British Troops' Problems in Afghanistan

[Merlin]

The British troops are having problems in Afghanistan. They seem to be unhappy with the unpopular PM Gordon Brown.

Now we are borrowing Russian helicopters to fight the Taliban

18 July [DailyMail] British frontline troops in Afghanistan are so short of helicopters and transport planes that they are being bailed out by the Russians.

The Mail on Sunday has established that the Ministry of Defence is using civilian Russian-built Mi-8 and Mi-26 transport helicopters to ferry supplies and soldiers in Afghanistan. The pilots are freelance Russians and Ukrainians.

Britain is also hiring massive commercial Russian Antonov aircraft to fly vehicles and heavy equipment from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire to Afghanistan.

Even more extraordinary is that elite British special forces troops have been forced to use helicopters from a Third World nation to mount covert operations because of a desperate lack of UK aircraft.

Senior defence sources have confirmed to The Mail on Sunday that the SAS, the SBS and the Special Forces Support Group are using troop-carrying helicopters on loan from another country's army.

The aircraft - camouflaged but carrying no British insignia - are flown by an elite team of UK Army Air Corps pilots, trained at a secret special forces base in Afghanistan.

British three-man crews - two pilots and an engineer - use the helicopters to fly about 24 special forces soldiers at a time on dangerous night-time missions deep into Taliban strongholds.

The humiliation of Britain's crack regiments having to beg a lift is a stark example of the shortages of men and machinery that sparked the row between the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, and Gordon Brown.

Britain's top soldier - who himself had to hitch a lift in a U.S. helicopter in Afghanistan last week because of a lack of British aircraft - found himself the subject of a Labour dirty tricks campaign after demanding 'more boots on the ground' and extra helicopters.

Eight British Chinook troop-carrying helicopters designed for special forces' use have been lying dormant in an air-conditioned hangar at RAF Boscombe Down in Wiltshire since they were delivered in 2001.

The Chinook 3As, which cost a total of £259million, are white elephants that cannot be flown, as the Ministry of Defence failed to ask Boeing for the rights to the avionics software.

[Kommunist]

MoD uses 'cut and shut' chopper



An admission that a "cut and shut" helicopter was used in Afghanistan has angered the father of a dead soldier.

Ian Sadler, from Exmouth, has been openly critical of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) since his son Jack, 21, died in Afghanistan in December 2007.

The MoD told Mr Sadler the helicopter was a combination of a crashed RAF Chinook and an Argentinian Chinook.

An MoD spokesman told BBC News the work had been done by "highly skilled aviation technicians".

The spokesman said the helicopter had been withdrawn from Afghanistan, but was still in service.

'Cost-effective solution'

The front of the helicopter was from an RAF Chinook which crashed in Oman in 1999 when its rear blades touched the ground, ripping out one of the engines.

The rear of the aircraft was taken from a former Argentinian Air Force Chinook helicopter which was seized in June 1982 during the recapture of the Falklands.

The MoD said it re-entered service in 2003 after being successfully air tested.

The information was disclosed in a letter to Mr Sadler in response to a direct question he asked the former defence secretary Des Brown during a meeting on 9 September last year.

"It was a soldier on rest and recuperation (R and R) from Afghanistan who came into my shop and passed on the information that a cut and shut helicopter was being used," Mr Sadler told BBC News.

"There've been lots of things that have come out since Jack was killed, but I couldn't believe this" Mr Sadler told BBC News.

'Routine business'

Mr Sadler's son, a trooper in the Honourable Artillery Company, was killed when his non-armoured Land Rover hit a mine.

The MoD said using parts from two helicopters was "the most timely and cost-effective solution" to returning the aircraft to service.

A spokesman said: "The work was conducted by highly skilled aviation technicians and the aircraft returned to service after extensive air testing and signing off by the Aircraft Design Authority, Boeing.

He said it was "routine business" for the RAF to ensure the most effective use of resources.

If you gave them flip flops and catapults they'd still go out there and do the job for us
Ian Sadler

But Mr Sadler said it was a "real scandal" and showed a lack of support for the troops fighting in Afghanistan.

"There are about 8,000 troops at war in Afghanistan without proper support," Mr Sadler said.

He said the responsibility lies with the "people at the top who control the purse strings".

"We've got soldiers we don't deserve, who go through the next best thing to hell out there.

