Britain's New Army Commander: 'Failure (In Afghanistan) Would Have A Catalytic Effect On Militant Islam' ... Ready To Send More Troops If Asked ...More Troops Would Mean 'Less Causalities' And A Start In Winning 'Psychological Battle' . . .

Failing in Afghanistan will embolden these murderous thugs and many Americans will die as a result.

Telegraph UK - In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.

In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David told The Sunday Telegraph that if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable".

He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.

...

Sir David has issued his unprecedented warning because he believed the public and even members of the government had not "woken up" to the "enormous risks" which would result if the war was lost.

He said: "Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

Sir David, who succeeded Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as head of the Army, said that a failure by the public to back the war would ultimately "delete" troop morale – an effect which, he said, would be far more damaging than a lack of resources.

The Army chief declared that Britain was ready to send more troops to Afghanistan if called on to do so in the wake of the revised strategy which has been drawn up by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato troops in southern Afghanistan.

He said that more troops would result in fewer casualties and would allow British and Nato troops to deliver greater security more quickly.

Sir David also warned that the "drumbeat" of casualties in Helmand would continue for another three to five years, while the war raged on, but added that the Army was ready to bear the sacrifice.

Sir David said that sending extra troops would allow Nato to begin winning the psychological battle against the Taliban who, he said, were masters of propaganda and were "outstanding at psychological warfare".

He continued: "If you put in more troops we can achieve the objectives laid upon us more quickly and with less casualties. We can start winning the psychological battle which is broadly wrapped around the Taliban saying "the west and the Afghan government is doing very little for you" – we (the Taliban) will offer you an austere future but at least it will be secure". What we need to demonstrate is that we, Nato and the Afghan government, offer a much brighter future which is more secure, with jobs, and education and better health."

It is really pathetic that Britain's Commander is saying the things that out President should be saying.

momma

Comments

[Battlecat]

"It is really pathetic that Britain's Commander is saying the things that out President should be saying."

My thoughts exactly. Considering all Obama ever does is talk, it's a conspicuous omission.

[Trufax]

Because the things that Obama needs to talk about don't involve him giving "me, me, me, I, I, I" speeches. He's in over his head, he never had a clue how to do anything other than campaign for a better job.

[Wingnut]

He doesn't even have to do anything other than listen to his generals. If he had any spine he would listen and send the troops.

[Anon.]

No, what's really pathetic is that 8+ years after the whistle blew, America still can't achieve war footing and put real skin in the game.

I had the honor of fighting alongside British and Canadian troops in RC South, Afghanistan. They are fine, upstanding professional troops that are, man for man, qualitatively better than everything not in SOCOM or the 18th Airborne Corps. The Germans, Dutch, French (yes, the French - because most of the badmouthing on them is done by fools) and everyone else in NATO/ISAF in Afghanistan takes this a whole lot more seriously than America as a nation does. The British have elite formations like the Royal Marine Commandos and their Parachute Regiment in rotation; the Canadians have heavy armor committed to their sector. They don't have the population or industrial might to draw on like America does, but they give what they have without hesitation.

Meanwhile, the American people let the last three C-in-Cs and the bureaucrats under them shortchange the military on everything from F-22s on down. Installations are BRAC'd to death, the mighty 600-ship Navy built under Reagan nickel and dimed to just 228 vessels, and since we started the War on Terror, both the RAH-66 and ARH-70 helo platforms were killed off to provide enough funds to keep the rest of the rotary wing inventory airborne - but we can buy the worthless V-22 Osprey for $68 million per aircraft when we're short rotary lift assets everywhere in Afghanistan? Because buying a UH-60 for less than $6 million per unit to airlift troops in a country with only one highway and mountains everywhere makes no sense compared to putting taxpayer money into an Osprey that can't have any door gunners because of engine placement, right?

Just four years after entry into the Second World War, America ended it with the best propeller-driven fighter aircraft, the best semiautomatic rifle, the mightiest blue-water navy in the world, and 3.7 million under arms to crush Fascists in Germany and Japan. By shameful comparison, with twice the number of years behind us, this generation can't find it in itself to field 1% of those troop numbers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, against an enemy that is a centuries-old threat to Western civilization and has a very long history of conquest and enslavement. No, it's more important keeping traitors in office, traitors in the bureaucracy, and short-changing the troops with crappy equipment and substandard leadership, because saying that is "unpatriotic." James Stewart earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses flying B-24s in the Second World War. Jane Fonda, Janeane Garofalo; same difference, again. So when do they start spitting on us in airports again?

The people who thank returning veterans for their service? People in small-town America, the middle-aged, and the elderly. In other words, people with values, and I have never once talked to a young person person in a major metropolitan city approach me while I was in uniform (funeral detail, visiting relatives, and whatnot) during or after my tours in Iraq or Afghanistan and tell me I was doing the right thing, and that someday they'd like to put their lives down for their country. Instead, I have had morons ask me how many I've killed because they thought it was "cool" or tell me "Iraq sucks, why do you fight there?" The parents, the teachers, the media, and the kids who think it's okay to have no pride in the United States should be flogged.

Eight years in, most kids apparently run from military service like cockroaches when the kitchen light is hit, and since there isn't a positive difference in how broken the system is with a new C-in-C whether he is Republican (pretty bad) or Democrat (horrible beyond words) - once I have had enough of burning the last years of my youth on deployment with half-assed resources and commitment from higher, I am taking my guns (before some jackass tries to take them from me) to a buddy's ranch in Montana and dream about an America where treason is not an acceptable way of life.

