• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

TCH Announces 1 BW BG to delpoy to US AOR

#1
Just listened to TCH make the announcement that 1 BW BG would indeed redploy to the US AOR to relieve some useless Yanks, so they can concentrate overwhelming firepower in the their aim of pissing off every Arab in the Middle East.

A couple of things struck me listening to TCH............

A. When Fatty Soames asked TCH to clarify that the Government would not treat the BW shabbily after their return from this Op especially since their families have been kept in the dark, TCH had the balls to tell Soames that the Tories had undermined the Govt's efforts to re-assure the families over this new deployment. Question: How can the Tories have undermined a deployment that has only been announced in the last 10-minutes?

B. TCH states that GOC MND (SW) would retain C2 over 1 BW BG...... how? They will be hundreds of miles away and our comms aren't exactly up to it? Will we be using carrier pidgeons? If so, are they digitised?

C. 1 SG will fill the vacumn created by 1 BW BG's re-deployment........ who back fills 1 SG?

D. If 1300 tps are not to be sent to IRAQ, will they be going to Kuwait first, then Iraq later?

E. What does "...robust ROE..." actually mean? Are they enough to keep soldiers out of the civil/ criminal courts, 3-months after their return from Ops when some fat QC points his 20/20 Hindsight binoculars at their actions? I doubt it.

This whole thing smells of pre-meditation and spin............ Its absolutely essential that tp deployments are not leaked in advance but, watching TCH waffle turns my stomach.

:x
 
#2
Here's the proof via Sky News.

DEPLOYMENT CONFIRMED

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has confirmed The 1st Battalion The Black Watch is to be sent to the west of Iraq to replace US forces.

Mr Hoon said the deployment would involve around 850 personnel including support units and would last "weeks rather than months".


He told MPs the decision had been taken on the advice of Army chiefs who had put forward "compelling" military reasons for the move.

He said the 1st Battalion Scots Guards - equipped like The Black Watch with Warrior armoured vehicles - would take over as the reserve force for the UK.

Downing Street released a statement earlier saying the Cabinet had given "unanimous support" to the deployment.

Mr Hoon denied reports that a further 1300 troops could soon be sent to Iraq ahead of January's elections.

US commanders want the 650-strong Black Watch battalion to "back-fill" for their own forces so that they can join the assault on the rebel stronghold of Fallujah.

Families of Black Watch soldiers have reacted with anger and dismay to the news of their loved ones being sent to the so-called Triangle of Death.

James Buchanan, from Arbroath in Angus has two sons, Gary, 32, and Craig 27, in the regiment, said:

"Tony Blair is a liar. He's putting our boys' lives' in jeopardy and he's no idea what he's doing."

MPs have also expressed deep misgivings about the deployment of the Black Watch battalion.

During Prime Minister's Questions, Tony Blair promised the Black Watch reinforcements would be home by Christmas.

They are likely to be sent to the area around the towns of Iskandariya and Latifya, where it is thought British hostage Ken Bigley was held.

Unlike the relatively quiet British-controlled southern sector, it is a hotbed of unrest with frequent attacks on supply convoys.

I presume TCH means That C**T Hoon, sorry relative newcomer to this.
 
#4
Full text here: http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/statement_sofs_21oct04.htm

Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a further statement about the deployment of UK forces in Iraq.

On Monday I explained to the House that the UK military had received, and was evaluating, a request from the US military command in Iraq for assistance that would involve UK land forces operating outside the MND(South East) area, in support of a combined Iraqi/US force.

A reconnaissance team from MND(South East) deployed to the area in question earlier this week and have now reported back to the Chiefs of Staff. The team provided information on a number of issues including logistics, the length of the potential operation, the likely tasks, activity levels in the area, the force levels required, and the command and control arrangements. After careful evaluation, the Chiefs of Staff have advised me that UK forces are able to undertake the proposed operation, that there is a compelling military operational justification for doing so and that it entails a militarily acceptable level of risk for UK forces. Based on this military advice, the Government has decided that we should accept the US request for assistance.

I emphasize again that this was a military request, and has been considered and accepted on operational grounds after a thorough military evaluation by the Chiefs of Staff. As I said on Monday, and as the Prime Minister said yesterday to the House, this deployment is a vital part of the process of creating the right conditions for the Iraqi elections to take place in January.

We share with the Iraqi Interim Government and with our coalition partners a common goal of creating a secure and stable Iraq, where men, women and children in towns like Fallujah can feel safe from foreign terrorists, from the kidnappers who murdered Ken Bigley and from other criminals. Crucially, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi and the Interim Iraqi Government want to establish sufficient security for elections to take place in January.

Recent successful operations by Iraqi Security Forces and coalition forces in Tal Afar, Samarra and the outskirts of Fallujah have been undertaken, to restore areas under the control of militants and terrorists to the authority of the Iraqi Interim Government. As a direct result the political process is now moving ahead.

We cannot consider the current UK area of responsibility in isolation. What goes on in the rest of Iraq affects southern Iraq and affects UK troops wherever they are based. We must therefore consider our contribution in the context of the overall security situation right across Iraq.

This means that a UK armoured battlegroup consisting of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch and supporting units will deploy to an area within MNF(West) to relieve a US unit for other tasks. They will be deploying with the necessary combat support services such as medics, signallers and engineers resulting in a total deployment of around 850 personnel. This deployment will be for a limited and specified period of time, lasting weeks rather than months.

I cannot give the House further details about the location, duration or specifics of the mission. Honourable members on all sides will understand that to do so would risk the operational security of the mission and potentially the safety of our forces. The speculation from many quarters so far has not been helpful. Can I also emphasise that there are no plans to send a further 1300 troops to Iraq as suggested this morning.

There have been concerns about UK forces coming under US Command and about their rules of engagement. The arrangements for this deployment are that the force will remain under the operational command of General Rollo, the UK General Officer Commanding MND(SE).

On a day to day basis the Black Watch will of course have to coordinate their activity with the US chain of command in the locality, but any changes in the mission or the tasking would have to be referred back to General Rollo. As with all UK operations, our forces will operate at all times under UK rules of engagement. These will provide proper protection for our forces, as they have throughout our operations in MND(SE).

It is not unusual for UK and US forces to work alongside each other – they have successfully done so not only in Iraq with US forces often providing logistical support for our own forces and therefore reducing the number of troops and assets we need in theatre, but in operations all over the world. Indeed, in Bosnia, about 22,000 US troops operated under UK command. As I said in my statement on Monday, UK forces in Iraq work alongside forces from Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Japan and others on a daily basis. This is an effective and practical way of ensuring coherence both in our own area and with those that surround it.

There has also been speculation as to why there is a need for this UK force to backfill for a US unit, when there are around 130,000 US troops in Iraq. The armoured battlegroup that will deploy brings important qualities of extensive training, experience, and hard-edge combat capability. It is not the case, as is often implied, that there are 130,000 US troops that could take on this task. In fact, fewer than a third of US forces in Iraq have the requisite combat capability, and of those even fewer have the armoured capability that is needed. These specialised armoured forces are already highly committed across Iraq – a country similar in size to France. The Chiefs of Staff have further concluded therefore that the provision of a UK battlegroup to this new mission would be a significant permanent contribution to and would materially increase the effect of the continuing operations to maintain pressure on the terrorists before the January elections.

Honourable members on Monday raised the question of whether this deployment would leave sufficient forces to deal with contingencies in our own area of responsibility in the south. The roulement of British Forces currently underway includes an armoured infantry battlegroup of the 1st Battalion Scots Guards with their own Warrior armoured vehicles who will fulfil the divisional reserve role currently undertaken by the Black Watch. This will result in General Rollo temporarily having an extra armoured battlegroup under his command which will provide a very robust force capable of dealing with contingencies. It is also worth remembering that the other UK forces in MND(South East) will continue to carry out their tasks in the professional and effective manner which has become so apparent to the people of Basrah and the surrounding area. Restoring power, water and basic facilities and supporting the Iraqi authorities in ensuring a robust level of security.

This deployment is limited in scope, time, and space. It does not represent a significant additional commitment of forces. The overall trend in the numbers of our deployment in Iraq remains down, from the peak of 46000 during the warfighting phase to around 8500 today. This overall downward trend is expected to continue as we continue to train Iraqi Security Forces to take over from UK forces – as has happened for example in Al Amarah in Maysan Province.

The Government remains totally committed in its support of the Interim Iraqi Government and the need to hold free elections in January. We also remain committed to protecting innocent Iraqis, to dealing with terrorists, kidnappers and criminals, to training and equipping Iraqi Forces so that they can take our place providing security and to seeing a democratic government in Iraq that takes its rightful place in the international community. A government that delivers prosperity and a secure future for the Iraqi people. This is something that should unite all sides of the House. It is right that the United Kingdom should contribute to these objectives. And the deployment of the Black Watch will emphasise to the Iraqi people that the UK will continue to contribute to the coalition to see the task through.
 
#5
He told MPs the decision had been taken on the advice of Army chiefs who had put forward "compelling" military reasons for the move.
What "Compelling" Military reasons? That statement implies "We absolutely HAVE TO do this" was the answer that came back from the Red-Tabbed.

I'm not saying there are NO compelling Military reasons, I'm just wondering what they might be?
 
#6
Do 1SG have their Veh's in Cyprus or are they still back in Germany? If so, I assume that they would be hard pressed to be able to provide anything like the level of backup that 1BW were providing until that kit arrives in Theatre.
 
#7
'Deployment will be a matter of weeks rather than months'.

Kind of limits the timescale for the US attack on Fallujah et al doesn't it.

Well done Hoon, give your allies a key capability, and then force them to conduct operations on a time scale that doesn't upset your own electorate.

So much for Military advice.
 