"If you gave them flip flops and catapults they'd still go out there and do the job for us, but we don't support our men."

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | MoD uses 'cut and shut' chopper

[Merlin]

This poll finds the British support has risen for the war in Afghanistan.

Yet the British and international media continue to report questions being asked about number of British troop deaths. These seem to be attacks on the Gordon Brown government.

British support for Afghan war growing: poll

13 July [ABC] A British survey suggests public support for the war in Afghanistan has risen, as UK and other NATO troops intensify the fight against the Taliban in the country's south.

The fierce fighting has increased the number of British casualties, with eight soldiers confirmed dead in a single day last Friday, but the government says the allies are pursuing the right strategy.

For the poll, jointly commissioned by the BBC's Newsnight program and the Guardian newspaper, ICM interviewed 1,000 adults on Friday and Saturday (local time), asking whether people supported or opposed the British military operation in Afghanistan.

It found an even split, with 47 per cent opposing it and 46 per cent supporting it.

But this represented a 15 per cent rise in support compared to when the same question was asked in September 2006. ....

Troop deaths in Afghanistan rattle Britain

13 July [CSMonitor] London - The British government is coming under fierce media and political pressure to justify its military involvement in Afghanistan after attacks last week brought the death toll for British troops past the total for the conflict in Iraq.

The full impact of the deaths of eight troops in just 24 hours was brought home Monday by newspapers and broadcasters carrying extensive coverage of the names of the fallen, including three 18-year-olds. The British death toll in Afghanistan rose to 184. ....

[Kernow]

You will always get some members of the Public that are against conflicts. What the Nation should do is get behind their Armed Forces and support them, no matter what there opinion, moral is hard enough to keep up, let alone trying to keep it up when your own Nation is against you.

[Merlin]

Public opinion can swing. This one shows the support fell below 50% when more killed soldiers were brought home.

British public turn against Afghan war

29 July [National] LONDON // Support for Britain’s military involvement in Afghanistan has plummeted to an all-time low.

An opinion poll yesterday showed that, for the first time, a majority of Britons wanted the 9,000 troops brought home, a reflection of the fact that more than 20 UK soldiers have been killed so far this month, mainly by roadside bombs.

Until now, opinion polls have been showing a solid majority in favour of British troops remaining in Afghanistan, but the ComRes survey for The Independent newspaper yesterday suddenly showed that 52 per cent were in favour of an immediate pull-out.

The poll, conducted among more than 1,000 adults over the past few days, found that 58 per cent now regarded the war in Afghanistan as unwinnable.

A similar survey conducted this month for The Guardian newspaper indicated that, at the time, only 42 per cent wanted an immediate withdrawal. ....

[tankie]

2 Years huh , the piece of cowardly crap should be shot , desertion , he has let himself down , his reg , and his mates , he may well be right in what he says , but that aint the way to go about things .





A British soldier facing court martial for refusing to return to Afghanistan has said that the army's mission will fail and troops should be withdrawn from the country.

Afghan mission will fail - soldier .Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, 27, from the Royal Logistic Corp handed in a letter of protest to Downing Street.

He said that the Nimrod crash in 2006 was a key event which left him disillusioned with the war during his first tour of Afghanistan.

L/Cpl Glenton said: "Carrying coffins from where they were stored by forklift truck down to the medical centre, that's certainly something that has stayed with me, humping bodies around on this forklift truck."

Taliban forces and the British Army are simply "grinding each other down" and achieving nothing, he said.

The soldier went on: "I don't believe our cause is just. I think it's adversely affecting the Afghan people as well as the British Army and their families. I think it has become part of the problem rather than the solution."

He is facing court martial on Monday for desertion and could face up to two years in a civilian jail.

L/Cpl Glenton, who lives in York, called on Gordon Brown to withdraw British troops from Afghanistan because he believes their mission will fail.

He said: "I know that the Afghan people are very resilient. I can't see us getting much further."

July was one of the bloodiest months for British forces with a series of fatalities. But the soldier said he felt obliged to speak out against the conflict despite the risk of damaging morale.

[treasure44]

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | MoD uses 'cut and shut' chopper

I have written to the MoD on four separate occasions on the matter of Helicopters, but have received no reply.

[diodetriode]

I have written to the MoD on four separate occasions on the matter of Helicopters, but have received no reply.

