PDA

View Full Version : 15 dead in 10 days !


rmac
11th Jul 2009, 08:41
15 dead in 10 days, which is give or take 10% of the total casualties over the entire Afghanistan campaign so far.

Is it a case of the taliban getting wiser, refusing to come head to head with superior first world technology and opting for a guerilla grind ?

Does this indicate that Helmand will become a South Armagh scenario with Helo's being the main mode of transport.

Where are the helo's ?(other thread) :ugh:

Whats the prognosis from you guys closer to the action ?

BoeingMEL
11th Jul 2009, 08:57
For as long as our boys are ferried to the front in Bacofoil bangers the losses will mount. The effectiveness and efficiency of the MODPE in recent years has been lamentable. (Wokka, Herc, Apache et al). Why is no-one ever held accountable when brand-new but unusable equipment languishes ... often for years? The whole thing stinks and won't change any time soon. Whatever the outcome, history will record that our boys conducted themselves with distinction. Good luck to them all. bm :confused:

collbar
11th Jul 2009, 09:57
Interesting to hear various ministers spouting on about how much has been spent recenty on new vehicals. This is probably the least amount they could get away with!! If Gordon Brown had provided the cash initially to fund the proper level of troops to do the job, then we would have been well into the reconstrusion phase by now. By proper i mean enough to take and hold the land.The Taliban would have been pushed out of the area before they could adapt tactics and get back at us. Interesting to hear the NI troop levels, up to 15000 troops for an area 3- 4 times(ish) smaller that Helmand!! How on earth did the Goverment ever think the small Brit force that went into Helmand in 2006 could hold such a vast area with so few troops. The fact of the mater is the now Prime minister buy scrimping on the initall push has ended up paying through the nose, in cash and importantly lives!!

Double Zero
11th Jul 2009, 10:12
I saw a vehicle designed expressly for these conditions, including IED's ( Ranger ? ) - but no doubt it costs more than a Landrover...

As for helicopters, I simply cannot understand why we don't have a lot more in general, not just military - it would certainly perk up Westlands, even if under foreign ownership it's still a lot of British jobs.

I'm always annoyed to say the least when I see hospitals relying on charity for emergency helo's...

Maybe an appeal should go out, Dunkirk style, for all the berks who fly to race meetings to donate their aircraft & pilots - I live fairly near Goodwood, and there's normally a civilian helo' passing whenever one looks up; meanwhile the parish magazine is wingeing about night flights by Chinooks, disregarding they might be doing it for a good reason !

rmac
11th Jul 2009, 12:46
Collbar,

In considering troop levels in NI, don´t forget that they were supported by a large portion of the population.

Think more about the soviet troop levels in Afghanistan.....

FantomZorbin
11th Jul 2009, 15:43
We hear about those who have fallen - may they rest in peace - but how many wounded are there who must face the future with crippling injuries?

I am led to believe that last year the number of wounded amounted to about 1000 per month at one time.

air pig
11th Jul 2009, 16:30
Rest in Peace to those who have fallen from whatever cause on operations, condolences to the family, friends and colleagues, may you have the strength for go forward in the future whilst mourning for your loss. For those injured that you may get better soon and recover the best you can and my undying contempt for the worthless politicians who put you in the position you where in, without adequate reason or equipment, may they forever live with the nightmares that the aforementioned will suffer every day of their lives.

Again RiP and pray there will be no more but at present that seems very unlikely.

This should not descend in to an interservice rivalry, let all service chiefs go forward and demand what they need not what they are prepared to accept from the politicians.

Air Pig.

Double Zero
11th Jul 2009, 16:35
I was thinking the same thing re. injured personnel, once again it seems down to charity - once beyond Selly Oak - to help people who've given so much.

I think we've just suffered a lot of wounded, as well as dead; it's easy for me to sit on my comfy chair and say ' something must be done ' but what is the real answer ?

I for one would be willing to put my limited resources to help ( for example my sailing club offers boats & training including moi for the disabled, with some grant funding towards the boats & stairlift ) but that's not enough, and really ought to be down to the government to repay their debt - no matter which political flavour.

air pig
11th Jul 2009, 16:53
I suspect NO politician ever knows what war is like, unless they have been there or had family members there. This lot of so called peoples representatives have NO idea of danger or service to their Country, just what they can get out of it for themselves. They do not remember JFK's words, 'Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your Country' maybe they should reflect on his words and learn a lesson, a country is only as strong as those who defend it.

