British Forces in Afghanistan are SAVED!!

#1
#3
FaceLikeAPingPongBall said:
But the men from NATO.... they say NO!!!!!!!
Sadly whilst Tone and The Shaved Chimp's people are whittering on...

"What we are looking to do is to put more forces in so that we can turn the tide faster," Victoria Nuland told BBC radio. "The issue here ... is the fighting capability and the fighting willingness of all allies.

"The US, the UK, Canada, the Dutch, have been in the tough, pointy end of this fight, and more allies need to be willing to be ... in the fighting."
...all those who've not committed troops are inwardly sniggering to themselves "They're in the shi-it, they're in the shi-it..."

Does anyone think that any country leader who didn't commit troops before seeing the prediction of it all going to Hell in a hand-basket come true is going to commit troops now? I can't see it. What I can see is more British troops being sent out there.

All together now: "The British Armed Forces are stretched, not overstretched!"



Edited for clarity.
 
#4
FaceLikeAPingPongBall said:
armchair_jihad said:
Blair tells Nato: send more troops to Afghanistan

TONY CARES!! OUR BOYS ARE NOW OK!!

deperate spin disguised as a bulsh1it article

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1871541,00.html
But the men from NATO.... they say NO!!!!!!!
Did we expect much else from the NATO members? When it comes to serious conflict how many have 1) combact effective troops and 2) political will?

The NATO alliance suffered a major rift in European and American relations after 9/11. E.g. Chancellor Schroeder called 9/11 "war against the civilised world" and told the bundestag "I have assured the American president of our unlimited solidarity, and I stress unlimited". But in the end German troops appear to remain inmoved. Schroeder of course stashed a pile of votes when he found an anti-war stance was more popular. Greasy?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#5
WHAT a w4nker that man is :roll: ......roll on the much anticipated Great Day of Departure.....

Le Chevre
 
#6
NATO, politically is a farce. An organisation of cowards.
 
#7
the_guru said:
NATO, politically is a farce. An organisation of cowards.
It's an organisation formed to combat a threat that doesn't exist... namely the Soviet bloc. It's marvellous to see former soviet states join, which must rub additional salt into Russia's wounds. *Gloats for a moment.* It's a relic without a clear reason for its existence. Although if there is a heirarchy of weakness it still has more credibility than the UN and far more than the EU. In my humble view. France's vision of the EU of course, is as a force to counter America in matters of military as well as political influence... but then of course Bosnia happened showing how feeble the EU alliance is when it really matters.
 
#8
As I have said before certain Nato cuntrys will fight if it's home defence and fight well.
However they don't see the point in shedding the blood of their young men on overseas adventures especialy ones with connections to a nation known by some as the Great Saten.
The chance to end the Ganistan problem was blown away back in 02/03 when King George decided for reasons he has still not told the rest of us to go and sort out Soddom.
Is it any wonder that ar lads are left up the swanny, deep in the mire while the Euro scroats do what they are best at, sit around and Tut Tut.
john
Comments on this post from US citizens are acceptable only if they can tell the membership the real reason for King George's adventure.
 
#12
Speaking in Downing Street at a press conference with the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Mr Blair said "Nato countries have a duty to respond".

He paid tribute to the "professionalism and commitment" of British forces in Afghanistan. "They are inflicting real damage on the Taliban and al-Qa'ida but it is important that the whole of Nato regards this as their responsibility."

john
Hum, Intresting werry intresting.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#13
Just wait until it's all over. Then we'll see the non participating NATO member states sqabble for lucrative contracts.

I think this fiasco is evidence that NATO has had its day. Let's leave it amd start again with select membership next time.
 
#15
BoomShackerLacker said:
the_guru said:
NATO, politically is a farce. An organisation of cowards.
It's an organisation formed to combat a threat that doesn't exist... namely the Soviet bloc. It's marvellous to see former soviet states join, which must rub additional salt into Russia's wounds. *Gloats for a moment.* It's a relic without a clear reason for its existence.


The best, and most trenchant, definition of NATO's role was, 'to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Soviets out'. That, certainly, is what most of the continentals signed up for, keeping a very Euro-centric perspective.

The post-1989 history of NATO has seen many older members seem to lose interest while many new ones like the look of the old agenda with Russia in the place of the USSR. The US and UK may want a new global anti-terror role for NATO but that needs a far broader definition of defence than the old collective security sense of territorial integrity.

NATO does seem to have an identity crisis. It was a product of a time and place struggling to develop a shared vision of what to do in new places in a new time. SEATO wound itself up in 1977 realising it had failed. Perhaps NATO should have wound itself up realising it had succeeded.
 
