Originally Posted by milsum

Sven is a very nice chap indeed, but on this occasion I think perhaps there is a lack of information.

The British Army no longer train for a war, they train for The War, that of Afghanistan. And we're going to be there for bloody ages.

Indeed, we are going to be there for a very long time. However, whilst Obama has waved his finger at other NATOmembers for not giving of the necessary, he hasn't asked the UK to follow the US lead and send out yet more troops, whether it be begging or demanding.

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by milsum

Sven is a very nice chap indeed, but on this occasion I think perhaps there is a lack of information.

The British Army no longer train for a war, they train for The War, that of Afghanistan. And we're going to be there for bloody ages.

Indeed, we are going to be there for a very long time. However, whilst Obama has waved his finger at other NATOmembers for not giving of the necessary, he hasn't asked the UK to follow the US lead and send out yet more troops, whether it be begging or demanding.

Sven, believe me, we will. Whether asked to overtly or not.

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by milsum

Sven is a very nice chap indeed, but on this occasion I think perhaps there is a lack of information.

The British Army no longer train for a war, they train for The War, that of Afghanistan. And we're going to be there for bloody ages.

Indeed, we are going to be there for a very long time. However, whilst Obama has waved his finger at other NATOmembers for not giving of the necessary, he hasn't asked the UK to follow the US lead and send out yet more troops, whether it be begging or demanding.

Gates has publically stated, "there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well".

Now, unless you have evidence that Gates has said something completely different to the UK, I suggest you refrain from spreading your disinformation.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said on Wednesday that Britain has no plans to send more.

But Mr Hutton said that ministers are indeed considering sending more troops.

"We haven't made a decision yet. We do think very seriously about whether we can do more," he said. "We are looking at whether we can do more."

Oh yes indeed, but he does say there hasn't been a request.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ghanistan.html

Originally Posted by whitecity

I suspect we are no diving into the realms of symantics over the use of certain words to describe certain events.

The 'reality' is quite plain, and simple. The so called 'War on Terror' is a US foreign policy initiative. It is an effort that the US claims is crucial to their national security. The Afghanistan mission is part of that initiative. Other states may chose to agree with that analysis or not. HMG appears to hold similar views to Washington. Almost all others don't.

I think you are confusing OEF with ISAF. Those nations who have contributed troops to ISAF have done so because they support the ISAF mission, which is reconstruction, stability etc. The OEF mission is a counter terrorism. Only US troops are involved in OEF.

Originally Posted by whitecity

The Afghanistan mission has not gone as expected by Washington. In order to change the dynamic, they have now decided the time is right to add troops to the mission. Just because they have reached that conclusion does not mean others have to. Just because the US feels it is the right option, that doesn't mean it is the right option. Nor are any other states obliged to put resources into the pot just because the US has done so.

You use the word 'need'. You clearly agree with the US opinion. Others clearly don't. It is their choice, not yours or the US' to determine what should be in their 'need'.

I was referring to the ISAF mission 'need'. If the ISAF mission is to be successfully completed, the need for more troops is self evident. For example, there are several provinces where there is no ISAF presence whatsoever. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to request that nations supporting the mission make the contribution necessary for its success.

Originally Posted by whitecity

However, there can be no doubt that the US is repeatedly 'requesting' that other states increase their troop levels. Moreover, it has become clear that they are also employing methods and rhetoric that are somewhat stronger than a simple, "would you be so kind as to...." There have been attempts to ridicule, shame and even cower some states into doing as the US would wish. This is, in my opinion, quite 'unreasonable' given the context.

From the horse's mouth:

"The [US] administration is prepared... to make additional commitments to Afghanistan, but there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well," Mr Gates said.

So, not just a request, nor a demand, just "expectations".

I agree that 'bandwagon' is an inappropriate term too. 'Broken record' would be more applicable. The latest episode in the broken record here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7898524.stm

Despite significant force elements dedicated to OEF, the US is still by far the biggest contributor to ISAF. (I am aware that some are double-hatted). It is therefore entirely reasonable that they 'expect' other nations who have stated their support for the ISAF mission to pull their weight.

And as far as using certain tactics to persuade nations to accept their responsibilities, so what's new? After all, we hid the intelligence which forewarned of the attack on Pearl Harbour, didn't we?

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by milsum

Sven is a very nice chap indeed, but on this occasion I think perhaps there is a lack of information.

The British Army no longer train for a war, they train for The War, that of Afghanistan. And we're going to be there for bloody ages.

Indeed, we are going to be there for a very long time. However, whilst Obama has waved his finger at other NATOmembers for not giving of the necessary, he hasn't asked the UK to follow the US lead and send out yet more troops, whether it be begging or demanding.

Gates has publically stated, "there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well".

Now, unless you have evidence that Gates has said something completely different to the UK, I suggest you refrain from spreading your disinformation.

