Positive news about UK forces

[AyrshireDon]

This thread im hoping to use to keep people upto date on the war in afganistan. As i fear the sun and other tabloids dont give the correct immage all the time.

Ainsworth defends Afghan mission

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said he "firmly believed" the mission in Afghanistan was "winnable"

Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth has insisted the UK campaign in Afghanistan is "winnable", as MoD figures show the number of casualties has doubled. A total of 94 UK soldiers were injured in action in Helmand in July, more than double the number in June.
In total, 19 soldiers were very seriously injured, although not all in action. The number of UK fatalities killed in Afghanistan is now 204.
It comes as the Tories called for "clarification" of the UK's mission.
In a letter to Mr Ainsworth, shadow defence secretary Dr Liam Fox asked him to expand on comments that British troops will eventually begin undertaking a "training and mentoring role to the Afghan National Army".

We can get this country to a place where they are able to protect their own security and prevent the Taliban's return


Bob Ainsworth
Defence secretary



Afghanistan death soldiers named
Afghan campaign draws to close

Mr Ainsworth told the BBC's Breakfast programme: "We are making progress. I know it's hard to get that message across to the public.
"The troops know that we have made progress in the last few months and I still firmly believe that Afghanistan is winnable.
"We can get this country to a place where they are able to protect their own security and prevent the Taliban's return."
Panther's Claw
Newly-released figures from the Ministry of Defence show 92 troops were admitted to field hospitals in July through disease or non-disease related injury.
The number of helicopter evacuations of injured troops also rose in July, from 128 to 190.
In comparison, in June, 46 troops were wounded in action and five very seriously injured.

We will succeed and we must succeed; it's really important


General Sir Richard Dannatt



UK casualties and deaths

So far this year, 236 troops have been hurt in fighting, while last year's casualties in action totalled 235.
The number killed since the start of the mission in Afghanistan in 2001 has reached 204, after five soldiers were killed over the weekend.
Operation Panther's Claw, a UK offensive against the Taliban in Helmand, began in June and took place throughout much of July.
This month British troops are also trying to shore up security ahead of presidential elections this week.
Speaking to the BBC, the outgoing head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said British forces could remain in operations in the country for up to five years.
"We have got to get it right. It will take a bit of time. We will go on doing, as the military, what we need to do until the Afghan capability is good enough to take over from us.
"That will continue for years. I don't want to put a figure on that, but certainly two to four years, three to five years, of this kind of level of commitment by the military.
"Our operations are very clear. We have to clear areas of the Taliban.
"We have to hold them with sufficient troops and then we have to allow a building process to go on so that people can see a better life.
"And when they see a better life, that's when they'll support Governor Mangal in Helmand, when they'll support their elected president, whoever they elect this week, and then that's the business about winning the hearts and minds.


General Sir Richard Dannatt: "We need to persuade the people of Afghanistan to get out there and vote"

"That's why we say it's about the people.
"We will succeed and we must succeed; it's really important".
However, Labour MP Paul Flynn said the mission in Afghanistan was unwinnable and branded the politicians orchestrating the Nato mission "foolish".
Mr Flynn, who represents Newport West, said he had originally agreed with the troops going into Afghanistan at the start of the campaign in 2001.
But in 2006 he voiced misgivings about the decision to go into Helmand province, predicting it would "stir up a hornet's nest" and be "as futile as the charge of the Light Brigade".
"Our soldiers are dying in a cause that is as noble to them as any cause that we've fought in our history.
"But sadly they are the lions who are being led by foolish politicians and military leaders. The war is unwinnable. Nothing that we've attempted to do has actually worked."
Previous interview
A statement issued by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the next head of the Army, sought to clarify previous comments by General Sir David Richards.
He said: "In an interview a few weeks ago I said the whole process in Afghanistan might take as long as 30 to 40 years.
"This seems to have been taken by some as meaning that the British Army would be involved in operations like those we are currently engaged in for that duration.
"I want to nail this once and for all. It is not what I said or what I believe.
"Afghanistan will need international help for many years to come - for example through development, governance and security sector reform - and I am sure the UK will play a part in that.
"But a British military force along current lines should only be needed for a much shorter period."
• Two of the latest British military fatalities in Afghanistan have been named by the Ministry of Defence as Private Richard Hunt, 21, and Sergeant Simon Valentine, 29.


BBC NEWS | UK | Ainsworth defends Afghan mission

Some very positve news and some figures i though some people might be interested in seeing

[Maus652]

Do the Sun and other tabloids ever give accurate images?

Even page 3 isn't 100% real.

[AyrshireDon]

Originally Posted by Maus652

Do the Sun and other tabloids ever give accurate images?

Even page 3 isn't 100% real.

Well i can only vouch for the Scottish Sun and daily record, as i sometimes read them and those 2 papers conbined make enough polution with there comments to out do America on the top of the harmfull gases relesed

[Doc]

Good idea mate, but watch it get hijacked by the anti-war squad.

[AyrshireDon]

Aye well true enough.

the 2 new carriers are due start being built and another type 42 super destroyers left for sea trials. (those ships are the lalalala can track targes all the way across the altlantic and single out 1000 ships and assign a threat lvl to each also add to that it can shoot a tennis ball out the sky doing twice the speed of sound best destroyer in the world atm)

[AyrshireDon]

Ok not that positive but in my opinion a General of the army should keep his whearabouts low key not publishing expenses so people can see where he could be ambushed.

Minister denies Army chief 'plot'


The claims have been reported in two national newspapers

Defence Minister Kevan Jones has denied allegations that he is involved in a plot to tarnish the reputation of the outgoing head of the Army. Several newspapers have claimed that "an MoD minister" has encouraged Labour MPs to try to get Gen Sir Richard Dannatt's expenses claims made public.
But Mr Jones said it was "a silly season story" and he looked forward to continuing to work with Gen Dannatt.
Gen Dannatt steps down as head of the Army later this month.
He will be replaced by Gen Sir David Richards, a former commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan.
In an MoD statement issued to the BBC, Mr Jones said: "General Dannatt and I have worked very closely on a number of personnel related issues, because we both care deeply about service men and women.
"I look forward to continuing our working relationship with Gen Dannatt, both now as CGS [Chief of the General Staff] and beyond into his retirement."
In July, Gen Dannatt drew criticism from some government ministers when he told the BBC he would be compiling "a shopping list" of equipment badly needed by Britain's troops in Afghanistan.
Labour peer
Reports in the Sun and Daily Mail newspapers centred on claims that MPs had been encouraged to submit Freedom of Information (FoI) requests designed to expose details of Gen Dannatt's expenses.
General Dannatt is a man of honour and integrity who leads from the front


Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox

Government sources have told the BBC that some FoI requests have been submitted to the MoD, but they have not been identified as coming from Labour MPs.
A source said: "There is no campaign by Labour ministers to tarnish Gen Dannatt's reputation."
But the BBC has established that Labour peer Lord Foulkes has submitted parliamentary questions about Gen Dannatt's expenses which he wants the MoD to answer during the summer recess.
In particular, he wants information on how often the general has used a helicopter for travel within the UK.
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said Labour had become the government of "fear and smear".
"Whilst suppressing reports of their own incompetence, they attempt to undermine the reputation of one of our most distinguished generals," he said.
"At a time when our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, ministers spend their time in puerile personality politics.
"General Dannatt is a man of honour and integrity who leads from the front. His Labour detractors are squalid and cowardly, undermining from the shadows."

[AyrshireDon]

Special commendation for Jamaican sailor

A History and Honour news article

19 Aug 09


A Royal Navy sailor from Kingston, Jamaica, has been presented with a special commendation in recognition of his role in hosting visits by young people undertaking work experience at HMS Raleigh.




Able Rating Ian Beacon (right) receives his commendation from the Commanding Officer of HMS Raleigh, Captain Jonathan Woodcock
[Picture: Dave Sherfield, Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]


Able Rating (AB) Ian Beacon joined the Royal Navy in March 2009 and has recently completed his nine-week basic training course at HMS Raleigh, Cornwall.

While waiting for the next stage of his training to begin, AB Beacon was specially selected to help with the work experience programme.

Over a three-week period, he was responsible for escorting around 30 students, aged between 14 and 15, during the programme, designed to give them a taste of HMS Raleigh and the career opportunities available in the Royal Navy.

AB Beacon's award citation from his Commanding Officer, Captain Jonathan Woodcock, reads:

<B>

"You have shown outstanding dedication to your responsibilities in this regard and which fell outside your general remit. With very little military experience to draw on you have very quickly acquired a 'can do' approach which was clearly well received and appreciated by the course members ensuring that they all benefited from their time in HMS Raleigh.

</B>

"I am particularly impressed by your meticulous attention to detail, not only in your own appearance and bearing, but in showing off HMS Raleigh and all that we do in the best possible light."

AB Beacon said:

<B>

"It was a privilege to be given the opportunity to work with the students and I feel happy that they enjoyed their visit to HMS Raleigh. I'm overwhelmed to receive the award and I really appreciate the fact that my contribution was recognised in this way."

</B>

AB Beacon joined the Royal Navy because he wanted to gain experience and contribute to global stability.

Having completed his basic training he is due to return home to Jamaica for his summer leave. He will return to HMS Raleigh in September to continue his professional training to qualify as a logistician specialising in hospitality.

Speaking of his future in the Royal Navy, AB Beacon said:

<B>

"My aim is to get promoted to at least Warrant Officer, which is top of the ratings promotion ladder. I want to get as far as I can and improve my contribution to the Service and the world as I progress."

