British soldiers in Mali forced to stay inside their base as country is ‘too dangerous’

[Vergennes]

The Light Dragoons and the Royal Anglians had trained for long-range desert recon workCredit: Getty Images - Getty

BRITISH troops due to spearhead a new force in war-torn Mali are to stay inside their base over fears it is too dangerous.

Ministers increased the number from 250 to 300 but restricted their role just weeks before they set off for West Africa.

The move has “stunned” the UN peace-keeping mission, which already has 13,500 in place.

The Light Dragoons and the Royal Anglians had trained for long-range desert recon work.

Now they will be stuck inside their camp training local forces instead.

Lt Gen Dennis Gyllensporre, UN force commander, said he did not need more troops in camps, having previously said the Brits would make a “big difference”.

The mission has been hamstrung by a lack of helicopters, with just 14 in a country five times the size of Britain.

A defence source said the Brit soldiers would stay at the base “until they know it’s safe”.

The SAS has been in Mali for months, assessing risks from hundreds of groups, including IS.

The MoD said: “All operational commitments are kept under review.

Brit soldiers in Mali forced to stay inside base as country is 'too dangerous'

BRITISH troops due to spearhead a new force in war-torn Mali are to stay inside their base over fears it is too dangerous. Ministers increased the number from 250 to 300 but restricted their role j…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Vergennes]

@Costin84

Same was said about all European soldiers present in Mali,who stayed in their bases most of the time because going outside was "too dangerous". German and Dutch (among others) troops rarely went out of their base.

The only ones who "dared" to go outside are surprisingly the Estonians,here posing with French troops.

 

[Costin84]

@Costin84

Same was said about all European soldiers present in Mali,who stayed in their bases most of the time because going outside was "too dangerous". German and Dutch (among others) troops rarely went out of their base.

The only ones who "dared" to go outside are surprisingly the Estonians,here posing with French troops.

View attachment 6551
View attachment 6550
View attachment 6549
View attachment 6548
View attachment 6547
View attachment 6546

I think Romania had some troops to,atleast some Puma helicopters....don't know more details than that

EDIT searched it now...indeed there were 3 IAR 330 Puma under the UN mission, they're back home now.

 

[Vergennes]

I think Romania had some troops to,atleast some Puma helicopters....don't know more details than that

EDIT searched it now...indeed there were 3 IAR 330 Puma under the UN mission, they're back home now.

Indeed,120 personnels and 4 Puma helicopters deployed to camp Castor in Gao. They have flown more than 1,250 hours. Their main missions were reconnaissance and medevac.

 

[Kaptaan]

I can't even understand why British troops should be in Mali. Exactly what geo-strategic benefit does it confer? Waste of tax payers money.

@Vergennes

 

[Costin84]

I can't even understand why British troops should be in Mali. Exactly what geo-strategic benefit does it confer? Waste of tax payers money.

@Vergennes

Fighting terrorism?

 

[Vergennes]

I can't even understand why British troops should be in Mali. Exactly what geo-strategic benefit does it confer? Waste of tax payers money.

@Vergennes

Three CH-47D helicopters of the RAF were deployed since 2018 in Mali in support of Operation Barkhane,prodiving transport and logistical support to the French army,as a "show of support" to the operation.

As for those 250 troops deployed on peacekeeping operations,they are due to an UN requirement to which the UK responded favourably.

They are a waste of taxpayer's money in the sense that they are deployed on a tourism mission,will stay in their bases instead of acting as a force of presence and holding the ground,making a difference.

I don't understand the argument of "too dangerous",isn't that the role of soldiers to be deployed to dangerous areas so to make them "less dangerous",to accomplish their mission even if that means giving their lives for it ?

 

[Test7]

I can't even understand why British troops should be in Mali. Exactly what geo-strategic benefit does it confer? Waste of tax payers money.

@Vergennes

Mali is the fourth most gold producing country in Africa after Ghana, Sudan and the Republic of South Africa.
Civil war is needed for British and French gold mining companies to be there. According to the scenario, British army comes from miles away and save the innocent Mali people from terrorists. It is no coincidence that Africans speak french.

Open Knowledge Repository

openknowledge.worldbank.org

 

[Vergennes]

Mali is the fourth most gold producing country in Africa after Ghana, Sudan and the Republic of South Africa.
Civil war is needed for British and French gold mining companies to be there. According to the scenario, British army come from miles away and save the innocent Mali people from terrorists. It is no coincidence that Africans speak french.

Open Knowledge Repository

openknowledge.worldbank.org

As I said on another thread,gold in Mali is largely exploited in southern Mali in dubious and suspicious ways,not even by French companies.

Tracking down the private interests behind the French intervention in Mali is pretending to ignore that the Sahel is a major hotbed of terrorism (the closest to Europe),it was before any French or European intervention in Africa. (Boko Haram,Algerian civil war and insurgency spilling over to the region,Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb etc...)

 

[Kaptaan]

I don't understand the argument of "too dangerous",isn't that the role of soldiers to be deployed to dangerous areas so to make them "less dangerous",to accomplish their mission even if that means giving their lives for it ?

I am glad they are kept safe within the bases. Seeing some poor sod get killed in a country most Brits don't even have a inkling about is not my idea of doing good.

Fighting terrorism?

What terrorism? First killing some creatures in the bush is going to make zilch differance to cities and towns in UK. When was the last time these Boko or whatever parachuted into Uk and caused mayhem?

But I tell you what is of vital importance to your, my and safety of others in UK. Crime wave. Stabbings, shootings, muggings. I don;t thanks god live in London but check out the stats on how many people get killed with knives and guns. Also check out who is behind this wave. Why fight in Mali when parts of South London need taming.

 

[Kaptaan]

Sahel is a major hotbed of terrorism

This region is too vast to control. Sometimes I can never understand the ruling elites. It's as if they are out to choose the path of maximum suffering and problems.

For those of you who are in their 20s or below will see the emerging population bomb brewing south of the Sahara. By 2050 SSA will have over 2.5 billion people. This huge population and lack of resources will cause a exodus northwards to Europe.

European governments should have invested in North Africa by creating a "wall" in Maghreb to limit this northwards explosion. It being understood that the Sahara is a natural obstacle and NOT the Mediteranean which from pre Roman times has been a "medium" between the regions adjacent to this sea. You all know Maghreb was part of Pax Romana.

Instead of working with North African government to build up a barrier before the tsunami heads northwards the elites have been busy bringing down countries like Libya which have not turned in funnels that suck up the tidal waves from the south.

All this does not bode well for the future.


The largest population increase will take place in SSA. And population explosions normally correlate with mass migrations other than war.

 

[Costin84]

This region is too vast to control. Sometimes I can never understand the ruling elites. It's as if they are out to choose the path of maximum suffering and problems.

For those of you who are in their 20s or below will see the emerging population bomb brewing south of the Sahara. By 2050 SSA will have over 2.5 billion people. This huge population and lack of resources will cause a exodus northwards to Europe.

European governments should have invested in North Africa by creating a "wall" in Maghreb to limit this northwards explosion. It being understood that the Sahara is a natural obstacle and NOT the Mediteranean which from pre Roman times has been a "medium" between the regions adjacent to this sea. You all know Maghreb was part of Pax Romana.

Instead of working with North African government to build up a barrier before the tsunami heads northwards the elites have been busy bringing down countries like Libya which have not turned in funnels that suck up the tidal waves from the south.

All this does not bode well for the future.


The largest population increase will take place in SSA. And population explosions normally correlate with mass migrations other than war.

View attachment 6703

Pax Romana indeed....but the Romans ended up culturally conquered by a zealous ME religion....their temples in flames, their ancient customs labeled as heresies...