Our soldiers are dying in the name of other nations
MUCH space has been given in the Echo, as well as in other news media, exhorting us to support the military in Britain's present conflicts.
No one can be unmoved by the scenes of grief displayed at Wootton Bassett during the repatriation of each returning soldier's body.
We also know that every life lost is only a small portion of the lives that are blighted by injury; as well as the lives of families and friends that are affected for ever.
Pride and patriotism are no substitute for a rational consideration of the official line on the events, asking first of all: Are they really dying for their country?
We have spent the past 180 years sporadically invading Afghanistan, once losing an entire army down to the last-but-one man who escaped, or was allowed to, to take back the news of annihilation.
Both military and political leaders, as well as all the experts, are coming up with different estimates of how long it will take the Afghans to be capable of managing their own affairs.
Don't hold your breath. Last week, one Afghan leader I heard interviewed about the increase in casualties caused by sniper fire as opposed to roadside bombs said it was the result of new rifles that are being supplied to the Pakistani army finding their way to the Taliban.
He went on to liken it to the 1890s when they started to get hold of rifles to replace the smooth bore weapons they had been using, allowing them to be more effective in picking off the Redcoats. Plus ça change.
Today we hear that US aid dollars are finding their way to finance the Taliban due to corruption.
Hands up anyone who is surprised. It is the way the place works.
The lines on the map which delineate the area from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Bay of Bengal mean little to the people whose traditional connections they ignored.
The idea of a nation state is alien concept.
There well never be a settlement, so long as the US is determined to control the region's oil. At present, 85 per cent of the revenues of Iraqi oil is going to them.
The Iranian oil fields are next on their list.
The US blame the Afghans for training the 9/11 attackers.
There is a conspiracy of silence on the subject of why they launched this outrage. Until this fundamental problem is addressed, we will be sending our forces to die for others' causes.
PETER FRIDLINGTON Clint Lane, Navenby.
Comments
by John, Lincoln
Tuesday, July 06 2010, 9:31AM
“While I love a good rant, which are you against, Iraq or Afghanistan invasions? Presumably it is both but they have very different set ups although a relatively similar reason, officially, for invading. That aside, helping another nation is fine by me. I am sure the Canadians who died on a French beach in 1944 would agree.
It is very easy to use moving scenes of grieving families, but I am a little tired of the media and others using this personal grief as a stick with which to beat their own political agenda. Essentially, yes, the soldiers are dying serving their country's interests whatever they may be. It does not necessarily have to be defence of the realm, as a global player it can have a bigger impact such as securing the future of other nations that may then trade with the UK. However in the case of Afghanistan it is preventing the country becoming a breeding ground for terrorist attacks on the UK. The days of a large army invading us or any such major attack by an easily distinguishable enemy are gone. The greatest threat to us is from a terrorist attack and we must do all we can to ensure we prevent another one. I am proud of my friends within the armed services for their bravery in defending our nation in demanding circumstances away from family and friends.”