Times says Bravery and initiative thwarted by No 10 in Afg

#1
From The Times
July 3, 2009
A turning point in Afghanistan
The US surge has all the elements of force, speed and surprise for military success. But to win, the allies must prepare for long-term deployment
In sending in a lightning strike force of 4,000 Marines to clear the Taleban from Helmand, Barack Obama is taking the riskiest strategic decision yet of his presidency. Operation Khanjar — “Strike of the Sword” — had been long prepared, with the announcement of 17,000 extra troops for Afghanistan, the steady build-up of 8,500 Marines in the province in the past two months and the tight co-ordination with the Afghan and Pakistani armies. But as thousands of US troops stormed into the Helmand river valley yesterday, they had all the elements of surprise, speed and overwhelming force, the classic elements of military success. If the strategy works, the operation could mark a turning point in the war. If it fails to stem the reverses and the bloodshed, it could demoralise Nato further, accelerate Afghanistan’s downward spiral and seriously damage Mr Obama’s authority at home and overseas
More on the link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6626299.ece
 
#2
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
 
#3
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
 
#4
This whole caper in Affers is doomed to failure. As soon as the Septics took their eye off the ball and concentrated on their real objective, Iraq, the game was up. That's when the British Army should have upped sticks and kicked it in touch, instead of hanging around hopelessly underfunded by that slimy toad Brown the Clown and sacrificing the lives of good folks.

There's no doubt that the British Army has made an absolutely marvellous fist of things, considering the murderous restraints, both financial and with regard to manpower, they were/are under. But if yon Septics really mean business in Affers this time around, they should accept that they'll need a minimum of at least 500,000 troops there for the next seven years, if not longer. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

MsG
 
#5
Our contribution to ISAF is encapsulated by the (then) Defence Minister saying,upon deployment ''I hope not a shot will be fired''
 

Andy_S

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
RE: "I hope not a shot will be fired"
Helmand was largely peaceful just before 3 Para deployed: IOW, the statement was perfectly reasonable at the time. It is easy to be wise after the event.
 
#8
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Read the full title...."thwarted by No 10".
 
#9
chocolate_frog said:
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Read the full title...."thwarted by No 10".
He hoped you would forget the No 10 and thwarted bit.

Thwarted

–verb (used with object) 1. to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose.

2. to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.).
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#10
rickshaw-major said:
chocolate_frog said:
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Read the full title...."thwarted by No 10".
He hoped you would forget the No 10 and thwarted bit.

Thwarted

–verb (used with object) 1. to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose.

2. to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.).
You leave him alone. He's frothing at the mouth with anger and this could be fun. Grrrrrrrrr!
 
#11
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Clearly you didn't bother to read the full article. Either you are plain lazy/stupid or a troll.
 
#12
And that stupid cnuting MP John Reid said " not a shot will be fired" just four years ago
 
#13
chocolate_frog said:
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Read the full title...."thwarted by No 10".
OK

Is the Times . . . . . . .
 
#14
rickshaw-major said:
chocolate_frog said:
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Read the full title...."thwarted by No 10".
He hoped you would forget the No 10 and thwarted bit.

Thwarted

–verb (used with object) 1. to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose.

2. to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.).

So acording to the Times the attempts at bravery and initiative are baffled, stopped - there is no bravery or initiative.


Personally I would say that they are there and easily visible DESPITE the government and the Times, as so often, is stating falsehoods beause they are so determined to spew anti government vitriol.
 
#15
Helmand was largely peaceful just before 3 Para deployed: IOW, the statement was perfectly reasonable at the time. It is easy to be wise after the event.
Due to the fact it was lightly patrolled by SF and small-ish American units who reffered to the upper Sangin valley as 'TIC valley' (TIC= Troops In Contact) so actually a bit of a boo-boo by Mr Reid.
 
#16
And in one post Sven tries to turn the argument on it's head trying to imply that the times is questioning the bravery and initiative of those out in AFG rather than the real debate of the effects that the level of support from No. 10 and the treasury are having.

Please return to underneath your bridge

OL
 
#17
tropper66 said:
And that stupid cnuting MP John Reid said " not a shot will be fired" just four years ago
As much as I dislike the man, people take his "not a shot fired" comment out of context. He said that he would like it to be done without a shot being fired BUT

"If this didn't involve the necessity to use force we wouldn't send soldiers."
 
#18
Whet said:
rickshaw-major said:
chocolate_frog said:
Whet said:
DeltaDog said:
It's hard to disagree. Had we been properly funded with appropriate troop levels and the means to rebuild, Basra would have been a lot easier to get a grip of - and I imagine Afghanistan isn't much different.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bravery shown by British troops in Afghanistan? That they show no initiative?
Read the full title...."thwarted by No 10".
He hoped you would forget the No 10 and thwarted bit.

Thwarted

–verb (used with object) 1. to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose.

2. to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.).

So acording to the Times the attempts at bravery and initiative are baffled, stopped - there is no bravery or initiative.


Personally I would say that they are there and easily visible DESPITE the government and the Times, as so often, is stating falsehoods beause they are so determined to spew anti government vitriol.
Exactly. Bravery and initiative has been "prevented from accomplishing a purpose" by the Government. Now kindly hang yourself from said bridge and stop scribbling on threads.
 
#19
Whet said:
Personally I would say that they are there and easily visible DESPITE the government and the Times, as so often, is stating falsehoods beause they are so determined to spew anti government vitriol.
Boo Hoo = the Times isn't onside anymore. It is easy to spew ant-Government vitriol because the Government - and its supporters and apologists - are complete t0ssers :twisted:
 
#20
Waldorfmuppet said:
tropper66 said:
And that stupid cnuting MP John Reid said " not a shot will be fired" just four years ago
As much as I dislike the man, people take his "not a shot fired" comment out of context. He said that he would like it to be done without a shot being fired BUT

"If this didn't involve the necessity to use force we wouldn't send soldiers."
Beat me to it. I hate it when people misquote that line, and it happens so often too.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top