Page 42 of 54 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 1064

Thread: The UK in Afghanistan

  1. #821
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Governance is not flag waving and the UK is not in Helmand for counter-narcotics. I have argued before that such a role is in our national interest, a role that would resonate back home, especially in the cities where heroin is freely available (including Muslim areas) and as for the methods look at the linked thread.
    David, as you will have noted that I too believe that the drug trade (to describe the activities which commence with the cultivation of poppies) should have and now still deserves more "attention" from ISAF. So much so that I do believe that an "independent" investigation should be carried out into the Afghan drug policy as carried out by the US, the UK ISAF and other NATO members deployed (where applicable).

    These "old testament" and "iron age" people would understand an approach where if you gathered the village elders together and showed them photos/videos/etc of the effect on the lives of so many people in the West (NATO countries because NATO is deployed in Afghanistan) together with an explanation that they by implication are responsible/culpable for the deaths and destruction of so many young lives (through the use of derivatives of their product) that there actions fall clearly under the category of "an eye for an eye".

    By their medieval sense of justice that would be enough to take the menfolk of the village into the nearest field and shoot them out of hand and take and sell their children into slavery/prostitution/whatever. Thankfully (or sadly, whatever be your point of view) the West (meaning in this context the NATO countries) have moderated their response to crimes of this magnitude to the point of impotence (which has been noticed by the Afghan locals and taken advantage of).

    So just who is the enemy in Afghanistan?

    Sure the Taliban because they harboured AQ and continue to resist the US and NATO for inflicting an illegitimate and corrupt regime on the people living in the geographical area called Afghanistan. But this particular element of the "enemy" must (IMHO) receive more respect than the warlords and the druglords that make up the balance of the broad "enemy" category.

    Crazy situation to find the US/UK/NATO either in bed with or going soft on straightforward criminals though. Unacceptable, unforgivable.
    Last edited by JMA; 07-19-2011 at 05:39 PM.

  2. #822
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    I have long advocated buying the heroin product direct from the farmers, then destroying it and perhaps over time the farmers will grow something else;
    The Taliban would still find a way to take their cut but I suppose it would keep some product off the street (at the cost of some pissed off middlemen). And I bet that creating a guaranteed market like that would put a lot more folks into the business of growing Papaver somniferum (which does have legal uses, of course).
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  3. #823
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Swansea, Wales, UK.
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    The Taliban would still find a way to take their cut but I suppose it would keep some product off the street (at the cost of some pissed off middlemen). And I bet that creating a guaranteed market like that would put a lot more folks into the business of growing Papaver somniferum (which does have legal uses, of course).
    Until it is grown somewhere else, this is my point. Destroying poppy fields in Helmand and the rest of Afghanistan does not mean an end to heroin consumption on our streets. While buying the resin from the poppies to make medical opiates is an idea i guarentee that pharmecutical companies wouldn't get involved because the influx of readily available poppies to harvest would lower to the price on the drug and so make it less cost effective to make.

    Contradiction won't work with unguarded borders and corrupt police forces. My point is, for the moment at least fighting the war on drugs in Afghanistan is pointless and counter productive. We should be looking more at drying to decriminalising users and treating drug use as a public health issue not a crimianal one. Destroy the demand, destroy the supply.

  4. #824
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Defence Select Committee: a "boots on the ground" response

    Kings of War have a spirited commentary on the Select Committee report on Helmand plus (Post 769 onwards) by an infantry officer who served there in 2006:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2011/07/dsc-report/#comments

    It opens with three paragraphs, which I have edited down:
    The Report catalogues an array of political, strategic and tactical mistakes and negligence on the part of ministers, military commanders and the Ministry of Defence.

    The report has not got the attention it deserves from the media, and the fact that there have been few responses to its publication thus far is an insult to the soldiers and Afghan civilians who died in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2008, when the Helmand operation was woefully under-resourced and under-manned.

    The depth of arrogance, ineptitude and negligence revealed in the report is astonishing, and much of its content points the blame at the top military commanders at the time. It seems the decision to deploy to Helmand was not thought through strategically, barely even operationally...
    I understand the author's disgust at the lack of public, let alone a political response to the report, as much of the media and political establishment have focussed on the "hacking" scandal for the past ten days or more. What an indictment for a nation supposedly at war in Afghanistan?
    davidbfpo

  5. #825
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post

    I understand the author's disgust at the lack of public, let alone a political response to the report, as much of the media and political establishment have focussed on the "hacking" scandal for the past ten days or more. What an indictment for a nation supposedly at war in Afghanistan?
    It seems that pretty much every nations with troops on the ground in Afghanistan behaves in a way the Europeans treated a little colonial adventure which has left the headlines.

    In Italy we just had a round number of dead, a small reminder and two internal pages about all those KIA and the next day it was business or Afghanistan as usual. I certainly feel for those serving still serving there, especially when some sparse heroic speeches just make the overall silence more deafening.

  6. #826
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Kings of War have a spirited commentary on the Select Committee report on Helmand plus (Post 769 onwards) by an infantry officer who served there in 2006:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2011/07/dsc-report/#comments

    It opens with three paragraphs, which I have edited down:

    I understand the author's disgust at the lack of public, let alone a political response to the report, as much of the media and political establishment have focussed on the "hacking" scandal for the past ten days or more. What an indictment for a nation supposedly at war in Afghanistan?
    A nation in denial?

    The report is a terrible revelation of just how badly the politicians and the senior military got it wrong.

    A year or so ago I was admonished as follows:

    Words like "competence," "hopeless" and "attempt to hide the horrible truth" are more likely to incite anger than to promote productive discussion. These are not all black-and-white situations that justify severe moral condemnation.
    Well now its official (thanks to this Parliamentary Report). In fact so much so that in using those words and terms I was in fact going easy on the clowns at the MoD and the General Staff.

    Moral condemnation is not enough, the MoD should be cleaned out preferably with the use of a... flame thrower
    Last edited by JMA; 07-23-2011 at 04:22 AM.

  7. #827
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    I have some trouble with the claim that we went in unprepared.

    ISAF Phase III expansion featured Battle Groups taking over in provinces. The British BG took over Helmand, the Canadian BG took over Kandahar, the Dutch BG Uruzgan, etc, etc. What's more, many of these BGs took over from American companies or moved into areas with no previous presence at all. Looking at an OEF ORBAT here shows 6-7-ish battalions for the entire country.

    That the Taliban offensive of 2006 caught NATO by surprise is a given and I don't know the details enough to state if it was an intelligence failure or not. But I do wonder if it would have been worse had NATO not moved those BGs south and the penny-packeted OEF elements (playing second fiddle to OIF at the time) caught the brunt of the offensive? Considering Canadian light armoured forces were instrumental in stalling the insurgent drive to Kandahar City and getting the British forces in and out of some tough areas, that heavier NATO presence may have been just in time?

    Anyways, back to armchair quarterbacking. Considering that NATO BGs were ripping out American units that were driving around relatively unmollested in Humvees in 2005-2006, do you think it may be a bit disingenious to argue that we should have been rolling in with full-up Brigades ready to fight conventional battles with massed insurgents? Would sending 4,000 soldiers to Helmand in 2005 had looked politically palatable?

  8. #828
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    I have some trouble with the claim that we went in unprepared.
    Then take the "we" (or Canadian element) out of it if you wish but accept that the Brit Parliamentary Defence Committee - Fourth Report - Operations in Afghanistan has accepted and confirmed that it was most certainly the case (and worse) with the initial Brit deployment. Read the report for yourself.

    The simple fact is that the build up to and the initial three years of the Brit Afghanistan deployment is a national disgrace and humiliation (mitigated only to some extent by the solid and courageous performance of the soldiers on the ground). Heads should roll among the general staff of the time (while the politicians and civil servants will deftly doge the bullets - as they always do).

    But... if anyone thinks this is bad news then wait for the Chilcot Inquiry's report on Iraq.

    The ability to publicly rip off the scab of a festering sore and expose the ugliness is an enduring strength of the Brits and testament to their maturity as a nation. Any other country intend to or are busy with such inquiries?
    Last edited by JMA; 07-26-2011 at 04:21 PM.

  9. #829
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    I have read it. It says nothing that leadership willingly or knowingly sent the wrong force in. What it does say is that nobody anticipated the Taliban resurgence that would blow up like it did in the summer of 2006. Everyone assumed the environment that existed from 2003-2005 would persist.

    I don't find this to be a unreasonable assumption. It's easy to armchair quarterback it now, but I'd want to see a full appreciation of the intelligence that was available to decision makers at the time before declaring guilt. I laughed when Brigadier Butler contrasted the 3000 soldiers in Helmand then to the 30,000 there now. Go back to 2005 and argue that you could sell a government on sending 30,000 soldiers to a quiet Afghan province when Iraq was falling apart.

    What the British contingent does appear guilty of (and it comes out in the report) is that there was nothing left in the gas tank should the situation go south. Canada's contingent in 25 ton armoured vehicles were the literal cavalry in Southern Afghanistan; some of the soldiers I commanded took part in what were pretty much rescue operations - moving from Kandahar to Helmand to drive into districts, cannons blazing, to provide relief to beleaguered British elements reduced to drinking ditch water. Within 6 months of the roof blowing off the south, we had Main Battle Tanks and other mechanized forces in country. Contrast this to, what appears to me as an outsider, a persistent British effort to somehow shoehorn a Landrover into success.

  10. #830
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    I have read it. It says nothing that ...
    May I suggest you read it again then.

    I don't find this to be a unreasonable assumption. It's easy to armchair quarterback it now, but I'd want to see a full appreciation of the intelligence that was available to decision makers at the time before declaring guilt.
    Too late. The jury is already in and the guys that count have apportioned the blame.

