UK Officer Quits Over Afghan Mission

[Fat Clemenza]

UK Officer Quits Over Afghan Mission
IslamOnline.net & Newspapers
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-09/10/images/pic01.jpg September has become the deadliest month for British troops in Afghanistan since March 2003.
CAIRO – A top British officer has resigned his post in the army in protest at the "grotesquely clumsy" and "pointless" campaign against Taliban in Afghanistan, a British newspaper reported on Sunday, September 10.
"We're now scattered in a shallow meaningless way across northern towns where the only way for the troops to survive is to increase the level of violence so more people get killed," Captain Leo Docherty, the former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan, told The Sunday Times.
"It's pretty shocking and not something I want to be part of."
Docherty called the British mission in southern Afghanistan "a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency."
"Having a big old fight is pointless and just making things worse," he said.
The criticism, the first from an officer who has served in Afghanistan, came during the worst time so far for British troops in the country.
The British military paid tribute Saturday to those killed in a plane crash in Afghanistan as they counted the cost of September, already the deadliest month they have sustained since March 2003.
In total, 22 British troops have been killed so far this month.
Pinned down by daily Taliban attacks, many have run short of food and water and have been forced to rely on air support and artillery.
"Now the ground has been lost…..It’s completely barking mad," said Docherty.
Some 4,000 British troops make up the majority of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force deployed in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.
Losing Hearts
Docherty said British troops have failed in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans.
"We've been grotesquely clumsy — we've said we'll be different to the Americans who were bombing and strafing villages, then behaved exactly like them," he regretted.
"All those people whose homes have been destroyed and sons killed are going to turn against the British," he asserted.
"It’s a pretty clear equation — if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I certainly would."
The Senlis Council, an international policy think tank on with offices in Kabul, London, Paris and Brussels, recently published a study concluding that five years after invasion, the Western strategy was inflicting more misery and starvation on the Afghan people.
The report, "Afghanistan Five Years Later: The Return of the Taliban", said the flawed military approach by the US-led forces is allowing ousted Taliban to regain its influence.
A separate report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) said destroying the livelihood of Afghan farmers was losing the foreign troops hearts and minds in many areas.
No Developments
Docherty said the British troops deviated from the original development plan for Afghanistan.
"The plan was to secure the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, initiate development projects and enable governance," he explained.
Docherty said the British army has not, as planned, provided the Afghans with much-needed power stations, paved roads and drinking water.
"The military is just one side of the triangle," he said. "Where were the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office?"
Christian Aid, an agency of the churches in Britain and Ireland, warned Sunday that millions of Afghans face starvation after drought destroyed much of the harvest in the north and west.
It estimated that more than one million people in the provinces of Badghis, Farah, Faryab, Ghor, and Herat were affected by the drought.
The group urged international donors to pledge funds for Afghanistan's emergency drought appeal -- set up by the Afghan government and the UN -- which needs 76 million dollars (60 million euros).
In July, the UN and the Afghan government said that 2.5 million people were suffering from food shortages, in addition to the 6.5 million Afghans in rural areas who suffer from annual seasonal food shortages.


http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-09/10/01.shtml

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

A top British officer has resigned his post in the army... Captain Leo Docherty
He has done well, a "top British officer" and still only an Army Captain:hmm: The recent journo reports just keep getting better!

[Maple 01]

Two totally unbiased sources - good work! Can we expect extracts from "What Jihad?" next?

[tablet_eraser]

Few things pain me as much as sloppy journalism. In this case it can probably be put down to the potential bias of Islamonline.net.
And in more detail...
A top British officer ...
An Army captain? Come on, that's an easy one to pull apart! Even lt cols probably can't justifiably be referred to as "top officers".
Pinned down by daily Taliban attacks, many have run short of food and water and have been forced to rely on air support and artillery.
... because God forbid they would ever need air support or artillery normally! A little bit of common sense would indicate that if the Army can use an airstrike or artillery bombardment rather than a costly infantry attack, they're going to choose that option. It isn't a case of being "forced" to do something. It's the best way to deal with a tough situation. We are still inflicting greater losses on the Taliban than they are on us, and while this might not be winning hearts and minds - still a crucial part of any operation - it is depleting their manpower. Although you wouldn't expect to hear our politically-correct, NEC-obsessed, beancounting lords and masters saying so, sometimes wars boil down to who can kill more of their opponents because, to paraphrase Clausewitz, it as one way to ensure the will of the enemy is conquered. It's nasty, but it's true. Using air support and artillery is all part of achieving the desired end state of NO TALIBAN LEFT!
we've said we'll be different to the Americans who were bombing and strafing villages, then behaved exactly like them.
If Capt Docherty has evidence that British troops have been strafing villages, maybe the wise thing to do would be to report this potential war crime through the proper channels rather than use it to substantiate his grievances.
Christian Aid, an agency of the churches in Britain and Ireland, warned Sunday that millions of Afghans face starvation after drought destroyed much of the harvest in the north and west.
It estimated that more than one million people in the provinces of Badghis, Farah, Faryab, Ghor, and Herat were affected by the drought.
Okay, this is genuinely terrible and I hope the UK can do something about it. But linking it to the military is, perhaps, tenuous at best. Droughts happen in that part of the world even without war. The journalist/editor has clearly attempted to link the potential loss of 2.5m innocent lives to NATO's attempts to restore peace to the South of the country. That is not only sloppy journalism, it's what one could term a constructive mistruth. Making the reader associate the military with the drought without offering any information to substantiate the link.

I never thought I'd say it, but thank God OUR press - on the whole - at least tries to behave with a modicum of ethical consideration when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a sad case of many respectable journos being let down by their more grasping colleagues, biased editors, and overbearing owners.

[Maple 01]

Just a quickie, I seem to remember there are a handful of Harriers at Kandahar, and despite what the Harrier mates might say, they can't be everywhere at once. So assuming we aren’t doing Arclights on local population centres with our secret hoards of Vulcans how the hell does a limited number of CAS flights="bombing and strafing villages" in a "grotesquely clumsy" manner?

Oh, and the photo is of some Spams......1/10 for photo to article accuracy – doesn’t bode well for the rest of the piece

Bugger, I've tried to introduce reality into this haven’t I?

