Afghanistan deployments.

#1
Looking at current developments in the war in Afghanistan and recent comments from David Cameron from the G8 in Canada, how does everyone see the timeline for British withdrawal from the war shapping up?

As someone in the recruitment process now for the Yorkshire Regiment I would like the opportunity to make a contribution overseas before British involvement ends. I am curious what kind of timetable everyone sees coming about?
 
#2
Well; talking as a non millionaire, non cabinet member:
DID HE SEE HOW LONG WE WERE IN FOOKIN IRELAND THE MUPPET!
Jesus Christ. Protect me from politicians.
Goddamn eeejit!
 
#3
Boris3098 said:
Well; talking as a non millionaire, non cabinet member:
DID HE SEE HOW LONG WE WERE IN FOOKIN IRELAND THE MUPPET!
Jesus Christ. Protect me from politicians.
Goddamn eeejit!
Fundamental difference though: NI was ours, so just getting out and going home wasn't really an option. We could walk away from Helmand tomorrow if we chose to do so (albeit at a certain price in international street-cred)...

Not comparing like with like.
 
#4
2015 is a political date just as Obama wants major US withdrawals by 2013. Unless we see major developments on the Pakistani side of the border, I doubt we will be out by 2020 let alone 2015.
 
#5
I do not honestly think our political masters will have boots on the ground in Afghanistan longer than five years from now. They will try to dress up any cut and run as a phased withdrawal, done purely for strategic reasons, and not because they either cannot afford it financially, or they have been driven out by a combination of virulent opposition from the media and sheep-like acquiescence to that opposition by a largely ignorant if not stupid public acting on the stop the war bandwagon.

I.e, exactly what did for American involvement in Vietnam.

As for any cost in lives lost by our forces? Well, since when has any government in this country given a shite for that?

Tam
 
#6
Maybe being cynical, but is the next General Election not in 2015 and has Mr Cameron given himself a get out of jail card should he need it at the next election?

I think we should leave Afghanistan when the head of the Army tells the Government that the troops on the ground have either done enough to improve the security situation or the situation on the ground no longer pays for British soldiers dying.
 
#7
The security situation will not improve in Afghanistan - at least not to the extent that you could say exists in any working democracy. When we leave, not if, we will leave behind barely contained chaos, which will eventually erupt and thus inexorably lead to the Taliban taking over as "saviours" of their country.

After all, it happened before.

Not that long ago either.

Tam
 
#8
TamH70 said:
The security situation will not improve in Afghanistan - at least not to the extent that you could say exists in any working democracy. When we leave, not if, we will leave behind barely contained chaos, which will eventually erupt and thus inexorably lead to the Taliban taking over as "saviours" of their country.

After all, it happened before.

Not that long ago either.

Tam
It worked here in NI, although it was abit easier for the Intel services to muck about with Gerry and Martin's heads to bring about the end game.
But what I'm saying is if you can have relative peace here why not Afghanistan.

Ps I wouldn't like to see our troops being killed for another 40 years just to bring about peace in Afghanistan.
 
#9
As far as I have been able to gather, the situation in Afghanistan is totally different. For one thing, our political leaders have no appetite or political will to commit enough troops or time in the country to actually win the war, or the guts to seriously piss off the Pakistani ISI who wholly own and operate both their country's version of the Taliban and the one in Afghanistan by crushing the Talibs.

Besides, Taliban or no, Al Quaeda or no, every Afghan is raised on his/hers mother's milk to hate, loathe and detest any foreign influence in their country, and cannot wait for our and the other NATO troops committed there to **** off back home.

Also, unlike in NI, there is no common language, religion (both sides in NI had Catholic and Protestant elements, including in the militant groups), or real understanding of the situation, both political and popular, between the NATO forces/governments and the average Afghan. This is what is different in NI, both sides eventually got tired of their troops and civilians getting killed and their buildings and businesses destroyed.
No Afghan will be quite as accommodating, sadly enough. Human life really does not matter as much to them. Not a racist statement. Fact.

