Sangin - Go hard or go home

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by alfred_the_great, Mar 8, 2011.

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. We went home; the USMC went hard

    US claims to have driven Taliban out of Sangin | World news | The Guardian

    Shows what you can do if you have a political leadership who actually believe in the fight, instead of trying to do the minimum necessary to maintain a "place at the table". A telling quote:

    Colonel Jason Morris, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment in Sangin, avoided any overt criticism of the British force and made a point of referring to "our British brothers". He added: "The British did well here for an economy of force operation. They were just trying to keep the business centre open and keep themselves resupplied. The marines have taken the fight to the enemy."
     
  2. My take on this as an outsider is that the Americans have taken over in the winter when the Taliban traditionally relax their campaign until the the warmer climes come along. Be nice if the Americans have really sorted them out though. Anybody with knowledge of the theatre and the situation have any information?
     
  3. An amazing fact which you've missed alfred. The US marines had to close all the PBs 3 Rifles opened because their Exped force in Sangin was initially SMALLER!

    We did an excellent job in Sangin considering the threat and the challenge of it. I know first hand.
     
  4. Mate, I have no first hand knowledge of Sangin, but it rather more a statement on the engagement by our political masters. Could we have said, hand on heart, that we'd ever done this during our time there? If we did have more people there, why didn't we say "we cracked it"?
     
  5. As mentioned above, it will be interesting to see what happens when the 'season' starts again.
     
  6. Our political masters had nothing to do with it. ROE came down from ISAH HQ, as it does now, and the way the fight was taken to the Taliban by our guys was certainly not 'held back' by London. The Americans lost 29 killed and more wounded from a reckless attitude and then began copying our approach later in their own tour.

    This is all info ops for the gullible. If you'd heard them on Radio 4 the other night you'd realise that. Mind you, you are a Guardian reader!!!
     
  7. If you want, I can provide a quote from the DoD....

    So, basically, you're saying we did just as well at the USMC, and this is a puff piece to make people feel good? Moreover, that the political support we've received from the political side was never a limiting factor, and it was in fact ISAF (and DISAF, who is now CDS) were the ones stymying our ability to "win" this fight?
     

  8. Oh behave yourself please! You're a bloody ETS Officer, stop swinging your bollocks around on here.

    Personally, I only felt as we (2 Rifles on Herrick10) only held the ground and made very little advancement in taking the fight to the enemy. I think a large part of this was the troop ceiling in place, to the point where Rifle Plns were faced with deploying a couple of bods short to keep under the strict 29 pax number (valuable troop slots no doubt taken up by such vital assets as chalkboard warriors). A policy which originated in London and not Kabul.

    The subsequent USMC deployment has been a mix of things, and the reversal of our PB-happy policy has itself been reversed. The thing about the Americans though (and I feel this is key), is their ability and willingness to not only change tack, but pile men, assets and money at the problem. Whilst they may only arrive at the 'right' solution after exhausting all the others, that persistence and vigorous leadership is very much alive.

    Then again, I read the Guardian too.