Afghanistan

[minigundiplomat]

Afghanistan was always winnable.

We made it unwinnable by attempting to fight it with one hand tied behind our back. Our adherence to international law (all for it), coupled with the enemies disregard for any laws other than Allah's mean we will always be at a disdvantage.

It is well documented that as the Apaches turn up during a TIC, the EF will drop their AK into the ground and pick up a shovel, safe in the knowledge that the ROE is on their side.

I agree with international law, but if it negates any significant military progress, it begs the question of what we hope to achieve.

Added to this, we sent far too few bayonets to Helmand in 2006 and allowed them to be pinned down by Karzai and the regional governors, in compounds with little chance of resupply.

We then compounded this by not explaining to the British public what the aims of the mission were. Was it nation building? counter-terrorism? anti-narcotics? hearts and minds? It was all too confused for the public to understand.

When the enemy changed tactics, we had to change too, and the required equipment was too slow in entering service, and in some cases, unfit for purpose.

Our only successes have come from sheer bravery, courage and all too often, the 'can do' attitude. The mission may well end up downscaled and watered down with vague successes declared and the troops withdrawn - but the British Forces can be bloody proud of what they acheved despite the odds stacked against them.

We won't have lost. We will have failed to win.

[NURSE]

To few boots on the ground equipped with the wrong kit and without the necessary support. Remember what the Prat of a defence Secretary said about not needing to fire a single round!
the total lack of understanding by Ministers, Civil servants and senior officers of situation/location.

[Load Toad]

We made it unwinnable by attempting to fight it with one hand tied behind our back. Our adherence to international law (all for it), coupled with the enemies disregard for any laws other than Allah's mean we will always be at a disdvantage.

This is nonsense.
Did the Russians win when they didn't have one hand tied behind their back?
The enemies are not using 'Allah's law' any more than Protestants burning Catholics and vice-versa were using Gods Law. Their lack of humanity, of consideration, empathy and sympathy are things we need to consider how to address to remove the cause of their diseased awfulness. shooting them doesn't seem to be solving this.

I read in a book about UK forces in Afghanistan recently - an injured member of the Taliban was being treated, the medics working hard to keep him alive, apparently a journalist present asked a Marine, fresh from the battle.. 'Why are you bothering?'

'Because this is what makes us different from them.'



Being as bad as the other guy does not give us the progress we need.

[Jayand]

No ammount of troops or kit would make any difference, within weeks of leaving it will be exactly as we found it 9 years ago!
It's like stamping on ants, pointless and ultimately futile.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Minigunchap needs to get a grip on reality

The Russians were a superpower, had no rules of engagement to follow and still lost 15,000 men, the Mujahideen 500,000, and still they couldn't crack the nut.

The spams and Uk etc had no chance from the off.

All that crap about it's for improving afghan etc, what a load of bo11ocks too.
They politician scum don't even care about our own country, let alone a place that time forgot.

1 solitary UK soldier's life is not worth Iraq & Afghanistan combined, let alone for a lie.

The terrorist threat from the hornets nest is worse now than it ever was, this is as a direct result of actions taken in said sh1tholes. Leave them to it, wait til it directly affects us, then take action, not before and make the situation 10 x worse than it already was. Screw the spams, the 'special' relationship is 1 way and always has been.

My best mate is off out there again next week for '4 & 1/2 months', I just hope he doesn't become another statistic with a sycophantic obituary written by someone who couldn't get a real job.


Jayand, please accept my apologies, I misread your post and invaded the wrong country ;-)

[minigundiplomat]

Being as bad as the other guy does not give us the progress we need.

Fully agree. But if we are going to fight IAW International law, and the enemy isn't, we have to recognise any progress will be limited.

The enemies are not using 'Allah's law' any more than Protestants burning Catholics and vice-versa were using Gods Law. Their lack of humanity, of consideration, empathy and sympathy are things we need to consider how to address to remove the cause of their diseased awfulness. shooting them doesn't seem to be solving this.

The Catholics always chose warfare as a means to achieving a political end. They knew setting off bombs in London/Belfast was wrong, but justified it as the end justifying the means. For the Taliban, the Madrassa's teach a distorted version of Jihad, where pretty much anything is acceptable to eradicate Westerners.
Attempting to fit Afghanistan into a N Ireland shaped pigeon hole is another failing - How many IRA strapped suicide vests to themselves?

The Russians were a superpower, had no rules of engagement to follow and still lost 15,000 men, the Mujahideen 500,000, and still they couldn't crack the nut.

Agreed. But the Russians were attempting to colonise the entire country and enforce a belief, totally contrary to the locals. ISAF are there to put the wheels back on, and then bugger off. There is a subtle, but huge difference. Many of the locals appreciate the difference.
One thing the end of the cold war unearthed was confirmation that although huge, the Red Army was spread thin and less well trained and equipped. Why do you think the first setting after slipping off the safety catch on an AK47 is automatic?

