Originally Posted by Litotes

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

The key indicator to me of how little the effort in AFG seems to matter to our politicians is how comparatively small details (in the grand scheme) like helicopters or body armour are jumped on by the opposition, but the grand policy is only ever attacked by what is a minority party and not the official opposition.

It is politics SAC, so we are condemned to lowest common denominator debate. The average man on the street is usually hampered in debate by an absence of basic understanding, like for example where Afghanistan is...however they do usually know what a helicopter is, even if only because they have seen a blue one hovering over them with 'POLICE' emblazoned on it.

To require the man in the street to understand strategic policy and make an informed decision would mean upping the school leaving age on average to 28! This is why one man, one vote is a pretty shitty concept IMHO.

I sense, Cuddles, that you want electors to pass an exam before they are eligible to vote?

Litotes

That would merely be one of my demands! I would want to see evidence of social responsibility, education, committment to community and property. sod it, repeal the Reform Act, I want my own rotten borough!

How many actually got out from in front of Tricia/Kyle/David feckin Dickinson and voted last local or national elections?

Too blinkin few, and thats why we've got the social nanny government.
We got what we deserved, If you want change, act for change.
If you just want to moan, carry on as normal.

Not a go at anyone here, just my tuppeny worth

We have a Whitehall determined to fight this war as cheaply as possible.

We are "fighting" a war as a nation by the lowest affordable effort we can get away with IMHO. We are merely participating and not dictating tempo.

Two appraisals that sum it all up.

Plenty of people talk about the war and "failure is not an option" etc. Failure to achieve what? Wars tend to have an aim - unconditional surrender of Germany, removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The more specific the better. Vague war aims are bad news.

The current war aim in Afghanistan appears to be frighteningly clear to me. There are, in fact, two:

1. OEF: Find Osama Bin Laden (yawwwnnn).
2. ISAF/TELIC (etc): Keep on muddling through because it is less politically embarrasing to suffer a trickle of casualties than to withdraw or commit large-scale forces that we can't afford and that no one will volunteer to provide.

We're there to postpone the political embarrasment of withdrawl.

Add in the fact that the FCO and DfID (as Department's of State) have zero interest in getting sucked into a quagmire of the MoD's making. There is distinct reticence to sign up to anything the MoD produces, because as they see it, the MoD is obsessed by process, kinetic operations and doesn't understand the sometimes subtle objectives they are attempting to fulfil.

We in the Military expect the FCO and DfID to follow us, act decisively and quickly to produce what we term ‘quick win’ impacts – typically using UK resources and personnel to provide something on behalf of the other nation; the FCO and DfID believe that reconstruction can only ever be conducted properly by locals, working for and on behalf of the local population. Add in differing perspectives over appropriate levels of ‘force protection’ and the general culture between the 3 Dept’s and you have the result we see here – no joined up thinking, no joined up action, no joined up results…..

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

The key indicator to me of how little the effort in AFG seems to matter to our politicians is how comparatively small details (in the grand scheme) like helicopters or body armour are jumped on by the opposition, but the grand policy is only ever attacked by what is a minority party and not the official opposition.

It is politics SAC, so we are condemned to lowest common denominator debate. The average man on the street is usually hampered in debate by an absence of basic understanding, like for example where Afghanistan is...however they do usually know what a helicopter is, even if only because they have seen a blue one hovering over them with 'POLICE' emblazoned on it.

To require the man in the street to understand strategic policy and make an informed decision would mean upping the school leaving age on average to 28! This is why one man, one vote is a pretty shitty concept IMHO.

Cuddles, you mean you don't believe in all the "heedfull interrelating" bumf you were coming out with on the Toxic Officers thread?

There are some interesting points in this thread for the observers at home of which I'm one.

To my mind, however poorly political and military leadership stumble over explaining it, we are in Afghanistan for two principle reasons. The first is to keep AQ out of Pakistan and well away from nuclear weapons. Whichever way you spin it, any cost will have to be absorbed to stop that from happening. The second is to fight them on their territory and not ours. I mentioned some time ago on another thread that I work for a company who lost 658 people in 9/11. We don't want that in one of our cities but it remains a credible threat to our civillian population.

I also think that while perhaps there has been a feeling that this was just another another engagement in a far away place it is dawning on the goverment and other political parties that we are indeed at war and it requires a commensurate response from all levels of goverment. That though, brings problems of it's own.

Currently, the entire military / political machine is focused on a dusty place, half the size of Wales on the other side of the world. There is no meaningful strategic thinking or planning going on to speak of and we are increasingly ill prepared for any other flashpoints around the world, whether it be short or long term in the nature of the threat. This manifests itself, as an example, with individuals at the highest levels being briefed and taking an interest in incidents at the lowest levels. This may read well but the guys running things need to be focused on bigger picture things than the nature of individual IED incidents.

The Army itself is not, in my view, without blame. The services were definately asked if they could do the job and the Army couldn't wait to get past the startline. No prizes for guessing who led that conversation. Unfortunately though, whilst the tactics and doctrine of the enemy has quickly evolved, it's difficult from here in the UK to see that our own has. If we thought we could adapt and make do from the NI / Bosnia / Iraq experiance than it has proved to be illusory. US commanders appear to have overtaken us in doctrinal thinking and importantly, are able to clearly communicate their aims and means to achieve them.

The growing casualty list and the hidden but large number of men with "life changing injuries," don't though, detract from the fact that despite all the above; successive Brigades have been reasonably successful.

How much more so they could be with clear, determined and open leadership from the prime minister down remains an open question but a good one to ask, not just in a thread but in all the corridors of power. I'd be interested to hear comments from anyone recently returned.

Originally Posted by Bumper

There are some interesting points in this thread for the observers at home of which I'm one.

To my mind, however poorly political and military leadership stumble over explaining it, we are in Afghanistan for two principle reasons. The first is to keep AQ out of Pakistan and well away from nuclear weapons. Whichever way you spin it, any cost will have to be absorbed to stop that from happening. The second is to fight them on their territory and not ours. I mentioned some time ago on another thread that I work for a company who lost 658 people in 9/11. We don't want that in one of our cities but it remains a credible threat to our civillian population.

I also think that while perhaps there has been a feeling that this was just another another engagement in a far away place it is dawning on the goverment and other political parties that we are indeed at war and it requires a commensurate response from all levels of goverment. That though, brings problems of it's own.

Currently, the entire military / political machine is focused on a dusty place, half the size of Wales on the other side of the world. There is no meaningful strategic thinking or planning going on to speak of and we are increasingly ill prepared for any other flashpoints around the world, whether it be short or long term in the nature of the threat. This manifests itself, as an example, with individuals at the highest levels being briefed and taking an interest in incidents at the lowest levels. This may read well but the guys running things need to be focused on bigger picture things than the nature of individual IED incidents.

The Army itself is not, in my view, without blame. The services were definately asked if they could do the job and the Army couldn't wait to get past the startline. No prizes for guessing who led that conversation. Unfortunately though, whilst the tactics and doctrine of the enemy has quickly evolved, it's difficult from here in the UK to see that our own has. If we thought we could adapt and make do from the NI / Bosnia / Iraq experiance than it has proved to be illusory. US commanders appear to have overtaken us in doctrinal thinking and importantly, are able to clearly communicate their aims and means to achieve them.

The growing casualty list and the hidden but large number of men with "life changing injuries," don't though, detract from the fact that despite all the above; successive Brigades have been reasonably successful.

How much more so they could be with clear, determined and open leadership from the prime minister down remains an open question but a good one to ask, not just in a thread but in all the corridors of power. I'd be interested to hear comments from anyone recently returned.

As a general observation we are terribly introverted. How does AQ survive? Simple, it's mission is clear and understood by all participants. It is a very good example of mission command in action! So, it really doesn't matter what our mission is in Afganistan, but what AQ's is there and globally.

