The UK in Afghanistan

[baboon6]

We (the Rhodesian Army) should have done better with recruiting Brits and other 'foreigners' in the army.

I was under the impression that there were quite a lot anyway, mainly Brits but some Aussies, Kiwis and Europeans, along with South Africans (did our guys count as foreigners?! I suppose they did...), and quite a few Americans in the last few years (I have read a figure of about 300 volunteers from the US overall, don't know how accurate that is).

Anyway this is going way off-topic! Here are some numbers on Commonwealth types in the British Army (not including Gurkhas), over 6000 altogether, with much smaller numbers in the RAF and RN. Sorry for using The Sun as a reference:

Fiji 2000

South Africa 840

Jamaica 820

Ghana 820

Zimbabwe 550

St Vincent 260

St Lucia 220

Malawi 150

Gambia 140

Kenya 130

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...#ixzz0l5QyC9Gr

And an article originally from The Times:

http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/artic...foreign-legion

THE Army has stopped actively recruiting Commonwealth and foreign soldiers because the numbers joining up have risen by nearly 3,000 per cent in seven years....Defence sources said that the Army had now stopped actively recruiting in the Commonwealth, even though there was still a significant shortfall in manpower.

[JMA]

You have to read this...

http://tinyurl.com/ybd449d

Do you laugh or do you cry?

It is interesting to follow this story.

41,000 have joined the facebook group "Justice for Royal Marine Commando Mark Leader" http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...9024071&ref=mf

When a Captain and a sergeant are discharged from the army it has to be more than the random act of "throwing a 'welly' (Wellington boot) at a suspect. (Even in the Brit army)

Quoting from the BBC "Judge Michael Hunter described it as "a sustained assault on an injured and unarmed prisoner"." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/8622171.stm

It appears they went into the tent where the accused was being held and proceeded to kick his ass. The best they could do was "Mr Ekhlas needed four stitches to his lip, had a cut on his forehead and two of his teeth were loose after the attack." And I thought the Brit Marines were trained in unarmed combat (only kidding).

The Captain admitted to kicking him twice. So the sgt punched him 3 or 4 times and the captain kicked him twice.

What would happen in the US military? Slap on the wrist, court martial, what?
Fine, demotion, dishonourable discharge, what?

We learned quickly in Rhodesia to separate those captured or detained from the troops that their actions may have harmed. We would not leave that 'live bait' lying around as it could only lead to problems. (Have the British army learned nothing in the last 1,000 years?) So as a result of this failure they end up losing a officer and a long service sergeant.

So I wonder when the penny is going to drop with the 40,000 on facebook that there is more to this issue than merely throwing a 'welly' at a suspect who was attempting to escape?

[jmm99]

and his 1SG, with respect to your question:

from JMA
The Captain admitted to kicking him twice. So the sgt punched him 3 or 4 times and the captain kicked him twice.

What would happen in the US military? Slap on the wrist, court martial, what?
Fine, demotion, dishonourable discharge, what?

Briefly, from his attorneys' webpage, CPT Roger Hill:

What Happened?

Puckett & Faraj, PC are often called upon to defend the courageous and moral men and women of our military. In their service to their country, these young military members are called on to make difficult decisions to save the lives of those they lead. CPT Roger Hill did just that on the battlefield in the mountains of Afghanistan last fall. The Army charged him with wrongfully inflicting cruel and inhuman treatment to detainees under the 18 USC Section 2441 — War Crimes.
....
In August 2008, intelligence reports cited recent efforts by the enemy to plan and execute a complex attack against one of the three outposts. The Army set up an operation to screen the local nationals resulting in identifying 12 foreign nationals with confirmed ties to the Taliban. One of the most critical infiltrations included Noori Noorula, CPT Hill’s own personal interpreter, an Afghan who he considered a dear and close friend. Army rules required the detainees be transported to a central location for processing, however resources were not available to move the detainees. Dog Company was left with the responsibility of identifying, processing and securing each confirmed insider-threat detainee; a task they were not trained, equipped or manned to accomplish.

Dog Company processed the detainees under International Security Assistance Forces guidelines which directed that the US hand detainees over to the Afghanistan government with proof of Taliban links within 96 hours, otherwise they would be set free.

CPT Hill knew that the Army intelligence proving the Taliban links was not releasable to the Afghanistan government. He made the command decision to utilize a variety of shock tactics to intimidate and scare the detainees. His goal was to extract releasable and valuable intelligence identifying the detainees as Taliban loyalists, and allow them to be handed over to the Afghanistan government without fear they would be released.

CPT Hill took some of the detainees into the yard, leaving those who had critical information in the building. He fired shots into the ground, one shot for each detainee in the yard. These shots were some 20 yards or more from the detainees, but their fellow detainees in the building did not know this.

