JHE
.
Yes. I don't know the number, but I believe it is many times the number of dead. Many people who would have bled to death in earlier wars have been saved by superior medical techniques, but of course are horribly maimed.
Afghanistan: Mission Accomplished
- Thread starter toblerone3
- Start date
Yes. I don't know the number, but I believe it is many times the number of dead. Many people who would have bled to death in earlier wars have been saved by superior medical techniques, but of course are horribly maimed.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Estimated 12,000 taliban and who knows how many civilians as neither side cared to count them.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tell you what, i was talking with articul8 on another thread about whether a world in which basic mathematical axioms didn't hold true could be conceived and it's strange to note that in both afghanistan and iraq the british and americans suddenly lost any ability to count they may have possessed when it came to civilian casualties. perhaps there's something in the water...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
coley
Well-Known Member
I would really like to see you proved right, but I have a feeling that what good we have achieved will start to unravel now the troops have left.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what good have 'we' achieved?
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
i have mixed views, but one of the things that most worries me is a collective view with politics and the media that 'we have paid X, so we should get Y, and that Y should become the permanent state'.
thats not how it works, you don't buy this situation or that situation with blood and treasure, you rent them - and you only get to keep them while you continue to pay the bill that keeps it in place. when you stop paying, all bets are off.
we - as a society - seem to be perfectly able to understand that this is the situation in the Falklands, where despite a significant military and political victory 30-odd years ago we need to keep significant forces deployed there to ensure that the conflict stays won, but not in Afghanistan, where we seem to think that we can just declare victory (ish), walk off and the situation will remain set in crystal at the point we find most convenient.
personally i thought, and still think, it was worth doing. there were some appalling errors, and these cost us more money than was needed, more blood than was needed, and made us more enemies than was needed, but despite all the errors, all the fuck-ups, all the squalid deals done with people we wouldn't allow with a thousand yards of our children, we made a very big difference to lots and lots of people, and - even if the Taliban return to primacy - for the best part of 14 years we turned Afghanistan into a graveyard for people who wished us, and sought to bring about, a great deal of harm.
thats not how it works, you don't buy this situation or that situation with blood and treasure, you rent them - and you only get to keep them while you continue to pay the bill that keeps it in place. when you stop paying, all bets are off.
we - as a society - seem to be perfectly able to understand that this is the situation in the Falklands, where despite a significant military and political victory 30-odd years ago we need to keep significant forces deployed there to ensure that the conflict stays won, but not in Afghanistan, where we seem to think that we can just declare victory (ish), walk off and the situation will remain set in crystal at the point we find most convenient.
personally i thought, and still think, it was worth doing. there were some appalling errors, and these cost us more money than was needed, more blood than was needed, and made us more enemies than was needed, but despite all the errors, all the fuck-ups, all the squalid deals done with people we wouldn't allow with a thousand yards of our children, we made a very big difference to lots and lots of people, and - even if the Taliban return to primacy - for the best part of 14 years we turned Afghanistan into a graveyard for people who wished us, and sought to bring about, a great deal of harm.
coley
Well-Known Member
Agree with all of that however when we went in the concencus of opinion was it was going to be a long haul, 30 years and operation banner were used as a yardstick, then along came Obama, once he declared Americas intention to withdraw we should have immediately packed our tents and fucked off, stuff the embarrassment of politicians, or national prestige, when the yanks announced they had lost interest we should have just conceded 'game over' and withdrawn as quickly as possible, as it was we lingered in order to save face and scores died for no good reason.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
Not that many years ago, another major force, russia, invaded afghanistan and went home a few years later achieving.....little? I have no idea what they thought they would achieve, but its madness to think we woyld manage something where they failed.
I think i heard on the news earlier that 14% of brits feel safer. Result. 86% presumably feel less safe but they cant exactly boast about that.
I think i heard on the news earlier that 14% of brits feel safer. Result. 86% presumably feel less safe but they cant exactly boast about that.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Through deficiencies in doctrine, training, funding and equipment the UK forces just weren't good enough to achieve the mission. See also Basra.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Wasn't it high-level embarrassment over the Basra balls-up that led to the offer to take on Helmand...to show that the US could trust the UK's sub-contracted forces.
coley
Well-Known Member
Funding and equipment certainly, numbers also, but mebbes you want to rephrase " the UK forces weren't good enough"
The "UK forces"were good enough, more so, just they were insufficient for the grandiose role the politicians had given them.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
i think i want to agree with DownwardDog but my pride won't quite let me - we failed, imv, because of five things.
numbers. UK expeditionary land capability was/is around a Brigade+support, 10,000 men. that was our peg, and we 'decided' it would fit whatever hole we came across. its worth noting that when the US got seriously involved in Helmand in 2010 they brought a force of 30,000 to augment our 10,000.
aim. not only did we not have - in the post 2002/3 situation - a clear political/military end state we wanted to achieve, but we kept changing it, and we thought that the person we'd offended with our previous plan would wipe the slate clean when it came to the next plan. they didn't.
career meets war - and war loses. Officers hoping to be promoted (and here i'm talking about Lt Col and above) not only needed to be able to demonstrate that they'd had a 'good war', but they had to demonstrate they the'd had an impact, that they'd tried something new. when these people change every 6 months, and then add their changes to the political confusion over the overall aim, the situation became constant flux. nothing stayed in place long enough to achieve anything, and even if something had shown it was working, it would be changed by the next influx of senior officers looking to put something shiny on their CV. this was known about, and constantly highlighted by the officers involved, but the promotion system at that level was never changed to understand the difference between innovation in a peacetime Army and just fucking about with stuff for the sake of it in a wartime one.
moral failure. not one of the very many very senior officers who knew it was going wrong, and that it would continue to go wrong while all the above stayed in place, resigned and went public.
political failure. our politicians decided in 2009/2010 that the war was going to end in 2014, and as long as it ended they didn't much care who won it. so the smart Taliban went home, waited till we fucked off, and will emerge to fight, and probably defeat the central government - at least in the south and east.
in terms of our people, we are the only nation involved in Helmand on any scale who did not have a position overrun by the Taliban. our people on the ground were brilliant.
numbers. UK expeditionary land capability was/is around a Brigade+support, 10,000 men. that was our peg, and we 'decided' it would fit whatever hole we came across. its worth noting that when the US got seriously involved in Helmand in 2010 they brought a force of 30,000 to augment our 10,000.
aim. not only did we not have - in the post 2002/3 situation - a clear political/military end state we wanted to achieve, but we kept changing it, and we thought that the person we'd offended with our previous plan would wipe the slate clean when it came to the next plan. they didn't.
career meets war - and war loses. Officers hoping to be promoted (and here i'm talking about Lt Col and above) not only needed to be able to demonstrate that they'd had a 'good war', but they had to demonstrate they the'd had an impact, that they'd tried something new. when these people change every 6 months, and then add their changes to the political confusion over the overall aim, the situation became constant flux. nothing stayed in place long enough to achieve anything, and even if something had shown it was working, it would be changed by the next influx of senior officers looking to put something shiny on their CV. this was known about, and constantly highlighted by the officers involved, but the promotion system at that level was never changed to understand the difference between innovation in a peacetime Army and just fucking about with stuff for the sake of it in a wartime one.
moral failure. not one of the very many very senior officers who knew it was going wrong, and that it would continue to go wrong while all the above stayed in place, resigned and went public.
political failure. our politicians decided in 2009/2010 that the war was going to end in 2014, and as long as it ended they didn't much care who won it. so the smart Taliban went home, waited till we fucked off, and will emerge to fight, and probably defeat the central government - at least in the south and east.
in terms of our people, we are the only nation involved in Helmand on any scale who did not have a position overrun by the Taliban. our people on the ground were brilliant.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is reporting major (and ongoing) attack at Shorab airbase (Camp Bastion) in Helmand, claiming to have destroyed aircraft, 55 vehicles, buildings, 25 Americans...
Anyone know how credible these claims are?
Anyone know how credible these claims are?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
This video appears to show preparations for the attack:
coley
Well-Known Member
Can't find anything on the news about this?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Well, nothing English language that I can see - hence me asking if anyone knew how credible the claims were!
rekil
to menny cranks
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
26 dead Taliban for 5 dead Soldiers attacking a base full of stuff NATO didn't want any more. Another epic victory for the Taliban maybe they should stick to shooting teachers.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Channel 4 News now operating at a mere 4.5 days behind random chap-on-the-internet - at this rate expect to see a big splash on the BBC News frontpage sometime around February.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
How much of the Taliban's diminished capacity to 'fuck shit up' is down to their patrons in the Pakistani intelligence establishment deciding that they are currently surplus to requirements, though?
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Who knows? We have to wait and see if the Taliban can make a come back or some other disaster befalls Afghanistan.
They are not posed to march into Kabul any time soon.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the disaster began sometime before that tbh
Similar threads
