Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
"As an American asked to serve, I was prepared to fight, to be wounded, to be captured, and even prepared to die, but I was not prepared to be abandoned."
- Former POW Eugene "Red" McDaniel
From the Vietnam conflict. Nothing changes. Lions led by donkeys.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I like some others on this forum have done Active service overseas.As for myself it was nothing like it is today.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My guess is people will start talking straight forward to the Government to get British soldiers out of Afghanistan.
The decision to send prince Harry to Afghanistan on a 2 month mission was probably a charm campaign to endear the masses to the royals.
Or perhaps that should read the other way round.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Alexander, I know that we are fighting a terrorist war, but as everyone knows, you cannot fight a terrorist war with conventional methods and that is what we are doing and that is why we won't win.
If we seriously want to win in Afganistan, then we have to fight as the opposition fight, or we will lose more brave soldiers and the war against the taliban.
Same with the Vietnam war. We never learn, but we always pay the maximum price.
Roger
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Certainly, those we are fighting know who they are fighting, and know what they are fighting for - more or less, but never quite less.
Many are fighting, or can be persuaded they are fighting, to end the occupation of their land. The job of convincing the doubters is not made difficult by the actions and attitudes of the 'forces of the willing'. The argument that there is also an assault on Islam will go some way to rope-in many of the stragglers.
When, in this campaign, it is hard to know who our enemy is, a disregard of the native doubters, those who wish for an end to conflict, and a lumping-together of all the dead as insurgents, irrespective of the truth known to those within the local community, lends credence to the arguments of the insurgent persuaders.
As we throw bricks at the people of Afghanistan, they build stronger and stronger barricades against us.
We cannot hope to fight them as a regular force, we cannot hope to fight them on their own terms. There can be no military victory in Afghanistan.
I used to baulk at withdrawal from Afghanistan for the sake of what would happen to woman, females in general, if these hard line, and hardened, Islamic fundamentalists were left to rule - not that young women appearing on popular TV here fare much better - but is the presence of foreign forces helping in the long term?
As we are heading for some sort of planned withdrawal what is being achieved by us being there right now?
What wonders are being performed behind the scenes, diplomatically and politically, in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Would the popular disgust at the shooting of one young woman be lessened by us not blowing other such children to pieces?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
They are to be tried by Court Martial so do not get 12 persons true on the Jury which is a pity.
United Kingdom
The Court Martial is one of the Military Courts of the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces Act 2006 establishes the Court Martial as a permanent standing court. Previously courts-martial were convened on an ad hoc basis. The Court Martial may try any offense against service law.[4] The Court is made up of a Judge Advocate, and between three and seven (depending on the seriousness of the offense) officers and warrant officers.[5] Rulings on matters of law are made by the Judge Advocate alone, whilst decisions on the facts are made by a majority of the members of the court, not including the Judge Advocate, and decisions on sentence by a majority of the court, this time including the Judge Advocate.[
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
I do not know the specifics of this case so cannot comment on it. However, it always seems perverse to me that we have an expectation of 'fair play' in war, as if war was a game. A language has evolved (e.g. 'clean/surgical/precision strikes', 'friendly fire') designed to keep our minds off the horror and hell that war is. Weapons have been developed to minimise deaths amongst 'our boys' (body bags make such poor PR) and even if controlling drones 3000 miles away from Virginia means that those celebrating weddings and those making bombs can be confused this can always be attributed to 'collateral' damage.
Brutality is inexcusable in any circumstance and justice must be served but let us not forget those who launch wars and who retire to write their autobiographies and give after-dinner speeches unaffected by post traumatic stress disorders or mental health issues that force them from society.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets". - Voltaire
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Let us just consider one thing here. This is not a 'traditional' war situation but one in which a 'hearts and minds' operation is the key to a successful outcome. Therefore there has to be some kind of rules of engagement, whether the rules are the right ones is another matter. This type of operation does mean minimising the risk of innocents getting killed or injured and this is essential it demand a high level of professionalism that few armies can deliver and ours is one of the very best at this.
Where we do get a problem is with the application of excessive zeal and so called human rights. There is a difficult balance and we do not know if this is such a case.
My own default position is support of the soldier - essential for morale and action against those accused must be carefully judged. My concern is that civilian prosecutors do not understand the soldier and the situations they find themselves in and these being involved increases the chance of excessive zeal being applied. I have little faith in our so called justice system. We have seen too many cases of accused soldiers being wrongly prosecuted.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
That, in any army operation, we do not see everything bad that happens cannot mean that nothing bad goes on.
"We have seen too many cases of accused soldiers being wrongly prosecuted."
That there are prosecutions is the sole sign that we are doing the right thing, in the main, and that our soldiers have not been given Carte Blanche to kill at will.
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
So - you would prefer our troops to die then Tom. There is a difficult balance here but given the difficult situations they face the default should be in favour of those who serve. Remember the case of that young Para in Northern Ireland who shot and killed someone who did not stop at a checkpoint. He was eventually cleared after appeal but he should never have been prosecuted.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
you talk about winning "hearts and minds" barry, that is an impossbility, no country likes foreign troops on their soil.
add to that the fact that no-one has ever controlled afganistan including its own governments.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - impossible?
Then you clearly are not aware of the Malaysia Emergency in the 60's. That is where the British Army learned a lot of lessons and gained an unmitigated success in defeating mainly Chinese communist guerillas in the jungle by a hearts and minds campaign. It was sad that the Americans ignored those lessons in Vietnam....
You are of course correct about how difficult it is to control Afghanistan. The objective is to train the Afghan Army and support them as they take control over the Taliban areas. This is very different to an invasion such as we did in the 19th century and the Russians in the 1980's. You also need to consider that most of the peaceful farmers in the Taliban areas do not want the Taliban in either and it is they who suffer most from the Taliban.
We also have to remember that this is a proxy war to prevent the Pakistan Taliban getting control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Our troops, Barry, and every single other person the whole wide world over will die.
It is never a matter of my personal preference.
How we all live is the real, important issue.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the taleban still have strong support in the countryside where bandits traditionally robbed and murdered poor subsistance farmers. the people there see having to grow their hair long and other oddities as a small price to pay for security.
democracy is not something that will ever gain support in the country as a whole, the president still allows brutality towards women and not allowing girls to be educated whilst smiling at the western t.v. cameras.
the afghan army is just a sham, there hearts are not in it - even more s when they get told by insurgents that their wives and children are at risk because of siding with the enemy.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are making a lot of assumptions there Howard - for one thing talk of democracy there, something I did not mention, is a sham as it will not work in Afghanistan. The best we can hope for is a stable government that is friendly to the west and can keep the Taliban out of power. Only time will tell if the Afghan army is any good, though I hear their special forces are excellent.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, the Vietnam war, which didn't involve Britain, saw a few million dead Vietnamese, many of them civilians.
In Afghanistan, British soldiers were not officially sent into a war, nor were any other soldiers, as the mission was supposed to be to rebuild and develop infrastructure in Afghanistan, and to train an Afghan army and police force.
At first, there were no more than 5,000 American soldiers, 10 years ago, and smaller contingents from other countries.
It gradually evolved into a war as the Taliban gathered strength, and the numbers of soldiers from other countries, including Britain, in Afghanistan, increased ten-fold..
Many operations carried out by British soldiers in A. are called "interacting with the civilian population", just to show their presence.
The MoD haven't got a clue what our soldiers are actually supposed to do there, apart from training the Afghan army and police (10 years on....)
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
To destroy training basses, was the original mission
The hand ringers expanded it to the mess we have now
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all a play on words keith most of the terrorist training camps are here in h.m. prisons.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I read that prince Harry is surrounded by an army of guards in an airbase in A.
I bet he doesn't fly choppers (Apaches) around the area, but he might come out of it after the 2 month assignment with a string of medals.
Four American soldiers died when the Taliban attacked the base just after he arrived there.
Guest 732- Registered: 8 Nov 2011
- Posts: 128
The taleban are scum and need to be treated as such , does anyone think that any soldier taken by these people would survive more that a nano second ? A good taleban is a dead taleban.