UK troops to remain in Afghanistan 'for five years'

[IndianaGreen]

Source: BBC News

UK troops to remain in Afghanistan 'for five years'

Page last updated at 11:35 GMT, Saturday, 27 February 2010

Britain will be "militarily engaged" in Afghanistan for a further five years, the head of the Army has said.

General Sir David Richards told the Daily Telegraph, while on a visit to Helmand, that he expected the military conflict to "trail off in 2011".

But British troops will continue in training and support roles, he said.

He also warned that coalition troops could not afford to fail and said UK forces now "for the first time" had the resources they had wanted.

Sir David said in August that he believed the UK would be committed to Afghanistan "in some manner" for the next 30 or 40 years, possibly through roles in development, governance and security sector reform.

Sir David said: "The combat role will start to decline in 2011, but we will remain military engaged in training and support roles for another five years, and we will remain in a support role for many years to come."


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8540402.stm

---

Assuming everything goes according to plan and the Taliban decide to pursue Western-style consumerism. When has a war ever gone according to plan?

[defendandprotect]

1. 5 years . . . !!! Wasn't WWII 5 years -- !!!

[harkadog]

2. The UK troops are not going to be there by themselves.

We will be there for at least the same time if not a lot longer.

[EFerrari]

3. They're blowing the US cover. Five years, minimum.

USA!

[Solly Mack]

4. k/r

[Rhiannon12866]

5. K&R. *sigh*

Sir David said in August that he believed the UK would be committed to Afghanistan "in some manner" for the next 30 or 40 years, possibly through roles in development, governance and security sector reform.

Not encouraging. :-(

[IndianaGreen]

11. The canals in Helmand province were build by US in the 1960s!

In the 1960s, the U.S. poured millions of dollars into building canals to irrigate the province's fields of corn, wheat and fruit trees.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:GXY6u-B3vvoJ:articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/08/world/fg-afghanistan-marines8+US+build+canals+helmand+province&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

We have been in Afghanistan for a long time, as were the British and the Germans at the turn of the 20th century.

[Soylent Brice]

6. K&R

[classysassy]

7. "Mad dogs and englishmen"

didn't their stay in India teach them anything?Now their silly cousins the americans are forgetting history,Afghanistan will be our India.

[proteus_lives]

10. They left on their own and there wasn't much fighting.

Not a good example for the argument.

[vadawg]

13. yeah i didnt get that one either, plus it supplied the crown with resources and regiments for years

and in return the british gave the indians the beginnings of a stable democracy and the civil service etc etc....

[Mind_your_head]

8. No. No, they shouldn't remain there not for a single minute. eom

[Rapier09]

9. Is there even going to be a UK in the next 5 years?

Because at 13% of a GDP deficit per year,I don't see them doing very well over there.

[Jkid]

12. Wonderful!

Wasting more money for a war that will never end.