Britains refusal to reinforce Afghanistan will enrage USA

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Contrarian, Dec 31, 2008.

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. Would these 'foreign policy hawks' be your fellow contributors to the Weekly Standard , and the very same people involved in driving the Iraq debacle?

    The very same people that made themselves very very scarce when it all started going wrong?

    I expect we'll see more articles of this type - "Shame the Brits into doing more" :roll:
  2. The Americans have or 'with or without you' attitude which means they will pursue their goals regardless of our support.
    It was widely rumoured that in the last few days prior to the Iraq invasion the Americans were prepared to do without our contribution (1 DIV) and had a contingency plan ready in case we got cold feet.

    Putting some distance between us wouldn't be such a bad thing IMO.
    I reckon once the yanks turn up in force in Helmand next year that relations will sour noticeably.
  3. Could be worse. The US armed forces have had to put up with plenty of this in their own country - agencies like the State Department have absolutely failed to provide an adequate level of assistance. At least, in the case of a lack of British reinforcements, they can send more of the same (yay, 15 months on, 4 months off). In the case of State and co., they had to learn whole new job descriptions.

    As for the Yanks making a mess of Helmand, how could they do any worse? All we can offer right now is a stalemate. The Yanks stand a much better chance of conducting large-scale, unified COIN ops. They're become bloody good at that sort of thing, which too many in DPM still refuse to admit to themselves.
  4. What a change from four years ago where saying this, with more truth than maybe I'd like to admit, would have had half of this forum laughing and the other half lecturing you. A lot of blood was paid to learn those lessons.

    As for the Brit's refusal to reinforce America in Afghanistan, I can already feel my indignation's the hot peppers from my pizza from a couple of hours're still OK w/us on this side of the Atlantic.

    Not that any of you would admit--publicly--that you care what we think I know your true feelings. I experienced comatose drunk Brits at the Wagon Wheel bar on Incirlik AFB admitting that we (American soldiers) were 'like brothers' to them. I was genuinely moved (and I moved quickly when one threw up next to me).
  5. Classic post Virgil :judge:
  6. Fer crying out loud... do you think we aren't aware of the precarious situation your government has placed it's military? No one here who isn't half paying attention to the situation is going to condemn the UK for anything let alone be "enraged" if you need to scale back your involvement. We appreciate and respect the effort and sacrifices you folks have made in this conflict...
  7. Seconded! :D

    Good drills, that man! :lol:
  8. I couldn't disagree with you anymore. As others before me have said, the Yanks ARE very good at this COIN conflict and many of us in green are still failing to admit how far behind the Yanks are leaving us. Personally, I'm looking forward to the US arriving in Helmand next year (I'll be there to greet them!). They'll bring masses of capability, knowledge and cash (probably the most important thing!).

    You'll also notice that Obama is moving the USA away from Bush's Unilateral approach to International Relations and back to the multilateral approach of the past democrats. So, no more 'with or without you' from the USA.
  9. Dunno if these numbers are genuine but here goes:

    Britain has a combined armed forces of 191,000 men
    USA 3 million

    Truth is we can't go throwing men about & deploying brigades the same way the yanks can,

    as for 15 month tours our brigades would come seriously ineffective, it would take years to recondition & be operational again after each tour
  10. It wasn't 'widely rumoured'. It was blatantly stated as such! Donald Rumsfeld, just before the UK Parliamentary vote, said of the UK forces:

    "To the extent that they are able to contribute, that would be welcome, but if they are not able to contribute...that could be worked around."

    Also, before the vote Bush offered Blair THREE TIMES in one phone call that UK forces didn't have to participate in the actual invasion. Blair turned him down - I wonder why?
  11. That last fact isn't often reported.

    Bush's request was for UKSF and AAR assets only. What prompted Blair to go as far as he did?
  12. AAR is often quoted as one of the 'key' assets we bring to 'coalition' (i.e. US) operations, yet the RAF cannot refuel ANY USAF jets (all of which use the flying boom method). Of course, USN/USMC can use drogue and probe, but a drogue can be fitted to the end of the boom of any of some 500 KC135 (albeit it cannot then refuel USAF aircraft). In addition, some 60 KC10s and 50 KC135's are fitted with underwing drogues as well as booms. I suspect the supposed USN/USMC liking for RAF tankers has more to do with their relationship with USAF than any actual capability gap on the US part.
  13. Easy question, simple answer - ill conceived self aggrandisement.

    The third rate clown (Bliar) had no consideration for either the consequences or the cost, in blood and money, of his reckless stupidity. Despite grand words and gestures, he, Bliar, lacked the courage to sack the Chancellor (Brown) who blatantly declined to agree to the appropriate funding for this tragic 'adventure'.

    These two awful men will be written in history as the arch-destroyers of this once great nation.
  14. This is 100% correct.

    Blair didn't turn down Bush's offer because he was absolutely convinced that regime change was the 'right' thing to do, and was determined that the UK should be a part of it.