So, after recently getting into a heated discussion with civi work people about Telic and general Army issues, one person jumped onto the latest topic of 'Herrick'. Why are we going etc.. what do we hope to achieve?

My response followed the lines of Taliban and Drugs trade...

but can anyone else think of a better answer??
Getting away from irritating civvies for 11 months?

Important to remember that Uk forces deploying on Op Herrick 4 are doing so, by invitation of the Afghan National Government, in order, amongst other things, to help the Afghan National Army and National Police in being able to do an effective job.
To stop the drugs problem we created by invading
Insane said:
Important to remember that Uk forces deploying on Op Herrick 4 are doing so, by invitation of the Afghan National Government, in order, amongst other things, to help the Afghan National Army and National Police in being able to do an effective job.
Yes, of course they are ;)

Nurse, I recommend upping the daily dose by 50%.



Book Reviewer
...hmmm.....be interesting to hear the MISSION piece of the Herrick Commanders orders

Mission: to deploy in support of other Coalition forces in establishing the Rule of Law in Helmand Province. (???)
Main Effort: ?????

Doc John got on his hind legs in Royal United Services Institute this week to talk about , mostly, the LEGAL framework for deployed ops, if I read it right...there's a bit on Afghanistan amongst other issues - check below for the doctrinalisationitude:

The full transcript of Dr Reid's speech at RUSI is published below:

"In recent weeks I've been speaking about the changes we face in defence, above all the challenges posed by potential new threats we could not have envisaged just a few years ago.

"In essence, I have been saying two things:

"First, that the strategic landscape we see before us now, and the threats we face, are different – and, as I have indicated today, significantly more complex - to anything we have faced before; and, second, that these are exacerbated by greater uncertainties ahead, be they ecological, economic, political or social.

"This affects us all, from the soldiers, sailors or airmen in the job we ask them to do, to the future of our grand alliances.

"I have tried to make clear that, whilst we must retain and enhance what traditionally makes us strong, we must also face a new reality – that without change that strength cannot be taken for granted, and that the consequences of weakness could be bleak indeed.

"I hope that the comments and observations that I have previously made have contributed to the contemporary discussion about defence in the UK, and security more generally.

"RUSI is well-placed to host such discussion. For over a century the Society has been at the hub of these kinds of debates and I have no doubt it will be so for many years to come.

"Today I would like to move on and widen that debate to address new elements – in particular to make some observations about the international legal framework in which we operate. I am not myself a lawyer but, as a practising politician, I understand how law continues to evolve in response to real changes in the world.

"For centuries conflict between tribes, cities and states was completely unbridled and savage. Very gradually, mankind developed a range of conventions that they applied to constrain and moderate what is in essence a brutal activity.

"Eventually, these agreements became rules, which became laws. Much has been achieved in current legal frameworks. But warfare continues to evolve, and, in its moral dimensions, we have now to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents.

"A few weeks ago I spoke to students at King’s College here in London about the uneven nature of the modern battlefield, and the unconstrained enemy ranged against us. Against this background, I called for all of us to be swifter to support, and slower to condemn our armed forces.

"In that address I made clear that I was not, in any way, suggesting that British forces should operate outside the law.

"What I said was that the legal constraints upon us, when set against an enemy which adheres to none whatsoever, but is swift to insist that we do, made life very difficult for the forces of Democracy.

"I also said that this was not a difficulty we rejected. On the contrary, we embraced it.

"Our values - of law, democracy, restraint and respect - are at the core of our national beliefs, and even if – as some suggest – they create a short-term tactical disadvantage, they represent a long-term strategic advantage.

"These values are constant. They form the bedrock of British society. The laws which represent them, though, have to reflect the reality of today’s circumstances.

"Historically, of course, laws have always been adapted to better suit the times. When they have become out-dated, or less relevant, or less applicable to the realities of the day they have been modified or changed. This is true of all laws, domestic or international.

"In their most obvious form these developments make instant sense to us. For example, cars remain potentially dangerous things, yet as technology changed it became clear that asking a man to walk ahead of a vehicle with a red flag was ridiculous, and impossible.

"But, since some change is less perceptible, more incremental, the balance between considerations such as obligation and entitlement, and freedom and security needs to be continually reviewed and, where necessary, re-forged. If we act differently today from how we behaved yesterday, it is not necessarily wrong. Indeed it may be wrong not to. We owe it to ourselves, to our people, to our forces and to the cause of international order to constantly reappraise and update the relationship between our underlying values, the legal instruments which apply them to the world of conflict, and the historical circumstances in which they are to be applied, including the nature of that conflict.

"That is why I pose three questions about the international legal framework. Put simply, in today's changed circumstances are we convinced that it adequately covers:

the contemporary threat from international terrorists?
The circumstances in which states may need to take action in order to avert imminent attack?
Those situations where the international community needs to intervene on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in order to stop internal suppression - mass murder and genocide – as opposed to external aggression?