CPT Hill, a West Point graduate and highly decorated combat veteran of three overseas tours to include deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea, was held accountable in an Article 32 Hearing (similar to a grand jury). In an unheard of move in the military justice system, the results of that hearing have not been released to him. Instead, the Army processed him for separation, awarding him a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge..... [more before and after in statement]

See also, from same attorneys, Interrogating Army Justice, A Soldier’s Dilemma.

This case has been discussed here at SWC in a few threads, A War's Impossible Mission and in Law and the Long War, with links at posts #23, #27 & #28 (some technical stuff at #35). Of people who post here regularly, Greyhawk has done the most work in following this case. Also, some technical stuff on the Hill case, in The Kill Company (page 5), starting with post #84 and ending at #89.

CPT Hill's Facebook page. I don't have any update on this case beyond what has been posted.

Regards

Mike

[William F. Owen]

So I wonder when the penny is going to drop with the 40,000 on facebook that there is more to this issue than merely throwing a 'welly' at a suspect who was attempting to escape?

Talked to mates in 3 Cdo Brgd last week and they have nothing good to say about the incident. Basically two men beat up a prisoner.

[JMA]

Talked to mates in 3 Cdo Brgd last week and they have nothing good to say about the incident. Basically two men beat up a prisoner.

Yes and a captain and a sergeant too.

I must say that based on my experiences some 30 years ago this would hardly have raised a ripple let alone led to a court martial and dishonourable discharges.

With all good 'cock-ups' the guys whose incompetence created the opportunity for this to happen are not even on the radar.

Why was this guy not under intense interrogation first in the field then in a suitable facility? Instead he is 'held' in a tent under the guard of a female soldier and probably offered a nice cup of tea with apologies for any inconvenience. This giving him a nice chance to compose himself.

I am desperately in need on any story out of Afghanistan which casts the Brit troops and operation there in a good light. Please help me someone.

[JMA]

Yes and a captain and a sergeant too.

I must say that based on my experiences some 30 years ago this would hardly have raised a ripple let alone led to a court martial and dishonourable discharges.

With all good 'cock-ups' the guys whose incompetence created the opportunity for this to happen are not even on the radar.

Why was this guy not under intense interrogation first in the field then in a suitable facility? Instead he is 'held' in a tent under the guard of a female soldier and probably offered a nice cup of tea with apologies for any inconvenience. This giving him a nice chance to compose himself.

I am desperately in need on any story out of Afghanistan which casts the Brit troops and operation there in a good light. Please help me someone.

I spoke to a Brit who said that they (his unit) never used to take such people into custody. The trick was to 'hold' the person until a US unit came by and then set him up to be taken into custody by the 'yanks' (his word) who would then bag him and tag him and whisk him away never to be heard of again. But I suppose for that to work one needs to be in close proximity to US forces who had also taken casualties through IEDs.

[baboon6]

Yes and a captain and a sergeant too.

I must say that based on my experiences some 30 years ago this would hardly have raised a ripple let alone led to a court martial and dishonourable discharges.

With all good 'cock-ups' the guys whose incompetence created the opportunity for this to happen are not even on the radar.

Why was this guy not under intense interrogation first in the field then in a suitable facility? Instead he is 'held' in a tent under the guard of a female soldier and probably offered a nice cup of tea with apologies for any inconvenience. This giving him a nice chance to compose himself.

I am desperately in need on any story out of Afghanistan which casts the Brit troops and operation there in a good light. Please help me someone.

If you look you will find numerous stories of personal bravery and minor tactical successes, but not much else I'm afraid.

[Ken White]

...But I suppose for that to work one needs to be in close proximity to US forces who had also taken casualties through IEDs.

has to do with this:

...taken into custody by the 'yanks' (his word) who would then bag him and tag him and whisk him away never to be heard of again.

[JMA]

has to do with this:

My Brit source indicates that the US had an effective system for 'dealing' with such suspects whereas the Brits had both hands tied.

You are free to interpret the word 'effective' anyway you wish.

[Ken White]

My Brit source indicates that the US had an effective system for 'dealing' with such suspects whereas the Brits had both hands tied.

As do you. We didn't release them, the British often did. The implication that they were killed or otherwise disposed of, never to be seen again, is just stupid.

You are free to interpret the word 'effective' anyway you wish.

Of course I am. You are equally free to interpret the word 'innuendo' any way you wish.

[jmm99]

have surfaced from US military forces managing detentions in Astan. There are two paths, depending on whether the US forces are operating under ISAF or independently under OEF rules.

