About 200 British-trained special forces soldiers are in danger as Pakistan expels undocumented foreigners.

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.”

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      34·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really see what this has to do with colonialism?

      Pointing to any bad thing any country that used to do colonialism does and calling it colonialism seems silly to me.

      In this case: the UK worked with and funded the training of these people. They fled to Pakistan after the US left Afghanistan. Pakistan wants to deport them and the UK is saying that despite working with and in some cases even joining UK ranks directly, that doesn’t entitle them to stay in the UK permanently.

      I can certainly see why you’d call that shitty, but where does colonialism come into it? I swear some people just hear UK and their mind turns to 1800s red coats or something

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        22·
        1 year ago

        Country invades other country, installs friendly government, invader loses interest and local government collapses under insurgency. Invader leaves local allies hanging after they were done using them. If that’s not a classic colonialist moment then I don’t know what is.

          • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
            5·
            1 year ago

            No, arguably worse. Because if it was a colony the UK would have at least governed and invested in the country. Instead they came in, wrecked shit for a couple decades and left.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              7·
              1 year ago

              Right, so colonialism is when a country doesn’t give residency or citizenship to people that fought alongside British forces, officially or unofficially.

              You’re shoehorning a completely unrelated topic into this.

      • obelisk@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        I agree that the issue presented by the article is likely not related to colonialism. More so the disinterest in providing further security resources to the area.

        A lot of the Middle East, including Afghanistan, has been affected by the colonial interests of the British Empire in the past. Albeit mostly in the mid to late 19th century and into the WW1 era.

        I doubt I understand the nuances to make any claims that the prior issues are indirectly affecting the area currently, but I believe it is worth to note the relation as why it could be brought up in comments.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        I don’t really see what this has to do with colonialism?

        What did you think the (so-called) “War On Terror” was really about?

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        11·
        1 year ago

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

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.worldOP
          7·
          1 year 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
            7·
            1 year 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
          6·
          1 year 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
            2·
            1 year 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.

          • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
            3·
            1 year ago

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

            🌟 Sparkling Exploitation 🌟

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    14·
    1 year ago

    That’s what you get for aiding Western colonialism. They leave you in the dumps after they’re done with it. Same story every time. Recently the Kurds got screwed over. The Ukrainians are next in line to find out how reliable the west are as allies.

    Elite soldiers should have done a little history lesson.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      4·
      1 year ago

      Recently the Kurds got screwed over.

      In their defense it was either that or fall to ISIS. As the US aided and abetted Saddam Hussein when he perpetrated his worst atrocities against the Kurds I sincerely doubt they ever expected anything else from the US.