Cameron wants troops out of Afghanistan by 2015
David Blackburn 5:42pm
Everything about the Cameron government comes in fives. Five year terms, a five-year
coalition and now we learn that it is Cameron’s considered opinion that British troops cannot remain Afghanistan for another five years. All Cameron has offered is the hope that troops
will be home before the proposed May 2015 election.
Five more years in Helmand on the current trajectory would be extremely costly and unpopular, especially given the political pressure surrounding defence cuts. Cameron realises this but will the nature of Britain’s engagement change?
The assumption was that Britain would mirror President Obama’s timetable and begin a gradual withdrawal next year. That political and military strategy depended on the success of COINS entirely. As Daniel Korski and others have argued, the surge has descended into a slog and I hear that, privately, the Obama administration recognises that beginning largescale withdrawal in 2011 is now an outside bet. Does the same apply for Britain?
NATO’s Afghan strategy is mired. Obama’s problems are of his own making: he should not have issued a timetable that neither he nor his commanders can control – damned stubborn and these cravenly maniacal jihadis. Cameron has been wise to avoid the trap and not set a deadline. However, his latest intervention (which you can watch here) poses yet further questions about Britain’s deployment.
Previous
Ahmed Khan
June 25th, 2010 6:44pm Report this comment5 more years - surely this is some sort of a sick joke. Even if we forget the financial costs of another 5 years fighting a war which cannot be won, this means that on current rate another 200 soldirs dead. Not acceptable! The lives of our soldiers are too precious to risk.
Withdrawal must be immediate or shall we shall by Christmas.
Yow Min Lye
June 25th, 2010 8:10pm Report this commentHow ironic that the United States bank-rolled an insurgency campaign in Afghanistan to bleed the Soviet Union dry; and now faces being bled dry itself on the very same turf - and at the hands of the very same Islamic insurgents it originally financed.
libertarian
June 25th, 2010 9:23pm Report this commentAgree troops out now. by the end of 2010 at the latest
Minnie Ovens
June 25th, 2010 9:30pm Report this commentPrecisely what does Mr Cameron think he can achieve in five more years.
A greatly increased bodycount.
A squandering of more money on a nonsensical war.
A stable Government with a rock solid police force and/or military.
Appeasing Obama.
Certainly the first two but no hope on the last two.
So why on earth is he making these silly amateurish statements?
I quite understand the need to withdraw with a semblance of dignity, something we have not achieved before in Afghanistan, but there are Englishmen dying out there, Mr Cameron, for absolutely no real reason.
TrevorsDen
June 25th, 2010 10:53pm Report this commentA lot can be achieved in 5 years. But its clear that bar the odd month or two if we cannot get a stable Afghan govt capable of looking mostly after itself then we never will.
5 years - one parliamentary term - is a good benchmark. And its good to see we are not not tying ourselves to Obama who is clearly untrustworthy.
The Escaping Fox
June 25th, 2010 11:25pm Report this comment60 X a repeat of the last month in terms of lives lost is not even close to acceptable.
Out by mid 2012 latest. That's 2 years to push for lasting progress and a planned/phased handover/get out.
yank
June 26th, 2010 12:38am Report this commentCameron knows that he'd kill the whole show, if he pushed for an immediate withdrawal, because the US would have to pull out as well. You Brits may not fully realize this, at least not those who called Blair as Bush's poodle, but we would never have invaded Iraq without Brit support, and we won't long be in Afghanistan without it. That may seem a counterintuitive, but I believe it to be true. That's not to blame/credit anybody for anything, and certainly the military power of the US was a necessary portion of both actions, but just to make the point that more than military power is involved here.
Not sure what's best here, but it would be good for the Brits to assemble their best thinking, and get it firmly and quietly communicated to our young president, who is struggling mightily to deal with a job for which he's had precious little training. And yes, however quietly and privately communicated, the unequivocal conditions necessary to retain Brit support must be expressed. Make them good conditions for all of us, please, because we'll all have to live with them (and some will undoubtedly die with them).
Barry
June 26th, 2010 6:46am Report this commentWe misheard; he said five days.
Didn't he?
Alexis
June 26th, 2010 8:16am Report this commentAhmed ... what is it about that phrase "in time for Christmas" / "by Christmas" that I find so irritating?
Perhaps it's because it's uttered by people who don't put much thought into what they're saying?
Austin Barry
June 26th, 2010 9:06am Report this commentThe only purpose of this otherwise absurd war is as a live fire training exercise in anticipation of the coming conflicts with Iran and within Pakistan. In which case perhaps the West should just immediately disable the nuclear installations of those lunatic Islamic theocracies and pull out of Afghanistan altogether.
Losing a war of attrition with nonsensical rules of engagement such as 'courageous restraint' just makes the West look weak and silly - which, currently, it is.
Austin Barry
June 26th, 2010 9:19am Report this commentJust as a coda to my last post, I wonder why we're not being told much, if anything, about the current joint Israeli/US exercise 'Juniper Stallion 2010' reported by Debka File?
Time to dig out the tin hats?
Ahmed Khan
June 26th, 2010 9:23am Report this commentAlexis - I cannot see what your point is, but to to clarify:-
Christmas is a universal christian day of clebration. It's always on the 25th day of every December. December is (in case youare from the planet Mars) the 12th month of the christian calender!
When I say by Christmas this means that all our troops need to be out of Afghanistan BEFORE the 25th December 2010.
Should you ALEXIS require any further clarification do not hesitate to contact me.
Desperate Dan
June 26th, 2010 10:39am Report this commentIn answer to a question from a journalist about whether troops would have returned home by the end of the government's 5 year term, David Cameron said something like "That's what I would like". The BBC, the Guardian and the Independent - for their own malign political ends - have chosen to misrepresent his answer by reporting it as though it was a major policy statement delivered in parliament. Please don't join them in the gutter.
Back to top