Nearly Half Of All Uk Forces To Leave Afghanistan In 2013

[News_Editor]

Nearly half of all UK forces to leave Afghanistan in 2013 < br />

2012-12-21 07:59:46 GMT+7 (ICT)

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- The British government plans to withdraw nearly half of all its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2013, part of a security handover to Afghan forces which will lead to the end of combat operations by NATO forces by the end of 2014, officials said on Wednesday.

British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament that approximately 4,300 British troops are expected to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013. About 500 of those troops were already expected to return home by Christmas next week, and the remaining 3,800 troops are now set to withdraw by the end of 2013.

"Because of the success of our forces and Afghan national security forces and the fact that we are moving from mentoring at battalion level to mentoring at brigade level by the end of 2013, we will be able to see troops come home in two relatively even steps - 2013 and 2014 - probably leaving around 5,200 troops after the end of 2013," Cameron told the House of Commons.

There are currently more than 102,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, including some 68,000 U.S. troops and 9,500 British soldiers. The British Ministry of Defense said it is still working out the exact details on how force levels will be reduced exactly, but said they will be conducted in line with operational requirements and the transition process.

"We have consistently said that there will not be a cliff-edge reduction in troop numbers at the end of 2014," British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said. "This gradual drawdown is firmly in line with the planning of our ISAF partners and the advice of military commanders. UK forces will continue to operate alongside their Afghan counterparts, albeit in lower numbers, until our combat operations cease at the end of 2014"

The officials recognized "huge challenges" remain for the Afghan people, but emphasized the drawdown is the result of Afghan forces increasingly taking the lead. In Helmand province, where British forces are stationed, there are now about 80,000 Afghan security service members.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-12-21

[chooka]

I wish Australia would pull out all her troops as well. A pointless war where fine young Aussies are dying for nothing other than American pride. Leave it to the U.S they wanted it.

[Credo]

The Americans are leaving too. Try to keep up Chooka.

The last ones out should turn off the lights. They do have lights, don't they?

[rgs2001uk]

Why bother delaying the inevitable, just pull out now.

As mentioned by a previous poster, young guys being killed just to keep a corrupt drug lord in power.

How much was plundered from the Kabul bank?

Karzais exit strategy already in place to exit stage left to Dubai.

For what?

[chooka]

Everyone gone then it is straight back to the way it was, Taliban running the show again so what was the whole bloody point of the thing? A total waste of lives so a couple of U.S Politicians could beat thier chests. Whilst all the brave allied diggers are dying there, thier strong, young able bodied men are arriving by the thousands in Australia out of harms way like cowards. They are the ones that should be fighting for thier country and not our sons and daughters dying for them whilst they sit under a palm tree on the beach of Australia sipple on cool drinks and complaining about the handouts and hospitality Australia is giving them.

I comend all the brave allied servicemen/women who are serving, have served and died but what have they given up thier lives for? Bring them home today, not tomorrow.

Edited December 21, 2012 by chooka

[rgs2001uk]

^^^^^^^, yeah spoiled brats, didnt Bush serve in the National Guard/

CCR wrote about it years ago, listen to the lyrics,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScisGFllPY

[Somtamnication]

Why the west never learned from the Soviet´s experience there. Not even Ghengis Kan could conquer Afghanistan. Pointless, costly and badly planned.

[simple1]

Don't know why people are saying Afghans are cowards. As a result of the Soviet invasion and the resultant Afghan insurgency, it is estimated two million people died and 1.5 million people disabled. There has been armed conflict in Afghanistan for 30 years as a result of foreign government intervention and civil war. The civil war was a direct reaction by the Taliban of the arming and funding by foreign government of corrupt and oppressive war lords even after the expulsion of the Soviet armed forces. The Taliban were initially welcomed by the general Afghan people, until they in turn became the oppressor. Current life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years with approx 3 million+ refugees in Pakistan, Iran and a small amount in other countries, plus approx 500k internally displaced. One in three children are malnourished. Many Afghans see their current government, that is deeply compromised by corruption, formed under US influence, as a continuation of the power and impunity of warlords rather than a reflection of true democratic participation. Prior to the US invasion Afghanistan produced around 10% of the worlds illegal heroin; it's now around 90% of global illegal supply.