Not surprising. How Lord Malloch-Brown changed his story over helicopter shortages in Afghanistan - Telegraphe The helicopter subject is a moving target.
It is infuriating that the bunch of onanites who are responsible for the lives of the troops still play silly buggers with political squirming, especially as they talk with such authority on military matters, yet their most likely military experience comes from 'moments of madness' with Guardsmen on Clapham Common.
See quote below.

By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Published: 12:01AM GMT 18 Feb 2007

Comments 12 | Comment on this article

Here is a footnote to British political history whose significance isn't properly recognised: every prime minister from 1940 to 1963 had served as an infantry officer in the Great War.

During the most quixotic episode of his career, after he had resigned from the government in 1915, Churchill commanded a battalion in the trenches for several months. Attlee and Macmillan were badly wounded, one at Gallipoli, the other on the Western Front. Eden won an MC for rescuing his sergeant under fire.

What a contrast our rulers today present! There is not a single member of the Government who has ever worn uniform, let alone heard the proverbial shot fired in anger. Tony Blair himself declined so much as to serve in the cadet force at Fettes. I believe that since the departure of the admirable Tam Dalyell there is no Labour MP with any military experience, apart from the preposterous Major Eric Joyce.

In some circumstances this wouldn't matter, but it is highly relevant to the Iraq war and to episodes such as the disgraceful court martial of Colonel Jorge Mendonca, which ended on Tuesday when charges against him were dropped. There is a strong suspicion that the case was politically motivated: Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, suggests that the Government was "determined to have military officers prosecuted," and he rightly adds that such cases "have caused deep resentment and a loss of confidence across the British Army."

It's one thing to be governed by military virgins, wholly ignorant of the reality of war, but another if the virgins are also "chickenhawks", who wage war now that they are too old to serve. And it's something else again when politicians who know nothing of fighting but who bear the direct blame for a foolish and needless war try to make scapegoats out of soldiers who were trying to do their duty.

Never has there been such a gulf between the forces and politicians, few of whom know any soldiers or sailors even socially. Never has there been such a breakdown of true responsibility. What has gone wrong?

Those four prime ministers weren't unique. War was the dominant British experience in the first half of the last century, and its legacy lingered for many decades. Not only were three-quarters of a million servicemen killed in 1914-18 and 300,000 in 1939-45: the second war united the British people in suffering, with 60,000 civilians killed by bombing.

For one period in our history, the invidious distinction between soldier and civilian disappeared. In the first war, there was much animosity between "frocks" and "brass hats", politicians and generals. In the second, politicians could look fighting men in the eye: when Churchill, Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were wartime ministers, they didn't need to be told what a battlefield was like.

After the war, Tory Cabinets were full of men who had seen action, including Ted Heath as a Gunner. Even the Thatcher government was full of old soldiers (and MCs) like Willie Whitelaw, Peter Carrington and Francis Pym. And not only Tories: the other prime minister to have served in 1939-45 was Jim Callaghan, as a seaman, and Labour ministers such as Tony Crosland, Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins had served as army officers.

That is a contrast indeed to the parliamentary Labour party today. Joyce did serve, but complained that his talents were unrecognised, left the army with the wondrous New Labour words "warfighting is not the primary role of an army", found himself a comfortable billet as an MP, and has since competed for two records: fawning praise of the prime minister, and expenses collected.

This point is easily or wilfully misunderstood. To say that Labour politicians know nothing of war is not an argument in itself for the military virtues. If the Government proposed to do away with the armed forces altogether as Costa Rica once did, if Blair was a committed pacifist, if every Labour MP was a Keir Hardie or George Lansbury, passionately opposed to war, one might respect them.

But it was hard to admire Peter Mandelson when he scoffed at the "chinless wonders" of the Household Brigade. Since this was at a time when he was Northern Ireland Secretary, permanently protected from terrorist attack, he gave fresh meaning to Kipling's lines about "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep", but he also epitomised the mood of his generation of Labour politicians.

It is even harder to admire ministers who struck pacifist attitudes when young but who backed Blair's wars, and now, like Peter Hain and Harriet Harman (both hoping to become deputy party leader) try to distance themselves from the Iraq disaster - but are ready to to shift the blame by punishing soldiers. That is, the scapegoats are men who have shown courage and borne burdens that our politicians cannot imagine.

