In Comrade Brown's Cabinet that is. And which perfectly sums up our glorious leader's feelings towards our armed forces. :yuk:

I'm wrestling with a conundrum.

We are in Afghanistan to make Britain safer, by denying the terrorists a safe haven, according to the PM.

Whilst we are doing that, what is happening in:

Pakistan
Somalia
Chechnya
Yemen

All of the above don't seem to be under any real government control, and are effectively ungoverned spaces in which terrorists can train at will.

You could also add:

Saudi Arabia (Funding)
Algeria
Syria
The mountains of several 'Stans'
Indonesia
Egypt
Lebanon

And I don't really buy this Home Office claptrap about 90% or so terror attacks originating in Afghanistan. They are more likely to originate in Pakistan, a country we keep talking about, but effectively leaving alone (apart from an occasional UAV strike).

I don't have a problem with Mr Broon marching everyone up the hill (as long as they are properly equipped), but the reasons for this campaign have always been hazy, and this 'denying terrorists a safe haven' nonsense doesnt stack up.

Im sure an organisation like Al Qaeda is navigating an airline website and booking seats on an Islamabad-Mogadishu flight.

I seem to remember the 7/7 bombers booked themselves on a teambuilding weekend in Wales. We havent invaded the Brecon Beacons.

The reasons change everytime, in order to make it palatable to the UK population, who quite rightly question the aims of the mission.

All this nation building, drug eradication nonsense and denying safe havens is utter rubbish.

Why not be honest. We are members of NATO, and following 9/11, the US asked for our help under Article 5 of the treaty. We are obliged to assist them following an attack.

This may not be easy to sell to the UK public, but it is the only fact in this whole matter. The rest seems to have been developed to fit the mood.

I still don't really have an opinion either way, I just do what I get paid to do. I just think a little more honesty is required.

minigundiplomat, I do believe you are right, although I’m not sure how Egypt fits into your “other players” list. It does annoy me that the British public seem to be considered too stupid to be given the truth. I sometimes suspect that the Government has little grasp of what the truth is.

As I see it, we have fulfilled Art 5 of the NATO Treaty (which was never drafted to deal with aggression from other than Nation States) and the prime objective now is to mend that which we broke in the process. When Al Q’s C3 facilities were taken out in what can be considered to be the second phase of the “war”, it was the same facilities used by Afghanistan for the pursuit of normal Civil life. For the ordinary Afghan, we significantly sodded up their electricity, gas, water and some key elements of their transport system. Those are the elements that we should be restoring to a level fit for civilised life. That restoration hasn’t happened, though, largely because it’s been hindered by local dissidents and insurgents. We’ve created a magnet for any fanatic who want’s have go at the West. Surely even your average Big Brother viewer can understand the concept of mending what we broke? I wouldn’t, on the other hand, expect them to grasp the importance of not pulling out from an unfinished job and the message that would send to every likely enemy on the planet.

What was that old lesson that many of us were taught? You cannot have split Objectives? Well we have acquired split objectives. Particularly in the US, elements of government seem to have a firm belief that it is a “war” against terror being fought off homeland soil. Also, while we’re there in force, a moral crusade of clearing out the Aghan grown poppy drugs trade has been commissioned. The rational argument being that drug money is funding the agressors.. Regrettably, it is also providing a living for ordinary Afghans.

When our Government has worked out what the truth is, perhaps they would have the grace to tell us.

Instant response to Bob Ainsworth's announcement on TV
"We can't win. I mean we have better weapons and can shoot better, but they are never going to run out of soldiers"

That's from my nephew, aged 9.

ps minigundiplomat, unless military training has changed a lot, I think you'll find we invade the Brecon Beacons almost daily. I've done it 3 times myself!

I invaded Brecon the other week - couldn't find any AQ or Taleban. However if we invaded London I'm sure we would find quite a lot of naughty boys and girls hell bent on killing British lives.

Size matters?
 

Avitar hit the nail on the head!!

Has the "end game" been stated?
What is actually trying to be achieved to reach a state of "Winning"?

To win! you have to have a goal and an end, at the moment that seems to be lacking

Doctrine and Afghanistan
 

My humble take on Afghanistan through the (slightly blurred) lens of British Mil Doctrine:

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
A single, unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations. Selection and maintenance of the aim is regarded as the master principle of war.

As regards Afghanistan, has the aim been identified and is effort being consistently driven towards its maintenance, divested of (undue) political interference?

Maintenance of Morale
Morale is a positive state of mind derived from inspired political and military leadership, a shared sense of purpose and values, well-being, perceptions of worth and group cohesion.

How long can this be maintained? I've read some grim assessreps lately.

Offensive Action
Offensive action is the practical way in which a commander seeks to gain advantage, sustain momentum and seize the initiative.

IEDs/IDF hamper our ability to maintain offensive momentum. This fact, terrain and the (legitimate and proper) need to stay within ROE restrict our ability to seize the initiative. We are (for some powerful reasons) more reactive than we would like.

Security
Security is the provision and maintenance of an operating environment that affords the necessary freedom of action, when and where required, to achieve objectives.

See comments above re: IEDs/terrain and add the fact that to a large extent we are fighting amongst the people. The security situation is poor.

Surprise
Surprise is the consequence of shock and confusion induced by the deliberate or incidental introduction of the unexpected.

I'm not in a position to comment on the extent to which we achieve surprise. I am aware of some instances in which it's being achieved by Reaper.

Concentration of Force
Concentration of force involves the decisive, synchronized application of superior fighting power (conceptual, physical, and moral) to realize intended effects, when and where required.

We do this and do it well. Are we able to do it over long enough periods?

Economy of Effort
Economy of effort is the judicious exploitation of manpower, materiel and time in relation to the achievement of objectives.

We try to do this.

Flexibility
Flexibility – the ability to change readily to meet new circumstances – comprises agility, responsiveness, resilience, acuity and adaptability.

We do this well.

Cooperation
Cooperation entails the incorporation of teamwork and a sharing of dangers, burdens, risks and opportunities in every aspect of warfare.

We do this well.

Sustainability
To sustain a force is to generate the means by which its fighting power and freedom of action are maintained.

This is the killer. The 'Clauswitzian Trinity' - the relationship between politicians, military leadership and the electorate is under significant strain, as are the coffers. Victory requires cash, cash and more cash plus a committed population, military and political 'elite' (ha ha).

I've said before that I think Bob Ainsworth is out of his depth (and a dis-interested passer-by) but to what extent does he grasp the issues above?

Just my thoughts,

Sun.

Sun Who, thank you for a succinct and understandable assesment of the situation. Would that our ministers have read this and acted upon it. :{:{

Did I miss something?
 

ALL conflicts are winnable, that's the nature of them. I thought the real trick was to be on the winning side though.

So, although Bob said the conflict is winnable, did he mention which side he thinks will do it? He has probably been briefed that one of the sides has ever increasing recruits, more and more gear, and are determined to win, but that they lack ellicopters!

Maybe he did nor hear the part where they talked about the coalition forces, or maybe in true noo labour style, he is just going with the side that gets the most media coverage:}

BA thinks Afghan winnable
 

His perspicacity is shown by the fact that, along with the rest of the cabinet drones, he thinks that the next general election is "winnable" for ZNL. Nuff said.

There are very few places in Europe (I can't think of any) where muslim fundamentalism and associated 'terrorism' are not an issue. That includes switzerland:

In Neutral Switzerland, A Rising Radicalism - washingtonpost.com

Sun Who

(edited to remove a link)

Sun Who

....aah..... SMOSSCEFCA

First time I've seen it written down since I did the 'B' Exam in 1967 [although I thought Surprise came before Security -no wonder I failed the first time]

Aintworth
 

I never listen to politicians any more. They're not worth my time. It's time to change our system of government. They're time has gone.

A Man of Honour
 

Polish Gen. Quits Over Afghanistan Equipment Row
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE - 20 Aug 2009

WARSAW - A Polish army general who criticized Poland's defense ministry over refusing to purchase what he termed essential equipment for Polish troops in Afghanistan, resigned August 20

"I'm quitting the army because I have no other choice as a soldier," Gen. Waldemar Skrzypczak, 53, said in Warsaw. "I haven't changed my opinion, everything I've said was true," Ambrozinski added.

Skrzypczak attacked senior defense ministry officials after insurgents killed Polish army Capt. Daniel Ambrozinski in an ambush in the central Afghan province of Ghazni on August 10.

On August 17, the general told the Dziennik daily newspaper that defense ministry officials "knew war only from the movies" and could "dictate to the military" which weapons should be used in combat.

"It is shameful that we haven't given soldiers needed equipment," he said. "We've been fighting for equipment for over two years, but no one is listening to commanders. We're asking for arms but everything is drowning in procedures."

Poland's Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said Skrzypczak's comments were "unacceptable" and criticized him for questioning civilian control over the army. But Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, during a visit to Afghanistan on Aug. 15, said there was "no doubt" the Polish troops there needed better equipment.

Poland has lost 10 soldiers in Afghanistan. It currently has a 2,000-strong contingent there, part of the 65,000-strong NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Man Of Honour
 

Good find ORAC. :D

If only we had a few at all like him, instead of the pension chasing, salute hogging onanists we've been saddled with for the last 20 years... Dannatt notably excepted. :rolleyes:

It seems to be a condition of high rank in public service these days that in order to succeed at the highest levels you have to be completely bereft of the type of leadership qualities that should be commensurate with the position... politics, the police, the military... none are immune. :sad: