15 British soldiers dead in 10 days

gurramok

Why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8146082.stm

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

You know what i mean(:)), beef up the Afghan security forces to a proficient level so there would be no reason for foreign troops to be 'assisting' them.

And this part

In the letter, he said: "So our purpose is clear: to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain

Like, what? Proper checks on British soil will prevent terrorism entering Britain in the first place.

Opinions?

Latchy

The whole idea of having British forces fighting in Afghanistan is to get into the heart of the Taliban and insurgents and destroy their network of operations which would also go some way to serioiusly damaging their set up in Britain .That is the theory .

The reality ifrom the BA's perspective is that they are under strength ,under funded, lacking proper equipment and moral is down + the Taliban /i nsurgents are a difficult enemy to fight/kill ,which is all the more reason why - Quote high ranking BA officer '' must be and will be defeated ''

Armor plating underneath the British armys vehicles would go a long way to protecting against road side bombs ,something the americans have on most of theirs .

JonathanAnon

Well they knew what they were getting in to, and must surely have thought that their losses would have been more significant in light of what they did to the Russians. Granted the Afghans are not backed by the Americans this time.

And without hijacking your thread, I think there are a lot of holes in the assertion that 19 muslim men defeated both the American defense system and the laws of Physics to carry out the 9/11 attacks, the pretext for the invasion. Blair should have looked for more convincing evidence from the yanks for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

Well, those 15 young british soldiers wanted to be soldiers. They wanted to fight, kill, risk their lives, and while they might not have wanted to die, they accepted the risk of it. Joe soap Afghani probably doesn't want to fight, kill, risk their life or die. So there is an element of those who live by the sword die by the sword to it.

Also, the british are not exactly innocent as regards the situation as it is in Afghanistan, and I for one would not condone the british invading whenever it suits and then pulling out whenever they decide they don't like the game anymore. This goes back to my belief that they shouldn't have invaded in the first place, but now that they are there they have to clean up their own mess.

gurramok

I know they signed on the dotted line and all, but isn't it about time the British people asked themselves why their soldiers are dying in such numbers?

Latchy

gurramok wrote: »

I know they signed on the dotted line and all, but isn't it about time the British people asked themselves why their soldiers are dying in such numbers?

The british people have being and are asking that question and they know the reason why .Defence cutbacks have made the BA more vunerable on the battlefield , hence the heavy casualities .

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

I know they signed on the dotted line and all, but isn't it about time the British people asked themselves why their soldiers are dying in such numbers?

No, they should have asked themselves that 8 years ago, and for Iraq 6 years ago. When Robin Cooke MP stood up in the House of Commons and told his colleages that invading Iraq would be a disaster the (albeit narrow) majority disregarded him and plowed ahead. Afghanistan was less controversial but not without its naysayers.

In both cases there is an element of chickens coming home to roost. As regards the individual soldiers, there was no problem with any of them refusing active service on the grounds of conscientious objections as it only involved small parts of the british army. They didn't see anything objectionable with killing Afghanis (many of whom were citizens) so I don't have any particular sympathy for those british soldiers who are now being killed. Particularly as a hot blooded Irishman.

gurramok

Yes, but aren't the media glorifying these 'heroes'?

Latchy

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, but aren't the media glorifying these 'heroes'?

Glorifying is not the word , it's paying respect to the dead and their families .Dont you notice that the same media gives ample and coverage to other peoples of different races ,religious and political opinions in the same country ( uk) ?If as you say it's ' glorifying ' these ' heroes ' ( something the deceased would probably not wish to have being refered to as ) then perhaps the same media should not report on the slaughters and massacres of innocents by the military, be they British , American or other .

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, but aren't the media glorifying these 'heroes'?

Are you suggesting that it is duplicitous of the british media to call them heroes while not calling for them to be brought home or questioning the cutbacks that Latchy refers to?

El Che

I dare say that this is a good thing.

old boy

Latchy wrote: »

Glorifying is not the word , it's paying respect to the dead and their families .Dont you notice that the same media gives ample and coverage to other peoples of different races ,religious and political opinions in the same country ( uk) ?If as you say it's ' glorifying ' these ' heroes ' ( something the deceased would probably not wish to have being refered to as ) then perhaps the same media should not report on the slaughters and massacres of innocents by the military, be they British , American or other .

yeah

asdasd

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here. Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here.

Who?

Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

You actually believe this?

asdasd

You actually believe this?

Yes, I dont write stuff I dont believe.

If afghanistan is lost it goes to the Taleban/ AlQueda. They want nuclear weapons. At the moment were they to get them from Pakistan - a likely candidate - the Western forces there could try and do something about it. Removing western troops from Afghanistan would see the non-Taleban resistance destroyed within a week. If they smuggle a bomb in, it will never get found, and then all it needs to get to the West.