Tam
 
#10
jk82 said:
Looking at current developments in the war in Afghanistan and recent comments from David Cameron from the G8 in Canada, how does everyone see the timeline for British withdrawal from the war shapping up?

As someone in the recruitment process now for the Yorkshire Regiment I would like the opportunity to make a contribution overseas before British involvement ends. I am curious what kind of timetable everyone sees coming about?
Uk forces still based in brunei after having to see off a nasty insurgency in 1959.

Uk forces still based in germany after having to give mr hitler a good shoeing in 1945.

Uk forces still in cyprus after various military endeavors going back at least till 1878.

The uk also has major defence committments in a number of other states where permanent bases are not located but tps are regularly stood up to assist if required: bosnia, serbia, various gulf principalities and so on. The uk only manages to draw down its personnel from said locations on the basis of either a) cost, or b) need for the tps elsewhere (think iraq).
 
#11
What is the reason now being given by HM's Government for Britain's involvement ?
Did it not start off as defeating the Taliban and putting them out of power, which happened 8 ? years ago ?
Then somewhere and I must admit I missed hearing the reason, It seems to have become Nation building an exercise which I will suggest HM Armed Forces are not equipped or trained to do.
The Military budget is about to be slashed, Berry wants his men out so lets have UK lead and get the Troops home.

john
 
#12
If for example troops were to be out of Afghan by a may 2015 General Election, what do you guys think the draw down of troops would be, around herrick 20/21?
 
#13
Stand by for draw down commencing summer 2013. Maybe spring that year, but definitely 2013 at the latest for the start of the great Afghanistan bug-out.

"Lower priority" troops, for example those engaged in nation building and training the ANA will be the first to go.

Tam
 
#14
TamH70 said:
Stand by for draw down commencing summer 2013. Maybe spring that year, but definitely 2013 at the latest for the start of the great Afghanistan bug-out.

"Lower priority" troops, for example those engaged in nation building and training the ANA will be the first to go.

Tam
Training the ANA "lower priority"?
 
#15
hackle said:
TamH70 said:
Stand by for draw down commencing summer 2013. Maybe spring that year, but definitely 2013 at the latest for the start of the great Afghanistan bug-out.

"Lower priority" troops, for example those engaged in nation building and training the ANA will be the first to go.

Tam
Training the ANA "lower priority"?
Thats what I was thinking.

Surely, last to go?
 
#17
Yep, It takes decades to train a really effective army, especially when you are dealing with conscripts. It also takes huge cadres of professionals who are dedicated to the task and don't get to piss off home at the end of a tour. I see no way in hell that we will have forces there for decades to train the ANA and lead it into battle.
There is no political or popular will for that to happen.

All the ANA will ever be is the thinnest of thin fig leaves to hide a craven rush for the exit door. Just like the ARVN were at the end of the Vietnam War in '75.

And most of them got shot, sent to gulags, imprisoned elsewhere at home or exiled. What makes you think it will be any different now? Kabul and Kandahar will be up to their rafters in blood as the Talibs get their revenge on those of their kin who were on opposing sides.

In short, politicians and higher-ranking military officers will big up the ANA as much as they can in the next five years, making great claims to their combat effectiveness and willingness to fight the Talibs and the Als, but they will be doing so with the greatest supply of crossed-fingers behind their backs, knowing that they are just waffling for the uneducated public that don't want to see their sons and daughters pissed up against a wall
in a war far away in a country of which they care to know nothing, and just want them brought home in planes seated rather than otherwise.

So, yep, units training the ANA are "lower priority".

Tam
 
#18
TamH70 said:
Yep, It takes decades to train a really effective army, especially when you are dealing with conscripts....

So, yep, units training the ANA are "lower priority".

Tam
So the ANA is a conscript army, is it?
 
#19
So it is a wholly disciplined, uninfiltrated by the Taliban and Al Quadea, well paid, well led, excellently trained and equipped, not influenced by a backwards looking version of a religion, un misogynistic, professional army is it?

Balls it is.

Tam
 
#20
So would it be safe to say that entering infantry training at the end of this year or the start of the next I am all but guaranteed a trip to Afghanistan?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads