CDS Speaks out

#3
You could say we're 'Jock-Strapped', for want of a better term... :roll:
 
#5
This will make a difference, pity it took so long for the lights to come on, but welcome all the same.

My issue all along is that the (2006), UK deployment to Afghanistan should never have been approved whilst we were in Iraq. All the Chiefs of Staff signed up to it, so I don't think much of their logic or analysis.

CDS would not have said this if something did not need to change.

Is it a reduction of deployed manpower that he wants to see happen, or could it be another commitment that he can see coming? Iran? Or has CDS finally realised that Afghanistan will consume every single capability in UKAF inventory.

CDS need only to have looked back to the Russian occupation to have worked that one out.

We achieved our initial objective in 2002, if the Euro Armies are not interested then sorry to say, esp with more tragic news today, time to bail out of Afg.
 
#6
boobs said:
OldAdam said:
You could say we're 'Jock-Strapped', for want of a better term... :roll:
I'll get your coat.
And best you order a taxi while you are at it.

msr
 
#7
Question: how many of this vile Government's Ministers will line up to rubbish his comments in the coming week or so OR will there be a statement from an unattributable MoD source doing the same but 'explaining' his remarks - OR will any NewLabour politician back him up?
 
#8
CDS need only to have looked back to the Russian occupation to have worked that one out.
As far back as that? He only needed to look as far as his predecessor telling TCH in a press conference that in fact, he was :D
 
#9
nigegilb said:
My issue all along is that the UK deployment to Afghanistan should never have been approved whilst we were in Iraq.
Surely you mean the other way round?

As to the CDS remarks, It's about time and I hope that zaNu Labour actually starts to take some notice, although the possibilities of that are minimal.
 
#10
Sorry, should have said the 2006, UK Deployment to Afghanistan, you know the one where not a single shot would be fired....

Our objective had already been achieved in early 2002.

But yes I agree, Afg could have been sorted without the distraction and diversion of the Iraq invasion which has been a disaster. That said, once we were committed to Iraq we should have never deployed to Afg in 2006, especially when the mission was totally confusing.

Jees, where do you start and finish with this mess?
 
#11
insty said:
At last the top man speaks too Telegraph Story. And he's not even retiring.
Spoken, it is suggested, from a position of strength knowing the Govt can hardly sack him, or ask him to resign, when the Govt, has just asked him “to stay on in post for another year”.

The Telegraph reported said:
Britain's Armed Forces 'stretched beyond their capabilities' by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent 24/06/2008

Sir Jock's blunt comments about the strain on the Forces are his most critical yet on the issue. Last May, he told MPs that the military was "very stretched" by the two wars, and warned: "In the not-too-distant future we need something to change."

Since then, the CDS has faced criticism from some serving service personnel for not being more openly critical of Government defence policy, and some officers have compared him unfavourably with Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, who has said the ongoing operations could "break" the Army.

Earlier this month it was confirmed that Sir Richard will not be promoted to replace Sir Jock as CDS and the air chief marshal will be asked to stay on in post for another year.
 
#12
From the article
Hours later, the MoD confirmed that 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, had been killed during a firefight in Helmand province.
Feck me, that must've been a hell of a firefight
 
#13
Hours later, the MoD confirmed that 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, had been killed during a firefight in Helmand province.
What, all of them!!! :omfg:
 
#14
Damn. beaten to it!!
 
#15
nigegilb said:
That said, once we were committed to Iraq we should have never deployed to Afg in 2006, especially when the mission was totally confusing.

Jees, where do you start and finish with this mess?
Perhaps we just start by sticking to what we can successfully hope to finish there?
Rory Stewart, a former diplomat who lives in Kabul where he is running an urban regeneration project wrote in December '07-
International policy in Afghanistan has long been surreally distanced from reality. Britain and its allies continue to throw immense numbers of troops and dollars in pursuit of grand fantasies. Their analysis too often mingles management jargon, misapplied analogy, moralistic rhetoric, impatience and fear. They have failed in their ambitions to eliminate poppy growing and opium production, to deliver development to insurgency areas and to defeat the Taliban. They are paralysed and are in danger of lurching from troop increases to withdrawal, from engagement to isolation. They need a modest and sustainable strategy which recognises that in Afghanistan all politics is local.
...and Is rebuilding Afghanistan our mission impossible?
LINK

BRITAIN is putting more resources and energy into Afghanistan than into almost any other country in the world. It plans to create a safe, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan and has taken particular responsibility for fighting drugs and the insurgency in the province of Helmand. But what is the chance of success?

Some things have been achieved in the six years since the USled invasion, from getting millions of girls back into school to child inoculations and the creation of a central bank. But these are tiny steps relative to our ambitions of creating a multi-ethnic centralised state based on democracy, respect for human rights, gender equality and the rule of law. Many of these objectives are not simply difficult but dishonest and impossible.

Rural areas of Afghanistan remain far more isolated, conservative and resistant to change than we publicly acknowledge. War has eroded social structures and entrenched ethnic suspicion between Pashtun, Hazara and Tajik populations. Pakistan and Iran continue to exercise a dangerous influence. There is a widespread insurgency. Many provinces are now too dangerous for international civilians to visit. Power is in the hands of tribal leaders and militia commanders.

Much of Afghanistan is barren and most people cannot read or write. Despite our efforts in counter-narcotics, production is at a record high; in Balkh, where the government boasts that the poppy is eliminated, villagers are growing cannabis instead. Afghanistan’s economic comparative advantage seems to lie in the fact that it is the source of 92% of Europe’s heroin and yet still receives $4 billion a year in international aid.

Most of these problems are beyond the power of the United States to solve, let alone Britain. Yet Britain continues to behave as though it were omnipotent. It assumed responsibility for Helmand, perhaps the most difficult province; it chose to take prime responsibility for counter-narcotics, perhaps the most difficult security issue; and it has launched a “state-building” programme in areas dominated by groups opposed to the government. Most of this effort is wasted and has often made the situation worse for both Afghans and Britain.

We need a policy that reflects our actual capacity rather than our hubristic fantasies. We cannot win a counter-insurgency campaign against the Taliban. We do not control the borders with Pakistan, where insurgents find safety and support. Our troop numbers are limited and so is our understanding of local structures. Nato is divided and uncoordinated. The Afghan government lacks the ability to provide the level of support that we require. The local population is at best suspicious of our actions. In Helmand, where we have increased the troop presence from 200 to over 7,000, our gains can only be temporary. It is more dangerous there for foreign civilians than it was two years ago, before we deployed our troops.

We have also discovered that we cannot create key Afghan institutions from outside. The police are predatory and corrupt; in some cases, security improves when they withdraw. We can build a technical institution such as a central bank and we have trained soldiers, but we have not had a big impact on the police, rural courts or power structures. Instead of trying to transform remote parts of the country with slogans of “rule of law” and “governance” we should accept that we don’t have the power, knowledge or legitimacy to change those societies.

Moreover, we cannot run successful development projects in the middle of an insurgency. A dollar spent in Kabul has about 20 times the impact of a dollar in an insurgent-dominated town such as Musa Qala in north Helmand, where much of our aid was wasted on security and projects were undermined by lack of intimate engagement with the community. In such towns, expensively constructed projects collapse or are destroyed as we leave.

Afghanistan will probably remain weakly governed and poor for a long time. There is little we can do to prevent it. But it is not a cause for despair because there are things that we can do, and do well. We have the ability to build roads and dams, to provide advice on commercial law or to undertake development projects in stable areas. The province of Bamiyan has had far less money poured into it than the small insurgency-ridden sub-district of Panjawi, but it has become a much better place for its inhabitants. This is because its population brings its own ingenuity and energy to bear on foreign-supported projects and will maintain them after we leave.

We should focus on such places, mainly in the centre and the north. We should also pursue a security agenda focused on counter-terrorism, rather than counter-insurgency, using intelligence or special forces operations to destroy terrorist training camps if they reemerge.

Our principle should be to protect ourselves against a terrorist threat from Afghanistan, while delivering a handful of well executed projects that create jobs and incomes for Afghans and help to restore national confidence after decades of conflict. Afghanistan is not going to be the only fragile and unstable poor country with which we will have to deal over the next 30 years. We need a strategy, one that is smarter, more honest and more efficient with our resources; one which can be applied to Somalia, Sudan or anywhere else where trouble emerges.

We are hiding the dishonesty and failures of our policy by claiming that “failure is not an option” and talking about a moral obligation. Ought implies can. We do not have the moral obligation to do what we cannot do.
Let's stop this nonsensical notion that it would somehow be 'unbritish' to call a halt and refrain from continuing on a wrong path just because that's what we have always done, so therefore must go on, because that's what we've always done......

The lives of our mother's sons are worth far more than the stubborn pride of our leaders.
 
#16
nigegilb said:
Sorry, should have said the 2006, UK Deployment to Afghanistan, you know the one where not a single shot would be fired....

Our objective had already been achieved in early 2002.

But yes I agree, Afg could have been sorted without the distraction and diversion of the Iraq invasion which has been a disaster. That said, once we were committed to Iraq we should have never deployed to Afg in 2006, especially when the mission was totally confusing.

Jees, where do you start and finish with this mess?
While it will be 'a kick in the teeth' (yes i know that could be called and understatement) for all those who have fallen and all those who have been permanently injured.

Its time to withdraw we have spent(wasted) money on development too try and bring something to the people of Afganistan but not spent (not wasted) on direct support of war fighting operations.

Both sandpit operations have been driven by politics, therefore mission creep has been in the hands of those not facing the reality of incoming fire.

The west i.e. Shrub and his zanu liabour poodles can not impose democracy on nations that does not seem to want it.

The initial operation in the Stan to destroy Bin Laden and his bunch of fcktards and to destroy the Taliban, had the moral high ground ish!

Once that was done the 'Stan' quickly fell back into tribal warlords ruling as they saw fit, that wasn't perfect, but democracy as we understand it does seem to work for them!

That we now have issues with the whole Pakistan (Allie or Enemy) and a nation that is Nuked up also! Well thats a whole A1 cluster.

Every loss every injury is not achieving anything, the west wont or cant afford to spend too a level both operationally and in aid to get a result...

Sickening but IMHO true, bring all the boys and girls home their loss's are not worth it...



edited for grammar diction spelling
 
#17
Rory Stewart, a former diplomat who lives in Kabul where he is running an urban regeneration project wrote in December '07-
International policy in Afghanistan has long been surreally distanced from reality. Britain and its allies continue to throw immense numbers of troops and dollars in pursuit of grand fantasies. Their analysis too often mingles management jargon, misapplied analogy, moralistic rhetoric, impatience and fear.
So, bit like their domestic policy then?

msr
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Having read some of his comments, it would seem he is manning up to the task very well indeed. If the gobment thought they'd get one over on Sir Richard Dannatt for his comments, then they've just scored a huge own goal!

Well done to the CDS. Between him and General Sir Richard Dannatt, the message is out loud and clear, and can't be argued.
 
#19
'Spoken, it is suggested, from a position of strength knowing the Govt can hardly sack him, or ask him to resign, when the Govt, has just asked him “to stay on in post for another year”.'

Cyclops had a cunning plan - he and his forces-hating cronies think that Dannatt has 'got above his station' and didn't want him to get the CDS job. The plan was to keep Stirrup there for another year until Dannatt (the turbulant priest) was safely retired then replace him with someone a bit more compliant. Obviously, Sir Jock feels he has nothing to lose and is starting to speak out a little.

Given the growing support for the armed forces in the country, and the general contempt felt for the former student activists that call themselves liarbour these days, it is difficult to see what more cyclops can do. It has been widely reported, and is obvious, that the government (or what passes for it these days) has knifed Sir Richard for doing what he is paid to do, namely sticking up for the blokes under his command. However, loyalty and honour is alien to Zanu Labour and they don't quite know how to deal with someone that displays it.
 
#20
I'll tell you what Zanu Bob should do, he should call an immediate emergency meeting of NATO and demand that the shirkers on the continent of europe provide reinforcements for Helmand. If the shirkers say no, he should pull our boys out.

I live close to Wootton Bassett and the graphic realisation of war is made apparent to us all too often. My heart goes out to the families of those who have fallen, but enough is enough. No political progress is being achieved but many of our own are being sacrificed. Brown should also summon Karzai and read him the riot act. This continual loss must not be allowed to continue, student politicians sacrificing our finest at no risk to themselves or their families, whilst they gorge themselves on everything the tax payer throws at them.
 

Latest Threads

Top