Comments on: UK Will Send 500 More Troops to ‘Stan http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Sat, 26 May 2012 02:10:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: wstr http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189892 wstr Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:44:05 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189892 You're welcome (I think!). UK has been the 2nd biggest contributor in Iraq and AfPak since day 1. 500 on top of 9500+ is better than <1000 on top of 0, or pulling out in 2010-2011 (countries shall be nameless here). US has ~5x population of the UK (307m vs 61m) and spends twice as much on defence as % of GDP (4.08 vs 2.4) So parking the sarcasm, prior to latest US surge top-up, I'd argue the UK has been closely matching the US contribution in theatre by relative size (9500+ vs 50000+) You’re welcome (I think!).
UK has been the 2nd biggest contributor in Iraq and AfPak since day 1.
500 on top of 9500+ is better than <1000 on top of 0, or pulling out in 2010–2011 (countries shall be nameless here).

US has ~5x population of the UK (307m vs 61m) and spends twice as much on defence as % of GDP (4.08 vs 2.4) So parking the sarcasm, prior to latest US surge top-up, I’d argue the UK has been closely matching the US contribution in theatre by relative size (9500+ vs 50000+)

]]> By: Ross http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189887 Ross Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:44:23 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189887 tend not to get into politics at parties lol. people know it just sends me off into a rant :P tend not to get into politics at parties lol. people know it just sends me off into a rant :P

]]> By: Philo http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189886 Philo Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:43:43 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189886 "The US did more damage to Britain's power, influence and economics than any of the axis powers of the war. " That comment is so counter to historical fact that it almost defies reality. That has to be a joke right? If not, you need to catch up on your reading bud. “The US did more damage to Britain’s power, influence and economics than any of the axis powers of the war. ”

That comment is so counter to historical fact that it almost defies reality. That has to be a joke right? If not, you need to catch up on your reading bud.

]]> By: Philo http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189884 Philo Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:41:21 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189884 What in the hell does the Proposed Nazi invasion of Britain have to do with me? pffffftttttt My only point was that everyone around the world was supposed to pony up more help when the grand ayatollah barak hussien obama came to power. This is another example of how that's NOT happening. I am surprised at the lack of public support for UK intervention considering how tangible the effects of Islamo-fascism must be to its citizens. What in the hell does the Proposed Nazi invasion of Britain have to do with me? pffffftttttt

My only point was that everyone around the world was supposed to pony up more help when the grand ayatollah barak hussien obama came to power. This is another example of how that’s NOT happening.

I am surprised at the lack of public support for UK intervention considering how tangible the effects of Islamo-fascism must be to its citizens.

]]> By: JaimieH http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189878 JaimieH Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:33:39 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189878 bet you are a right laugh at a Party Ross. :) bet you are a right laugh at a Party Ross. :)

]]> By: Ross http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189848 Ross Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:52:00 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189848 One certainly cant expect real parity with the US in any operation...but we could have given more, i dont like to do what if scenarios but had we not done the whole iraq 'diversion', we may well have sorted A-stan out by now. I was amused by Miliband (UK foreign sec. for people that dnt know) saying that the NATO response has been good. UK sending 500 and 25 countries, TWENTY FIVE sending under 7000 total...talk about polishing a turd eh.. i mean we've boosted our numbers more than the other nato minors (as we all are except for the US these days) over the years, we've seen more of the action than most too...and we cant expect the ones that have also pressed forwards (dutch and danes to name 2, canadians also) to put out much more than they already have with their rather small amount of resources at disposal. the whole thing is basically a farce. Every day i check up on military news and it is *never* good on the whole for the UK. You US folks dont know how good u got it with ur armed forces heh. And then theres the record sales of defence exports whilst our own industries are all french owned or moving elsewhere...list goes on and on and on. One certainly cant expect real parity with the US in any operation…but we could have given more, i dont like to do what if scenarios but had we not done the whole iraq ‘diversion’, we may well have sorted A-stan out by now. I was amused by Miliband (UK foreign sec. for people that dnt know) saying that the NATO response has been good. UK sending 500 and 25 countries, TWENTY FIVE sending under 7000 total…talk about polishing a turd eh.. i mean we’ve boosted our numbers more than the other nato minors (as we all are except for the US these days) over the years, we’ve seen more of the action than most too…and we cant expect the ones that have also pressed forwards (dutch and danes to name 2, canadians also) to put out much more than they already have with their rather small amount of resources at disposal.

the whole thing is basically a farce. Every day i check up on military news and it is *never* good on the whole for the UK. You US folks dont know how good u got it with ur armed forces heh. And then theres the record sales of defence exports whilst our own industries are all french owned or moving elsewhere…list goes on and on and on.

]]> By: Steiner http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189814 Steiner Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:49:27 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189814 I have to agree Ross, the recent sacking of operational capabilities in exchange for pouring money into RAF pet projects is a travesty. Though i'm still less than impressed of US influence of this decline until 9/11 (lets not forget the IRA recieved huge amounts of charity from the City of Boston,) it is our own government and the ignorance of the populace at large which had been the main contributors to the current sorry state. We could barely fight the Falklands in 1982, we certainly couldnt perform such a short deployment, Out Of Area (as it was called in the day). Afghanistan is such a deployment and its distressing that all that can be managed is a paltry 9,500. Then again, the disparity is stark. The US military expenditure is so vast that it eclipses the whole British economy by a ratio of 3 to 1. Even if we had the capabilities which we can reasonably afford, (if our political masters didnt clip wings so) anything approaching an equal burden of operations in Afghanistan between British and US forces is laughable. The US is a super power, we're a mere regional player with the unrealised potential of limited projection. I have to agree Ross, the recent sacking of operational capabilities in exchange for pouring money into RAF pet projects is a travesty. Though i’m still less than impressed of US influence of this decline until 9/11 (lets not forget the IRA recieved huge amounts of charity from the City of Boston,) it is our own government and the ignorance of the populace at large which had been the main contributors to the current sorry state. We could barely fight the Falklands in 1982, we certainly couldnt perform such a short deployment, Out Of Area (as it was called in the day). Afghanistan is such a deployment and its distressing that all that can be managed is a paltry 9,500. Then again, the disparity is stark. The US military expenditure is so vast that it eclipses the whole British economy by a ratio of 3 to 1. Even if we had the capabilities which we can reasonably afford, (if our political masters didnt clip wings so) anything approaching an equal burden of operations in Afghanistan between British and US forces is laughable. The US is a super power, we’re a mere regional player with the unrealised potential of limited projection.

]]> By: Ross http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189811 Ross Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:23:18 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189811 US policy during the end of and in the aftermath of ww2 was, as u say, putting britain and its territories in a suffocating embrace. The US did more damage to Britain's power, influence and economics than any of the axis powers of the war. Something very few seem to know about. But alas....cant time travel and make it different so.... we cant blame the US for the current state of affairs though (the worst position the UK military has been in in modern times.) Consistent cuts, extremely heavy cuts under Labour in the last 12 years. Its a huge injustice and they get away with it largely because the general public dont have a clue thus it isnt an electoral issue so they can do whatthey like. US policy during the end of and in the aftermath of ww2 was, as u say, putting britain and its territories in a suffocating embrace. The US did more damage to Britain’s power, influence and economics than any of the axis powers of the war.

Something very few seem to know about. But alas.…cant time travel and make it different so.…

we cant blame the US for the current state of affairs though (the worst position the UK military has been in in modern times.) Consistent cuts, extremely heavy cuts under Labour in the last 12 years. Its a huge injustice and they get away with it largely because the general public dont have a clue thus it isnt an electoral issue so they can do whatthey like.

]]> By: Steiner http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189808 Steiner Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:10:30 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189808 The US can either have a weak Britain to control (Undoubtably it's policy since 1945) or one that can provide military assistance. It cannot have both and the choice cannot now be altered. Britain can only continue to deploy brigades, not divisions, that is all that can be done. People like Philo make one wish Operation Sealion had worked. The US can either have a weak Britain to control (Undoubtably it’s policy since 1945) or one that can provide military assistance. It cannot have both and the choice cannot now be altered. Britain can only continue to deploy brigades, not divisions, that is all that can be done. People like Philo make one wish Operation Sealion had worked.

]]> By: Ross http://defensetech.org/2009/12/02/uk-will-send-500-more-troops-to-stan/#comment-189738 Ross Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:51:19 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5104#comment-189738 500. what a woeful contribution. Hard to convince other states to contribute anything when we (UK, im a brit) are meant to be one of the 'leaders' on this operation and send 500...which changes nothing. And yet politicians talk of maintaining parity with US commanders and the like through such pathetic contributions. Vstress i appreciate that contribution. I had no idea of the governments plan to scale back the heli operations (not suprised though) - Ive watched through the Prime Ministers Questions in the commons when the helicopter debate was being waged and Brown straight out lies through his teeth over and over when it comes to defence-related subjects. Labour has for the last 12 years presented one thing in public and in secret done something else (usually cutting the forces to the bone. on land sea and air.) Look for other allies US. the UK doesnt have the balls (or the public support) to do anything anymore. 500. what a woeful contribution. Hard to convince other states to contribute anything when we (UK, im a brit) are meant to be one of the ‘leaders’ on this operation and send 500…which changes nothing. And yet politicians talk of maintaining parity with US commanders and the like through such pathetic contributions.

Vstress i appreciate that contribution. I had no idea of the governments plan to scale back the heli operations (not suprised though) — Ive watched through the Prime Ministers Questions in the commons when the helicopter debate was being waged and Brown straight out lies through his teeth over and over when it comes to defence-related subjects. Labour has for the last 12 years presented one thing in public and in secret done something else (usually cutting the forces to the bone. on land sea and air.)

Look for other allies US. the UK doesnt have the balls (or the public support) to do anything anymore.

]]>