UK seeks to free troops up for Agfhanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Proximo, Jul 6, 2005.

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. PTP posted a similar themed topic yesterday, and this approaches the same issue from the other way around - where are all these guys headed?

    From The Grauniad:

    The story is here.

    This whole issue is nothing new - it is the very essence of the Commitments game, but my concern is one of sustainability. How long are we going to be able to maintain our current level of deployments across the world, especially as it seems that the US are turning their back on the whole Afghan mission.
     
  2. I fear that sustainability, beyond the next election, is not a consideration for politicians. They are totally unconcerned, so it would seem by their actions, with the effect on the personnel whom actually have to carry out these commitments. If they are actually concerned then they certainly are not showing it in any way, shape, or form. There is a distinct lack of long term planning beyond mouthing platitudes about "we stand by our promise to stay in Iraq/Afghanistan/<insert country here> as long as it takes".
     
  3. Too many promises and limited resources. The politicians obviously can't see because they have their heads way up in Dubya's arse.


    "British officials say the US no longer has an interest in Afghanistan, including the opium crop, 90% of which ends up as heroin on the streets of Europe and not America."

    This is particularly annoying.
     
  4. The simple fact is that Afghanistan only really has one export product - opium. The US has obviously realised that it can either (i) accept this and effectively become complicit in the heroin trade; (ii) try to surpress the heroin trade, causing misery and suffering to millions of poor Afghan farmers who have no other cash crop, feeding the insurgency and getting bogged down for years (see 'Soviet Union' for details); or (iii) (and this is the really clever option) hand over the whole mess to one or more poodle-minion client satellite states, so they can carry the can when the whole thing goes to ratsh1t.

    The Talibs (and Afghans generally) don't really fight over winter, so by next spring, when the Brits take over, the US can plausibly say, "here you go, we've beaten the Talibs for you, if anything goes wrong now it's your fault, thanks!"
     
  5. Will our US cousins maintain the massive aviation air supply to keep Ganistan running long after they have pulled out ?
    UK can't do it, doubt very much that NATO can.
    Britians tradition intrest in Ganistan was to keep out Rooshia from India and the ocean.
    Surly Tone should now be asking India with its massive army to deploy troops and make their presence known on the world stage for they want to be a Permenant Security Council member, ah yes India giving to the world I like the thought of that.
    john
     
  6. The US is in Afghanistan for the long haul. Too bad Tony cut 4 battalions.
    They might come in handy.
     
  7. The Aussie SAS have been asked to take up the fray in Afghanistan..they are considering it.. Also, the other Stans are under pressure from Russia and China to withdraw use of their space for US airbases in America's need for close-up runways for action in ...Ganistan and Iraq..

    Bush says he's staying the course, though he, too, is getting flack from within over the debt that is mounting as a consequence, and China's economic expansion and military buildup is making a few heads turn....

    shifting sands...
     
  8. Any new troops will be out in Afghanistan conducting Poppy Eradication.................. Not a nice job believe me.


    I wouldn't wish that job on anyone - Tony could call it 'OPERATION HOT 'N DANGEROUS' :)
     
  9. The plot thickens:

    So it's more-or-less official - negotiations with other NATO countries concerning scaling for Afghanistan have failed and now we need to economise elsewhere 'within the next 12 months'. How strange...

    Stand by for massive compression in tour gaps, even more reliance on the TA and Reserves (if that were possible), and the possibility that Iraq will flare up again, which will scupper us nicely! Anyone for LSSA? :D

    The story is here.
     
  10. There was a large story about this in the Mail on Sunday (10th july) which claimed to have seen official strategy papers from the MOD/SfD on possible courses of action re:Iraq. Most prominent was a paper on how we can reduce our commitment over the next year, leading to a reduction of som 7000 troops, and redeploying them (or others) to afghanistan.

    There was also some really interesting bits in it about american policy towards their commitment to Iraq. It appears that Centcom and the pentagon want a sharpish redction in manpower over the next 18mnths. This plan has met with real opposition with the regional command in Iraq, who point out that any premature withdrawl would leave a vacuum leading to regional instabilty and thus creating a festering sore, which would innevitably bite america on it's ass in years to come.

    I think W and tone want out long before the next American election, as they know fine well that Hillary Clinton would use the Iraq problem as a stick to beat W (or his replacement).
     
  11. Yes elections I understand half the senate/congress cums up for election shortly, and detested as she is Hillary will cruciy the GOP over Iraq.
    Resevists and the guard out as soon as possible leave the regulars to hold the 'fort'
    john