Why Are We There?

.
The incoming head of the British army says that the UKs commitment in Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years and that ‘nation-building’ would last decades. Good grief!

The British army death toll in Afghanistan has now reached 195 and one has to ask whether anyone in government has any clear idea as to why, despite more than a century of unwinnable wars in the region, we and NATO are still there and what is trying to be achieved.

While the politicians may theorise and discuss the pros and cons of numbers, tactics, equipment and why some members of NATO provide less support than others, British men are being killed.

Enough already!
.

How Many More Must Die?

.
I’ve commented before on the stubbornness of ‘Bronco’ Brown when it comes to answering questions in Parliament, and Wednesday was no exception when he refused to answer specific questions from the opposition leader about the equipment supplied to troops serving in Afghanistan.

He adopted the same stubborn attitude on Thursday, when he avoided giving a direct answer to a Select Committee of MPs who had reported that our troops were under-equipped. In the face of their considered report, he insisted that the army had enough equipment and denied that they were short of helicopters.

I’m surprised that there isn’t some sort of Parliamentary procedure under which this prime minister can be forced to give an honest answer to the questions put to him. But this is a side issue.

In the meantime, it comes as no surprise that the retiring head of the army now says that our troops need better equipment to protect them from roadside bombs.

184 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001 - more than the 179 who were killed during the war in Iraq. How many more must die needlessly?
.