US wants Brit Iraq forces redeployed in Afghanistan "surge"

#21
Are they taking casualties on the same scale as UK and US forces?

Are they deployed in the most hostile areas?

Are they taking the fight to the enemy?

Allles, very good. I'd rather do without them.

Get out and fight or GTF!
 
#22
Ticonderoga said:
Are they taking casualties on the same scale as UK and US forces?

Are they deployed in the most hostile areas?

Are they taking the fight to the enemy?

Allles, very good. I'd rather do without them.

Get out and fight or GTF
!
Then who would cover the areas that they are doing now? Wanna say their commitment to aggressive operations is less? Fine. Wanna call them cowards=not fine.

Who do you think decides their level of commitment? The troops themselves?

Do you think that rate of casualties = commitment/bravery? If that is so, you would be like Mussolini in WWII. He seemed to think Italian casualties=Italian commitment.

Not sure if you are a spanner or a wrench, but you are posting like a tool.
 
#23
So eager to dive in and throw an L2 into the fray.

The whole point is aimed at those in Berlin & Paris.

Are you getting a socket set for Christmas? Or just an adjustable for the bolts on your neck?
 
#24
Peturbed, answer this.

Do you think that the coalition allies, UK, US Canada, Aus and DK excepted are pulling their fair share of the weight on this Op??
 
#25
the_guru said:
Peturbed, answer this.

Do you think that the coalition allies, UK, US Canada, Aus and DK excepted are pulling their fair share of the weight on this Op??
No I do not.

I just think that the countries that do not do so necessarily have cowardly troops. I accept that some countries troops do more than their fair share. I just do not believe "cowardice" is a term that should be applied to the troops whose countries restrict them from doing more.
 
#26
Ticonderoga said:
So eager to dive in and throw an L2 into the fray.

The whole point is aimed at those in Berlin & Paris
.

Are you getting a socket set for Christmas? Or just an adjustable for the bolts on your neck?
Then why not make that clear in your posts? You use the word COWARD and accuse me of inflaming this discussion? I think that it was you that threw the grenade.
 
#27
The term cowardly was directly aimed at those governments who know that they are not pulling their weight as NATO partners.

Remember this post was about the US looking to the UK to provide more troops.

I am certainly not questioning the troops who are deployed there.

I see it as a major failing of so-called allies who should be applying more assistance to those who are bearing the brunt of combat operations on a daily basis.

If France and Germany wish to be a leading force then back it up with troops at the sharp end.
 
#28
Ticonderoga said:
The term cowardly was directly aimed at those governments who know that they are not pulling their weight as NATO partners.

Remember this post was about the US looking to the UK to provide more troops.

I am certainly not questioning the troops who are deployed there.

I see it as a major failing of so-called allies who should be applying more assistance to those who are bearing the brunt of combat operations on a daily basis.

If France and Germany wish to be a leading force then back it up with troops at the sharp end.
To my bolding.

Fine. Endex then. I withdraw my objections. Just checking.
 
#29
Of course Gasbag Broone will comply with 'orders' from the Pentagon.......
 
#30
It is not impossible that France will send more troops once Obama is in power, as a "gift" to the new US administration that everyone hopes to see closer to european's ways of doing things.

Until then, and with winter settling and the slowing down of the Op tempo, I can't see France sending more troops/equipment than what is already there.

Not to mention current and upcoming commitments (DRC ?)
 
#32
fantassin said:
It is not impossible that France will send more troops once Obama is in power, as a "gift" to the new US administration that everyone hopes to see closer to european's ways of doing things.
So a political gesture to win favour instead of an objective assessment of the military needs of the mission.

The 'European' way of doing things? Sounds about right on current form, and that is not a dig at France's finest or even the Germans for that matter, but the idea that the politicans of either of those nations take their treaty obligations seriously.
 
#33
Well of course, but there will be a bit of breather first, some days at the lake, or on course, some serious nights on the razz, mess do's, wifeys/girlfriends needing a lot of servicing... etc, etc... that kind of stretch. Then it'll be crack on... not afore.
 
#36
The political commitment to Afghanistan varies among European countries. Hence the different approaches and mandates. After the 9/11 attacks the Americans tried to form a coalition and act against what they saw as our common enemy. Whereas in the public debate of some European nations (amongst them France, The Netherlands and Germany) opinion makers tended to see 9/11 as an American problem.

The effect of this on sending troops into a foreign country and giving them a proper mandate shouldn't be underestimated. When the Dutch were asked to send troops to Afghanistan the military was more than happy to oblige. However, Dutch parliament insisted the mission had to be a 'reconstruction mission'. Under no circumstances was it to be named a 'fighting mission'. Despite numerous warnings directed at our government to send troops to do a military job, they decided differently.

A large part of the Dutch population was therefore made to believe our troops would go to Uruzgan to help the local population reconstruct their homes, villages and lifes. In such a scenario you're unlikely to get hurt let alone killed. Unfortunuately it's also a scenario which leaves little to no room for sacrifices because the presented 'cause' is pretty flimsy. Every soldier's death is followed by a heated public debate whether we should withdraw our troops or not.

There is willingness to fight in Afghanistan amongst our troops but our politicians didn't give them a fair chance to do so from start. In fact they even robbed them from popular support to the mission as well. I therefor blame our government and not our armed forces.
 
#37
Stanley1975 said:
A large part of the Dutch population was therefore made to believe our troops would go to Uruzgan to help the local population reconstruct their homes, villages and lifes.
Pretty much what we were told when 3 Para deployed into Helmand.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top