"I may not have the answers to, or the precise means of resolving these questions and problems, but, just as we continually reassess whether we have the right military structure to meet current and future threats, I am sure that we should do the same for the laws that seek to regulate conflicts.

"Let's start from the new environment in which we operate.

"Towards the end of the 20th century, apart from murderous but – in modern comparative terms - relatively constrained terrorism in Northern Ireland , this country and its allies faced threats which were essentially state centered, predictable and in many fields subject to well evolved international law . We successfully met those threats by participation in well-defined formal alliances, deploying static standby forces prepared for major conventional combat operations along the most exposed borders of our allies.

International Terrorism

"September 11, 2001 was a date which exposed how much this paradigm needed to change. It proved beyond doubt that , while no one can be sure that the era of war between great powers is entirely over, we certainly now face a new enemy.

"We now face non-state actors capable of operating on a global scale, crossing international borders, exploiting the teachings of a great, peaceful religion as justification for their murderous intent.

"We are also amidst accelerating scientific and technological progress which has facilitated the proliferation of, and easier access to, the means of wholesale human destruction – particularly in the form of chemical, biological or radiological weaponry, and an enemy unashamedly determined to obtain those technologies to kill millions.
"Until recently it was assumed that only states could cause mass casualties – and our rules, conventions & laws are largely predicated on that basis. That is quite plainly no longer the case.

I believe we need now to consider whether we – the international community in its widest sense - need to re-examine these conventions. If we do not, we risk continuing to fight a 21st Century conflict with 20th Century rules.

"Here at home, we in the UK have recognised the need to update our approach. In the face of the new terrorist threat, we have made appropriate legal changes in our domestic legislation. For instance, we have changed our domestic legislation relating to maximum period of detention before charge. We may disagree about the length of time that we should hold people but there is a general consensus that there was good reason to extend that period. We have also introduced a new offence of "Glorifying Terorrism".

"And we have adapted the structure and capabilities of our security and military organisations for conflict abroad.

"We have moved from a reactive to a proactive approach and from defensive garrison roles to an emphasis on multiple, sustained expeditionary operations against asymmetrical opponents.

"However international legislation has not seen the same degree of change. So, I’m not sure we have yet given the same attention to the international framework in which we operate. The Geneva Conventions were created more than half a century ago, when the world was almost unrecognisable to today’s citizens. Those conventions dealt with important aspects of the conduct of war – how the sick and injured, and prisoners of war are treated; and the obligations on states during their military occupation of another state.

"The conventions were supplemented, of course, by Additional Protocols, but even those – with one exception – were drafted almost 30 years ago.

"Of course, just because a law is decades old it does not mean that it is redundant. Article 3 of the Conventions, for instance, sets fundamental standards of treatment in all non-international armed conflicts, standards that are upheld by the laws of any civilised state.

"However, when we think of the massive changes which the military have undergone to deal with new threats in the last decade alone, we get some idea of the scale of that change where armed conflict is concerned.

"In the light of those changes I believe we must ask serious questions about whether or not further developments in international law in this area are necessary.


"Another specific area of international law we perhaps need to think more about is whether the concept of imminence - i.e. the circumstances when a state can act in self-defence without waiting for an attack - is sufficlently well developed to take account of the new threats faced

"In 2004, my colleague the Attorney General explained the current position under international law when he said: "International Law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat which is more remote…military action must only be used as a last resort….the force must be proportionate."

"Difficult as it is, I think all of us here – including representatives from academia, the legal profession, diplomacy and journalism need to consider these issues now rather than waiting for the next threat to come along, and I’ll explain why.

"Afghanistan is a good example. There were clear legal grounds for the international community – led by the US – taking action against Afghanistan after 9/11. Al Qaeda had proved both the intent and the capability to kill thousands of innocent men women and children. The threat of them doing so again was clearly imminent for all to see.

"But what if another threat develops? Not Al Qaeda. Not muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment. The proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction has coincided with the growth of those prepared to use them. We know that terrorist groups continue to try and acquire such weapons and that they have described their willingness to use them. We also know that they continue to seek opportunities to launch attacks on a similar or greater scale as 9/11. Hopefully, we would learn of any such threat before any atrocities had been committed. I believe we would have strong legal grounds to take action to protect ourselves against attack. I also suspect that others would disagree. A debate would centre around "imminence". The very significant consequences of action or inaction in these circumstances should give us all pause for thought.

"Let me also make it clear that this is not simply a debate for Whitehall or Westminster; this is not just an argument for NATO leaders. We all need to think about this problem. After all this is just as relevant – perhaps even more relevant – in the streets of Cairo and Karachi as it is in the streets of Cambridge and Cologne. It is sometimes forgotten just how many people in Africa and Asia have been murdered by terrorist acts. We all have a stake in this debate.

