The figures - gathered by a network of Afghan veterans - reveal the scale of what one former UK general calls a “betrayal” and a “disgrace”.

The soldiers fled to Pakistan, which now says it will expel Afghan refugees.

The UK says it has brought thousands of Afghans to safety.

Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers “is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we’re duplicitous as a nation or incompetent”.

“Neither are acceptable,” he said. “It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison.”

  • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    Country invades other country, installs friendly government. That’s colonialism, all the fallout from that is a consequence of it.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s fair.

      If gov’ts had focused on repairing/replacing the infrastructure the Soviets had demolished and rebuilt schools, mosques, markets, roads, etc instead of barreling in like a “great white savior” it would have been much different.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly there was so much potential to do good. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we came in with guns blazing instead of trying to understand and integrate local people into a thriving economy and government.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      That’s not colonialism. You just saw the UK letting down some troops that worked with them and essentially went “when the UK does something wrong… that’s colonialism”

      Afghanistan was not a UK colony.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        True, it was probably worse. Because with colonialism the UK would have at least governed and built infrastructure and cr3ated businesses. In this case they just helped install a crony government, helped perpetuate a decades long war, and the whole thing collapsed as soon as they left leaving destruction in their wake.

    • Apollo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It’s only slavery when there is a certificate issued by the government calling them slaves. Otherwise it’s called

        🌟 Sparkling Exploitation 🌟