We must deploy all the troops we can to Afghanistan

#1
David Davis MP: We must deploy all the troops we can to Afghanistan now and stop trying to fight the war on the cheap - but if no progress is made in 18 months, the public will demand our withdrawal

David Davis is Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden and a former Shadow Home Secretary.

A tragic military error with a hideous civilian death-toll, a disastrously corrupt election, and the resignation of a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the MoD,the auguries for Gordon Brown’s speech on Friday could barely have been worse. They demanded an inspired response.

Instead we got a sermon on everybody else’s responsibilities and a repeat of the standard lines of “why we are there". Nowhere did we have any insights as to how we are going to change a losing strategy into a winning one. To do that, we need to understand how and why it is all going wrong. Surprisingly, for a very intelligent man, the Prime Minister appears to have no grip on this at all.
More
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/09/david-davis-mp-.html
 
#2
The idea has merit I suppose.

18 months of high intensity Ops and then do one, if nothing has changed.

Proper smash the Taliban right up, and drive 'em back to Pakistan.

Obviously he is missing the vital part of the 18month window..... after 18 months of such operations, with every available man. We'd HAVE to withdraw to square ourselves away and reconstitute.

Or hand across to teh Treasury a pretty steep bill, and tell gordo the great (self proclaimed) to start conscription.
 
#3
Oh no, if no progress is made in that time, the public will demand our withdrawal. I thought the public was hinting pretty strongly at that now.
 
#4
What the public doesn't want is what was percieved to have happend in Iraq. Hundreds dead, billions spent and very little achieved.
Want public support? Put enough military strength into Afghanistan to stop the UK looking like the poor cousin hanging on the the coat tails of the USA.
To garner public support for Afghanistan then throw huge resources at the shithole and give the public a reason to be proud of Britains achievements there. That is not to understate the huge effort on the part of everybody in the armed forces but the realistic thing is that as far as the public is concerned nothing has been achieved by the loss of life and huge financial cost. Why should the public expect the final result in Afghanistan to be any different to that of Iraq?
In the days of empire Britain threw decisie resources at pretty much everything we decided to do, now we make a half arsed effort that is doomed to failure and then the public watches on telly how the USMC is required to prop up our tiny expeditionary force with no equipment and too few boots on the ground.

When the public can take pride in Britains might and Britains achievements then they will unreservedly support the campaign in Afghanistan. As it stand now they can only look with shame and embarrasement at the half arsed, under equiped and frankly weak looking effort that is presented.
 
#7
jagman said:
What the public doesn't want is what was percieved to have happend in Iraq. Hundreds dead, billions spent and very little achieved.
Want public support? Put enough military strength into Afghanistan to stop the UK looking like the poor cousin hanging on the the coat tails of the USA.
To garner public support for Afghanistan then throw huge resources at the shithole and give the public a reason to be proud of Britains achievements there. That is not to understate the huge effort on the part of everybody in the armed forces but the realistic thing is that as far as the public is concerned nothing has been achieved by the loss of life and huge financial cost. Why should the public expect the final result in Afghanistan to be any different to that of Iraq?
In the days of empire Britain threw decisie resources at pretty much everything we decided to do, now we make a half arsed effort that is doomed to failure and then the public watches on telly how the USMC is required to prop up our tiny expeditionary force with no equipment and too few boots on the ground.

When the public can take pride in Britains might and Britains achievements then they will unreservedly support the campaign in Afghanistan. As it stand now they can only look with shame and embarrasement at the half arsed, under equiped and frankly weak looking effort that is presented.
True.

Even Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel lost their appeal after a while. You can only watch well intentioned amatuers make tawts of themselves for so long.

And that is exactly what we are fast becoming on a world stage.
 
#8
chocolate_frog said:
jagman said:
What the public doesn't want is what was percieved to have happend in Iraq. Hundreds dead, billions spent and very little achieved.
Want public support? Put enough military strength into Afghanistan to stop the UK looking like the poor cousin hanging on the the coat tails of the USA.
To garner public support for Afghanistan then throw huge resources at the shithole and give the public a reason to be proud of Britains achievements there. That is not to understate the huge effort on the part of everybody in the armed forces but the realistic thing is that as far as the public is concerned nothing has been achieved by the loss of life and huge financial cost. Why should the public expect the final result in Afghanistan to be any different to that of Iraq?
In the days of empire Britain threw decisie resources at pretty much everything we decided to do, now we make a half arsed effort that is doomed to failure and then the public watches on telly how the USMC is required to prop up our tiny expeditionary force with no equipment and too few boots on the ground.

When the public can take pride in Britains might and Britains achievements then they will unreservedly support the campaign in Afghanistan. As it stand now they can only look with shame and embarrasement at the half arsed, under equiped and frankly weak looking effort that is presented.
True.

Even Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel lost their appeal after a while. You can only watch well intentioned amatuers make tawts of themselves for so long.

And that is exactly what we are fast becoming on a world stage.
Sadly that is how we are presenting to the world. Tragic isn't it?
 
#9
It would help if army chiefs fessed up to the half arrsed support and equipment it is receiving for the campaign.