#8
Recent successful operations by Iraqi Security Forces and coalition forces in Tal Afar, Samarra and the outskirts of Fallujah have been undertaken, to restore areas under the control of militants and terrorists to the authority of the Iraqi Interim Government. As a direct result the political process is now moving ahead.
Really?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5261

10/20/2004 11:13:00 PM GMT

A Bradley Fighting Vehicle opens fire at anti- Iraqi forces in Samarra.

Fierce clashes in the northern Iraqi town of Samarra killed at least six civilians and injured 11 American soldiers on Wednesday.

The U.S. army also reported that two car bomb blasts killed a child and wounded a civilian translator in the center of the city.

Medics reported that six civilians had been killed and 17 injured in many clashes across the town.

Witnesses said that U.S. forces were seen in their vehicles with loudspeakers telling Samarra residents to stay off the streets between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Residents in the area also reported that clashes that started in the afternoon were continuing at night on the edges of the city and the town of Duluiya, which lies some 12 miles south of Samarra.

The American and Iraqi troops have surrounded the town of Duluiya on Tuesday and captured scores of rebels.

The interim Iraqi government, backed by U.S. forces, has vowed to regain control of rebel-held areas in Iraq ahead of the elections due in January.

The U.S. army had previously claimed that Samarra had pacified after the offensive earlier this month.
http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1083730,00.html

Text of President Bush's speech in Marlton
Published in the Asbury Park Press 10/19/04
Text of President George Bush's speech at the Evesham Recreation Center in Marlton, as released by the White House.

The enemy seeks to establish sanctuaries in Iraq from which to commit acts of terror. But Iraqi and coalition forces are on the offensive in Fallujah and North Babil, and have restored government control in Samarra, Tall Afar, and Najaf. The enemy wants to make Iraqis afraid to join security forces. But every week, more and more Iraqis answer the call toarms. More than 100,000 soldiers, police and border guards are already trained, equipped and bravely serving their country. And well over 200,000 will be in place by the end of 2005. (Applause.) The enemy seeks to break the will of the Iraqi people. But as Prime Minister Allawi told the Congress, Iraqis are hopeful, optimistic and determined to prevail in their struggle for liberty

From Hoons statement...

They will be deploying with the necessary combat support services such as medics, signallers and engineers resulting in a total deployment of around 850 personnel. This deployment will be for a limited and specified period of time, lasting weeks rather than months.
and then this...

The Chiefs of Staff have further concluded therefore that the provision of a UK battlegroup to this new mission would be a significant permanent contribution to and would materially increase the effect of the continuing operations to maintain pressure on the terrorists before the January elections.
Sorry , have I mis-read that? Are we going North as a temporary move , or are British Forces going to be permanently committed to the area?

Have Hoon and Blair enlarged the British AOR by stealth? 8O

Now , what are the POLTICAL ramifications of the British being seen to take a 'larger share of the load' for ;

A. Blair and his reputation in the US
B. Bush's Presidential campaign?
 
#9
Back by Christmas - is TCH using the same crystal ball that showed weapons of mass destruction ready to launch in 45 minutes? Or is he talking in his sleep as normal?

Will he go around the patch knocking on doors to apologise to Mrs Jock if the Americans decide not to stick to this timescale? After all, they must have plenty of experience from their first attempt to pacify Fallujah!

"Back by Christmas" has an eerie resonance from the early 20th century...
 
#11
It's off-topic, but does anyone reckon that TCH's media types have told him of his TLA nickname and what it stands for?

Any media guys watching this thread that want to incorporate his nickname into an article? :twisted:
 
#12
The Chiefs of Staff have further concluded therefore that the provision of a UK battlegroup to this new mission would be a significant permanent contribution to and would materially increase the effect of the continuing operations to maintain pressure on the terrorists before the January elections.
So BW might be back for Christmas but someone else may be replacing them! And someone else will be replacing the replacements, and so on...
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#14
5_mile_sniper said:
Do 1SG have their Veh's in Cyprus or are they still back in Germany? If so, I assume that they would be hard pressed to be able to provide anything like the level of backup that 1BW were providing until that kit arrives in Theatre.
TCH said "with" warriors :?
 
#16
Interesting, the HLDRS are supposed to have just finished their changeover to Warrior, must check and see if the boys are getting their dessie gear sorted out?
 
#19
PartTimePongo said:
I'm not saying there are NO compelling Military reasons, I'm just wondering what they might be?
Along the lines of "so, General, the options are 'compelling military reasons' or early retirement. Close the door on the way out.", possibly?
 
#20
ViroBono said:
PartTimePongo said:
I'm not saying there are NO compelling Military reasons, I'm just wondering what they might be?
Along the lines of "so, General, the options are 'compelling military reasons' or early retirement. Close the door on the way out.", possibly?
Crucifiction or lions? Err, actually, I'm for freedom .... Look, juniper berries on a juniper bush ..... I'm Brian and so's my wife etc etc etc
 

Latest Threads