That was a classic diplomatic 'if the cap fits' statement by Gates. It was certainly not directed at the UK, but he could hardly add 'except for...' at the end of it, could he?

No request has been made by the US to the UK for additional troops.

Hello LISpace.

Originally Posted by LISpace

I think you are confusing OEF with ISAF. Those nations who have contributed troops to ISAF have done so because they support the ISAF mission, which is reconstruction, stability etc. The OEF mission is a counter terrorism. Only US troops are involved in OEF.

I am quite aware of the two missions. I have begun to deliberately conflate the two for the simple reason that the two have been officially conflated.

Over the past 2-3 years, ISAF has expanded into the regions that were previously OEF. This is a deliberate policy to draw NATO, as an organisation, into the US OEF mission by the back door. The UK is part of this ruse.

I'll leave it there. But if you feel I need to elaborate further, I'm happy to do so.

Originally Posted by LISpace

I was referring to the ISAF mission 'need'. If the ISAF mission is to be successfully completed, the need for more troops is self evident. For example, there are several provinces where there is no ISAF presence whatsoever. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to request that nations supporting the mission make the contribution necessary for its success.

I consider the PRT effort within ISAF to have been a relative success story in Afghanistan. That success is now being threatened by the failure of OEF and the increasing regional instability.

Originally Posted by LISpace

Despite significant force elements dedicated to OEF, the US is still by far the biggest contributor to ISAF. (I am aware that some are double-hatted). It is therefore entirely reasonable that they 'expect' other nations who have stated their support for the ISAF mission to pull their weight.

The US is not demanding, sorry "expecting", that the PRT missions of ISAF be strengthened. They are "expecting" more combat troops to be sent with the ability to be deployed in counter-insurgency operations.

Again, there has been a conflation of the two missions at the very sharp end. On the onehand there was the reconstruction and development mission (PRT-ISAF) and there was the anti-terrorist (OEF). Technically, Op Herrick was the former with just a meagre screen of combat troops to ensure security if things got nasty. Op Herrick is far more a anti-insurgent mission than a PRT these days - albeit not declared as an anti-terrorist mission al la OEF. Conflation.

Although, I confess, there has been a marked shift in US "expectations" in recent statements (Obama influence???). Now, the US is "expecting" combat troops OR large wads of cash to build and maintain an Afghan Army and/or as development aid.

Part of David Kilcullen's (Col retd.) address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing 5 February 2009. (Context: surge 30,000 troops now or lose).

The Immediate Crisis

These long-term strategic options are, however, largely questions for 2010 and beyond: in 2009 we have another more acute problem. Afghanistan is on the brink of failure. Violence is up 40% on last year and 543% on 2005. Large parts of the country, perhaps 70% of Afghan territory, are no-go areas for security forces and government officials. Narcotics production has coalesced into enormous tracts of poppy in Taliban-controlled areas, heroin production has spiked, government legitimacy is collapsing, food and water are critically short, the insurgency is spreading and intensifying, and the Afghan Presidential elections – scheduled for 23rd August, at the end of what promises to be a fighting season of unprecedented intensity – will bring everything to a head.

Whatever our long-term strategy, if we don’t now stabilize the situation, stop the rot and regain the initiative, there will be no long-term. Once the situation is stabilized there will be time for the new administration to work through its strategic choices in concert with allies and the Afghan government. If we fail to stabilize Afghanistan this year, there will be no future.

To stabilize Afghanistan, we need a surge of political effort, we need a surge of civilian expertise and financial resources, and we need to re-focus the military and police on a single critical task: protecting the population ahead of the elections. The strategic aim for 2009 should be to deliver an election result that restores the government’s legitimacy, and with it the credibility of the international effort. Which candidate gets elected matters less than ensuring the outcome meets international standards for transparency and fairness. This is a huge task. To do it we need to stop chasing the Taliban around, and focus instead on protecting Afghans where they live, partnering with the Afghan people in a close and genuine way that gives them a well-founded feeling of security, and ensuring fair elections that restore hope for a better future.

This is the critical task for 2009. If we regain the initiative, we’re back in the game. If we fail, our long-term strategic options will be even more unpalatable than they are now.

Originally Posted by LISpace

No request has been made by the US to the UK for additional troops.

How can you be so certain of that?

Is it a case of he didn't ask because the request was prempted by an offer?

I heard on the grape vine that is that is and it is a good one ,That that the Boys Brigade along with the scouts have been warned for deployment and as they are all under 18 that they will only get the minimum wage and no other percs apart from a mars a day but please dnt spread it around.

Originally Posted by Herrumph

Can we start a sweepstake on when/what we have to reciprocate with.

I bid 10 days and 1.5K troops.

2,000 troops, with limited US Helicopter support, by March 15.