Re-deployment of troops?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by oldcolt, Mar 29, 2010.

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. Surely UK experience in areas like Sangin etc are more important in the grand scheme of things?
  2. I think its part of the numbers game more troops needed = bring in the yanks and put the Brits where the Canadians are pulling out and into the province that they are most worried about, seems like we are getting a compliment in a roundabout way.
  3. Most worried about, Could you explain that please? I am behind on the situation in herrick. Thought Helmand was the trouble area so to speak.
  4. That's generally my view however, why take us out of an area where we have spent years building relationships. It doesn't make much sense to me. I need to read up more on that AOO though, as our OC was mentioning about this possibility during our H14 brief overthe weekend.
  5. Probably because those that need to know, know and don’t have to rely on press speculation and fishing to find out what may happen and the reasons why it may happen :wink:
  6. Would this be the Kandahar that is the Taliban's heartland?

    Are the Yanks not man enough to sort them and need us to soften them up?
  7. There was a report on tonights news on Radio 4 PM programme about Ainsworth commenting that British Forces will be redeploying from Helmand to Uruzghan and other areas, however this has been notable for its absence of comment on the BBC Website. Probably a good day to bury news with the farce of Kevan Jones and his apology.
  8. I don't know the bigger picture so i won't speculate, other than to say....

    only joking. telegraph link not working for me, so looked on BBC news & found this: 'Heather Mills 'exploited nanny' ', but not so much on our future fields of conflict. Priorities i guess.

    Can anyone direct me please? cheers
  9. Better tell that to our OC and CO then :p
  10. Google search Afghanistan UK troop redeployment and click on the 'News' tab
  11. Well, derrr, like yeah.

    :D so your not going to trawl and evaluate the best on me behalf before posting a link? ffs. i'll do it meself

    ... if u need summit doin'.... mutter, mutter, mutter

    Havin' said all that Colt, tried and no results for latest news. Did hear clip on Radio4, but wanna know all.
  12. Mentioned last night with Obama in Kandahar that this is where the next push is going to happen. British troops provide support to nations who haven't seen the best/worst the taliban could throw at them, including the American's. Sort of a compliment i think!
  13. So what if for instance a nation was in a Theatre of ops that had a 2* command covering a large geographical area and it was decided that the single command was going to be split into two seperate 2* commands.

    Lets also say the original command had been run by a particular nation in the past (and the present) and it had a command & support infrastructure well established in that HQ base location even though the vast majority of its troops where geographically situated in the new commands battle space.

    However, the area that was about to become the new commands AO now had another nations troops (the same nation that was about to establish the second 2* HQ) outnumbering the first by a ratio of 2-1 with more on the way.

    What would be the most logical COA for the troop laydown (one for the junior Generals)
  14. Didn't the US edition of last week's Economist run the article? The Brit's AOR is to be taken over by the USMC - in much larger numbers than the Brits currently have there. The Brits are redeploying vice the departing Canadians and Dutch. USMC, apparently, like to work independently and were reluctant to include the Brits in their area of operations. Someone in the Pentagon is quoted as saying "Helmandshire isn't working - we're going to create USMarine-istan!"