Whatever you may feel about Her Majesty, her family have been there done that and got a 'T' shirt. At least they can look the bereaved and wounded in the face and say 'There but for the grace of God go I'

Air Pig.

Double Zero
11th Jul 2009, 16:59
Now how about their donating a few million for a hospice and after-care then ?

They can afford it, and it's desperately needed, so sod whether it sets a precedent & lets the government off the hook, it's required right now, the details can wait.

On the same tack, a short 'tour' in Afghanistan wouldn't do any harm ( ?! ) to a multi-political party bunch, as long as they didn't insist on mega-protection, which I suspect they would...

Mr C Hinecap
11th Jul 2009, 17:28
There are a couple of major offensive ops under way at the moment - as mentioned in the news as well. When we go out looking for trouble, there will always be more bloodshed.

Helicopters are not going to stop the deaths either - although a few more would help things. We still need troops on the ground and that isn't going to go away regardless of the technology. It is also technology and medical advances that ensure more survive what would have killed them 20 years ago - giving us the higher numbers of wounded returning.

L J R
11th Jul 2009, 18:03
Why are Obama's travels more of a newsworthy event on the BBCs Web pages.!!!! ???

muppetofthenorth
11th Jul 2009, 20:03
Why are Obama's travels more of a newsworthy event on the BBCs Web pages.!!!! ???


Because when you look at the BBC News from a World perspective then that is the bigger story. Go to the UK news and the lead story is Brown's argument that it is worthwhile us being there.

Only takes one click:ok:

Saintsman
11th Jul 2009, 20:07
Not that it's any consolation, but I imagine the Afghan death toll is much higher. Far too many will die before it ends and we all know no one will really win.

We will eventually agree a truce and either walk away, or more likely, look the other way.

fantaman
11th Jul 2009, 20:22
Crazy, just crazy. How long will it be before the public turn on the government and tell them that enough is enough. How many more have to pay the ultimate sacrifice before Gordon Brown and his monkeys decide that what we are doing is not enough and their so called strategy, is not working.

LFFC
11th Jul 2009, 20:32
Labour clashes with army as Afghan death toll mounts - TimesOnline, 12 Jul 09 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6689952.ece)

David Crausby, a Labour member of the Commons defence committee, added: “It is not appropriate to play party politics at this time. Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict if there are lessons to be learnt we should do so in a considered manner.”

That strikes me as being a bit late! :mad:

Avitor
11th Jul 2009, 20:42
Where are the personnel needed to hold the ground that has been fought for and lives lost?
Not to mention the wounded.

It is my contention that we must withdraw. Our boys are not adequately equipped. Gordon Brown has not convinced me at all.
The ramblings of (parrot) Ainsworth nauseate me.

vernon99
11th Jul 2009, 20:43
reading the times article, we have 10 chinooks for 5000 soldiers, the US Marines have 8000 soldiers, but 120 chinooks at their disposal! :eek:

Norman Stanley Fletcher
12th Jul 2009, 02:59
Freedom does not come free - the cost of democracy for the world is victory in a vicious war against a dangerous foe. Poor tactics, insufficient and incorrect equipment coupled to a lack of direction makes this a conflict with no end in sight. The hideous truth is that there are UK children not yet born who will die and be maimed in Afghanistan as young soldiers in our army. The least we owe them is the provision of sufficient and appropriate equipment to do the job.

Those who say we should leave are failing to see that 90% of the West's heroin supply comes from Afghanistan, not to mention the virtual guarantee of a return to a terrorist training camp on vast scale. We need to recognise that this is going to run and run - we simply have to win here. There is, alas, no shortage of Muslim young men desperate to depart to a better life beyond the grave - their future guaranteed through taking infidels with them in the Jihad of the day. Not all Muslims hold that view, but enough do to guarantee a generation of future conflict. My heart goes out to the grieving families of our fallen and maimed servicemen. And yet, not to fight would only destory our whole future.

SRENNAPS
12th Jul 2009, 08:13
Those who say we should leave are failing to see that 90% of the West's heroin supply comes from Afghanistan

So are we there to sort the heroin problem out or the Taliban?? I was under the belief that the Taliban outlawed opium cultivation when they were in power!!

Anyway, why don’t we just burn the poppy fields; that would be one problem sorted...but I think we know the answer to that.:ugh::ugh:

I am not saying we should leave, but we need to define the real enemy, stop appeasing those that pretend not to be our enemy, and sort the problem out properly, with the right resources in place to do the job.

vernon99
12th Jul 2009, 08:35
the answer to the poppy fields, is to initially buy the crops from the farmers, so they get used to trusting us to pay, and then ask them to grow something else and pay more for it, maybe they could they grow food crops, if not maybe crops to make BIO fuels? Either way the farmer simply needs money to survive.

