American bail out British Army again?

perseus

Active member
Well that's the way it will be seen after the British have failed to oust the Taliban in Helmand province. OK so the British haven't got the resources, so perhaps it's a political issue. However, this is just a province of one country. Once they managed to contain about a 6th of the world. Something doesn't add up.

Perhaps modern armies cannot fight effectively without sustaining significant casualties and this is politically unacceptable? It is yet to be seen if the Americans are any more successful at holding the ground. So far they haven't forced the Taliban to fight a pitched battle.
 
Last edited:
What doesn't add up is A'stan itself. No foriegn military has ever successfully held that country. You're not going to see "pitched battle" thats not the nature of the beast what you will see is severe small unit actions in a fluid enviroment and a fluid guerilla insurgency.
 
The Brits have been overstretched trying to hold land already won from the Taliban.

With the surge of the last few days from large numbers US troops in Helmand province comes a similar surge of 4000 Brits released to take on active offensive roles against the foe. This appears to amount to a combined orchestrated thrust of US, British and Danish forces aimed at removing the Taliban from the ground prior to up-coming Afghan elections.

Helmand province has always been a very tough nut to crack.
 
What doesn't add up is A'stan itself. No foreign military has ever successfully held that country. You're not going to see "pitched battle" that's not the nature of the beast what you will see is severe small unit actions in a fluid environment and a fluid guerilla insurgency.

^^ Exactly so, no-one could ever accuse Afghans of being cowardly and small unit tactics is what they've traditionally excelled at.... It's a long haul and the sticking point will not be our respective military forces, but, (as per usual), whether our respective governments have the bottle to go the distance, especially whether they're prepared to ramp things up to the point of overwhelming these Taliban and whether the current Afghan administration have the ability to organise themselves to sustain their nation independently of foreign forces...
 
PERSEUS

Post; American bail out British Army again?



Perseus I do not like to see words like this posted regarding our own troops, who are even now taking hits on the front line. Helmand has always been a fierce proposition, and we have lost another 5 heroes in the last few days. RIP.

May I politely ask you to pull your neck in on this particular subject.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy, don't think anyone bit on the tittle.

The articles addressing the American build up clearly noted the change in strategy of increasing troop strength to levels allowing allied forces to stay in the areas. Instead of just sending out patrols as the past manning levels allowed.
 
PERSEUS

Post; American bail out British Army again? Perseus I do not like to see words like this posted regarding our own troops, who are even now taking hits on the front line. Helmand has always been a fierce proposition, and we have lost another 5 heroes in the last few days. RIP.

May I politely ask you to pull your neck in on this particular subject.

It's uncomfortable I know, but I believe that we need to discuss why the British Mission there has not so far been successful. Now it may be simply that there aren't enough troops, or they are ill equipped, or they are facing more organised resistance than elsewhere. However, it may be a matter of strategy or (lets only go as far as that). That is why I raised this point as a question rather than a condemnation. However I also suggested that politically people just look at results, and it is a fact that this doesn't show the British Forces in a favourable light and their reputation in recent years (re-Basra, the Iranian gunboat incident) has been eroded. I tend to leave propaganda and nationalism to others.

Perhaps you better complain to the Times who were far less subtle than I.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3835580.ece

  • In addition, the Americans want the British to copy the success of their military-led aid efforts in eastern Afghanistan, where a $280 million (£140 million) reconstruction project is credited with winning over the local population
  • Last year the Americans pushed for eradication in Nangarhar province, where the local governor arrested growers and destroyed crops. Flying over the area this weekend it was clear that farmers had switched to wheat this season. By contrast, the fertile Helmand valley is carpeted with poppies
  • General McNeill said that he would like to see British troops double their six-month tour of duty to one year because the longer US deployments had helped to fight a war where knowledge of the local population was a key to winning their support and distancing them from militants.
  • As well as getting added firepower, the British will also come under pressure to adopt American counter-insurgency tactics
 
Last edited:
It's uncomfortable I know, but I believe that we need to discuss why the British Mission there has not so far been successful. Now it may be simply that there aren't enough troops, or they are ill equipped, or they are facing more organised resistance than elsewhere. However, it may be a matter of strategy or (lets only go as far as that). That is why I raised this point as a question rather than a condemnation. However I also suggested that politically people just look at results, and it is a fact that this doesn't show the British Forces in a favourable light and their reputation in recent years (re-Basra, the Iranian gunboat incident) has been eroded. I tend to leave propaganda and nationalism to others.

Perhaps you better complain to the Times who were far less subtle than I.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3835580.ece

  • In addition, the Americans want the British to copy the success of their military-led aid efforts in eastern Afghanistan, where a $280 million (£140 million) reconstruction project is credited with winning over the local population
  • Last year the Americans pushed for eradication in Nangarhar province, where the local governor arrested growers and destroyed crops. Flying over the area this weekend it was clear that farmers had switched to wheat this season. By contrast, the fertile Helmand valley is carpeted with poppies
  • General McNeill said that he would like to see British troops double their six-month tour of duty to one year because the longer US deployments had helped to fight a war where knowledge of the local population was a key to winning their support and distancing them from militants.
  • As well as getting added firepower, the British will also come under pressure to adopt American counter-insurgency tactics
Seems you could find a article newer than April 29, 2008? Has anything you listed changed since then? For example the Commanding General?
 