Internal intervention

"And there is a third area to consider – whether we are as sufficiently prepared to counter acts of internal aggression as we need to be, or as we ought to be.

"Again, we can illustrate the relevance of the question by reference to our own domestic history. Most of us in this room can remember an ethos in our culture in this country whereby it was accepted that police would arrest a man for punching his neighbour, but would decline to get involved if he did the same to his wife.

"Society and the law's approach to domestic violence changed, thankfully, and I am extremely proud that this government has done so much to reflect those changes with the new legislation and public campaigns.

"The question is how far we need to go in considering similar developments in international law. Just as in the Balkans in the early 1990s, we can find ourselves operating in situations where the state is either unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from murderous attacks. The UN Security Council set up the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague to bring those responsible to justice.

"ICTY was a response to a particular problem of lawlessness in a limited geographical region. There is also the International Tribunal established to deal with war crimes in Rwanda as well as the Special Criminal Court in Sierra Leone. All of these models have their advantages and disadvantages and perhaps we should be giving more thought to whether we can improve the international legal framework such that it delivers justice more effectively. However punishing people after the event is important but only part of the story.

"That is why I very much welcome the work the UN has been doing with the Responsibility to Protect declaration signed last year. The question that people standing in a bus queue in my constitiuency ask when they see on their TV what is happening in Darfur, Rwanda, Congo or elsewhere is not "Why are we interested in intervening?". The question they ask is "Why aren’t we doing more to help these people?"

"As long ago as 1948 the Genocide Convention provided in its first Article I that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which states undertake to prevent and to punish. Why, nearly 60 years later, do we find it so difficult to intervene?


"None of these issues are easy or non-controversial. However I do not believe we can avoid them – indeed as political leaders we have an obligation to ask these difficult questions.

"There is a vitally important principle at stake - deliberately killing innocent men, women and children is wrong and illegal and there should be effective legal mechanisms in place to bring the perpetrators to justice.

"As I said earlier I am not a lawyer, unusually in this government you might think, but I do see the daily effects of the law as it impacts on our forces, on our planners, and on the way we try to deal with the very real threats we face.

"I want to stress that the UN, and adherence to international law, remain at the heart of British foreign and defence policy. It is as much to strengthen these institutions and to ensure their continued relevance that I think we need to have this debate.

"The laws of the 20th Century placed constraints on us all which enhanced peace and protected liberty – we must ask ourselves whether, as the new century begins, they will do the same."

The above text is reproduced from Dr Reid's typed speaking notes.
Source: http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil...RusiOn20thcenturyRules21stcenturyConflict.htm
The question that people standing in a bus queue in my constitiuency ask when they see on their TV what is happening in Darfur, Rwanda, Congo or elsewhere is not "Why are we interested in intervening?". The question they ask is "Why aren’t we doing more to help these people?"

They've got no oil or WMD and are therefore of no interest to the US?

Dafur - Sudan has lots of oil. But it is a huge area that would absorb entire British Army.

Afghanistan has no oil. Sierra leone has no oil.

Not always that simple. We cannot do everything and other nations aren't interested. Congo should be Belguim and French issue - but as they made such a mess of Rwanda they are worried about getting their fingers caught in the mangle.

Africa is incapable of sorting its own mess - SA Army has high incidents of AIDs and could, by some, be considered to be combat non effective. Nigerian tps are more of a danger to the locals that any rebel forces - the population of the Sierra Leone can vouch for that.

Answer? *&%*&% if I know - but it requires a decent effective force, lead by robush Western Nations - non corrupt - with good logistics, strategic lift and intelligence. The yanks can't help as they are over stretched. So the answer is...... lets call International Rescue!


War Hero
Book Reviewer
yorkshirejacket said:
So, after recently getting into a heated discussion with civi work people about Telic and general Army issues, one person jumped onto the latest topic of 'Herrick'. Why are we going etc.. what do we hope to achieve?

My response followed the lines of Taliban and Drugs trade...

but can anyone else think of a better answer??
A smack to the Swede and a bellowed "Fcuk up you arrse!" Always a good response when the said civy-type can't be bothered to read a paper and/or watch the news on TV/the Net.
Insane said:
Important to remember that Uk forces deploying on Op Herrick 4 are doing so, by invitation of the Afghan National Government, in order, amongst other things, to help the Afghan National Army and National Police in being able to do an effective job.
Tony get off the internet :lol:


Book Reviewer

in lieu of anything else, the attached is from the NATO - ISAF website:
Source: http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html

What is the aim of the operation?

ISAF’s role is to assist the Government in Afghanistan and the international community in maintaining security within the force’s area of operations. ISAF supports the Afghan Government in expanding its authority to the rest of the country, and in providing a safe and secure environment conducive to free and fair elections, the spread of the rule of law, and the reconstruction of the country.

What does this mean in practice?

Through ISAF, NATO has been helping in creating a secure environment, developing Afghan security structures, identifying reconstruction needs, as well as training and building up future Afghan security forces.

How did this operation evolve?

ISAF was created in accordance with the Bonn Conference, in December 2001, after the ousting of the Taliban regime. Afghan opposition leaders attending the conference began the process of reconstructing their country, by setting up a new government structure, namely the Afghan Transitional Authority.

Which countries are contributing?

ISAF currently numbers about 9,000 troops from 35 NATO and non-NATO troop contributing countries. [twice as many Germans as Brits currently]

Who is in charge?

The political direction and co-ordination for the mission is provided by NATO's principal decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council. Based on the political guidance from the Council, strategic command and control is exercised by NATO's top operational headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium.

Shame the MoD's website doesn't have anything similar which some of the 5,000 Brits who are going to be in Afghanistan by August could log on to......unless someone else on ARRSE knows where it is....Darth ?

Lee Shaver
Maybe ask them how many times they hear pf violent thefts taking place. Then ask how many of them are heroin abusers. Then ask where most of that heroin comes from!

If they dont say yo mamma then they really aren't worth the banter and you should butt the civvy cnuts!


Book Reviewer
Here y'go yorkie...Thank Gawd for the Brigade of Gurkhas !

Source: http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/rgr/2_rgr/op_herrick/index.htm

The purpose of the BRITFOR deployment on Op HERRICK is for the UK to play its role to allow the strategic objectives to be met.

The strategic objectives for the deployment are to enable:

“A stable and secure Afghanistan restored to its rightful place in the community of nations and enjoying mature relations with its neighbours; with a self-sustaining economy, strong institutions and a broad-based, multi-ethnic regime committed to eradicating terrorism and eliminating opium production; reducing poverty;respecting human rights, especially those of women and minority groups; and honouring Afghanistan’s other international obligations.”

The objective of the BRITFOR elements is to:

To DETER Terrorism.

To REASSURE AND HELP the people of Afghanistan return to normality after years of war

To SUPPORT the creation of an Afghan Army

To SUPPORT the Government of Afghanistan (GOA) to create security and reinstate the rule of law.

In order to enable Afghanistan to be a prosperous, democratic and successful country free from terrorism and conflict.

To achieve these objectives, UK Forces are deployed across Afghanistan. The largest UK element is the Afghanistan Roulemont Infantry Battalion (ARIB). 2 RGR provides this role and our specific tasks are:

Provide QRF at specified NTM to support PRTs at up to Coy strength, including in extremis support to Coalition and ANA elements

Enable and co-ordinate LOGISTIC in the AOO to include in extremis support to Coalition and ANA operations

Be prepared to assist PRTs in NEO, INCIDENT RESPONSE involving IC operations and civil disaster responses, to include COORDINATION OF AIR OPERATIONS

Plan and conduct PUBLIC INFORMATION activities in support of ISAF operations at the FSB in accordance with the Military Information Campaign guidance
Hold on: I thought we're in Afghanistan to complete the encirclement of Iran?
Just to boringly correct on this. The UK deployment to Helmand is under US Command (Op Enduring Freedom) and NOT NATO until end of July when it is due to chop to ISAF which by that time will be under the ARRC. The ARIB ceased to exist as of last week!


Book Reviewer
afghanhound said:
Just to boringly correct on this. The UK deployment to Helmand is under US Command (Op Enduring Freedom) and NOT NATO until end of July when it is due to chop to ISAF which by that time will be under the ARRC. The ARIB ceased to exist as of last week!

......that point had neatly eluded me.....so we're deploying 5,000 people in support of the US effort ? Seduce my aging footwear.... 8O
I note from today's news that worries are being expressed over the air support to the poor b####rs already there. Apparently we don't have enough choppers to either airlift or give air support to the guys being deployed. Plus to cap it all, they are going to pull out the RAF Harriers that are there for the purpose of FGA.

You couldn't make it up if you wanted to....... :roll:
I doin't think they wanted the operational reason I think they wanted the moral reason...like's beens aid, skag heads cause loads of crime and are a parasite on society, but we're never gonna have a big impact on the influx of opium into the UK by going into Helmand IMO. But I do think, the poor buggers deserve a chance at normality, if they cannot settle into it and get along then I suppose we tried, and you can't make people do what they don't want, but so far things seem to be going quite well? Remind these people, that Afghanis are in just as much a shit state as people in Africa Darfur wherever.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
W Multinational HQ 27
nomadcelt Classified Ads 18
3 Army Reserve 37

Similar threads

Latest Threads