In no previous war did "frocks" behave so ignobly, and never has the dissonance between soldier and civilian been more jarring and shameful. Chesterton's words were never more apt:

But they that fought for England, following a falling star,
Alas, alas for England, they have their graves afar.
And they that rule in England, in stately conclave met,
Alas, alas for England, they have no graves as yet.

[diodetriode]

You will always get some members of the Public that are against conflicts. What the Nation should do is get behind their Armed Forces and support them, no matter what there opinion, moral is hard enough to keep up, let alone trying to keep it up when your own Nation is against you.

You know, the way I read it is that the vast majority of the British population is supportive of the troops, except of course the government, the MoD, the Metropolitan Police and a few extreme people in turbans accompanied by (ladies?) in Burkas/yashmaks/whatevers.
(The **** at Scotland Yard who ordered police officers NOT to wear a Union Flag badge in support of the troops should be sent to front-line duty in Helmand)
But opposition to the WAR is a different subject. What are the troops there for?
As far as I can recall, every British military action as far back Cromwell has a war aim and a goal. What is the goal in Afghanistan? The original mission was to root out Osama bin laden and his Taliban protectors. (Don't mention the Opium crop) Then it was to rebuild Afghanistan and prevent a failed state ( don't mention the gas pipeline). Then it was to bring 'democracy' and stability to the region.Nuff said.
The US/British/Nato line is " Stop them in Afghanistan--or they will be here" with a sub-text of " Afghanistan opium ends up on our streets as heroin". The Afghans are not interested in going anywhere and as the 1919 campaign proved, they can be encouraged to stay at home quite cheaply (compared to Gandamack). Plus, while Opium production was severely curtailed under the Taliban, the country is now the world's biggest illegal producer and biggest exporter of illicit heroin.
Al Quaida is not any sort of cohesive force with a centre or a command organisation and "The Taliban" is just a broad expression for any reactionary bandit or group of bandits--again, there is no centre---just any old Afghan who is not currently on the take with current puppets.
I wonder what is the purpose of our (or any other Western troops) fighting to improve the lifestyle of people who just don't want to know, never have wanted to know and never will want to know. Its Aden all over again.

Afghanistan and the NW Frontier echo through 150 years of British history and there is very little success in that history.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.
Rudyard Kipling

[Kernow]

2 Years huh , the piece of cowardly crap should be shot , desertion , he has let himself down , his reg , and his mates , he may well be right in what he says , but that aint the way to go about things .





A British soldier facing court martial for refusing to return to Afghanistan has said that the army's mission will fail and troops should be withdrawn from the country.

Afghan mission will fail - soldier .Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, 27, from the Royal Logistic Corp handed in a letter of protest to Downing Street.

He said that the Nimrod crash in 2006 was a key event which left him disillusioned with the war during his first tour of Afghanistan.

L/Cpl Glenton said: "Carrying coffins from where they were stored by forklift truck down to the medical centre, that's certainly something that has stayed with me, humping bodies around on this forklift truck."

Taliban forces and the British Army are simply "grinding each other down" and achieving nothing, he said.

The soldier went on: "I don't believe our cause is just. I think it's adversely affecting the Afghan people as well as the British Army and their families. I think it has become part of the problem rather than the solution."

He is facing court martial on Monday for desertion and could face up to two years in a civilian jail.

L/Cpl Glenton, who lives in York, called on Gordon Brown to withdraw British troops from Afghanistan because he believes their mission will fail.

He said: "I know that the Afghan people are very resilient. I can't see us getting much further."

July was one of the bloodiest months for British forces with a series of fatalities. But the soldier said he felt obliged to speak out against the conflict despite the risk of damaging morale.

You know what annoys me most about this guy?

HE'S A FORKLIFT DRIVER, BL**DY LOGGY, BLANKET STACKER

[Officer of Engineers]

As far as I can recall, every British military action as far back Cromwell has a war aim and a goal.

Can you tell me those goals as communicated to the Dominions per WWI and WWII?

[tankie]

I have written to the MoD on four separate occasions on the matter of Helicopters, but have received no reply.

And you reaaaaaaaaaally expect one ? dont hold your breath mate , but well done anyway ,and if you do get one it will go something like this .

Thank you for your enq ref the helicopters that are so desperately needed in that shithole called A/Gstan , rest assured we are doing all in our powers now to make sure our brave men n women get the best equipment on the front line as soon as possible (hic hic ), in hindsight we should have had them already but note how we made one chopper out of 2 , a great achievement im sure you will agree in the circumstances ,after having been in said shithole for 8 years now we are finally beginning to understand the enormity of the task and the fact that we are wankers who cant see past a floating duck pond where equipment is concerned , we hope this has alleviated some of your concerns and that you understand that we will carry on spewing out the verbal crap that the most of the UK will fall for , ps we hope that when the canook that was cutnshut will fall apart and drop on some taliban . So you can understand our forthought and planning


Or something along those lines T44 , but as i said , well done mate ,keep at em .;)

[treasure44]

And you reaaaaaaaaaally expect one ? dont hold your breath mate , but well done anyway ,and if you do get one it will go something like this .

Thank you for your enq ref the helicopters that are so desperately needed in that shithole called A/Gstan , rest assured we are doing all in our powers now to make sure our brave men n women get the best equipment on the front line as soon as possible (hic hic ), in hindsight we should have had them already but note how we made one chopper out of 2 , a great achievement im sure you will agree in the circumstances ,after having been in said shithole for 8 years now we are finally beginning to understand the enormity of the task and the fact that we are wankers who cant see past a floating duck pond where equipment is concerned , we hope this has alleviated some of your concerns and that you understand that we will carry on spewing out the verbal crap that the most of the UK will fall for , ps we hope that when the canook that was cutnshut will fall apart and drop on some taliban . So you can understand our forthought and planning


Or something along those lines T44 , but as i said , well done mate ,keep at em .;)

Yes, although Im skeptical about receiving a reply- and the content of that reply, its more in hope that if some lowly clerk reads it, he will put pressure on the minister, but again I'm not going to hold my breath;)

[tankie]

its more in hope that if some lowly clerk reads it, he will put pressure on the minister, but again I'm not going to hold my breath;)

Hahahahahaha yea mate , dont hold your breath ;)

[diodetriode]

Dominus, Domina, Dom-----?

Can you tell me those goals as communicated to the Dominions per WWI and WWII?

Can you tell me those goals as communicated to the Dominions per WWI and WWII?

Yes! As could anyone who did at least 'O' Level history.
In 1914, as I am sure you will recall, the Dominions were automatically at war and automatically subordinated to the Westminster Parliament's actions.
Newfoundland, Canada, Oz, NZ and South Africa automatically supported the War aims as promulgated by Earl Grey on 3 August 1914 viz The protection of the Northern Coast of France, the preservation of the neutrality of Belgium, and the preservation of the balance of power. Britain was NOT in a formal military alliance in 1914 and only went to war when Germany invaded Belgium.
Lloyd George racked up the aims in 1916 by adding regime change "The eradication of Prussian Militarism", "Elimination of Germany's 'props' (Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria), and Reparations. By Jan 1918, with the war going badly, the war aims went back to restoration of Western frontiers, the establishment of an independent Poland (at Russia's expense) and 'guarantees' against future conflict.
As, again you will surely know, the Statute of Westminster had made Canada, Oz, NZ and South Africa Independent Nations and War was declared independently by each Dominion in 1939.
British war aims were supported by all Dominion parliaments to the extent of them declaring war on Germany and ultimately the other axis powers. (There had to be a vote of no confidence in South Africa against the pro-nazi nationalists who were the majority partner of a coalition--but they were easily defeated)


Britain's war aims in September 1939 were "The overthrow of Nazi aggression and the establishment of a lasting peace in Europe"
(vide Hansard 27 September 1939)

In questions to RAB Butler, then deputy Foreign Minister, the matter of establishing "A United States of Europe" to prevent future conflict and what discussions had taken place with the Dominions.
Both Churchill's World War II memoirs and Gilbert's biography show that Churchill spent almost as much time in consultation with Dominion Prime Ministers as he did with American Presidents. Smuts and Menzies were both in the Westminster cabinet at various times and Churchill leant heavily on Mckenzie King ( of whom he was a bit frightened as Mckenzie King believed in an afterlife). He corresponded copiously with Fraser and Curtin and (reluctantly) took their advice regarding Far eastern Stategy------------------------------------is this what you were expecting?