Britain's 'donkey' soldiers are losing the war in Afghanistan
A senior Army officer has warned that Britain risks losing the war in Afghanistan because commanders are more concerned with protecting soldiers than defeating the Taliban.
tacking the British strategy in Helmand, the officer claims that soldiers are now so laden with equipment they are unable to launch effective attacks against insurgents.
The controversial account of situation in Afghanistan appears in the latest issue British Army Review, a restricted military publication designed to provoke debate within the Army.
Writing anonymously, the author reveals that the Taliban have dubbed British soldiers "donkeys" who move in a tactical "waddle" because they now carry an average weight of 110lbs worth of equipment into battle.
The consequences of the strategy, he says, is that "our infantry find it almost impossible to close with the enemy because the bad guys are twice as mobile".
The officer claims that by the end of a routine four hour patrol, soldiers struggle to make basic tactical judgements because they are physically and mentally exhausted.
"We're getting to a point where we are losing as many men making mistakes because they are exhausted from carrying armour (and the things that go with it) than are saved by it," he warns.
Britain's military's command structure in Afghanistan also comes in for criticism and is described as a "bloated over complex system that sucks the life out of operations" and where "decision and action get lost in Chinese whispers and Chinese parliaments that turn most of operational staff 'work' into operational staff waste".
In Helmand, a quarter of the 9,500 British troops deployed are involved in management or management support roles in various headquarters, according to the report's author. In Kabul, the combined strength of the US and Nato headquarters amount to more than 4,000 personnel.
The report is entitled "Donkeys Led by Lions", with combat troops likened to pack animals and headquarters staff to "fat, lazy" lions.
The author states that while researching the article he discovered that in the early 1900s, New Zealand loggers limited mule and pony loads to 128lbs, a sixth of their body weight while working in temperatures of 25C.
Even seaside donkeys, the author states, carry just over a quarter of their body weight and rarely work in temperatures above 30C. By contrast, British soldiers are expected to fight in temperatures of over 40C carrying 65 per cent of their body weight.
As the threat facing British soldiers has changed so has the composition of body armour, which now consists of front, rear and side plates designed to protect soldiers from small arms fire and IED blasts but weighs around 40lbs.
In addition to body armour, a typical soldier on patrol in Afghanistan will carry: a weapon (10 to 20lbs); radio, batteries electronic equipment (40lbs); water (10lbs); ammunition (20lbs); Javelin missile (25lbs). Soldiers will also be required to wear eye, groin, ear and knee protection as well as gloves and a helmet.
The officer adds: "A straw poll of three multi-tour companies found only two platoons that had successfully closed with an ambushing enemy. Our unscientific poll might be showing exceptions but rumour control suggests that the lack of closure is common. Some soldiers only do firefights because they know manoeuvre is a waste of effort when they're carrying so much weight.
"The result is that apart from a few big operations where we have used machines to encircle the enemy there are so few uninjured insurgents captured in contact that it's simply not worth recording."
But some of the most stinging criticism was saved for the headquarters running the campaign.
The author wrote: "Lions, contrary to Victorian opinion, aren't brave or noble; they are fat, lazy creatures that lie around all day licking themselves.
"They get others to do the dirty work and they have a penchant for infanticide. We are not saying our commanders are fat, lazy child killers, far from it, but it has reached a point where their headquarters are."
The larger that headquarters become the more the staff there force soldiers into wasteful activity which results in lots of people "who aren't doing anything about the enemy; they aren't even thinking about the enemy; they're thinking about how to make a pretty picture of how they think someone else ought to think about the enemy."
The article also states that British headquarters deployed in Afghanistan now produced a terabyte of written orders and reports every month – equivalent to hundreds of thousands of documents.
The report continues: "In one Afghan headquarters, it took a man nine days to read one day's worth of email exchanges – and he didn't have to open any attachments.
"The further we get back from the patrol base the worse the problem becomes. By the time we get back to the UK there are more people managing the operation than are actually deployed."
The article concludes by reminding readers of past conflicts and asking whether soldiers of a previous generation would have been able to march across the Falklands carrying "all the extra kit we have now?"
The officer writes: "Consider what the logistical and tactical impact of that extra 45lbs for Burma, Dunkirk or Normandy. How would these operations have played out if it took weeks to plan minor operations.
"If we don't work out now how we are going to lose that weight we will do the old trick of starting the next war by repeating the mistakes of this one."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "The issue of weight carried by soldiers on operations is well recognised and work is constantly under way to reduce the amount carried by soldiers.
"Since June 2010 a number of weight savings measures have reduced the weight carried by soldiers by up to 26lbs."
That's a collection of sensible statments - that do not respond to the request.
Originally Posted by Infanteer
Jon, I totally agree with your post. However...
Bookmarks