Still too many officers worming their way up the career structure for that to happen. I cannot remember a govt as weak as this, it would be like pushing on a half open door.
 
#10
chocolate_frog said:
The idea has merit I suppose.

18 months of high intensity Ops and then do one, if nothing has changed.

Proper smash the Taliban right up, and drive 'em back to Pakistan.

Obviously he is missing the vital part of the 18month window..... after 18 months of such operations, with every available man. We'd HAVE to withdraw to square ourselves away and reconstitute.

Or hand across to teh Treasury a pretty steep bill, and tell gordo the great (self proclaimed) to start conscription.
TBH, I'm surprised the Cyclopian One has'nt tried to re-introduce Conscritption already; it's one of the few ways left he can do even greater damage to this country than he already has.

Probably thinks that not even his tame ZANU MP's would be dumb enough to vote for it. :roll:
 
#11
and whilst everyone is over there the ruskies will sneak in at the back door..............sorry i think i might have been misled in basic...too many russian towns.

makes sense though, a larger deployment, and push and hold on a scale that puts even panthers claw to shame :)

now where is that cash going to come from.....?
bankers pensions? mp expenses? :?

*edited for spelingz
 
#12
like the Ruskies tried?

Even with Afg on their doorstep and a military force how many times larger than ours, people think its the best polcy to send more troops in?

Perhaps if we didnt interfer in the first place ie let the russians have it - things may be totally different
 
#15
BIPOLAR77 said:
and lost then too
we won the second and third ones. we only lost the 1st and that was when we invaded with 5000 troops for the whole country.

like the Ruskies tried?
funnily enough they went there initially (like the us in vietnam) on request of the current government of the region. it only became a piece in the "cold war game" when we started funding the islamists.

it really doesnt have the history to have the image/myth that it does.
 
#16
if we won the 2nd and 3rd why are we there now?

If you believe 'they went in on request' look at your history - a full scale invasion just to expand or so we though, it was more like a wespon proiving and testing ground/

My point is the russians didnt succeed with mass numbers sp yake heed in the lesson = which has obviously not been learned
 
#17
jagman said:
What the public doesn't want is what was percieved to have happend in Iraq. Hundreds dead, billions spent and very little achieved.
Want public support? Put enough military strength into Afghanistan to stop the UK looking like the poor cousin hanging on the the coat tails of the USA.
To garner public support for Afghanistan then throw huge resources at the shithole and give the public a reason to be proud of Britains achievements there. That is not to understate the huge effort on the part of everybody in the armed forces but the realistic thing is that as far as the public is concerned nothing has been achieved by the loss of life and huge financial cost. Why should the public expect the final result in Afghanistan to be any different to that of Iraq?
In the days of empire Britain threw decisie resources at pretty much everything we decided to do, now we make a half arsed effort that is doomed to failure and then the public watches on telly how the USMC is required to prop up our tiny expeditionary force with no equipment and too few boots on the ground.

When the public can take pride in Britains might and Britains achievements then they will unreservedly support the campaign in Afghanistan. As it stand now they can only look with shame and embarrasement at the half arsed, under equiped and frankly weak looking effort that is presented.
I think the problem is there isn't much to be gained from 'helping' afghanistan. Unless the politicians can spell out in concrete terms what exactly the UK is gaining from this expenditure in blood and treasure, I don't see why the UK should throw everything into this venture.
 
#19
If we threw everything we have at 'gan, something like 146,000 soldiers, it still wouldn't be anywhere near the 160,000 Russian soldiers plus 240,000 communist Afghans that couldn't do the job. Nor were they restricted in fighting by a load of petty combat rules, quite the contrary. If they want to get somewhere in this war, cut out the fcuking PC, ban the news cameras and get the strategy right. Otherwise, get the fcuk out of that shithole.
 
#20
EdwardCoke said:
I think the problem is there isn't much to be gained from 'helping' afghanistan. Unless the politicians can spell out in concrete terms what exactly the UK is gaining from this expenditure in blood and treasure, I don't see why the UK should throw everything into this venture.
That’s not the only problem, although a very valid one. In concentrating on Affers, everybody’s neglecting the real cause of the ongoing conflict – which is Pakistan. The extremists have the say there, and they’d like nothing better than a strict Muslim regime in Affers; if only to prevent the Western nations from plundering all the natural resources of the place.

The Afghans are masters of the waiting game, but the Chinese are much better at it. My own little conspiracy theory says that the Chinese are just waiting for the coalition troops to pull out, as they'll have to if no halfways logical reason is put forward as to why our fellasses and fellas are dying there in droves for no tangible gain, then they’ll put in an offer to help. Once in-country (and don’t forget that Affers actually borders on China) with, say, a million troops (from a standing army of about 2.3 million), they’ll manufacture a “Tonkin Bay incident” and flood the place with their bods. Not only do they have a TA of about four million, each year something like 11 million Chinese males become eligible for mandatory military duty. The result is that the Chinese effectively take over the country and all its natural resources. Job jobbed.

Far-fetched? Possibly. But no further far-fetched than the original Cheney plan to substitute the US Middle East foothold in Saudi Arabia with one in Iraq. And that worked out so well, didn’t it?

MsG
 

Latest Threads