#16
imagine if your polish or live in the baltic states NAto seems like a good idea russia's not quite given up the old game just yet re that ukrianinssudden outbreak of acne :twisted:
 
#17
LankyPullThrough said:
The best, and most trenchant, definition of NATO's role was, 'to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Soviets out'.
Can we add to this helpful definition 'to irritate de Gaulle and successors immensely and leave the French sulking about their loss of prominence in the world'?

Be wrong not to remind them that their Franco-centric view of Europe is eclipsed by more pressing matters.
 
#18
LankyPullThrough said:
NATO does seem to have an identity crisis. It was a product of a time and place
I've long held that the NATO Balkan involvement was born of a common perception among NATO leaders that their sole strategic interest (in the Balkans, that is) was as an opportunity to sustain and expand the alliance as a means of keeping Russia in check: Defence on the Cheap, you might say.

Thing is - no strategic resources there - even if you include cheap Adriatic holidays.

I'm also of the view, that the failure - starting in the White House, and mirrored in every other NATO government - to understand the significance of the AFG problem (again, no strategic resources), and to treat it (rather than IRQ, where the oil/$$$ are) as the main effort, militarily, morally and financially is the single biggest collective failure of my lifetime (which includes Suez, just).

We cannot succeed in AFG without rebuilding it.
The first - and perhaps only - opportunity to rebuild has passed by, at least in the Brit AO, it would seem.
We cannot rebuild at the same time as destroying.
We must defeat the Taliban in order to begin to rebuild.
Defeating the Taliban requires more troops.
More troops are not available.

Only 2 options seem to be open:

1. Hang on, and wait for the cavalry (as is happening now). When/if they arrive, create and defend opportunities for rebuilding.[Note - can only work if the 'cavalry' includes other non-mil resources, with leaders who are genuinely determined to rebuild AFG, and adequately resourced]

2. Pull out: abandoning AFG to failed statehood, renewing flood of cheap heroin derivatives into the west, and handing back the jihadis their training bases.

Option 1 is only viable if nations are prepared to commit both cavalry and rebuilding resources (Oink Oink - flap flap; ahhh, pigs flying south for the winter).

Otherwise, you end up with a select band of NATO military forces, possibly of increasing size over time, fighting a war of survival, waiting for a cavalry that is never going to come.

I will close with this:
Carl von Clausewitz said:
The following are the only conditions under which a general uprising can be effective:
1. The war must be fought in the interior of the country.
2. It must not be decided by a single stroke.
3. The theatre of operations must be fairly large.
4. The national character must be suited to that type of war.
5. The country must be rough and inaccessible, because of mountains, forests, marshes or local methods of cultivation.

from 'On War'. Book 6 Chap 26: 'The People in Arms'
I'd say AFG scores high on Carl's scale.

[I think Charlie von C has another thing or two to say about when an entire people rise up against an invader, but that may just be my memory playing tricks on me.]
 
#19
I agree with you there Stonker, Afghanistan appears to tick all the boxes on Herr Von Clausewitz' list. Also, did anyone see the Sky News (I think) piece where there reporter was briefley interviewing Spanish and Italian ambassadors about why they weren't contributing to the NATO force in Afghan, there stock reply, "We are doing our bit elsewhere", ???? Like f*cking where!! Nowhere that is as important at the moment as Afghanistan, surely?! Slimy f*ckers the lot of em.

Cheers Easy!
 
#20
Stonker said:
I'm also of the view, that the failure - starting in the White House, and mirrored in every other NATO government - to understand the significance of the AFG problem (again, no strategic resources), and to treat it (rather than IRQ, where the oil/$$$ are) as the main effort, militarily, morally and financially is the single biggest collective failure of my lifetime (which includes Suez, just).

We cannot succeed in AFG without rebuilding it.
Compelling argument Stonk. You're a voice crying in the wilderness. What has history taught us:

a) The doctrine of limited war is deeply flawed (Vietnam)
b) AFG (throws nod to Clausewitz) is peculiarly suited to irregular tactics (Vietnam)
c) We learn nothing from history (Winston)

I'm not sure strategically AFG can be re-built due to its geological and cultural proclivities.

But Iraq is a realistic strategic prospect. My evidence is Britain's occupation of Egypt in the 1880s. As soon as we arrived we were promising to leave but in reality we set about nation building with typical well intentioned liberal hyprocrisy. But, what did they achieve:

1) As with Britian's liberal Empire methods we rescheduled Egypt's debts, balanced the budget, reformed the tax system, stabilised the country, attracted foreign investment in infrastructure, reduced corruption, enforced rule of law and improved education.
2) Strategically we waged war on the pro German Ottoman Empire from Egypt
3) Guarded our Suez asset.
(Source: Ferguson)

Iraq I suggest offers similar worthy opportunities in this unstable world.

Lessons learnt: Don't give the Iraqi govt. too much power too soon.

Cost? We still had 80,000 troops in Egypt 74 years after the occupation! Leaving in 1954.

America has to commit to the long haul.
 

Latest Threads

Top