NATO will not chase Taliban

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Dec 12, 2005.

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. US troops will.
  2. we can expect this to go on forever then!!
  3. ..... and, rather selfishly, I do hope that the locals can differentiate between the two operations.........
  4. and when are they pulling finger and starting this then?
  5. NATO can drive around with white flags on their vehicles or sign's saying "Dont shoot at us ! We arent Americans".
  6. ...... what, and make us targets for you guys? :lol:
  7. Doh! So whats the point then? Just another F**K up to keep the squaddie out of the country?

    having just read the article I'm stunned at the level of bollocks it waffles about.

    ”The mandate and the mission of the ISAF troops when they operate in the south will be that of providing security assistance to the government...and not of overt counter-insurgency or counter-terrorist operations,”

    Huh? So does that mean if ragheads wave fists at us we can shout back but if they shoot we have to wait for the septics?

    That statement is pure bollocks, and I apologise to the poor unlucky ruppert who had to say it. It isn't a MISSION statement as I'd accept it in orders cos it doesn't make any sense.

    It's pointless and a waste of time, money and effort securing the towns if the cause of the trouble stays in the hills. With this theatre we should REMEMBER that the old Soviet army controled the towns, and died on the hills.

    MISSION statements like that should be refused cos it kills squaddies.
  8. I'd ****ing chase the bastards. I'd chase them all into the ****ing sea.
  9. Good idea.... if you did so, you would be well outside the 'Stan! :)
  10. Would that include the Brits you ungrateful prat?

    p.s. My phone just rang something about some inbred village wanting you back...? Say hi to your brother/dad. You know the drill. If you ever met him that is...
  11. Don't go to Afghanistan unless you are prepared to soldier. That means to patrol. Casualties will happen. Three Canadian soldiers were injured in a mine blast near Kandahar. I dont have a problem with the UK and I have great respect for the Canadians. But if NATO is going to act like ISAF then they are going for the wrong reason. Many of our patrols are joint operations with the ANA. We are trying to keep the Taliban from making a resurgence. We are after AQ elements crossing over from Pakistan.
  12. Oooops, I can feel a bit of an exchange here. Ummm, first up, I have been to Afghanistan. In uniform. In 2002.
    Second, I'm delighted to read that you don't have a problem with the UK. I'm sure the other UK members of ARRSE will be glad to read that too (Shameless popularist playing to the gallery!).
    Third point: it is the very artificiality of trying to divide the two types of operation that is the nub of this problem. ISAF is just that - Security and Assistance. OEF is a COIN/IS/LW operation. Inviting NATO to participate in both operations exposes those in the ISAF fold to the same level of threat as those on OEF. No problem in itself - as you say, be prepared to soldier (I have the T Shirt as well as the tin) - but to do so, you have to provide the same ROE for ISAF as for OEF and immediately present the opposition with a heaven sent opportunity to provoke an incident that would threaten the (limited) success ISAF has enjoyed to date.
    There is the potential for a paper in this exchange, but I hope I have provided you with enough to see where I come from.
    Still pleased you dont have a problem with the Brits.... :D
  13. I'd argue that ISAF and the PRTs have achieved more in terms of counter-terrorism than the continuing "Air Cav - The Movie" operations down south. After all, unless/until you catch OBL and perhaps not even then, operational level raiding isn't going to change the strategic situation. Patrolling, security assistance to the Afghan government, call it what you like - this is contributing to a stable non-batshit government and hopefully a degree of reconstruction and return to normal. "Keeping the Taliban from making a resurgence" is exactly what ISAF and the PRTs are doing; as in any nonconventional war, it's the population, stupid. What has OEF post-Anaconda/Shahikot achieved?

    By the way, US troops won't. That's because you are withdrawing 4,000 of them. I doubt you will chase the Taliban successfully in Fort Wherever, Kentucky.
  14. Escape, that'll still leave 14,000 US troops in the 'Stan.