PDA

View Full Version : The Second Anglo-Afghan War



Joe McCarthy
10-07-2011, 09:55 PM
http://history1800s.about.com/od/colonialwars/a/second-anglo-afghan-war.htm

A glorious war really...


Britain's Second War in Afghanistan Was Marked by Miscalculations and Heroics
A British Invasion in the Late 1870s Eventually Stabilized Afghanistan
By Robert McNamara

The Second Anglo-Afghan War began when Britain invaded Afghanistan for reasons that had less to do with the Afghans than with the Russian Empire.
The feeling in London in the 1870s was that the competing empires of Britain and Russia were bound to clash in central Asia at some point, with Russia's eventual goal being the invasion and seizure of Britain's prize possession, India.

British strategy, which would eventually become known as "The Great Game," was focused on keeping Russian influence out of Afghanistan, which could become Russia's stepping-stone to India.

In 1878 the popular British magazine Punch summed up the situation in a cartoon depicting a wary Sher Ali, the Amir of Afghanistan, caught between a growling British lion and a hungry Russian bear.

When the Russians sent an envoy to Afghanistan in July 1878, the British were greatly alarmed. They demanded that the Afghan government of Sher Ali accept a British diplomatic mission. The Afghans refused, and the British government decided to launch a war in late 1878.

The British had actually invaded Afghanistan from India decades earlier. The First Anglo-Afghan War ended disastrously with an entire British army making a horrendous winter retreat from Kabul in 1842.

The British Invade Afghanistan in 1878
British troops from India invaded Afghanistan in late 1878, with a total of about 40,000 troops advancing in three separate columns. The British Army met resistance from Afghan tribesmen, but was able to control a large part of Afghanistan by the spring of 1879.

With a military victory in hand, the British arranged for a treaty with the Afghan government. The country's strong leader, Sher Ali, had died, and his son Yakub Khan, had ascended to power.

The British envoy Major Louis Cavagnari, who had grown up in British-controlled India as the son of an Italian father and an Irish mother, met Yakub Khan at Gandmak. The resulting Treaty of Gandamak marked the end of the war, and it seemed that Britain had accomplished its objectives.

The Afghan leader agreed to accept a permanent British mission which would essentially conduct Afghanistan's foreign policy. Britain also agreed to defend Afghanistan against any foreign aggression, meaning any potential Russian invasion.

The problem was that it had all been too easy. The British did not realize that Yakub Khan was a weak leader who had agreed to conditions which his countrymen would rebel against.

A Massacre Begins A New Phase of the Second Anglo-Afghan War
Cavagnari was something of a hero for negotiating the treaty, and was knighted for his efforts. He was appointed as envoy at the court of Yakub Khan, and in the summer of 1879 he set up a residency in Kabul which was protected by a small contingent of British cavalry.

Relations with the Afghans began to sour, and in September a rebellion against the British broke out in Kabul. Cavagnari's residence was attacked, and Cavagnari was shot and killed, along with nearly all of the British soldiers tasked to protect him.

The Afghan leader, Yakub Khan, tried to restore order, and was nearly killed himself.

The British Army Crushes the Uprising in Kabul
A British column commanded by General Frederick Roberts, one of the most capable British officers of the period, marched on Kabul to take revenge.

After fighting his way to the capital in October 1879, Roberts had a number of Afghans captured and hanged. There were also reports of what amounted to a reign of terror in Kabul as the British avenged the massacre of Cavagnari and his men.

General Roberts announced that Yakub Khan had abdicated and appointed himself military governor of Afghanistan. With his force of approximately 6,500 men, he settled in for the winter. In early December 1879 Roberts and his men had to fight a substantial battle against attacking Afghans. The British moved out of the city of Kabul and took up a fortified position nearby.

Roberts wanted to avoid a repeat of the disaster of the British retreat from Kabul in 1842, and remained to fight another battle on December 23, 1879. The British held their position throughout the winter.

General Roberts Makes a Legendary March on Kandahar
In the spring of 1880 a British column commanded by General Stewart marched to Kabul and relieved General Roberts. But when news came that British troops at Kandahar were surrounded and facing grave danger, General Roberts embarked on what would become a legendary military feat.

With 10,000 men, Roberts marched from Kabul to Kandahar, a distance of about 300 miles, in just 20 days. The British march was generally unopposed, but being able to move that many troops 15 miles a day in the brutal heat of Afghanistan's summer was a remarkable example of discipline, organization, and leadership.

