Thread: Why Afghanistan is the wrong war

"What else can the government do except spend more money on it?"

Spend it better?

There's still an amazing dis-connect that exists to assure congruity between NGOs, supra-nat'ls (U.N. and others), and nat'l gov'ts. Governments must reconcile their internal efforts to achieve greater effect.

They must then do the same to reconcile their efforts with those of others to, again, optimize effect.

After eight years, we've not done so adequately at any level- DoD/MoD, parliament/congress, white house/no. 10 Downing. Then we haven't with the U.N., E.U., N.A.T.O/ISAF, and the non-NATO contributors/NGOs.

Huge unwieldy mess FUELED by money but not operating with concise purpose. Wasteful in extremis.

All this on top of an Afghan operating environ already notoriously famous for its corruption and internal malaise and we've a world-class mess that defies coherant solutions.

Originally Posted by zara

As if the Tories are gonna do anything differently.

What else can the government do except spend more money on it?

And you assume the tories will win the next election Zara , well ok then assuming they do , or any other party , i hope they listen to the guys doing the job and listen bloody hard and take NOTICE of what they are saying ,and not allow pisspot actions of chasing their own tails ,that means , once ground is won they leave it to the local tribal leaders ( called govt ) who then promptly lose it back the the tallies and after putting the forces in to do their bidding make damn sure the right equipment is in situe and every piece of correct equipment is available for every man jack of them ,and dont forget ,, you cant make a silk purse from a sows ear ,

But the Army is there so new strategy and a large mobilisation of men and equipment is needed throwing money and lives away is not the way , but an injection is surley needed , spent wisely , as i have said before the only force capable of taking and holding in A/G is the Yanks IMO, not 9000 men the UK has , they are run ragged ,god bless em , and after 8 years of running ragged for sweet F/A , we could always pull out , waddya think .

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...Stronghold.htm

Scots soldiers smash Taliban bomb-makers' stronghold
A Military Operations news article
1 Oct 09

Hundreds of soldiers from The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (3 SCOTS), launched an 'audacious' night-time assault on an insurgent stronghold in Kandahar province, finding an 'Aladdin's cave' of weapons.

Almost 500 soldiers, including Afghan Warriors and Canadian IED (improvised explosive device) experts, swooped into Howz-e Madad in Zhari district in three waves of six Chinook helicopters in the early hours of Monday 14 September 2009.

The masses of troops landed almost within touching distance of enemy positions, causing chaos and mayhem among the insurgents who were quickly engulfed by ISAF forces.

Supported by British, Canadian and American fast jets, attack helicopters and unmanned drones co-ordinated by experienced fire controllers from 40 Regiment Royal Artillery, the soldiers touched down in an area known to be one of the biggest insurgent strongholds in southern Afghanistan.

The insurgents opened fire, initiating a series of intense fire fights. Air support proved vital to the soldiers on the ground, as Private Kevin Murphy recalled:

"The weight of fire from the aircraft was staggering; it was like a fireworks show as heavy-calibre cannon and rockets ripped into the tree-lines around us as the insurgents tried to regroup; some of it was very close to us but we had total faith in the pilots above."

As dawn broke on the first day, Alpha (Grenadier) Company began to exploit the compounds that they had assaulted. They found an 'Aladdin's cave' of insurgent ammunition, 28kg of explosives, medical supplies, communications equipment and weaponry.

The finds included two motorbikes rigged as suicide bombs. Significantly, a grenade-launcher and recoilless rifle, both of which had been used effectively against coalition forces in the area for some months, were also recovered.

Meanwhile, Bravo Company had broken into three insurgent defensive lines to link with Alpha Company. They fought off insurgent counter-attacks to hold their ground. Corporal Jim Copeland said:

"The insurgent's defences were extraordinary. The wadi was lined with dug-in bunkers with interconnecting trenches, rat-runs and tunnel systems.

"IEDs laced the ground to their front. To the rear, the buildings had carefully constructed sniper positions and nearby hides were found where they cached their weapons.

"All around, strike marks in the walls told the story of where previous coalition assaults had attempted to dislodge the insurgent."

Charlie (Fire Support) Company secured the Battle Group's northern boundary, finding further IEDs, fighting back the insurgents, and, ultimately, securing a safe route and location for other elements of the Battle Group to extract to after the deep strike had been completed.

Operating in what was effectively the enemy's front line, there were few, if any, local farmers; all the compounds had been long abandoned and prepared as firing positions.

The insurgents were clearly aware of how important this northern flank was and launched an intensive attack on the company positions which was repelled by a combination of machine gun fire and helicopter support.

Sadly one young soldier was seriously injured during the battle as he worked to clear the extraction route for his comrades from Alpha Company.

Major Ben Cattermole of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, commanding Charlie (Fire Support) Company, said:

"Tragically during the operation to secure the extraction route of Alpha Company, a young soldier was struck by an IED.

"He had been working tirelessly for 48 hours to protect Alpha Company's route, and was about to join Bravo Company to continue to take the fight to the enemy when the incident happened.

"His comrades' immediate actions to treat his wounds were exemplary and second-to-none.

"Our thoughts and prayers are now with him and his family as he continues to undergo surgery back in the UK. His sacrifice will not be forgotten."

Over the next few days, the Battle Group manoeuvred in order to maintain the initiative. There were more finds of insurgent arms and explosives and a number of fire fights in which more insurgents were killed.

Alpha Company's Corporal Richard Clark described a section attack that he commanded against an enemy position:

"A pure adrenaline rush; as our mortar fire mission lifted we knew that we had to push forward to clear that particular enemy position. All the months and years of training simply kicked in; the insurgents never stood a chance."

Now accompanied by a troop of Canadian tanks, the operation culminated in a Bravo Company break-in of the village of Kolk. Lance Corporal Scott Mackie was at the forefront of their insertion on foot:

"The insertion was gruelling and we moved only 500 metres in the first two hours. We spent most of the time up to our waists in mud and water as we moved through the wadi systems avoiding the dozens of IEDs laid to our flanks, designed to halt us in our tracks."

During the final phase of the attack, insurgents were caught laying a further IED screen and were quickly engaged by attack helicopter. The break-in and search, in the face of further enemy counter-attacks, provided key intelligence for further operations in the area.

Major Matt Munro, Officer Commanding Alpha (Grenadier) Company, described the operation as an 'unqualified success':

"The plan was an audacious one; we assaulted from helicopters literally into the insurgents' backyard. We destroyed a number of enemy fighters and denied them their arms and equipment. Our actions will have a substantive impact on the insurgency in this part of southern Afghanistan."

Major Al Steele, working alongside Major Munro, as Officer Commanding Bravo Company, said that the insurgents had 'been given a bloody nose'. He explained:

"Yet again The Black Watch has proved that there is nowhere that the insurgents can operate with impunity."

The Commanding Officer of 3 SCOTS, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Cartwright, said that the impact of the operation would be felt throughout the area:

"We have badly damaged their IED-making capacity in this important area of Kandahar province and destroyed their defensive positions. Above all, the combination of the canny Jock on the ground and surveillance from the air has delivered a physical and psychological blow to the insurgent's credibility in what they consider to be their safe haven.

"The coalition forces in southern Afghanistan have combined extremely effectively to deliver a devastating strike."

Took 2 weeks for the news to come out? Nice bust. The kind of operation that builds confidence. Congrats to those guys, and hope the wounded man pulls through ok.

The Black Watch have had a pretty successful tour.

Originally Posted by tankie

And you assume the tories will win the next election Zara , well ok then assuming they do , or any other party , i hope they listen to the guys doing the job and listen bloody hard and take NOTICE of what they are saying ,and not allow pisspot actions of chasing their own tails ,that means , once ground is won they leave it to the local tribal leaders ( called govt ) who then promptly lose it back the the tallies and after putting the forces in to do their bidding make damn sure the right equipment is in situe and every piece of correct equipment is available for every man jack of them ,and dont forget ,, you cant make a silk purse from a sows ear ,

But the Army is there so new strategy and a large mobilisation of men and equipment is needed throwing money and lives away is not the way , but an injection is surley needed , spent wisely , as i have said before the only force capable of taking and holding in A/G is the Yanks IMO, not 9000 men the UK has , they are run ragged ,god bless em , and after 8 years of running ragged for sweet F/A , we could always pull out , waddya think .

Well im certainly no strategist, and wouldn't have the foggiest clue how to win there, but bringing them home seems a little risky (Im not being callous about the lives of the soldiers, I have an uncle and cousin out there) what if society collapses and they provide a base for AQ again?

Pulling just the Brits out and leaving the Americans and the rest seems a little tight on the Yanks don't you think?

Though I do think the situation with the body armour is a disgrace. I mean how much does body armour cost?


Ps. Im counting on the tories getting in. If Ireland votes No today then a british referedum is the only thing that will stop ireland having to vote a third time. And theres no way labour will allow a referendum.

Originally Posted by zara

Well im certainly no strategist, and wouldn't have the foggiest clue how to win there, but brining them hope seems a little risky (Im not being callous about the lives of the soldiers, I have an uncle and cousin out there) in society collapses and they provide a base for AQ again.

Pulling just the Brits out and leaving the Americans and the rest seems a little tight on the Yanks don't you think?

Though I do think the situation with the body armour is a disgrace. I mean how much does body armour cost?


Ps. Im counting on the tories getting in. If Ireland votes No today then a british referedum is the only thing that will stop ireland having to vote a third time. And theres no way labour will allow a referendum.

Zara i phrased my Q wrong i meant the whole forces pull out , remember its not just yanks and brits , but a whole collection of contributing nations .

Vietnam is coming back to haunt us. The other day a prominent historian, a strong critic of US involvement in Vietnam was asked by a general what he thought was the greatest lesson learned from the Vietnam experience. The immediate reply was 'being there in the first place."

The context of the exchange was a discussion of whether the US should commit more troops in Afghanistan as McChrystal recommends. The historian thought it was a terrible idea; "it's another Vietnam." What bothers me about the quagmire argument is that it hinges on all sorts of considerations but not the one that matter most: what is best for our national security and other vital interests.

