We are 'Junior Partners' in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ciggie, Jul 21, 2010.

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. ...and therefore the pull-out of British troops decision rests with POTUS and not the PM, according to the radio this morning. What on Earth constitutional justification lies behind that one?????? Can't seem to see one myself. A foreign power can decide on the deployment of our troops.....today the US, tomorrow Russia or Somalia, eh?
  2. Obama needs a wake up call...


    PS when are we going to get the useful smileys back FFS?
  3. Actually sounds pretty smart to me. We ARE a junior partner in this conflict, and somebody needs to be in overall command. That's not to say we don't have a say in things - but doing a Basra won't help matters either.
  4. We tend to have an exaggerated picture of the BritFor contribution because of our media coverage - and the sad sight of Wootton Bassett coming to a standstill AGAIN...Brits are the second largest contingent at 10,000...US has currently 15 times that number in theatre so, yes we are indeed the junior partners.

    Equally, Barry O'Bama needs us to be there, just as George Bush needed us to be part of Op Iraqi Liberation (OIL) - he-Who-Walks-On-Water would have a hard time selling the war to his own domestic audience if we weren't.....and his approval ratings are rocky going into the mid-term elections.

    The US electorate frankly couldn't give a dam if Poland reduce their 2,000 + contingent, or France decides to pull out of Kapisa or the Luxembourg officer decides he no longer wishes to play......but if the British Army took a cold look at the stats and concluded the Great Game was just not worth the candle, it would have an impact on US domestic support for the war.

    I rather hope 'Call me Dave' just laid it on the line for him ' It's been a blast - but we are OUT' ...... although when I heard Obama trot out that corny old obllocks about 'the special relationship being in gwo' I groaned...Britain needs to put that into the 'cherished memories' file.......Anglo-US relations need to be approached clear-eyed - what's in it for us?

    I also think those who were IN Basra through TELIC6/7 can give you a better impression of what really took place there rather than the surly sniping from rabid right wingers on the other side of the Atlantic.

    Pax vobiscum

  5. We're Americas political figleaf
  6. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    But we have been the junior partner in the majority of large land conflicts in the last 100 years or so; WW1 we were junior to the French, WW2 (eventually) to the Russians and Yanks, GW1 need I go on. It's not that surprising really due to our tradition of having a small professional military.
  7. If we take our bat and ball home, there is nothing "POTUS" can do to stop us. As in most military contexts all he can do is make us wish we hadn't rather than actually prevent it!

    I think that the last government were a little bit laissez faire about the time bounding of the AFG (and IQ) exercises. If you allocate an unboundee time frame for anything, it has a habit of expanding to fill that time frame. Which is what has happened with Herrick. My fervent hope is that Mr Cameron has made this point to our allies - remember they are our allies not our masters or our enemies - and that they too have an eye on the clock. "Make it SMART" is an annoying management aphorism in some ways but it really is the crux of doing complicated things, involving more than one person, using more than one resource and with more than one outcome possible.
  8. The evenutality is [probably] that our new masters will be the faceless lot in brussells dictating where and if we go on future foreign adventures...................... snip, snip, bit by bit our independence being eroded................
  9. Very well put Cuddles, and pretty much my feelings. The stumbling block comes in the form of those who will actually take the decision to take our bat and ball home. Saying the US president will decide is an out and out bluff, but the reality is that our own politicians do not have the spine to take such a decision in the face of intimidation. I think it is no coincidence that 2015 is being bandied about as a total pullout date...safely outside the lifetime of this government, so a 'promise' wide open to being broken with impunity.
  10. Hes nothing but trouble, hes supposed to be our leader but yet he says we're the Junior Partner with america. Take a look at history and current affairs. I dont think so! He's not a proud brit! mmmm

    He makes me sick.
  11. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    Try reading Rampant's post. He was spot on.
  12. Next subject, stating the bleeding obvious! We are indeed the junior partner in this coalition, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we should be in command of our own forces. For Cameron to suggest different, will anger many of the families and supporters of our troops. We delude ourselves that we are more important than we actually are, and this one sided coalition will manifest itself more clearly when they yanks start to divy up the gelt after this conflict ends. Our so called "Special relationship" is nothing more than a smokescreen for the septics to demand from us more than we can reasonably be expected to provide. Camerons kowtowing over the BP/Lockerbie fiascos proves that we are nothing more than whipping boys for them, and that we should indeed know our place as the Junior partner in this war against terror. It would appear that we really are the 51st state, but without any of the future benefits?
  13. Oh dear, it looks like schools out already! ...Just to clarify, that was to '02wardb'.
  14. Well obviously. However being a second banana fulfilling a relatively light alliance commitment while clearly intending to spend peanuts on defense and scurry behind Uncle Sam's vastly expensive legions at the least sign of real trouble does have its upside.

    The Offshore Balancer looks at the big dog's problems in Global leadership: a bad idea:
    The main risk with this skinflint poodle strategy being if DC goes on overreaching like this chasing the phantom of perfect safety from modest threats with all its armed might it's likely to break itself economically. It may lose appearance of having the will and means to intervene. In which case DC may be about as much use as an ally to Blighty when the balloon goes up as they were to coveted NATO prospect Georgia.
  15. Yes, TT, apart from rant style, you get to the point. The ' Why we are there' rhetoric fools few people with an iota of nouse. Cash is the answer. Terry is a pack of ruthless, self-seeking pre- mediaeval thugs - fair enough. Unless the FO starts issuing them with visas with no scrutiny, they are not our problem. Investing in security in this country will/would be far cheaper than trying to sort out the insoluble problems of a pack of barbarians far away who think nothing of us and have nothing to give us, apart from smack. Terrorist threat, nah. Oil in the north, that's the game, and as you said TT, ultimately who'll hit paydirt on that one? Not us.