War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by old_bloke, May 16, 2013.

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. It's made a better British military in terms of kit/equipment and TTPs for future COIN ops.

    Can't think of anything else positive really.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Cost an awful lot of lives, in deaths and injuries, was it worth it?
  3. The mistake was made in 2006 when 16 Air Assualt went into Helmand, the problem was exasberated with the troop surge.

    The operation has been poorly led and implemmented, but there are many success storys. As long as we don't forget about AFG in teh future it's likely to be a success story by Afghan Standards. The problem is translating Afghan Success into Western miltary success.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. No, but I'm obviously biased.
  5. I'm going to play devils advocate here. What would our casualty rate have been for a ten year long battle group live fire excericise?

    How many troops would've been killed/injured during the same period had they just been doing normal garrison duty through RTAs, Accidents etc?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. it paid off my overdraft
    • Like Like x 3
  7. The Major seemed like a good officer and an excellent guy. I hope he didn't catch flak for his honest and insightful comments.

    This, and 'Camp Victory', have proven to me beyond a doubt that the Afghan forces are completely ****ed and all the effort/work/sacrifice our forces have made will have been for naught when we get out.
  8. 2006 was just a wakeup call. The mistake was made years before that when we invaded, indulged in tea and medals, and ****ed off to Iraq.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I got a shiny medal. Two, in fact!

  10. Three if you include the Dancon March lol
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Unintentionally made Pakistan even more unstable and that may be the war's real significance historically. It's created in FATA a Takfiri breading ground that far exceeds what we went into Afghanistan to destroy. Otherwise it is a strategic irrelevance.

    I don't blame Bush, it was a necessary response to 9-11. Wars are often difficult to get out of once started. The Pashtun war got derailed into a bumpy version of Kosovo mainly by US allies. As such it can't really be compared with the bigger and dafter Iraq war whose consequences are still playing out where we get a lot of our hydro-carbons from.

    Barry's decision to escalate the war on coming into oficce has been a complete lash up. This was a hopeless task given Terry had secure rear basing and made things much worse South of the Durand. It was accompanied by a delusional understanding of Pindi's very real strategic dilema in the region.
  12. I disagree. There was no need to invade Afghanistan. Bush played it all wrong because he wanted a big bang to show the US people he wasn't sitting on his arse (as he did when he heard the news). He could have given the Taliban the evidence they wanted and the may (and likely) handed Bin Laden over or he could have gotten his special forces in to get Bin Laden out and effectivly cut the head of the Al Qaeda leadership making it ineffective. (he did tell us that he knew where he was and had all the satellite images to prove it). A type of green leader raid that the Rhodesians carried out in Zambia in 1978 would have been very effective, saved a lot of lives and would have left the world a much more stable place. Instead all that has been achieved is that Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership bugged out of Afghanistan (what did the US think they would do?) set up camps in many other countries (many of which were already there), made the world a much more unsafe place (despite their propaganda that it has made it safer), wasted lives for nothing, and lost a pointless war.

    So yes, I blame Bush for this almighty ***** up and Blair for getting us involved for his own agenda.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. I have to agree with your points.

    We should never have invaded Iraq and certainly, Afghanistan was monstrous for the cock ups by braid... not sure any braid paid and yet hold that thought...

    Was there not much knashing of DT teeth when Tootle left the army - at first a great Brig and then with hind sight maybe the AA Bde did not do such a brilliant job. Fally, not taking anything away from the Toms on the ground but once more the leadership could be seen as lacking. However, was that military or political leadership or both?

    It has been commented on many times that battle group have gone into theatre with a one off biggy, and yet why were they there? Seemingly, no over arching authority or strategic direction from UK seems to have been in place?

    Looking back, we will see an Army shredded of capability, and even living hand to mouth. John Churchill once served in an Army of 10,000... he is muted as one of our best generals...

    I feel that the Army is going to pay heavily for the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Treasury will make them pay.

    However, will the leadership learn? Will the kaput COC be re-organised to be able to take on board what must amount to strategic leadership failings?

    I would say no.

    Should that be so, then both... conflicts will have been a failure and lads and lasses will have given their lives for nothing.

    A fitting inscription for the tomb stones of Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron.
  14. It can be argued AQ even after 9-11 were never much of a threat but I think some allowance should be made for panic and US public expectation. The GWOT in retrospect was clearly an over reaction but clearly the Pentagon had to be seen to act decisively. I think politically Bush needed to do something larger than a simple punitive raid, a "big bang". It was a fairly light invasion at the beginning relying on special forces.

    The initial invasion, incursion might be a better word, has been criticized for relying too much on Northern Alliance partners and the highly unreliable ISI. While it failed to nab the AQ leadership it did severely disrupt them, they came close to being trapped and killed. Mullah Omar's Taliban being unseated and driven into FATA. It had international support and all looked pretty successful at the time, in fact too successful.

    Clinton had responded to previous AQ attacks with ineffectual cruise missile strikes, Bush's father invaded Nicaragua, Reagan Grenada, FDR declared war on the Japanese empire after Pearl Harbor. Afghanistan looked like a fairly proportionate response. It's really much later that it became a wrong headed attempt at nation building that Bush had scolded Clinton for engaging in Kosovo.