Paras and Taliban Kiss and Make Up?!!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paras and Taliban Kiss and Make Up?!!?
Have I got this one right or am I being distracted by Gordan Yellow just now bottling out of a General Election?
Guardian, 6 October 2007
Swiss Des, 1 October 2007
I'm too dumb to figure this out myself, but is the above a good example of "joined up government" and will the Paras be allowed to operate as trained or will the crack team of Nu Labour PC lawyers be backing them up at every stage and will they be properly equipped for task or will there be short term budget deficiencies channeling funds to remfs instead of guys taking the pain (unless Yellow Gordie calls it all off at the last minute)? And when can we stop being polite about our NATO allies who hide when it gets dark and don't have to be resupplied with ammunition?
More happy days ahead pals!!
Guardian, 6 October 2007
The whole of one of the army's most elite regiments, supported by the RAF's latest fighter bombers, is to be sent to Afghanistan in a military operation unprecedented since the second world war.
For the first time since 1945, all three regular battalions of the Parachute Regiment - about 2,000 troops - will be deployed for combat. The Eurofighter/Typhoon, equipped with new missiles for a ground attack role, will be deployed for the first time in a hostile mission.
New Merlin helicopters from an RAF squadron formed this week will also be sent to the region.
The plan, being drawn up by the chiefs of staff, reflects the government's concern over the failure to win a decisive victory against the Taliban. Tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of the first American and British missile strikes on Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks on the US, yet Nato-led forces are no closer to beating the Taliban, Nato commanders believe....
........While Britain prepares to increase its military commitment to Afghanistan, senior Nato commanders are making it clear they are increasingly concerned about the restrictions -"caveats" - on the operations and movements that some countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, impose on their forces in Afghanistan. "Restrictions on operations are having profound consequences," said one Nato commander.
For the first time since 1945, all three regular battalions of the Parachute Regiment - about 2,000 troops - will be deployed for combat. The Eurofighter/Typhoon, equipped with new missiles for a ground attack role, will be deployed for the first time in a hostile mission.
New Merlin helicopters from an RAF squadron formed this week will also be sent to the region.
The plan, being drawn up by the chiefs of staff, reflects the government's concern over the failure to win a decisive victory against the Taliban. Tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of the first American and British missile strikes on Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks on the US, yet Nato-led forces are no closer to beating the Taliban, Nato commanders believe....
........While Britain prepares to increase its military commitment to Afghanistan, senior Nato commanders are making it clear they are increasingly concerned about the restrictions -"caveats" - on the operations and movements that some countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, impose on their forces in Afghanistan. "Restrictions on operations are having profound consequences," said one Nato commander.
Des Browne, the defence secretary, told a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference last week that the Taliban would have to be involved in a peace process "because they are not going away any more than I suspect Hamas are going away from Palestine".
More happy days ahead pals!!
Last edited by highcirrus; 6th Oct 2007 at 21:03.
Caveat - nothing in this post is intended to be fair to the timid wallflower that is the PM or Swiss Des.
It's actually a fairly joined up approach, drawn from classic coercive diplomacy.
Give the opponent the means to find a way out through negotiations (in which you hold the upper hand, unless stunningly inept and/or cowardly [oh dear, I may see a problem here...]) rather than leave them back against the wall with only the option of fighting like hell, which will end up being bothersome.
That's the theory, which means Des was on reasonable grounds. However, given the levels of skill and brilliance displayed on defence by the current administration, whether the theory translates into practice is another matter.
It's actually a fairly joined up approach, drawn from classic coercive diplomacy.
Give the opponent the means to find a way out through negotiations (in which you hold the upper hand, unless stunningly inept and/or cowardly [oh dear, I may see a problem here...]) rather than leave them back against the wall with only the option of fighting like hell, which will end up being bothersome.
That's the theory, which means Des was on reasonable grounds. However, given the levels of skill and brilliance displayed on defence by the current administration, whether the theory translates into practice is another matter.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm inclined to go with Archimedes here...
It's definitely a case of "I'm about to destroy you but we can chat about how bad you want your defeat to be"... The question is whether our wonderful government will simply give all the enemy entrance visas and benefits should they chose not to fight today but move to Britain in the meantime...
It's definitely a case of "I'm about to destroy you but we can chat about how bad you want your defeat to be"... The question is whether our wonderful government will simply give all the enemy entrance visas and benefits should they chose not to fight today but move to Britain in the meantime...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: On the Report Line
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems to me to be a good case of Strat Comms. We tell the enemy that the gun boat is on the way to undermine their will and cohesion. They are showing cracks at the moment.
Notwithstanding this, without the support of NATO nations I believe we are on the way to Strat Failure. Forces that have been agreed to be contributed are not. The CJSOR is not being met. The nations involved in the fighting are very good at turning young muslim men into mincemeat, but without the political will the war will be lost. The flow of muslim extremists coming from Pakistan is greater than our ability to mince them. We have to win the ideological war (strategic) as well as mincemeating the enemy (tactical/Operational).
By the way - one of the nations with the most caveats relating to the employment of its troops are the Brits - don't go there.
Notwithstanding this, without the support of NATO nations I believe we are on the way to Strat Failure. Forces that have been agreed to be contributed are not. The CJSOR is not being met. The nations involved in the fighting are very good at turning young muslim men into mincemeat, but without the political will the war will be lost. The flow of muslim extremists coming from Pakistan is greater than our ability to mince them. We have to win the ideological war (strategic) as well as mincemeating the enemy (tactical/Operational).
By the way - one of the nations with the most caveats relating to the employment of its troops are the Brits - don't go there.
