Mission Creep is not necessarily a bad thing

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Duke_of_Edinburgh, Jul 5, 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. David Aaaronovitch’s article in today’s Times is, IMHO, a well thought out and constructive piece. It points out that Mission Creep is not necessarily a bad thing and gives some good reasons why we’re in Afghanistan.

    It has always annoyed me that most journalists & pundits go on about Mission Creep as proof that they fully understand how to run a successful military operation, in fact they’ve probably just grabbed hold of a buzz word and have no great understanding.

    The slap at a Guardian columnist is also good fun.

    DoE
     
  2. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Good article, similar to something i felt for some years. I remember around the time of Op palliser (Sierra Leone?) of various Tory MP's etc complaining of mission creep. The original operation was to enable western personnel to be evacuated by the airport. This turned into trainign the national army which led to Op barras, which in turn led to the end of one of the most brutal civil wars in history.

    Mission creep? I like it!