American bail out British Army again? - Page 2




 
--
 
July 9th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
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.

But I am not trying to stop discussion of the Afghan situation.
July 9th, 2009  
KJ
 
 
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.
July 9th, 2009  
bulldogg
 
 
Methinks people need to reread the Small Wars Manual penned by the USMC.
--
July 10th, 2009  
AussieNick
 
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
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.
July 10th, 2009  
gordonbrown
 

Topic: are you real?


Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
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.
July 10th, 2009  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordonbrown
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.
July 10th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
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.
July 10th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
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.
July 10th, 2009  
perseus
 
 
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!

Quote:
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/...iiWwAD99BOD280
July 12th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
That I buy. But it is no secret or surprise. The troops get on and do their stuff whatever. They deserve honours, not brickbats.
 


Similar Topics
Army Launches Effort To Land Recruits In Region
Rivals Present Sharp Divide On Iraq Goals
Military Chaplains: A Historian's View From The American Revolution To Iraq
Army Brigade Finds Itself Stretched Thin
U.S. And Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans