Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To be a good soldier, you must never cease being a just man.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Quite so- but it's frustrating when you are fighting an anti judicial enemy.
Never give up...
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
If you get caught by mr Taliban, be sure they will take you out for a picnic and show you the delights of the country side and then send you on your way home.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I don't doubt anything you have put there Richard and it is costing us the lives of so many soldiers - unnecessarily too.
How can you tell soldiers not to shoot to kill when they see someone setting up a road-side bomb, or loading their rifle.
"Rules of Engagement", more like "Rules of Self-Destruction".
The Taliban are terrorists in that country and think nothing of killing women and children - inlcuding 14 year old girls, so how can we be made to act so gentlemanly - and then get court-marshalled when one of them dies ?
You are right Richard we will lose it and those soldiers who have died, will have died needlessly; the Taliban will come straight back.
Unless we change the way we allow our soldiers to fight, we cannot win.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
none of us know the full story only the headline, as richard has said it is an unwinnable war.
Guest 777- Registered: 2 Oct 2012
- Posts: 19
Your right Richard it is a crazy unfair situation which certainly leads to unnessary deaths for our boys. Here is a typical example. if you had an insurgent shooting at you then you could shoot back, if for some reason he dropped his rifle he could not then shoot him untill he had picked it up again!! Sounds like rules you would use in the playground but unfortunatly not!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Our troops certainly have to fight as if they have one arm tied behind their back.
When we have an excessive level of so called 'human rights' being applied to our enemies who themselves care nothing at all for such rights, our troops are set up for a downfall.
We must hope that this matter is carried forward with common sense and not excessive courtroom zeal. If, of course, there is something substantial for the troops concerned to answer for then so be it, but I fear that certain members of our legal community are just setting them up to be hung out to dry.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Afghanistan, I think the answer is in the name.
Things have never worked out well for those who have attempted to invade and control it.
If 'human rights' were to take a back seat, the need to be there at all would vanish. We would then be left with the tactics Churchill and the RAF used...we shall bomb them in their homes, we shall bomb them in their fields.
Come to think of it, was there not flights of low-flying aircraft, with machine guns protruding all along the fuselage...a-strafing and a-mowing down, in the early days of this present and ongoing conflict?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are thinking of the Vietnam War and the use of Dakotas armed with chain guns they called, 'Puff the Magic Dragon'. These, or modern day equivalents, have not been deployed by the allies in Afghanistan or Iraq.
It is the excessive adherence to Human Rights without the balance of responsibilities that are the problem.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The scene can turn ugly when a war is not won:
a scapegoat must be found. One illustrious trouble-maker is identified in the Geneva Convention and more generally the British Army's rules of engagement in war.
Or a person upholding the work of the Police can be called a foreigner and an immigrant, as happened to me.
But we must not be deterred, we cannot advocate that our Army be turned into a barbaric force. The Geneva Convention was stipulated in order to prevent atrocities, and were it not respected, the accusation could become war-crimes, or crimes against humanity.
Hence the investigating authorities must not be deterred but must investigate without any prejudice.
If the rules of engagement of the British Army were not liked, then people should not have advocated in the first place sending British soldiers to Afghanistan, or keeping them there and keep sending more.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
If the lives of soldiers on active duty are in danger the last thing they should need to think about are the rules of engagement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The case in question is whether a prisoner in a room was offered the appropriate medical assistance or left to die!
That is as far as I have understood it.
As for your theory, Jan, concerning how soldiers should react and act in battle, it is absolutely not as you put it.
The very first thing soldiers MUST think about on duty are the rules of engagement.
Unless a soldier knows and has been taught this, they cannot and must not be sent into battle.
I am sure the British Army has made sure that every soldier sent on an active mission DOES know that the rules of engagement are the first thing in the mind of a soldier when on active duty.
This is vital for the individual soldier, the other soldiers in the same group or in a friendly group, and for any civilians that may be caught up in a military reaction/action. It is also essential so as to assure that opponents surrendering can be taken prisoner and treated according to the rules of the Army.
Having been born in an Army base, I know that this is the fact and is indisputable. We learnt this at primary school in North Camp.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom - thanks for that. You are correct about the Dakota. I was not aware of the later Hercules version. That is one powerful weapons platform and used properly should cause the Taliban some serious damage.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
errr excuse me what about the apache helicopter.enough fire power to win the war with the right pilot/navigater init.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Surely the Rules of Engagement should be "kill the enemy before he kills you".
Roger
Guest 777- Registered: 2 Oct 2012
- Posts: 19
Both the BBC and ITV have been in touch with some guys running support groups for the marines on social media sites wanting to talk to them regarding the amount of support they were getting, but then before things were arranged both the bbc and itv went back to them saying they had to cancell as they had been stopped from above!! so much for freedom of speech!! Big brother has obviously spoken!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Brian - a different weapons system, again very powerful and both have their place.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, the situation is more complex.
Once a gun battle has started, the enemy has to be located. Incoming fire could come from somewhere or from distant artillery or mortars. There could be friendly soldiers in the vicinity, and indeed a target has to be checked to make sure they are neither friendly soldiers nor civilians.
The type of warfare waged by the Taliban is extremely difficult to combat, as they operate in small numbers, and often concealed, and not necessarily in a distinctive uniform. Oftentimes they use roadside bombs.
Sometimes they are among the Afghan police, and this is known as green on blue attacks.
For the Afghans, a war can last 10 years, or 20 years, and they will tend to avoid anything that goes beyond guerrilla warfare when fighting a large and sophisticated army. They will always replenish their numbers with fresh recruits, and use them sparingly.
The Afghan Taliban are reputed to be in contact with the Pakistani secret service, it has been written in the Press, and from somewhere they receive their arms and explosives and devices. They can rely on retreat zones in northern Pakistan, where the local people are similar to the Pashtun in language, culture and traditions.
The reasons why the war in Afghanistan can not be won militarily are not because of the British army's rules of engagement, but because the Coalition Government, in 2010, didn't have the guts to realise the fact that T. Blair sent Britain's troops into a sinking-sand trap.
Unfortunately, we will see more of our soldiers coming back dead from Afghanistan, or wounded. Usually the Press mentions those who have been killed, not the wounded. I did write 2 and a half years ago that we should tell Liam Fox where to get off, when he said that British soldiers must stay in Afghanistan.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Audere est facere.