Afghanistan - our army betrayed by rotten NATO-ISAF UK & US generals

Discussion in 'The ARRSE Hole' started by Peter_Dow, Jul 10, 2010.

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. Well with 300 British soldiers dead in Afghanistan now we need to look at what is going wrong in Afghanistan.

    Start with this CBS news story which identifies a critical weakness in our military configuration - poorly defended supply lines whose vulnerability the enemy exploits to gain funds for its insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    U.S. funds our enemy Taliban's Afghan war (YouTube)

    Come on NATO, ISAF, America, Britain and the rest. This is basic military textbook stuff - securing supply lines. We need generals who know this.

    If officer cadets don't learn basic officer training material then they should not have been allowed to become officers and stayed as enlisted men, never mind got promotion to general.

    The Americans have a military academy at West Point, right? So is it just entertaining a UK prince which is taught there now or what?

    The Prince of Wales - Prince Harry trains with cadets at West Point military academy

    The UK head of state is a foolish Queen and HMG are foolish too - that's why the UK generals are lame, although even UK generals have not always been quite so rubbish as this lot in Afghanistan. What's the USA's excuse?


    Loaded questions for our army in Afghanistan.

    Would your Afghanistan mission not be made easier if there was a parallel NATO campaign to ferment republican revolutions through the Arab world, including north African countries such as Egypt, which are ruled by monarchs and dictators who have been directly funding or promoting by satellite TV or internet the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere?

    Specifically does NATO, ISAF, General Petraeus or anyone in command have the authority (or wish they had the authority) to stop hostile satellite TV stations such as Qatari-controlled Al Jazeera from broadcasting by jamming the satellite transmissions, knocking out satellite ground control facilities, or knocking satellites out of orbit by missiles or other means?

    Or were General Petraeus's hands tied by President Obama to leave the Arab kingdom customers of US corporations well alone even when in his previous post he Petraeus was responsible for U.S. operations in 20 countries spreading from Egypt to Pakistan—including Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom?

    I'd like to know if NATO's civilian and military personnel in Afghanistan are getting the political support you deserve back home?

    Is there ANY sign whatsoever of robust political republican leadership against duplicitous Arab and north African rulers - monarchs and dictators - whose regimes are covertly funding or promoting our terrorist enemies - be they the Taliban in Afghanistan or other Al Qaeda type groups elsewhere?

    Or are our brave men and women in Afghanistan to be tied out like sacrificial lambs and are your lives at risk a cost you, on our behalf, are paying because the politicians back home are more concerned with promoting business or political deals with back-stabbing undemocratic regimes, whose rulers have rigged elections or never even been elected and who deserve no more than to go the way of Saddam Hussein?

    Specifically, are NATO personnel alert to the dangers of trying to buy your personal security or security of supplies by paying off terrorists or warlords who will only use the pay-offs to re-arm and come back stronger with greater costlier demands and in long run, bribing our enemies is no way to defeat them?

    Would you take the view that if you or your supply lines could not be safe without bribing the Taliban or warlords then maybe you should either all come home for now or be urgently reinforced to a size of army which can defend its own supply lines with its own soldiers and transport police?

    You may know that there is a small but significant first Afghanistan railway project underway and there are plans for further investment and development of railways there.

    Would you say that an extensive Afghanistan rail network project was overdue and why has NATO not already laid a rail track for its own supplies into Afghanistan? Has NATO been timid and lacked vision with regard to major infrastructure investment? Or do we want to take everything of ours with us when President Obama orders a pull-out before the 2012 elections?

    Do you like my video about Afghanistan's new railway project, introduced by video of my favourite person who is just great at defending trains from terrorists?

    "Despite terrorists, Asia's trains do the locomotion with Condoleezza Rice." (YouTube)

    What kind of officer, never mind general, leaves main supply lines undefended for one minute?

    What kind of fool subcontracts his military supplies to private contractors?

    I am sorry but I am deeply unimpressed by the NATO-ISAF military leadership (mostly American generals but Britons I blame too but what do you expect from Britons - we only have a foolish old woman for a head of state?) which does not secure as you go into Afghanistan, from one strong point to another, leaving only strong points behind and never leaves vulnerable points or supply lines in the rear, only secure points and supply lines.

    I can think of the special case of the Berlin air lift which was supply across uncontrolled ground which wasn't a famous military disaster but that is pretty much the exception because it was not a war but a political stand off.
     
  2. Have you even been to Afghanistan?
     
  3. No. Have you? You are a braver man than me if you have.
     
  4. peter dow you are a fucking mong
     
  5. I've just found your website and answered my own question.

    What you need to do fella is fuck off and die.

    CO's, can you please delete this moron's account.
     
  6. Forgotten your meds again, Pete ?
     
  7. You are a clown - do your research before you humiliate yourself further. Now bore off you prat.
     
  8. You really are a stroker. Fcuk off back under the rock that you came from.
     
  9. New Arrse means that I can vote this thread as being 'terrible'. Which I have.

    What a clown.
     
  10. Been? fucking been? My legs are still there, you cunt.
     
  11. Please do not feed the porridge-gobbling nutjob troll.
     
  12. Peter, You've got the uniform, you've got the lion handbag, you've got the crazy salute, you've got the ideas. Can you be our leader?
    On second thoughts you are a bit of a cunt so can you fuck off instead.
     
  13. Who is this self proclaimed walt?
    Just took a goosy at his website and inbetween sniggering and retching have decided this bloke is a cunt of the first order
     
  14. Stroll on. I've just had a look at his website. That's 5 minutes I'll never get back. He seems to be on a journey from extreme paranoia to schizophrenia, occasionally taking a breather on the way to explore William Wallace fantasies and his homo-erotic obsession with Mel Gibson.

    What grips my $hite is that my taxes are paying for this clunt to parade around dressed like an extra from "Dame Edna does the Nazis" and generally making Scots look ridiculous. Or am I being unfair in assuming that Peter is either a jobseeker or one of the millions of feckless numpties on incapacity benefit.

    Freedom. My fat hairy arrse. All freedom has done is create feckwits like Peter. Roll on tyranny.