Pause for thought as 100th soldier dies

Lets hope that it will be the last death of the year as well.

It is a war we cannot win.

How many more soldiers will die or be maimed before Brown realises this?

Nick,
My feeling on this is that the Taliban are playing a 'waiting game'. They know that the international forces are now losing public support and that there is no real leadership in Afghanistan. All they need to do is offer the Afghan security people more money than they are currently receiving and all the work that the international forces have achieved will be undone in a matter of weeks. Once our forces leave Afghanistan the country will return to its old ways.
So the sad truth is that many of our brave soliers are losing their lives for a campaign that cannot possibly win in the long-term.
The Russians tried and failed in Afghanistan. Why does anyone think that the British will have any greater success?
British history is littered with failures where successive governments have gloried in the battle, but never considered the political and long-term aftermath of their actions.

Nick Robinson wrote
'Any death of a British soldier - let alone the 100th death this year - would make anyone sensible pause for thought about the value of the mission. However, I am certain that this grim milestone will not have the same effect it would have had a few weeks or a few months ago'.

It does on me. I'm a father of three, It would break my heart if it was one of my lads.

Our Troops @ Zero

"We don't want people's sympathy. Sympathy is for losers. We are not losers. We want people's support not sympathy."

That's got to be right. To feel the object of sympathy or (worse) pity can be debilitating. Trouble is, it's this phrase one hears all the time (and it applies to me) "I don't support the War but I support our Troops" ... now what does that actually mean? In particular, what does the second use of the "support" word in this sentence mean? I've always thought it involved a big dose of sympathy. If the military are saying they don't want that, it leaves me nowhere to go apart from to say I'm opposed to the War and I do NOT support our Troops. That's now correct as a literal statement but yet it seems wrong. Ah well.

Nobody doubts the skill and bravery of our service personnel. But in what is an unwinnable war, it's disturbing to hear the macho propaganda which says "we're not losers" justifying more needless deaths and maimings. If there was a clear, achievable strategic objective, it might be different. But all the forces - and the electorate - have are the meaningless platitudes of Gordon Brown and his strategic genius Bob Ainsworth. Caledonian Comment

It's no use asking this question of Nick as it would be too controversial for the BBC.
Does anyone know how many French, German and Italian soldiers have been killed this year in Afghanistan.

Nick
Deaths are at a rate of 2 a week for the year. For what?

Sadly Stalin said 'A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic'. It will soon reach a point when we become completely fed up at the losses long before the Taliban regard the lastest 'martyr' a statistic. We may even switch off because we realise that we canot change anything. Then death 136 or 236 will be a statistic. It would help if we could point at history and say this succeeded in the past, but we cant. A complete rethink is required, and I think some civilian input is required to direct the strategy.
Brown has had his day, but I wouldnt trust Cameroon, or any one like Milliband.
Dulce decorum est pro patri [or whatever] anyone!!!!!
Disgruntled geoff
BIRMINGHAM

There are a lot of comments saying this war cannot be won.
This is not true, it can be won, but it's cost in human terms to our morality that is the issue.

Lets weigh this up, if you are a villager and your reward for helping the Allies is death by beheading from the Taliban when they return OR your reward for helping the Taliban is a stern finger wagging from the Allies when they return. Who are you realistically going to side with?

Is it any wonder that hard won gains are so easily lost? And that commentators believe that the country will return to Taliban rule as soon as the Allies leave?

I wonder if the relatives of the Russian soldiers who died in their invasion of Afghanistan feel that the loss of their loved ones achieved anything?

The fallen

I can see the fallen marching
like shadows across the plain
I can hear the bugles sounding
that final plaintive cry
I can hear the drumsticks beating
tapping out the time
I can hear their voices calling
did we die in vain

I can see the coffins carried
from that doleful plane
I can hear their loved ones weeping
the children asking why
I can hear the people asking
is it worth the sacrifice
the question must be answered
did they in vain

I can hear the fallen calling
their words are loud and clear
we did not fight for glory
or financial gain
we sought no commendation
our reward was death and pain
we served the Queen and country
and would do it all again
but we need to be assured
before we leave this earthly plane
that lessons have been learned
so we did not die in vain

Nobody wins a war, but at its conclusion it becomes readily apparent that some have lost more than others.

In my opinion, political interference by politicians and senior MoD civil servants during the Iraqi and current Afghan conflict has done immeasurable harm to the morale and reputation of our Armed Forces.

If the public at large really understood just how bad the over-arching policy making has been, then they would be very angry indeed.

As it stands, the people only have a glimmer of understanding as the true situation, unlike the Americans, who after the Basra debacle, have fully realised how politically driven our military has become, which has blunted its effectiveness.

It is a sad fact that on the day that the 100th British soldier is killed in the war against terrorists that there was a series of boms in Iraq that have killed 120 and injured over 200 civilions in a market square and in pakistan another 20 civilions by another terrorist bomb. meaning that atleast a 140 have died in one day..
If it was'nt for all the guys and girls who have lost their lives defending us, what could have been happening on our streets.
My thoughts and thanks go out to all the families who have lost their sons/daughters that have gone out there to protect us from these evil people.

5 "it's this phrase one hears all the time (and it applies to me) "I don't support the War but I support our Troops" ... now what does that actually mean? In particular, what does the second use of the "support" word in this sentence mean? I've always thought it involved a big dose of sympathy. If the military are saying they don't want that, it leaves me nowhere to go"

I'd have thought it perfectly possible to support the troops without supporting the war. You could campaign for the war to end, for the troops to pull out but at the same time campaign that whilst they are their, they get the best weapons, materials and numbers of troops that they are asking for. You could campaign against the Government seeking to claw back compensation for the injured. There are lost of things that could be done which show support for the troops without saying you agree with the war.

"The army wanted to show the man who may be their next boss how they are engaged not simply in deadly firefights with the Taliban but in helping to secure and then hold towns and villages. Their aim is to show that life could return to somewhere near to normal if they turned their backs on the Taliban."


What is 'somewhere near normal'? Is it what is happening in post-war Iraq, where bombs continue to take lives on a regular basis?

Pause indeed......

What a bloody mess....


Bring the boys home for Christmas and let them feast in safety and send our MPS out there to hold the front line for a few weeks.

The business of an army is to wage war, the business of politicians is to win hearts and minds.

Yet here we seem to have an army endeavouring to win hearts and minds and politicians promoting war.

As regards people who promote or carry out terrorism in this country, which is in essence the murder or maiming of men women and children, I would have thought execution would be a reasonably sensible solution.

I know this will be rejected again but I will try once more. The BBC makes a big event out of every British death. However, the BBC never in 7 years has reported one single Taliban death. During WW2 this would have been regarded as treason. Why is the BBC pro Taliban in its reporting?

I worry about the media preoccupation with the number 100.

As several contributers kept trying to tell the presenters on the News Channel, the number is no more important than any other and this death should not be treated as any different to any others. In fact, some find it faintly insulting to make one death more important than the others simply because it is a media friendly number.

The contributers, including recently retired serving personnel, all kept on talking about the importance of the mission out there and how it is important for the memory of ALL the dead soldiers that the positive aspects of the campaign are pushed to the front, not the negative.

However, in one case, the very second the presenter had thanked one retired soldier, he read out a linking piece that had the number 100 shoved into it at least five times!

It constantly amazes me how the editors completely ignore what knowledgeable and important people tell them, and just play it for sensationalism.

The public really don't know what is going on out there. If you were to take just the BBC reports alone, you would think that the British have lost 100 soldiers this year and the Taliban and insurgents none.

Of course, this is not the truth. The enemy has taken on very large casualties, and our troops have been making really important headway.

But somewhere between the government and the press, you would never know it.

Joss @ 19

You worry about the media preoccupation with the number 100 {deaths}.

This is part of a trend that I loosely called 'memorial porn' in a previous Nick Robinson blog.

'Memorial porn' is pretty distasteful and means, in this context, an almost overbearing obsession with the casualties.

Paradoxically, when I read the brutal truth about war in Paul Fussells book 'Wartime', which recounted his experiences in WWII with the American 101st division, I realised that war truly is pornography in the very ugliest sense of the word.

#18 probritish
I think you're confusing the BBC with Al-Aqsa.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Given the subject its not very important but:

David Cameron is not our future boss as our current boss is Her Majesty The Queen, she just lets Her Prime Minister call the shots for Her. Oh and it's Army with a capital 'A'.

Hope that clears things up.

The reality has been that our troops have been winning the battles on the ground whilst our politicians have been consipiring through their indifference to lose the war.

Necessary material was not committed to theatre in a timely way, necessary troop numbers were not enhanced when required and, as usual between the pair of them, the MOD and The Treasury formed an alliance of their own with the enemy.

Lastly, the diplomats failed completely in ensuring the Afghan government was on board rather than in the money.

It would seem now that the political class now understand that if they don't commit to the war then it will be lost and our circumstances would be even worse than they are now as a probably nuclear armed Al Qaeda will then be running riot throughout the world. I find it amazing that it has taken them all so long to buy into this crying need to stand and fight. We have no option but to see it through.

This was never a winnable war: it was always about containing the enemy militarily whilst a fuller political settlement was achieved. It was the latter that has been missing and this is why so many of our people have died or suffered serious injury.

War is an ugly, messy business. It is not a game. No country should set out to go to war without having tried all other options to achieve the necessary outcome. We wandered into this war as under the current government we seemed to have wandered into just about everything going. It would seem that the UK government has at last understood that it needs to commit and remain committed to the necessary outcome. It is a pity it has taken us eight years to get that commitment.

#7 yeah but they are keen to supply the manufacture base to our armed force and take prorata shares in production as it keep them in manufacturing job.s

Land Rover producted the 101FC and Bedford/Foden and others the vehicles
the other day I saw a convoy of MAN's with UK soliders in.

And for those labour supporters 460 did not object when they had the chance, for fear of losing there own seats.

The US are about to send another 250+ helo's , we are trying to get together about another 10-20 , says it all .

All on the back of a massive economic growth of the last 12 years.

Where has all the money gone ?

Al Quaeda have been seriously wounded in their ability to plan and launch terrorist attacks as a result of the war in Afghanistan; their influence is diminished and there is no doubt that the UK is safer as a result. By the same logic there is no doubt that UK lives, civilian lives on our streets, have been saved as a result.

Government is a no-win situation; were we not in Afghanistan preventing the terrorist forces from being affective in their plans then, when they next attacked the UK through having free run to plan and deliver their indiscriminate attrocities in Afghanistan then people would question why we were not dealing with the threat at source. Instead we take the tough decision to attempt to rid the world of their idealogical filth in their own space and the government gets a kicking for the consequence of that tough decision.

Every death of every soldier is a tragedy and my heart goes to those family left behind (my daughter is in the Army, I'm not just an armchair commentator) but the media should continually re-iterate why we are there and the good our forces are doing rather than dwelling on grim milestones...

Words are cheap especially condolences, or the 1 or 2 minutes of silence come Nov 11th. It's a pity those currently facing the wrath of the likes of the taliban had the same level of protection afforded to one particular royal then perhaps those in the real front line may also feel safer. Simply that won't happen, bring them home let this country self - impload, isolate them from the rest of the world with secure borders. Failing that use some of those redundent WMD we have in our stockpiles!

Nick the event of the 100th loss of life should be a trigger for all of us to think of the sacrifice the armed services and their families and friends are making on our behalf.

I am not convinced that the politicians understand that we are at War and need to provide the resources necessary to provide Afghanistan with an environment in which they can control their lives without the domination of forces that wish (and do) harm to us and our allies.

The information coming out of the Iraq Enquiry is timely! The 43 countries involved in Afghanistan must provide the resources necessary to consolidate our military achievements to provide an environment where they can ward off the Taliban and grow to be a stable Nation of separate Tribes working together.

At a minimum this must include helping them to produce goods that they can trade internally and some external trade.

My fear is that the UK sees Northern Ireland as a template for dealing with insurgents: Taking > 30 years with considerable loss of life and resources; while the rest of the UK seems to have continued life a normal.

The UK should be at a War footing in Afghanistan, whilst also maintaining our defence capabilities that are needed to meet the defence tasks HMG place on our Armed Services.

JohnConstable wrote:

You worry about the media preoccupation with the number 100 {deaths}.

This is part of a trend that I loosely called 'memorial porn' in a previous Nick Robinson blog.

###

An interesting term, and not one I would disagree with.

I spent part of my eclectic media career working on footage from British Pathe News. Unlike the BBC, Pathe could be as jingoistic as they liked on their news reels. One of my favourite, shamelessly propaganda ridden clips, showed some Italian soldiers walking up a hill and surrendering. The commentary went:

"And here is another group of Italians surrendering to allied forces - if they ever run out of white flags, we really will be in trouble!" (Or words close to that)

Now, I would not want modern coverage to be anything like that now, however, it illustrates the point that our attitude to war, our distaste for it and our support or otherwise is often driven by how the media reports.

WW2 was a very different war - it was on our doorstep to start with. The war in Afghanistan is a long distance away and any potential threat to UK security is hard to perceive, and that makes things far more difficult. I remember during the Falklands war how many, many people were against that because "its 9000 miles away!" But, apart from a complete lack of understanding on how you navigate a battle ship, I don't particularly remember the press being so negative as they are now. (I may be wrong)

I dont want to see a wholesale return to blind patriotism, but I think news editors need to learn the difference between a good headline and good journalism. 100 is not a greater milestone than 99 - in fact, in terms of a campaign, I don't think it is a milestone at all, and soldiers certainly DON'T look at it in those terms. They mourn for their colleagues but they also look at whether they have achieved that day what was asked of them.

It must be terribly sad for them that back in the UK, we mourn the death of the 100th soldier, and never even stop to ask whether the army had a success that day or not.

The government keep saying that soldiers have not died in vain. But neither they nor the press every get round to say WHY they have not died in vain.

I remember a friends father talking candidly about being in North Africa during WW2. He was mourning how in one day so many of his friends had died; twenty something I think it was. But then his eyes twinkled "but we took twice that many of the enemy with us!"

The media is full of the politics, the little ins and outs, the pros and cons, the in-fighting and so on. They have completely forgotten that most people are like that old soldier - they just want to know the Score

7 telecasterdave.

If you want to know the number of casualties in Afghanistan go onto the website iCasualties. They maintain a full and up to date record.

26 Andrew Morrow

Absolutely spot on my friend , its time the media started supporting the forces and indeed the country, they seem hell bent on bringing the country to its knees.

While each death is a tragedy for the family involved, I can't help but think that it's a meaningless figure without the equivalent numbers of casualties for other NATO forces in the country, the number of Taleban fighters that have died at the hands of our soldiers, and the number of civilians caught in the middle.

British forces have been in Afghanistan for eight years and have suffered 237 Forces/MOD deaths as of yesterday. Compare that to WW1, which lasted half that time and in which over 800,000 military personnel died.

It's my hope that potential recruits decide not to join the armed forces due to the effect their death would have on their family. Maybe then the government would think twice about taking us to war so casually.

26. At 12:49pm on 08 Dec 2009, Andrew Morrow wrote:
Al Quaeda have been seriously wounded in their ability to plan and launch terrorist attacks as a result of the war in Afghanistan; their influence is diminished and there is no doubt that the UK is safer as a result. By the same logic there is no doubt that UK lives, civilian lives on our streets, have been saved as a result.

*********************************

Well Andrew, I've heard Gordon Brown and others SAY that, but I've yet to SEE any evidence of that. I'd like to think it's true but I have my doubts.
Those who took us into this war gave prevention of terrorism in the UK as the reason for so doing and, therefore, have to maintain that line as justification for our continue presence in Afghanistan.
The fact that no further terrorist action has occurred in the UK does not mean that the Afghan war is justified. It only means that the anti-terrorist bodies in the UK are seemingly doing their job.

#19 I'm completely with you on this Joss. The media love to sensationalise, then comment about the sensationalism, facts are ignored.

#18 When we first entered combat with the Taliban there were endless reports about the numbers of Taliban killed. At the time it seemed the Taliban were fighting in a more conventional way, and it seems they suffered badly. As a result they anounced they would be using more insurgent tactics, as we have seen. I was highly suspicious of this reporting of numbers since there was very little other information. The story they were trying to protray was, 'we have killed all of these Taliban, therefore the Taliban will be defeated, and we will have won and aren't we good'. As we know that was a completely false premise, the Taliban are not just an army of a fixed number of men, they have a flexible organisation, of mostly part timers many of who live in the local area or in neighbouring countries.

As regard Taliban losses now, from what I can work out, there are very few. They plant the IEDs then wonder back into cover. A report on on TV recently indicated that Taliban ambushes rarely if ever results in a Taliban being killed or captured. It was reported that the commander of the British unit had never seen a dead Taliban during any tour of duty, despite numerous ambushes, by 'so called' Taliban fighters.

So what are we to believe from all this, only that in war there is no truth only lies and propaganda. And our media is fully linked with this process.

#7 actually I think the BBC does have a web page that details the losses of other nations.

The problem faced by any government in this situation is that the population find the loss of young lives for objectives that are remote (both geographically remote and remote from their experience) unfathomable.

