Afghanistan is lost, says Lord Ashdown

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by thegimp, Oct 25, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. He's not daft, its a well needed prod to the NATO freeloaders...

    Spot on Paddy
     
  2. Mmmm, I wonder if Paddy is too military for that role? Top man mind you.

    What's more, I would have though he would have know better than being quoted saying such things - surely he'll know the ramifications it may have on the blokes serving out there?
     
  3. It's not lost. It's clearly marked here in my Ladybird Bumper Atlas of God-forsaken shite-holes.
     
  4. :x Yes to win the Afgan you need a LOT OF TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT, not bits here and there. A very good intelligence system and backing by the majority of the locals, this is not happening.Until these factors and others are met Paddy Pants Down is right :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
     
  5. Nothing like boosting the morale of those who have been there and those just deploying is there?
     
  6. I'm going to say something stupid but here me out.

    Lets say the Euro's fail to commit, and we Brits are left to do the job on our own. Could The combined British Armed Forces deal with Afghan alone.

    For example (Can't stress example only enough)

    In World War 1 and 2 some troops were at War for alot longer than six months.

    If you mobilised The Field Army, all our reserves and every spare bod we could get from Fiji and basically said your not coming home til its done ala WW2 Could our tens of thousands of troops deal with the Afghan problem and still leave enough to Stag on Cyprus, Gib, Falklands etc etc???

    This is obviously a bad idea because i think 50% of the Army would sign off however could them numbers of Troops be supported by the logistics chain and government funds???
     
  7. Has anyone ever won on the Northwest Frontier ?
     
  8. The Afghans.
     
  9. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The simple answer is no. Not enough money, not enough kit and not enough troops for the task.

    As you said half would sign off after 6 months, at least.
     
  10. I think there is enough troops. If Afghan couldn't be sorted by 20 (Leaving a 1/3 reserve) Inf Battalions with support i'd be suprised.

    I think its a matter of keeping the troops in and keeping them supplied.
     
  11. I keep wondering what we are going to be able to achieve the Russians didn't, and as for doing the job on our own. If we were calling up the reserves then there would be no PVR as conscription would kick in!!!
    Never really understood why we did not just take out the top brass in the Taleban and cut off there comms and logistics to control them rather than starting another endless crusade!
     
  12. As a general rule during both World Wars, troops didn't spend whole time in contact with the enemy. Obviously there were exceptions in some theatres, but normal practice was to rotate troops to rear or even home- base. This was only possible because of the size of the forces - I think we had over a million troops at some stages.

    Helmand is a large theatre - it is hard to see how you can dominate the ground with such a small force. We used up to 15, 000 troops to fight PIRA in ground which was smaller, much easier to dominate and with support of local police and majority of public.

    Interesting to hear on the radio that when Pantsdown was challenged to go and work his magic in Afghanistan, he declined in language that can't be repeated on radio (or ARRSE!). Not such a hero after all then
     
  13. And oddly enough on the very day The Great Karzai meets Bottler McBroon:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7061450.stm

    Sadly Paddy is right. The US continues to dump money into Afghanistan to little good long term effect. Some say that is because there are not enough boots on the ground but so much local opinion will now always be against the West it will tend to a futile struggle.

    Question: Who said in July 2006:

    “Afghanistan is a good and winnable war but, at the pace we are proceeding, we need to realise that we could actually fail here.”
     
  14. Surely in "Some ways" that would still be possible "To an extent"

    Rotating a Battalion back to Kabul would be considered rest.
    Swapping Mobs that are stagging on our oter interests is also rest
    I think with the numbers we have (Including reserves i'm working off 130,000 Feel free to correct me) Afghan could be kept in check.

    But that is all... As has been said what will we really achieve that Ivan failed to do.

    Helmand needs "Flooding" with troops. The Afghans need to be concentrating on sealing their borders with Pakistan... Properly. Then the grand litter sweep through the provinces needs to take place.

    If our Euro allies are not budging, what are we going to do. Plod on and keep suffering large casualty numbers. Or sack it and come home like every other country to try and win in Afghan.

    Afghanistan needs to be won and quickly (Obviously when i say quickly i mean years). Otherwise in ten years time we're not going to have much of an army left.