Del Boy, don't think anyone bit on the tittle.

The articles addressing the American build up clearly noted the change in strategy of increasing troop strength to levels allowing allied forces to stay in the areas. Instead of just sending out patrols as the past manning levels allowed.

Exactly, Chukpike. It was the choice of title that drew my complaint of Perseus' choice of words, which were very demeaning of our troops, and inappropriate to boot.

Of course I have no objection to the issues being discussed, but this doesn't give free reign to dissing our fighting forces.

Here we have this morning's reports, all too typical unfortunately:-


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/112223/A-town-s-tears-for-2-fallen-soldiers


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/112224/Heroes-who-took-fight-to-the-Taliban

 
Well a major politician has just said exactly the same in the 'Telegraph' without a question mark, and this wasn't criticised! I will leave out the offending words, and only quote the constructive bits.

The point is we need to get the strategy right to avoid these deaths, its no good trying to avoid it. If the American resources and approach has worked better in the current environment, then we must learn, and vice versa when necessary

The Liberal Democrat leader has questioned whether the government has the political will to see through the UK's military campaign in Afghanistan.
While Nick Clegg insists he supports the mission's aims, he says he has recently begun to query whether "we're going about things in the right way".
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he said the current situation was a "halfway house that lets our troops down". .... He questioned the level of UK troop deployment, saying Britain had been " *********** "

He also said progress was being stunted by corruption.
"If the Taliban are to be defeated, the Afghan people need to learn to trust state institutions - a huge challenge in a country that never had effective central government," he said.

"Rooting out corruption at all levels must be given a higher priority."
"We must think again - not about pulling out, but about doing things differently," he concluded.

"It is time to put real political will behind a new strategy, and a new commitment to Afghanistan. It is our last chance before it is too late.
The latest death on Tuesday takes the number of soldiers to die in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to 176.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8141591.stm
 
Last edited:
PERSEUS.

I have made it clear that I have no objection to this discussion or to any complaint regarding criticism of our useless government. Their incompetence has reduced us to an overun impotent backwater of Federal Europe. Give that your best shot, I have warned you of such for many a long month on these boards.

So you do not have to persuade me regarding our problems in Afghanistan.

However, as I said in the first place, I did not like your own choice of words on this thread, to whit " Bail out the British ARMY again". The implication of that is inappropriate and unfortunate when posted by a Brit, in my opinion, when our guys are still in there battling and falling. Shame on such words, I say.:salute:

But I am not trying to stop discussion of the Afghan situation.
 
I recognize that the chioce of words might have been a bit harsh.
The questions raised about the situation in The Stan are however justified IMO.

In my humble opinion the British forces have forgotten the basics of anti guerilla warfare, the very rules they helpt to create in Malaysia among other places..
Esp the Sabre squadrons of the regiment were key in breaking groud in the anti insurgent tactics that are still in operation and still working today with other forces.

I disagree with the assesment of Basra being a total failiure.
Alot of good were done in Basra, IMO the forces to contain the insurgency were insufficient however.

I may be biased, but I think the anti insurgency should be fought with smaller forces who have an easier time to build report with the locals backed up with a larger QRF for support when contact is made.
It is a complete and utter waste to roll through a village with a mechanized battalion looking down on people from the turrets of thickskin vehicles.
It has and is still happening in The Stan today.
That only serve to make people more hostile towards foreign forces on their ground.
To the average Afghani such tactics brings back memories from the Soviet invasion.

As I said, some very valid points being made in the articles IMO.
//KJ.
 
This certainly isn't the tactics of the Brits or the Australians (our tactics are very similar really, so much so that my battalion uses Brit urban doctrine)

I recognize that the chioce of words might have been a bit harsh.
The questions raised about the situation in The Stan are however justified IMO.

In my humble opinion the British forces have forgotten the basics of anti guerilla warfare, the very rules they helpt to create in Malaysia among other places..
Esp the Sabre squadrons of the regiment were key in breaking groud in the anti insurgent tactics that are still in operation and still working today with other forces.

I disagree with the assesment of Basra being a total failiure.
Alot of good were done in Basra, IMO the forces to contain the insurgency were insufficient however.

I may be biased, but I think the anti insurgency should be fought with smaller forces who have an easier time to build report with the locals backed up with a larger QRF for support when contact is made.
It is a complete and utter waste to roll through a village with a mechanized battalion looking down on people from the turrets of thickskin vehicles.
It has and is still happening in The Stan today.
That only serve to make people more hostile towards foreign forces on their ground.
To the average Afghani such tactics brings back memories from the Soviet invasion.

As I said, some very valid points being made in the articles IMO.
//KJ.
 
are you real?

Well that's the way it will be seen after the British have failed to oust the Taliban in Helmand province. OK so the British haven't got the resources, so perhaps it's a political issue. However, this is just a province of one country. Once they managed to contain about a 6th of the world. Something doesn't add up.

Perhaps modern armies cannot fight effectively without sustaining significant casualties and this is politically unacceptable? It is yet to be seen if the Americans are any more successful at holding the ground. So far they haven't forced the Taliban to fight a pitched battle.

Perhaps you dont understand anything about the British army, why dont you go and spend eight months doing basic training with the royal marines, then you will understand what they are made off, instead you critisize, with knowing anything.

Dont belive all the trash you read in the papers, the army can only do as the political goverment allows them to do. every time the British meet the taliban they run away after the brits push them and win the fire fight, the problem is these people then join their familys hide their weapons and become farmers again, it is called insurgency tatics. the only way to beat this type of fighting is to completly hit them hard, this would involve killing every one in site, that would not go down too well with the political world community, also the mission is to win the hearts and minds of the locals, the Brits will always win on a face to face fight with the taliban.
 
Dont believe all the trash you read in the papers, the army can only do as the political government allows them to do.

Isn't this one of the points I made? In fact I made a long list of possibilities, none of which questioned the fighting spirit or ability of the infantryman. I do however question if the top brass in the Army are arrogantly assuming they are the experts in counter insurgency and can't learn anything from American tactics. Things move on as your enemy changes.

You don't seem to understand the political perception of this ''change in strategy of fighting with the American's", if people euphemistically want to call it that. Any perceived failure casts a shadow on the whole history of a nation and and the success of future campaigns.
 
Helmand province will always present a formidable proposition for any protaganist; it has always been my opinion that Afghanistan can never be won whilst it has a porous border with Pakistan, and it well may always have that.

Now we shall see what effect an enormous increase in man-power etc being thrown at it has upon the situation; the Brits are still right in there, fighting their corner as always and dying on the front line; how do comparisons with allies other than USA in Afghan look?

Those who criticize the Brit effort should wait until this latest episode unfolds, the Brit numbers could never have subjugated Afghan alone.

As for Iraq, the surge did a great job, as I thought it would, but I have noted that USA has not hung around too long before following the Brits out, and quite rightly; we must hope that is not now unfolding.

Meanwhile, of course I cannot accept Brits denigrating the efforts of fighting forces
even as they fall making the great sacrifice. If anyone can give more than the Brits, including their Gurkhas, well bring 'em on; let's have a look at them. Actually I don't see too many volunteers.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this one of the points I made? In fact I made a long list of possibilities, none of which questioned the fighting spirit or ability of the infantryman. I do however question if the top brass in the Army are arrogantly assuming they are the experts in counter insurgency and can't learn anything from American tactics. Things move on as your enemy changes.

You don't seem to understand the political perception of this ''change in strategy of fighting with the American's", if people euphemistically want to call it that. Any perceived failure casts a shadow on the whole history of a nation and and the success of future campaigns.

"I do however question if the top brass in the Army are arrogantly assuming they are the experts in counter insurgency and can't learn anything from American tactics."

Very unusual for someone to imply that the American might know what they are doing. The top brass in the British forces in Afghanistan work with the Allied Central Command which is American. The give input but do not have authority to plan strategy on their own.

"You don't seem to understand the political perception of this ''change in strategy of fighting with the American's", "

You seem to ignore the overall change in strategy that is happening throughout Afghanistan with the doubling of US troops. The British troops will adapt to this change as all the allies will.

I think your beef is more with British Politics than the British troops. Making your choice of title for the topic poor.
 
This article seems to bear out my suspicions. We owe it to the soldiers on the ground to equip them properly prior to going to war, not send them in for political reasons then grit our teeth!

News of ten battlefield deaths in ten days has many Britons rethinking the country's commitment to a conflict that seems no closer to a successful conclusion than when troops first arrived seven years ago.

"The casualties should fix peoples' minds on the fact that we've let the soldiers down," said Adam Holloway, a Conservative Party lawmaker who sits on Parliament's defense committee. "The death toll means we should do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all."

Michael Clarke, head of London-based military think tank the Royal United Services Institute, said public concern is mounting and urged politicians to be more honest about Britain's initial reasons for joining the 2001 invasion.

"What they won't really say is that it's about the credibility of the NATO alliance, and our military relationship with the United States," Clarke said.

Some critics say that Britain should either withdraw from the mission, or that troops must be provided with better equipment, including more helicopters. Britain, the United States and Canada have long complained that they have engaged in heavy fighting in Afghanistan while some European nations have shied away from combat roles.

Tony Philippson, whose son James was killed in Afghanistan in 2006, said the public remained skeptical about whether foreign troops will ever be able to suppress the Taliban and bring peace to the country.
"I've always felt it was a risky business and I think it's still on a knife edge about whether they can succeed," Philippson told the BBC.

Gen. Charles Guthrie, the head of Britain's military between 1997 and 2001, said he believes British soldiers have died as a direct result of a shortage of helicopters for troops in Afghanistan. British troops are suffering heavy casualties from roadside bombs, and a lack of helicopters mean soldiers must make more journey across Helmand by road.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9_7k8qJTNQhlZw3eFUA8mNiiWwAD99BOD280
 
Last edited:
That I buy. But it is no secret or surprise. The troops get on and do their stuff whatever. They deserve honours, not brickbats.
 
Back
Top