    What the British contingent does appear guilty of (and it comes out in the report) is that there was nothing left in the gas tank should the situation go south. Canada's contingent in 25 ton armoured vehicles were the literal cavalry in Southern Afghanistan; some of the soldiers I commanded took part in what were pretty much rescue operations - moving from Kandahar to Helmand to drive into districts, cannons blazing, to provide relief to beleaguered British elements reduced to drinking ditch water. Within 6 months of the roof blowing off the south, we had Main Battle Tanks and other mechanized forces in country. Contrast this to, what appears to me as an outsider, a persistent British effort to somehow shoehorn a Landrover into success.
    This thread is not about the Canadians it is about the Brits. The Canadian 3 PPCLI Battle Group deployed in 2002 and therefore the Canadians should had their act together by 2006. I don't know if they did... why not start a thread on Canadians in Afghanistan and lets see what comes out.

  11. #831
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Thumbs up There is a Canadian thread

    JMA,

    There is a long-running SWC thread on the Canadians in Afghanistan, although not updated of late:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1071

    Infanteer,

    Slightly puzzled by this post (cited in part):
    Canada's contingent in 25 ton armoured vehicles were the literal cavalry in Southern Afghanistan; some of the soldiers I commanded took part in what were pretty much rescue operations - moving from Kandahar to Helmand to drive into districts, cannons blazing, to provide relief to beleaguered British elements reduced to drinking ditch water.
    Puzzled as I don't recall such a mention in the UK or Canadian threads.

    I don't suppose a British brigade wanted to admit openly it was rescued by a Canadian battle group. Let alone one with armour; my recollection is that the UK did not use our light, old armour the Scimitar family in 2006. Needless to say thank you.
    davidbfpo

  12. #832
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    This thread is not about the Canadians it is about the Brits. The Canadian 3 PPCLI Battle Group deployed in 2002 and therefore the Canadians should had their act together by 2006. I don't know if they did... why not start a thread on Canadians in Afghanistan and lets see what comes out.
    The Canadians deployed Kandahar in 2002 but they left that year and Kandahar was a much different place then. Since 2006, when both contingents deployed to the south for Ph III of ISAF's expansion, the British and Canadian experience in Southern Afghanistan has been quite similar, hence the reason I draw parallels between the two.

    Last I checked, you don't dictate what and what isn't discussed here. If what I say doesn't fit your broken record message, too bad.
    Last edited by Infanteer; 07-28-2011 at 01:07 AM.

  13. #833
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Infanteer,

    Slightly puzzled by this post (cited in part):

    Puzzled as I don't recall such a mention in the UK or Canadian threads.
    There isn't much mentioned about it open source; I imagine with everything winding down that the operation will start to show up in the histories.

    It certainly occured as it is corporate memory in my former battalion. There is brief mention of it in this Wikipedia article:

    During the following day Canadian forces were called to support Operation Hewad - a combined endeavour by a complete brigade attempting to clear Taliban from Sangin in Helmand. Canadians were tasked to relieve British soldiers besieged in Sangin district centre, and at the same time pressure Taliban command and control throughout the lower Sangin and Gereshk districts of Helmand, operations that again involved multiple firefights each day with dozes of Taliban casualties, but no Canadian deaths. On July 17 Task Force Orion was ordered to retake the captured towns of Nawa and Garmsir, which they did after intense fighting on 18 July, They stayed for another week in Helmand.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panjwaii

    It certainly speaks to my point above - the British "go light" approach ran into problems when the ink spots became besieged. Friends who were there were convinced on the value of armoured vehicles, even our light ones, in a fight. They chuckled when the book "3 Para" came to the shelves and mentioned the entire operation in a footnote.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 07-28-2011 at 07:07 AM. Reason: Citation in quotes

  14. #834
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    That's an odd line of discussion. What are you getting at excadet?

  15. #835
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default well.....

    1st. Infanteers arguments as they have developed (rather than his initial and valid point) are perhaps for another thread.

    2nd If the Paras are guilty of underplaying the role of the Canadiains perhaps the same can be said of them in relation to US airpower in the operations cited.

  16. #836
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Am I missing a post or something?

  17. #837
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Keep Calm and Carry On

    Team,

    This exchange of information and viewpoints is veering towards a "ditch". There is no need for this apparent "point scoring".

    If a thread develops a new, worthy theme as a moderator I have a habit of starting new threads and those who break our well established rules will soon know.

    Meantime, back to our normal service, carry on!
    davidbfpo

  18. #838
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Apologies

    Apologies Infanteer. I made the same points as above in an earlier post in the thread but deleted it as the wording was inappropriate.

  19. #839
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default Normal programming resumes....

    Rory Stewart offers a logical and intelligent take on the intervention in Afghanistan on a TED presentation:

    Rory Stewart: Time to end the war in Afghanistan

    So yes it should be acknowledged that the politicians are screwing this one up big time once again (of that there is no doubt) but given that there is a military presence in Afghanistan I personally look more towards the military strategy and tactics employed on the ground and to this end his concluding metaphor about intervention using the example of mountain rescue elucidates an approach I support better than I have been able to express it.

  20. #840
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Since we are all calling it from the armchairs, what should the UK have done in early 2006? Ignored NATO? Deployed a different force structure?

    How about late 2006 when we all realized that southern Afghanistan was a s**t-storm?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •