British commanders call for more troops to stave off Taliban

#1
From The Sunday TimesAugust 10, 2008

British commanders call for more troops to stave off Taliban victory Michael Smith
Senior British commanders are to warn ministers that unless thousands more troops are sent to Afghanistan the Taliban will win back control of the country.

They are recommending a rapid reduction in the 4,000 troops in Iraq so that more can go to Afghanistan. American and British commanders in Afghanistan want an Iraq-style surge “within months” to fend off a Taliban victory before next year’s presidential election there.

One senior officer said the Taliban were now operating in areas where they had not been since the allied invasion in 2001.

“Unless the West commits serious numbers of extra troops soon, we are looking at a Taliban victory,” another officer said.
More on the link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4493366.ece
 
#2
One can only wonder at how Brown & Browne are going to manage the request. Increasing our commitment to HERRICK by 50% will not come without cost. In fiscal terms, Brown will be accutely aware of HM Treasury concerns, at a time when HM Treasury is under more economic pressure than at any point previously to balance the books.

From the same Times article:

Des Browne, the defence secretary, ordered his officials last week to deny that there were any plans to send more troops. Nato chiefs in Afghanistan, however, including General David McKiernan, the American commander, and his British deputy, Lieutenant-General Jonathon Riley, are “screaming out” for more troops, sources said.
How much longer do we have to endure the part-time Secretary of State's terrible stewardship of the armed forces?
 
#3
How many times have we heard the siren call for more reinforcements in Afghanistan, only for it to fall on the deaf ears of our European partners?

It would seem they are prepared to lose this one rather than send their own into harms way.

No wonder Putin and his resurgent Russian army have been emboldened. There are a fair few apologists on arrse, for the shirkers within NATO, now the world can see what a weak organization it has turned out to be. When you are in a strong alliance, sometimes you have to do things for the greater good. It would appear that for many years the Europeans have enjoyed the nuclear umbrella afforded by America, but when their turn has come to contribute they have retreated to self-interests.

Wonder what the apologists think now we have war in Europe, is this the first step by Putin, does he have other plans?

Would it have mattered if Georgia was a NATO member or not? If we lose in Afg, NATO will be holed below the water line. I am just amazed the Generals and Ministers in our Govt ever believed the EU Army would respond.
 
#4
ABrighter2006 said:
From the same Times article:

Des Browne, the defence secretary, ordered his officials last week to deny that there were any plans to send more troops. Nato chiefs in Afghanistan, however, including General David McKiernan, the American commander, and his British deputy, Lieutenant-General Jonathon Riley, are “screaming out” for more troops, sources said.
How much longer do we have to endure the part-time Secretary of State's terrible stewardship of the armed forces?
He is a compliant and more importantly cheap option and well the simple truth is we never have been able to fully fund sandpit operations properly, operationally or economically. Bliar was on his zealot like mission to be monkey boys bested friend and not forgetting that book deal.

While One Eye figured fingers crossed that it would all be over before he got the much dangled and promised keys to No10, along with his golden economic dream! I believe the treasury has this published as ‘Operation Potemkin’ !.

I hate that I might be seen as a supporting the ‘letting down of the fallen’ by suggesting we cannot 'win' as things are both ‘operationally or economically’ but we are as a counntry skint end of ! The rights and wrongs of why has been debated one way or another across both the pages of ARRSE and every media of debate! Except perhaps in Parliament, where the ongoing costs seems to always be side stepped, and that included the hidden ones that, that are missed in development aid, increased casualties, etc .

That this isn’t a convention war sadly, and the enemy isn’t a physical country. That the NWF and the horn of Africa seem to be developing, as other places become more stable or contained seems to mean that we have to open fresh fronts at the drop of a hat. This does make for an expensive war, even when it seems that your trying to run any operation on a profit loss spreadsheet.

I do believe the matter is we seem to be fire fight a lack of joined up foreign policy that may but more likely may not be about resources? I am not sold on the idea we are doing this in the style of plundering imperialism, with our history we know how too do that profitably. But more the big boys made me do it haven’t a real clue policy of liabour’s view of the changing world.

I just want then girls and boys back, we have fcuked it up there thanks too monkey boy and Liabour, can we defeat OBL in straight stand up fight easy peasy. But in the money draining resource hunger of asymmetric warfare, I fear not with the clowns currently in charge, without perhaps moving the nation to a complete war fighting economy, and we so know that will never happen.

Rant over
 
#5
Hey, there's a shed load of army and raf sitting in Cyprus that haven't been tasked - apart from 1 x RIB Coy on rotation. Why not deploy HQ BFC, 2 x RIBs, and CSSU - that'll take up some of the slack.
 
#6
[quote="nigegilb"]How many times have we heard the siren call for more reinforcements in Afghanistan, only for it to fall on the deaf ears of our European partners?

It would seem they are prepared to lose this one rather than send their own into harms way.

No wonder Putin and his resurgent Russian army have been emboldened. There are a fair few apologists on arrse, for the shirkers within NATO, now the world can see what a weak organization it has turned out to be. When you are in a strong alliance, sometimes you have to do things for the greater good. It would appear that for many years the Europeans have enjoyed the nuclear umbrella afforded by America, but when their turn has come to contribute they have retreated to self-interests.

Wonder what the apologists think now we have war in Europe, is this the first step by Putin, does he have other plans?

Would it have mattered if Georgia was a NATO member or not? If we lose in Afg, NATO will be holed below the water line. I am just amazed the Generals and Ministers in our Govt ever believed the EU Army would respond.[/quote]
You can have a european Army in hairnets that will turn and run away at the first sight of a serbian warlord or you can have the British Army that will stand and fight. Tim Collins 2004
TB
:(
 
#7
Is the only reasoning behind a withdrawal from Iraq to allow more troops to go to the stan a financial one? The B.A has around 110,000 troops am I right? And they generally deploy a majority of Infantry battalions, how short will the gap be between deployments of the same soldiers. Has anyone been drafted 2 years in a row?
 
#8
sidefx said:
Is the only reasoning behind a withdrawal from Iraq to allow more troops to go to the stan a financial one? The B.A has around 110,000 troops am I right? And they generally deploy a majority of Infantry battalions, how short will the gap be between deployments of the same soldiers. Has anyone been drafted 2 years in a row?
Of course, it's financial. It always is! And that we don't have enough soldiers/helicopters/strategic lift to support two operations.

98,000 soldiers IIRC.

Yes, lots of soldiers have deployed twice or more in two years. But the MOD recently said that "harmony guidelines for the Army have not been broken".

Both pieces of information have been published recently on t'web.

Litotes
 
#9
The other angle is in relation to the relavent roles involved in each theatre, and in some of the "critical skills areas" the brain drain that has been going on for the last five years.

It is financial, but as SoS's denial policy last week proves, the total lack of any candour / understanding of the issues involved, and how the British Military could have executed a good outcome on both ops, is completely lacking from the current government.

Bring about a call for a vote of no confidence, in the ability of the Rt Hon Des Browne MP to carry out his ministerial duties?

I would, would you?
 
#10
sidefx said:
Is the only reasoning behind a withdrawal from Iraq to allow more troops to go to the stan a financial one? The B.A has around 110,000 troops am I right? And they generally deploy a majority of Infantry battalions, how short will the gap be between deployments of the same soldiers. Has anyone been drafted 2 years in a row?
theres a minimum of an 18 month turn around in between tours..
 
#12
regarding spanners comment about people sitting in Cyprus, i can not comment on the RAF. However the Inf Bns (RIBS) have over the last 2 years operated far beyond the so called harmony guidelines.
 
#13
SmithsRail said:
sidefx said:
Is the only reasoning behind a withdrawal from Iraq to allow more troops to go to the stan a financial one? The B.A has around 110,000 troops am I right? And they generally deploy a majority of Infantry battalions, how short will the gap be between deployments of the same soldiers. Has anyone been drafted 2 years in a row?
theres a minimum of an 18 month turn around in between tours..
I've managed 11 months (Infantry not corps) and I'm pretty certain that people have suffered worse than me on the quick turn around.
 
#14
Closet_Jibber said:
SmithsRail said:
sidefx said:
Is the only reasoning behind a withdrawal from Iraq to allow more troops to go to the stan a financial one? The B.A has around 110,000 troops am I right? And they generally deploy a majority of Infantry battalions, how short will the gap be between deployments of the same soldiers. Has anyone been drafted 2 years in a row?
theres a minimum of an 18 month turn around in between tours..
I've managed 11 months (Infantry not corps) and I'm pretty certain that people have suffered worse than me on the quick turn around.
Really??11 months is the shortest I've ever heard of. Had you changed company or battalion or anything in that space of time that led to you being redeployed? Were you in Iraq then Afghanistan or the same theatre twice?
 
#16
the reason it has gone pete tong is that the politicos have not backed the army with man power, but more importantly reconstruction, liabour have not got a clue and clearly are not listening to what their commanders are telling them.

if we have a surge in troops it must be backed up with reconstruction, the reason why Malaya was a success was because we sent the right man power from the start and it was not run on a budget, golden brown has not given the mod the resources to achieve stability for civies to rebuild and educate the region!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
To be honest I dont think we should even be in Afghanistan. We cant afford it. We should pull out and bring the troops home. Bring back those from Iraq as well. Phoney Tony has gone and so has the taste for adventure that ran through downing street. If the Russians play silly buggers in Georgia then it could very rapidly get messy right on the EU/Nato borders. We cant fund 2 wars let alone 3, let the Fuzzy Wuzzies fight amongst themselves and get ready for Ivan like we were 20 years ago!
 
#18
'Ugly', Ivan doesnt need to invade anyone they just turn off the taps on the resources they have...endex, 'big_mac4824' that is the root for sure and many have said this time and time again but One Eye and the rest of Gubiment wont admit the truth.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#19
Well whatever happens with the Russians will burn us all one way or another. We seem to have gone from peace keeping in Kabul to all out war in the deserts without as much as a by your leave! The current commitment will drag on for at least 10 years and wreck any chance of economic recovery. We need to be realistic about what as a nation we can do and look at what it will cost to bring about an end to the current mess. If that means that we pull out with massive loss of face with the yanks then so be it. We were quite frankly stupid to vote these clowns in and should have learnt by now. How on earth the tories under call me dave will fare god only knows!
 
#20
ugly said:
To be honest I dont think we should even be in Afghanistan. We cant afford it. We should pull out and bring the troops home. Bring back those from Iraq as well. Phoney Tony has gone and so has the taste for adventure that ran through downing street. If the Russians play silly buggers in Georgia then it could very rapidly get messy right on the EU/Nato borders. We cant fund 2 wars let alone 3, let the Fuzzy Wuzzies fight amongst themselves and get ready for Ivan like we were 20 years ago!
I'm not against pulling troops out from an ill conceived op that hasn't had much in the way of financial or political backing, but unfortunately the "Fuzzy Wuzzies" (my bold) as you call them are not content to just kill each other in their own country, they like to cause mayhem in other countries too - New York, London, Madrid, Bali to name a few. The whole reason we ended up in this mess is because they attacked first. I know US foreign policy in the region prior to 9/11 wasn't brilliant and they did p*ss off a lot of people but they certainly didn't invite the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Pulling out wouldn't ensure security at home - in fact it may make us appear to be an easier target.

The Government need to accept that we're in for the long haul and commit 100% to Afghan. If that means that funding for other projects suffers - so be it. To paraphrase the lottery "We're in it - so let's win it!" :twisted:
 

Latest Threads

New Posts