PM refuses to send additional troops to Afghanistan

ctfairway

Lantern Swinger
#1
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mPKZALA/q7THALA/uPG1K5/xT252LA

This is the usual copout used by the Government - they refuse to resource the mission properly but dont alter the mission as a consequence of that decision. Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies as we just accept that the troops we ask for are not going to be forthcoming and carry on trying to do the mission without the necessary tools to do the job. What we SHOULD do is say to the Government - "If you wont give us the support we need then we will have to reduce the scope of the task as we cant do what you want without these extra troops"
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#3
Having played a small part in this process, the problem is clear - we simply had no money to surge and equip the extra troops. The cupboard is bare to provide extra cash to kit out the troops and equipment to theatre entry standard levels.
 
#5
Give the MP's Expenses and bonus to the extra troops.

However if we can't afford to kit them for theatre does that mean we have no need to recruit any more as we don't have the moeny to kit them out once they're in?
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#7
Problem is not for existing force levels - we can afford to maintain 8100, but kitting up 2000 extra troops with all the kit required is a seriously expensive business. We'd be looking at costs in the region of £500m - £1bn per year extra to sustain this.

Operations are funded direct from the treasury, and not the defence budget. As we have no spare money there anymore, we can't afford to do it.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#9
Tommo - good question there.

Where we can move kit, we're doing so. The problem though is that Afghanistan is a very different environment from Iraq, and our opponents have very different means of attacking us. The two theatres have very different requirements - its not as easy as saying "we've got warrior in both theatres, so whats the issue" - the threats mean we have to think about different issues. Sadly its a seriously expensive business to do this properly - personally I think we did the right thing - sending in troops without extra funding would get people killed. If we can't fund it then we shouldnt do it.
 
#10
Sorry I don't know the full ins and outs of the logistics and for me to understand why the fook we can support our troops in the doing the job they're being recruited to do, then I need to ask these questions.

I agree about not sending extra in if we can't afford to, however I'm sure the money could found elsewhere if it can be found elsewhere for other less worthy causes
 

ctfairway

Lantern Swinger
#11
Purple_twiglet said:
Tommo - good question there.

Where we can move kit, we're doing so. The problem though is that Afghanistan is a very different environment from Iraq, and our opponents have very different means of attacking us. The two theatres have very different requirements - its not as easy as saying "we've got warrior in both theatres, so whats the issue" - the threats mean we have to think about different issues. Sadly its a seriously expensive business to do this properly - personally I think we did the right thing - sending in troops without extra funding would get people killed. If we can't fund it then we shouldnt do it.


My point is that it is too easy for the Government to say "we cannot afford to send in extra troops" --- what they should say, if they are honest, is that we, the Brits, cannot afford to do the task in Afghanistan. As always it is much easier to talk about reducing inputs (troops, equipment etc) than it is to talk about reducing outputs (tasks and commitments).
 
#12
What Purple_twiglet describes is, sadly, how the political element operates.

In that Times article, the "comments" are interesting;

Peter Armstrong, Nersingen, Germany.

Let the Americans get on with it themselves. They started it, what have the Taliban ever done to us - Nothing!!!!!
Brown will bet on there being votes to be gained by pandering to that attitude and belief.
 
#13
Thank **** the government is not going to send extra troops.I only just got back. Its ok for some of you lot having a whine at the Government(not that I like them at all),your not the buggers that have to go out to Afghan.
 
#14
Deeps said:
Thank * the government is not going to send extra troops.I only just got back. Its ok for some of you lot having a whine at the Government(not that I like them at all),your not the buggers that have to go out to Afghan.
My sentiments exactly Deeps.
 
#15
I don't think we're whining about not sending more troops though. Well I defo am not. I think it's the fact we can't afford to send more troops, if it was needed.

Sorry if what I posted suggested otherwise Deeps.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top