I think that a nuclear bomb in Europe, or a Western city is likely in my lifetime even with Western troops in Afghanistan, certain if they lose.

The taleban are not that nice.

stateofflux

i guess somebody missed 'dulce et decorum est' in 3rd year english....

gurramok

Pakistan are fighting them.

I think its an exaggeration that there is a terrorist threat from an impoverished nation like Afghanistan.

Where will they get a nuclear bomb from? It certainly ain't Pakistan!!

asdasd

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40495320090621?sp=true

There is plenty of indication of links between Pakistans security services and the Taleban.

asdasd

i guess somebody missed 'dulce et decorum est' in 3rd year english....

What now?

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40495320090621?sp=true

There is plenty of indication of links between Pakistans security services and the Taleban.

Oh come on, a bit of rhetoric from Al-Queada does not equal an access to nuclear bombs!

RustyNut

"15 British soldiers dead in 10 days"


And how many Afghan's who didn't choose to fight but were bombed in their homes or tortured to death in foreigners jails. Have we ever heard the Taliban side or are we to go by what our imperialist neighbors tell us.
If ya live by the sword .....

El Che

asdasd wrote: »

What now?

Its a poem critical of the propagandists of WWI who produced the same rubbish which you are currently swallowing whole.

Biggins

I don't agree with a lot of things the way Bush and co started up this whole mess
However I would like to point out something at the current situation the British lads (and other nations troops) are in right now.


90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda.

Besides trying to ensure that an up coming nations vote takes place in some sort of more peaceful conditions (there will be trouble but lessened somewhat hopefully), there is a secondary purpose to the present troops taking the current action.

The primary reason is critical to defeating the Taliban/AlQueda. Drastically cut off their funding, secure the main growth areas and instigate proper farming practices that will actually feed their own people instead of making something that does not benefit the actual local people there themselves - and the troops are also helping the rest of the world to cut down on not one but TWO deadly menaces - deadly drugs and a terrorist organisation that is ruthless, secular, unpopular with its own people and has a twisted warped agenda.

Like I said at the start, I don't agree with the way things started but I can understand RIGHT NOW, why the current battles in the Helmand province is vital to that nation and also to the rest of the world.

In 2007, some 193,000 hectares in Afghanistan were devoted to the illicit cultivation of opium poppy, and the Central Asian nation now supplies an estimated 93 percent of the global illicit market for opiates, according to a report issued Wednesday by International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), an anti-drug organization under the UN.

Interesting reading:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25708421.htm
http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1078915.html
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june252007/helmand_article_62507.php
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/06/content_7732466.htm
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74101

* Helmand produces more than half of the opium cultivated in Afghanistan, the source of about 90 percent of the global supply, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. In 2008 more than 103,000 hectares of poppy were cultivated. The drug crop is closely tied to the insurgency and the Taliban are mainly funded by the opium trade.

Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CTOP/ntopNews_uUSTRE5606AN20090701?src=RSS-TOP

Manic Moran

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

You know what i mean(), beef up the Afghan security forces to a proficient level so there would be no reason for foreign troops to be 'assisting' them.

We're working on it, they're certainly willing to fight, though the tactical training is going slowly enough. The ANSF situation is, to put it mildly, convoluted, with some agencies being very proficient, and some being all-but-useless.

At this point, I don't see it as much as being an issue of protecting the West from Taliban nuclear attack. I see it as giving these people, some of the poorest in the world, a crack at a decent existance without the Taliban. Part of the briefing I received when I got here was a comparison of the standards of living both before the war and at the end of last year. The figures were astounding. The fact that Afghanistan is still one of the worst-off countries in the world should be an indicator as to just how badly off the place was before the invasion. (Not saying that it was anything to do with the cause, but now we're here and making a difference, I see no reason we shouldn't continue)

NTM

Martyr

I'm amazed at how thick some people are.

This whole invasion of afghanistan was planned well in advance of 9/11

What the hell makes you believe the US or UK are concerned about Afghan lifestyle? ffs :eek:

read here

its about gas and oil, its about energy, its about exploiting the poor nations, to keep the western nations running.

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.

Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.

In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.

On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area.

open your eyes..it would do no harm.

you can see why US foreign policy is so focused on Iran, Afghanistan, Russia (Georgia), China...all we see is propaganda on tv/internet.

halkar

Biggins wrote: »

I don't agree with a lot of things the way Bush and co started up this whole mess
However I would like to point out something at the current situation the British lads (and other nations troops) are in right now.


90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda....

I don't buy this utter rubbish. It is easier to flat out thousands of hectars of fields than looking for rats in tiny holes. Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields. If they are producing then there must be buyers and guess where those buyers are. Yes here in the west, so with your logic the problem is here in the west. Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?