When General Roberts reached Kandahar he linked up with the British garrison of the city, and the combined British forces inflicted a defeat on the Afghan forces. This marked the end of hostilities in the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

The Diplomatic Outcome of the Second Anglo-Afghan War
As the fighting was winding down, a major player in Afghan politics, Abdur Rahman, the nephew of Sher Ali, who had been Afghanistan's ruler before the war, returned to the country from exile. The British recognized that he might be the strong leader they preferred in the country.

As General Roberts was making his march to Kandahar, Gerneral Stewart, in Kabul, installed Abdur Rahman as the new leader, the Amir, of Afghanistan.

Amir Abdul Rahman gave the British what they wanted, including assurances that Afghanistan would not have relations with any nation except Britain. In return, Britain agreed not to meddle in Afghanistan's internal affairs.

For the final decades of the 19th century Abdul Rahman held the throne in Afghanistan, becoming known as the "Iron Amir." He died in 1901.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan which the British feared in the late 1870s never materialized, and Britain's hold on India remained secure.

Albion
10-13-2011, 06:25 PM
You haven't done much better and neither did the Soviets. Europeans don't seem to have much luck in that lawless pit.

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 06:28 PM
You haven't done much better and neither did the Soviets. Europeans don't seem to have much luck in that lawless pit.

The current war in Afghanistan is too early to call. The British did fairly well in this war though. They accomplished their strategic objectives. There is a myth that Afghanistan is an impossible arena to wage war. This conflict explodes that myth.

Aces High
10-13-2011, 06:32 PM
The current war in Afghanistan is too early to call.

So lets spend another twelve trillion dollars and stay there for another ten years getting countless of our young men maimed.

Whislt all the time the taliban control the ground.

Albion
10-13-2011, 06:34 PM
The current war in Afghanistan is too early to call. The British did fairly well in this war though. They accomplished their strategic objectives. There is a myth that Afghanistan is an impossible arena to wage war. This conflict explodes that myth.

My arse, the only objective is to run come 2015... again...

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 06:37 PM
My arse, the only objective is to run come 2015... again...

Again? Britain established a client regime and ensured it ran Afghanistan's foreign affairs. This kept Russia out, which was the objective.

Contra Mundum
10-13-2011, 06:57 PM
The only way to "win" in Afghanistan is to also conquer Pakistan, which isn't going to happen. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have a safe haven in Pakistan and they will never stop making cross border raids. They will outlast the foreign invaders because that is their home.

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 07:03 PM
The only way to "win" in Afghanistan is to also conquer Pakistan, which isn't going to happen. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have a safe haven in Pakistan and they will never stop making cross border raids. They will outlast the foreign invaders because that is their home.

The British Raj dealt with unruly tribesmen and pin prick warfare for thirty years after the Third Anglo-Afghan War in what is now the Pakistan tribal belt. They didn't run. Neither should we. It only ended due to unrelated matters concerning Indian independence.

Aces High
10-13-2011, 07:06 PM
Neither should we.

:rotfl:.....we.

So when are you shipping out for overseas.......tough guy...?

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 07:10 PM
:rotfl:.....we.

So when are you shipping out for overseas.......tough guy...?

A typically stupid and irrelevant post from you.

Go stiff arm your boyfriend, Nazi.

Aces High
10-13-2011, 07:18 PM
A typically stupid and irrelevant post from you.


Practise what you preach big mouth.....go and join up and fight the muslim hordes you hate so much.

research_centre
10-13-2011, 07:48 PM
A typically stupid and irrelevant post from you.

Go stiff arm your boyfriend, Nazi.


It seems that you (in your own mind) are now the all knowing of what is "smart and relevant." You do write a fucking book when you post but it doesn't mean a quick clip of a remark to you warrants such a complete idiotic arsehole response as you just gave him.

Albion
10-13-2011, 07:51 PM
I don't see why any of us should really give Afghanistan so much as a passing thought.
If we didn't keep meddling in the Middle East it would generally help matters.

I don't see why we should give a damn, to decrease terrorism we should stop provoking it and actually maintain tight control over our borders in the first place.

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 08:08 PM
I don't see why any of us should really give Afghanistan so much as a passing thought.
If we didn't keep meddling in the Middle East it would generally help matters.