[SASless]

Perhaps some Journo has been reading "Winter Soldier" by John Kerry and merely tried to slip his version of it into print.

The issue that confused me is how one wins the "Hearts and Minds" of the die-hard Taliban? Somehow I don't think polite talk over Tea and Stickeys is the doable approach.

Personally, I like the concept of the Taliban standing and fighting in large groups....the old idea of find, fix, and destroy (using B-52's) sounds a champion to me.

On a serious note....news report the other day asserted the British OC in Southern Afganistan had gone on record saying he was short resources to properly conduct operations. He included, according to the report, such things as artillery, attack helicopters, CAS aircraft, and transport aircraft.

Perhaps the good Captain was premature in his submitting his resignation if that were the case.

[orca]

With any luck this will infrom a fairly uninformed public that there's a serious war on out there!

Much respect and best wishes to our boys and girls on the ground. i wish Captain Docherty all the best in civilian life. No real need for the parting shot though was there?

[Ali Barber]

I have to say, and I emphasise without first hand knowledge, this sounds like a scenario from Vietnam. Firebases being used, body counts justifying success, etc. This does not sound like a British hearts and minds approach, but nobody expected the "firebases" to come under such constant attack. If there are so many Afghans willing to throw themselves into the line of fire and accept such heavy casualties, then this may be our Vietnam - unless we send enough troops to be able to patrol out of the firebases and win the hearts and minds with welfare, medical and civil engineering support to show the Afghans that there is a better solution than restoration of Taliban control.

[enginesuck]

The Taliban dont care about losses, its straight to heven with 72 virgins for them.... We are fighting an enemy that doesnt care. You can kill thousands it wont matter there will still be thousands growing older more resentful waiting to fill their flip flops....

[wileydog3]

The Taliban dont care about losses, its straight to heven with 72 virgins for them.... We are fighting an enemy that doesnt care. You can kill thousands it wont matter there will still be thousands growing older more resentful waiting to fill their flip flops....

Doesn't sound like Vietnam to me.. at least not when I was FACing. Sounds more like the islands in the Pacific in WWII.

[Fat Clemenza]

I didn't expect to have so many replies but I like what I'm reading...good to learn

[SASless]

Alas the general assumption that the vast majority of the Afghani people are Taliban or supporters of the Taliban....that just isn't so.

Thus in effect as in Iraq...only a very small proportion of the population are involved in the fighting.

The vast majority of the Afghani's do not support the Taliban.

[buoy15]

Which part of the harvest was lost in the drought? The poppy fields?:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

'Senior British Officer' - don't forget from the outside there is a perception of a pyramidal structure with lots of Privates and the bottom and fewer NCO/Officer above them. The concept of junior officer, field officer and general officer is lost on people. The status of a Captain, from their perception, especially in-theatre is high and not necessarily unwelcome at home.

In theatre what is the highest rank? 2*? Major-Lt Col-Brigadier - that makes Captain pretty important.

And has the British media never called a warrant officer a senior military person? There is one ppruner here who posts under his own name and I have seen him so described as a 'senior military person'.

As far as the article, don't forget there is a pysops campaign and two can play. Does Docherty exist?

[Wayitup]

And has the British media never called a warrant officer a senior military person?
Pontious Nav....Tut tut...'Warrant officers' ARE very senior military persons!!
:ok: :ok:

[GlosMikeP]

'Senior British Officer' - don't forget from the outside there is a perception of a pyramidal structure with lots of Privates and the bottom and fewer NCO/Officer above them. The concept of junior officer, field officer and general officer is lost on people. The status of a Captain, from their perception, especially in-theatre is high and not necessarily unwelcome at home.

In theatre what is the highest rank? 2*? Major-Lt Col-Brigadier - that makes Captain pretty important.

And has the British media never called a warrant officer a senior military person? There is one ppruner here who posts under his own name and I have seen him so described as a 'senior military person'.

As far as the article, don't forget there is a pysops campaign and two can play. Does Docherty exist?

Is not the greater point somewhat independent of whether this chap is junior or senior in rank.

As an ADC he was a man with excellent career path opportunities and he has thrown them all away on a point of principle. Something must be wrong.

[Compressorstall]

It's good to see that even in modern times, most of you can expend effort scoffing at his relatively junior rank.
Perhaps our young Capt shouldn't have broken ranks, but at the same time he is giving information about a campaign which isn't necessarily running on the same lines of our recent engagements.
The operation in Afghanistan is different to what we first envisaged and the Taliban and other associated elements have engaged in the kind of warfare they are very practised at. Everyone seems surprised that they have been prepared to stand and fight, but there has been some previous evidence to suggest that they would!
Through our actions, we probably have lost the ability to win the hearts and minds and what the young Capt is drawing the attention to is that whether we choose to win the war or to extract ourselves with dignity, this now needs to become the main effort and receive the level of resources needed to achieve the aim. The force we have doesn't deny ground and resources to the enemy significantly so they can fight, regroup and seek us out again.
If you read the text by the young Capt, he highlights the fortitude and stamina of our excellent troops - they need more like them to win and the equipment to support them.

[ORAC]

There would appear to be a dichotomy of opinion here. The general in charge says he justs needs 1000-2500 more frontline troops as a mobile force to finsih the job; the Canadian press report their forces are in negotiations with some taliban groups and, as I posted about a week ago, some of the more moderate chiefs want someone to come across the border and negotiate terms.

As stated, these are not all "taliban". The original taliban were religious fanatics who hated drug runners. The present lot are a mix of some hardliners, others paid by the drug barons who are afraid the troops are out to destroy the crops and village chieftains who fear the same.

There are a lot of villages who hate the taliban who have been burning down their schools and clinics and murdering the doctors and teachers more than the coalition. They are also aware that the aid and rebuilding promised is being prevented by the same.

You may wish to believe the Captain who has been picked up by the "impartial" press and given such wide publicity. The question is why you should disbelieve the officer commanding who has the greater knowledge and experience....

[nigegilb]

I am sorry ORAC but I read your post and laughed. Do you know anyone out in Afg at the mo? Had any contact with any paras out there?

Just wondered matey....