So in summary it's hardly surprising that Afghan people are seeking better alternatives in other countries. personally I would not call them cowards; rather pragmatic in the face of nearly 30 years of continuous war.

Edited December 21, 2012 by simple1

[JohnC]

Well Cameron has to withdraw the troops as he has made most of them redundant!

[Steely Dan]

I'm all for the pullout of British troops, it will stop them being shot by supposed Taliban insurgents who seem to have pretty successfully infiltrated the Afghan army, who the ISAF forces were training.

[Exsexyman]

I'm all for the pullout of British troops, it will stop them being shot by supposed Taliban insurgents who seem to have pretty successfully infiltrated the Afghan army, who the ISAF forces were training.

David Cameron is obviously in denial about this self evident fact. From the OP, David Cameron told the British Parliament, " Because of the success of our forces and the Afghan security forces blah blah blah'. If he thinks that the Western adventure in Afghanistan has been a success over the last ten years or so, God knows how he would define a failure. By any standards it has been an unmitigated and ongoing disaster.

[folium]

^^^^^^^, yeah spoiled brats, didnt Bush serve in the National Guard/

CCR wrote about it years ago, listen to the lyrics,

One of the distinguishing features between US and UK forces is that the latter are still regarded as "socially acceptable" as a career path much to the amazement of hi-so types in the USA. As a result the majority of the officers in the Cavalry Regiments, Guards Battalions and other units such as the Rifles are the product of the UK's top private schools and many from the Ivy League equivalent universities. Hence you have the sight of tattooed, ex-street gang Glaswegians being commanded by a "Rupert" fresh out of Eton and Sandhurst. Possibly surprisingly to some, it normally works very well, with both sides gaining interesting insights into the other's lifestyle. Nothing much has changed since Rorke's Drift!

Edited December 21, 2012 by Scott

[rgs2001uk]

^^^^^^ Lions led by donkeys you mean.

The same upper class &lt;deleted&gt; that pulled names out at random and shot them for cowardice.

The Monacled Mutineer I remember raised more than a few eyebrows at the time.

[folium]

^^^^^^ Lions led by donkeys you mean.

The same upper class &lt;deleted&gt; that pulled names out at random and shot them for cowardice.

The Monacled Mutineer I remember raised more than a few eyebrows at the time.

Which goes to show how much you know about the British Army....

[Exsexyman]

^^^^^^ Lions led by donkeys you mean.

The same upper class &lt;deleted&gt; that pulled names out at random and shot them for cowardice.

The Monacled Mutineer I remember raised more than a few eyebrows at the time.

Which goes to show how much you know about the British Army....

Were you a 'Rupert' or a squaddie? Over the years i have known a few squaddies and a couple of 'Ruperts' I would suggest that "Upper class &lt;deleted&gt;" is a pretty accurate description for a lot of the' Ruperts'. Blackadder Goes Forth wasn't far off the mark, and the Monacled Mutineer was factual. In both world wars the two most sought after jobs for a squaddie were the General's batman and the General's driver. Guaranteed to be right at the back and nowhere near the sharp end! Any study of history, certainly of the first world war, shows that "Lions led by donkeys" is a very accurate description.

[folium]

^^^^^^ Lions led by donkeys you mean.

The same upper class &lt;deleted&gt; that pulled names out at random and shot them for cowardice.

The Monacled Mutineer I remember raised more than a few eyebrows at the time.

Which goes to show how much you know about the British Army....

Were you a 'Rupert' or a squaddie? Over the years i have known a few squaddies and a couple of 'Ruperts' I would suggest that "Upper class &lt;deleted&gt;" is a pretty accurate description for a lot of the' Ruperts'. Blackadder Goes Forth wasn't far off the mark, and the Monacled Mutineer was factual. In both world wars the two most sought after jobs for a squaddie were the General's batman and the General's driver. Guaranteed to be right at the back and nowhere near the sharp end! Any study of history, certainly of the first world war, shows that "Lions led by donkeys" is a very accurate description.

Parroting cliches without understanding their context or meaning is not a great way of doing business. The likely origin of your donkeys/lions comment is from WW1 and goes as follows:

"The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."

