Another day, another British death in Afghanistan. A soldier from 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment, attached to 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, serving as part of Combined Force Nahr-e-Saraj (North) was killed yesterday morning.
According to the Ministry of Defence website: 'He was involved in an operation that was seeking to improve freedom of movement for ordinary Afghans when tragically he was killed in an explosion'.
What is an 'ordinary' Afghani? A member of the Taliban? A worker in the corrupt Afghan government?
It was also reported yesterday that a US helicopter was shot down and 4 US soldiers lost their lives.
Near Islamabad a large NATO truck convoy, carrying supplies to alliance troops in Afghanistan, was attacked and at least seven people were killed in the overnight assault. These attacks are becoming more frequent.
We are losing this war. To date we have lost 294 of our armed forces in an attempt to 'improve freedom of movement for ordinary Afghans'. The Afghanis won't have freedom of movement for many years to come. Their movement will be controlled because of the thousands of Taliban-planted IEDs. Our armed forces are never going to find most of them far less defuse them and tragically, we have so few fully experienced bomb disposal experts left to do the work.
Posts
36 comments:
I don't believe we're supposed to win wars anymore. The strategy seems to be to make them last as long as possible to maximize profits for corporations supplying the troops. It's not personal - it's only business.
Funny you should say that scunnert. I've just written a post along similar lines for later.
The min trouble is, they are not trying to run a war at all. They want all the soldiers to be just like Dixon of Dock Green.
Trouble is, that it is NOT Cumbria, and in Afghanistan, or indeed any other part of the middle East, ALL the people carry guns, not just the odd taxi driver.
HERE is the man we need in charge;
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich
Pitty some idiots killed the best police chief that the world ever had.
This is a war of political convenience Furor, not a war of necessity for the protection of these islands.
For those in favour of this war they should read the rag blog history.
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/search?q=%22bob+feldman+%22history+of+afghanistan%22
Its unwinable whatever that means.
It IS winnable.
For every soldier shot at, 50 Afghanis are pulled off the street and hung in the market square.
For ever soldier KILLED 100 Afghanis hung.
And don't bother with wee helicopter gun-ships.
Carpet bomb the areas with fuel/air and daisy cutter bombs, where the enemy are know to be hiding.
Even if it is a village, or a school.
They will soon loose interest in fighting.
FT, much as I might possibly agree with you, I remember that the Russians were extremely brutal and they lost too!
We should not be there...end of.
If Al Quaeda (not the Taleban) pose such a threat to this country then logic dictates that our troops should be guarding our shores.
Charging half way across Europe to capture Berlin was hardly protecting you shores, was it? Or the fields of Flanders.
I think it was von Clausewitz that said "Take the battle to the heart of the enemy".
@FT von Clausewitz was writing and fighting in the 1800s and would not recognise the battlefields we are engaged in today.
Your glib answers like carpet bombing and cluster bombing of villages regardless of innocent lives being lost, shows your inhumanity, and seems to suggest that you do not see any problems with indiscriminate killing in the name of your objective.The heart (as you and Von C call it ) is a handful of people in an entire population, not an identifiable govt. with troops in uniform you can wage war against!!
If you cast your mind back to the start of all this, it was to achieve the purpose of destroying Al Quaeda, and getting bin Laden, very limited objectives, hardly calling for the utter destruction of all that stand in your path.
If for instance the enemy was defined as George Bush, your stance would seem to suggest that it would be ok to destroy the entire north american continent (not a bad idea by the by) just to make sure you/we got him.
The real reason we are there is the spineless Liebore govt following Bush's USA lead to ensure they could build their GAS pipeline and as a by product I would not be surprised if they (CIA etc) wanted new suppliers of Heroin in place, instead of the greedy warlords that controlled it then.(just look at how well the crops have been doing under 'our' protection)
Stamp your little foot all you like FT, threaten ALL you like FT, NO ONE has ever 'won' in Afghanistan and NO ONE (short of as you say NUKING it to a smouldering wasteland where nothing lives) ever will.
What amazes me is that we (collectively ) are still there and still venturing the impossible.
The world is held to ransom by this idea of the terrorist training grounds that threaten us all, but I ask you where are these continuing attacks!!! where is the massive loss of life etc. Had I been Bin Laden and HAD I arranged (however it may have been done ) for the initial spectacular event , which was no doubt going to bring about severe reprisals/war, then I would not have planned to shoot my bolt on a single slap in the overpopulated face of America . There would be strike after strike planned and in motion. Nothing of the sort has happened and never will in my opinion.
The world always seems to need an identifiable ENEMY, it was the Reds/Commies/Russians, now its the Moslem's/ragtops. Its time we all grew up and tried to do something positive for a change instead of following DEAD warmongers bibles of how to kill!
Bush and Blair and all the people who back their insane venture's are the 'real' enemy that we should ALL be trying to stop!