We were told back then that the policy driving the Vietnam War was containment of communism. The US feared that if the communists weren't stopped in Vietnam, the whole Asian peninsula would fall like dominoes and in time the red tide would spread out over the whole Pacific right up to the shores of California.

Yet, after years of fighting, the US threw in the towel leaving the hapless South Vietnamese to cope. So much for single-minded pursuit of US national security interest. Or, were the people responsible for US foreign policy at the time dumbasses who misread the threat in the first place? Perhaps quitting confirms this. If a threat necessitating war ever existed how could the war have become politically untenable at home? So, perhaps the lesson of Vietnam is, be sure a serious threat exists before you commit to war.

Which brings us back to Afghanistan. IMO, Afghanistan is a far greater threat than Vietnam was. I don't mean the countries themselves, but the wider stakes involved. Key among them is the perception of US and NATO resolve. It is precisely because we left Vietnam when the going got rough that we can't afford to do so again.

The US and its allies went into Afghanistan with a clear mission and strong public support. The message was beware to any government that harbors terrorist organizations and allows them to launch attacks around the world. You will be destroyed and never again regain power. It seems to me that the US and its allies cannot credibly make that threat stick anywhere in the world if it withdraws from Afghanistan before making good on that promise.

Quitting Afghanistan, even the perception of it, will tempt other rouge states and stateless aggressors to defy world order. To be sure, more is at stake in Afghanistan, but that is the one that speaks directly to US vital interests.

Afghanistan war is wrong because world is fighting not against terrorism but against traditional, ethnic & regional realities.

Only if our top Army commander were so outspoken. He say more troops would mean fewer casualties--a risky statement to make.

Army chief warns of 'terrifying prospect' of failure in Afghanistan - Telegraph

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Published: 8:30PM BST 03 Oct 2009


In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.

In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David told The Sunday Telegraph that if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable".

He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.

At home, the Government has come under increasing pressure for the way it has handled the war, with critics saying the armed forces have been under-resourced.

Yesterday The Daily Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister believes that he has been "let down" over the running of the Afghan War by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff. Suggestions that Sir Jock may be forced to step down, however, have been denied by senior defence sources.

The increasing tensions come against a background of rising British casualties.

Yesterday the Ministry of Defence named a 24-year-old member of the Royal Air Force Regiment who died in a blast near Camp Bastion in Helmand on Thursday. Aircraftman Marcin Wojtak is the 219th member of the armed forces to have died in Afghanistan since the conflict began in 2001.

Sir David has issued his unprecedented warning because he believed the public and even members of the government had not "woken up" to the "enormous risks" which would result if the war was lost.

He said: "Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

Sir David, who succeeded Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as head of the Army, said that a failure by the public to back the war would ultimately "delete" troop morale – an effect which, he said, would be far more damaging than a lack of resources.

The Army chief declared that Britain was ready to send more troops to Afghanistan if called on to do so in the wake of the revised strategy which has been drawn up by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato troops in southern Afghanistan.

He said that more troops would result in fewer casualties and would allow British and Nato troops to deliver greater security more quickly.

Sir David also warned that the "drumbeat" of casualties in Helmand would continue for another three to five years, while the war raged on, but added that the Army was ready to bear the sacrifice.

Sir David said that sending extra troops would allow Nato to begin winning the psychological battle against the Taliban who, he said, were masters of propaganda and were "outstanding at psychological warfare".

He continued: "If you put in more troops we can achieve the objectives laid upon us more quickly and with less casualties. We can start winning the psychological battle which is broadly wrapped around the Taliban saying "the west and the Afghan government is doing very little for you" – we (the Taliban) will offer you an austere future but at least it will be secure". What we need to demonstrate is that we, Nato and the Afghan government, offer a much brighter future which is more secure, with jobs, and education and better health."

In a wide-ranging interview, Sir David denied that success in Afghanistan amounted to "mission impossible" but admitted that it was "certainly difficult", adding: "Having spent the last five years more focused on Afghanistan than anything else, I'm convinced it is most certainly doable. We all know if we get this wrong there are all sort of implications not just for this generation but for our children's generation."

The general criticised plans put forward by some members of President Obama's administration – notably those of Vice-president Joe Biden, who is believed to support the view that Nato should reduce troop number in Afghanistan and concentrate on counter-terrorist operations using special forces. Sir David said this was a strategy which would not work.

The general's comments follow those of Gen McChrystal, who last week said that the campaign had been under-resourced in the past to meet the objectives set by the international community. He added that the coalition of 42 nations serving in Afghanistan had "underperformed" in some areas.

He said: "The situation is serious and I choose that word very, very carefully. Neither success nor failure in our endeavour in support of the Afghan people and government can be taken for granted."

On other military matters Sir David said that he would like better pay for soldiers and added that he believed that the review of compensation for wounded soldiers would lead to "improvements" in future payouts.

At last , an admission as to why we are there and not the usual B/S politico rubbish that Brown/B,liar spew out .We may now see the troops being looked after properly in as much as equipment and strength .