Because obviously, most of America doesn't want to win the war. The C-in-C and the entourage they put in office obviously doesn't.

[Beth]

I say we pull out completely and make Afghanistan glow! The Russians couldn't win it and nor can we with our Democratic run Congress and Senate and Pres. Pull out and bomb it!

[bobzmoose]

Hmm... Have the Brits found the spine they lost after WW2?

I imagine Britain has a dog in this fight: if they can't finish the fight, it would be a signal to the radicals and militants in their own country.

[Battlecat]

Anon, your words are heartbreaking. Thank you for your service, and may your dream come true.

[Anon.]

BETH: The Soviets had it in the bag. Instead of heavy mechanized offensives into contested areas (see Panjshir I through IX) the Red Army switched to air assault operations with their first-class units: Spetznaz and Airborne forces, mostly night assaults with heavy gunship support that were vicious, ruthless, and extremely successful. The only reason they called it off was because we put Stingers into the game. We should have let the Red Army destroy the enemy.

And bomb it with what? The rapidly shrinking USAF? You realize that the C-in-C and the bureaucrats on the Hill just killed appropriations for the F-22 (we need 700 to guarantee victory against a major enemy, and we end up with 187, enough for just 10 combat coded squadrons? What? Apparently not enough numbers to risk in OIF or OEF) and we're pushing the B-52 (in service since 1955) to 2030, right? The USAF does not have enough aircraft. Most F-15 airframes are done, or maybe you missed how the entire fleet was grounded in 2007 after one literally fell apart in the sky south of Eglin AFB. Procurement is balls, and the next 8 years will ensure we are screwed for the next 30, thanks to the traitors on the Hill.

BOBZMOOSE: Regarding British courage, did you miss Malaya, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, the Falklands? Peacekeeping missions alongside us in Bosnia and Kosovo? Or maybe how they fought alongside us in Korea, Gulf War I and II, and all of OEF? Considering how they fought the IRA in one of the most brutal counterinsurgency campaigns of all time, there is no question about British resolve to fight when called on. I respect the Paras and the Royal Marine Commandos SO much more than most of the garbage privates coming my way that walk off of Sand Hill with no sense of patriotism that some recruiter scraped off of the pavement for his quota.

Contrast that with American courage - of which maybe there needs to be a whole lot more of, since apparently the stomach for total war isn't there anymore. Like how we never pushed the war into North Vietnam and crushed them into submission from the outset. Like how we pull back from crushing Saddam like a cockroach in Gulf I, let Turkey screw the entire northern half of our offensive into Iraq in Gulf II, or how we don't pound all of northern Pakistan into submission and destroy, oh, the 200+ madrassas, the big arms workshops in Peshawar, refugee camps that are sanctuaries and recruiting havens for the enemy? Because the American public is casualty averse, and higher knows American bodybags are a career-ender. "Because public opinion matters." What public? The morons who produce Code Pink and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Apparently the near-total lack of appetite the American public has for war means they can elect mindless garbage into public office on false promises, and let the enemy nickel and dime us to death with IEDs, VBIEDs, and SVBIEDs since we don't have the manpower, the equipment, the resources, the political will as a nation to make public examples out of places like Islamabad the way the Russians did Grozny. But I want to thank all of you. It costs all of you $12 a meal of your taxpayer dollars for us to get KBR! Because having FOBs loaded with Burger Kings, internet huts, carpet shops, massage parlors (you think I'm kidding) in country is SO much more important than being given free rein to crush the enemy wherever he may live and make him fear us.

No, your money isn't going to anything like a real battle rifle (a few years back one NCO in my infantry platoon dumped half a mag into a Sadrist at nearly point blank range and he STILL wouldn't go down) to a real armored vehicle (because having MRAPs get stuck 2-3 times a day down to the axles since they have no cross-country capability to speak of means something.) Congratulations, instead of the nation being united in one supreme effort to crush those bent on enslaving us and wipe their wretched belief system from the face of the earth, you get to live in a nation where over half of the electorate WANTS to be enslaved, and most of the rest apparently have NO idea what kind of mess we're in. Health care! Health care!

Because when all this is through, our military will be broken for decades. Our manpower reserves will be burnt out, unless you want to draw on the non-English speaking (Spanglish does not count), the drugged out, and the illiterate. Our equipment will be shot, and too costly to replace. Already we lack the strength to fight China, North Korea, even Venezuela, without losing either Iraq or Afghanistan completely, since the Clinton administration abandoned the capability to wage a two-front war and we never picked it up again (because apparently 2000-2008 was not a time to correct this crap?) so we still have the manpower shortages and the equipment shortfalls. The greatest nation on earth, the beacon of liberty for all reduced to peddling for alliances with third-rate nations like Pakistan and Turkey whose people hate America, just so we can get traction on payback for a cowardly attack on America and hope to finish a war we didn't even start.

Chicago 2016! And blaming racists for losing that bid. That's more important. Because anything else is apparently racist and un-American, and so apparently are these wars, so let's lose them and embrace defeat. Turn the TV on, walk outside and look around. We're already halfway there.

BATTLECAT: Thank you. Don't thank me, thank the dead. They gave everything. I'm through with this site. God bless you and what's left of America.

[Elric66]

Brits are better served dealing with "militant" islam withing their borders.

[momma]

Exactly what I was thinking Elric66