To Afghanistan
KABUL: I've come with the prime minister from Pakistan to next door Afghanistan. Behind me, here in Kabul, is the screaming of the engines of the Hercules that has brought Mr Blair and his party from Camp Bastion in southern Afghanistan, where he's just spoken to the UK troops, and told them that "in this extraordinary piece of desert", the security of the 21st century is being played out.
The Taleban, of course, have never gone away. Fighting in the south of this country, described by commanders as "the heaviest since the Korean war", has made reconstruction efforts all but impossible.
Later today Tony Blair will meet President Karzai and his cabinet, and the general in charge of Nato forces here, Lieutenant General David Richards, who has argued that very few of the population here are either in the Taleban or are committed to it - perhaps 10%. He thinks perhaps 20% are totally opposed. So that leaves 70% in the middle, waiting to see who is going to win. And his view is that if there is not real clear victory and clear progress towards reconstruction by next Spring, that 70% may take the view that it's better to have the stability that the Taleban brings, albeit with the brutality as well, rather than waiting another year for international forces to rebuild this country.
I'm 
Comments
Perhaps Mr Blair would like to explain to the UK population why British troops are in Afganistan.
Precisely what are the UK's political, military or strategic interests here that demand that yet more British troops lives are lost?
Yet again 'security' and the perceived threat of 'terrorism' are being thrown up as justification but just where is the evidence?
The British Foreign Policy now requires James Bond. He would meet single handly with Bin Laiden and sort the whole problem out. Then he would communicate to the Prime Ministers his sucess.
James Bond would fit the PM's policy perfectly. Pure fantasy.
Tony Blair speaks to UK troops in Afghanistan:
'Here's another fine mess I've got you into!'
It's very nice of the Prime Minister to fly all the way to Afghanistan to meet members of our Armed Forces. Perhaps, when he fidns the time of course, he'd care to nip a few miles up the road to Birmingham to meet those who have been injured in the name of the War on Terror, something he has, despite 5 years of conflict, been unable to do.
I wander, Nick, have you ever asked him why this is the case?
I am slightly bemused by Blair's comment about "the security of the 21st century" being played out in Afghanistan. I'm aware that we went there to stop the country being a safe haven for terrorists after one group of them had quite extraordinary success in carrying out an atrocity but "security of the 21st century"?!? Wow.
Terrorists are certainly a problem, but, realistically, they're never going to bring down a western government or have the ability to kill more than a small fraction of the population. Obviously that is bad and we should do what we can to prevent it but I would have thought that there are bigger potential risks to Britain's security which our leaders should be thinking about. Just off the top of my head matters like energy and commodity security, global climate change and the dislocation of population this will cause and the rise of the Asian powers strike me as much more likely to be the major problems of this century.
I'm aware that Blair was speaking to the troops and so an element of hyperbole is to be expected. However, I do sometimes wonder if, by focussing, almost to the point of obsession, on the War on Terror our leaders are neglecting preparations for the less obvious and immediate dangers which are likely to present themselves to our country in the next 100 years.
I wonder how our Prime minister is doing with this whole agenda. The round robin visits to far flung outposts of support for hostile and war troubled regions.
It is very difficult to get to grips with either the Tony Blair's agenda for this, or our Agenda out there. We know the aim is to make democracy work, the actual job to be done, quite hard to define.
And why now, this foreign trip and meet and greet. What is this really all about?
If we are doing good, its lost somewhere on me. And I need get a grip of all this, it will affect us all as global politics sits with us here back home. We produce terror on our own streets because of these actions abroad.
The purpose, the aim, the intent, the implications, the consequences. And none of this Blair will be around to face, except of course as a speaker out of office...
There is something wrong in all of this Nick, and makes me concerned we have all lost the plot. If there ever was a compelling reason, to make two leaders more grandiose and statesmanlike. And that failed as they embarked on this madness as if it were just a bit of war...
I hope you all get home safe, this truly is foolhardy and does nothing to bolster any opinion but the worst we might imagine.
If a country the size of Russia failed in all this not much more than a decade ago, and it ended badly in no win for anyone concerned, what makes us think we are better able? No one here I might suggest.
I suppose that particular Hercules was the sole Hercules so far to have had its fuel tanks treated for fire protection.
Meanwhile the rest of the fleet are still working in highly dangerous areas and without even this basic protection - which was announced (oh, how long ago?) by the illustrous Mr Reid as 'urgent action'.
Of course the potential for disaster might have given your trip a certain extra 'edge', Nick.
And has Mr Blair 'clarified the position' over supplies of men and equipment as requested by the military? Last I heard it was being said that all the demands had been refused. It's interesting to note his comments about how long the troops will be staying to support the Karzai regime.
Still, given that Mr Blair has no doubt said his last goodbye to Afghanistan and Mr Karzai, that ain't going to worry him too much.
Just watched your report on Ten O'clock News of the PM's love in with 42 Cdo RM
Marines, Nick, marines, not soldiers. They're part of the Navy (the clue is in the name).
It always worries me a little: details matter, especially to the families back home, but, if the 91热爆 manages to attribute troops to the wrong Service, what else is inaccurate in its reporting every night?
Army Wife
鈥淭he stability that the Taleban brings鈥
I presume the stability that you're talking about, Nick, is that state of affairs that comes from burning down schools, imprisoning women at home and destroying historical artefacts that contradict the tenents of your religion. Sounds like the stability of the grave to me.
1. At 10:02 AM on 20 Nov 2006, Russ W wrote:
Perhaps Mr Blair would like to explain to the UK population why British troops are in Afganistan.
Precisely what are the UK's political, military or strategic interests here that demand that yet more British troops lives are lost?
Yet again 'security' and the perceived threat of 'terrorism' are being thrown up as justification but just where is the evidence?
6. At 06:11 PM on 20 Nov 2006, DonInChelsea wrote:
If a country the size of Russia failed in all this not much more than a decade ago, and it ended badly in no win for anyone concerned, what makes us think we are better able? No one here I might suggest.
I too have been wondering WHY? and can only come up with one reason.
What is the only thing troops from the UK/nato doing in Afghanistan destroying the drug trade.This will mean higher prices the world round so who will benefit from this the people who control the supply from elsewhere i.e.South America, who are they?well from the government of the USA comes your answer the CIA this is taken from there own government records and investigations. Remember Oliver North and the Contras.
We must wait and see what the price off drugs becomes in the furure?.One thing for sure it will mean a big increase in crime here in the west as the people will have to pay more to buy the drugs.Time will tell.
Nick
I would much rather hear about the war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. I suspect that it's rather hard to do if our troops are filling their villages with lead at the behest of our leader.
I thought the idea was "leave without firing a single bullet". Did the Doctor really believe that or was it just another photo opportunity for the "tough guy" in politics?