| 0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic. |
 Author
|
Topic: Generals: Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror (Read 467 times)
|
Ernie Wetzel
Veteran 300+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 303
Pro Patria 1RCR. Proud to have served. 'Airborne'
|
Some food for thought  Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror, say generals Military chiefs warn No.10 that defeat could lead to change of regime in Pakistan Nicholas Watt and Ned Temko Sunday July 15, 2007 The Observer Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan. Amid fears that London and Washington are taking their eye off Afghanistan as they grapple with Iraq, the generals have told Number 10 that the collapse of the government in Afghanistan, headed by Hamid Karzai, would present a grave threat to the security of Britain. Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, highlighted their fears in public last week when he warned of a 'strategic failure' in Afghanistan. The Observer understands that Inge was speaking with the direct authority of the general staff when he made an intervention in a House of Lords debate. 'The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise,' Inge told peers. 'We need to face up to that issue, the consequence of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise.' Inge's remarks reflect the fears of serving generals that the government is so overwhelmed by Iraq that it is in danger of losing sight of the threat of failure in Afghanistan. One source, who is familiar with the fears of the senior officers, told The Observer: 'If you talk privately to the generals they are very very worried. You heard it in Inge's speech. Inge said we are failing and remember Inge speaks for the generals.' Inge made a point in the Lords of endorsing a speech by Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, who painted a bleak picture during the debate. Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq. 'The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,' he said. 'If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. The security problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I think you could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off in warlordism but it would become essentially a war in the end between Sunni and Shia right across the Middle East.' 'Mao Zedong used to refer to the First and Second World Wars as the European civil wars. You can have a regional civil war. That is what you might begin to see. It will be catastrophic for Nato. The damage done to Nato in Afghanistan would be as great as the damage done to the UN in Bosnia. That could have a severe impact on the Atlantic relationship and maybe even damage the American security guarantee for Europe.' Ashdown said two mistakes were being made: a lack of a co-ordinated military command because of the multinational 'hearts and minds' Nato campaign and the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom offensive campaign against the Taliban. There was also insufficient civic support on, for example, providing clean water. Ashdown warned: 'Unless we put this right, unless we have a unitary system of command, we are going to lose. The battle for this is the battle of public opinion. The polls are slipping. Once they go on the slide it is almost impossible to win it back. You can only do it with the support of the local population. 'There is a very short shelf life for an occupation force. Once that begins to shift against you it is very very difficult to turn it round.' The warnings from Ashdown and the generals on Afghanistan will be echoed in a report this week by the all-party Commons defence select committee. MPs will say that the combination of civilian casualties, war damage and US-led efforts to eradicate lucrative poppy crops risk turning ordinary people towards the Taliban. Stepped-up reconstruction efforts are essential, the MPs will suggest, in order to ensure local residents understand the longer-term aim of the British-led Nato mission - a point echoed, during the committee hearings on Afghanistan earlier this year, by returning British commander General David Richards. The report is also expected to criticise some Nato members for failing to provide sufficient troops or other support for the Afghan mission. Adam Holloway, a Tory member of the committee who is a former Grenadier Guards officer, said: 'We are getting to the point where it will be irretrievable. That's where we are now. We are in danger of a second strategic failure [after Iraq], which we cannot afford.' |
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, It's the size of the fight in the dog". .  .  |
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2234
|
well, so , we are at a serious crossroad.. or these guys are all bunkum??? Which is it?? Do we dare risk the outcome??? Is this what the real powers of this world want?? A war , not to end all wars, but toe end us all?? What is the real truth of all this?? Was Gen Lew [mckenzie} right , at the beginning, as i believed he was???Is there time to pull this thing off??? This whole question is damn scary to me... how about the rest of you old soldiers?? What little things , that may be very significant, do you pick out of this??? Now may be the best time to voice your ideas....what do you think??? ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3360
