The following is my question at the "Urgent Question" relating to Afghanistan yesterday:
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The Minister will be aware that a minority of the House, including myself, voted for withdrawal some time ago.
In an asymmetric conflict, emotions are very important in driving people’s behaviour. Will the Minister agree to review the current strategy to identify whether that fact in itself could make it harder rather than easier to achieve our objectives in the long term?
Nick Harvey: The ISAF strategy is kept under constant review. I can reassure my hon. Friend that it will continue to be so, but I do not think it would make sense for us to be in a great hurry this week, in the aftermath of these incidents, to spring into some fundamental review. I can assure him, however, that the temperature is read constantly and that progress is assessed all the time. We will take stock of everything that happens as we continue to plan on an international basis what we will do for the remaining two and a half years.
The difficulty about Afghanistan is that our forces are being given a political objective and not a military objective. The US forces often cause problems by the arrogant way they tend to act. The killing of two Reuter's Journalists for the offence of carrying a camera (which was thought to be a gun) is a good example of that from Iraq.
We need to be grateful for the service of our armed forces, but this should not be a reason for us to remain if we are in the long term not achieving anything.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The Minister will be aware that a minority of the House, including myself, voted for withdrawal some time ago.
In an asymmetric conflict, emotions are very important in driving people’s behaviour. Will the Minister agree to review the current strategy to identify whether that fact in itself could make it harder rather than easier to achieve our objectives in the long term?
Nick Harvey: The ISAF strategy is kept under constant review. I can reassure my hon. Friend that it will continue to be so, but I do not think it would make sense for us to be in a great hurry this week, in the aftermath of these incidents, to spring into some fundamental review. I can assure him, however, that the temperature is read constantly and that progress is assessed all the time. We will take stock of everything that happens as we continue to plan on an international basis what we will do for the remaining two and a half years.
The difficulty about Afghanistan is that our forces are being given a political objective and not a military objective. The US forces often cause problems by the arrogant way they tend to act. The killing of two Reuter's Journalists for the offence of carrying a camera (which was thought to be a gun) is a good example of that from Iraq.
We need to be grateful for the service of our armed forces, but this should not be a reason for us to remain if we are in the long term not achieving anything.
Comments
i'm certainly not 'GRATEFUL' to anyone that goes around killing people/ children, destroying property, stealing for MONEY/ shillings and consequently putting m fellow country men at greater risk of victims defending themselves....
asymetric? what's that a euphamism for thenn?
and why are they all honourable friends? do not the right wing fascists/ enemies officially exxist in there?
have the guys over there not figured out yet WHY the more of them they kill the more of them they are?
and if you talking about the one particular incidnt i think you are referring to....whata bout the rest, far worse incidents? why this one being treaed differently...because there was just one or twwo of them allegedly...? what really going on there?
But if you download a file on said massacre you're in solitary confinement for life.
did you nearly mention Bradley then? what/ who stopped you? and word on Gary for that matter? or Tom?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30797.htm