were in turn supported by the Afghan Government.

That is the reason you went into Afghanistan - to go after Al-Qaeda.

That is not the reason why you are still in Afghanistan, since Al-Qaeda is no longer there. You are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There was an excellent article in yesterday's Guardian on the 'collective amnesia' about our colonial past in the area, about the failure of Soviet intervention, about the original reasons for our invasion.

It also has good thoughts about shifting the current presence back towards some evolved version of the anti-alQuaida policing operationthat was the original justification of invasion.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/10/coffins-conquer-amnesia-afghanistan

And it is difficult to overcome this 'collective amnsesia' when coverage of the war is all about PM's bad handwriting in condolence letters.

"That is the reason you went into Afghanistan - to go after Al-Qaeda.

That is not the reason why you are still in Afghanistan, since Al-Qaeda is no longer there. You are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan."

The invasion of Afghanistan had stated aims which included the destruction of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime which harboured and supported them.

So continuing to fight the Taliban and prevent them from regaining power fits exactly with the original goals of the invasion. Fighting the Taliban is not some new goal or change of direction.

So that is another reason why we are still in Afghanistan, the original job has not yet been accomplished.

Deadworm - So true. Those who forget their history are bound to repeat it, and all that...

Badgers - Let's try to remember:

Al-Qaeda was the enemy. Taliban was harboring them.

You guys invaded Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda ran. Intelligence suggests they are operating from within Pakistan at the moment.

Yet you are still in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban, which is a bit strange because they are not your original enemy. Taliban have never attacked you. They have never launched attacks outside their corner of the world. Isn't it bizarre to still be engaged in all out war against the Taliban, years after Al-Qaeda left?

"So continuing to fight the Taliban and prevent them from regaining power fits exactly with the original goals of the invasion."

I would laugh if the situation and your understanding of it were not so sad. Taliban IS in power in MOST of Afghanistan. US & UK forces control only a very small part of the country. Your army captures a village, sometimes losing British lives in the process, than Taliban is back as soon as your soldiers leave.

Badgers - Let's try to remember:

Al-Qaeda was the enemy. Taliban was harboring them.

You guys invaded Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda ran. Intelligence suggests they are operating from within Pakistan at the moment.

Yet you are still in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban, which is a bit strange because they are not your original enemy. Taliban have never attacked you. They have never launched attacks outside their corner of the world. Isn't it bizarre to still be engaged in all out war against the Taliban, years after Al-Qaeda left?

"So continuing to fight the Taliban and prevent them from regaining power fits exactly with the original goals of the invasion."

I would laugh if the situation and your understanding of it were not so sad. Taliban IS in power in MOST of Afghanistan. US & UK forces control only a very small part of the country. Your army captures a village, sometimes losing British lives in the process, than Taliban is back as soon as your soldiers leave.

The Taliban were the original enemy, well one of them anyway. Rightly or wrongly their removal was one of the stated objectives of the invasion.

That's not an opinion but a statement of historical fact.

You can argue as to whether we should have made it an objective or whether we should change our objectives but you can't claim that us being there is somehow unexplained.

So as it stands one of the objectives set out before the invasion has not been met.

We haven't changed our objectives.

So the mission is not complete and our forces remain there.

I'm not actually saying that I fully support the current state of the conflict but trying to pretend that there's no reason as to why we're out there or to ignore the fact that the Taliban were one of the stated enemies from the very beginning is not the way to go.

In fact taking those lines of thought is very damaging to any anti-war argument as it's so easily proved to be a ridiculous thing to say by anyone who's looked into why the invasion started.

Putting it somewhat simpler....

To claim that the Taliban should never have been our stated enemy is a perfectly valid argument and a discussion I've had many times.

To claim that the Taliban were never our stated enemy is to ignore the facts of the conflict.

Has anyone said "UK changed its objectives"? I don't understand why you are banging on about "We never changed objectives" as if that is the subject of this thread.

Taliban was removed from power and your puppet Karzai was installed. Objective reached. Taliban is no longer "in power". Congratulations. What does that even mean, considering that Taliban still controls 80% of the country?

You said: "Yet you are still in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban, which is a bit strange because they are not your original enemy"

The point is that the Taliban were our one of our "original" enemies right alongside Al-Qaeda

For you to say that they're not is either saying that you don't know what the objectives of the invasion were or that those objectives have changed.

If you accept that they were a declared enemy, which you surely must as it's a historical fact.

If you accept that they have not been defeated, which given your statements it is obvious that you do.

Declared Enemy + Undefeated Enemy = Reason for staying

Original enemy = The guys who attacked on 9/11.

Frankly, I don't remember who your government declared an enemy at the time, and don't feel it matters terribly to the debate. "We said so at the time" is not a commendable way to run a country, especially re war strategies.

Btw if you are not going to answer anything I say, I think I will take my leave from this thread.

The taleban and Al-Qaeda are allies. The Talaban funded by opium, Al- Q by oil. Mighty allies at that.