[South Bound]

Yawn, just another self-publicising individual choosing to go out with a bang rather than just going quietly. No doubt he will be providing expert advice to the media (definitely a Chinook, a Herc, an R1 errrrr). Yet again someone choosing to leave having a dig as he does so and leaving the whole campaign slightly weaker as a result, no matter how he praises the troops. What exactly has he achieved for the morale of his troops, their families or/and the Taleban come to think of it?

I don't care how gifted one is (and I DO NOT go along with the 'ADC hence special' lines above), these people really should stop and think. Not sure what gives him the right to spout about what his seniors are doing is wrong. Personally, when I leave (whatever my reasons) I hope to do so with dignity and support for those I leave behind.

[GlosMikeP]

I don't care how gifted one is (and I DO NOT go along with the 'ADC hence special' lines above).

I think you've missed my point. Few are selected for ADC appointments and those who are are normally destined for high rank. He knew it and the rest of us know it (or should) too.

He's thrown away a most promising career and all that goes with it. There are precious few who have the strength of character (even if misguided) to do it. It's a scorched earth policy of the most obvious visibility and I know of only 2 people who did it during my time in the Services.

Whether he's right is not the point; his willingness to put principles before rank, honours and awards is to be admired.

[ORAC]

nigegilb,

Sorry, but there seems to be so much gloom and doom and wailing. It´s like those who keep saying that Afganistan is unwinnable, remember the last time we were there, the Russians etc... Except, at the end of the second Afghan war we did kick their ass and kept the place quiet as a protectorate with minimal forces. We only left around 1919 because we had been so weakened in WWI and the Reds in Russia were starting to foment trouble and it wasn´t worth staying.

Afghanistan is not only winnable, it has to be won. If we don´t we prove, to the eyes of the rest of the world, that the taliban and Al Qaeda was right, that the West is a rotten shell, unwilling to fight or die for their beliefs, and only needs a push to defeat them. If that is believed, the numbers of recruits they`ll get - and the places they´ll have to train them, will make the present levels of terrorism and conflict look like a sunday school picnic.

[ORAC]

Few are selected for ADC appointments and those who are are normally destined for high rank Must be different in the army then. In the RAF they seemed to be chosen because the AOC liked their face. There was the certain FC ADC to the Scottish officer who comes to mind........

[nigegilb]

Don't disagree with any of that, I just ask that you cut the captain some slack. His heart is in the right place. The very senior officer's are generally hampered by politics, this man is not.

[South Bound]

Sorry, don't get carried away, none of us know how promising he was - it was only an ADC job carrying someone's bags and managing a diary. I think people are confusing ADC with PSO or MA as it is now - those are the boys (and girls) that are going places, not some ADC who has listened in to a fair amount of grown up conversations, but not been required to provide much insight of his own, just make coffee.

Bit harsh, but he was just a Captain and only an ADC, he has very little credibility in my eyes to comment on how the war is being run. He is entitled to his opinion, but just as long as we keep it in perspective and give more weight to those opinions we value, then we won't get carried away. Perhaps if 10 captains resigned, I might listen a bit more intently...

[GlosMikeP]

Must be different in the army then. In the RAF they seemed to be chosen because the AOC liked their face. There was the certain FC ADC to the Scottish officer who comes to mind........

I think I know the Scottish officer you mean; I worked for him at HQSTC when he was a mere Wg Cdr. Frankly I'd pity anyone of any rank who worked for him, even and FC!

[London Mil]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that he was ADC to a Colonel. Since when has this been a high profile duty? Most OF5s get along quite nicely with a Sgt.

[South Bound]

LM - absolutely agree. Probably best to let the boy go and work for daddy in the City somewhere without paying his rantings too much attention.

[GlosMikeP]

Sorry Southbound, too cynical by half. It takes guts to pack in a good career. He did it - I might not agree they style of his going, but he did it. Know anyone of any (better rank) who did or even thought of it? Done it yourself, perhaps (good for you if you have)?

Don't hear of many starred chaps handing in their notice on points of principle. Come to think of it, I can't think of even one in over 30 years. And at the moment there's plenty of opportunity around from what's going on on the home front, never mind abroad.

[Compressorstall]

Southbound - give the guy some slack. He has been out on the ground and worked around the sharp end enough to give an opinion, just like you are giving yours freely.

[ChristopherRobin]

GlosMikeP - sorry, but you're mistaken - ADC's are nothing special in my experience. Mostly 'bloody nice chaps' I have to say, but being a General's bag-carrier for 2 years hardly marks (or trains) one for greatness, never mind a Colonel's (who don't normally have them anyway, so I suspect typical 'medja' accuracy on this one).

Anyway, I'd like to see how he thinks he's qualified to sit in judgement of people who have been in the job longer than a wet weekend? Here, for your delectation, is Christopher Robin's prediction in an envelope:

I bet you that we will find, in due course, that said sprog got sacked by his boss for being crap or arrogant or both. Judging by the evidence, he probably couldn't keep his mouth shut when grown-ups were talking (don't you hate kids who keep interrupting?), and his boss offed him at the first opportunity. There now follows the biggest fit of pique since the time the Army got Apache instead of the RAF and our young chap has decided to call the guns in on his own position. Make no mistake, dinner invites will dry up pretty soon I should think. And then he fades into bitter obscurity as the whole of Fleet Street fails to realise that there is a slight difference between Capt RN and Capt RSDG.

I mean, if he was as clever and talented as some people suppose he might be, he'd get on here and whinge in anonymity, while telling his boss that Rommel wasn't a patch on you Sir!

zzzziiipppp!

[BEagle]

Despite the fact that this chap was only some colonel's horse-holder and bottom-wiper, he has acted quite bravely in saying 'FIIQ!'.

'The system', both military and social, will be out to nail him - but I'll bet that there are many who agree with him, but are insufficiently testiculated to say so in public.

As for PSOs being ear-marked for high rank, I am reminded of a colleague who once spent a brief time as an Air Marshal's pillow-plumper. "Where do you see yourself in 3 years time", asked The Man one day. "Hopefully flying for ba", quoth my colleague.

I think that was his last week as a PSO - they found someone more licky-tongue to massage The Man's ego....

[rmac]

"ADC to the regional commander", is like "secretary to the Managing Director", may not in itself be a senior rank/post, but has the tendency to become an invisible witness to command discussions and decisions. Add to this the possibility that said captain in his next job could be a company commander on the ground carrying out operations in the full knowledge of how stretched and limited his commanders are, would give him a fairly inside track in to survivability possibilities....