Once you understand what AQs mission is, what that implies and the level of sympathy globally it's doctrine has, then it becomes impossible to place much emphasis on the "better to fight them there than here" brigade, other than as a necessity to cut of the hydra's head in that location. Or as the esteemed Arrser German Parchutist said his mission was to kill and maim as many taleban as possible - which seems about the the most logical mission statement I've heard.

So, the tough reality is that until we can publically state and understand the implications of what the mission is against AQ there will be a leaderdhip vortex.

Originally Posted by mick_sterbs

How many actually got out from in front of Tricia/Kyle/David feckin Dickinson and voted last local or national elections?

Too blinkin few, and thats why we've got the social nanny government.
We got what we deserved, If you want change, act for change.
If you just want to moan, carry on as normal.

Not a go at anyone here, just my tuppeny worth

We feel your pain here in the US even more acutely as the Ob/sama administration rushes headlong into fascism. Elections certainly have consequences!

Originally Posted by sanchauk

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

The key indicator to me of how little the effort in AFG seems to matter to our politicians is how comparatively small details (in the grand scheme) like helicopters or body armour are jumped on by the opposition, but the grand policy is only ever attacked by what is a minority party and not the official opposition.

It is politics SAC, so we are condemned to lowest common denominator debate. The average man on the street is usually hampered in debate by an absence of basic understanding, like for example where Afghanistan is...however they do usually know what a helicopter is, even if only because they have seen a blue one hovering over them with 'POLICE' emblazoned on it.

To require the man in the street to understand strategic policy and make an informed decision would mean upping the school leaving age on average to 28! This is why one man, one vote is a pretty shitty concept IMHO.

Cuddles, you mean you don't believe in all the "heedfull interrelating" bumf you were coming out with on the Toxic Officers thread?

Substantial leap of logic Sanchauk old chap...it does however require a lot, and I mean a lot of input before that can happen first time, every time! Democracy without it is pish. Roll on the Night of the Generals!!

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Originally Posted by sanchauk

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

The key indicator to me of how little the effort in AFG seems to matter to our politicians is how comparatively small details (in the grand scheme) like helicopters or body armour are jumped on by the opposition, but the grand policy is only ever attacked by what is a minority party and not the official opposition.

It is politics SAC, so we are condemned to lowest common denominator debate. The average man on the street is usually hampered in debate by an absence of basic understanding, like for example where Afghanistan is...however they do usually know what a helicopter is, even if only because they have seen a blue one hovering over them with 'POLICE' emblazoned on it.

To require the man in the street to understand strategic policy and make an informed decision would mean upping the school leaving age on average to 28! This is why one man, one vote is a pretty shitty concept IMHO.

Cuddles, you mean you don't believe in all the "heedfull interrelating" bumf you were coming out with on the Toxic Officers thread?

Substantial leap of logic Sanchauk old chap...it does however require a lot, and I mean a lot of input before that can happen first time, every time! Democracy without it is pish. Roll on the Night of the Generals!!

I don't think it's such a huge leap. The public is capable of understanding strategic policy. In my experience, where the strategic policy is so complicated that it can't be explained easily - there is no strategic policy! Or that strategic policy or goal is so sensitive that the general population cannot be trusted at this point with it.

Let's wildly hypothesise that following 9/11 the UK and US knew we were at war with the aims of fundamental Islam doctrine - an idea, with no international boundary. Was that mission of our choosing? No it was imposed because is has to be the ying to AQ's yang. So we have a what and the why is that we can't have AQ f*cking with our economies. Now you can't just go about saying that. So to have to then come up with masking missions that camoflage the real reason. And the reason we are suffering inertia is that we started to believe the what and why of those masking missions and forget about the real mission. So we have a war on terror - which is actually meaningless when you think about it.

We are now at a place where our resolve is being tested. I don't think we are at a place where we can discuss the overall mission openly, but what we can't do is in the corridors of power forget about it or put heads in sand hoping the enormity of the real problem will go away.