UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

What sort of security can be expected from that Iraqi "Government"? IMO there will be real security only after Iraq is split and everyone gets a slice of the pie big enough to live on, and/or its different parts occupied by the neighboring countries only. Let them worry about timetables between themselves!

Sec. of the USN Donald C. Winter visits a UK shipyard;

PORTSMOUTH, England (Feb 21, 2007) - Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), the Honorable Donald C. Winter receives a tour of the Vosper Thornycroft (VT) Shipbuilding facility, to gain insight and see some of VT’s shipbuilding practices which might be applicable to the U.S. shipbuilding industry. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shawn P. Eklund (RELEASED)

Click to expand...

Revealed: The true extent of Britain's failure in Basra

The British retreat from Iraq brings peril for U.S. Troops: Vice President Cheney says the British are leaving southern Iraq because things are going so well. In the real world, Basra is a mess is out in Salon.com
Excerpt:
' In reality, southern Iraq is a quagmire that has defeated all British efforts to impose order, and Blair was pressed by his military commanders to get out altogether -- and quickly. The departure has only been slowed, for the moment, by the pleas of Bush administration officials like Cheney. And far from the disingenuously upbeat prognosis offered by the vice president, the British withdrawal could spell severe trouble for both the Iraqi government and for U.S. troops in that country. '

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

More UK soldiers for Afghanistan

Extra British troops are to be sent to southern Afghanistan, Defence Secretary Des Browne has confirmed.
The move, which the BBC understands involves more than 1,000 personnel, comes as about 1,600 troops are being withdrawn from Iraq.

The UK has been reluctant to add to its 5,600-strong force in Afghanistan, as it has reinforced there several times.

The Tories said the move showed British forces were too "overstretched" to carry out duties in both countries.

Mr Browne said an announcement would be made in the Commons on Monday.

But he issued a statement confirming extra troops would be deployed, saying speculation in the media was "likely to be causing concern among our forces and their families".

It is thought that some of the soldiers will come from the Household Cavalry. On Thursday it was announced that the regiment's Blues and Royals unit, in which Prince Harry serves, is being deployed to Iraq.

British forces are in Afghanistan as part of Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the government had failed to persuade its Nato allies to take their share of the burden in Afghanistan.

"Too many of our European partners are now pocketing the Nato security guarantee, leaving UK taxpayers and the UK military to carry the cost," he said.

"It's clear now that our army's so overstretched that we can't carry out two conflicts."

In his statement, Mr Browne said a decision to send in extra UK troops was taken after efforts to get more help from partners failed.

"We have been trying hard to get other nations to live up to the joint commitment Nato made to Afghanistan and provide more forces, forces which are authorised to fight," he said.

"We will continue to press. But we must be realistic."

Spring offensive

Britain has recently revamped its operations in Afghanistan to put most manpower into Helmand province in the south, where the fighting is at its most fierce.

Nato and British commanders have said for some time that more resources are needed if the Taleban are to be defeated.

But until now the government has argued that countries like France and Germany should contribute more.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says commanders on the ground are "screaming for more troops" to deal with the Taleban's expected spring offensive, but Monday's announcement is still likely to be controversial.

He said the governor of Helmand province recently said another 700 Taleban fighters had crossed the border to confront British troops.

"The appeal went out to other Nato nations - such as the Germans up there in the safe part of Afghanistan in the north," our correspondent said.

"Yet it is the British troops once again who are having to reinforce - the third or fourth reinforcement."

'Stubborn nut'

The Liberal Democrats said Britain needed to focus on Afghanistan and withdraw troops from Iraq.

Thomas Withington, from the Centre for Defence Studies, explained that the south-west of Afghanistan was proving to be a "stubborn nut to crack".

He told BBC News: "Many answers lie in deploying more troops and having more equipment on the ground but they also lie in securing the border areas.

"And I think what really is required is a two-pronged strategy, to ensure those two things can become a reality."

There are currently about 5,600 British troops in Afghanistan.

The 1,300 of those currently in Kabul will come out of that region shortly.

The majority of those troops will go south to Helmand except for about 400 who will leave Afghanistan.

The remaining 5,200 troops in the country will be bolstered by the expected extra 1,000 troops, making UK troops in Afghanistan 6,200 strong.


Isn't it funny how there has been so much more attention given to Afghanistan in recent months by the UK and the US? If Bush and Blair had given Afghanistan the proper commitment and attention it needed in 2001 instead of being sidetracked into Iraq, then the Afghan situation would almost certainly be much better and the world as a whole would be a much better place.

I'm disappointed that the UK had to pick up the pieces again in Afghanistan. Why are the Europeans so stubborn on the issue of putting their troops in any real danger? Do they expect us and the Yanks to hold their hand whenever they have to cross the road?

If they're not going to play ball, I don't think we should next time they want our help. Europeans have often complained about US foreign policy, but they refuse to step in to act instead. What they need is a wake-up call where they have to sort themselves out and then realise their current doctrine/spending isn't sufficient. Until then, however, I think they will remain complacent and lazy.

A special word for the Dutch, though - they have acted with much more courage than some of their neighbours.

Yes the Dutch and the Canadians have more than done their part. Contrast this with the Germans who apparently out allowed out of their barracks at night. It should be emphasised that this is not the fault of the respective militaries, rather their political masters.

Neutral Zone said:

It should be emphasised that this is not the fault of the respective militaries, rather their political masters.

Click to expand...

Of course. One should not blame the soldiers for the restrictions placed on them, unless senior officers have expressed a desire for the controls.

The expression "lions led by donkeys" springs to mind! :nono:

Originally Posted by Neutral Zone
It should be emphasised that this is not the fault of the respective militaries, rather their political masters.

Click to expand...

These are some of the truest words to have ever been spoken. oOnce politicaians get therir fat,grubby,soft fingers in defence matters the military is always stified by their interfereing.

bd popeye said:

These are some of the truest words to have ever been spoken. Once politicaians get therir fat,grubby,soft fingers in defence matters the military is always stified by their interfereing.

Click to expand...

Although civilian control of the military is necessary, the sort of "whimping out" we have seen over Afghanistan due to political cowardness and public pressure is disgraceful. It's one thing to say you don't want to be part of it at all, but to expect to only have to patrol relatively peaceful areas really takes the biscuit.

Well after some time now of that debate and many arguments heared I just feel the need to say some things on it; though it will not be a pure military matter. If it doesn't fit the forum and will be deleted, so be it; but then I'm still fine with my self to have expressed my feelings on that matter.


I think back in fall '03 we were among the first to deploy ISAF troops outside of Kabul in the PRTs. First Kunduz, then Fayzabad and Masar-i-sharif.
It's always been said the BW is only in the places where it's rather safe. Probably true, but I'm sure it's true to at least the same extant the other way round. Nothern Afghanistan is relatively "secure" because the BW is there.
I know the southern and eastern provinces were, and again are, the strongholds and retreats of the Taliban/al-Quaida forces. And these regions are much more difficult to stabalize. But still, this cannot be the sole reason for the current situation. IMO, obviously we did something right were others made mistakes. And somehow we're not the ones to clear others mess.
It was here always very important to distinguish us from the fighting forces because it's not really our (way of) war.

The six Reeco Tornados probably to be send to Afghanistan this spring may get the restriction to offer results only to ISAF, but not to OEF contingents.
And I'm somewhat in favour of that. Because I strongly oppose throwing ammo on places were terrorists are presumed but the presence of civilians cannot be 100% ruled out.

Imagine the police suspects a mass murderer in a hosue in London but fears cannot be there in time. Now the govt orders an airstrike and a plane drops a 500lb bomb flattening that house and damaging those around. Later a govt spokesman says: "today we succesfully freed the society from a mass murderer, unfortunatly 5 civilian were killed."
I'm pretty sure there would be an outcry. Of course that's a completely differeent situation for you and in Afg. it's war. But you cannot tell that to locals day after day for years, when they loose close relatives and friends.
It is, to me, no sense in hunting down every person that in what ever way may have cooperated with the Taliban earlier on. Oppotunism is obviously a part of human habits. Sometimes stronger sometimes weaker. But I guess there were so many involved that you cannot (re)build a state when you arrest/kill everyone that could help building a state because he has had an office.

Rather early after WW2, when Germany had to be rebuild, people with experiance were needed. But since the Nazis were in power for 12 years then, it was hard to find experianced people that were not in some way linked to the Nazis. Because the soviet threat back then seemed greater to the western powers, fromer Nazi officials (though of course not higher ranking ones) were accepted to make Germany stronger again against the east.
(That later led to instances like the '67 students revolts and similar things were the past was to be revised again and stronger, but it couldn't destabilize Germany as a whole)

I believe it to be similar in Afg. I don't think this old phrase (don't know the english expression) "eye for eye, teeth for teeth" ?? is of any help here.

There probably are former Taliban among the population but rather than dropping bombs on them (wich will only bring up the locas against you) let them just fade away and thereby take their believes/influence with them.
The greater aim of a "free" society there is far more importand than some narrow minded fools.

Obviously, talking to the people and shaking hands brings benefits. When german military personal is warned by locals of potential roadside attacks, it's worth the effort.
On another note, in times of nation building a modern soldier is, IMO, far more than a worrier. What we call intercultural competence has really helped us and would probably have helped others as well.
To me it seems (that's a pure personal observation) that other nations are not that serious in telling their soldier not to wear mirrored sunglasses (especially in contact with local population), not to touch children, or anybody in general with your left hand, take off you helmet when talking to a tribel elder.
Besides, you won't make friends by breaching doors and searching houses at 2AM on a regular basis. And if you still do you should at least take femal soldiers with you to search women and their rooms. Plus you should try to avoid using dogs to look for things in houses were ever possible.

Use the mony spent for the aircraft fuel, ammo etc. to kill one terrorist better to support local rebuilding projects.
I know there are big projects, but unless the population trusts you, they won't really adopt them. I.e. start by building them a mosque, gain their trust, and then you can build something together with them and not past local wishes and needs.

Were I become really angry is that our govt. always pretends to be on the human rights side, and then just keeps our troops out of certain activities but doesn't complain about them either.
I think just that would be a great case to offer our position. Say we can send our troops, but then we want other nations to follow our ways in that regard.
Because I sincerly believe we are right here.