-
03-02-2012, 15:26 #51
Can anyone hear the sound of back tracking in whitehall?
UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "We all recognise that in 2013 there will be an evolution of the mission, the Afghans will be having lead responsibility for security throughout the whole country; but we will remain there in a combat support role and we will continue to do so, in our case, until the end of 2014."
Security transition is a process, not a one-off event. In the coming days, once the second tranche of security transition is fully underway, over half the country's population will live in areas in which the Afghans have the lead for security. By mid to late 2013, all districts and provinces will have entered the transition process, but entering the process is not the end of the story. ISAF will continue to train, mentor and support the Afghan National Security Forces, building their capability until the completion of transition at the end of 2014.
The UK remains fully committed to the task in Afghanistan. And our support to the Afghans will not end with our combat role in 2014 as evidenced by our long-term partnership agreement signed by the Prime Minister and President Karzai last weekend."
I could have sworn that it was a combat role until the end of 2014 until recently? Am I going bonkers?
A progressive withdrawal from the more 'tasty' areas into Bastion with the RAF Regt fighting a valiant rear-guard action? Or, more realistically a fairly quiet couple of years as the Taliban bide their time and wait for the last Antonov to disappear over the horizon and the pyre of UOR kit that was once MOB Bastion to stop burning. Last one out of Helmand switch off the lights.BARB - 150
Selection - A+ (asked to be DS)
Run time - 6.40
Job role - SAS, Para's, Marine's or INTEL
Phase 1 - Dont need to do it, promoted instantly to Brigadier
-
03-02-2012, 15:35 #52Senior Member

- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Land of the free (*some restrictions may apply)
- Posts
- 3,152
I wonder if the US will borrow our rather embarrassing Basra-esque terminology of "moving to a position of strategic overwatch"?
Last edited by Gassing_Badgers; 03-02-2012 at 15:40.
I'm Chuck Norris, and I approve these detainee handling techniques...

-
03-02-2012, 15:42 #53Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Posts
- 1,530
Last one out of Helmand start the timer on the nukes
"I think i am becoming a god."
Vespasian
-
03-02-2012, 15:53 #54Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- The Czech Republic
- Posts
- 1,279
Hi Cabana
My point was not about whether the public knew, it was whether they cared. Deeply. The ordinary blokes they do care about, the situation they do not.
Hence, blokes come home and CMD announces reduction in National Debt. Chavs won.t care, and neither will anyone else.
The sacrifice was immense, and for the injured in every connotation, it will continue.
-
03-02-2012, 16:40 #55
End game could go either of two ways - Taliban ease up so as not to tempt NATO to staty, or Taliban ratchet it up so as to 'prove' that they won. Which, either way, they have. Like PIRA. And the Mau Mau. And EOKA.
Dr Johnson: 'Any man thinks less of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been to sea.'
Thiomas Babington Macaulay, quoted by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher of Kilverstone: 'Moderation in war is imbecility!'
Douglas MacArthur: 'There is no substitute for Victory!'
-
04-02-2012, 10:50 #56
Everything Barry has done in the the Pashtun war has been an electoral gambit. In the race for The Whitehouse he was hawkish on Afghanistan to compensate for being a vocal dove on Iraq, that led to him escalating the drone war, and then somewhat reluctantly backing the Pentagon's not very well thought out surge strategy adding the constraint of an electorally based timeline for a drawdown. Now he's wheeling out Panetta to help with his tough 2012 race and set the frame for the next administration in 2016.
The US is after all a democracy and most of its wars have run on their crazy two year electoral cycle. Support for the war formally known as GWOT in the US has been falling off since the Bin Laden hit and despite its now very easy credit terms DC worries about its mountain of debt. The focus is not likely to be on what is now a highly unstable region but on declaring victory and walking away, smiling, from the train wreck as was done in Iraq under the SOFA agreement.
The big difference is Shi'a ruled Baghdad has the full support of Qom while Pakistan's strategic interest in destroying the Kabul regime and also that huge nuclear armed country's increasing fragility facing India's rise. Kabul will need sustained US protection (air and "advisors" on the ground) just as Saigon did and that may become a political football.
Terry have been saying unlike them the US lacks the will to sustain this war, this will be taken confirmation. They'll be talking about light at the end of the tunnel, ordering in extra dancing boys and planning the escalation.That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
-
04-02-2012, 12:04 #57Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Posts
- 945
Very true alib, but i guess that any withdrawal would have to be done in the lowest key possible, as any mass ticket tape victory parade down the streets of New York claiming a decisive victory would be a confirmation that Washington is deluded.
The end result will be the same as what Vietnam was.
Come to think of it .. All political leaders will be having a hard time trying to sell this one as "victorious" to their respective citizens.
George Bush senior said after the end of the first Gulf War "Thank god we have shrugged of this Vietnam nightmare scenario"
Words that came back to haunt America!Last edited by AIR FILTER; 04-02-2012 at 12:12.
If you find me intolerable at my worst, then you would not deserve me at my best.
-
04-02-2012, 12:46 #58
I can imagine it ending in a similar way but the consequences may be very different. The withdrawal of air support by Congress that led to the fall of Saigon was not much more than embarrassing for DC if you look at the big picture. This has been obscured by the silly culture wars of US domestic politics in which Vietnam played such a role. You could even see Vietnam positively: Nixon's DC started down the road to an accommodation with Beijing the power it felt it had been opposing in Vietnam. This led to the offshoring much of the US industrial base to Red China and that is now more of a henchman than a rival to DC.
Pakistan in contrast is a huge problem that has been destabilized by this war and that could lead to a far bigger one.That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
-
04-02-2012, 13:59 #59
I wonder where I have heard this from the yanks before?
Vietnamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSing its praises till we're through
What would Brendan Behan do?
Line em up till Kingdom Come
Pour that feckin' whiskey, son!
IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU ARE A PARANOID KNACKER
-
04-02-2012, 18:55 #60Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 708
It will be a complete fucking disaster whenever we leave, we encouraged females back in to school etc etc, we trained the future Taliban other wise known as Police & ANA. We will fuck off and leave the country to descend in too a bloodbath and feast of ceremonial whippings and stonings. But at least we will have WON, my arse!


14Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks




Reply With Quote







Bookmarks