It is strange that the newspapers are not reporting a reduction in drug use/importation, you would have thought by now we would have had an effect, maybe another region is picking up the shortfall?

Co-Captain
12th Jul 2009, 10:43
NSF - quite an alarmist stance you have there. Similar to one held by the American government in dealing with the 'menace' that was Vietnam! That country and its people, not to mention the world, seemed to cope eventually once its western occupiers left en masse. I have no doubt that Afghanistan will return to how it was when we leave and the locals will shrug their shoulders at yet another failed military campaign inflicted on them.

Yes, 'global terrorism' will once again have a foothold there but 'twas ever thus. While we're there, it will simply go elsewhere, and so we may as well try and empty a river with a bucket. Its time to accept that this notion of going back to "good old fashioned soldiering", so sought after when we first went in, has backfired spectacularly. Lets pool our resources into a world class, terrorist defeating intelligence system and bring an end to this half-baked operation in the desert.

A parting shot from the late Robert McNamara: The US government, knowing Vietnam was un-winnable, planned a withdrawal years before it decided to action it. In that time, thousands of troops died. He is quoted as saying "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion" and that quite simply, they [the politicians] did not know what they were doing. Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Two's in
12th Jul 2009, 20:31
...not to mention the virtual guarantee of a return to a terrorist training camp on vast scale. We need to recognise that this is going to run and run - we simply have to win here.

Errr, win what exactly? The single lack of a Military Objective is the main reason for the nature of the conflict, and has been since the real terrorists were allowed to return to Pakistan during the 2001 Tora Bora hide and seek finals (which Al Queda won). Lack of decisive Military action then set the scene for today's farrago.

When Johnny Taliban can pop out and fire a few RPG 7 rounds, set a few IED's and be back in time for tea, the only thing that will thwart his success is the lack of viable targets. This Government's policy seems determined not to deny him access to those targets, or frustrate him by protecting those targets in any meaningful way.

By perpetuating this myth that we must "win" something that has no attainable objective, we simply ensure that some of the most unswerving loyalty and courage by today's Forces is squandered on some cheap political face saving exercise.

Sunfish
12th Jul 2009, 20:49
Wall the whole place off and forget about it. Pay the tribes like was done 100 years ago to keep peace along the border.

Brian Abraham
13th Jul 2009, 05:27
the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion
From what I understand McNamara did not quite say that. In his book "Argument without End" Mcnamara asked the question in Chapter 7 ‘Was military victory in Vietnam a dangerous illusion?’. Colonel Schandler (West Point graduate who served two combat tours in Vietnam, later took a PhD at Harvard in history, has written several books on Vietnam for the last ten or twenty years, has taught as a Professor of Military Strategy at the National Defense University) was asked by McNamara to write the chapter and in part he wrote,

‘The achievement of a military victory by US forces was indeed a dangerous illusion. At no time, beginning with the increase of US military advisers early in the Kennedy administration to the final withdrawal of American troops during the Nixon administration, would it have been possible at acceptable cost in terms of American and Vietnamese lives lost and without the risk of war with China or Russia to achieve a military victory in Vietnam.
The American failure in Vietnam was not a failure caused by the limitations placed upon military action. The American failure was caused by a lack of realisation that military power could not solve what was fundamentally a political problem. In the last analysis the US effort in Vietnam failed largely because it could not sufficiently revamp or adequately substitute for a South Vietnamese leadership, administration and armed forces inadequate to the task.’

As a participant, whose family paid dearly, I'm more inclined to the sentiments expressed by another,

The anti war movement in the US and the political pressure put on the politicians by the draft dodging peace loving crowd and the liberal media and their non support for the war is what ultimately brought down the US efforts to be successfull in South Vietnam

Many would argue that the military did win. Tet 68, for example, was played by the media as a humilitating defeat for the Allies when in fact it was a resounding win (militarily).

kaikohe76
13th Jul 2009, 05:56
As I have suggested before, if the CDS & his Senior Colleagues are getting absolutely nowehere with the present shower of a Government, bypass them & approach the Queen directly. I am sure the most gracious lady would be interested to learn of the state of the Armed Forces at present, in particular those presently in any active operational theatre. For sure, HMthe Q will not & is not being given the full & correct situation in any briefings she may get from Gordon's & his cronies.

God Bless all of the members of our Armed Forces who have tragically lost their lives, you & your families are forever in our thoughts.