Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commandos push Further South in Afghanistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commandos push Further South in Afghanistan

    Commandos lead helicopter assault into Kandahar province

    Royal Marines have pushed deeper into southern Afghanistan's rural Kandahar province with a helicopter assault directly onto insurgent positions, supporting a wider Canadian initiative to redraw the boundaries of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) influence in the region.

    Instead of employing conventional tactics of moving in from secured flank areas, Operation Janubi Tapu (Southern Vulture) has seen the Royal Marines of 42 Commando Group inserted by a number of helicopter waves straight into an area that has been regarded by the insurgents as a safe haven.

    Once landed, the Marines used intelligence leads to immediately focus their attention on compounds of interest within the rural conurbations and moved sensitively amongst the local population, searching for insurgent weapons and improvised explosive device-making equipment.

    After some rapid engagements with insurgents, the Marines established a dominating presence and blocked further insurgent movement enabling them to carry on conducting searches. This resulted in finding a vast amount of bomb-making material and weaponry, which subsequently led to a huge degree of exploitable information and intelligence on the insurgents' capability across the whole of southern Afghanistan, not just Kandahar province.

    Over 600kg of home-made explosives and 3.8km of wire used for improvised explosive device initiation was seized, along with numerous mines, small arms and ammunition, all of which has now been removed from the area or destroyed.

    Throughout the operation the commandos kept the upper hand through rapid helicopter manoeuvre and night infiltration.

    And the following day a motorbike-borne suicide bomber was apprehended by the marines before he was able to detonate.

    The Commanding Officer of 42 Commando Group, Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Stickland RM, said:

    "We sought to use true commando tactics on this operation using a helicopter assault and light, agile forces to land into the heart of the insurgents' safe haven. I wanted to completely change the dynamics in the key area, and through rapid manoeuvre and the robust but culturally sensitive approach of the marines, we achieved our aim.

    "Each time he took us on he lost; we detained some significant players with a supporting evidential chain and removed a huge quantity of munitions from the battlefield. Importantly, we also left the area having placed constant doubt in the insurgents' mind and reassured the locals that ISAF forces are fair, honest and targeted in what we do. An outstanding operation by the 'smiley boys' of 42 Commando Group."

    By descending rapidly into the local villages and engaging immediately with the population in a culturally sensitive manner the commandos have created a first impression and a space in which to operate which has allowed freedom of movement to search for and confront the insurgent threat, allowing reconstruction and development to be pushed forward. :))

  • #2
    1. Thank you for sharing this interesting story. I thought I'll just share with you a few of my thoughts.

    2. Afghanistan is a failed state. The status quo - of lawlessness and terror - is not acceptable. Without the fighting forces supplied by the ISAF (in particular, the US, the UK and the Australian troops there) - who are doing much of the hard fighting, there is no hope for a better tomorrow for Afghanistan.

    3. If you are interested, I've also included a link to an article on "Modern Peacekeeping Operations" written by LTC Benedict Ang. This article highlights the importance of the deployment of ISAF fighting forces in Afghanistan (as coercive inducement).
    Extracts from LTC Benedict Ang's Modern_Peacekeeping_Operations

    Why Did Traditional Peacekeeping Not Work?

    Traditional peacekeeping was meant to keep the peace between states. Inherent in the traditional peacekeeping mission was the notion that state sovereignty is sacrosanct, and that any UN deployment must have the consent of the parties involved... Predicated on the primacy of the maintenance of international order and stability, UN peacekeeping missions were necessarily constrained.

    ... Peacekeepers were sent into conflict areas where there was no clear victory on either side of the warring parties, and where either side could be looking to capitalize on opportunities to gain the upper hand... In other words, the deployments were not into areas where peace was established but where the peacekeepers were expected to create it. In such situations, the peacekeepers were expected to work hand-in-hand with peace-builders to create a self-sustaining environment.


    From State Security to Human Security?

    Essentially then, there is a fundamental shift in the understanding of 'sovereignty' at the international level. Traditionally, state sovereignty was considered to be sacrosanct and was not to be violated...

    since the end of the Cold War, there is an increasing tendency to question the sanctity of state sovereignty, and challenge it with the notion of human security. In essence, there is increasing momentum to the view that the sanctity of a state's sovereignty is conditional on the fulfillment of certain fundamental obligations, failing which the international community would not be obliged to recognize the rights of such a (failed) state. In this context, it becomes the international community's right, and in fact obligation (and responsibility) to protect. There is also the view that in situations of gross human rights violations, it is not only morally legitimate to intervene, but also legal.


    Coercive Inducement a New Role for Modern Peacekeeping?

    As a response to the challenges of modern peacekeeping, new concepts such as 'coercive inducement' have been championed to deal with the new phenomenon of complex conflicts. Coercive inducement is defined as "the judicious resort to coercive diplomacy or forceful persuasion by the international community in order to implement community norms or mandates vis-a-vis all the parties to a particular crisis". Essentially, coercive inducement challenges the traditionally accepted norms of peacekeeping such as the need for consent of local affected parties, the need for impartiality of UN troops, and the constrained use of force, i.e., only in self-defense. Concepts such as coercive inducement would propose a more generous and liberal interpretation of such norms, giving peacekeepers a greater degree of freedom and more latitude for action. In the process, the sanctity of state sovereignty is questioned, and ultimately diluted.


    Complexities and Challenges of Modern Peacekeeping

    ... Peacekeepers are essentially thrown into the deep end of such modern peacekeeping operations and are left to figure out for themselves the scope, authority, mandate, terms of reference, support, and sometimes even the very objective of the mission. As contended by Jim Whitman and Ian Bartholomew as the crux of the problem, "the lack of functional political-military machinery within the United Nations, to assist in the framing of resolutions under Chapter VI or VII and to manage any military aspects on their implementation and control, is a fundamental institutional gap that must be filled if the use of collectively sanctioned military measures is to be effective...
    4. I've included a link on Afghanistan for readers interested in more in-depth reading (and also a map of the ISAF commands).
    Last edited by sunnyamy; 05 Dec 08,, 05:46.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sunny,

      Your link to the LCol Ang's piece is flawed. Afghanistan is not peacekeeping. It never was.

      Comment


      • #4
        OoE Reply

        Colonel,

        Perhaps you can move the thread, sir? Valid but we've been depositing ISAF-related news in the WOT section. Both are new here and wouldn't necessarily know.
        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Sunny,

          Your link to the LCol Ang's piece is flawed. Afghanistan is not peacekeeping. It never was.
          I'm a supporter of the ISAF's actions in Afghanistan and I agree that your criticism is valid.

          I was focusing too much on the coercive inducement part - that even peacekeeping ops need to change. Got excited - so shared it.:))

          Comment

          Working...
          X