Bring the troops out now, let them clear up their own IED's etc. The world was a safer place during the Cold War with MAD on the doorstep, Now MAD is back and in the hands of the Israeli's...and the destabilised Middle East, far less stable since 'WE' did what has been done in the name of American Imperialism (corporate imperialism at that)!
Indyanhat said...
Your glib answers like carpet bombing and cluster bombing of villages regardless of innocent lives being lost, shows your inhumanity, and seems to suggest that you do not see any problems with indiscriminate killing in the name of your objective.
Ask the people that went to work at the twin towers one morning and never came back, Or those that got on a London tube train, or those on a train in Barcelona, if THEY would consider themselves innocent.
If they thought for one second that their innocence protected THEM in any way.
You fight animals you fight LIKE an animal, or you loose.
And show me WHER I mentioned Cluster bombs.
That was YOUR Freudian slip.
It is always about money. The Taliban are doing very nicely, Karzei is bankrolling Swiss vaults and the Yanks doing very well commercially. Why "win" and spoil the market of conflict?
Furor Teutonicus said...
It IS winnable.
For every soldier shot at, 50 Afghanis are pulled off the street and hung in the market square.
For ever soldier KILLED 100 Afghanis hung.
And don't bother with wee helicopter gun-ships.
Carpet bomb the areas with fuel/air and daisy cutter bombs, where the enemy are know to be hiding.
Even if it is a village, or a school.
They will soon loose interest in fighting.
I seem to recall the Americans tried carpet bombing in Vietnam, but I don't recall the VC losing interest in fighting.
And as for charging across Europe etc. as you well know, that was completely different scenario.
In this case, the Taleban, per se, are not our enemy...Al Quaeda is. Let them come to us!
Why fight the bastards on the streets of Birmingham, and make a mess, when you can destroy them in their nests and ruin THEIR front gardens?
So. WHY, in your opinion, did the British chase all across Europe to Berlin? And shopuld those bloody yanks have kept their bloody noses out of a purely British "problem"?
Surely by YOUR logic you should have done NOTHING until we had already invaded you?
Not to MENTION the Japanese war.
So. DON'T go complaining about US "not doing enough" when YOU are not willing to be there.
NONE of you have thought your theories through, and the implications.
I've been following Bob Feldman CH. His assessments are sensible.
Furor, your comment doesn't warrant a response other than to say it's pathetic.
Well said Lincolnshire Poacher although I disagree with Furor.
Oh dear Furor, do read up a little more on the reasons for WW2.
I continually hear Karzai is the only person the US has faith in. Why is that? Surely there is someone in the whole of Afghanistan capable of putting together a strong and reasonably honest government, or is it because the US has given so much money to Karzai, with little or no return, that they feel they have no alternative other than stick with him?
That's a good evaluation of the position OR. A few thousand dead soldiers is quite a cheap price to pay in the opinions of everyone concerned.
I'd appreciate less of the use of capitals Furor. You can debate well enough without them.
subrosa said...
Oh dear Furor, do read up a little more on the reasons for WW2.
I do not need to. One of my degrees is in that period.
However the CAUSES do not change the fact that if people think that "we should be fighting them here", (Or there, as you are in Britain), that it MUST also follow, that Britain should have done NOTHING, until we were already drinking tea in London, and the U.S should never have been involved in Europe AT ALL.
You can not have the logic BOTH ways.
You fight an enemy, one of the first rules is do not bugger up your OWN land doing so.
The really sad thing here is that anyone should think hanging/shooting/killing 50 or 100 entirely (possibly) innocent bystanders in any given population that is suffering the idiocy of the warrior caste, is ok/justifiable/or warranted. All this sort of behaviour would accomplish is a growing proportion of that population that will hate the aggresor and will then join the other side.
Yes the people (most of them) killed in the 'supposed' terrorist attacks were innocent! thats not the arguement here! Most of the people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq or indeed in any war fought in any country where the non combatants cannot get clear are also innocent!
The 2nd WW was a different kind of conflict waged against people who would hang 50 or 100 at a whim, to flush out the real perpetrators, it didn't work then it won't work now and the mindset that suggests it should or would forgets to take into account that ALL decent people will turn their hands against any who commit such atrocities. Which is what eventually happened in the 2nd WW, when America became involved at the barbarism shown by the powers that were using such tactics.
Now, please be clear about this, I am not saying that the Brits in the past have been whiter than white in such matters but what they learned was that these tactics did not work and so they left them behind and evolved better solutions.
I see your comments about the second WW, and do not wish to go into that sphere with you, what amazes me is that you for all your professed learning and knowledge of the 'nazi' way of doing things do not look at the terrorist attacks that have happened and see that there are too many inconsistancies for it to bear much scrutiny before the realisation hits that there is something very very smelly about the whole thing!!
My 'freudian slip' yes you said daisy cutter, and I put 'cluster'.Cutter, cluster whatever it is still indiscriminate killing which should not have a place in the 'civilised' world today, we can be far more surgical than that and YOU should know that!! There is no excuse except making money at the expense of the blood of our own and others who wish to live their lives in peace!