If under ISAF (from my post above re: CPT Roger Hill):

... under International Security Assistance Forces guidelines which directed that the US hand detainees over to the Afghanistan government with proof of Taliban links within 96 hours, otherwise they would be set free.

If under OEF rules, detainees follow US military processing rules and will be released to the Astan government or detained at Bagram if of high enough value to US interests (subject of habeas cases now on appeal).

That's my general understanding of how detainees have been handled.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

As do you. We didn't release them, the British often did. The implication that they were killed or otherwise disposed of, never to be seen again, is just stupid.Of course I am. You are equally free to interpret the word 'innuendo' any way you wish.

Ken you need to lighten up.

I can't see any point in detaining anyone unless you intend to do something with him. Like... get intel out of him.

If he admits to planting or assisting with the planting of a IED that would get him the death penalty wouldn't it? The US still has the death penalty, yes? So do the Afghans... so hand him over to the Afghans and walk away and let the proper judicial process run its course.

[JMA]

have surfaced from US military forces managing detentions in Astan. There are two paths, depending on whether the US forces are operating under ISAF or independently under OEF rules.

If under ISAF (from my post above re: CPT Roger Hill):

Quote: "... under International Security Assistance Forces guidelines which directed that the US hand detainees over to the Afghanistan government with proof of Taliban links within 96 hours, otherwise they would be set free."

That is one thing but what if he confesses to or it is proven that he planted or assisted in planting an IED? Surely these people are detained because there is some real evidence that they were involved in the action or the planting of the IED? So whats the logical outcome 10 years to death or somewhere in between. (I suppose 10 years in an Afghan jail amounts to a death sentence in any event.) Surely such people are not just picked up on a random basis?

[Ken White]

Ken you need to lighten up.

Some things said in jest or nearly so can develop legs if no one takes a tapanga to them.

I can't see any point in detaining anyone unless you intend to do something with him. Like... get intel out of him.

That is done, then if they're released, they go right back to doing what they'd been doing, so they get 'tried' one way or another by someone or other.

so hand him over to the Afghans and walk away and let the proper judicial process run its course.

That's what's done with most but the Afghan's tend to beat them up a bit and let them go, too expensive to keep 'em around. So we hang on to the hard core types that aren't handed over to the locals.

[JMA]

Officer questions helicopter shortage over son's death

http://tinyurl.com/yzzse5y

A shortage of helicopters, unnecessary road movement, and what have you all leads to yet more avoidable deaths.

[Ken White]

Part II

A shortage of helicopters, unnecessary road movement, and what have you all leads to yet more avoidable deaths.

A shortage of helicopters means, most likely, that not enough are available due to financial constraints. Lacking helicopters, more road movement becomes necessary so your comment is an oxymoron...

Your argument is, as always, with the politicians. Your comment, as is often the case, uses innuendo to impute that if you were in charge, it would all be different. Of course it would. It would also be different if I were in charge. Neither of us is and if we were there is absolutely no guarantee we would not make the errors you seem to see everywhere (without even being there or having reliable sources who are. Amazing) -- or even worse errors...

War is stupid, it's the dumbest human endeavor -- yet silly humans will keep starting the darn things. All deaths in combat are avoidable only if the combat is avoided. If the combat is not avoided, there will always be both avoidable and unavoidable deaths. That was true in Rhodesia and is true today in Afghanistan. It will be true in any and all wars ongoing in 2020.

It's a fact of life (pun intended).

[JMA]

Part II

A shortage of helicopters means, most likely, that not enough are available due to financial constraints. Lacking helicopters, more road movement becomes necessary so your comment is an oxymoron...

In this particular case the question needs to be asked whether the trip was really necessary. It appears that everyone just accepts that the initiative be past to the Taliban. The Brits by all reports are scared s###less about IEDs (understandable as 80% of their deaths are so caused). Yet they have no, offer no, solution other than to spend all day and everyday sending engineers out to clear roads before they can move. Again here we have a whole army of officers and men and nobody seems to be able to come up with a solution. Bizarre.

Your argument is, as always, with the politicians. Your comment, as is often the case, uses innuendo to impute that if you were in charge, it would all be different. Of course it would. It would also be different if I were in charge. Neither of us is and if we were there is absolutely no guarantee we would not make the errors you seem to see everywhere (without even being there or having reliable sources who are. Amazing) -- or even worse errors...

I do note that the Brits have a habit of having a lot to say after retiring from the forces and having a secure pension. While there though they will meekly go with the flow and help to bury the dead.

War is stupid, it's the dumbest human endeavor -- yet silly humans will keep starting the darn things. All deaths in combat are avoidable only if the combat is avoided. If the combat is not avoided, there will always be both avoidable and unavoidable deaths. That was true in Rhodesia and is true today in Afghanistan. It will be true in any and all wars ongoing in 2020.

Thats too general a comment Ken.

Good planning and good tactics go a long way to reducing the risk of own force casualties. Knowledge of the terrain and the enemy is critical as well.

I just don't see the point in sending out vehicle and foot patrol the purpose of which seems only to locate IEDs (in the worst sense).

[Ken White]

Re: your first paragraph above: Do you know that or is it an assumption?

Re: the second; as is true of ALL armies...

Re: the third. Not too general but an old truth; true on good tactics, etc; and I too do not see any point in sending out patrol whose only purpose is as you state.

Problem is you do not know that is the case, you have, for reasons of your own based on flawed and fragmentary media reports coupled with annoyance at the UK and the US elected to assume that it is the case.

[JMA]

Re: your first paragraph above: Do you know that or is it an assumption?

Re: the second; as is true of ALL armies...

Re: the third. Not too general but an old truth; true on good tactics, etc; and I too do not see any point in sending out patrol whose only purpose is as you state.

Problem is you do not know that is the case, you have, for reasons of your own based on flawed and fragmentary media reports coupled with annoyance at the UK and the US elected to assume that it is the case.

Lets run through it again then Ken.

So am I too understand that the Brits have taken the cause of 80% of their casualties and analysed it inside out and have come to the conclusion that there is no solution so they carry on driving around until the hit an IED and keep sending out foot patrol until they trigger and IED. Is that what we are down to in Afghanistan? The Brit soldier deserves better. As I have said before on arrive you call the incoming battalion commander and ask him how he intends to defeat the IED threat. If his response is "well, um, err, ..." you just tell him his plane back to the UK is leaving in the hour. No soldier should die needlessly because his officers don't have the tactical smarts.

So its OK if the current set of generals all just go through the motions knowing that they have been under resourced and have one or both hands tied behind their backs until they have security a pension and then and only then they go public with their concerns? And in the meantime they help bring in the dead.

No rocket science required Ken. If 80% of Brit casualties are through IEDs then that is their biggest problem right now. If they are on the roads... keep off the roads. If they are on paths... then use only paths that locals use. If the come out to plant them at night... thats when you need to plan to get them. If the use cell phones to trigger them... block the cell phone frequency. etc etc.

Numbingly stupid officers are getting soldiers killed out there. If that does not make you angry then... go ahead and shoot the messenger.

[Ken White]

Lets run through it again then Ken.

So am I too understand that the Brits have taken the cause of 80% of their casualties and analysed it inside out and have come to the conclusion that there is no solution so they carry on driving around until the hit an IED and keep sending out foot patrol until they trigger and IED. Is that what we are down to in Afghanistan? The Brit soldier deserves better. As I have said before on arrive you call the incoming battalion commander and ask him how he intends to defeat the IED threat. If his response is "well, um, err, ..." you just tell him his plane back to the UK is leaving in the hour. No soldier should die needlessly because his officers don't have the tactical smarts.

You seem to wish to understand that, your prerogative. I've seen no evidence the British have come to your conclusion. As for what you'd do with a Battalion commander, since it seems everyone there has an IED problem, then you're effectively saying every Battalion commander from NATO in the country is incompetent -- that doesn't even approach, much less pass, the common sense test.

So its OK ... And in the meantime they help bring in the dead.

Your words not mine. What you have not told us is what you plan to do about it to halt these pernicious practices...

No rocket science required Ken. If 80% of Brit casualties are through IEDs then that is their biggest problem right now. If they are on the roads... keep off the roads. If they are on paths... then use only paths that locals use. If the come out to plant them at night... thats when you need to plan to get them. If the use cell phones to trigger them... block the cell phone frequency. etc etc.

If, indeed...

That paragraph is mind numbingly ignorant. You really need to get on the internet, Google or Yahoo or Bing search and get a bit smarter on what is going on in Afghanistan. Not least, you'll discover that everything you suggest is being done, has been done -- and that there are a number of things you haven't even thought of.

Numbingly stupid officers are getting soldiers killed out there. If that does not make you angry then... go ahead and shoot the messenger.

That is your assumption, it is based on ignorance and, I suspect, a degree of bias. I am not shooting a messenger, much less the messenger because your message is so flawed that is is borderline comical. If I am shooting anything, in this series of posts on several threads, it is shots across your bow to warn you that you really are missing a great deal of what is happening for some odd reason. You are coming across as not well informed, biased and on a tear about IED casualties -- which worry others much more than they do you; they after all have to write the letters to the next of kin and bear the responsibility as opposed of being able to kibitz from the sidelines. Consider also that if they were a problem as easily handled as you seem to believe they should be, they'd have been eliminated months if not years ago.