It is a criticism of the generals not the actual soldiers in the field whatever their rank. For quite how good, given the circumstances, officers and men of very different backgrounds can be, check out the Battle of Mt. Tumbledown in 1982, when all ranks ("Rupert" or "squaddie") ended up in the most vicious hand to hand fighting. Eton or Eastbank Academy made little difference.

The simple point I was making, as the CCR song made clear, is that in the US the sons (and now daughters) of hi-sos are rarely seen near a battlefield. In the UK this remains very different and a glance down the list of Brits killed in Afghanistan underlines this. While the UK remains a class-bound society in many ways (though far less than ever before) at least we continue to fight and die together unlike many other countries.

Edited December 22, 2012 by folium

[Bwanatickey]

British troops should have been brought back yesterday,or truth be known,never deployed. The first British troops that went in with American special forces around January 2002 to hunt down and destroy Al Qiado. Mission objective correct.Result Bin Laden and Company moved into Pakistan,and thereafter destabilised Pakistan's Tribal regions.

Afghanistan was relatively stable under the Taliban,the big mistake was to try and occupy the country with a massive deployment of Western soldiers.The U.K public could see the same repeated mistakes that the Soviets had made in 1980.

Two comments on T.V that shows that politicians do not learn from History.

1 You cannot win a terrorist war.

2 Japan did not mount a land invasion into the U.S.A( ww2 )as there was a gun behind every door.

Do not invade and occupy Afghanistan,there is an AK behind every door.

Welcome Home Squaddies,wish You where home for Christmas.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted as well as replies. This is about the UK's withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is not an open invitation to UK bashing or to bash UK soldiers or their leaders. A rehash of British history and military adventures around the world is also off-topic.

Stay on topic, please.

[simple1]

British troops should have been brought back yesterday,or truth be known,never deployed. The first British troops that went in with American special forces around January 2002 to hunt down and destroy Al Qiado. Mission objective correct.Result Bin Laden and Company moved into Pakistan,and thereafter destabilised Pakistan's Tribal regions.

Afghanistan was relatively stable under the Taliban,the big mistake was to try and occupy the country with a massive deployment of Western soldiers.The U.K public could see the same repeated mistakes that the Soviets had made in 1980.

Two comments on T.V that shows that politicians do not learn from History.

1 You cannot win a terrorist war.

2 Japan did not mount a land invasion into the U.S.A( ww2 )as there was a gun behind every door.

Do not invade and occupy Afghanistan,there is an AK behind every door.

Welcome Home Squaddies,wish You where home for Christmas.

Point number two was allegedly made by Yamamoto and yet to be proven by historical researchers, he was against any attack on American bases/assets but was overruled. It's a fallacy to say Japan did not attack the mainland due to fear of an armed civilian population. As he said after the attack on Pearl Harbor "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve".

[Hedghog]

Half isn't good enough.

100% withdrawal forthwith.

Leave the natives to their own devices.

If not well behaved,drone air strikes.

Bobs yer uncle Sid.

[Potosi]

Don't know why people are saying Afghans are cowards. As a result of the Soviet invasion and the resultant Afghan insurgency, it is estimated two million people died and 1.5 million people disabled.

The estimates are between 600,000 and 2 million fatalities, why do you use the highest figure? Could well be larger during the Allied invasion but we aren't told, the media that are supposed to check politics, have become part of politics. Just like in the good ole Soviet times. The honest journalism about the Vietnam war is dead.

Afghanistan has the highest birth rate of all countries, 45 births per 1,000 people per year. US is at 13, tail end Germany, 8. The population of Afghanistan never shrunk during the wars. It was at 15.5 million before the Soviet invasion, now 30.5 million.

Wars in Afghanistan are interminable. Soviet invasion, nine years. Allied invasion, 11 years so far. Get the men out there, and stop throwing resources at Afghanistan.

[thaibeachlovers]

Everyone gone then it is straight back to the way it was, Taliban running the show again so what was the whole bloody point of the thing? A total waste of lives so a couple of U.S Politicians could beat thier chests. Whilst all the brave allied diggers are dying there, thier strong, young able bodied men are arriving by the thousands in Australia out of harms way like cowards. They are the ones that should be fighting for thier country and not our sons and daughters dying for them whilst they sit under a palm tree on the beach of Australia sipple on cool drinks and complaining about the handouts and hospitality Australia is giving them.