</B>

HMS Raleigh is the Royal Navy's premier training establishment in the South West, where all new rating recruits to the Service undergo their basic training. The establishment also provides training in a range of specialist areas including submarine operations, logistics, seamanship and fire-fighting.

some good news im glad to see that comonwealth members still sign up shows the bond is still quite strong.

[MFC_LukeCarter]

Mark, you seen Jamie is going to Afghan next March, thats what he said on MSN anyway.

Is he bullet dodging or what?

[AyrshireDon]

Originally Posted by MFC_LukeCarter

Mark, you seen Jamie is going to Afghan next March, thats what he said on MSN anyway.

Is he bullet dodging or what?

You got his msn you can PM me i cba going up to maybole to see him lol.

Last time we spoke he had just finnished all his training and was heading out to Germany to do forest warfare training hes officially a Raf Regiment gunner but he doesn't know what speciality he gonna do either mortars, just a plane rifleman or a LMG gunner. He then sips up to a base in scotland "ill not mention for security reasons" to an operational squadron "again i know which but don't want to say" then in june next year he ships out to Afghanistan on a 5 month tour of duty so yea hell be bullet dodging.

I thought it was June he heads out to Afgan not march must have been changed ill hopefully be doing my Intelligence Analyst training by then

[AyrshireDon]

UK armed forces aree to recieve a new order of state of the art HD night vision Googles for basic infantry something they have been short on for years.

[I_Hate_Errors]

Originally Posted by AyrshireDon

UK armed forces aree to recieve a new order of state of the art HD night vision Googles for basic infantry something they have been short on for years.

hm.. I was writing it "goggles"..

[King-Osgood-1690]

Vietnam replay: And it's 1-2-3 what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is Afghanistan

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material.

I AGREE

President Barack Obama has staked his presidency on winning his "necessary" war in Afghanistan. Coming into office, one of his first acts, on February 18, was to boost US troop levels in that country by 17,000, bringing the total number of soldiers and Marines in the country to about 57,000, to which one must also add about 33,000 other soldiers from NATO countries and Australia. That’s 100,000 foreign soldiers fighting against Taliban fighters.

Ominously, even with the new US troops, US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen this month has described the situation in Afghanistan as being "serious and deteriorating." The Afghani national government — if an organization that is basically confined to the capital city of Kabul and a few other cities can be called a national government — is hopelessly corrupt and ineffective, and a current national election, which US forces sought to "protect" by sending troops to election districts, appears to have been a disaster, plagued by vote rigging and with low turnout.

The US war in Afghanistan, billed as part of a war on terror begun by President George W. Bush and Vice President lalalala Cheney in September 2001, is now eight years old, and while the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan at that time has been ousted from Kabul, its insurgency grows by the day in strength and popular support.

The US, meanwhile, is identified as an occupier and as the sole support of a corrupt regime of drug lords, thieves and charlatans.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It is a replay of what America did in Vietnam.

Roots

The roots of the current Afghanistan War lie in the period when the Soviet Union was occupying the country and backing a Communist-led government in the 1970s, and the US was conducting a proxy war against the Soviets, with the CIA training and funding both the Taliban and foreign fighters, mostly Arab, led by the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

In the end, the Taliban, with the help of groups like Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, triumphed, pushing the Russians out. But over time, as the Soviet Union crumbled and the US became more focused on the Middle East, successive US administrations became less and less happy with the power arrangement in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, following the US Gulf War in 1990-91, Bin Laden and other Arab fighters in Afghanistan and elsewhere began to see the US as an enemy, and the US began to shift its military focus from being based upon anti-Communism to being anti-Arab, or at least anti Arabist, as defined as being opposed to those Arabs who wanted to overthrow the corrupt dictatorial leaderships in the oil states of the Middle East.

When the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked in 2001, the Bush/Cheney administration, which had already planned to overthrow the government in Iraq, launched an attack on Afghanistan, claiming that its Taliban government was harboring Al Qaeda, which was blamed for the attacks. The Afghanistan War was on. The Taliban was quickly ousted from Kabul, and Al Qaeda was largely driven into the remote tribal areas of Pakistan, but the war was not won. Indeed, since then, it has gone from bad to worse for the US, as the Taliban has clawed back territory and recovered much of its prior power.


Vietnam

The background of the war in Vietnam dates from 1954, when Vietnam, after a long struggle, won its independence from its colonial ruler, France. Two years later, the US blocked a UN-supervised national referendum, effectively splitting the country into two parts, a Communist north led by the hero of Vietnam’s independence struggle, Ho Chi Minh, and the south, led by the corrupt former French colonial stooge Ngo Dinh Diem.

With elections off, a small group of partisans, the Viet Cong, began an insurrection against the government in the South in early 1959, which the US became committed to opposing, initially sending in "advisers" to train and direct the South Vietnamese army. That war went from bad to worse, and when, in 1964, it became clear to US police-makers, that the Viet Cong were likely to win, President Lyndon Johnson made a decision to send in massive numbers of US troops and to begin a major bombing campaign against the North Vietnam.

From 2000 US troops in Vietnam in 1961, there were 16,500 in 1964, and by mid 1965, 100,000. That number continued to rise, reaching 200,000 by 1966, and ultimately, at the height of the war, over 500,000. But the Viet Cong, and later, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese troops sent down from the north, were never defeated. Indeed, they continued to grow in number and in their control of the countryside. While they suffered horrific losses because of the superior firepower of US forces, and an American scorched-earth policy in the countryside, the Vietnamese forces continued to gain more and more support from the Vietnamese people.

In the end, after suffering over 58,000 dead, the US cried uncle and left Vietnam. By 1975, the puppet regime in Saigon fell, and Vietnam was finally unified again, under Communist rule.

From the beginning of America’s involvement in Vietnam, the country, a poor nation of peasant farmers, was presented to the American public as a critical threat to the security of the United States. If Vietnam were to "fall," Americans were told, the rest of Southeast Asia, like a chain of dominos, would fall—first Cambodia and Laos, then Thailand and Malaysia, then Indonesia, and finally, even Australia would be at risk. Of course, no such thing happened.

Nationalist

The Vietnamese Communists were always, and remained, a nationalist movement, and after winning their multi-generational struggle for independence, focused on developing their country (though they did step in and overthrow a genocidal Communist regime that had taken over in Cambodia, installing a saner government).

It had been a giant scam on the American people from the beginning, and it ended up costing several million Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives, and 58,000 American lives, though that scarcely tells the toll, in terms of those crippled mentally and physically, those poisoned by the widespread spraying of toxic defoliants, and the laying of millions of anti-personnel mines that are still killing and maiming people in Indochina today.

"If Vietnam is lost, all of Southeast Asia is lost."

- Richard Nixon, future president, January 1965

"If terrorists get rooted in Afghanistan once again, terrorism will easily and quickly spread through Central Asia and further."

- Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato general secretary, August 2009

Now a new president, Obama, like Johnson before him, is telling Americans that a war half a world away is "necessary for American security." This is a ludicrous assertion on its face. If Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, and really hardly a country at all, is a threat to US national security, so is Malawi, Burundi and Fiji.

Let’s be rational for a moment. The Taliban, whatever their irrational Islamic fanaticism and their misogyny, have no interest in America, other than to drive our troops out of their country. When they were in charge in Kabul back in 2001, they had their hands full just trying to hang on in the face of the war lords and drug kingpins who held (and still hold) sway in various parts of the country, and when they eventually win and drive the US and its NATO allies out of Afghanistan, they will have their hands full again, just clinging to power.

American national security is not to the slightest degree threatened by the Taliban.

Okay, so back in 2001 there was a gang of Arabs in Afghanistan which had since 1990, at least, expressed some hostility towards the US, but that crew, after all, had been set up by the CIA in the first place, and anyway, by 2002 it had been largely shattered and driven out of Afghanistan, and into Pakistan and parts unknown.

The current Afghanistan War, which President Obama claims is so necessary to American security, is not against Al Qaeda though; it is against the Taliban, and it simply cannot be won, anymore than the US war against the Vietnamese could be won.

Today, as in the late 1960s, the Pentagon is telling the president that it needs more troops. There is a military imperative not to lose a war. No general or admiral wants to be the guy in charge when the jig is declared up, and the troops have to be brought home as losers. And so they are asking for more and more troops and weapons, in hopes of hanging on until they get get cashiered out.

Rise up

Obama, like Johnson before him, will buy into this criminal policy, because he too doesn’t want to "lose" a war before he leaves office.

That should be pretty scary, since I’m sure Obama is hoping that he will be in office not just through 2012, but through 2016. That’s a long time to keep escalating a hopeless and pointless conflict, just to avoid having to say it was a mistake in the first place.

But lest you say that it cannot happen, recall that the first US advisers went to Vietnam in 1959, the big escalation began in 1964, and the US didn’t leave until 1974. That’s 15 years of war and ten years of major warfare.

Because the Bush/Cheney administration was always more interested in invading Iraq than in invading Afghanistan, and pulled out many troops from the latter country in late 2002 to ship them to Iraq, the Afghan War has escalated more slowly than the Vietnam War did. But I’d say that today we are about where we were in Vietnam at the start of 1965. That is, the big lie, and the big escalation in the fighting, are both just getting going.

If the American people don’t rise up and demand an end to this thing right now, we could be in for another 8-10 years of brutal and bloody warfare, and in the end, the United States is, once again, going to lose.

stopwar.org.uk

I've got no quarrels with our forces, just the pigs sending them to their deaths in a futile conflict.

[AyrshireDon]

Afganistan i support its a just cause and NATO backed, iraq well we will be pulling out in 4 months so thats good.

[King-Osgood-1690]

• Extracts from UK soldier's diary, 18 July - 3 August 2009.
• While in hospital they brought in loads of lads who had just been blown up. They were in a bad way. They were morphined and just sat there shocked, staring into space.
• Op Minimise has been called. Somebody has been killed in an explosion. Found out later it was A. He was a great kid and I was only talking to him the other night. He got killed searching for IEDs. I just hope he was killed instantly and didn't suffer. He volunteered to go on this tour. He was also there with B who was shot in the head by a sniper, shot between the eyes while wearing his helmet.
• Gordon Brown can talk whatever lalalala he wants. He is a politician not a soldier. The men here know the reality of it all. How many of the politicians have kids in the forces doing Op Brama [metal detecting for IEDs]? lalalala all.
• My back is hurting and the shooting pains through my body are doing my head in. The Mastiff [armoured vehicle] lads are in here and they have told me what happened to A. He stepped on a pressure plate. Lost both legs below the knee, arm below the elbow as well as back injuries. Relieved he was killed instantly.
• Throughout last night the Tannoy was asking for all personnel with blood types A+ and O to give blood. Seven blokes have been blown up in a Viking and one has been shot by his mate.
• During the night Operation Minimise was called again. One bloke has been hit by an IED. Saw a couple of my boys, they look shocked because they thought I had been shot in the head.
• Another soldier has been killed from 40 Regiment Royal Artillery (IED). It's not been a good month with all the deaths. Talking to blokes from other units we reckon we have taken up to 160 casualties on top of the dead. The public don't get told that.
• The mates of A have turned up for the repatriation of their friend. It's sad that it is for somebody so young. Another five soldiers are being repatriated as well.
• Tannoy for blood went off again. Another lad killed in an explosion and one injured. (Op Minimise again).
• Seven more came into hospital, two badly wounded. The badly injured lad who came in the other day died yesterday. Sad news.
• We heard C had been blown up while doing Op Brama in exactly the same place A was killed. Told that a checkpoint was getting smashed by small-arms fire and the lads had to ask for mortar support.
• Went on the internet and learned of D's death. Totally lalalalaing gutted. He was a really good lad. I hope he didn't suffer.
• Read some newspapers today. Totally sick of all the lalalalae they are full of. A cricketer is a lalalalaing hero [Flintoff]. He throws balls at a man with a big stick for lalalala's sake. Who cares who Jordan is
• shagging? Operation Minimise again. More soldiers killed.
• Logged on to the internet, another Op Miminise. The boys must be getting smashed. The Mert [Medical Emergency Response Team] helicopter has not stopped. Went to see the surgeon commander but she is busy playing Frankenstein. Two Mert helicopters and two others come in. God knows what's going on. Just hope they are not too badly injured.
• Told that E and F were on the helicopter that had just flown in. Their vehicle had been hit by a 40kg IED. Went to the hospital to see them. E had a bad arm and F had his vertebrae done in and will be out for eight months.
• Fly home. Blokes with no legs on board. Sit next to one lad who is completely deaf. Another tells me he has been hit with IEDs four times while inside a Viking and he's just had enough, too frayed to get inside another vehicle.

stopwar.org.uk

Nagging, repetitive voice in my head: "It's not worth it"


By a captain in the Welsh Guards (name withheld), The Independent, 10 August 2009


Just two weeks after Lance Corporal Joe Glenton became the first serving soldier to speak out against the Afghan War, an officer serving on the frontline gives a brutally honest account, in the first ever unauthorised dispatch, of the pain of losing comrades, the frustration at the lack of equipment, and the sense that the conflict seems unending and unwinnable.

My motivation is simple. Writing this helps vent off some of the frustration at what is happening out here in Afghanistan to those serving in the British Army, where death and serious injury are sickeningly common occurrences. Before coming here, I had done two tours in Iraq which saw fierce fighting against the enemy.

But, sometimes out here I feel I might as well be on my first tour, as a novice second lieutenant instead of a so-called senior captain with over eight years experience in the Army, due to a shocking rate of attrition that I have never encountered before.

Casualty figures not that bad?

Commentators keep citing previous figures for casualty rates in the Falkland's conflict, as well as the years in Northern Ireland, suggesting that, spread over the time we have been in Afghanistan, the figures here are not that bad.

How reassuring. For a moment I thought the rates might be quite bad; but thank goodness I have been shown that what we are experiencing is in fact a tolerable "medium" number of casualties.

Can we really only analyse the death and injury rate, or view it as a cause for concern, once we get past a certain benchmark or once the average number outstrips a previous average? I had hoped that human progression was a bit more advanced than that, and that there might be more to the situation than a comparison of statistics.

Then there are the injuries. I am talking about limbs removed, double or even triple amputations, on a scale that we've never seen before.
When you read about a "very seriously injured" casualty, that person's life is never going to be the same, nor is it for the rest of their family, who will be sucked in and forever affected by the aftermath.

So what effect does this have on us all out in Afghanistan? My experience of this is from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guard's Battle Group, who have endured a significant number of fatalities and seriously injured personnel, including the death of their commanding officer.

Shock, powerlessness and impotence

With each death I think each of us experiences a feeling of total shock, powerlessness and impotence. Within your mind you feel you have to do something, especially if you knew the individual. Back at home that might be to jump in the car and drive to some secluded spot where you can get out and scream at the top of your lungs to let out all the anguish. But here nothing of the sort is possible. You are all enclosed within your camp or patrol base; there is no refuge, no private corner to go to, to deal with your grief.

Around you everything else has to continue, and cannot stop. The radios still have to be manned and answered, the patrols still have to be planned, the convoys have to be organised. It is not as if you can take a day off to deal with the grief, to come to terms with it. And even if you could, what good would that do?

Who wants to go and sit in their tent, sweating in temperatures in the high 40s, brooding on the possibilities: what were they thinking in those last few moments, did they know what had happened, did they know they were dying, how terrified and alone did they feel?

The only option available is to embrace the alternative: keep joking with your friends, maintain the banter levels, swapping smutty jokes and stories – literally forcing yourself to keep smiling.

I do not say that as a praiseworthy example of that renowned, age-old, plucky, English stiff upper lip. Far from it – it may be our worst enemy.
After death, life obviously has to go on, but I have always felt that life should go on having learnt a lesson from that death, improving your life as a testament to that life robbed – not merely moving on with a smile, whilst showing "fortitude".

I am just speaking for those of us who deal with the deaths and injuries in Afghanistan indirectly, as an explosion in the distance, followed by a report on the radio, then a helicopter coming in to pick up the casualty.

As for those who deal directly with the deaths and injuries, who have to go into the Viking vehicles after the explosion to pull out the casualties, who have to tourniquet the remaining stumps after both the legs of a person have been blown off, those who have to pick up the leftover pulpy fragments of a disintegrated body and put them into a bag, I am not sure how they react.

I would imagine in a similar way to the rest of us: you put it aside as soon as you can, as there is nothing to be achieved in thinking about it. All you will do is think yourself into a corner, where you are faced with the absurdity and horrid waste of it all. And if you let that take a hold, how are you meant to perform, drag yourself out of your tent at 4am after just three hours sleep, to go on another foot patrol, another 18-hour convoy, another 12-hour shift in the operations room? It does not work.

There is so much that still needs to be done, there are still weeks to get through, more patrols and convoys that need to be completed. So the event of each death is placed away, zipped up in a mental body bag, back in the recesses of your mind.

Mental body bag

However, unlike a real body bag, which fortunately disappears, that mental body bag remains in the morgue of your sub-conscious, quite possibly to come out and be re-opened, once you return home and have the chance to think about each death, each injury, each friend gone.

Then there are the equipment shortages. Due to the pitiful numbers of support helicopters and Apaches needed to escort them, every day troops on the ground are forced to expend an enormous amount of hours and manpower just standing still. They sacrifice their reserves of energy, motivation and willpower securing and picketing routes for the never-ending vehicle convoys that have to keep happening in order to resupply the patchy spread of patrol bases with water, ammo and rations; as well as recovering the vehicles that invariably go into ditches and securing helicopter landing-sites for the evacuation of casualties from improvised explosive device strikes.

I think if Sisyphus (the Greek mythological character cursed to roll a huge boulder repeatedly up a hill, only to watch it roll back down again, throughout eternity) could see us now, he would offer his sincere condolences and offer a friendly arm around the shoulder, saying that he knew what it felt like.

If someone provided one of those garishly coloured (army) pie charts depicting the percentage of time and effort sucked up into the black hole of orchestrating these road moves, it would provide a statistic that would be both shocking and embarrassing. It might also partly explain why the military is struggling to gain an advantage over the Taliban and cannot hold a significant amount of ground. Its energy, time and focus is bound up with those road moves, and our most vital asset, our troops, are either sweating on the sides of the roads, securing them, or sweating inside the vehicles of those often doomed convoys.

I am not criticising the military on the ground, who have to deal with this dilemma. Everyone seems to already agree on this issue of the equipment, in particular the lack of support helicopters – which rather begs the question of how on earth is nothing done about it? And how does the fact that nothing gets done about it seem to be the status quo and keeps occurring year after year, budgetary policy after budgetary policy, operational tour after operational tour?

If a magic genie were to appear in front of my eyes, who in keeping with the spirit of the present credit crunch cutbacks, could afford to grant me just one wish, I think I would simply choose a massive increase in helicopters and pilots – a wish that would have such a crucial influence on what is happening to the British Army out here.

We are dealing here with a tenacious and stubborn enemy. Despite our dropping bombs on compounds that the enemy is using as firing-points, the very next day, new enemy fighters are back.

On the one hand, perhaps the enemy command is so feared, authoritative and manipulative that they force unwilling fighters into those compounds as pure cannon fodder. On the other, perhaps, the fighters willingly go back, despite their comrades having been killed there, so strong is their faith in an afterlife, or so strong is their belief in the jihad they are fighting.

Power-sharing deal with the Taliban

Whatever the reason, they come back undaunted to the same firing-points, despite our overwhelming fire power. Their numbers seem to stay constant, as opposed to decreasing – all of which gives a strong indication that we will not be able to reduce their numbers to a level where they are tactically defeated.

It seems increasingly true that a stable Afghanistan will only be possible with some sort of agreement, involvement or power-sharing deal with the Taliban.

However, as the British Army units here are increasingly sucked into the turmoil of the latest "fighting season" there seems little evidence that anything is happening on the political and diplomatic stage. In the meantime, tour follows tour, during which the most intense fighting appears to achieve not much more than extremely effectively inflicting casualties on both sides, whilst Afghanistan remains the sick man of Central Asia.

I think of a scene near the end of Pat Barker's novel The Ghost Road, set at the end of the First World War, in which a seriously injured soldier lies in hospital, gradually dying. The soldier regains consciousness but due to his injuries can only slur a sentence together, which he keeps repeating. His family agonisingly try to decipher what he might be saying, which sounds like "shotvarfet, shotvarfet". His doctor realises what he is trying to say and translates: "He's saying, 'It's not worth it' ."

The man's father, a retired Army major, in grief blurts out: "Oh, it is worth it, it is."

This incredibly powerful passage goes some way to articulating our response to this conflict. We seem to know and say that it is not worth it, whilst instinctively reacting and saying that it is worth it – it has to be worth it. If I am honest, I do not know what I think about it all conclusively; my reasoning is lost in the storm of media, opinions, analysis that are at play here.

However, I know that no matter how hard I try to see through the clutter of opinions and utter something of my own in order to explain or justify what I'm involved in, I just cannot shake off that nagging, repetitive voice in my head that says "shotvarfet, shotvarfet".

stopwar.org.uk

Sorry for hijacking the thread mate, but the above articles show that our lads are real people with real opinions, not just statistics in a "worthwhile conflict".

[liamthemaster92]

Originally Posted by Maus652

Do the Sun and other tabloids ever give accurate images?

Even page 3 isn't 100% real.

i'm having that as my sig lol

[AyrshireDon]

No mate post away it will highlight for those who don't know serving persons what reality is like for the lads and gals abroad.


Id seen the diary bit before as iv mates out in the gulf and Afganistan and they have to read such things before they depart. The only mate hurt, that i know so far (touch wood) was in Antrim. I knew about the casualty rate as its part of my armed forces interview revision pack. Thing is when you sign up none of this is kept back and thats why the intake rates low atm they don't want to put people through training and then they back out. Its sad our forces are under equiped for the tasks despite being trained to the highest standards without the gear its a waste.

[AyrshireDon]

Anybody watching Soldiers stories on the History Channel. Last week was UK troops in Iraq tonight its about troops serving in Northern Ireland. Its really interesting some of the tales are disgusting tho opens your eyes to the horrors that the men went through and how a lot didn't really want to be there having known people killed.

The Iraq program highlights the casualty rate we have over there thank goodness we are pulling out.

[Scottish N Proud]

Remind me again.

Why are they there?

[AyrshireDon]

Originally Posted by Scottish N Proud

Remind me again.

Why are they there?

Ossgood can explain it better but this what iv got from skim reading a few sources.
Northern ireland has a high percentage of people that still vied themselfs as British so when the other countys went over to become the Republic of Ireland there was slight disscontent to which people had little faith in the local police so there were minor riots so the troops were called but after a few attacks on them the local regiments (Ulster Battalions made up of mainly people from NI) called more regiments in and as the IRA grew in numbers and attacks the British grew in numbers also there were incidents where innocents were killed by UK forces.


We still have the local regiments their and an RAF base and belive me they still come under attack its a posting nobody wants as you can't live normally you cant leave base while you are there. An Irish regiment was posted in Fort George (inverness) when i visited. If you must know a Scottish battalion in in NI atm.

Wow thats scary as troops were told if they were about to be captured by IRA members they were to use 12bullets to kill the people attacking you and keep the 13th for yourself as the IRA didn't take prisioners!


That clear it up for you SnP

[AyrshireDon]

Didn't know this.

1,300 British troops died

6,000 wounded

300,000 soldiers served in the conflict.

According to a report the conflict is not over and that IRA extremists as slowly coming back.

[AyrshireDon]

Ministers retreat on territorials



Minister Bill Rammell confirms each unit will receive one training night per month

Ministers have scaled back planned cuts to the Territorial Army and made concessions over their training after fierce criticism from all sides. The Ministry of Defence wanted to cut £20m from the TA budget and halt all training for six months except for those due to be sent to Afghanistan.
But it now says every unit will get one night's training a month while the TA budget will not be cut by as much.
But despite the climbdown, several Labour MPs still criticised the plans.
Backbencher Lindsay Hoyle said they were "wrong" and could result in "nobody being left" in the territorials.
After making a statement to Parliament, Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell later met a group of MPs to explain the government's position.
The BBC's political correspondent Carole Walker said there was real anger expressed at the proposals and that, according to one source, the minister had received a "real battering".
'Vital contribution'
Defending the proposed budget cut, Mr Rammell told MPs earlier that the territorials made a "vital contribution" to the security of the UK.

Break the habit and you break the TA


Liam Fox, Shadow Defence Secretary

However, he said the government had invested huge sums in recruiting more regular troops to the Army on the advice of military chiefs.
As result, it was recognised that funding for other areas of the defence budget would have to be "reprioritised".
While he said TA members would be "disappointed" by the reduced activity, he said he hoped they would recognise the reality of the financial situation and that the Afghan mission must remain the UK's "main effort".
He said he had "listened" to concerns about the future of the TA and was adjusting his proposals for their training to help the "continuity and retention" of units.
The changes mean the TA's budget this year will be cut by £17.5m, rather than the £20m originally proposed.
It was "emphatically" not the case that troops due to be deployed to Afghanistan would see their training cut back, Mr Rammell said.
"No TA soldier will be deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied he is properly trained and prepared," he said.
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the TA's annual budget was effectively being cut by £43m and argued it was vital that routine as well as pre-deployment training should be protected.

The TA has had an increasing burden put upon it in recent years


Nick Harvey, Lib Dem defence spokesman

"For many the TA is a habit," he said. "Break the habit and you break the TA."
He added: "The proposals are a shambles and they must be reversed."
For the Lib Dems, defence spokesman Nick Harvey said the amount likely to be saved was tiny compared with the long-term damage it could do to morale within the territorials.
"The TA has had an increasing burden put upon it in recent years. If it were not for their efforts and the skills they bring from civilian life we would have struggled with our operation in Afghanistan in recent times."
'Crass decision'
Mr Hoyle urged the armed forces minister to reconsider his plans.
"I am sorry for you that you are becoming an apologist for a crass decision," he said.
"The problem we face is that quite rightly you say we have got to make tough decisions, hard decisions but that should not be the wrong decision and that is what we have seen."
Eric Joyce, an ex-aide to the defence secretary, said the situation was not "ideal" and the decision must be kept under review to ensure recruitment and retention of territorial soldiers was not damaged.
The future of the TA has risen up the political agenda in recent weeks with more than 500 reservists now serving in Afghanistan.
Conservative leader David Cameron has claimed some reservists are not getting the training they need before being deployed abroad but ministers have denied this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8326395.stm

[Scottish N Proud]

I'm talking about Afghanastan.

Not Ireland.

And sums nothing up

[AyrshireDon]

Originally Posted by Scottish N Proud

I'm talking about Afghanastan.

Not Ireland.

And sums nothing up

Ah well you didn't say.

We are in Afganistan as part of a NATO led offensive to flush out the Talliban with the UK in the south the hottest zone sadly the Candians to the East and Americans in the North with the rest in the east the plan was to flush them south out of the mountains into the British and Canadians but due to the mountains it didn't work and more came to the south than planned thats why more troops are being sent. The UK has signed an agreement to supply x amount to NATO at all times so there you go we are there to fight terrorism and restore democracy. Whats ironic is that the US sold the taliban weapons to fight the Russions and those same guns are killing NATO troops.


I suggest you watch the soldiers tales of Iraq and NI and the one on Afganistan it will give a better insight to the horrors our troops face.

[King-Osgood-1690]

Originally Posted by AyrshireDon

Didn't know this.

1,300 British troops died

6,000 wounded

300,000 soldiers served in the conflict.

According to a report the conflict is not over and that IRA extremists as slowly coming back.

The provo's have largely gone political, but the dissident republicans are still extremely active, as evidenced by the Massereene barracks attack, the murder of a PSNI officer, the large number of explosive devices found over the last few years and the recent attempted bombing of a policeman's vehicle right on the doorstep of a Protestant estate.

The activity is on the rise, sadly.

[AyrshireDon]

Originally Posted by King-Osgood-1690

The provo's have largely gone political, but the dissident republicans are still extremely active, as evidenced by the [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Dylan/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-7.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/Dylan/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-8.png[/IMG]Massereene barracks attack, the murder of a PSNI officer, the large number of explosive devices found over the last few years and the recent attempted bombing of a policeman's vehicle right on the doorstep of a Protestant estate.

The activity is on the rise, sadly.

Can you re link that please intresting info there around the link and i know first hand from a guy i know like i said that happened at the barracks disgusting scenes hes back from Iraq now.

My mate was at RAF Aldergrove and he was only allowed off base twice in the 6month deployment.

Currently re studying my RAF and UK armed forces information ie overseas deployment, current conflicts and the NI crisis so that when my job opens i will have little to prepare as ill know it all.