That oil-gas theory is very much true. We are seeing a lot of $hit stiring by west in ME, Near-Mid Asia, Caspian all for energy resources. After all, oil-gas means a lot more to joe soap than to an Afghany possible never seen a light bulp in their life.

Gyalist

Biggins wrote: »

90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda.

Do you know that under the Taliban government heroin production in Afghanistan was significantly lower than at present? That the Taliban have now reversed their policy is not at all surprising. They're just copying the example of the Americans.

The primary reason is critical to defeating the Taliban/AlQueda. Drastically cut off their funding, secure the main growth areas and instigate proper farming practices that will actually feed their own people instead of making something that does not benefit the actual local people there themselves - and the troops are also helping the rest of the world to cut down on not one but TWO deadly menaces - deadly drugs and a terrorist organisation that is ruthless, secular, unpopular with its own people and has a twisted warped agenda.

Do you really believe that the nation that fought the Opium Wars against China is really concerned about drug production in Afghanistan and democracy? There is also credible evidence that the Karzai administration is deeply involved in the drug trade. The British and American governments have no problem with doing business with brutal regimes over the border in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Martyr wrote: »

I'm amazed at how thick some people are.

This whole invasion of afghanistan was planned well in advance of 9/11

What the hell makes you believe the US or UK are concerned about Afghan lifestyle? ffs :eek:

read here

its about gas and oil, its about energy, its about exploiting the poor nations, to keep the western nations running.

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.

Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.

In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.

On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area.

open your eyes..it would do no harm.

you can see why US foreign policy is so focused on Iran, Afghanistan, Russia (Georgia), China...all we see is propaganda on tv/internet.

Exactly correct. This is the modern version of Kiplings's The Great Game and the ultimate prize is control of the region's energy resources, the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline, and surrounding Russia by NATO. Western concern about human rights is just a pretext.

Zambia

I reckon more young britsh lads die on the UK roads a year than at the hands of the big bad Taliban.

They died in the service of their country RIP.

irish_bob

asdasd wrote: »

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here. Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

i completley agree , i find this countrys neutrality shamefull

Biggins

halkar wrote: »

I don't buy this utter rubbish. It is easier to flat out thousands of hectars of fields than looking for rats in tiny holes. Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields. If they are producing then there must be buyers and guess where those buyers are. Yes here in the west, so with your logic the problem is here in the west. Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?

That oil-gas theory is very much true. We are seeing a lot of $hit stiring by west in ME, Near-Mid Asia, Caspian all for energy resources. After all, oil-gas means a lot more to joe soap than to an Afghany possible never seen a light bulp in their life.

I have (nor ever had) any doubts as to why this two country war started.
It was all about oil and gas - nothing more, no if's or buts.
Thats said I can understand the present fighting in the Helmand area.
The occupying forces are:
1. Trying to kill the enemy
2. Trying to regain back control of the land
3. Trying to rid of the drugs menace.

Now, I'm 100% positive that number 1 and 3 is purely for their own long term interests.
2 is just the good PR and media sound-bite for the world also.

---

* "Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields?"

Answer: No. In all this madness, there is a legal doctrine somewhere that says the occupying troops can't attack the crops. Yes, stupid and madness in the midst of the current situation I agree! but the fact is: NATO forces in Afghanistan are not permitted to engage in crop eradication. Go figure!

* "Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?"

Lets be honest, the real drug barons are living in another country. Not in the hell hole of Afghanistan. If that was the case be by direct open attack or by disguise of an operation "gone wrong" (usual cover-all excuse), they would have taken the main world drug players out.

---

I have no doubts the history books, the ones not influenced by America and Britian, will record that this whole mess was/is indeed about oil.
(heck, after the troops went in at the port of Al Qushlah at the start of this mess, the Americans syphoned off from tankers and pipelines enough oil in 6 days to pay for the entire war preparations etc, so far. I have no doubt they have reached now some "special" deal with subsequent oil companies let back in and they still are gaining in one way or another big time).

Erin Go Brath

asdasd wrote: »

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here. Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

No way in hell should Ireland touch any of those wars with a bargepole. If the Brits and the Yanks want to go adventuring in those far flung places let them. Ireland should retain her neutrality as much as its possible for us to retain it. I for one will not shed a tear for dead British soldiers on imperial (mis)adventures. My sympathies lie purely with the innocent non-combatants who get caught up in this unfortunate conflict.

halkar

Biggins wrote: »

---

* "Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields?"

Answer: No. In all this madness, there is a legal doctrine somewhere that says the occupying troops can't attack the crops. Yes, stupid and madness in the midst of the current situation I agree! but the fact is: NATO forces in Afghanistan are not permitted to engage in crop eradication. Go figure!

* "Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?"

Lets be honest, the real drug barons are living in another country. Not in the hell hole of Afghanistan. If that was the case be by direct open attack or by disguise of an operation "gone wrong" (usual cover-all excuse), they would have taken the main world drug players out.

---

There are also many legal doctrines against civilian casualties however it is easier to bomb an house down with all family in it just because one thinks that there "may" be a terorist in it. Oooops finger slipped sorry excuse after bodies of children taking out of ruins. This legal doctrine or whatever they call it may be valid for legal crops like grain and corn etc but since when growing un-monitored un-controled hashish become legal? You know what happens when you grow in your attic. So they set the rules, life of civilians are much less important than protecting hashish crops while knowing that these crops are coming back as bullet in the heads.

I say the governments have far more information about drug dealers than they will ever collect about Taliban. Why not bomb the $hit out of them? No trial, no mercy same as in Afghanistan. It's a win win, clear the drugs out of streets, no more money for Taliban, less money for terorists, less guns for them. Billions saved from military cost can be put better use for humanity.

I rather like to see soldiers in the streets fighting with drug than getting killed some thousands of miles away without even really knowing for what reason they are there for.

Manic Moran

Zambia232 wrote: »

I reckon more young britsh lads die on the UK roads a year than at the hands of the big bad Taliban.

We were talking about that in the chow hall the other day. Even counting accidents, it's still statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan than it is to spend your day on a highway, or to live in some American cities. Makes you wonder.

Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields.

All you'd do then is piss off the farmers. The farmers growing the opium aren't Taliban, they're just trying to earn money and have a half-decent life. You can't blame them. There are military agricultural teams out and about trying to show farmers how to produce even higher-profit crops, even if a bit more finnicky to grow. Last year was the first time since the invasion that the wheat crop was bigger than the opium crop, at least in RC-East, it apparently helps that opium prices recently plummeted to 10% of what they used to be a couple of years ago.

The 'oil/gas' people are drinking their own kool-aid. If you have to attribute a natural resource to the Afghan invasion, might I suggest copper? Afghanistan has the purest copper resources in the world, and some of the largest, a commodity in surprisingly short supply these days.

No way in hell should Ireland touch any of those wars with a bargepole

The Irish military has had a small detachment in Afghanistan for several years.

NTM

asdasd

No way in hell should Ireland touch any of those wars with a bargepole. If the Brits and the Yanks want to go adventuring in those far flung places let them. Ireland should retain her neutrality as much as its possible for us to retain it. I for one will not shed a tear for dead British soldiers on imperial (mis)adventures. My sympathies lie purely with the innocent non-combatants who get caught up in this unfortunate conflict.

More than the Brits, Mate. In Afghanistan, we have most of the West. NATO is in there.

For the reasons I mentioned. Both time Ireland stopped hiding behind the shirttails of the rest of the West and got involved. The change in regime was subject to a UN rsolution. Ireland needs to step up, and be counted. Otherwise Ireland should be excluded from all other Western Agencies.

asdasd

The Irish military has had a small detachment in Afghanistan for several years.

Fair enough. Didnt know that.

Sand

The whole idea of having British forces fighting in Afghanistan is to get into the heart of the Taliban and insurgents and destroy their network of operations which would also go some way to serioiusly damaging their set up in Britain .That is the theory .

The reality ifrom the BA's perspective is that they are under strength ,under funded, lacking proper equipment and moral is down + the Taliban /i nsurgents are a difficult enemy to fight/kill ,which is all the more reason why - Quote high ranking BA officer '' must be and will be defeated ''

Armor plating underneath the British armys vehicles would go a long way to protecting against road side bombs ,something the americans have on most of theirs .

Close...mines/IEDs can take out heavily armoured vehicles like tanks (The British lost Warriors and even Challenger tanks to IEDs in Basra) and putting on a sufficient amount of armour plate to protect a landrover would make it extremely heavy/slow. That doesnt mean IEDs cant be protected against though.

You should pick up a book called Ministry of Defeat by Richard North. Its an excellent book highlighting two shameful aspects of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars - firstly that British troops were sent out to risk IEDs in wholly unsuitable vehicles and the establishment ( military and political) refused to even recognise the problem let alone solve it. This contributed to the BA defeat in Basra. And secondly, the near total media blackout on the situation, where the media meekly accepted what they were told - where they were interested at all, being more interested in numberical milestones and the validity of the wars in the first place.

The British Army tends to make some appalling equipment choices for its troops - British troops were forced to do patrols in landrovers like the Snatch in Basra and search for IEDs by using dismounted troops, and took many unecessary casualties as a result. When this gradually dawned on the media (very slowly, and not completely - like grasping the trunk of elephant and figuring its probably a snake) the BA refused to accept there was a problem. Even if there was a problem, they refused to accept there was a solution ( see the problem with armouring vehicles above). A tank can be killed by a mine, so no vehicle can protect against a mine. The media tended to accept that.

