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
    21
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months 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.