UK Socialists Predict "More Slaughter" With Surge In Aghan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Oct 14, 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. I am posting this to provide more insight into the various viewpoints in the UK and US about Afghanistan. I do not endorse the group or the article.

     
  2. My bold. What will that do? Yes, it will push the militants out for a few weeks and then as the Pakistani Army withdraw, they'll move straight back in.
     
  3. JJH:

    Thanks for the post. Interesting article from that point of view. I did note that they said:

    Clearly there is a lot of pressure on the UK forces due to repeated deployments and deploying 500 more will increase the pressure.

    However, an increase in US forces deployed, whether it is 20,000, 40,000 or 80,000 will cause major pressure on the US Army and Marine Corps who already are experiencing some retention problems due to the repeated deployments. Senior NCO's getting close to their 20 will probably stay in but many NCO's who are not that close to a pension may well opt for a job where they see their family every night and nobody shoots at them.

    If I recall correctly, Clinton reduced the Army from about 750,00 active and a similar number in reserves and NG to just under 500,000. It has crept up to about 520,000 and Gates has said the active Army will increase by another 20,000. This number will be a drop in the bucket and does little to repair the damage Clinton did to the military with his ~30% cuts.

    Jarhead, I presume the USMC, a smaller service, took similar cuts under Clinton but you might have the answer to that.

    There are limits to what the US soldier or the British soldier will put up with before they opt for a civilian job.

    If GEN McChrystal gets the surge he is asking for I hope they act to increase the sizes of the services involved. If they don't they could be driving out the NCO's and junior officers who are the future of the services.
     
  4. Excellent points. Indeed we took some hits under Willie Boy but I do not recall them being as severe percentage wise as the army. I am hearing more and more about the loss of NCOs and seasoned young officers due partly to the op tempo but more so apparently from a sense that the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts will be shut down as soon as our current masters can figure out a way to do it and save face at the same time. To some extent then I suppose some are deciding to move on to other pursuits rather than risk being the last one to die in either place.
     
  5. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    Socialist Worker is running more credibly written articles than it did when I was a student. They may have a point: Putting more troops in MIGHT just exacerbate hostilities. OTOH, if those troops manage to drive off the Taliban, hold the ground and damp down the violence, that would permit reconstructoin, and the possible winning of hearts and minds.

    But certainly, putting more and more troops into Vietnam only resulted in a conmensurate increase in deployment by the PAVN: The insurgency was smashed by 1968, but the war itself simply got bigger.

    True, there is no People's Army of North Afghanistan sitting across a (largely inviolate) border, but in a society as tribal and xenophobic as Afghan, increasing numbers of foreigners (Franks, Infidels, etc) could, indeed, drive more people or sub-tribes into the arms of the Taliban.
     
  6. Socialist Worker scum are in bed with their Muslim friends, you can trust them as far as you can trust their comrades in our government.

    A surge would put a lot more eyes on the grouund and seriously hamper Terry's ability to operate, reduce their opportunities to move freely and plant IED's etc without the risk of getting the good news.

    More troops will indeed lead to an increase in the slaughter... but I have no problem with dead Taliban, in fact they're my favorite kind.
     
  7. not too sure about "predicting" - I bet it's what they're HOPING for...
     
  8. Let's look at alternative "predictions".

    The Taliban is completely defeated. Afghanistan becomes a democratic country. Drugs production is stopped. Gay activists in Afghanistan are allowed to organise pride marches.
     
  9. so far 1/4 - it is a democratic country. Now to work on the others...and by all accounts from those serving, :lol: the last has GOT to be next...
     
  10. Rather like what we've been achieving in Helmand?

    It's not just Socialists predicting slaughter. It's an inevitable consequence of any increase in troops or offensive activity. I just hope we can keep the slaughter limited to the genuine bad-guys and leave the innocent civpop out of it.
     
  11. Ho Ho! What like Cuba is a democratic country?
     
  12. :lol: Thats the most accurate assessment I have heard about the place! Like the FSU we are pyssing in the wind with Afghanistan.
     
  13. well, yeah, they have elections right? How they run them might not be quite up to Western standards, but you have to start somewhere
     
  14. It is an irony Benjamin.
     
  15. From this side of the pond I am confused as to why Clinton gets castigated for taking the peace dividend yet Bush is not criticised for invading two countries in 8 years and making no significant increases in troop strength ? Surely the the American people would pay more taxes to recruit more soldiers - what better way to support the troops than to make sure they win, after all ? So why did Bush do nothing ?