jujuman13

Presumably Mr. Prudence Brown knew nothing of this, or did he?
Link

Britain in secret talks with the Taliban - Telegraph

EVERY POLITICIAN IS A LIAR.
Most Politicians are corrupt.

aegyptos

The British have made a series of mistakes in Afghanistan over the past year. After their poor performance in Southern Iraq where they abdicated any responsiblity for their mission and stood aside as radical Shia elements aided by outside influences took control of the levers of power, its very disturbing to see them repeating the same mistakes in Afghanistan. It seems like an astonishing naivete is at the root of the British problem.

mikhail

Well obvously really secret talks

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

PeteEU

Ahh I see the US anti British propoganda is working.

__________________
PeteEU

aegyptos

I just call them as I see them, Pete. Don't you also do that? You could attempt to rebut my assertions. That's what the board is for, you know.

gunner

whats mistakes have the british made in Afghanistan over the past year?

paul.

aegyptos

Handing Musa Qala over to a tribal council who then delivered the town to the Taliban was a political mistake and serious tactical error. The British government has not provided the British Army with the necessary manpower nor with the weapons and air power necessary to defeat the Taliban. Finally, I don't think the Britain Army any longer has has the sort of institutional experience to be successful in this sort of campaign. Iraq proves all of these points. Years of penny-pinching by MOD is coming home to roost. Now before you get your tit in the wringer know this, I have many of the same criticisms of the US effort in Afghanistan as well - too little, too late.

gunner

British troops in secret truce with the Taliban - Sunday Times - Times Online

unlike our American allies we do not have vast quantities of personnel or armaments, the British army were protecting an isolated outpost which resulted in heavy engagements and loss of personnel. the British Army are already "well" over stretched with commitments in a number of operational theaters, sometimes receding ground has to come into play. but the feeling i get from serving personnel [3para] is there doing there best with limited resources. if may be our continental friends committed a fair share of combat troops we would not be in this predicament.

Paul.

aegyptos

Tactically drawing the enemy to that outpost and killing him there is a pretty good tactic if the outpost can be adequately supported. War involves loss of friends so that must be expected. Fear of taking losses, especially by politicians back home should not be allowed to prevent necessary field operations in my opinion. The siege of Khe Sanh is relevant modern example of how an isolated outpost can be used to draw in the enemy then destroy by use of superior firepower, training and doctrine. US Marine losses, killed and wounded at Khe sanh were about 900. The NVA lost something over 20,000. The British government needs to commit more of its national resources and forget about getting anything useful from the continent because they simply aren't that interested.

The US Army doesn't have enough resources for all its commitments either so we share that feeling. I think the Americans need to look at withdrawing from a great deal of their military commitments and retrench closer to home but that is off topic here.

gunner

you have to understand why commanders take such decisions in war, there are many factors that need to be taken into account troop numbers, supplies, strategic importance, sustainability etc. the initial force in control of Musla Qala was very small [30/40 men from the parachute pathfinder platoon], this force is in fact a lightly armed covert platoon, they held on and handed control to the Danish infantry, after further intense fighting there was finally a lull of 35 days. at this point commanders have to asses and often re-deploy forces, [which was the case in this instance]. initially you could say this was a success, but as has been reported the Taliban made a resurgence in 2007, which resulted in "the village elders/negotiators being incarcerated by the Taliban.

what should of happened to prevent this?

ideally once the peace was negotiated which resulted in Taliban withdrawal from the area, Afghan national guard troops should of filled the vacuum and ensured stability and security. this never happened because there are not enough adequately trained personnel or those that are adequate are fighting in support roles in other areas.

there is basically no where near enough troops on the ground at present, the British commanders throughout history have always sought to work with locals, this may sometimes bare fruit, sometimes not, but its a tactic that has to be used on occasion.
quote
Tactically drawing the enemy to that outpost and killing him there is a pretty good tactic if the outpost can be adequately supported

so in answer to your opening sentence, i agree its a good tactic if "the support is available" but i hope you now realize this is often not the case in Afghanistan, and was "not" the case in this instance.

quote
"The British government needs to commit more of its national resources"

i agree 100% but this hasn't, and is not likely to ever happen under a labour government!!.

you will probably agree if the armed forces are given whats required events
on the ground would be a whole lot different?

Paul.