The politics of troop numbers

Michael

And why, when Brown apparently forced Malloch Brown to change his mind this week and decide that there WERE enough Helicopters, does Ainsworth say today he is 'busting a gut' to get more out there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8165263.stm
What Criminal incompetents, for God's sake, GO.

C Powell

"Extra troops for Afghanistan is the right military decision".

Maybe but doesn't that rather depend on knowing WHY we're there, WHAT our military strategy is and WHEN we will have achieved whatever we've set out to do.

I've seen no convincing answers to any of these questions.

But just for the avoidance of doubt of cours I agree that while we have troops there they should be properly armed, supplied and have the right number of men so that unnecessary casualties are avoided.

Ray

The squaddies in the picture look as if their visitor has just offered them his thoughts about neo-classical non-endogenous growth theory.

Nicholas

Yes, and having been forced into yet another U-turn the Monster will still boast that it was his idea all along and it shows he is the right man for the job, how he is looking after ordinary families and getting on with the job, blah, blah, blah.

Is their any aspect of activity in this government which is NOT about their polling prospects, lies, spin or propaganda?

Sarge

Extra troops will not make much difference -if the means to move them around is lacking (helicoptors and properly protected vehicles) All this will do is increase casualties and/or put a strain on the logistics structure.

JONNY

I read that Bob Ainsworth is 'busting a gut' to get them more helicopters.

So at least he's working up the right kind of steam, even if most of us might prefer not to be there when he does it.

Nicholas

I think that since he is the right man for the job Brown should lead from the front in Afghanistan.

Jock

Come on Peter, be fair. One must look at decisions in context. When Brown cut the helicopter budget, and turned down the request for 2,000 troops, only the lives of troops were threatened.

Things have moved on. The focus has now moved to Brown's political survival and,as we know, Gordon "Will always do the everything we can" to protect his political life. .

TrevorsDen

Sarge is correct. there would really need to be the proportionate number of associated supply and back up for these troops (unless these numbers ARE the supply and back uo for those alredy there.

The other point is that those troops already there will need some sort of rotation out of direct combat and extra troops will provide an opportunity to rotate the current force more without actually taking on a bigger task.

I think our troops out there are probably working to too high a level of intensity at the moment.

Remember every soldier out there will need food and water and more water and that has to be supplied to them.

Steve.W

Why are we there? (C Powell) Indeed, also we have been told about boots on the ground but now it's boots off the ground and in helicopters. Just make it up as we go along?

Penfold

Ye gods, why all this spin, disinformation, backtracking and general crap.
Give the Generals what they want to get on with the job.
Afghan has been a total balls-up. Sending female DFID officials to deal with tribal elders was stupid, the engagement process banal and lacking any empathy with the local way of life.
We will be locked in an asymmetric engagement for years with no potential to "win". The Kabul government is corrupt and does not have support across the country, there are too many amrs in the country, too many tribal leaders with private armies, no overall loyalty other than temporary commitments for financial gain, its a morass. And into this pit we have the Jihadists and radical Islamofascists out to make their gains.
We should be looking for a very early exit strategy and let the Yanks get on with their modern day version of Vietnam, as the Russians found.

The Bellman

By the looks of this flabby shop steward, just pouring a cup of tea would cause him to bust a gut.

"Bob Ainsworth: Some gut. Some bust."

Anthony

"Maybe but doesn't that rather depend on knowing WHY we're there, WHAT our military strategy is and WHEN we will have achieved whatever we've set out to do."

Yes. I'm a long term advocate of increased troop numbers. However, while extra troops are almost certainly a necessary condition of success, they aren't sifficient - it all depends upon the context and how they are used. I'm no supporter of the government, the performance of which has been dreadful. But it's worth bearing in mind that the staff have had trouble developing a coherent campaign plan showing how the extra troops will make a serious difference. It's interesting the extent to which this and other factors have been lost as the press has scrambled - with extreme predictability - to turn the issue into a two-dimensional morality play.

A Burka for Ms Harman please!

Perhaps Harriet Harman will be going to Afghanistan to see how women are treated!

Paul Marsh

Instead of "watching alot of sport" in his Commons break, Brown should pack his holiday suitcase and get himself to Helmand Province and join our troops(that's if they would have him)!
Give him the keys to one of the vehicles he stated many times "are sufficient for the operation" and he can then enjoy the "sport" of minehunting singlehandedly.
If he ever gets back, he can make his report to parliament. But better still, don't come back. We can hope.

Occasional Ostrich

"The more you use, the less you lose" is a military maxim that has been familiar, even to non-military types like me for many years.
Is it not time for decisions on the number of men to deploy to be taken entirely out of the hands of politicians, especially those who are incapable of understanding such maxims?

David Bou

Really someone needs to pull Brown up on his carefully chose phrase "current operations".

Clearly the Army have sufficient helicopters for "current operations" since they will not be executing any current operations that require helicopters but don't have them.

The question of course is the utility of extra helicopters in delivering supplies and equipment for alternative or additional missions, and the risks associated with it.

JohnAnt

"A reserve force of about 1,000 is believed to be on standby."
That's 1001 if you include Malloch Brown, who will probably be employed on mine clearance duties, or testing the armour of Snatch vehicles.

Sasquatch

So, how will these extra 1000 troops be supplied, once they get to Afghanistan? By helicopter?