Maybe the boy is no fool, and is getting out of dodge with his parts intact...if I was still serving I would be trying to read between the lines and ask myself, what does he know that we don't ?

[SASless]

ChrisRob,

Is it possible for a Rupert to be binned for being arrogant?

[ChristopherRobin]

of course dear boy...if it's directed upward. Downward usually results in a fragging.

[Compressorstall]

Chris Robin - is this because you weren't invited to be an ADC?

This young officer has voiced an opinion that things have gone wrong and as he was placed alongside the CO Helmand Task Force/UK Task Force or whatever they are calling themselves this week, he has been uniquely qualified to comment since he wasn't always getting sucked into the myopic decisions that operations sometimes force upon commanders.

It would be more interesting to hear opinion from people who have served out there and seen the war first hand than from people who seek to pour scorn upon him for being a mere Capt. We were all there once and I remember frequent times when we middle management rushed to comment upon decisions of the higher-ups.

[ChristopherRobin]

yes I can see how you might think me jealous for not being invited to be at a senior officer's beck and call 24/7, take a bollocking every time the diary screws up, and beat the world record for brew making. ADC once yourself were you? might explain the sensitivity.
I merely applied the correction factor necessary to place ADCs in the big scheme of things, i.e. not very high up. No one is pouring scorn on the esteemed rank of Capt. I have no objection to his having an opinion (God knows, I voice mine often enough), but I would have thought that conversations he witnessed, actions he saw etc, he would have had the good grace to keep confidential which they were obviously intended to be. I wanted to offer a mildly amusing slant on events, but either it wasn't (quite possible), or your x chromosomes have decided that this is the wrong time of the month (more likely).
Anyway, who really cares? page 7 of the Telegraph today was it? tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper! My prediction remains in the envelope!

[GlosMikeP]

GlosMikeP - sorry, but you're mistaken - ADC's are nothing special in my experience. Mostly 'bloody nice chaps' I have to say, but being a General's bag-carrier for 2 years hardly marks (or trains) one for greatness, never mind a Colonel's (who don't normally have them anyway, so I suspect typical 'medja' accuracy on this one).

Anyway, I'd like to see how he thinks he's qualified to sit in judgement of people who have been in the job longer than a wet weekend? Here, for your delectation, is Christopher Robin's prediction in an envelope:

I bet you that we will find, in due course, that said sprog got sacked by his boss for being crap or arrogant or both. Judging by the evidence, he probably couldn't keep his mouth shut when grown-ups were talking (don't you hate kids who keep interrupting?), and his boss offed him at the first opportunity. There now follows the biggest fit of pique since the time the Army got Apache instead of the RAF and our young chap has decided to call the guns in on his own position. Make no mistake, dinner invites will dry up pretty soon I should think. And then he fades into bitter obscurity as the whole of Fleet Street fails to realise that there is a slight difference between Capt RN and Capt RSDG.

I mean, if he was as clever and talented as some people suppose he might be, he'd get on here and whinge in anonymity, while telling his boss that Rommel wasn't a patch on you Sir!

zzzziiipppp!

I'm well acquainted with the role of an ADC as I was offered the opportunity to do it for AOC 18Gp but turned it down in favour of something that interested me. I assume you did much the same when you were well enough thought of to be short-listed for such a post?

Others I know who did take up the challenge got early promotion and now have stars - having also passed through PSO slots en route. Good for them for having the gumption to put up with the bag carrying to see what a 2-star does, how he does it and get recognised if they do the job well.

The young Captain is as qualified to pass judgement as you are; and it's irrelevant in that context whether or not he was an ADC as you or I would recognise it. The difference is that his views have come out in print and people are interested to read them. Newspapers are a bit picky like that. I imagine no one would be in the slightest bit interested to read what you or I write or think, which is why we do so in obscurity and anonymity here and why the Captain's views are read by many. Anyway, hardly Katherine Gunn style revelations, wouldn't you say?

There is a lot of shouting going on, denigrating this chap from the safety of anonymity. If he has the backbone he appears to have he won't be bothered by it. I wouldn't. He seems to me a man of some principle (although I disagree with his views), which is a rare quality both in and out of the Services. I wonder how many of his critics here have half his iron and resolve?

A great man who rose from anonymity and poverty, to be one of the modern world's most widely acknowledged leaders in the most trying of circumstances, was given advice by his father, whose voice remained mellow and quiet when they were arguing, while the young man's voice grew louder and less coherent: "Shout less and improve your argument more". Good advice.

Who among the young Captain's critics here has thrown away his career and financial security for the sake of a principle, and so won the respect due from us all for doing what he believes is right rather than what is simply popular and easy?

[RileyDove]

ORAC - I would like to share your confidence in defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda but in reality it's a lost campaign. Our chance existed in the early days to decisively wipe out Bin Laden and his deputies but it didn't happen. Since then with the various abuses of Abu Graib and our Army in Iraq we have acted as the best recruiting sergeant that Al Qaeda could ever wish for.
You have a belie that Afgahnistan could become a free democratic society - the reality at present is of a government that only just aout contols Kabul. The borders are effectively open to anyone - how could we ever hope to stem the flow of weapons into the country ? Your living in the past when the RAF went out once a week and bombed the natives - the situation now is a defensive effort which puts our forces decidedly in danger.
Certainly we need to destroy Al Qaeda - however that can only be done clinically - wiping out the foot soldiers only brings more volunteers - it's the countries that supply and fund the effort that need to be diplomatically persuaded to stop the flow of weapons and Middle Eastern states educated to the threat to their ways of life.

[GlosMikeP]

ORAC - I would like to share your confidence in defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda but in reality it's a lost campaign. Our chance existed in the early days to decisively wipe out Bin Laden and his deputies but it didn't happen. Since then with the various abuses of Abu Graib and our Army in Iraq we have acted as the best recruiting sergeant that Al Qaeda could ever wish for.
You have a belie that Afgahnistan could become a free democratic society - the reality at present is of a government that only just aout contols Kabul. The borders are effectively open to anyone - how could we ever hope to stem the flow of weapons into the country ? Your living in the past when the RAF went out once a week and bombed the natives - the situation now is a defensive effort which puts our forces decidedly in danger.
Certainly we need to destroy Al Qaeda - however that can only be done clinically - wiping out the foot soldiers only brings more volunteers - it's the countries that supply and fund the effort that need to be diplomatically persuaded to stop the flow of weapons and Middle Eastern states educated to the threat to their ways of life.