As a wise man once said an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind!
I think it's a battle against religious extremism and feudal warlords. Can't be won whilst there are those wanting to 'rule' - same as street gangs in UK. It needs a cultural shift, to take power from the top guys and give power to ordinary people.
Can't remember who it was, but somebody recently had pictures of 'old' Afghanistan on their blog. It showed the cotton industry. Now the country sells drugs through illegal markets.
So, maybe a different approach would be useful, in tandem with fighting - such as legalising/decriminalising drugs and the drug market?
I am not sure if, or how that would work.
Whichever way it would just mean that the Warlords get even richer.
Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but the "mafia" is still making a fortune out of smuggling them. All I can see you ending up with is VERY rich "Drug/war/crime lords", who now do not have to worry about the odd shipment getting captured by customs, the people are still slaves to them, and our streets are even FULLER of smack heads than they are now.
We're discussing the war in Afghanistan here Furor, not WW2 which was completely different.
I've studied this war for some time now and I think our withdrawal is long overdue. We're certainly not there to protect the safety of the British here, on the contrary, we will pay for our interference there for many years to come.
It was a bad decision by Blair to insist on such a large amount of our troops there. No other EU country has sent anything like that amount. A financially poor mistake too.
It is that Mrs R and also a battle for oil, minerals and heroin. The people don't want a cultural shift. The country is divided by differing religious groups and they like to rule their own areas. Lots of good reading on the history around. I can give you a few links if you like from bloggers who keep a close watch on this.
Furor, the Warlords are loving this war. They're making more money than ever before. So are the Taliban as they're given bribes for the smallest concession such as allowing supplies through areas where they dominate.
Those are the people who don't want this war to end.
The reason we have so many drugs here is another story altogether.
How's Berlin looking? I used to think it always looked its best in May/June.
Green. VERY green, as we had so much rain at the beginning of May.
As to the warlords, the point I made was in answer to Mrs R.
The point being, making the drugs easier to get through customs for them, and for the Neds to buy, will only serve to make them, even MORE rich, and with that, powerful.
Legalizing drugs in Europe would not make the Warlords go away. On the contrary.
Furor, I'm not getting into a debate about the drug scene because I'm not informed enough about it.
Suffice to say, if our customs and excise hadn't been reduced to a pittance in the 70s, then the problem could well be much less. Since then we've had no experienced personnel policing our coastlines for drugs.
Try this Rosa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b6kf5PIzX4
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgMvy9Adwbc
or this
http://www.wethepeople.la/drugs1.htm
Theres lots of it out there and there is even a thread somewhere that talks about the real reason for the twin towers was that the CIA were being investigated by certain firms which had offices and documentary evidence in some of the trade centre buildings, the rot in this goes all the way to the top. Where theres money there are those who seek to tap into it!!
Many thanks for the links Indyan. There is plenty about and it's well recorded that the CIA are involved with the bribery processes in Afghanistan. Now, don't ask me for the link... ;)
Can this be stopped? Of course not. The people who could stop it are also profiting.
Youre welcome Rosa, the trouble is that supposedly intelligent and educated people who run around with their opinions hanging out appear to take a very blinkered view of the world they live in, refusing to see that which does not fit the personal biases that have been given to them as a package by the media and the governments they serve. People in general do not question the legitimacy of that which they espouse to believe and rarely think that they in fact are victims of a propoganda machine lifted straight from the annals of 'NAZI' Germany at the end of the war by the Americans and their programme of taking so many of the 'thinkers and scientists to safety in America. Not many people seem to have a 'clear vision of what did occur and why, plus the inevitable results in the governance of the States under the 4th Reich and World governance which is now upon all our doorsteps.
Those who think they fight against such tyranny in the armies of the world protecting the 'free world' are quite literally doing the opposite and are fighting to extend the glorious Reich and its objectives!!!
The economic plans for the EU were all written by the 'nazi's' and are in full implementation today, it's where they were going 60 years ago and now it has finally arrived, I fear for the future of all our children and wish that the British Crown had stayed out of the EU mess, but money speaks louder than freedom for the people!
My apologies for going on about it so in your comments, I will shut up now!!!
Feel free to rant as much as you like Indyan. I appreciate your comments and this one I agree with fully.
In fact, I'll have a little rant of my own, having just watched the one o'clock news on Sky. There was Cameron reading out a letter from the English football team boss to the troops. For goodness sake - can't he do better than that for propaganda?
Looks like the new PM is going to be as superficial as the old one where the military is concerned.
The bottom of the 'political thinkers' barrel was scraped clean years ago Rosa, its all now knee jerk and celebrity soma speak, for the masses who care of litle save their next meal and the entertainment that will be provided with it....funny that bread and circus's just like the Romans used all those years ago???????????who would have imagined that the masses would still be as stupid today as they were then (and we have had 'edjukashon' as well)
As my granny used to say Indyan 'What goes round comes round. 'Twas ever thus'.
Post a Comment