We need more troops to defeat the Taleban, says Nato chief

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armchair_jihad, Sep 7, 2006.

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. Nato’s top commander has urged member states to commit more troops for the fight against the Taleban insurgency in southern Afghanistan before the guerrillas melt away for the winter months.

    General James L. Jones made the call after admitting that the alliance had been surprised by the extent of violence since Nato extended its peacekeeping mission into the region a month ago.

    He also acknowledged that countries had been reluctant to commit troops to the international force, which has sustained increasing casualties due to fierce fighting with Taleban guerrillas, who were prepared to stand and fight rather than deploying their usual hit-and-run tactics.


    Article in full

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2347035,00.html
     
  2. Is that the same Jones who was CMC?
     
  3. This is a full-blown guerrilla war now, not the peace-keeping Phoney Tony and Rabid (without firing a shot) Reid keep blabbing about. No amount of troops that countries are likely to admit is going to make a difference - unless we're talking hundreds of thousands. Anything else is entirely unrealistic.

    The Ivans had about 120,000 troops in Afghanistan. In comparison, the UK had some 30,000 troops in Norn Iron at the height of The Troubles. The thing being that Norn Iron covers an area of approx. 5,500 square miles, while Helmand province alone is over 23,000 square miles. In addition, just about every male person over 15 has access to some sort of weapon in Afganistan - which wasn't the case in Norn Iron.

    I'm afraid the situation engendered by Phoney Tony's pandering to Bush the Berk ("Oh, don't worry, George! I'll just send a few more of our chappies") is going to mean a lot more brave souls will lose their lives before it's over.

    MsG
     
  4. The senior bod in the USMC is who he used to be if CMC is the same thing?!
     
  5. Yes, Commadant of the Marine Corps.
     
  6. totally right, I have said the same elsewhere, but less eloquently.

    Don't forget, if you want nice jobs, and rich yanks inviting you to get paid thousands to do the after-dinner circuit, you have to expect casualties.
     
  7. This, londonirish, sums it up very nicely in a testicle-artillery-round (or nutshell, for the uninitiated). :D :D :D

    MsG
     
  8. Add Tony Blairs last act before abdicating, sorry , resigning will be to commit more of our forces to that theatre of operations.
     
  9. its a phrase I have used before, but he wants us to play a world stage on a village-hall-production budget.

    The arrogance in believing that where the Empires of both Britain and the Soviets failed, he thinks a small, broke, constitutional monarchy run by former CND members can succeed, astounds me.
     
  10. I like the "dead from non combat wounds", read "totally pissed and fell under a tank/off a building/got knifed in the bazaar/chirrosis of the liver"
     
  11. And who do we think will provide these 'more' troops? I have a funny feeling it will be us - one extra Battlegroup by Xmas i reckon.........
     
  12. Hmm - interesting stats, there - good link. Although the grand totals are large, it puts the whole 'Afghanistan was a hellhole that broke the Soviet Army' viewpoint into perspective. To read/hear all the folk lore about mentally scarred vets, you'd think the Sovs had lost gazillions there - and yet, in their worst year of all, 1984, we're seeing roughly 300 officer casualties, and just over 2000 deaths from combat.

    Don't get me wrong, that's far more than I'd like to see us even think about, but it's much less than my uninformed guess would have been if you'd asked me what the scale of soviet losses was... By comparison, by the sixth year of Vietnam, the US were running at over 2000 casualties per month. Fascinating.
     
  13. 2000 dead? So about a day's low-level skirmishing in Stalingrad 1942 then. Maybe the Russians were going soft?