Prasius

iTrader: (1)

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | More UK soldiers for Afghanistan

Because we can't be in two places at once.

Of course, the MoD and Labour will insist that the decision isn't linked at all....

Abdabz

I thought the same thing Prasius, it just like shuffling them round a chessboard...Shocking

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

It had to be that anyhow - the simple fact is we've needed more troops in Afghanistan since we took over Helmand. Problem faced by the armed forces is that there was no one else to send.

So - there goes worsening violence in Helmand leading to Soldiers deaths because a bunch of civilian numpties are too concerned about getting back into office by admitting that there must be an increase in manpower strenghts across all 3 services and a massive increase in funding.

Dave - The question I'd have about the French and Germans if they deployed is how much use they'd be when they got there. We had Dutch airborne troops in Kandahar who spent most of their time patroling INSIDE the secure airbase, it was a joke. They got involved in an offensive in December and it was briefed in during orders that if the Dutch encounted too much resistance they would pull back and the British Royal Marines would take their place!!!!

For all the things that are said against them, at least when the Americans deploy they arn't afriad of getting their hands dirty. Same for the Canadians.

Shame all our European "partners" are so war shy - no wonder they keep losing them.

bluenosewrx

iTrader: (2)

In my opinion having just returned from Iraq and dont want to go into to much details as you never know who is watching but this reduction has always been planned as the accom they are building as we speak in the COB cannot take all of the troops from the Shatt al Arab hotel and SLB. they had already a timetable to hand these back etc.

Agree also that we are well overstretched in Afghan but that is the story of The Army. To little to late.

I also see the US is sending some more troops to help us in Afghan, good men.

Mac

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Fair point about the COB I guess.....

*grumble*

But then I never understood the logic of having the APOD and SLB like that anyhow..

Leslie

What I really dislike is the hypocracy of the politicians who praise our Services to high heaven for their bravery etc. but are still only too happy to send them into the most dangerous places with insufficient numbers or the wrong equipment to do the job!

How can an "honest" person having told us about the WMD which could be brought to endanger us within 45 minutes then send our troops to war there with insufficient nuclear, biological, and chemical equipment to withstand an attack with the aboved mentioned weapons?

What kind of a world do these people live in I wonder! Do they really think we are that stupid?

Les

bluenosewrx

iTrader: (2)

The thing is that with limited space in the camp everything will be more close together meaning more chances of a Indirect fire attack being successfull, at least in SLB it was huge with a lot more chance of them missing.

It makes sense in the way that we can just sit back and watch how they get on by themselves and we could get back out on the streets(in a limited capacity)if it goes wrong.

Will still have to escort all covoys from Kuwait though, but at least only to the one place.

The thing that pisses me off is there is only one way in and one way out of the COB and makes us a easier target.

Mac

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I guess so - the last time I was properly at the APOD, an IDF attack was a total non-event 99% of the time. Although it did used to get the fresh TA FP all excited bless them

Now.. We'll just have to wait and see I guess..