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Well, at least the Brit generals call it as I see it.  To bad they were not singing the same tune for the past couple of years cause it was apparent then, as now, NATO is not stepping up to the plate. Will they make a difference? Probably not. In my opinion, the brits lost all credibility within a majority of the Euro NATO countries when they became Bush's foot stool. Now, years later, the rest of the alliance looks upon them with little trust. As for the nukes, should the worst case scenario occur, I would suggest that the wackos will probably use them on India first over Kashmir. After that, it will be a futile exercise in population control and global contamination. |
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Hanna
Guest
|
Hey guys this is the proverbial ''CATCH 22 SITUATION'', the world needs to sit up and smell the coffee, in order to succeed in the ''stan'' ALL have to have the same exact goal.and not nit pick to what suits every participant,NATO is both a farce and a disgrace.if ALL members of nato stood shoulder to shoulder instead of back to back the outcome of this nasty war would be a hell of a lot different,its the same b*****t as was used in the balkans remember the debacle of the ''safe protection zones''. the west/world has to progress on two fronts in the ''stan'' failure on one brings the other down.it is no use them crying on what will come when they have the ways and means to change the present. they CANNOT afford to fail. our home nations will become the front lines if they do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3360
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Well. Terry, I fear. God forbid, it will take another 911 in order for the world to be united and aligned as we were on September 12th, 2001. Speaking of generals... I see General Hillier mentioned the exit strategy phrase today and General Lew Mackenzie, whom I am sure you will remember from the Sarajevo... Amazing how quickly things change. Rather dissappointing, frankly. Hillier, MacKenzie lend power to PM’s Afghan about-face SCOTT TAYLOR On Target IN THE WAKE of the July 4th incident that left six Canadian soldiers dead from yet another roadside bomb, it would seem that Canada’s military commitment to Afghanistan will conclude in February 2009. It was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who first voiced a possible change to his own previous "stay-the-course" rhetoric when he stated that any extension to our mission would require a consensus of all political parties. Given that the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois have maintained a hardline position that opposes any continued commitment and the NDP’s Jack Layton would have brought the troops home six months ago, Harper knows a consensus will be impossible to attain. At first, the military tub-thumpers reacted to Harper’s about-face by going into denial. The Colonel Blimps Brigade made a pathetic attempt to rally dwindling public support by launching yet another wave of commentaries and editorials. They made comparisons to the death tolls that Canada had suffered in previous conflicts and concluded that, as a nation, we are losing our historic war-fighting spirit. These statistics — 59,444 dead in the First World War, 42,042 killed in Second World War and 516 fatalities in Korea — were spat out with the venom of the lyrics from Twisted Sisters bellicose rock ’n’ roll anthem We’re Not Gonna Take It. Those who would question Canada’s prolonged contribution to Afghanistan after a mere 67 killed-in-action were depicted in Twisted Sister parlance as "worthless and weak." The first wheel fell off the warmongering bandwagon when retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie withdrew his heretofore support for an open-ended commitment. Well respected by the rank and file for his exploits in war-torn Sarajevo in 1992, MacKenzie opined that Canada has, in fact, been doing more than our share of combat fighting in Kandahar. It’s time for other NATO countries to take up the slack and, barring any substantial increase in troop contributions to Kandahar, MacKenzie claimed he "would not be at the front of the line" to support a Canadian extension beyond 2009. This defection by MacKenzie may have been a major setback to those still banging the war drums, but it was nothing compared to the sudden change of tune issued by their bandmaster. Last week, Chief of Defence Staff Rick "Hell-Yeah" Hillier first uttered the words "exit strategy" in an interview with the Toronto Star. Up until this juncture, Hillier has been considered the architect of Canada’s combat role in Kandahar. As the casualties mounted and the mission became increasingly controversial, Hillier single-handedly attempted to sell the war to the Canadian public. The Harper government initially professed its resolve not to "cut and run," but as the flow of body bags continued to increase, Hillier was left alone in the media spotlight. A charismatic, tireless spokesman, Hillier seemed to have lashed himself to the wheel of the SS Afghanistan as it foundered upon the rocks of public opinion. Pundits proclaimed that the fate of the mission would dictate the legacy of the most popular Canadian general in our short history. Now it would appear that Gen. Hillier is far more flexible in his strategic thinking than his critics were prepared to admit. Not long ago, Hillier warned Canadians that committing to a fixed timetable (such as a February 2009 pullout) would only embolden the Taliban. Now that it appears as though any extension beyond that date is politically impossible, Hillier is playing the good soldier. The exit strategy that he is proposing is to focus more on training the Afghan National Army so they can take over the combat role. Ironically, this exit strategy mirrors the International Security Assistance Forces’ entry strategy into Afghanistan five years ago. As the very name implies, organization was sent to "assist" the Afghans in their security operations. Somewhere along the way, we got caught up in the fighting and lost the bubble on our original goal. (We presently have 2,500 troops employed on combat operations in Kandahar and just a couple of dozen instructors in Kabul helping to train the Afghan army). The good news for Hillier fans is that the tub-thumpers have quickly fallen into step with the good general. The new song sheet for the war club is rife with phrases like "strategy for success" (instead of exit-strategy) and "capacity building," but the overall message is the same: By February 2009, Canadian troops will be coming home from Kandahar. And that should be music to every Canadian’s ears. Scott Taylor is editor-in-chief of military magazine Esprit De Corps. ( staylor@herald.ca) |
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
TERRY HANNA
Guest
|
MIKE & RANRAD I UNDERSTAND GEN MACKENZIES POINT OF VIEW,HE LIKE THE REST OF US, WANTS TO SEE MORE COMMITTMENT FROM THE THOSE ON THE ''FENCE'',IF ITS NOT FORTHCOMING THEN HE WANTS OUR YOUNG ONES HOME,IT IS NOT FAIR ON THE MUMS, DADS,BROTHERS ,SISTERS, WIVES AND GIRLFRIENDS, TO HAVE TO SIT AND WORRY AND CRY FOR THEIR LOVE ONES WHILST THOSE THAT ARE LACKING VERTABRAE DON'T HAVE TO. BUT! TO CUT AND RUN IS A DISHONOR TO THOSE BRAVE CANADIANS WHO GAVE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE! THIS STINKS OF A MOVE TO TRY AND APPEASE THE FRENCH IN QUEBEC,TO CURRY THEIR FAVOUR IF YOU LIKE (AS ALWAYS).....THIS GEN HILLIER IS HE A EX-TANKER AS HIS NAME SOUNDS FAMILIAR TO ME. TYPICAL POLITICAN'S ''ITS THE VOTES THAT COUNT''
|
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2234
|
Well, Terry, Mike, it does seem the handwriting is on the wall, and we will , leave our current role over there... i can only imagine how the guys and gals there now are feeling.. like, " what the hell is the point in being here now then?", " we may just as well go home today"......man o man , what kind of leadership is this????And to me Nato is now DEAD.. a useless body of  ? and God help us all.....ranrad |
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2234
|
More ,well trained combat boots on the ground over there... about 30,000 more pairs.. or... put our tail between our legs and pull a disgusting about face out the nearest exit.....then , do not ask our troops to do anymore that you, the gov , and Nato are not going to do your duty and stand behind them ,AS AGREED....ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3360
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
I see no dishonour in withdrawing the troops from Khandahar once we have fullfilled our obligations and honoured our word.
Canadian Parliament approved the mission until 2009, a fact NATO is all to aware of.
This is the way true democracy works, the essence of this great nation.
To label a scheduled withdrawal as cut and run is self destructive and casts unwarranted doubts on the efforts our troops are making as they act on our behalf. (of course, should we bail prior to the approved date, I would have an entirely different opinion.)
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
|
|
TERRY HANNA
Guest
|
ALL IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE IN COMPLETE HARMONY AND ACCORD IN THAT, THE C.F. HAS (AGAIN) SERVED WITH THE UTMOST DISTINCTION AND BEYOND,TRAITS THAT NATO AND THE UN WOULD BEST BE ADVISED TO STUDY AND IMPLEMENT. THE NATO ALLIANCE IS ONLY A POLITICAL INSTITUTION NOW WHICH HAS LOST CREDIBILITY, DITTO FOR THE UN ALSO.THE ''ENEMY'' KNOW THIS AND WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY EACH DEMOCRATIC NATION AGAINST THE OTHER, THEY THE ENEMY WILL WIN EACH TIME UNTIL THERE IS UNITY IN EFFORT FROM ALL THOSE NATIONS OPPOSED TO ''TERRORISM''.THEY WILL STRIKE FROM WITHIN AND OUTSIDE, THEY WILL USE ''PROXIES''. CANADA HAS SHOWN THE WAY WELL AT LEAST THE TOOPS HAVE. PRO PATRIA AND GOD BLESS THEM ALL.
|
|
|
|
|
Ernie Wetzel
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 303
Pro Patria 1RCR. Proud to have served. 'Airborne'
|
 .There are 32,500 Nato-led troops in Afghanistan Main troop contributors: US, (11,800), UK (6,000), Germany (2,700) Canada, (2,500) Netherlands (2,000), Italy, (1,800) and France (975) |
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, It's the size of the fight in the dog". . . |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Logged