I don't see why we should give a damn, to decrease terrorism we should stop provoking it and actually maintain tight control over our borders in the first place.

At this point losing in Afghanistan would result in massive loss of Western prestige and would signal to Islam that the West is beaten. Britain could expect emboldened Muslims on their streets.

It would also signal to the world that the West is a has-been and that China is the new game in town.

Losing in Afghanistan helped destroy the Soviet Union.

zack
10-13-2011, 08:29 PM
At this point losing in Afghanistan would result in massive loss of Western prestige and would signal to Islam that the West is beaten. Britain could expect emboldened Muslims on their streets.

It would also signal to the world that the West is a has-been and that China is the new game in town.

Losing in Afghanistan helped destroy the Soviet Union.

The united states is not the west. If the Afghanistan wars fail it will be the united states that failed and will lose prestige NOT the the west.

Im tired of this american mentality,the united states is not the west.

Albion
10-13-2011, 08:32 PM
At this point losing in Afghanistan would result in massive loss of Western prestige and would signal to Islam that the West is beaten. Britain could expect emboldened Muslims on their streets.

It would also signal to the world that the West is a has-been and that China is the new game in town.

Losing in Afghanistan helped destroy the Soviet Union.

I think you're being a bit dramatic, it'll be about the same as America withdrawing from Vietnam, no major power shift happened there.

All these countries already kid themselves that the west is declining every time the west hits one of its regular and predictable crashes (which would be no different if it was East Asia as top players).

The truth is China is destined to be another Japan or another Germany - a key player but no superpower.
It takes something really exceptional to create such a entity and I think once America declines the era of such is over.
We are entering an era of international co-operation, or if you like gangs / tribal politics with large related ethno-geographic regions such as Europe or SE Asia co-operating to various degrees.

The extremists in Britain would carry out those acts regardless if they could.

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 08:36 PM
The united states is not the west.

On the contrary the US pretty much is the West as the rest of the West looks to it for leadership, and NATO itself is involved in Afghanistan, including Britain, France, and a number of other countries. If we lose, they lose, and indeed the West itself loses along with Islam winning, and Muslims will certainly interpret it that way, just as they interpreted the Soviets losing in Afghanistan as an Islamic victory.

One might could even argue that the Muj victory over Russia in Afghanistan emboldened Muslims to take us on next.

Albion
10-13-2011, 08:47 PM
On the contrary the US pretty much is the West as the rest of the West looks to it for leadership, and NATO itself is involved in Afghanistan, including Britain, France, and a number of other countries. If we lose, they lose, and indeed the West itself loses along with Islam winning, and Muslims will certainly interpret it that way, just as they interpreted the Soviets losing in Afghanistan as an Islamic victory.

One might could even argue that the Muj victory over Russia in Afghanistan emboldened Muslims to take us on next.

I can assure you, few countries in Western Europe (except maybe Britain and certainly not France) look to America for leadership.

Joe McCarthy
10-13-2011, 09:02 PM
I can assure you, few countries in Western Europe (except maybe Britain and certainly not France) look to America for leadership.

Well, you may say that, and other posters here may say that, but the reality of the situation is far different. The Europeans even lack adequate arms to conduct the Libya operation. Once again they looked to Uncle Sap..er... Sam to take control, just as they did in Bosnia, Kosovo, and sundry other initiatives.

Albion
10-13-2011, 09:20 PM
Well, you may say that, and other posters here may say that, but the reality of the situation is far different.

Not really. Visit Western Europe and notice how it forgets about you and is embroiled in it's own affairs.
Western Europe is a very self-centred place, only these countries matter and nothing else warrants thought would be the general vibe I pick up from various Europeans I know and the various new channels.


The Europeans even lack adequate arms to conduct the Libya operation. Once again they looked to Uncle Sap..er... Sam to take control, just as they did in Bosnia, Kosovo, and sundry other initiatives.

What have you actually done in Libya so far by the way? Buying arms doesn't really mean a great deal and receiving them from another NATO member who's officially meant to be doing something in Libya is hardly anything to write home about either.

Logan
10-13-2011, 09:49 PM
http://history1800s.about.com/od/colonialwars/a/second-anglo-afghan-war.htm

A glorious war really...

