Opposition to Afghanistan Damaging Troops Morale

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Nov 30, 2009.

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. Pessimism over Afghanistan demoralising soldiers, commanders warn
    Public opposition to the war in Afghanistan is demoralising troops on the front line, senior military commanders have warned.


    Published: 6:55AM GMT 30 Nov 2009

    Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb has warned that public opposition to the war in Afghanistan is damaging troops' morale

    High-ranking officers, including a former commander of the SAS, have expressed deep concern that the country is in danger of "talking ourselves into a defeat" .
    They said there is "surprise and disappointment" among members of the forces at the constant pessimism in the UK over the conflict.

    A number of senior officers told The Independent that the British people are not getting a true picture of what is going on, and that any loss of public support as a result of this will have highly damaging consequences
    for the campaign.
    More
    www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...warn.html?
     
  2. 404 Error
     
  3. It does seem to be true that we back here in the UK do not get the whole story about Afghanistan. Unfortunately it is too dangerous for more than a couple of journalists to travel there at the moment and give us any objective insights. All that the troops can do just now is hold the line while President Obama comes to a decision about what to do next. I think he should be commended for not rushing, just as the troops are to be commended for their resolve. If I have undersood correctly, he will be announcing his plan to the world some time tomorrow. It should be an interesting speech, probably one of the most important in his presidency, and should outline the best option. Hopefully this will raise morale.
     
  4. You could look at it the other way round - The British military involvement in a pointless and as yet unjustified conflict in Afghanistan is demoralising the large majority of the British public, who, after all, have to pay for the bloody mess.

    Why the 'surprise and disappointment'?
     
  5. I disagree that the implied 'public' opposition is the most damaging factor.

    The vast majority of the public stands firmly behind the Armed Forces and almost universally admires their efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    The damage to troops morale is most likely mainly due to the dislike and distrust of the prime minister and his pathetically indecisive 'leadership'.

    Equipment shortages and failures do not help to bolster morale.

    The nonsensical delay in responding to commanders' requests for more troops is, were it not so serious, near farcical. Commanders either need extra troops or they don't. This decision should not be made dependent on 'allies' contributions' and the fatuous 'conditions' laid down by Brown.

    Now the hapless Mr. Ainsworth is telling us that we have acquired sufficient equipment to send five hundred more troops into theatre.

    We have been 'in theatre' for eight years or more; we have had the 'five hundred troops' since 1997 at least, despite constant 'cuts'; so where was this equipment?

    Adverse reporting in the media will and does damage morale, as does poor equipment, but neither damages as badly nor completely as indecision and weak and ineffectual political leadership.

    The principle: 'Selection and Maintenance of the Aim' seems to have been discarded in Afghanistan - I doubt that an 'Aim' was ever thought about let alone selected when we were committed to this gargantuan misadventure by a shallow man whose thoughts were solely focussed on personal aggrandisement.
     
  6. Is this not the same line the Yanks used in Nam! (See Simon and Garfunkel song)

    Won’t stop me volunteering for another tour
     
  7. I'm no expert in Guerilla Warfare but isnt that how an insurgency war is won or lost?
    Poor third world shithole no-one cares about gets foreign troops sent to - pictures on T.V. of ramp ceremonies/severly wounded soldiers splattered over the media, Joe public gets fed up all come home.
    Third world shithole carries on as if nothing has happened, Just extemly bitter yet can claim victory.

    Wasn't there a Vietnamese chap who said America will never win unless they are willing to eat rice for the next thousand years?
     
  8. The armed forces sit beside HMQ and the NHS at the centre of the public's affection, there is no doubt about that.

    So, speaking as a (now) member of the public, if you want to put 'my' soldiers in harms way you have to be crystal clear
    about why you are doing it, what you are aiming to achieve and exactly how you plan to go about it.

    Without that - and I would submit all of the above are absent - then you will rapidly lose my support.

    Which is what is happening.
     
  9. Totally agree with you Micawber, however Joe public doesnt quite get WHAT a guerilla war is or what Victory looks like.
    Too much Holywood influence makes people think there will be a Flag being hoisted up somewhere then everyone gets to go home.
     
  10. I think it would be far less damaging to moral if all 9000 troops were propping up the bar in there local pub in the UK
     
  11. Very well put, Sir!
     
  12. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    I think Joe Public does understand - what they don't understand is being told that the war is vital and then reading that SF heli funding's been cut and the TA's been stood down for six months.
     
  13. One of the other problems is that people see our guys being repatriated, and nobody seems to know how many casualties that Terry has taken. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of figures that account for Terry dead. So for some people it seems as if we are losing guys and the enemy don't seem to be losing any.
     
  14. I think that most people are aware that the Taliban are losing men. Personally, I would expect their losses to be 8-10 times ours, considering that we have artillery, body armour, etc. But that's really meaningless-They also seem to have an infinite supply of replacement jihadis who want to die. If we go the 'body count' route that the US used in Vietnam, you can prove on paper that the enemy have run out of troops several times over, but here's still someone out there fighting.

    More realistic, is a 'number of incidents' count. If the enemy can make x IEDS go off, and there are Y firefights, but six months on there are x-50% IEDs and Y-25% firefights, then the enemy is dead, deserted or hiding. Either way, his effectiveness is declining. Then you can say you are winning.