Pressure

[AJtothemax]

http://www.modoracle.com/news/Pakistani ... 16483.html

If that were to happen, the pressure on NATO in Afghan would probably spiral out of control. Especially as some NATO members are still hiding behind political bulsh*t to avoid putting their troops in danger zones.

NATO definately needs more troops on the ground so they can hold the bloody ground they take after engaging Terry to allow safer and more effective reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place.

Anyone else??

[Hollos]

http://www.modoracle.com/news/Pakistani ... 16483.html

If that were to happen, the pressure on NATO in Afghan would probably spiral out of control. Especially as some NATO members are still hiding behind political bulsh*t to avoid putting their troops in danger zones.

NATO definately needs more troops on the ground so they can hold the bloody ground they take after engaging Terry to allow safer and more effective reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place.

Anyone else??

OK arm chair general been over your self and got stuck in have you, my belief is that we will not win due to slotting to many afghan civvies they tend to get upset when we kill there families, there government and police/army will take another ten years to be any good

[AJtothemax]

OK arm chair general been over your self and got stuck in have you

Got bored so I fancied a discussion.

[misterpurple]

http://www.modoracle.com/news/Pakistani ... 16483.html

If that were to happen, the pressure on NATO in Afghan would probably spiral out of control. Especially as some NATO members are still hiding behind political bulsh*t to avoid putting their troops in danger zones.

NATO definately needs more troops on the ground so they can hold the bloody ground they take after engaging Terry to allow safer and more effective reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place.

Anyone else??

I agree, though it's most likely a lot of hot air than anything else. Tribes in the region have been known to switch sides depending on who brought a goat to (or pointed a gun at) them the previous morning. The labour intensive job of counter insurgency is being done by a fraction of the troops NATO doctrine requires for it to be done succesfully. This can only go on for so long before it comes to a head.

OK arm chair general been over your self and got stuck in have you, my belief is that we will not win due to slotting to many afghan civvies they tend to get upset when we kill there families, there government and police/army will take another ten years to be any good

Feck off.

[Hyperlithe]

Until Pakistan does something about all the Afghan fighters holding up/taking over in the Swat Valley, nothing we do in Afghanistan is going to have a lasting effect. Of course, if the new Prez does try and take action, he's going to upset all the anti-American groups, cos he'll be seen as siding with the evil West. Poor bloke is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Patrick]

It was probably not a good thing to say. My mistake!

[Illustrious]

Oh, I don't know. You'll have to ask Patrick, one of the ones who's actually going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

By your own admission, you arent even in yet so wind yer neck in before you make some enemies

[Patrick]

By your own admission, you arent even in yet so wind yer neck in before you make some enemies

I'm certainly nowhere near there by my own admission. Just making a joke, not meaning to mean anything that I'm involved with at all.

Best of luck to the real Royal Marine's who ARE soon to be fighting out there.

[AJtothemax]

I didn't bother with a bite back.
Can't be bothered with that on here anymore.

From what I've read up on, it's not exactly hard for the Taliban to use this to fuel their recruitment. The whole 'leaving the Afghan army and police in place' after NATO has finished malleting the enemy isn't exactly working, again from what I've read up on. I think it needs proper trained troops in place to keep an area secure for a long enough time period so the Afghan's can have the time to get themselves more quality troops and police so they're able to hold onto the area's that NATO pull's out of. That way, if Terry turn's up wanting a brawl, either NATO smashes them up or the Afghan troops which have been trained properly take them on more effectively. I would draw a comparison with what's happen in Iraq but I'm not sure how good their troops have been trained again. Although, much of what happens over their now has an Iraqi face on it with us and the U.S behind them.
I mean no disrespect by this but I also think countries like France and Germany need to pull their socks up and start commiting to this properly. Their armed forces aren't exactly trained crap are they.
It might be just some hot air and nothing more, but everyone has either read and/or seen how quickly things can go pear shaped for one side or the other.
Mind you, they could be just bluffing as the Taliban are good at exaggerating their real numbers and actual ability.

One of the good one's I heard was "we can take this country back in an entire day if we wanted"..... Something they couldn't do. I really don't think they could co-ordinate a massive operation like that.
I'm not even going to start with the massive logistical obstacles we in the west have to overcome before our armed forces take on the enemy.

I'd love to hear about the Taliban's with all their trucks, transport aircraft and helicopters at their disposal!

Also, I keep seeing this and I'm wondering...
How the bloody hell do you spell 'Taliban'?
Is it Tali or Tale??

[Hyperlithe]

Patrick mate, you wouldn't be so quick to make jokes about where I do my job if you knew the impact that me doing it can have on the guys on the ground. There's a reason my training takes over 3 years and costs more than £1m.
Also bear in mind that my office can go from 30000' to ground zero in a damn short space of time...



Besides, whoever heard of a Nimrod with Air-Conditioning!!!

2 further points...
There are an awful lot of our guys and girls in Afghanistan who aren't Marines; and I don't believe we have any troops in Swat Valley, as it's part of Pakistan, and the Yanks are on that side of the country.

[davidemmerson]

When will the US learn that they can't just go dropping lead in other countries 'just like that'? They want to uphold, peace democracy and 'the right way of life' yet sometimes they are no better then the very people they are fighting against.

France and Germany need to pull their socks up and start commiting to this properly.

I agree AJ. Didn't Germany have a ban on committing troops to offensive milliatry opperations until recently? Somthing like they could only use their military forces in defensive operations? As for France, well, modern history will suggest that they won't be sending in masses of troops any time soon.

Here is a map that shows countries' troops in the area.



For those among you who have noticed that NATO is co-ordinating military operations outside of the North Atlantic, here is why:

NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul.

In fact go to the NATO page on Afghanistan for some good info.

Right, here's a question for you. Why isn't the UN co-ordinating things in Afgan? I know the UN were controlling things in Iraq, Bosnia, etc. BUt why not Afgan? I'm sure the answer is really obivous, but hey, somtimes I get stuck on these things.

David

[Alfa]

When will the US learn that they can't just go dropping lead in other countries 'just like that'? They want to uphold, peace democracy and 'the right way of life' yet sometimes they are no better then the very people they are fighting against.

So you're suggesting they just sit back and allow the Taliban and their allies to have a safe haven where they can re-group, re-train and organise their operations against NATO?

The only reason the Americans are suggesting this is because the Pakistani Army has been unable/unwilling to take on the Taliban and it's allies as well as the foreign fighters. I'm sure the US would have much preferred to not have to get involved in Pakistan as it's yet another drain on their manpower and resources.

I agree AJ. Didn't Germany have a ban on committing troops to offensive milliatry opperations until recently? Somthing like they could only use their military forces in defensive operations?

Because of the political opinions of a large amount of Germans you're never going to see the German Army taking on out right offensive operations in Afghanistan like the British/US/Canadians are doing. The dark cloud of WWII still hangs heavily over the German psyche and they don't want a return to "the old ways."

With ref the ban on certain operations that the German Army can undertake I believe that was first changed in 1999 so that German troops could deploy to Kosovo.

As for France, well, modern history will suggest that they won't be sending in masses of troops any time soon.

Well first off, you might want to re-read that modern history of yours again and check out two "little" wars in Indo-china and Algeria. Also the French have been very active in their former Colonies as well as in the Lebanon (both in the eighties and now).

One other thing to remember is that it was only last month that 10 French troops were killed and a further 21 injured in a Taliban attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7569942.stm

[davidemmerson]

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. Just because I don't agree 100% with it, doesn't mean I want to see the NATO forces in the area to suffer more losses. I agree somthing has to be done about it, I just don't think it will work in the long haul.

What I'm trying to say is, 3 helicopters to intercept a rocket team 20 miles over the border is hardly discreet. It's a blatant act of offensive operations inside Pakistani territory without a mandate or UN backing (unlike Iraq). In Northern Ireland, when IRA bombers detonated bombs against UK forces, did we send 3 helicopters of Para's or Royal Marines over the border into Southern Ireland? No. I admit, times have changed but what will the distance have to be to make the US think? When they reach the streets of Peshwar? I know taking the moral high ground won't make any difference to the dead soldiers out there.

Yeah, I know about Indo-China, I've just done an A-Level on it. The French were pretty brutal in Indo-China and got kicked out by the Viet Minh, immortalised by the humiliation at Dein Bein Phu. Ho Chi Minh was an inspirational leader, like Bin Laden is to the thousads of people who hate the west. I know he's the most evil man alive, doesn't mean he can't be a God like figure. The US haven't learnt from history. You could compare them marching into Pakistan like the way they used to march into Vietnamese villages and cause chaos. Apparently they shot 20 dead, but as that info comes from the Pakistan side, I don't believe that is accurate. The reason the French got committed was because they didn't want to lose colonies to the Communists (Domino Theory), and the huge financial gain they could expliot out of Indo-China, very different reasons as to why they are in Afghanistan thankfully. I'm sorry to hear about the dead French soldiers, I'm not trying to have a slur on their part either.

The parallels between Vientam and Afghanistan are very similar. Blimey, I'd thought I'd closed the book on Vientnam about 3 months ago when the exam finished!

David

[riflebutt]

I agree mate. MUCH similarity to vietnam im afraid..