Britain risking defeat in Afghanistan

#1
Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge is now in on the act: it of momentum building up!!

‘I don’t believe we have a clear strategy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I sense we’ve lost the ability to think strategically. Deep down inside me, I worry that the British army could risk operational failure if we’re not careful in Afghanistan. We need to recognise the test that I think they could face there,’ he told the debate held by Open Europe, an independent think tank campaigning for EU reform.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1928576,00.html
 
#2
OperationBanner.com said:
Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge is now in on the act: it of momentum building up!!

‘I don’t believe we have a clear strategy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I sense we’ve lost the ability to think strategically. Deep down inside me, I worry that the British army could risk operational failure if we’re not careful in Afghanistan. We need to recognise the test that I think they could face there,’ he told the debate held by Open Europe, an independent think tank campaigning for EU reform.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1928576,00.html
Already been done, Ops
 
#3
Field Marshal the Lord Peter Inge, together with a clutch of other retired Field Marshals and ennobled General stood up in the House of Lords several or so months ago and warned the Government in clear terms of the state of the Armed Forces - something the Government chose to ignore completely. It echoed more or less what Dannat said.

The fact that Inge and Dannat are both Green Howards and served together in the Regiment which they later went on to command is purely coincidental.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#4
This is a good point and something we should keep well in kind. We always assume that we will be in the right and on the winning side. I am not sure what we would consider to be the last significant British military defeat; Suez, the Battle of the Imjim River (Korea), WWII? The way things are going perhaps we have another one coming due to our politicians assuming we will always win even when they deny us the troops and resources we need.

Britain and the British Army has worked long and hard for its excellent reputation. Much of our success has been having a well trained Army but part of it has been not getting involved in campaigns that were stratgically unwise. The USA put considerable pressure on Britain to join them in Vietnam in the late 1960s but Harold Wilson held firm and declined, as it was not in our national interest.

I grew up in the 1980s reading reports of the Iran/Iraq War that raged for eight years (with many observers wishing both sides could loose). We also watched with amusement as the Soviets struggled for a decade against the CIA backed mujahideen in Afghanistan. Now that we are on the ground in both countries, not making much headway, without a clearly defined exit strategy, I wounder who is laughing at us now.

If we are on our way to a defeat we should get out fast and let the locals sort out their own problems for themselves.
 
#5
All this could be solved with a sweep of the brush.

We have the best army and now we need the best leadership. Winston would not have put up with this corrupt and dishonest so called government. Its time for true men to stand and make important decisions at home and stop the unnessesary depolyment of brave men on some futile and untenable episode.

How many more champions do we have to lose so that a few cowards can preach from Downing St?

Oust the cowards.
 
#7
tomahawk6 said:
Must be the coolaid the old boys are drinking at the retirement center.
Any chance you could translate this into English that us poor Limeys can understand?
 
#8
Tom thinks it's bollox Merkator :D

I think he means the losing in the 'stan bit. But as has been covered in these pages ad nauseum , we can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Poppy is the lynchpin I think.
 
#9
PartTimePongo said:
Tom thinks it's bollox Merkator :D

I think he means the losing in the 'stan bit.
Gotcha. I didn't think he was commenting on his fellow companions at the nursing home for retired generals.

PartTimePongo said:
But as has been covered in these pages ad nauseum , we can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Poppy is the lynchpin I think.
You know. I've noticed my local pekara seems to have increased substantially the number of poppy seeds on my bread and pastries in the past few weeks. Must be an oversupply in the system and someone's flogging the stuff off cheap. :)
 
#10
Yep. SNATCH, that sums it up all right. But hold on, a snatch is useful. Sorry, forgot, not when its that big.

Big t*its? Check
Big Arrse? Check
Big snatch? Er Q?
 
#12
Politics has always Fcuked up the services, look back in history - even the Yanks were scared after the 1st WW - those in the know will understand now we are the 4th smallest Navy in the world
 
#13
dorkblatt said:
Politics has always Fcuked up the services, look back in history - even the Yanks were scared after the 1st WW - those in the know will understand now we are the 4th smallest Navy in the world
REALLY!!!!

So, taking into account our navy is larger than the Danish, Pakistan, Mexican and Iclandic navies (for instance) makes us the fourth smallest???

Hmmmm
 
#14
dorkblatt said:
Politics has always Fcuked up the services, look back in history - even the Yanks were scared after the 1st WW - those in the know will understand now we are the 4th smallest Navy in the world
Not quite, by gross tonnage we are second only to the USN, however if we keep decommisioning and selling off assets without getting new ones, that position will slip quickly.
 
#15
Drago_Drake said:
dorkblatt said:
Politics has always Fcuked up the services, look back in history - even the Yanks were scared after the 1st WW - those in the know will understand now we are the 4th smallest Navy in the world
Not quite, by gross tonnage we are second only to the USN, however if we keep decommisioning and selling off assets without getting new ones, that position will slip quickly.
Thanks Drago, I didn't know that
 
#17
I will stand corrected however last things I heard were
1 new ships unhappy because of undermanning
2 not enough fuel to keep our "tonnage" at sea
3 no aircraft until the next white elephants (supercarriers) to be launched (to the next decade?) and even those contracts in jeopardy due to political wrangling and defence cuts.
 
#18
My usual mental yardstick for the navy is - could it carry out an operation like the falklands at current capacity (just the navy side of things). At the moment, my thinking would be that its marginal, in a few years time even the suggestion of something like that would be a joke.
 
#19
dorkblatt said:
3 no aircraft until the next white elephants (supercarriers) to be launched (to the next decade?) and even those contracts in jeopardy due to political wrangling and defence cuts.
I thought the 'next big thing' was Carrier Strike(?); Eurofighters rigged for carrier use, RAF pilots trained for carrier landings, but the preference always always always for land bases.

Are supercarriers part of this: a way round the fact that we've made ourselves somewhat unpopular in certain sunny, sandy, oily, not-at-all-C-of-E parts of the world lately?

(I'm Infantry, me - don't pay too close attention to stuff that floats or flies; big knowledge gap :oops: )
 
#20
there you go we should have expanded the navy army * airforce a long time ago we would have had less problems in this country now with youth, crime, overseas cak and political correctness mind u we always had some poo poo politititians when we needed them least!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top