UK block on Afghan surge riles army chiefs

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Apr 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. UK block on Afghan surge riles army chiefs[/b]

    By James Blitz in London
    Published: April 30 2009 19:27 | Last updated: April 30 2009 23:07
    British army chiefs are incensed at Gordon Brown’s decision this week to block a long-term surge in UK forces in Afghanistan, arguing that a troop increase is vital to the success of the mission in troubled Helmand province.

    As the UK on Thursday marked the official end of its military mission in Iraq, attention was focused on the completion of the operation in the city of Basra that has cost 179 British lives since the US-led invasion in 2003.

    But behind the scenes, this week also marks the end of a cross-departmental battle over Britain’s military operations in Helmand, one which has ended with Mr Brown rejecting a recommendation from service chiefs for 2,000 more UK troops to be sent to the province.
    More on the link
  2. msr

    msr LE

    No surprise
  3. Is it treasonous to call the Prime Minister a ****?
  4. msr

    msr LE

    No, because he is a politician, not her Majesty, her heirs and successors, whom we have sworn to defend.

    Although it is her government. And I am sure that sticks in her craw.

  5. Good. I'm considering sending a statement to the papers:

    "Wannabe STAB calls the PM a **** and challenges him to a fight"

    I think it could be fun.
  6. "All the Army chiefs need to do is ask and we'll provide it for them"........Or words to that effect from Brown and Co.

    Mind you, no one believed them.
  7. Can someone please explain the logic behind this decision. Surely we should be ploughing more personnel into this area especially now with the Americans increasing their capability. How do we expect to get the upper hand here if we are limiting our own forces' capabilities. Or are we now relying on the Americans to pick up the slack?
  8. Thursday's Times had similar stories

    Military loses battle over Afghanistan troop boost

    End of an era as Britain takes a back seat

    and a leading article::

  9. NL's policy is stupid. It's been said for the last 5+ years that we need to hold the ground. It's only then that the locals get the feeling of security that alllows for the reconstruction effort. If that doesn't apppear then we lose the local support. It's not rocket science.
  10. Well done Gorden, all you have to do now is withdraw the troops serving there.
    Armies at War are very expensive and this government will not pay the cash required for the troops and above all the equipment.
    That TOM pays regularly in Blood, Limbs and Mental health is something that does not appear on the Exchequer.