General Sir David Richards: 'The West will never win against Al Qaeda'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Al-Qaeda.html

The West will never win war against Al Qaeda, warns armed forces chief as he reveals plans to keep troops in Afghanistan for '30 or 40 years'

The head of the Armed Forces has said this week’s Nato summit will outline plans to keep British troops in Afghanistan for a generation. General Sir David Richards said yesterday that it will be impossible to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban with military force. The Chief of the Defence Staff said that Nato now needs to plan for a 30 or 40 year role to help the Afghan armed forces hold their country against the militants. General Richards stuck to the government’s plans to withdraw combat troops by 2014 but made clear that thousands of troops will be needed long after that date.

David Cameron will join other leaders in Lisbon on Friday for a summit to plot the Nato strategy. Asked whether it will take 30 to 40 years to turn the country around, Gen Richards said: ‘I think it will. Over the next four to five years we will remain in the combat role but progressively less so as the Afghan army and police grow in capability. ‘Everyone is clear that we will have to remains a lot longer than that in order to make sure we consolidate on all that hard work. The plans are now in place to do that. ‘I think the Lisbon Nato summit, that comes up very shortly, in fact next weekend, will make that rather clearer than it has been to date.’ In a series of interviews to coincide with Remembrance Sunday, General Richards said British strategy has evolved so that the most extreme forms of Islamism are contained.

After it was put to him that ‘you can't defeat the Taliban or al Qaida militarily’, he said: ‘You can't.’ He added: ‘In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear-cut and is symbolised by troops marching into another nation's capital. ‘First of all, you have to ask: do we need to defeat it (Islamist militancy) in the sense of a clear-cut victory? I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved. ‘But we can contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely? I think we can.’ David Cameron has repeatedly stated that he wants to see British troops begin coming home next year. But he has recently moderated that stance after General Richards and the senior US commander General David Petraeus made clear that it may be 2012 before there can be any significant draw down of frontline forces.

At last somebody with their head screwed on (at least partially) properly. We cannot win in Afghanistan, and what are we fighting for? the reason why these people attack the Western world and the United States is because we are occupying their land. The US has hundreds of military bases sprawled across the globe which it can't afford in countries where the people do not want them to be there.

If you look at the Roman Empire - it collapsed via debt and bad economics, its sprawling Empire came under attack which it had to keep down with military adventures and eventually it collapsed because it could just not afford it. Now fastforward to the Russian Empire, it also ended up bankrupt with wars finishing it off (against the British Empire and the Empire of Japan). The British Empire itself came afterwards, two world wars (by us becoming involved in the affairs of others) bankrupted the Empire and allowed the United States to cleverly cement its position.

The USSR came next, fighting proxy wars across the globe with money it did not have and becoming involved in affairs of which it had nothing to do with. Will the United States be next?

The United States is in trillions of dollars worth of debt, spent on maintaining a global 'Empire' that it cannot afford. Military bases in the United Kingdom, Europe, Saudi Arabia, virtual occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine if a world war/major crisis were to erupt tommorow, even if the United States did 'win' as the British Empire 'won' WW1 and WW2 - it would be bankrupt and would have to rely on the loans from China just as we British had no choice but to go begging to the United States after WW1 and WW2.

The Western world needs to wake up, we are spending money we dont have - Americans, listen to Ron Paul; that man speaks some damn good sense and could save you from the same fate that we faced not so long ago.

Thoughts of Afghanistan, would you withdraw/stay?

[GommeInc]

We've done all the damage we can, if Afghanistan wants to protect itself then it should start getting a good military and police force for itself. They cannot rely on foreigners who are just a problem.

[Conservative,]

The point now is to win the people over. We'll only do that by giving them back their country.

[Nemo]

Actually agreed with everything you said for once

Its absolutely pointless staying there, honestly seeing no point other than to keep going so that the people who did die, didnt die in vain, but then should we really cause more deaths because of that? I dont think so.