The Russians also followed some insane strategies, with an Army completely unprepared for the task. The use of conscripts and heavy use of road convoys with predictable TTP's played into the hands of the Muhajadeen for years. Huge monetary and technological support from the CIA/Saudi's played a large part too.

Apples and Oranges. Your book probably didn't tell you that.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of your sentiments. I am not telling you what is right about the war, I've merely highlighted some of the things we got wrong.

[Compressorstall]

MGD does have a grip on reality and speaks a lot of truths (in this case!). Accountants like force-on-force wars where they can quantify how many troops/tanks/aircraft etc we need to defeat a visible and easily quantifiable enemy. Afghanistan is an environment where we can make a difference, but it takes funding, kit, adequate troop numbers, a clearly identifiable task and political resolve. What we haven't needed are those who believed we could more with less. Networks and high tech kit are really seductive and look good at trade fairs, but warfare is much more than that. Unfortunately, it has boiled down to vanity in many cases and an unwillingness to hear the truth from those who know. It is the age old story of give us the tools and we will do the job.

[Jayand]

You refer to tools and boots on the ground and it simply isn't about that!
This ain't about that at all, Nobody wants us there, they just want to be left alone especially by the West.
Remember how quickly the Saudi's turned against us and the Yanks after GW2? Westerners will never be tolerated in that part of the world.
We don't understand or appreciate their customs or beliefs, their complete lack of coherent administration from one district to another, the vast differences in beliefs and needs from area to area.
You can't simply put an invading force with superior numbers and equipment in there try and blanket change the whole country as one, it isn't one and really isn't as I have already said even really a country as we know it.
No matter how much blood is spilt, how much money is spent or kit is used weeks if not days after we leave will see the whole place return to the way it was before! pointless.

And here is the big question why did we ever go in the first bloody place?
Sept 11th galvanised the US into starting this mess and we just jumped in line, Sept 11th has nothing to do with the country of Afghanistan but simply a few individuals who sometimes frequented there, why didn't we invade Pakistan or the Yemen? for that matter why didn't we invade the USA when pockets of Republicans hid, trained and supported and financed the IRA? is there really a difference?

[Party Animal]

And here is the big question why did we ever go in the first bloody place?

Jayand,

We went because one of the basic tennents of NATO is that an attack on one was to be considered an attack on all. 9/11 was clearly an attack by an enemy whose centre of gravity - leadership, training, logistics etc happened to be based in AFG. Therefore, a coalition force was quickly put together with the aim of destroying AQ (the enemy) with a view to preventing any similar terrorist atrocities on the scale of 9/11.

Whatever anyones view of our US cousins - the bottom line is that they baled us out during 2 world wars and probably dented the expansion of communism in Europe from 1945 until 1989. Regardless of UK political weaknesses and where we currently stand, as someone who has been there and got the tee-shirt, I am glad to say that we stood by our American colleagues when it came to stand up and be counted.

[The Nip]

There are no winners

During my recent tour as part of the TF arena, a RM WO with years of experiance in these environments made a simplistic statement;
How come a force of over 100,000 with billions of £'s of technology, weaponry, more money than the entire country could put together, fails to beat a force of 12,000 or so of men in pyjamas with old AK47's?

[Uncle Wiggily]

We don't understand or appreciate their customs or beliefs

Ya your right, I don't understand training people to fly into buildings, stoning young women to death for looking at a man or having acid thrown in your face because your a girl wanting to learn what 2+2 equals.

I guess I just need to learn more how to accept these differences in "culture."

[Compressorstall]

Jayand

If you read the whole post rather than focus on the comments about tools, perhaps you might understand. From the benefit of your position, you may be able to see what it wrong, but that is your perception. Many of us here have served in Afghanistan and some of the other places round the globe too. We can all see what is wrong, but when you are there, you focus on the job in hand. We went there for a reason in 2001 - a very valid reason - but whilst sometimes the military solutions are clear, it relies on the political machine to have the clarity of vision and courage to make the decisions that need to be made. Perhaps if we had got it right earlier, we wouldn't be there now. However, we accept there is a job to be done and we are a volunteer force, so we don't have to be there, but we do our jobs.
So, we can all say what is wrong, but we just try and make right what we can.

[Jayand]

Uncle wiggily is that the reasons we went in for then? Al q (can't remember spelling!) are an entirely different group from the Taliban, who themselves are not an organisation but rather a miss mash of tribes and groups fighting for their own gains in different regions but with a common hatred of all westerners.
On your basis of human rights abuses and other attrocities when are we invading China, or Saudi Arabia etc etc ?
Party animal, use of article 5 of the Nato Treaty is a very weak argument, the United states weren't attacked by a country or even attacked by a state backed group but rather an extremist terrorist group some of whom happened to be in Afghanistan in the knee jerk aftermath of Sept 11th.
Did America use article 5 after the Lockerbie bombing (sponsored and authorsed by Libya) or the attack on the USS Cole? what about the attacks of the US embassy in the Yemen? No of course not because you can't use it as a smoke screen for fighting terrorism or at least we shouldn't!
When the IRA were bombing London and trying to blow up the Government did we invoke article 5? hell we didn't even use it when a major South American Country invaded our sovereign terrority in 1982, do you see where I am coming from?

[Jayand]

Compressor from your post perhaps you believe that I have not seen first hand the job that is going on in both recent Middle Eastern theatres, that however is sadly not the case and yes I do as I am told as you say we all volunteered, however I have a critical and questioning brain inside my head and like to use it.
I also like to believe in the cause that I am being directed to do especially when it's my pink and soft body that may suffer.
All the conflicts during my period on this planet have been IMO justifiable up until GW 2 when we went down a path that has led us into the sorry state we are in now.

[Compressorstall]

So - if all the conflicts have been justifable up to GW2, then Afghanistan was justifiable??

Don't assume that the rest of us volunteers don't think in depth about what we do and have reservations like the rest. I value my pink body too, but I also accept what I do brings risks. I don't sit there believing that I have some key role in furthering fractured foreign policy, I simply do it because of the people I work with.

[Jayand]

I understand risks I just want to believe the risks I am taking on others behalfs are for a good reason, in this case and GW2 I don't/didn't, however it didn't stop me getting on with my job.
This is however a forum where thoughts, opinions and discussions are aired and these are simply mine.

[Co-Captain]

The politicians often bear the brunt of the criticism about why we've ended up in messes such as Iraq and Afghanistan - and rightly so as they are the ones with the final say.

Consider this, however: Not long ago the Telegraph ran a week long special on Afghanistan and the reasons for us being there. Our brothers in the Army did not come out too well from those reports/articles, with lots of finger pointing in the direction of their senior staff at the time. The general consensus, it is reported, was that certain senior officers were keen to go back to 'good old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground', warfighting and hence advised the politicians, who knew no better, that this would be a reasonable venture. This, despite smaller SF units already in place, urging that there was no threat from southern Afgh, and it would likely remain so unless we arrived an masse...

Our elected chinless wonders took the bait, hook, line and sinker, (even trying to persuade the public that this would be a campaign were no shots were fired) and sent out a drastically under resourced and ill-planned military and we've been playing catch up ever since.

Off to fight a fire without so much as a bucket of water... Another fine mess

[Mike7777777]

There will be no end to conflict in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. If the West withdraws then the Russians will probably go back in at some stage, they have unfinished business there. They will probably succeed if their economy can support the financial cost, unless the West arms the "other side" .... again.

Anyone who believes that the "other side" will not follow the withdrawing Western forces to exact revenge has little understanding of Afghanistan. It should be viewed as a killing field which keeps the conflict at a manageable distance.

I am convinced that if the "other side" attacks the US again at a similar level to the World Trade Centre then the host country of the attackers will be carpet bombed back the Stone Age by the US irrespective of world opinion. Probably conventionally, probably depends how many B52s are still available for the Big Belly conversion.

Primary objective in 2001? Eliminate Al Qaeda from Afghanistan following the attack on the Twin Towers,
Primary objective in 2010? I have no idea. Defining objectives is step 1.

I must declare an interest, I have a direct ancestor who did a bit in Afghanistan in 1839, perhaps he should have done a bit more ...

[Jayand]

Whats with the "other side" and "host nation" code ?
I am very sceptical on your theory of the Russians going back in, they were at their strongest before and didn't manage so why would they do it all again?
And I also think you are wrong about the US carpet bombing any terrorist yeilding countries, I think even they maybe coming round to the fact that invading or bombing the **** out of 3rd world islamic countries whilst trying to round up some cave dwelling goat hearders is A. very expensive both in lives and cash B. very counter productive in terms of acting as a recruitment and motivational aid and C. crucially, lacks public support.
Nothing stops a politician in his tracks quicker than a huge slump in his/her popularity rating.

[Mike7777777]

What code? I've yet to see an accurate description of the opposition in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Host country = country (countries) where Al Qaeda and others are apparantly based. Russians/Soviets have been involved in Afghanistan since at least the 1880s, they're not going to stop now, but it won't be this year or next. The Red Army had the upper hand in the 1980s until Stingers appeared, the collapse of Communism merely accelerated the retreat. If the West withdraws then who is going to fill the resultant power vacumn? It will need a large standing army, "hearts and minds" would be irrelevant, Pakistan?

Carpet bombing and the use of drones would not lead to high US military casualities; if the US suffers another attack as per WTC I doubt if there would be any consideration of world opinion, I was surprised at the restrained approach in Afghanistan.