US Tells NATO Allies to 'Do More'

[metalfalcon]

US accuses Britain over military failings in Afghanistan​

The performance of Britain’s overstretched military in Afghanistan is coming under sustained criticism from the Pentagon and US analysts even as Gordon Brown ponders whether to send in further reinforcements.

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary who has been asked to remain in his job under Barack Obama, is understood to have expressed strong reservations about counterinsurgency operations in British-controlled Helmand province.

He has already announced plans for a surge of 20,000 US troops into Afghanistan but Mr Brown, who was given a bleak progress report when he visited Afghanistan at the weekend, is said to be reluctant about committing another 2,000 British troops on top of the 8,400 already there.

A total of 132 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001 and the Government is worried about public opinion turning against the campaign. British officials are concerned that the US may take over control of Helmand – where Mr Gates plans to deploy an extra 5,000 troops – if Mr Brown fails to support the surge. The Americans have grievances over Britain’s lack of equipment, including helicopters, which has left troops unable to perform the same tasks as US counterparts and led to more cautious tactics. There is also grumbling about the regularity with which US airstrikes are called to rescue British troops.

General James Jones, who has been picked at Mr Obama’s National Security Adviser, co-chaired a bipartisan panel this year which cautioned that Afghanistan was close to becoming a failed state and called for better coordination among Nato forces.

It is understood that there has been “tension and resentment” over the air of superiority adopted by British commanders such as Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who suggested that his American counterparts needed to take lessons from Britain’s experience in Northern Ireland and Malaya.

David Kilcullen, an adviser to the US State Department, told a recent seminar that there had been “lots of fairly snide criticism” from the British whose attitude had been: “Look at us, we’re on the street in our soft caps and everyone loves us.”

He added that such claims had been undercut by the performance since then. “It would be fair to say that in 2006 the British Army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq.” At the same event, Daniel Marston, an American consultant who until recently was a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and has been embedded with troops in Afghanistan, said that Britain was being forced to learn some humility after being “embarrassed by their performance”.

Mr Brown hinted at some of his doubts when he told reporters in Kabul: “We are the second largest force in Afghanistan and we will expect as part of the burden-sharing that other countries will do more.” Senior diplomatic sources say there is also frustration in Britain’s military over the lack of a coherent mission statement for the Nato forces in Afghanistan. This has led to problems with US forces sometimes wrecking carefully nurtured community relations in their pursuit of al-Qaeda.

Carter Malkesian, an expert at the Centre of Naval Analysis, said: “Among those in the Department of Defence who are paying attention to these operations, Britain’s reputation has probably fallen. But they still recognise that the British Army, among all the allies, are those that fight the most and fight the best.”

A British officer in Afghanistan expressed surprise at the criticism from the US. “They have few enough allies who will actually do any fighting,” he told The Times.

“It may be that our lay-down is presented as one brigade – when in fact it is far larger – and those away from the coal face simply do not realise the scale of what we do.”

A senior British defence source said: “We are punching above our weight in Afghanistan and are the second biggest contributor of all the Nato allies, so for anyone to single us out for criticism is plainly wrong and unfair.”

Yesterday it emerged that the Ministry of Defence expects its budget for Afghanistan to rise by more than 50 per cent next year from £1.51 billion in the financial year to £2.32 billion.[/B]

— A soldier with 29 Commando Royal Artillery became the 133rd British serviceman to die in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001, the Ministry of Defence said. The soldier was at a Forward Operating Base in the Gereshk area of Helmand province when he was wounded by enemy fire. He was taken by helicopter to the military hospital at Kandahar but died later of his wounds. His family has been informed. The death comes three days after four Royal Marines died in two separate explosions in the Sangin area of Helmand. Three were killed by a 13-year-old suspected suicide bomber.


US accuses Britain over military failings in Afghanistan - Times Online

 

[metalfalcon]

But Britain has been there before haven't we? Twice. So have the Russians. We cannot easily beat a people so determined that uses 13 year old boys pushing barrows laden with explosives. We knew we would be getting into an unbeatable scrap. Thanks USA for your CRITICISM - not.

Alan, Grantham, UK

 

[metalfalcon]

I wish our ruling classes and military top brass would wake up and realise that we are not a world power any more. The effort of the common soldier which is under equipped and under manned is being insulted by people not at the sharp end having a rose tinted idea of our power and influence.

Jay, Harlow Essex, England

 

[metalfalcon]

We have commitment, experience & skill. What we don't have is a budget like the US. Our country is much smaller then the US & with a smaller Army we are doing all we can. To criticise us now is unforgiveable as we prepare to bury more of our friends and colleagues. Shame on the US, our friends?

D Elvidge, Beverley, England

 

[metalfalcon]

Allegations that British troops in Helmand are snide, underequipped and often need rescuing have soured relations

 

[roadrunner]

Britain should just patrol the Northern parts. Helmand is a difficult region. Though the Eastern parts always have been impossible to conquer. I don't think it's Britains's war anyway.

The Soviets could control the northern parts of Afghanistan much more than the Eastern parts, even if the fictional "Lion of Panjsher" (more like the Pansy of Panjsher) was fighting (and in many cases doing deals) with the Soviets.

I think this is just the US getting frustrated.

 

[roadrunner]

Before you get banned, you're right. India needs to be the first out of Afghanistan. And the Pashtuns of Afghanistan will make sure of it.

The Indians have traditionally supported the (minority) Tajiks to kill Pashtuns. RAW needs to be chased out of Afghanistan.

 

[Jihad]

The U.S. accusing the Brits over something?
Somebody please pinch me!
It seems that the U.S. is indeed frustrated with the current developments in the Helmand region and the overall performance of the British armed forces in Afghanistan.
But that's what happens if Uncle Sam doesn't gets what it wants..
It's the same story as usual, and it's a story that will never end with who-ever the U.S. co-operates.

 

[Anwar2]

I guess the Brits take their mission very seriously, that why the disappointments in Helmand.

They will be better of emulating the US forces in Kunar, Paktia, Ningrahar; i.e. work out a deal with friendly tribes, pretend to fight the bad guys and create helluva noise!. Add a few drone strikes inside Pakistan to good measure ... and a few "freindly fire" incidents striking British, Canadian and Pakistani troops. When things go out of control, send a couple of senior officials to Islamabad to deliver the usual sermon about "not doing more"!

 

[S-2]

"Before you get banned, you're right. India needs to be the first out of Afghanistan. And the Pashtuns of Afghanistan will make sure of it.

The Indians have traditionally supported the (minority) Tajiks to kill Pashtuns. RAW needs to be chased out of Afghanistan."

Great post. Let's try a re-write for "fun's" sake. You know- kicks?

"Although you've been banned (again), you're wrong. Pakistan needs to be the first out of Afghanistan. And the Tajiks (Turkomen, Uzbeks, Hazaras) of Afghanistan will make sure of it.

The Pakistanis have traditionally supported the (majority) Pashtuns to kill Tajiks (Turkomen, Uzbeks, Hazaras). ISI needs to be chased out of Afghanistan."

Few words, same intent. Targets reversed with perfect symmetry. I'll grant you, though. I know ONE afghani pashtu that's hated by every Pakistani here so you're certainly not commited to ALL of them.

I find it odd how much the taliban have learned WRT governance. They can openly acknowledge interfering with voter registration and yet profess an affinity to the people. This is a fascinating dichotomy.

Where it becomes particularly interesting is when evaluating the potential Pashtu impact upon the vote. It could be enormous if fully mobilized. Given that plurality, it's possible that the taliban might find a place in a new Pashtu-controlled government-yet they resist the voting mechanism that could reverse their fortunes...

Those delusional men, btw, seem to be the only afghani pashtus receiving support by Pakistanis these days.

roadrunner, btw, who was your favorite mujahideen combat leader or leaders during the Afghan-Soviet war? I'd like to know more about those whom you admired back in the day.

 

[fatman17]

US accuses Britain over military failings in Afghanistan !!!

Hey you know, I dont feel so bad after all !!!

 

[fatman17]

Where it becomes particularly interesting is when evaluating the potential Pashtu impact upon the vote. It could be enormous if fully mobilized. Given that plurality, it's possible that the taliban might find a place in a new Pashtu-controlled government-yet they resist the voting mechanism that could reverse their fortunes...

and we know why? dont we!
the general pashtu / pathan populus dosnt want to support the extremist views of the Taliban (afghani or pakistani).

 

[Imran Khan]

Bush touts relations with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia




Thursday, December 18, 2008
CARLISLE: President George W Bush said on Wednesday he is leaving to his successor a stronger anti-terrorism partnership with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia forged in the aftermath of the Sept 11 attacks.

For Bush the 2001 attacks were a defining moment of his presidency. In a speech at the US Army War College, he praised the coalition of countries that sided with Washington to fight terrorism. “We will leave behind a strong coalition of more than 90 nations composing almost half the world who are committed to combating terror and sharing intelligence and keeping our citizens safe,” Bush told War College students, who are studying military and intelligence methodology. “This coalition includes Pakistan. A country that was a supporter of the Taliban before Sept 11, but today is a strong partner of the United States,” Bush said.

Bush praised Saudi relations, saying: “A nation that produced 15 of the 9/11 hijackers now serves as a staunch ally in the war on terror.” Bush said improved intelligence had choked off terrorist financing and derailed plots. He also touted better CIA on-the-ground intelligence and a program to interrogate key terrorism leaders. “Like the struggle against communism during the Cold War, the struggle against terror will be a generational conflict, one that will continue long beyond my presidency,” Bush said. “As my administration leaves office next month, we will leave behind the institutions and tools our country needs to prevail in the long struggle ahead,” he said.