There is a solution though - ever since the 1970s there has been a whole line of vehicles designed to protect against mines and IEDs. They are not so much armoured as the hull is shaped in such a fashion to deflect the force of the explosion away harmlessly. So they retain mobility. They are also designed to take a blast and yet be easy to get back operational once more.

The Americans recognised the problem (Rumsfeld being criticised by US soldiers at a speech sparked a recognition of a problem - Gates made solving it a priority), ordered new vehicles designed to survive IEDs and deployed them - their casualties went down as a result (there are examples of such vehicles hitting an IED, being flipped onto its side by the force of the explosion and yet all occupants surviving with minor injuries where previously if they survived they would have had serious wounds).

The British dragged their feet, ignored the existence of such vehicles for as long as possible and continued to send their troops out to do patrols in landrovers. US morale goes up when they see that their problem is being recognised and fixed, British morale goes down when they see their problem is being ignored. At least one British officer in Basra when ordered to take a patrol out in land rovers demanded that he get the orders in writing and with a risk asessement attached - the order for the land rover patrol was then sidelined. Another officer quit, blaming the BA for providing his unit with lousy equipment which contributed to the deaths of his men.

Even in Afghanistan they sent out new vehicles to the BA where the driver was positioned almost completely over the front wheel ( wheel hits mine, driver right over mine..) and which had next to no protection from such mines. The BA have sent over new vehicles to Afghanistan, trumpeting their attributes (North is scathing on some claims) and which encounter the reality in Afghanistan and are withdrawn rapidly. And thats when things are good, when things are bad the BA is forced to retain the vehicles.

The BA have since stopped reporting the type of vehicles in which casualties are taken. They have also stopped providing much in the way of detail on how casualties are suffered. When a soldier is forced to dismount from his vehicle to check for an IED by hand and is shot as a result, its reported as a gun shot wound. No context is provided because people might query why troops are forced to check for IEDs by hand when there are tools and vehicles that can check for them remotely (again, the US deployed a vehicle with a manueverable "claw" that could be used to check suspicious areas for IEDs whilst safely inside the vehicle).

From the BBC article

BBC correspondent Ian Pannell, who is embedded with British troops in Afghanistan, said the main threat came from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hidden in the ground.

As such, BA casualties in Afghanistan are going to be fairly predictable because they send out their troops to do patrols in vehicles unsuitable for the job. There is a blindspot in the BAs bureacracy and planning - either they dont consider IEDs/mines to be a serious problem, or they do consider them a problem but some other concern prevents them from solving it. It cant be that they are unaware of such vehicles - the BA actually bought and deployed such vehicles for use in Bosnia. It later got rid of them. It cannot be budgetary because the BA has ordered and deployed unarmoured landrovers that are almost twice as expensive as IED protected vehicles. Political perhaps...support of innefficient domestic arms industry? A focus on bringing in some earmarked piece of gear 5 years down the line, and they guys on the ground having to make do until then? Who knows.

The media is pretty compliant with the standard BA policy on IEDs. "They cant be protected against, they cant be equipped for, deaths to IEDs cannot be minimised." The media will note numbers ( 15 dead in 10 days...) but they've yet to move beyond that and carry out any deeper analysis. Even in that BBC piece, the reporter notes that IEDs are the problem but its never asked what can be done to help, what is the BA doing, etc, etc.

Small, slow steps are being taken - apparently there will be a suitable vehicle deployed sometime in 2011. In the meantime British troops will continue to die in uneccessary numbers because the BA refuses to give them proper vehicles to patrol in and there is no political pressure to do so.

North is generally scathing about the BA bureacracy and strategy for fighting insurgencies (important to note he is very supportive of the troops coping under such conditions). He believes it is self evident that the BA was nearly totally defeated in Basra.

Apparently in Iraq, the BA credibility took a hammering - at the start the Americans were eager to learn from the BA and their Northern Ireland experiences, by the end the Americans were rolling their eyes at being lectured to by an army that had lost control of Basra and was hanging on by its finger tips in its final base. The difference being the Americans had made complete errors in their occupation, but they learned and adjusted - the British made complete errors in their occupation, but refused to learn or adjust.

North believes the same mindset in strategy and equipment continues to prevail in Afghanistan which doesnt bode well for the future.

MysticalRain

I have no problem calling the war in Iraq imperialism. But I've always been supportive of the war in Afghanistan.

15 soldiers dead in 10 days is not much for an army that lost tens of thousands of dead in one single morning in the battle of the Somme. The real question is whether or not these deaths will actually achieve anything. The British efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have always been undermanned and underfunded and so consequently were doomed to failure. If they want to play war games with the Americans, and they need to spend the money and stop trying to fight wars on the cheap.

Tarzan007

Manic Moran wrote: »

We were talking about that in the chow hall the other day. Even counting accidents, it's still statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan than it is to spend your day on a highway, or to live in some American cities. Makes you wonder.



All you'd do then is piss off the farmers. The farmers growing the opium aren't Taliban, they're just trying to earn money and have a half-decent life. You can't blame them. There are military agricultural teams out and about trying to show farmers how to produce even higher-profit crops, even if a bit more finnicky to grow. Last year was the first time since the invasion that the wheat crop was bigger than the opium crop, at least in RC-East, it apparently helps that opium prices recently plummeted to 10% of what they used to be a couple of years ago.

The 'oil/gas' people are drinking their own kool-aid. If you have to attribute a natural resource to the Afghan invasion, might I suggest copper? Afghanistan has the purest copper resources in the world, and some of the largest, a commodity in surprisingly short supply these days.



The Irish military has had a small detachment in Afghanistan for several years.

NTM

What's the total number of Americans killed in Afganistan ? Or if anyone has a list of the totals killed over there ?

Sand

The magic of google...

jabbertalky

Soldiers wouldn't be dying if not for Blair and Bush. They started this, the stupid ****ing right wingers, could all have been stopped in time if we'd had anybody sensible in government.

oncevotedff

gurramok wrote: »

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

Because it didn't work before and it won't work in future.

gurramok wrote: »

Like, what? Proper checks on British soil will prevent terrorism entering Britain in the first place.

Opinions?

So you think they should move the battlefield from Afghanistan to Britain. Good idea.

Micky Dolenz

How many Afghans have died as a result of the war in the last ten days?

As a matter of interest as opposed to flameing.

All the lost souls, RIP

Manic Moran

There is a solution though - ever since the 1970s there has been a whole line of vehicles designed to protect against mines and IEDs. They are not so much armoured as the hull is shaped in such a fashion to deflect the force of the explosion away harmlessly. So they retain mobility. They are also designed to take a blast and yet be easy to get back operational once more.

The problem is that the MRAP (to use the American program name) is an answer to a very, very specific question which can only really be addressed by a country which is willing to spend a whole crapload of cash on it. We now have a whole slew of million-dollar vehicles in the inventory which are useless at everything that the US military is likely to do except drive up and down Highway 1 in Iraq, and maybe invade Southern Africa. The damned things are useless offroad, too huge to go into towns, and have a nasty habit of falling off cliffs in Afghanistan. You simply cannot afford, if you are an average country, to have a sufficiently large fleet of MRAPs and a sufficiently large fleet of everything-else-you-need-to-fight-a-war.

The Hummer has actually been adapted rather well to take blasts in recent variants such as the M1151P Frag-5. Many of the trucks which have run over mines have had their entire front ends blown away and the vehicle flipped, but the armoured crew compartment remained intact: The wheel well seems to work as the sloped armour. And it's still small enough to travel where it needs to go.

The latest MRAP variant ordered by the US is much more reasonable. It's the M-ATV, and is about the size of a HMMWV. It might actually be useful, but they've only ordered them last week, the prototype is barely a year old.

The Americans recognised the problem (Rumsfeld being criticised by US soldiers at a speech sparked a recognition of a problem - Gates made solving it a priority),

Slightly disagree. The media and politicians talked up a problem, and as a result we soldiers have been landed with so much armour that we are absolutely incapable of taking the fight to the enemy. Even if the vehicles can get to where we're going to get out, chasing the opposition over mountains wearing all our get-up is an exercise in futility. You've got people up to the Commandant of the Marine Corps saying we've got too much armour, and the Marines have also started cancelling MRAP orders, saying that the vehicles are basically an inefficient use of money, no matter how politically expedient they may be. All we are doing is becoming heavily armoured targets. People seem to forget that our job is not to 'not get killed', if that were the case we'd not be over there in the first place.

Even in Afghanistan they sent out new vehicles to the BA where the driver was positioned almost completely over the front wheel ( wheel hits mine, driver right over mine..) and which had next to no protection from such mines.

I believe you're referring to MWMIKs? (AKA Jackals). They're still in Afghanistan, the Brits have just ordered another batch of a slightly updated version for delivery this year. They seem like reasonable vehicles.

When a soldier is forced to dismount from his vehicle to check for an IED by hand and is shot as a result, its reported as a gun shot wound.

The vast majority of munitions found by US forces are found by standard patrols, not the engineers in their route clearance packages. We swear by the British practise of dismounting to check, getting out of the vehicle is ruthlessly enforced. The Mk1 Eyeball is still the king of IED sweeps.
Besides, the Husky and Buffalo are too damned big to go everywhere that we go. Great for the main road, not much use up an Afghan valley. And to find the enemy, you've got to get off the main road.

BBC correspondent Ian Pannell, who is embedded with British troops in Afghanistan, said the main threat came from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hidden in the ground.

This applies to the US as well.

Political perhaps...support of innefficient domestic arms industry?

British Aerospace makes a number of the MRAP vehicles used by the Americans.

NTM

Manic Moran

Depends on what level order of effects you're talking about.

As a result of the fighting specifically in the current Helmland campaign, I cannot find anything directly on point.

On the other hand, if you want to go into long-order effects, the infant mortality rate since the NATO militaries went in (Remember, the military isn't only sending trigger-pullers, on my little base we've about 100 trigger-pullers, and another 150 military 'aid and development' persons) has dropped by some 23%. Over ten days, that's about 1,600 lives.

NTM

Micky Dolenz

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on what level order of effects you're talking about.

As a result of the fighting specifically in the current Helmland campaign, I cannot find anything directly on point.

On the other hand, if you want to go into long-order effects, the infant mortality rate since the NATO militaries went in (Remember, the military isn't only sending trigger-pullers, on my little base we've about 100 trigger-pullers, and another 150 military 'aid and development' persons) has dropped by some 23%. Over ten days, that's about 1,600 lives.

NTM

Was this answering my question? If so, thanks.

you are actually there on active service?

Sand

The problem is that the MRAP (to use the American program name) is an answer to a very, very specific question which can only really be addressed by a country which is willing to spend a whole crapload of cash on it. We now have a whole slew of million-dollar vehicles in the inventory which are useless at everything that the US military is likely to do except drive up and down Highway 1 in Iraq, and maybe invade Southern Africa. The damned things are useless offroad, too huge to go into towns, and have a nasty habit of falling off cliffs in Afghanistan. You simply cannot afford, if you are an average country, to have a sufficiently large fleet of MRAPs and a sufficiently large fleet of everything-else-you-need-to-fight-a-war.

It might be a specific question ( survive an IED hit...well the crew survive anyhow) but its a very pertinent one in which the the main enemy a western force is likely to face in nearly any modern theatre is not going to be able to compete in a direct confrontation, but is instead going to rely on IEDs and other cost effective, low risk means of hitting targets. Strategically, the British lacked such a patrol vehicle ( even their Warriors and Challengers proved vulnerable) and they were increasingly confined to base and forced to surrender control of Basra to militias. North admits that MRAPs like the Mastiff are too big for urban areas, but its a large vehicle. There are smaller MRAP vehicles.

They are not always the most costly option either - North cites the example of the Vector, a 437K GBP vehicle which was deployed into one of the most heavily mined countries on earth, despite the manufacturer noting that it could survive only 2 nato hand grenades detonating beneath it. In a country why lots of old soviet anti tank and artillery shells are lying around, thats not much protection at all. An equivalent MRAP option cited by North is the Cougar which cost 258K GBP.

I freely admit that I am not an expert on such matters - there might be tons of reasons why Vector>>>>>Cougar, but deploying such an expensive, underprotected vehicle and asking guys to do patrols in it through IED infested country side for the basic industrial wage seems immoral to me. If they are going to be sent out there, then give them the equipment that offers them the best chance at survival. I dont see anything about the MRAP concept that rules out other capabilities. The US milatary may be swamped with more MRAPs than it knows what to do with, but the BA are being sent out in vehicles about as protected against IEDs as an SUV. That strikes me as wrong. Armies are sent to do the wishes of the democratically elected government, at the very least that same government should ensure those armies are equipped to do the job asked of them.

MRAPS might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread and might not win wars single handed, but if the primary threat to troops are IEDs then it becomes important to provide the best equipment for defeating those IEDs. Both strategically, and in preserving the lives of troops which has to be good for morale?

I believe you're referring to MWMIKs? (AKA Jackals). They're still in Afghanistan, the Brits have just ordered another batch of a slightly updated version for delivery this year. They seem like reasonable vehicles.

Yes and no, that was the Vector I was referring to, but the Jackal has the same sort of layout too.

The British have also deployed the Viking at a cost of 1 million GBP each, which was proof against an anti personnel mine and offered the same ballistic protection as a Snatch landrover.

Jackal, North didnt rate this either I am afraid - he viewed it as being nearly completely unarmoured, a "truck, with guns". He notes that only the thinest sheet of metal lies between the driver and the wheels of the vehicle and that in practise, troops were using ballistic matting/kevlar pads to try and add additional protection for themselves.

The MOD then "up armoured" the Jackals in 2008, bolting on two tons of armour around them which North notes made it a "truck, with guns, with bolt on armour". North freely admits that BA soldiers loved the vehicle, which he compares favourably with the stifling heat found inside the back of a Snatch or a Warrior. He also notes that of the 120 deployed, 18 had been lost up to March 2009.

People seem to forget that our job is not to 'not get killed', if that were the case we'd not be over there in the first place.

Fair enough, but your job is not to get killed either surely? You need to be out there dominating the area, preventing the enemy from doing so. That means patrols, and that means roads for the most part. North recognises that off road performance is prized by the BA, but he also points out that strategically, to win in Afghanistan, you need roads. Roads help centralisation. They help connect the capital with the outlying regions. The Romans built roads. The English subdued Scotland with milatary roads into the highlands. The subdued Wicklow by military roads into the mountains. The Kabul government will subdue the tribes by military roads into the provinces and mountains. To quote "Rather than responding to the poor condition of the roads with off-road vehicles, the better option is to build new roads along which military - and civilian - traffic could pass". A road building programme also offer the benefits of enlisting locals via employment and economic prospects. He also points out that any road building programme would offer targets for the Taliban, offering NATO the opportunity to lure them into a battle on NATO's terms.

If the military (of any country) starts taking (relatively) heavy casualties from IEDs, political pressure begins to build on the generals to reduce casualties. Canada for example became upset at the level of casualties they were taking in Afghanistan, mostly to the US Airforce. NATO has many troop contributions that cannot be sent to the most dangerous areas because the countries involved dont want their troops dying.

The easiest way to reduce casualties is to reduce patrols and remain on base. This is what the British did in Basra and the city was almost completely lost to militias until the Iraqi army, supported by the US retook the city. If soldiers are not patroling, they cannot control the area. It isnt to say that if MRAPs had been available that the British would have won in Basra ( North's book uses MRAPs as an example of poor procurement, bureacracy, strategy and leadership in the BA - he also notes the British Armys hesitancy to embrace technolocy like the Predator, favouring simple soldiering over helicopter support and so on - it is a mindset he is criticising, not just the vehicles), but they would have helped minimise casualties when out patrolling as opposed to the Snatch vehicles the British had to patrol in. Snatch vehicle patrols would be suspended after an IED attack, then reinstated at some later point because the BA would not supply anything else to patrol in. Unfortunately, in Basra, soldiers died in vehicles they should never have been deployed in.

This applies to the US as well.

Of course, but the US military is swamped with MRAPs whereas the British are not.

British Aerospace makes a number of the MRAP vehicles used by the Americans.

Fair enough - then its inexplicable to me beyond bureacracy/office politics. If the main threat to troops is IEDs, there are IED resistant vehicles available from domestic suppliers, but they are not procured or deployed...that is just inexplicable. Either the BA procurement is not listening to the troops who are saying the main threat is IEDs or they have other priorities.

Manic Moran

Was this answering my question? If so, thanks.

Can't say it was answering the question, as I was unable to provide the figures you requested. I can only tell you how many people have been killed in my province in the last ten days. (I'm in between Kabul and Jalalabad, Laghman province, and thus nowhere near the current offensive). Was more of a reply by way of 'food for thought'.

you are actually there on active service?

Yes, I am.

NTM

Manic Moran

Fair enough, but your job is not to get killed either surely?

My point is that there is a balance to be struck. Right now, the politicians are focused purely on body counts and demands for more armour, they seem to assume that just because we have X-many thousand troops here, that figure on a Powerpoint chart alone will be sufficient to achieve their objectives in Afghanistan, so their first operational priority is to reduce casualty counts. I think this should be reversed. I think the first priority should be to achieve operational objectives, and the second priority should be force protection, the latter only to a level which does not significantly degrade our ability to do the former. You have to take risks to do the job. As I briefed my troopers before we came out here, we are all expendable. There's a difference between suicidal carelessness, and calculated risk-taking, but we're beyond even the latter.

NTM

Zambia

I think Manic is right. Sad but true.

vincenzo1975

OP.. You simply ask why?, well its because we are human.

it is because they are soldiers. They made the choice, the trained to kill others, and they take the consequence.

It does not matter the war, the country, the agenda, the dictator, the cause, all that matters is that people will always make the choice of kill or be killed, and that human nature will take its natural course.

Humans killing eachother for survival, power, dominance, territory is no different to the animals on the plains of africa.

gurramok

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is duplicitous of the british media to call them heroes while not calling for them to be brought home or questioning the cutbacks that Latchy refers to?

Yes, very suspicious. If only they reported the alleged poor equipment issue.

oncevotedff wrote: »

So you think they should move the battlefield from Afghanistan to Britain. Good idea.

No. Britain should be able to protect itself internally from these matters instead of going to a long distant country. Thats an aspect of their security mechanism they need to look at.