Glorious?:coffee:

Joe McCarthy
10-14-2011, 12:09 AM
Glorious?:coffee:

Along with Roberts' exploits the war prevented a rising Russia from moving into Afghanistan and threatening India, and kept it that way all through the Great Game period.

It's one of those conflicts that is given too little mention, as it explodes the myth that the West can't win in Afghanistan and it may have both saved the jewel of the British Empire and prevented Russia from obtaining hegemony.

Aces High
10-14-2011, 06:13 AM
At this point losing in Afghanistan would result in massive loss of Western prestige

Didnt seem to bother the US when the Viet Cong sent you packing with direct aid from China......the US survived that beating and will survive this beating too.

Might teach you to not take on more than you can chew next time.;)

Joe McCarthy
10-14-2011, 06:39 AM
Didnt seem to bother the US when the Viet Cong sent you packing with direct aid from China......the US survived that beating and will survive this beating too.

Might teach you to not take on more than you can chew next time.;)

The US lost prestige over Vietnam but it was mitigated by the fact that our Communist friends committed genocide in Cambodia and drove people into the sea in Vietnam. The main rival set to benefit, the USSR, was then suffering from a stagnant economy too, and the main hit we took is that our allies wondered if we could be depended on against the ever menacing Soviet bloc.

That was a completely different situation from now with China rising, large numbers of Muslims in the West, etc. We dare not lose this war. It could be disastrous.

Aces High
10-14-2011, 07:23 AM
We dare not lose this war. It could be disastrous.

Its lost....move on.

AussieScott
10-14-2011, 08:23 AM
The Afghanistan war is almost a forgone conclusion. With the minimalist policies of our politicians it would not surprise me if it was deliberate. Don't get me wrong $12 Trillion is not minimalist, yet there strategy is, as they have not followed through with what works.
As in de-constructing and defeating an enemy, holding the positions, and then building infrastructure up and training the populace. I don't have much faith in the Afghanistan military and Police, and nether do the Afghans, as they place there son's in hedging bets one in government and the other in Taliban. Who knows what Afghanistan will look like in 10 or 20 years time. In all probability and reference to history it will stay a 3rd world status hell hole.

Pakistan's betrayal is an utter farce for our monkey politicians who are not paid peanuts.

The changing of the guard in North Africa doesn't bode well for Europe with a destabilising illegal immigration, nor the regular flow of oil. A precursor to war if anything.

Bringing the USA boys home by 2014 will make it easier to secure the USA Mexico border, and crush the drug cartels. Thus securing a more stable USA.

It all seems 1930ish with heads up bum and setting the tables for rather large genocides of those the elite consider in the way of progress. At least it's not Europeans in the main cross hairs this time.

Money Shot
10-15-2011, 12:20 AM
Here's the deal on Asscrackistan.


We can win if we stay for say...100 years.


But we won't. The west and by that I mean The U.S., does not have the long term staying power for it. We want instant results.


The reason I say it will take a rediculous amount of time is because we absolutely have to drag thier fucked up goat fucking culture into modernity. We have to force it on them due to the fact they want to fuck little boys and marry goats. There lies a part of the world that is literally in the stone age. Those people (I use the term people loosely) don't comprehend simple civilization ideals that we take for granted. And until they do they will hold to thier tribal bullshit and superstitions.


The whole entire country needs to be built from the ground up. We just cannot do that.


So I say fuck all that. We need to pull the majority of our forces out. Leave a contingency force ready specially trained/equipped to strike any where in afg/pak to take out any burgeoning terrorist orgs or threats.


The focus here is going to be pakistan. They need to be contained and kept on a short leash. Our continued presence in the region will be required. However long that may be.


When I was active duty and actually over there, we (the USMC) were referring to our efforts in afg as The Long War. That what it's going to be no matter the direction it takes from here.


That's my take on it. I was there in the beginning stages and saw enough.

Joe McCarthy
10-15-2011, 12:59 AM
Rome occupied areas for centuries. There's no reason why we can't too.

Money Shot
10-15-2011, 02:13 AM
Rome occupied areas for centuries. There's no reason why we can't too.

It's not worth our blood and treasure.


Join the Corps and put your money where your keyboard is.


That's all I got.

Albion
10-15-2011, 12:30 PM
Rome occupied areas for centuries. There's no reason why we can't too.

Yeah, and it stretched them to breaking point. It would have been a lot easier to have drawn the line at the Alps and surround it by client states - the Roman empire confined to Italia.