What's new

UK faces more threat from Pakistan than Helmand

ironman

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
By Our Special Correspondent
Monday, 03 Aug, 2009 | 05:34 AM PST

LONDON: A House of Commons report published on Sunday concluded that the UK faced more threat from inside Pakistan than from Afghanistan’s Helmand province where, the report asserted, British soldiers were sent on ‘an ill-defined mission undermined by unrealistic planning and lack of manpower’.


The Labour-chaired Commons foreign affairs select committee report raises the alarming spectre of Al Qaeda, ‘which has shifted its focus into Pakistan’.

Professor Shaun Gregory, an expert on Pakistan at Bradford University, told the committee that a direct attack on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons infrastructure could not be ruled out.

According to the Observer, MPs concluded that there was now a ‘strong argument to be made’ that the Afghan insurgency was no longer an immediate threat to Britain, adding: ‘That threat in the form of Al Qaeda and international terrorism can be said more properly to emanate from Pakistan’.

The report concluded that, while the military campaign in Helmand might be gaining traction, Afghan support for the troops had been damaged by civilian casualties and ‘cultural insensitivity’, and there was no evidence the war on drugs had reduced poppy cultivation.

A weak, corrupt police force was driving Afghans back to the Taliban to seek justice, it argued, while cultural assumptions about women were barely changed.

The Observer said Whitehall was braced for the publication this month of a review of the Afghanistan campaign by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces there, which was expected to trigger a fresh debate over troop numbers. Some MPs believed parliament might even be recalled from recess to debate Afghanistan.

The Foreign Office admitted on Saturday night that the insurgent threat in Helmand was ‘greater than anticipated’, but said the aim of denying Al Qaeda a safe haven remained unchanged.

The committee suggested that Whitehall was distracted by Iraq during its planning, made wrong assumptions about Afghan expectations and gave unclear direction to the armed forces. It noted that ‘most analysts believe the initial UK strategy failed primarily because of a lack of manpower and a poor understanding of the local situation’.

Meanwhile, a memo from Major Brian Dupree leaked to the newspaper showed that Britain’s war effort in Afghanistan was being hindered by a number of frontline troops ‘too fat to fight’.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that it had directed military chiefs to ensure units were following army fitness policy after concerns were raised over a ‘worrying trend of obesity’.
 
.
Uk is another if not the biggest puppet of the United States all politics my dears nothing new let them :blah: :smokin:
 
.
Uk is another if not the biggest puppet of the United States all politics my dears nothing new let them :blah: :smokin:

Why talk about Pakistan being a threat to UK, when it is UK/US that is bombing the sh1t out of innocent human beings in Pakistan??? They don't consider us as human beings - if they did, then when something happens to one of their "precious" people they whine like its the end of the world, but when something happens to out of OUR "precious" people they skirt it aside like nothing big.

Who is the real terrorist here??? :guns:
 
.
the only reason why alqaeda is present pakistan is because of the offensive afghanistan. as soon as the international community leaves afghanistan they will come back.
 
.
Easy, gentlemen, easy - lets take the English at their word - certainly they would face less problems if they were to do what their American ally has done, that is to say increase troop levels - 60,000 UK troops against the Talib would be a nightmare for the Talib and a God sent for Pakistan.

A cheaper method would be to fence and mine the border as that there would a very high price to pay by those who want to drag Pakistan into the Afghan conflict. Would the lords and parliamentarians not want this solution? After all, what prevents them from mining on the Afghan side of the border? What prevenbts them from erecting a fence on the afghan side? What prevents them from more effectively policing and manning the border from their side?

It is clear that the Pakistani state is not up to the job, but the English and the 40 nation alliance, will they also join Pakistan among the failed?

I guess they will.
 
. . .
"Terrorist are those who kill innocent Civilians. This applies to attacks by USA too."

"target", "sole purpose", "intent". Repeatedly, it establishes a policy-choice by the leading edge. Sadly, the taliban both kill the greater numbers in Afghanistan by a 2/1 margin but do so too often intentionally.

Any of that make sense to you?

Often as not when not scarring some schoolgirl with acid, they'll hide behind the survivors of their attacks. This is known as "human shields".

Hope all that helps. Links available from the U.N. and Human Rights Watch if necessary.
 
.
"Terrorist are those who kill innocent Civilians. This applies to attacks by USA too."

"target", "sole purpose", "intent". Repeatedly, it establishes a policy-choice by the leading edge. Sadly, the taliban both kill the greater numbers in Afghanistan by a 2/1 margin but do so too often intentionally.

Any of that make sense to you?

Often as not when not scarring some schoolgirl with acid, they'll hide behind the survivors of their attacks. This is known as "human shields".

Hope all that helps. Links available from the U.N. and Human Rights Watch if necessary.

I have not defended Taliban or any other org. like LeT, Pak Taliban.

I was referring to the drone attacks or something like that. First of all going in the territory of other nation and attacking its Civilians (may not be intentional), is also crime.

Off course we cannot compare Taliban with USA, but still killing each civilian is a crime. (Do you agree or not)
 
.
"Do you agree or not)"

I do not. Some civilians deserve to die.

As for drones, America reserves the right for it's ISAF allies, afghan friends and itself to self-defense from terrorist sanctuaries permitted by the Pakistani gov't inside its borders.

Until that stops, we won't stop using armed drones over lands that the Pakistani government either can't or chooses not to control.

You appear to have much to learn about this subject.
 
.
Some civilians deserve to die.

That was not expected from you. One could say that killing terrorist might kill civilians but your language looks rude. It looks you have pre decided that civilians must be killed to remove the terrorism.
 
. .
"That was not expected from you. One could say that killing terrorist might kill civilians but your language looks rude."

And you appear dim...

Here are a few "civilian" names to ponder- OBL, Zawahiri, Omar, Haqqani Senior and Junior, Hekmatyar, Nazir, Bahadur, Banadar, Mehsud, Faizullah. Many more where those came from...

...all civilian. I'd be very pleased were any of these "civilians" to join "los disappearos" forthwith.
 
.
"That was not expected from you. One could say that killing terrorist might kill civilians but your language looks rude."

And you appear dim...

Here are a few "civilian" names to ponder- OBL, Zawahiri, Omar, Haqqani Senior and Junior, Hekmatyar, Nazir, Bahadur, Banadar, Mehsud, Faizullah. Many more where those came from...

...all civilian. I'd be very pleased were any of these "civilians" to join "los disappearos" forthwith.

Most of civilians do not support USA in fear, that they will killed by Taliban. So they cannot do anything.... I am talking innocent civilians not civilians which you are referring (I mean Taliban)
 
.
"I am talking innocent civilians not civilians which you are referring (I mean Taliban)..."

That's fine. I question the innocence of most killed by PREDATOR/REAPER.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom