Des Browne statement on Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by ssupersixfour, Jul 10, 2006.

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. and that BBC site includes ...
    And this adds up to 900. Sappers (320), 1coy RM (100?), 1 Coy RF (100?), 2 Pl RIR (60?) = 580. So the small HQ increase and more helicopters = 320 people. The largest a 'small increase' could be is 120, so how many helicopters do we get for the other 200 people?. 4 or 5 ?.
  2. Des Browne's statement was delivered in a hideous and stilted manner; it was clear that he knew bugger all about what he was talking about.
  3. Another masterful performance from Swiss Tony. "Sending two platoons of the Royal Irish is like making love to a beautiful woman...".

    WTF does he think that this feeble "re-inforcement' will achieve? Having just looked at my crystal balls I predict that they will have bugger all effect apart from providing a few more moving targets for the locals. How will these extra people be replened in the field (all the newspapers reported that the 4 Tonners' armour is not due to arrive for another couple of months)?


    When Tony 'I am the biggest liar in the world and a total c**t' Blair is out of office, I hope that everytime he meets an ex-serviceman he collects a good old fashioned right cross followed by a stamp to his genitalia.

    Edited for language - PTP
  4. 450 Reserves to be called up as well to provide 400 troops.
  5. It will be interesting to see were the extra flying hours come from, extra airframes or stretching the maintainance schedules of those already deployed (and overstretched). With the RM and RIRISH providing FP, that gives CLF a whole rifle coy to stem the rising tide of violence. If Bliar truly believes this is the battleground for Western Culture (quoted today on R4) shouldn't he be publicly demanding more combat support from the rest of NATO?

  6. I know that we are overstretched at the moment but is this the best they can scrape together or is it

    1 a token effort reacting to the current media pressure but on the cheap

    2 A reluctance to spend the money required to reinforce properly

    3 A realisation that finding 4000 troops every six months who are not already busy is going to be difficult without more boots on the ground

    4 ackniowledgement that the TA Bucket is nearing empty for deployable soldiers who are not time barred

    5 A consequence of not monitoring the regular reserve so that they dont know where they live to brown letter them less the pensioners

    Or is it because having trimmed the fat from the Forces and then a fair bit of the meat the goverment is writing cheques the army can not cash

  7. from Lib Dem website -
    Afghanistan - a tough but necessary mission
    10 July 2006

    The Afghanistan operation is vital to our long term security, but there will be increasing problems in sustaining the level of effort that is needed. says Lord Tim Garden

    The deaths of six British soldiers in a matter of days has raised Afghanistan high on the political agenda. The public seem surprised that we seem to have found ourselves in yet another dangerous battle in distant parts. Questions are now being raised about whether we have sent enough troops, whether they have the right kit, and whether they should be there at all.

    The Afghanistan operation stems directly from the 9/11 attacks on the Washington and New York nearly 5 years ago. Unlike over Iraq, the international community rallied to support the American-led operation to destroy the al-Qaeda training camps in late 2001. The Taleban regime fell, and the United Nations supported the development of democracy which has led to the Afghan government of Hamad Karzai. The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Jack Straw, made a promise that we would support the rebuilding of Afghanistan into a viable democratic state, so that terrorists had no haven there.

    Unfortunately, the intervention in Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent chaos there, meant that interest in the problems of Afganistan declined. Hamad Karzai asked for 50,000 troops to help him secure the country. NATO sent a tenth of that number, and could do little more than secure the capital Kabul. Meanwhile, the United States continued its offensive operations in the East of the country to try to find Osama bin Ladin using special forces and airpower. Gradually NATO extended reconstruction in the more peaceful North and West of the Country, but the South and East along the border with Pakistan have remained bandit country. The opium poppy harvest has again flourished, and finds its way to the streets of Britain.

    Left unchallenged, the Taleban would return and with them the training of terrorists. The only way for Afghan farmers to make money would be through poppy growing. These are direct threats to Western security. NATO, after much heart searching, agreed this year to extend its mission again. British forces have taken on Helmand province, and will also provide the bulk of the NATO headquarters staff in Kabul for some time. Given that the local warlords, drug producers and Taleban insurgents have had a free run for the past 4 years, this was always going to be a difficult mission.

    The British deployment of 3700 troops is a serious force. Yet it is still in the initial deployment phase. NATO does not take over control of the area from the US until the end of July. Commanders are exploring their sectors, testing for resistance and establishing contacts with the local authorities. The intensity of the engagements makes it clear that the area is even more challenging than had been hoped, and tactics will have to change accordingly.

    There is much speculation about whether more forces are needed. Only the local British commanders are in a position to decide that. What is clear is that more transport helicopters would help. The terrain is difficult and vehicles are liable to ambush or bombs. Troops can get in fast by Chinook or other helicopters, and can be reinforced when the fighting calls for reinforcements. Troops pinned down also rely on air support – ground attack Harriers or Apache helicopters – to bring firepower to bear on the enemy quickly. The signs are that they may need more of this. If more fighting troops are needed, it would ratchet up the helicopter and armoured vehicle bill even more.

    Tony Blair promised last week that our commanders would get whatever they needed in people or equipment. While the promise is helpful, there are limits to what is possible. With simultaneous operations in Iraq, the shortages of key specialists and vital capabilities like helicopters are beginning to bite. You cannot produce a trained pilot overnight or get a helicopter from your local supermarket. The Afghanistan operation is vital to our long term security, but there will be increasing problems in sustaining the level of effort that is needed.

    Air Marshal Lord Garden is the Lib Dem Defence spokesman in the Lords, and a former assistant chief of the defence staff.
  8. All of the above Chelwood14. This is a disgrace. Trying to make the despatch of 200 soldiers, one RRF company and two platoons of Royal Irish sound like a major reinforcement. The Commandos were always going in October, the engineers going in September arent fighting troops, and the field hospital can mean nothing more than we expect more casualties. If they keep reinforcing it bit by bit like this then that is what they will get. They should have bitten the bullet and sent at least one infantry battlegroup. Now there will come a time when they have to send more troops, what will they do then, just another company of infantry?
  9. And of course guys these people are gonna want to go home at some point. Where do we keep getting the troops to backfill the gaps that will be appearing in the proposed next roulement?
    Cake to go with Arrse anyone?
  10. While I agree that major reinforcement is needed, do we actually have anything more than they've announced today left spare?
  11. Surely if your going to deploy two platoons of Royal Irish then at least go the whole hog and deploy a company. Could a potential solution be the formation of fully deployable TA battalions, would this work?
    Also are the RI an Armoured Infantry battalion or Light role? To me, which I admit means next to nothing, a dozen warriors wouldn't go amiss out there.
  12. Light - 1 R IRISH is an air assault infantry battalion in 16 Air Assault Brigade.
  13. When are the politicians going to wake up and see that the Armed Forces can not continue in this manner? We are seriously overstretched me and Dh have been married 7 years yet he is on his 4th tour at the moment (not to mention the training in USA Canada and Norway that has taken him away from home a further 5 times in that period) and is due to go to Afghanistan just 6 months after getting back from Iraq. Yet I know he has had it lucky the past few years and done less tours than other branches of the army.

    Obviously I don't know how things are as well as he (or most serving personnel) does but I believe that recruitment is not the major problem it is retention. How do we retain forces personnel and/or increase recruitment when they see the daily news stories?

    If there was less mejya coverage on the lack of equipment and support I think things would look different to people. We all expect that sadly people will be lost or injured in these conflicts and dread our loved ones getting involved but it is made harder to take when the news carries stories of no boots, no helicopters etc etc: When we found out DH was unexpectedly going to Iraq this spring my parents asked him if it would be helpful if they got him some equipment/ clothing so he wasn't without things he needed!

    I vote we send all poiticians on a 6 month active tour before they are allowed to have an opinion on what our troops need!