The generations now largely concerned with the conduct of the war in the political domain (30-60 year olds) regard war against unpaletable ideologies as remote, possibly suspicious and usually unwinnable. The same people regard our troops as doing a fantastic job in difficult (for them that means unwinnable) circumstances, and the fatalism of this cohort is evident in the nuances of their language about the war.

It isn't, I think, that these people have ONLY sympathy, but they have no sense of how such a war is winnable, and consequently see our forces as being asked to achieve the impossible, regardless of resources. There is, in the public rhetoric, a sense of the futility of the mission. That is because of a fundamental failure of POLITICAL leadership. Our leaders would ideally show us how we can win, what winning would look like, what success in reconstruction and nation-building would look like, and celebrate every trumph on the road toward it. Instead, 'sympathy' - in an attempt to match the public mood - is all we get from them. Were I serving my country in Afghanistan, and hoping to avoid becoming the victim of an IED or a Taliban sniper, I'd wonder why my corps commanders can show leadership while my elected politicians shrink from it.

c555 @ 14

Yes I suppose so, Andy. On this matter - "bleached bones of British Grenadiers" notwithstanding - I guess we're just going to have to agree to agree.

I don't mind if you don't.

Telecaster @7

I cant tell you the numbers but I am angry that some NATO countries will not allow their soldiers out at night or to go to Helmand.

36. At 1:18pm on 08 Dec 2009, Woundedpride wrote:
'The problem faced by any government in this situation is that the population find the loss of young lives for objectives that are remote (both geographically remote and remote from their experience) unfathomable'.

Good point.

But if we could trust politicians, perhaps we’d believe them. But we can’t trust them can we?

We can’t trust them on anything………. I can quote the better know ‘I’ve abolished boom and bust’ ………. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I could go on, but I guess you’ll catch my drift.

If you simply can’t trust politicians to even keep their expenses clean, then why in God’s sweet mother earth should I trust what they tell me about Afghanistan.

I could not appreciate the UK armed forces more; they are fantastic. They are brave and professional, and thank God they are doing the job so that I don't have to.

The 100th death is not a milestone - it is a personal tragedy for family and friends. Don't stop reporting the deaths and the people they take away, but when we get there don't make No 150 seem more important than 149 or 151, please.

There were always bound to be UK deaths in Afghanistan, but I cannot help feeling that they could have been over by now if Nato had restricted its action to an anti Al Qaeda campaign instead of starting an parallel Iraq War in the meantime.

As it was, the Afghan campaign was a "forgotten war," a bit like the Burma campaign in the 40s. The government seemed to me deliberately to suppress any news of it. It wasn't until Christina Lamb wrote her "firefight" article that its profile was raised. Don't forget that the minister (Scottish fellow) had previously indicated that it was a minor mission that wouldn't require any shots to be fired.

The secondary nature of this war meant that it lost political focus, funding and caring. I despise the politicians who were responsible.

37

Happy to agree to agree....on this topic.

In war, people die. This is a given and the public should understand that if you send people off to war, some will die. The question is always: What are they dying for? Some may say to protect the bonus system for bankers.

Until the priority is the total destruction of any armed insurgency by all and any means, and without regard for any other agenda, this war will never reach a conclusion other than NATO's abject surrender and withdrawal. Treating Afghanistan as some kind of public relations exercise and " winning the hearts and minds " of people who would prefer your death, is not how the army should be used. If talking turkey with the extremists is the ultimate goal of Obama and Brown, then pull out the troops and get on with it, before any more soldiers die for nothing. Britain can ill afford either the loss of its youth, or indeed the massive cost of a war to save face, thinly disguised as a war to protect our own streets.

...."Proof of that came in this morning's interview with General Dannatt who conceded that Gordon Brown had seemed finally to "get it" in the summer."

So, after the British Army having been in Afghanistan for years, Brown finally "Got it" this summer. That's a shocking indictment of governmental disdain, isn't it? No wonder the bloke didn't bother to fund the forces properly.

No wonder the services were starved of resources in Iraq and were eventually obliged to back out of Basra.
(The US believes our troops were forced to slink away because the politicos wouldn't provide the support. That's really good for our military standing, isn't it.
Even if the guys on the ground know that the Brits can fight with the best, knowing that their political leadership didn't bother to provide either enough troops or equipment reduces, rather than enhances the view from Washington.)

I don't think Sadam would have tolerated Al Qaeda any more than the Saudis did. But now the Iraqis are "on their own" and it won't be a quiet country for years. We will, no doubt "claim" some sort of victory within 2 or 3 years. Pull out. Then what...

The "Democratically elected Afhgan government" will probably retreat to quieter places to enjoy the money they've taken from the country.
The Afghans will do what they always do, which is to retake their own land and squabble amongst themselves. But, at least they will be better trained, so probably civil disruption will be bloodier, quicker. It may be easy to beat a physical enemy, but it's hard to kill an idea.
So the people with the longest "ambition-horizon" will win...
That could well be the Taliban (or people with similar ideas).

@42 GhostofSichuan

I'm slightly confused. How do you link the war in Afghanistan to the bonus system for bankers?

Might just be me, but I can't seem to see any link between the two.

The political reason for being in Afghanistan and Iraq before that, is, as was crudely put to a British ambassador, to get in and stay stuck up the backside of the Americans, more conventionally stated as maintaining the so-called special relationship.

As we are very junior partners in this (wildly one-sided) relationship, the onus has been, always, for the Americans to have the coherent nation-building plan in Iraq and Afghanistan, which NATO partners could implement.

As we have discovered, the Yanks did not have a plan and instead made it up badly as they went along.

We have all suffered the consequences, however, belately a plan emerged for Iraq, namely the 'surge' (which should never have been required in the first place if a coherent nation-building plan had been implemented immediately following Saddams overthrow) and now Surge Mark II is being implemented in Afghanistan.

To repeat, these measures have only been required because of massive policy failures by politicians in Washington, which were faithfully followed by our overly compliant politicians in London.

Comments 30 35 38

Total fatalities in Afghanistan so far for the UK, France, Germany, Italy. Denmark is also included for comparison.

UK 237
France 36
Germany 34
Italy 22
Denmark 30

As others have already pointed out, it is not that 100 is more or less important than 99 or 101 - it is the use to which that sad figure is put that is disturbing.

What saddens me is that we have suddenly gone from seeing the 'total so far' (well in excess of 200) to the (more convenient?) figure of 'so many this year'. What is even more distressing is the manner in which some people seem to treat this as a 'target to be achieved' - in the sense that the more casualties, the better their arguments for withdrawal. This not only demeans their viewpoint, but also the sacrifice of those soldiers, marines, airmen and civilians who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

An earlier post asked about casualties from France, Italy, &c. Well, I don't know the total for France - but I do know that whenever there is a French casualty, there is a greater coverage on French television than the equivalent in the UK, and it is not unusual (in fact it is almost the standard procedure) for a senior government Minister, or even the President, to meet the returning coffin.

The British people are pesimistic because what the media, largely the BBC, is telling them is all defeatist. I have NEVER heard the BBC ever report on the Taliban casualties after a succesful British operation. You just love telling us whenever a British soldier is killed, especially if it can be blamed on inadequate kit and nothing is as newsworthy as US 'friendly fire' or 'collateral damage'. Why not say why the Taliban have inflicted 80% of our deaths using bombs? Its because they're scared to face our guys in open warfare. The much vaunted 'unbeatable tribesmen of the North West Frontier' who allegedly fought off everyone from Alexander the great to the British Empire to the Red Army are scared to take their AK47's up against our SA80's so instead creep out at night and plant bombs not caring if its a British Landrover sets it off or an Afghan on his way to market.

I've made this point several times on these forums and normally had the comment rejected for 'breaking house rules' (presumably the unpublished one about mentioning the BBC's anti- British policy). We'll see if Nick is Braver than some of the other bloggers......

#42 "In war, people die. This is a given and the public should understand that if you send people off to war, some will die. The question is always: What are they dying for? Some may say to protect the bonus system for bankers."


Are you trying to suggest that the Taliban are going to drive their Toyota pickups to Westminster and the Square mile and impose bans on bankers bonuses? Even among the paranoia and conspiracy theories that dwell on these blogs this is a new one. You do know that we were in Afghanistan 6 years before anyone had heard the word 'credit crunch' don't you? Mind you with countless people claiming that 9/11 was a reprisal for Iraq and Afghanistan I've come to realise that time isn't linear on blog sites.

The anti-war party becomes more vociferous and acts in effect as a fifth
column reducing the morale of our troops. The Talliban must applaud our apparent weakness. Just sit and wait for the ladies at the BBC to shatter our will to fight.

I doubt the sense in the BBC running Question Time at Wootton Bassett on Thursday- it seems as if the zealots have got carried away with their self-righteousness. Manipulation of emotion - questionable tactics !

bobhead #45

Supposedly the process in Afghanistan is a form of nation building. Providng the Afghans with some demoncratic process that reflects the values of the West. Currently , the values of the West are to support a corrupt political and banking system at the expense of the people. Just an opinion.

#49

I agree with some of what you say but am not sure of the point you are making with Taliban tactics. Of course you're going to creep about at night and plant bombs if you are armed with an old AK47 and are facing armoured vehicles with air support. You'd be an idiot not to. I wouldn't want to call the Taliban 'scared', but savvy.

I'd hardly have called the French resitance 'scared' for not taking on panzers whilst armed with rifles - so although with wildly different moralities and justice, the Taliban seem to me to be fighting a similar fight.

It seems to be that the Taliban have their tactics spot on for what they are trying to achieve.

"We'll see if Nick is Braver than some of the other bloggers......"

He certainly looked brave in his reports on TV. Like a well padded hampster.

29 Joss
The real fundamental difference between WW2 and Falklands to Afghanistan is as a soldier/sailor/airman you knew what uniform your enemy wore, you knew most civilians were not part of the war machine they were wars protecting the sovereignty of the UK, when fighting a war in someone elses country against citizens of that country not all Taliban are foreign fighters, who to all intents and purposes potray thierselves as civilians in that country it will be difficult.
So they are not going to fight on traditional battle formations they will fight what is termed guerrilla warfare as described by P Syms previously, incidentally that is how most Afghan Tribal wars were fought, we term them insurgents because we think we have the legitimacy but then the insurgents AKA Taliban might claim that Karzai and NATO are insurgents as they do not recognise thier authority.

Either way if we give a Government a mandate to enter into a war then we should support that decision, before people say, I disagree and did not give a mandate, we were in AFG and Iraq prior to 2005 and you could have exercised your right not to give Labour a mandate for further participation in the 2005 GE. We can still hold them to account by voicing our opinion.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you a better PR job needs to be done on behalf of our Servicemen and Women, about the countless people in AFG and elswhere they have saved by their sacrifices.

The 100th soldier to be killed this year alone but what about the numbers of those who have been badly injured?

Mow that Obama has at last made a decision we are all supposed to go along with this war. No way will we and nor will our American counterparts.

I am sick to death of hearing Gordon Brown telling us it is making our streets safe. About time he told us how.

What happens when the troops withdraw? Will our streets still be safe. I doubt it. This is where his argument falls down.

Until he finds a reason for being there that makes sense to us the scepticism for this war will not go away.

Those in Westminster only see a virtual world outside whereas we in the real world think and see much more and will not be swayed by their continuous spin.

@52 Ghostofsichuan

I see what your saying now.
And for soldiers in the field it must be infuriating to hear people trying to rationalise the size of their bonus by the job they do.
I can't remember exactly how much front line infantry get paid (I'm sure someone will remind me :-) ), but I remember being shocked by how little it was!

49. Peter_Sym wrote:
"The much vaunted 'unbeatable tribesmen of the North West Frontier' who allegedly fought off everyone from Alexander the great to the British Empire to the Red Army are scared to take their AK47's up against our SA80's so instead creep out at night and plant bombs not caring if its a British Landrover sets it off or an Afghan on his way to market."


Not sure what you're getting at here. We are the occupying force with combined defence spends approaching a trillion GBP. Up against a guerilla militia with many of their weapons left over from previous campaigns. Do you expect them to march in battalions against us? Form thin brown and grey lines?
They'll defend their territory in the most effective way possible.

"Any death of a British soldier - let alone the 100th death this year - would make anyone sensible pause for thought about the value of the mission".

So too might the death of say, Afghan civilians.
So too might an argument as to what this 'value' is actually supposed to be.

In war people die. Our casualties of dead and injured could and should have been much less. Regrettably lessons were not learned from previous conflicts. For example take D Day in WW11. Germany had superior tanks ; superior anti tank guns; superior machine guns; superior hand grenades etc etc. Result was that we were held in a relatively small bridgehead in Normandy and were unable to break out for weeks resulting in huge losses of men/material. It was only through massive extra numbers of men to replace those lost plus the intelligence supplied through Ultra that we eventually won through. Yet still we were sending the Army to Afghanistan with equipment totally unsuited for the job required. At least that issue is finally being addressed, no doubt after many many committee meetings at MoD and Whitehall not to mention the tender system being done with every "i" dotted and "t" crossed . It must make the commanders on the front line weep.

It's convenient for any government to conflate lack of support for a military invasion with a lack of support for the military itself.

So we cannot criticise the politicians or their justification for war because it will undermine the armed forces.

Total and utter b****cks.

Its all extremely sad. The deaths are bad enough, but don't overlook the wounded, as these numbers are much higher and seemingly ignored by the media. Many of these young people are unlikely to get much support once they are released from hospital, other than that their families provide. The public support for the troops seems very strong, but don't mistake that as support for the war or this Government. They have consistently failed to provide a consistent strategy or adequate material support. Criminal in my book. They are now effectively asking young people to die to support Karzai's regime. Would you want your child to die for that?

Mr Blair, the property magnate, has discredited the word of our Government to such an extent that the British people have lost confidence in what they are being told by the great and the good.

Most of us have nothing but admiration for the sacrifices made by our armed forces.

Our doubts are in the morality and worth of the mission they have been assigned by donkeys in Westminster.

In my opinion this whole numbers thing is specious. It matters to those that knew the deceased enormously, but for the Nation to get wound up about each death is essentially invalid. Why is the first in any way different to the 20,000th? (I am thinking of just the first day of The Somme.)

Either, the war is worth fighting, or it is not. People die in wars, actually the vast majority of deaths in wars are civilian non-combatants, women and children - very few soldiers die. If the numbers matter than there is something deeply suspect in our society - particularly when compared to the 3000 that die on the roads every year.

if our street are to be mad safer why has the borders agency not be sorted out and the police doing some real policing rather than targetting motorists then.

Given the GB often uses this as the basis of the war.

He could try looking up all the murderers ,rapist and peodo's for life
rather than having the ISA, but then they are soft on crime against the poeple rather than the state.

As the mother of a new recruit, I would like to raise some points which don't seem to have made the news and to correct some impressions the public might be receiving.
We are supporting our lads and lasses on active service, and are giving them empathy, not sympathy. It's all very well talking to 'officers', and taking what they say as being what the troops feel, but how many of the troops have been asked how they feel - without an officer present - even if their names are with-held to protect them?
How many of the general public know the terms of employment for those going into the services? And do any of them give a damn?
Apparently, long gone are the days of being provided for while serving Queen and country, and I am talking about before being sent on active service.
The list of items needed by each recruit would keep quite a few 'Woolworth's' in business. Then there is the need to insure the kit they are issued with. Against what!! Both my husband and I were in the forces, and if anything in your kit was lost, stolen or broken, you were issued with a chit, went to the stores and received a new item.
On top of this, they are expected to pay council tax, for sharing a room with 15 other lads.

Is it me????? Or have the lunatics taken over the asylum, again?

The 100th British death this year. Hmmm. You didn't mention how many that was since the start. Why? Because it is not relevant? Because it inconveniently doesn't end with a zero? Why are we now concentrating on this year? As you yourself suggested, the number in itself is meaningless.

Im so glad my son in law left the RM Commando's after my granddaughter was born.

Seems we realy are in the wrong place now.

Al Qaeda kidnaping in Africa.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8401255.stm

https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5B72PJ20091208?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FUKWorldNews+%28News+%2F+UK+%2F+World+News%29

What a waste of lives, just so Gordon can play with the big boys.

Geoff #69

I am entirely with you on this.

If Blair, Brown and Cameron had any knowledge of history they would know that the British army failed to tame Afghanistan in the 19th Century, at the height of British power and the Empire; the Soviets failed in the 1970s (and their defeat was followed shortly after by bankruptcy and the consequent collapse of the USSR), so there is no way that the US/UK are going to win this won.

Once this is over the UK will be bankrupt and probably break up, and the armed forces will never be the same again.

Lives lost for nothing, and once more we have lions lead by donkeys.

In this Country it seems you are not allowed to have an opinion without being labelled something or other. Now we are told we must support the war otherwise we do not support the troops (a point well made by sagamix at 5).

Well I support the troops but not the war, this is an unwinnable war in Afghanistan unless Britain and America are prepared to attack Pakistan as well. The attacks by America on Taliban strongholds in Pakistan have also killed innocent civilians, this is not a good way to win hearts and minds. Pakistan is becoming a failed state and it could well be that in the end, Britain and America have actually made the terrorists far more powerful and spread the problem. To my knowledge Britain has home grown terrorists who went to Pakistan to receive their training. So how on earth is winning in Afghanistan going to make our streets safe. It is the foreign policies by this Government that have recruited home grown terrorists and the toleration of extremists in Britain that have made our streets in Britain unsafe not Afghanistan.

49 Peter Sym

The British forces respect the Taliban. As an officer said soon after the fighting started, "these guys are not like Iraqis, they dont run away they stand and fight.

We and the Yanks have been there 8 years now with all the modern warfare kit that can be mustered. The Taliban have AK47s, primitive mortars and 4x4 pickup trucks. They must be doing something "right".

I agree with AndyC555 on this.

You also mention Taliban casualties which are occasionally mentioned but I cannot recall ever being shown.
I have been asking on here for a while where are the Taliban prisoners, they cant all die in battle can they ? I get no answers.

British Servicemen have been killed all over the world for years. I do believe that, since the end of hostilities in 1945, there has only been one year, 1968, when a British Serviceman was not killed in action or on an operational duty.

British Servicemen know this. I was one, it is an occupational hazard. When some of you middle aged and younger posters stand at the Cenotaph, you may be thinking of a Granddad you never knew. I am thinking of some of my friends.

The British Government has committed the British Armed Forces to Battle in Afghanistan. This Government have tied the hands of the Armed Forces behind their backs. For example, British Soldiers cannot use landmines and booby traps to destroy the Taliban, British Airmen cannot use area denial weapons and cluster munitions to deny the Tailban ground. This Government will not even fund the prosecution of the war properly, but seem to find funding for all sorts of outrageous frivolous policies that are little more than job creation schemes for the less talented.

Having read a few posts here, I suspect that many posters here have never experienced anything more arduous than walking home in the rain. Members of the Armed Forces will continue to be killed until a decision is forced and the Taliban are driven to the negotiating table. In the meantime, we, who live comfortable and safe lives, would do well to honour, respect and support those who we ask to carry out such tasks at great personal risk. And we would also do well to hold the political elite to account for their actions and omissions.

It is one thing to all sing from the same sheet..but are they in harmony. Methinks not. I served for 20 years. My son serves now. I am well aware of the dichotomy ofpoliticians sending troops to war...and then backing away. So you are telling me ,yet again, that it has taken this Brown led gang 8 years just to get on the same hymnsheet as the Forces doing the fighting. Not overly comforting when you realise we could be in Afghanistan for another ...how many years? Karzai has just said his government cant fund a fight. Who is going to then? Is it not about time that we carried the fight straight into the border areas and Pakistan, at the same time talking to the Taliban?

74 nick nichols

Pakistan is a key factor and has always been since they started meddling in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. However any 'invasion' by ISAF or western forces is unlikely to be successful even at huge cost. Also we would need our troops back here for security in England if the UK got involved!

Please don't say that the deaths are "wasted", or 'pointless". It demeans the sacrifice of the troops who volunteered to go into harms way and risk that outcome for you.

Unless, of course, you don't think you're worth the price? Whether or not the war is winnable isn't a factor in this, they signed up to fight to defend you all, and they've paid the price for it - if you say it was a waste or needless, then you're looking at it wrong.

And consider this:

400+ per year die of drink driving. Why is there no "Stop the drunk drivers coalition"?

Around a thousand people die of MRSA each year. Anyone volunteered to go help clean up their local hospital?

100 dead is peanuts by comparison - and every one of those 100 dead this year knew exactly what they were getting into, and that dying was a risk. They accepted those ricks, but still did the job.

Don't demean them, or their families and loved ones, by saying their deaths was a waste.

People need to get their priorities straight, and do something to help save the lives of those who *didn't* sign up to end up lying in a gutter or crushed behind the wheel of their car thanks to some drunkard murderer, or never get out of the hospital alive when they went in for something minor.

*Those* deaths are a waste.

I think the war and the recession will go hand in hand with each other. There is no doubt about the fact that it was a great mistake on our government's part to go into war. Would the British people ever support Blair’s idea of "weapons of mass destruction"? In fact we all felt that our Prime Minister was acting just like an American puppet at that time.

We the British public have not been given a chance to say No to this war. The number of casualties of British soldiers is increasing every day. Their families and relations are questioning our politicians about the justification of this war. The British people do not support any civilian deaths directly caused by this war either.

Through BBC, we the British people ask our government to stop this war before it spreads all over. Don’t we feel sorry for the children who have become orphan because we went into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course we are responsible for making more and more orphans children in the UK, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. How is going to support a victim’s family in a poor country like Pakistan where there is no Social Security system at all? We cannot because we cannot afford to run our own country at the moment. If we won’t stop this war we will go bankrupt or soon we will be asking IMF to bail us out of this recession.

@Thomas Paine

You're half right, half disingenuous.

The way veterans have been treated is a disgrace, both by the Government *and* large swathes of the citizenry. Kipling was an optimist and then some.

But you're off the mark when it comes to "propping up Karzai". It isn't about keeping him in power, it's about keeping the Talib *out* of power.

A quick history lesson.

After AQ attacked the US on 9/11, the Talib refused to hand bin Laden and others over to face trial for the crime.

Afghanistan under the Talib had been long used to train AQ terrorists.

The UK was *also* on AQs list of targets - in case people forgot, the UK was also in KSA, and was also considered by AQ to be a target as a result.

The Talib made their bed and declared themselves to be for bin Laden and AQ even after 9/11, and they had to be brought down as a result because it would have been meaningless to take out AQ when the infrastructure giving it life remained.

If the Talib get back into power they'll be just as much a threat, moreso emboldened by the perception they won the war - it won't be a true perception, the truth will be that the civilians back here will have won it *for* them, but I'm sure they'll pick and choose how to interpret it to their advantage the same way they did their own Holy Book.

You *really* think that if everyone comes home, the Talib and AQ will say "OK, all done, let's be friends now"?

If you think the atrocities perpetrated by those delusional souls who've claimed to be acting in accordance with the Qur'an around the world in the past decade are bad, you'll be wringing your hands and wailing at what they'll do if the Talib/AQ can say they "won".

Then people will start wondering "Why didn't we stay and finish the job?"

It isn't about keeping Karzai in office. It's about keeping the Talib out. Hell, Blair, Brown, and Mickey Mouse as a troika would be a safer government to install in Afghanistan than the Talib.

Personally I think if Karzai can't get his stuff in one sock by now, he's shown he doesn't have what it takes to govern and someone else *should* run Afghanistan.

Now you pick a candidate.

@David Brown

You do realize there's *two* wars in progress, right? Blair never made any accusations of WMD against Afghanistan.

As for the reasons for the recession - greed, financial mismanagement, and offshoring all the work to dirt-cheap, dirt-paid, dirt-quality countries and workers are much bigger causes than a war.

Stopping the wars won't really help deal with MPs and bankers :P

bobhead:

Soldiers get names, like Hero, but not much else. It is a real shame that bankers after all they have caused would ask for a bonus, no demand a bonus, while soldiers are facing such hardships. The soldiers are usually lead by political military professionals, some good, mostly concerned about careers. We have the military being "peace-keeping." I believe in the heavy handed applications of the military. If you decide to use the military, use it and do not put soldiers in danger for political purposes, that is what dipolmacy is for. But the diplomats are cowards and would rather a soldier die than they make some sacrifice that may result is a undesireable posting for next career step. It is still mostly about class.......not a lot of progress in the past 1,000 years or so. Any soldier will tell you, they fight for each other not that nonsense the politicians say.

BLAIR IS A WAR CRIMINAL!

"BEYOND DOUBT"

78 Moonwolf

Are you sure about the Taliban refusing to hand over Bin Laden ?

I have read that they asked for evidence that he had been involved, you know, like any regime would require for extradition.

As none of the 9/11 conspirators came from or had conections to Afghanistan it appears the country may have had a rough deal.

Those who flew the planes into the buildings were: 1 Egyptian,15 Saudis, 2 UAE and 1 Lebanese.

Also there has never to my knowledge been any explanation as to why 2 dozen of Osama bin Ladens relatives were allowed to fly out of the US on a special private Saudi chartered flight straight after 9/11.

Make no mistake I do not like the Taliban who are worse than the Spanish Inquisition, the Conquistadors and all other raving religious zealots.

They did have evidence, just they didn't bother telling anyone about it ... the usual government paranoia or actual operational concerns, we'll never know. But intercepts and documents were part of the track.

But, to be honest, the US couldn't have provided the Talib with the evidence to begin with, as the Talib were only recognized by 2 (3?) countries in the world as a legitimate government at the time. Treating them like a legitimate government would have been even worse, in all probability.

That plus even if the evidence had been handed over, the Talib would not have handed bin Laden over. Their extremist views of Islam dictate that they would never ever leave a Muslim at the hands of the unbelievers. My *guess* is they made that quite clear at the time too.

(Of course, they've got practical experience with show-trials and forgone conclusions - they just seem to object to the whole "sauce for the goose" concept)

The nationality of the hijackers isn't really relevant, I think (at least in regards to your question) - I can't recall offhand how many of the 20 (binalshibh being #20) were able to be placed as having attended AQ camps in Afghanistan prior, but several of them I recall were confirmed to have done so, and I think all of them ended up being placed at AQ camps at some point.

I'm not sure about the bin Ladens being helped to leave the US - I don't remember reading/hearing about that specifically so I can only speculate that it *might* have been because they were scared the family would become targets.

Kind of an understandable reaction if that *was* the reason, when you consider the aftermath as it is.

Now Iraq - that's a whole 'nother story, and I think it has a lot more to do with GWB wanting to finish what his daddy couldn't get support to do a decade earlier.

It hacks me off because if we'd not diverted men and materiel on that adventure, we might have had the resources to *be* finished putting together a stable Afghanistan by now.

But that's for the politicians to answer for. In the meantime, the question is whether or not they'll have the guts to try and fix things, or keep wavering as they have been.

It is interesting to have the ability to see how people think in the UK.

Do you know that since 9/11, the USA spends almost 1 trillion per year on "defense?" How does one put that in perspective?

And Health insurance for the poor is a luxury? Oh well, call me naive, and childish, but maybe we do need an accounting review or an ethics/priority review...somewhere.

Thank you for letting me comment and read your comments.:)

78 Moonwolf

Thanks for the history lesson, but you didn't start early enough! However it doesn't really matter in the current context as we now need to find a way out of the current problem.

You suggest choosing another leader for the Afghans. Given our poor track record so far, I suggest its best left to the civil war that will break out when western forces leave. Leaving is the crux of the problem. We will have to leave and in all probability some form of Islamic government inimical to our culture and interests will take power through ones means or another.

Our strategy should be developing a way of dealing with that without occupying territory in an area where we can't hope to install a friendly puppet. After 8 years of failing, I think some might think that point is proven. We can't simply keep invading any Islamic country likely to host AQ, because it hasn't and won't produce a desirable result.

The latest troop boost seems to me to an exit strategy in all but name. Brief improvement in security - proclaim success - and get out quick before the next US presidential election.

We totally agree on the lack of support from the Government for the troops, but I think you are wrong about the public. I think the majority support the troops for their bravery and sense of duty and its only some sections of the community, perhaps from those towns that supplied our recent Islamic terrorists, that are against them.

@Thomas Paine

I think we're looking at the situation in Afghanistan from two separate perspectives/sets of priorities.

I'm about to head off for the day right now, so I can't really respond properly to your points - and in the interests of keeping this comments thread on topic, I'm wondering if I shouldn't open a thread on my own site instead.

I'm sure Nick isn't all that interested in the opinions of a broken warrior :P