The Student Room Group

British Troops to join Mali mission!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/british-troops-mali-mission

Once again cast iron Dave does a U turn.

This is what happened with Afghanistan:
- Send a few troops "not a single shot will be fired"
- Troops get shot at, send a few more
- They're overwhelmed, send a few more etc etc
- By the time enough troops are there, the enemy has learned our tactics and the element of surprise is lost.

If we're going into Mali we need a full scale battle plan. We need to either go all out or not at all.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Joeman560
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/british-troops-mali-mission

Once again cast iron Dave does a U turn.

This is what happened with Afghanistan:
- Send a few troops "not a single shot will be fired"
- Troops get shot at, send a few more
- They're overwhelmed, send a few more etc etc
- By the time enough troops are there, the enemy has learned our tactics and the element of surprise is lost.

If we're going into Mali we need a full scale battle plan. We need to either go all out or not at all.


We're not going to be throwing ourselves into Mali, we're only doing this to ingratiate ourselves with the French so they don't hate us so much over this referendum business :holmes:
Reply 2
Original post by Architecture-er
We're not going to be throwing ourselves into Mali, we're only doing this to ingratiate ourselves with the French so they don't hate us so much over this referendum business :holmes:


Then why not just supply Naval and Air support?
Original post by Joeman560
Then why not just supply Naval and Air support?


I'm not sure we can afford the fuel for either our boat or plane.
Reply 4
It doesn't make any sense when the UK government is slashing the defence budget and making thousands of UK military personnel take redundancy. The UK is not the power it was. And aren't we supposed to be in a financial crisis and have a profound lack of funds in the government coffers. Why interfere when the French are doing well enough on their own? Sometimes I think the Brits just can't stand it when the French get all the limelight and take the credit.

Britain is a breeding ground for militant Islamists. They would be better off putting more money into educating people on the evils of these religious fascists. The retreating Islamists burned priceless religious historic parchments held at a university, because they see them as pagan. Such disrespect for learning and the world heritage of human antiquities, not to mention their throat cutting barbarism towards people who do not follow their beliefs.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 5
Hear hear, the sooner we free the world from the islamist (Disclaimer not 'Muslims in general') scum the sooner the civilised people can live in peace.
Oh bugger.
**** me. A complete joke. Once again we help other nations rather than helping ourselves.
Good. Either they win or we do. I know what side I'm on.
Reply 9
How can you be so bl***y naive. Mali has a GDP lower than Chelsea owners bank account. Mali is next to Niger in Africa where both places are thought have Uranium. The French uses nuclear power...they want the Uranium. EDF is a major supplier to the UK for energy so it benefits Britain as well. Do you really think Malians pose a threat to you in......Edinburgh...
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Joeman560
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/british-troops-mali-mission

Once again cast iron Dave does a U turn.

This is what happened with Afghanistan:
- Send a few troops "not a single shot will be fired"
- Troops get shot at, send a few more
- They're overwhelmed, send a few more etc etc
- By the time enough troops are there, the enemy has learned our tactics and the element of surprise is lost.

If we're going into Mali we need a full scale battle plan. We need to either go all out or not at all.


(Edit: I quoted you, I meant to quote other people who said silly things and don't konw how to change it. Sorry)

I find myself aghast at how ignorant people are about international relations and the simplicity of those who think they are being intellectual.

Firstly, we have the fourth largest army in the world. We are making soldiers redundant because we have too many of them, and would rather have our troops better trained and equipped than have too many people and not enough guns. Thats what the defence review did. We have more than enough troops to engage Mali and still fight in Afghanistan as long as we are needed while remaining able to defend ourself and the Falklands if needed.

Secondly, if a bunch of Islamic extremists take over Mali, that is exceptionally bad for Mali, but its also extremely bad for all of the countries around Mali where the UK has strong economic ties and cultural links. Deciding that areas are doomed and not worth saving means that local islamic warlords get into power and start letting terrorists build camps there. By intervining, we are preventing another Afghanistan, where these people are able to take over entire countries and make it a civil war rather than the comparatively short intervention that this is.

Thirdly, its 200 troops. And they are mostly doing training to make the African troops that are meant to keep it safe less incompetant. Its not exactly Vietnam.

Fourthy; I am perfectly happy with David Cameron changing his mind when facts change, particularly when it comes to foreign wars. The question is not what he said, but what is most likely to be best for Mali, us and the French and the rest of Africa. What Dave said is far less important than the aim of creating security.

Fifthy: A general invasion of Mali isn't what anyone in the world has suggested to be a good idea. We are getting all of the benefits of a invasion very cheaply and effectively with the full backing of Mali's people and de-jure government. Invading them at this point would be *bad*.

Finally: You assume they don't have a battle plan. What if they do, but think its an exceptionally stupid idea to tell the international media, and their enemies, what it is?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 11
Original post by Joeman560
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/28/british-troops-mali-mission

Once again cast iron Dave does a U turn.

This is what happened with Afghanistan:
- Send a few troops "not a single shot will be fired"
- Troops get shot at, send a few more
- They're overwhelmed, send a few more etc etc
- By the time enough troops are there, the enemy has learned our tactics and the element of surprise is lost.

If we're going into Mali we need a full scale battle plan. We need to either go all out or not at all.


You can't go all out with this kind of thing. The Islamists in Mali will retreat to the deserts and caves much like Afghanistan and fight an asymmetric war there. By the looks of things the plan is to throw them out of the towns and then train up local African forces to do the rest of the work, hence why we are sending in advisers and considering forming an EU training mission.

Anyway I think this is a good thing, we should be doing all we can to stop terrorist groups forming safe havens
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by yamcha
How can you be so bl***y naive. Mali has a GDP lower than Chelsea owners bank account. Mali is next to Niger in Africa where both places are thought have Uranium. The French uses nuclear power...they want the Uranium. EDF is a major supplier to the UK for energy so it benefits Britain as well. Do you really think Malians pose a threat to you in......Edinburgh....


Do I think that a bunch of Islamists in northern Africa, close to the European Union, of which I am a citizen, pose a threat to me? Given their rhetoric and the fact that Islamists in Afghanistan and the Arabian Peninsula have proven they are a threat to New Yorkers, Londoners, Madrillenos, etc., yes, I do consider them a threat - a threat to the very well being of peaceful society.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by yamcha
How can you be so bl***y naive. Mali has a GDP lower than Chelsea owners bank account. Mali is next to Niger in Africa where both places are thought have Uranium. The French uses nuclear power...they want the Uranium. EDF is a major supplier to the UK for energy so it benefits Britain as well. Do you really think Malians pose a threat to you in......Edinburgh....


Are you requoting what your mullah told you? Can you show some researched links. ?

Here is link FYI.
http://atomicinsights.com/2013/01/france-does-not-need-malis-uranium-despite-all-conspiracy-sites-to-the-contrary.html
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 14
About time Mr Cameron.

I am fully supportive of this venture which will aid in the removal of terrorism from a region of potential, not to mention that it is a joint French led operation anyway. So far as i am concerned the world has left Africa to its own devices for too long and whilst there are some countries emerging as potential successes we also see that there are still a number of dictatorships, still a lot of corruption and clearly a hefty terrorist presence. With Mali having great potential (small population, lots of gold and potential oil) along with Ghana which is thriving nearby and Nigeria which will be a future giant it is imperative that the western world ensures that this area has an adequate force to protect it and so hopefully we shall be aiding in this effort whilst in the region.

It's good to see that the British and French won't just step back and let things go to s***.
I bet these 'Islamist rebels' have links to the Libyan goverment that we supported in overthrowing Gaddafi.
Hmm, I don't recall the French jumping at the bit to follow us into our wars...
Good. I'm sick of the world allowing Africa to exist in such a poorer state than pretty much anywhere else. A failed state is a breeding ground for trouble, look at Somalia, even if you can't see the benefit now in the long term its a sound investment.

Unfortunately most of the time no one gives a crap and even in this venture I'm fairly sure most of the British public will want 'our boys' home as soon as possible.

I think this quote from the film Hotel Rwanda fairly accurately sums up most of Britain's view on the matter. Even if they don't admit it openly.
'You're black. You're not even a n*****. You're an African. '
(Colonel Oliver explaining why the world won't intervene).
Original post by Joeman560
Once again cast iron Dave does a U turn.

This is what happened with Afghanistan:
- Send a few troops "not a single shot will be fired"
- Troops get shot at, send a few more
- They're overwhelmed, send a few more etc etc
- By the time enough troops are there, the enemy has learned our tactics and the element of surprise is lost.

If we're going into Mali we need a full scale battle plan. We need to either go all out or not at all.
He said they wouldn't be in a combat role, a statement that still holds.

The little statement is rubbish. That quote wasn't by Cameron, its wrong. Its a quote by Reid who stated the aim of the mission was to work with the Afgan government and he would be happy if the troops left without firing a shot. Big difference between that and your statement. They didn't learn the tactics they are using the only tactic they have available.


The entire point of putting some troops in is to avoid having to put a full force in. The aim is to get troops from various African nations to do the fighting rather than us, with the French providing the air power. In doing so avoiding an insurgency, keeping costs down, and keeping the mums back home happy, also not exposing the horrible lack of capability we currently have to run two long range operations simultaneously. The troops are going in as mentors, to train and instruct English speaking troops, in doing so reducing the risk of them ****ing it up and forcing us to put significant troops in. This is going to be the model of an interventionist foreign policy for years. If there is one thing to be learned from the last decade its avoid putting a huge force on the ground and getting trapped. Far better just depoly a smaller training force, some SF on their search and destroy capture or kill missions, and provide massive air superiority. It cheaper, less risky politically , and still has the same outcome.

Quick Reply

Latest