UK 'not up' to securing Helmand - WikiLeaks

PatsytheNazi

Firstly I'll ask the mods not to move this to the military section because if it's put in thier the thread will be denounced as an " anti British thread from a bar stool Republican " etc, etc :rolleyes: At least here in AH it might get more objectively discussed.

Once again have the British overestimated themselves and bittne off more than they can chew ?

UK troops were 'not up' to the task of securing Afghanistan's troubled Helmand province and the local governor pleaded for US reinforcements.
The claims were made by US diplomats, which were released by WikiLeaks in a new batch of cables.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai also thought security in the province, a Taliban stronghold, had deteriorated after UK troops were stationed there in 2006.

'We and Karzai agree the British are not up to the task of securing Helmand,' US diplomats from the Kabul embassy said in a 2008 cable published by the Guardian newspaper.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1203/wikileaks.html

Poccington

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Firstly I'll ask the mods not to move this to the military section because if it's put in thier the thread will be denounced as an " anti British thread from a bar stool Republican " etc, etc :rolleyes: At least here in AH it might get more objectively discussed.

Once again have the British overestimated themselves and bittne off more than they can chew ?

UK troops were 'not up' to the task of securing Afghanistan's troubled Helmand province and the local governor pleaded for US reinforcements.
The claims were made by US diplomats, which were released by WikiLeaks in a new batch of cables.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai also thought security in the province, a Taliban stronghold, had deteriorated after UK troops were stationed there in 2006.

'We and Karzai agree the British are not up to the task of securing Helmand,' US diplomats from the Kabul embassy said in a 2008 cable published by the Guardian newspaper.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1203/wikileaks.html

No it wouldn't but rock on.

Manic Moran

Article is mentioned on the Restrepo thread in Military subforum. No complaints so far.

NTM

Biggins

Might it be that the British army are more open to being found out and chastised if they did certain actions more aggressively but have bad consequences also?
- I just wonder as the Americans sometimes seem to be more aggressive and part of the mentality behind this is possibly the thinking that they can get away with more - so they come across maybe sometimes as "being more successful" by their methods.

I'm open to be wrong.

Son Of A Vidic

I think British commanders are traditionally more conservative in their operational approach, which may in part have contributed to the negative perception of them by diplomats. USMC commanders on the other hand are traditionally more aggressive, and as a result are probably perceived to be more proactive. There's no doubt though that the MOD has treated the average British soldier very poorly. With woefully inadequate supplies and equipment sent to the frontlines, which hasn't helped. That said, if I had to choose, I take the USMC over the British any day.

Latchy

Biggins wrote: »

Might it be that the British army are more open to being found out and chastised if they did certain actions more aggressively but have bad consequences also?

- I just wonder as the Americans sometimes seem to be more aggressive and part of the mentality behind this is possibly the thinking that they can get away with more - so they come across maybe sometimes as "being more successful" by their methods.

I'm open to be wrong.

I think there may be some weight to this and it might also be a question of discipline as in who shows or is perceived to have ,and show the most restraint in dealing with certain situations

medicman2009 wrote: »

There's no doubt though that the MOD has treated the average British soldier very poorly. With woefully inadequate supplies and equipment sent to the frontlines, which hasn't helped.

BA have being massivly under equipped in Afghanistan and the KIA , most by roadside bombs , confirms this .

ejmaztec

The British government's motto, for at least 60 years, seems to be "War on a shoestring".

Son Of A Vidic

Latchy wrote: »

..BA have being massivly under equipped in Afghanistan and the KIA , most by roadside bombs , confirms this .

Precisely, sure weren't they using the woefully under protected Snatch Land Rover for long enough.

Saila

they want mayonaise

Riddle101

medicman2009 wrote: »

I think British commanders are traditionally more conservative in their operational approach, which may in part have contributed to the negative perception of them by diplomats. USMC commanders on the other hand are traditionally more aggressive, and as a result are probably perceived to be more proactive. There's no doubt though that the MOD has treated the average British soldier very poorly. With woefully inadequate supplies and equipment sent to the frontlines, which hasn't helped. That said, if I had to choose, I take the USMC over the British any day.

Well I think both British army and USMC are underequiped. I believe there is a marine corp unit that uses the saying "You'll get nothing and like it" due to always lacking supplies and equipment. At least that what I read, don't know if it's true though. but I do think both sides are poorly equiped.

If anyone would like to correct me, feel free

A Dub in Glasgo

I have no love for the British Army and it looks to me like the British Government would rather grandstand on the world stage than adequately equip (& protect) their soldiers. Why anyone wants to join up is beyond me.