 

[haviZsultan]

US accuses Britain over military failings in Afghanistan​

The performance of Britain’s overstretched military in Afghanistan is coming under sustained criticism from the Pentagon and US analysts even as Gordon Brown ponders whether to send in further reinforcements.

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary who has been asked to remain in his job under Barack Obama, is understood to have expressed strong reservations about counterinsurgency operations in British-controlled Helmand province.

He has already announced plans for a surge of 20,000 US troops into Afghanistan but Mr Brown, who was given a bleak progress report when he visited Afghanistan at the weekend, is said to be reluctant about committing another 2,000 British troops on top of the 8,400 already there.

A total of 132 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001 and the Government is worried about public opinion turning against the campaign. British officials are concerned that the US may take over control of Helmand – where Mr Gates plans to deploy an extra 5,000 troops – if Mr Brown fails to support the surge. The Americans have grievances over Britain’s lack of equipment, including helicopters, which has left troops unable to perform the same tasks as US counterparts and led to more cautious tactics. There is also grumbling about the regularity with which US airstrikes are called to rescue British troops.

General James Jones, who has been picked at Mr Obama’s National Security Adviser, co-chaired a bipartisan panel this year which cautioned that Afghanistan was close to becoming a failed state and called for better coordination among Nato forces.

It is understood that there has been “tension and resentment” over the air of superiority adopted by British commanders such as Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who suggested that his American counterparts needed to take lessons from Britain’s experience in Northern Ireland and Malaya.

David Kilcullen, an adviser to the US State Department, told a recent seminar that there had been “lots of fairly snide criticism” from the British whose attitude had been: “Look at us, we’re on the street in our soft caps and everyone loves us.”

He added that such claims had been undercut by the performance since then. “It would be fair to say that in 2006 the British Army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq.” At the same event, Daniel Marston, an American consultant who until recently was a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and has been embedded with troops in Afghanistan, said that Britain was being forced to learn some humility after being “embarrassed by their performance”.

Mr Brown hinted at some of his doubts when he told reporters in Kabul: “We are the second largest force in Afghanistan and we will expect as part of the burden-sharing that other countries will do more.” Senior diplomatic sources say there is also frustration in Britain’s military over the lack of a coherent mission statement for the Nato forces in Afghanistan. This has led to problems with US forces sometimes wrecking carefully nurtured community relations in their pursuit of al-Qaeda.

Carter Malkesian, an expert at the Centre of Naval Analysis, said: “Among those in the Department of Defence who are paying attention to these operations, Britain’s reputation has probably fallen. But they still recognise that the British Army, among all the allies, are those that fight the most and fight the best.”

A British officer in Afghanistan expressed surprise at the criticism from the US. “They have few enough allies who will actually do any fighting,” he told The Times.

“It may be that our lay-down is presented as one brigade – when in fact it is far larger – and those away from the coal face simply do not realise the scale of what we do.”

A senior British defence source said: “We are punching above our weight in Afghanistan and are the second biggest contributor of all the Nato allies, so for anyone to single us out for criticism is plainly wrong and unfair.”

Yesterday it emerged that the Ministry of Defence expects its budget for Afghanistan to rise by more than 50 per cent next year from £1.51 billion in the financial year to £2.32 billion.[/B]

— A soldier with 29 Commando Royal Artillery became the 133rd British serviceman to die in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001, the Ministry of Defence said. The soldier was at a Forward Operating Base in the Gereshk area of Helmand province when he was wounded by enemy fire. He was taken by helicopter to the military hospital at Kandahar but died later of his wounds. His family has been informed. The death comes three days after four Royal Marines died in two separate explosions in the Sangin area of Helmand. Three were killed by a 13-year-old suspected suicide bomber.


US accuses Britain over military failings in Afghanistan - Times Online

America: Yes you go get killed but we dont want our troops to die even though this is our own dirty war with our own dirty secrets and hey we ourselves supported those dirty bearded terrorist bastards in taliban and used them against the Soviets. Only thing is now we have to make sure those terrorist idiots dont blow us up so lets direct all the anger that is filled in them towards the british canadians and Pakistanis lets surround those dirty pakistanis from all sides and lets side with the lying indians to strangle them between ourselves and the taliban. Why should our troops die after all? Let 4000 pakistani civilians, let 10000 be injured let 38.8 billion $ loss go to Pakistan and let 1800 Pakistani soldiers die. Why should our guys die? It is'nt our fault. We have a brilliant foreign policy infact. Israel is set on our head and we think muslims will love us if we go to Iraq and Afghanistan!

America America America... when will China manage to do something useful for us Asians. I await that day.

 

[PakSniper]

I find it quite funny US is accusing British military for not doing enough. US has to learn that no one sends their boys out to die for another mans war. WWII has passed and people move on.