Good assessment by the look of it: much as Gen Smith covered the problem on Newsnight tonight. Along the lines the military can only hope to create an environment in which other "levers of power" can prevail.

[SASless]

GMP and Riley,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml

I fail to see where the Americans are the torturers you refer to. The news article from a British Rag quotes Iraqi prisoners at the "infamous" prison as asking for the Americans to come back and run the prison. Seems they prefer our style of mistreatment to that of their own....either Saddam or Post Saddam.

Why do you think we cannot defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Care to set forth the basis for your opinions?

Estimates suggest we have knocked off about 5,000 of the rascals, have taken Afghanistan away from the Taliban and have made progress on thwarting Al Qaeda.

Absolutely the "war" will go on for quite a long time. Yes, more recruits will join the ranks of groups opposed to our non-Islamic societies but in time as political, economic, and diplomatic efforts make progress then that flow of recruits will dwindle.

The military side of this war is just one part of the effort. If the Western socieities will learn from the mistakes and become better at combatting not only the "forces" but the sources of those willing to fight, the better our progress will be.

Do you think if we withdrew all of our forces from Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt, Turkey and Spain.....the bad guys will go away and tend their goats?

Do you think giving the Palestinians their "homeland" will end that fuss?

The last time I checked.....when someone declares war on you and then attacks....killing thousands of your citizens.....you go at it hammer and tong until they no longer have the ability or desire to wage war against you.

What option do you provide to that which we do?

Or.....are you like the few that see GWB and TB as being the root of evil in the world?

[TheInquisitor]

Do you think if we withdrew all of our forces from Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt, Turkey and Spain.....the bad guys will go away and tend their goats?
No. This would hand 'them' victory on a plate, since this was Bin Laden's goal all along - to divorce the House of Saud from it's US backers and remove all western influence from the middle east, allowing him to finalise his REAL objective - to overthrow the Saudi royal family and take the kingdom's oil riches for himself. Let's not forget the Bin Laden family are no desparate paupers (the pathetic excuse given by many western bleeding hearts for suicide bombings) - they are, or were, before their assets were frozen, one of the Saudi kingdom's richest families.

The religious aspect of this conflict is simply another example of how power is maintained among the priviledged few in the Islamic world - keeping the 'masses' largely uneducated and ill-informed, whilst an almighty Cleric or Mullah, being the only person permitted to interpret the Q'oran (and often the only person who can read it), pronounces what is 'the will of Allah' to the populace. In short, a mass con to get the worldwide Islamic 'Ummah' chanting 'Death to America / Israel / Britain' whilst one small group of individuals persue their personal agenda.

Some maintain that this war is unwinnable - I disagree. Whilst it is true that British casualties seem now to be a weekly occurrence, they are, on the whole, coming in single figures. The Taliban and their 'hired/coerced guns', whilst putting up fierce resistance, are still getting their clocks comprehensively cleaned at every meeting - a fact that seems to be lost on the 'We are losing in Afghanistan' brigade prevalent in the left-wing media. Despite that fact that we went in with a force far too small for the job, we are succeeding in keeping the Taliban in their box, if not eradicating them altogether. They cannot hope to prevail at the current attrition rate we are inflicting upon them, and they are no longer the large-scale strategic threat they once were (as evidenced by the fact they have to pay or coerce ordinary Afghans to go and do the shooting for them in many cases). I believe that the only way we can totally 'lose' this war is by pulling out and not fighting it - exactly what Bin Liner wants.

Whilst many will admire the young Captain's principled stand, I suspect it may not have been such a great sacrifice - many of his ilk would not be throwing away a livelihood by resigning their commision, as they tend to come from well-heeled families. Standing by one's principles, as noble a concept as it is, has never resolved a conflict on this scale. A steely determination to succeed, often against the odds and public opinion, coupled with judicious practice of good, old-fashioned realpolitik, has solved more disputes and ended more wars than ANY ideology.

I have yet to hear any critics of current US / UK foreign policy offer any credible alternative.

[ORAC]

RileyDove, GlosMikeP,

That might be what the retired airchair warriors that are on the TV say, and of course the channels search around till they find someone with the opinion they want; but it is not the view of the man in charge. As I said previously, the officer commanding, General Richards, thinks they are winning. On what grounds do you disbelieve him and believe others without his local knowledge?

Torygraph:We're on the way to defeating Taliban
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/12/wafghan12.xml)

If we are losing, it is the war in the TV studios and for public opinion. Our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are less than we took year on year out in Northern Ireland, but we are being persuaded this is an unwinnable war and we should pull out.

The situation is remeniscent of Vietnam after the Tet Offensive. It was the North´s greatest military defeat of the war, but made out as a victory and led to the mass withdrawal of US troops. If, and it seems possible looking at todays Times (NATO Rejects Appeal for Troops (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2353444,00.html) ), there is such little support for this fight, maybe we ought to pull out. Not because we are losing the battle, but because the country has no heart for the war. A view that seems to be echoed even on this forum.

Perhaps we all ought to go out and buy our prayer mats before the rush starts....

[GlosMikeP]

RileyDove, GlosMikeP,

That might be what the retired airchair warriors that are on the TV say, and of course the channels search around till they find someone with the opinion they want; but it is not the view of the man in charge. As I said previously, the officer commanding, General Richards, thinks they are winning. On what grounds do you disbelieve him and believe others without his local knowledge?

Torygraph:We're on the way to defeating Taliban
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/12/wafghan12.xml)

If we are losing, it is the war in the TV studios and for public opinion. Our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are less than we took year on year out in Northern Ireland, but we are being persuaded this is an unwinnable war and we should pull out.

The situation is remeniscent of Vietnam after the Tet Offensive. It was the North´s greatest military defeat of the war, but made out as a victory and led to the mass withdrawal of US troops. If, and it seems possible looking at todays Times (NATO Rejects Appeal for Troops (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2353444,00.html) ), there is such little support for this fight, maybe we ought to pull out. Not because we are losing the battle, but because the country has no heart for the war. A view that seems to be echoed even on this forum.

Perhaps we all ought to go out and buy our prayer mats before the rush starts....

Sorry chaps, I wasn't so much in the are we winning or losing mode; merely reporting that Gen Smith had said on Newsnight (I think he warrants a bit more consideration than being an armchair warrior) the military couldn't do it all on their own.

The gist of his, and another voice of good reason for many years, Shirley Williams, argument was that it needs a political process to finish the job, but to get there needs the military to create the environment in which the political solution can be scoped without everyone being bombed into oblivion.

However, I do wonder if we haven't bitten off more than we can chew, as every fanatic and mercenary with a grudge against democracy for miles around will be drawn into the fray. History suggests Afghanistan isn't a good place for outsiders. We found that out, as of course did the Soviets.

[ORAC]

The gist of his, and another voice of good reason for many years, Shirley Williams, argument was that it needs a political process to finish the job So, what exactly are you talking about?

There is an elected government in Kabul from elections ceritified, supervised and approved by the U.N. The coalition is certainly talking and is a partner with them. Or should we bypass the elected government?

The general in the field is talking ot the local governor who is talking to the local chieftains - its how things work. The complaint seems to be over how he suggested things should be done, with outposts where the troops where visible, rather than concentrating in the towns. Maybe he was wrong, the new general seems to think so, but there was certainly a political process.

Perhaps you mean talk to the taliban? As I have posted previously, there is a dialogue with moderate taliban who want negotiators to cross the border to talk to chieftains on the Pakistan side, so that is ongoing. There is certainly no centralised taliban "leadership" to talk too.

I have a certain cynical suspicion that when certain politicians and groups people say we should have a political process, what they really mean is we should stop fighting and find someone we can sign a nominal, meaningless, ceasefire with, and then bring the troops home. Then when it starts again we can ignore it, as long as they leave us alone....

[GlosMikeP]

I have a certain cynical suspicion that when certain politicians and groups people say we should have a political process, what they really mean is we should stop fighting and find someone we can sign a nominal, meaningless, ceasefire with, and then bring the troops home. Then when it starts again we can ignore it, as long as they leave us alone....

No that wasn't the gist of the discussion. Quite the opposite in fact. Have a look at the Newsnight website, you might be able to get a replay.

[SASless]

GMP,

The British were in Afghanistan for the wrong reasons the last two times you were there. The Russians were there for the wrong reasons when they were there. As you recall, this time the Coalition forces are there for the right reasons and have the support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are not seen as being in the right by the vast majority of the Afghani's.

We have not bitten off more than we can chew....the overthrow of the Taliban demonstrated that. We must build upon that military defeat of the Taliban by providing the security under which all of the other work can be done.

I strongly suggest it is far better to be dealing with all of the crackpots in a place like Tora Bora rather than Picadilly and if they wish to have their shot at us, then Afghanistan is quite convenient. Please....please....let them come together in large groups and stand and fight.

As long as we have the three B's (1,2, and 52) we can deal with concentrations of Taliban.....without much risk.

[GlosMikeP]

GMP,

The British were in Afghanistan for the wrong reasons the last two times you were there. The Russians were there for the wrong reasons when they were there. As you recall, this time the Coalition forces are there for the right reasons and have the support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are not seen as being in the right by the vast majority of the Afghani's.

We have not bitten off more than we can chew....the overthrow of the Taliban demonstrated that. We must build upon that military defeat of the Taliban by providing the security under which all of the other work can be done.

I strongly suggest it is far better to be dealing with all of the crackpots in a place like Tora Bora rather than Picadilly and if they wish to have their shot at us, then Afghanistan is quite convenient. Please....please....let them come together in large groups and stand and fight.

As long as we have the three B's (1,2, and 52) we can deal with concentrations of Taliban.....without much risk.

I sincerely hope you're right. Time will tell.

The trouble is I doubt the Taliban are the whole story. There are bound to be lots of nasty folks tripping there claiming to be tourists who are in fact just spoiling for a fight, and who don't care whether they live or die in the process.

Crikey, it's hard enough to secure an airfield, let alone an entire country.

[SASless]

The longest journey starts with but a single step....

[GlosMikeP]

Just so. Fighting and winning some control over the region is the first of the steps, but not by any means the last.

The next has to be hearts and minds so that society, agriculture and industry can flourish outside of Kabul. That's not a military task; but it needs the continued presence of a credible fighting force to keep the peace while it takes hold.

It should be all done in about 50 years, give or take a bit.

[RileyDove]

SASLESS - Please pass me your rose tinted glasses! The production of poppies is at a higher level than during the reign of the Taliban and you could argue that yes agriculture is flourishing there under our power! Amazing that all the forces in the past were there for the wrong reasons but the coalition is right! How do you ever contemplate an end to it? If we cannot make it safe for the government to control outside Kabul how can there be any law and order?
As for your notes on Abu Graib - the situation there was dreadful and you must be one of the few people who cannot see what damage that did to U.S interests. Add to that the situation with Guantanamo Bay and it should really come as no surprise that the fight in the hearts and minds isn't working.
The U.S directly intervened in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and it should really be accepted that some of the battle hardened Taliban gained their knowledge from the U.S. By continuing to think that the Taliban should come out in force and let you carpet bomb them is bizarre - surely the doctrines that were learnt in Vietnam and subsequent
wars must get the idea in the head that the Taliban are never going to have a battle like something in a Western!

[SASless]

Riley,

Recent reports show the Taliban will gather...and get whacked when they do.

The abuses of Abu Gharib were way overblown by the liberal media...just when exactly was the last time the BBC, CNN or CBS ever decry terrorist attacks?

Has the New York Times ever leaked information harmful to the Terrorists?

You may not like Gitmo....but what would you do instead? How would you handle captured enemy combatants?

Poppies have been grown in Afghanistan, Iran, and many other places no matter which government was in charge....and the world has survived. Look at the "war on drugs" we proclaim here in the USA...talk about failure!

The USA certainly assisted the Muj in their fight against the Russians.....a bit of pay back for Vietnam and a real part of the Cold War....which you recall was won and Communism was defeated.

How long did the Cold War last....how many periods of open combat did we have during that....Korea, Vietnam, Malaya....spring to mind.

Why this fixation with "Hearts and Minds".....that is but one small part of the overall situation. A Vietnam era cartoon showed Private Snuffy telling his Civic Affairs Officer "When you have'em by the balls....their hearts and minds will follow!"

That is just as true today as it was then....you notice the invincible Afghan fighters found themselves outclassed when the SF's showed up with radio gear that connected them to CAS on call. Nothing has changed in that regard. If we dedicate enough troop strength and intelligence assets for the job....it will fall into place just as it did before.

I am sure Churchill did not care too much about A. Hitler getting into a real snit over something you folks did during WWII....why should we worry so much about pissing people off now. If we are effective in combatting the Terrorists and the Radical Fundalmentalists....they might get miffed but in time they will fail and realize the futility of what they seek to do.

We certainly cannot achieve that by half measures and weak hearted attempts.

Some seem to overlook the small fact that the other side pissed the ordinary American off when they did the 911 attacks. We had a National Day of Remembrance yesterday marking the Fifth Anniversiary....we have not forgotten about that attack and what it means. Our Liberal Democrats have....but not the majority of the people in the country.

[GlosMikeP]

Riley,

Recent reports show the Taliban will gather...and get whacked when they do.

The abuses of Abu Gharib were way overblown by the liberal media...just when exactly was the last time the BBC, CNN or CBS ever decry terrorist attacks?

Has the New York Times ever leaked information harmful to the Terrorists?

You may not like Gitmo....but what would you do instead? How would you handle captured enemy combatants?

Poppies have been grown in Afghanistan, Iran, and many other places no matter which government was in charge....and the world has survived. Look at the "war on drugs" we proclaim here in the USA...talk about failure!

The USA certainly assisted the Muj in their fight against the Russians.....a bit of pay back for Vietnam and a real part of the Cold War....which you recall was won and Communism was defeated.

How long did the Cold War last....how many periods of open combat did we have during that....Korea, Vietnam, Malaya....spring to mind.

Why this fixation with "Hearts and Minds".....that is but one small part of the overall situation. A Vietnam era cartoon showed Private Snuffy telling his Civic Affairs Officer "When you have'em by the balls....their hearts and minds will follow!"

That is just as true today as it was then....you notice the invincible Afghan fighters found themselves outclassed when the SF's showed up with radio gear that connected them to CAS on call. Nothing has changed in that regard. If we dedicate enough troop strength and intelligence assets for the job....it will fall into place just as it did before.

I am sure Churchill did not care too much about A. Hitler getting into a real snit over something you folks did during WWII....why should we worry so much about pissing people off now. If we are effective in combatting the Terrorists and the Radical Fundalmentalists....they might get miffed but in time they will fail and realize the futility of what they seek to do.

We certainly cannot achieve that by half measures and weak hearted attempts.

Some seem to overlook the small fact that the other side pissed the ordinary American off when they did the 911 attacks. We had a National Day of Remembrance yesterday marking the Fifth Anniversiary....we have not forgotten about that attack and what it means. Our Liberal Democrats have....but not the majority of the people in the country.

Oh gosh, where to start.

Whacking people makes them cross and more resilient. It's control that's needed, not killing them all - and that needs hearts and minds, which the Brits are rather good at, US not so.

Killing lots of people merely breeds more bad blood that goes on down through generations, handed father to son, to grandson. If you need an example of this, Dutch grandmothers still tell their grandchildren how awful the Germans are and teach them that they must continue to tend the graves of the British soldiers who died at Arneham and elsewhere in Holland. I lived there.

The problem with incidents such as Abu Gharib is that it did happen and the story got out. If it hadn't happened, there would have been no story and no proper reason for complaint. The fact it might not have been as bad as painted in the western media doesn't matter - it certainly won't matter to those who want to be persuaded we're the bad guys. There are some pretty nasty folks out there who don't care it was overblown - it was a heaven sent media opportunity for them to foment anger and hatred with huge numbers of volatile, if not very bright, muslims who now believe (wrongly as it stands) UK and US are against muslims. Frankly, some US soldiers - only a very few I grant you, and well and rightly punished - helped squander US total and rightful occupation of the moral high ground. Trust is hard won and so easily lost.

Poppies. All the time there's no way to develop an agrarian economy - because there's no, or not enough, farming and commercial infrastructure, the farmers will keep going back to what they know they can generate quick and staedy money from. Again, a hearts and minds campaign, won with some sensible practical help - wells, tractors, ploughs, etc - will win over bullets. You can't shoot everyone into not farming poppies.

Malaya is a good example of how to 'do it'. Slim denied the insurgents ground by restricting what was available to them for food etc, and by winning hearts and minds of the local population. I lived there. It worked.

Guantanamo's existence is a disgrace to a great nation so quick to mention the need for democracy under the rule of law to others - not least Iraq and Afghanistan - and of bringing criminals to justice. It is a mark of civilisation that the rule of law must prevail and that all falling foul of it should be charged, brought to court to be judged by their peers and have fair representation of their defence. If a civilised nation can't do that, it can't hold the moral high ground when preaching to others that they should.

[South Bound]

(Note: no overlarge quote of previous post)

You are missing the point - how does one win the heart and mind of a fundamentalist terrorist/freedom fighter/whatever prepared to do anything for his cause? If that can't be done, how does one protect the normal civilian on the street from the excesses of that fundamentalist? One can't; hence, even though the majority of the population of I and A understand that the fundamentalists are not doing them any favours, they continue to work for them or under the fear of violence whether this be growing poppies or whatever. Until the West can protect the normal populace, or enable a lawful Government to provide that protection, the fundamentalists must be hunted and shown to be impotent. We have no choice, we can no longer walk away and leave the locals to be murdered, forced to grow drugs, denied education/healthcare/equal rights for girls etc. If the fundamentalists will not sit down and talk, then they must be removed from the equation.

Alternatively, we could pretend they don't exist and hope things will get better and then let 9/11 happen all over again...

Anyway, back to the original thread. What I said earlier was that the general population should give little weight to the views of the junior officer in question. He is neither special, nor annointed for greatness in any way. He is entitled to his view, but in using it as an excuse for leaving so publicly, he is only damaging what remains. Johnnie Para's Mum and Dad should not have to listen to his rantings, especially as it is wholly inappropriate for MoD to go on record to counter them. This sort of thing makes me angry.

