Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Are you implying US and UK soldiers in Afghanistan aren't trying their best within the political and tactical constraints they are operating under?Correctly he states that Rhodesians were fighting for the very existance of their country, their way of life and everything they held dear. It was the end game. That is why Rhodesian 18 year olds were able to pull enormous reserves of courage and endurance and innovation from within to achieve such results against seemingly impossible odds. This is not the same for the troopies in Afghanistan.
The point it's not just the ROEs or the motivation (which I doubt is lacking), many people in this thread have pointed out technical and tactical reasons too. The way you go on about it you would think you guys had invented the wheel or something. Fireforce was obviously very effective at that place and time, but again as others have pointed out other militaries have used variations on the theme before eg. the US Army Eagle Flights and USMC Sparrowhawk forces in Vietnam. Helicopter-borne quick reaction forces have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan too, obviously not quite in the same way.
Finally, while Rhodesia operated under some major disadvantages, as Wilf posted above you had some advantages too- operating on your own territory, able to gather intelligence far more easily, without the constant and sometimes debilitating scrutiny of the politicians and media, without the need to keep a coalition of nations together, without the need to satisfy the whims of a host/client government. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the Rhodesian experience, and you are undoubtedly correct about some of the major mistakes the NATO governments and militaries have made. But we've been through this numerous times before.
Bookmarks