I comend all the brave allied servicemen/women who are serving, have served and died but what have they given up thier lives for? Bring them home today, not tomorrow.

+1

Once they got the Taliban way back when, should have pulled out.

Afghanistan has never been succesfully pacified and probably never will be. All those soldiers died for nothing. Politicians never learn from history, and young men die for their ( politicians ) incompetence. No wonder politicians are down with car salesmen in the opinion polls

Edited December 22, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

Don't know why people are saying Afghans are cowards. As a result of the Soviet invasion and the resultant Afghan insurgency, it is estimated two million people died and 1.5 million people disabled. There has been armed conflict in Afghanistan for 30 years as a result of foreign government intervention and civil war. The civil war was a direct reaction by the Taliban of the arming and funding by foreign government of corrupt and oppressive war lords even after the expulsion of the Soviet armed forces. The Taliban were initially welcomed by the general Afghan people, until they in turn became the oppressor. Current life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years with approx 3 million+ refugees in Pakistan, Iran and a small amount in other countries, plus approx 500k internally displaced. One in three children are malnourished. Many Afghans see their current government, that is deeply compromised by corruption, formed under US influence, as a continuation of the power and impunity of warlords rather than a reflection of true democratic participation. Prior to the US invasion Afghanistan produced around 10% of the worlds illegal heroin; it's now around 90% of global illegal supply.

So in summary it's hardly surprising that Afghan people are seeking better alternatives in other countries. personally I would not call them cowards; rather pragmatic in the face of nearly 30 years of continuous war.

I certainly would not call them cowards. Unfortunately, their culture and beliefs are opposed to western ones and the idea that the west can remodel the Afghanis is laughable.

[simple1]

Don't know why people are saying Afghans are cowards. As a result of the Soviet invasion and the resultant Afghan insurgency, it is estimated two million people died and 1.5 million people disabled.

The estimates are between 600,000 and 2 million fatalities, why do you use the highest figure? Could well be larger during the Allied invasion but we aren't told, the media that are supposed to check politics, have become part of politics. Just like in the good ole Soviet times. The honest journalism about the Vietnam war is dead.

Afghanistan has the highest birth rate of all countries, 45 births per 1,000 people per year. US is at 13, tail end Germany, 8. The population of Afghanistan never shrunk during the wars. It was at 15.5 million before the Soviet invasion, now 30.5 million.

Wars in Afghanistan are interminable. Soviet invasion, nine years. Allied invasion, 11 years so far. Get the men out there, and stop throwing resources at Afghanistan.

Yes there are figures used from 670k up to 2 million killed during the Soviet occupation. Then of course the civil war, then the US invasion. Are you are saying it's of no real consequence due to a high birth rate?. My figures were taken from http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/afghanistan/conflict-profile/

[Mosha]

Why the west never learned from the Soviet´s experience there. Not even Ghengis Kan could conquer Afghanistan. Pointless, costly and badly planned.

The Soviets didn't learn from the British experience there.

[Potosi]

... and the idea that the west can remodel the Afghanis is laughable.

The Name of Afghanistan has been 'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan' since the Allied invasion. Not the Taliban came up with this one. The idea never existed.

Objectives of this war were revenge for 9/11, strengthening Islamic fundamentalism (hence the title of the country), the escalation of the politics of fear, increasing patriotism especially the US, concealing the dismantling of welfare in favour of the rich in all that war noise, and economic interests. A German president said the truth for a change '... a country like Germany, which is heavily reliant on foreign trade must know that military interventions are needed to uphold German interests.'

Yet Afghanistan used to be westernized, during the monarchy, which by the way sought close relations with the USSR. Cairo, Teheran, Bagdad used to be cosmopolitan cities. Remember who created and continues to back this monster of Islamic fundamentalism, except for Iran of course.

[thaibeachlovers]

Why the west never learned from the Soviet´s experience there. Not even Ghengis Kan could conquer Afghanistan. Pointless, costly and badly planned.

The Soviets didn't learn from the British experience there.

Actually, in my understanding, the Soviets had more or less won the military war, but Gorbachev made them leave. The only reason the British lost was that they didn't have helicopter gunships back then.