[SASless]

GMP,

You evaded the question...."How would you deal with the enemy combatants captured in battle with coalition forces?" Where would you detain them? How long would you detain them? Would you try them for war crimes under the Rules of War? Under what jurisdiction would you try them?

How long were German POW's held during WWII? They were uniformed soldiers in a recognized military force and to some degree obeyed the Rules of War themselves. That is not the case for the combatants being held in Gitmo.

Malaya has been held up as "the" way to fight an insurgency because it was successful. Too many fail to admit the differences between it and Vietnam and both Iraq and Afghanistan. The ability to cut off supplies and arms, the ability to identify the insurgents, and the different mindset of those engaged in the insurgency being a few.

How many insurgents in Malaya perpetrated sucide bombings during their campaign of violence?

Were the supporters and recruiters of the insurgency allowed to work in the open as happens now in the UK? Was the government so tolerant of those kinds of activities as they are now in the UK?

Are the Al Qaeda Terrorists arrested in the UK criminals or combatants?

Did not the British government execute the vast majority of German spies and saboteurs arrested in the UK during WWII? What is different now?

[GlosMikeP]

GMP,

You evaded the question...."How would you deal with the enemy combatants captured in battle with coalition forces?" Where would you detain them? How long would you detain them? Would you try them for war crimes under the Rules of War? Under what jurisdiction would you try them?

How long were German POW's held during WWII? They were uniformed soldiers in a recognized military force and to some degree obeyed the Rules of War themselves. That is not the case for the combatants being held in Gitmo.

Malaya has been held up as "the" way to fight an insurgency because it was successful. Too many fail to admit the differences between it and Vietnam and both Iraq and Afghanistan. The ability to cut off supplies and arms, the ability to identify the insurgents, and the different mindset of those engaged in the insurgency being a few.

How many insurgents in Malaya perpetrated sucide bombings during their campaign of violence?

Were the supporters and recruiters of the insurgency allowed to work in the open as happens now in the UK? Was the government so tolerant of those kinds of activities as they are now in the UK?

Are the Al Qaeda Terrorists arrested in the UK criminals or combatants?

Did not the British government execute the vast majority of German spies and saboteurs arrested in the UK during WWII? What is different now?

I'd deal with them openly either as Prisoners of War under the terms of the Geneva Conventions or as offenders under normal civil/criminal law.

Either way delivers justice that is open, accountable and verifiable and above all, fair. Incidentally, being a POW does not mean anyone can escape prosecution for civil or criminal offences commited. There is full liability.

I'd leave it to the offices of law to decide which is the best law course to take, be they the powers of occupation' rights and responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions (with use of the International Courts of Justice at The Hague if necessary); the new democratic regimes' codes of law; or the law of the land in US or UK according to statutes passed by their respective governments.

That's democracy at work under the rule of law.

[South Bound]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, you don't need to quote everything, it is only just above your post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SASless]

In the political debate that is raging today in the United States, our view is that both sides are quite wrong. The administration's argument for building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan misses the point that the United States cannot be successful in this, because it lacks the force to carry out the mission. The administration's critics, who argue that Iraq particularly diverted attention from fighting al Qaeda, fail to appreciate the complex matrix of relationships the United States was trying to adjust with its invasion of Iraq.

The administration is incapable of admitting that it has overreached and led U.S. forces into an impossible position. Its critics fail to understand the intricate connections between the administration's various actions and the failure of al Qaeda to strike inside the United States for five years.

Stratfor analysis of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan....basically states the Coalition forces deployed to the two locations are in an unwinnable situation based upon lack of troop strength and wrongly stated goals but supports the need for operations in both locations....but for greatly different reasons than publically declared.

[rmac]

Lot of opinion flying about on this thread. Difficult to fault the arguments on many sides. However, what about considering things from a practical angle of budget vs. effectiveness.

Firstly a reminder, as we all should know, its not airpower that wins a war, its PBI (poor bloody infantry), dominating the ground, flying the flag, preventing the enemy from operating in a close tactical sense. In order to do that there is a requirement in a place like Afghanistan for lots of them, which we don't have, and if we did they would be expensive ! as they would need protected transport (armour and heli's) resupply (lots of heli's, fixed wing and armour again !) etc etc.

It comes to mind that the powers that be are just not treating this war business with the seriousness that it deserves. Effectively trying to mount multiple war fighting tasks on a global basis, against a committed enemy which has sworn if possible to overthrow our system by whatever means necessary, with a peacetime-plus budget. It would be rather unfortunate if a global war would have to upset the lives of the general population and put a strain on their budget, or their right to travel on holiday to Thailand, so lets outsource the conflict to "the military" its their problem, and woe-betide them if they ask for more money to do it.

Either this whole AQ/Talibans just a big political game for smartie points, in which case lets get the politicos down to the stores and issue them up some kit, or it is a serious global threat in which case lets get the nation ramped up and do the job properly !

Strongpoints full of well trained troops, creating a large indigenous body count on a daily basis creates nothing but deep mass graves and growing local resentment from those we are supposed to be helping. Don't expect Afghan villagers to have a sophisticated view on global current affairs ! they will see dead Afghans, full stop. Unless we get out, defeat the enemy, dominate the ground and get the process of building the country underway again, we lose ! regardless of the body count, simple as that !

For that to happen the proper resources are required.

[brain fade]

IMHO this is an unwinnable war and the only reason we're interested in Afghanistan is because it has strategic value as a route for an oil pipeline from the Caspian sea. In fact the US bases lie in a string along the route! We don't give a f*ck about the 'Afghan people' and neither do the Americans, despite all the jaw jaw. If the Afghans can't be bothered fighting the Taliban then why should we?

People often say 'it's better to be fighting them in Tora Bora than fighting them in the UK or the USA. Why? If we fought them here we might win!

As always it would be better if the causes of terrorism were addressed rather than simply trying ever more extreme measures to put out the fires lit by these often legitamate grievances.

I'm sorry that Britains reputation world wide has been trashed by our ill advised support of the Americans. In this region, up to now, the UK was regarded as a country that 'played fair', if hard.

I say 'hats off' to this Captain who has had first hand experience of what's going on here, unlike most of us, and had the courage to act and speak out.:ok: