Bloody reality of Afghan war hits home
As British forces suffer a sharp rise in casualties, the new Defence Secretary is forced to acknowledge 'gloom and worry'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PA
Joanna Birchall walks past the coffin of her husband Major Sean Birchall after his funeral in London yesterday
More pictures
Seven deaths in seven days, and the grim warning that many more lives will be lost before it is over. That is the bloody reality on the ground for British troops in what has been described as the defining moment in the ferocious war in Afghanistan.
The Defence Secretary Bob Ains-worth acknowledged yesterday that "there is, of course, gloom and worry back here with the numbers of people we have lost". He went on to say: "Let us be under no illusion. The situation in Afghanistan is serious, and not yet decided. The way forward is hard and dangerous. More lives will be lost and our resolve will be tested... If we are to succeed we will need both the courage and the patience to see it through."
The message came along with the news of the latest fatality in the conflict, a serviceman from the Light Dragoons killed in an explosion in Gereshk in Helmand, 24 hours after Captain Ben Babington-Browne, of 22 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, was killed in a helicopter crash.
It was also the day Major Sean Birchall, of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, was laid to rest after a service at the Guards Chapel in London's Wellington Barracks. His widow, Joanna, the mother of his 18-month-old son Charlie, said: "Sean was a wonderful husband, a doting father and a much loved son and brother who cared deeply for his family and friends. He was thrilled to have the opportunity to lead his men in Afghanistan and he was utterly devoted to the Guardsmen he was with."
At the time of Major Birchall's death his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thornloe spoke of the loss of "an outstandingly talented individual who showed inspirational leadership". Last week Lt Col Thornloe was killed himself, becoming the most senior British Army officer to be killed since the Falklands War, along with Trooper Joshua Hammond, from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment.
Recriminations about the conduct of the mission with the remorselessly rising casualty list came from a retired senior diplomat, Sir Brian Crowe, the deputy chairman of Chatham House, where the Defence Secretary was speaking, saying the lack of helicopters in the combat zone was "a real scandal".
There were also signs of tensions within the command structure when the Defence Secretary, asked whether he was going to send reinforcements to Afghanistan responded: "We've got 9,000 there at the moment. Those who want to send more are the same ones who warned that current operations could break the Army."
The Independent has revealed that senior military commanders, backed by Mr Ainsworth's predecessor, John Hutton, had asked for 2,500 extra troops to be sent to Helmand. This was turned down by Gordon Brown who would only agree to the temporary deployment of 700 to help provide security for the Afghan elections in August.
Mr Ainsworth denied claims that Afghanistan was turning into "Britain's Vietnam" but acknowledged that there was no quick exit from the conflict. "In the face of the casualties we are seeing, it is understandable when people ask, 'is this too difficult?' But this is not the message I get in Afghanistan. People don't want the Taliban back and we must stay and finish the job. If you come you must stay."
The shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox claimed that despite Mr Ainsworth's assurances, troops in Afghanistan still lack essential equipment. "There are real questions about whether the Government has fulfilled the pledge to give the armed forces everything they need to do the job," he said. "The bottom line from our troops is they don't have enough armoured vehicles and they don't have enough helicopters."
The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had stated that American public opinion will "wear thin" in Afghanistan unless significant progress is made in the course of the year. Both sides seem to see the coming months as decisive in shaping the course of the conflict. More than 22,000 US troops have poured into the south of the country with around 10,000 heading for Helmand, the centre of UK operations.
They are paying a heavy price; seven American soldiers, along with two Canadians, were killed in 24 hours earlier this week. US and British forces are now involved in an operation to take control of the Helmand river valley, an area which has become the base for Taliban fighters fanning out to carry out attacks across the province.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
What amazes intelligent people is why our troops should risk their lives to support the corrupt puppet Kabul governement.
Courage and patience won't see it through. It's absolutely irrelevant how brave the troops are. They are on a loser. The Afghans have time and history on their side. All we have is dedicated stupidity.
It is sickening to hear how wonderful the dead were. In fact, they would be more accurately described as mugs.
Brains above bravery everytime.
Mugs who are dying for Bush's ambitions.
No matter how much you talk up the "sacrifices". This is not a real war - its a bloody invasion.
History has shown that no army (inc the British army and the superpower USSR) have ever defeated the Afghans in ground wars.
I think the government in Kabul can, at best, be described as one which we can do business with and doesn't intend to harbour anti western jihadists. Hardly a beacon of freedom and enlightenment worth dying for.
Nothing has changed,has it Marvin?
Just the shattered shards of Blair's yankee-fellating neocon insanity.
Britain needs to pull out of Afghanistan *NOW* Mr Ainsworth.
If only you had a SPINE, you would do something. But you haven't. You're an expense-guzzling brainless waste of space.
Let's start with the Brit chopper lost in the Canuck sector. The Brits are short of choppers so they have to make multiple flights for an airlift, giving the Talibs time to attack the drop zone. That's probably how they got the chopper, though of course the MOD says the Talibs had nothing to do with it. The lack of choppers means airdropped troops are vulnerable on the ground until the full contingent arrives and that medevacs are delayed, causing unnecessary fatalities among the wounded. So what does HM government do? Not a bloody thing:
HM government has doubled Brit boots on the ground but not the war budget. The Talibs know that the Brits are undermanned, underarmored, and underchoppered so they have concentrated their attacks on Helmand, leaving several districts of next-door Kandahar, where the Yanks are, "eerily quiet," as the US commander said yesterday (He realized he missed a chance to declare victory so now he's saying that he's "captured" those districts).
It gets worse: The new Yank honcho McChrystal has decided that bombing weddings was not going to win the war so he's taken away the Brits' airstrike privileges. He's capped the number of air support missions and guess which of the Yanks or Brits get the bigger slice of the bombing pizza?
Now the last bit that Kim missed (at least that I'm aware of): The LibDems have turned anti-war! They've come a long way from the days of the Unionist warmongering bastard who was clamoring to send more troops to bananistan-pipelinistan:
Unless Clegg wimps out, it looks like the LibDems have finally decided to give notice as Nulab's war poodles.
I'd call that a significant Taliban victory.
Each day we must also listen to the lies of these 'honorable gentlemen' as they tell us that our 'lads' have the best equipment available, even though letters from the front tell us otherwise.
Might I suggest that one of these government spokesman' accompany one of the front line patrols, in order to back up their claims. As in times gone by many of our best military leaders led by example. Could not the defence minister do the same - after all he should be quite safe surrounded by the best equipment possible.
Afghanistan looks like being worse.
Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans and if I was one I'd fight the invaders too just as I would if invaders were occupying Britain.
Also, the West invaded Afghanistan to get Al-queda. But those guys have buggered off.
The West is now fighting the Taliban. The Taliban are undesirable, but also the wrong enemy.
The British soldiers are wasting lives, time, money, effort.......
People have to start asking what exactly is the Afghan Invasion all abot (note I have used the word "invasion" and not "war" because that is what it is).
The scoundrel speaks of losses, but why are British forces there? What is their mission?
Without being told why these soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan--we have to presume that, like Iraq--this is another Corporate war, which will have more to do with NYSE interests, than either, national security or democracy for Afghanistan.
Why exactly are we fighting the Taliban?
The West invaded to remove Al-Queda. Those guys have been removed/buggered off.
The official line is the Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai) is asking for help from the West.
Who installed Hamid Karzai as president in the first place?
"its awful that seven of our trained killers have recently bitten the Afghan dust".. John Jackson, you are a disgrace and your ignorance clearly knows no bounds.
You are the fool. In the first instance the West installed Karzai into gov. Karzai was the Wests Afghan representative for the Unicol gas/oil pipeline company in Afghanistan.
Subsequently, in the elections, the people elected him - there was any strong opposition. So it wasnt a great surpise that he won that election.
The point I am trying to make is that he was installed - as part of the deal, he would ask the West to stay in the country. This makes the public in the West feel that they have been invited to help out. Where in reality, it was an invasion and the whole deal is a classical third world installation by the CIA.
The main message is that British soldiers will be dying for an illegal cause - the invasion is part of Bush's ambition.
Some British soldiers are dying, but for each British soldier, there are many, many more innocent Afghan civilians dying. All for an illegal war...
Are you honestly suggesting that the best course of action is to withdraw, allow Afghanistan to fall once again to the Taliban and reset to 2001? The same threats of international terrorism will exist only multiplied many times over, particularly now that ISI's pet is turning on it's master. We are not going to successfully negotiate a peace (the only long term solution) from a position of military weakness on the ground. The Taliban have to be denied the space and the population to operate in, or, killed where no better option exists.
Lots of things need to improve - not least the coordination of civ/mil efforts - but simply withdrawing is not a credible argument.
I speak as someone who has spent some time out there and although civilian casualties do tragically occur, ISAF are putting their own personnel in more danger by trying to avoid them. You'll find the deliberate attrocities are carried out by the people we are fighting. Do you wish them to terrorise Afghan's indefinitely?
I agree the Taliban are muppets and follow a twisted version of Islam, which they impose on the people against their will - all of which is against the laws of governance in real Islam.
But is it our job to control other nations?
The taliban were not terrorists. The mistake their leaders made was to allow the Al-quaeda to live with them.
Al-quaeda have all disappeared, either caught or gone underground.
The West will not win this battle. So that is the dielemma - so, pick a point in time, to say "enough is enough" :- 1 month, 1 year, 2 years, 10 years. You are assuming the the war will be won, but as thats not going to happen. We cannot carry on forever.
The Afghan population will survive without the West. It will be difficult for them for a while - but the taliban will not rule over the Afghans forever.
"I agree the Taliban are muppets and follow a twisted version of Islam, which they impose on the people against their will - all of which is against the laws of governance in real Islam."
Quite so.
"But is it our job to control other nations?"
No, but it is our job to defend our own interests, which include interdicting and preventing the execution of massive terrorist attacks against our nation. Recent history shows clearly that Afghanistan/Pakistan are the key areas where we can achieve this aim. Our interest in helping the Afghans themselves is purely selfish but no less correct for that. The Pakistani's are also doing their bit from the other side of the border so we don't have to.
"The taliban were not terrorists. The mistake their leaders made was to allow the Al-quaeda to live with them."
Really, in which case this morning's suicide bombing of a school and murder of 25 students and staff must be an act of resistance against the brutal occupiers, right?
"Al-quaeda have all disappeared, either caught or gone underground."
I'm afraid you are departing from any sembelence of reality now fella, that is simply not the case.
"The West will not win this battle. So that is the dielemma"
Yes we're all doomed. Are you basing that on a sound knowledge of the situation on the ground, your understanding of counter insurgency warfare or something you heard from Galloway/Toynbee/Abu Hamza? When you make such sweeping statements yet clearly lack any knowledge of that which you are discussing it becomes a pointless exercise.
"The Afghan population will survive without the West. It will be difficult for them for a while - but the taliban will not rule over the Afghans forever."
I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know that your prescription for the Afghan people is to endure indefinite medieval tyranny, imposed upon them by vicious and wicked murderers. After all it doesn't affect you, does it?
www.millarcrime.com
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. 'My back hurts! I can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry - so okay, enemy WHAT DO YOU WANT?' We are impatient and angry most of the time, so maybe letting us kill some a-hole that desperately needs it will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
The last thing an enemy would want to see is a couple of million pissed off old farts with attitudes and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.
Now, an 18-year-old doesn't like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys get up about 5am to pee anyway, so what the heck. Besides, like I said, 'I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical S-of-a-B....
If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. Anything we did remember would probably be wrong. Even name, rank, and serial number would be a serious stretch.
The Army would be psychologically easier for old guys. We're used to stupid bosses, getting screamed and yelled at and eating soft food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns: we've been using them for years as an excuse to get out of the house..
They could lighten up on the obstacle course, though: I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after basic training. Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy, too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a pretty girl. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has a brim to shade his eyes, not to stop him from becoming a redneck. These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm's way.
If you share this with your friends, put it in big type so they can read it.
Why do we never hear of the casualties caused by the Taliban and other so-called insurgents?
Do the media have an unstated agenda?
10 years later: Russians all gone, country destroyed. US/UK/EU decide that the party's dead - time to get a kebab on the way home.
Ah, but we seemed to have left Bin & entourage home alone; so let's just turn off the lights and hope they cry themselves to sleep. Except they took power (after all, there was no one else left, last man standing takes all), adopted religion to guide the citizens (after all, all the institutions, infrastructure had been razed to the ground, and every foreign government, suddenly, wasn't picking up the phone, nor were they sending the humanitarian supplies or the re-construction forces that they had so promised the Afghans). And the civilian population suffered. And continues to suffer.
The point of my rant? We, the UK/US/EU have a responsibility; to fix what we broke all those years back. Yeah, 'Afghanistan is for the Afghans' - thanks for that gem; ah, yes, I just remembered - we helped to destroy everything in the country - so not much left for the Afghans. Only the foreign-controlled Taliban - which the Afghan people hate.
'we' must:
(1) defeat the Taliban (who are not Afghans, so can be defeated)
(2) build up governmental agencies (stop the corruption, as much as any politician can be stopped;-)
(3) continue the development of infrastructure
(4) build up public services (within reason)
(5) support agriculture, and help Afghanistan become more self-sufficient
And, reality check: in 8 years, less than 200 British soldiers have died. Any death is a loss, a tragedy, but it's hardly the Somme or even modern day times for the Afghan civilians - who are being killed in their hundreds BY BOTH SIDES every week. Soldiers live & train to be killers or to be killed - that's their choice.
Some of these posts remind me of how the Yanks often see the Brits: spineless.
Face it: we screwed around in that part of the world some years back, and gave the Afghans the Taliban. Now we have to take back that unwanted gift. It's the right thing - morally - to do.
Now, if you're sitting comfortably, please remove your head from your ass (assuming you know the difference), and listen quietly:
(ps here's the caveat to what I am going to say: I am a Pashtun, so I am immensely more qualified & informed than you - which is obvious from your narrow-minded, read-the-independent-and-then-lecture-ot
WRONG! The Taliban do NOT REPRESENT the Pashtun people; even if some of the Taliban are Pashtuns; this is a huge difference and fundamental in understanding what is happening out there. The Taliban is controlled by non-Afghans (mostly Arabs, Pakistanis, some Chechnyans etc etc). Unfortunately, Pashtuns do not control the Taliban.
Furthermore, Pathans are fiercely independent (I'm surprised you haven't picked that up, it's all over the papers, don't ya know?) and could not be represented in this way, by Taliban.
And (surprise, surprise!!) you're wrong AGAIN: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is a Pashtun, from the Ghilzai Pashtun family.
And, I think your mental illness is particularly playing up today: pray tell, what are '"non-Afghan" Pashtun Afghans"'?
The only thing I agree on with you is re: Dostum and his cronies. But then again, put monkeys to work and eventually even they will hit one right note - it's a numbers game, right?
So, you dimwitted, ignorant simpleton - have a nice day, go back to superficially trying to understand something
(and don't forget to take your medicine).
Try to prove that the Taliban, who control 73% of Afghanistan, are not Afghans and make my day, dickhead. The Pashtun/Pathans are as much Afghan as Pakistani and fight on both sides of the border against the Yank/UK invaders and their Pak stooge Zardari.
Even Hekmatyar, who has a university degree, is smarter than you. You call yourself a Pashtun but you couldn't show your face in any Pashtun town because you're whoring for the invaders. Better make sure you have a seat on a chopper when the Yanks hightail it.
But, then, you realised that tags, like New Labour, might be catchy, but not true!! Oh dear, oh dear! Pity you, the fool.
Taliban is not analogous with Pathan or the other way round. Of course, as a simpleton such as yourself with birth-related physical, mental and emotional problems, will find the poltical definition of Taliban more easy on the brain - no need to think of the intracacies of culture, history or race, right?
"Whoring for the invaders?" hahahhaha - you really a lost, little girl. Mummy really shouldn't have left you in the dark with daddy..........
The Taliban represent the Pashtun people, the majority ethnic group in Afghanistan, the same one that defeated the minority Tajik and Uzbek narco-warlords when they sided with the Russkies. And they aren't even the only group fighting the occupiers. The CIA's former protégé warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is no Pashtun but he's giving the Yanks & Froggies hell in the north and has rejected the bribe they offered him to join the government.
The only alternative to the "non-Afghan" Pashtun Afghans are mass-murdering-torturer-rapist-narco-war
British troops are dying so creeps like Dostum can get rich ferrying dope in official Afghan military vehicles over NATO-built roads through NATO checkpoints to Uzebkistan and rape all the boys and virgin girls they can lay hands on in their free time from counting their money and torturing their enemies.
Next time - perhaps you can get your own crayons out and paint a pretty picture for us? Or even try those mindboggling (for all those with mental age of about 7 and a half, like your goodself), DOT-to-DOT puzzles! Super!
But I particularly liked the way you countered my rubbishing of your arguments - i.e. nothing to say!! Love it! You're not related to Gordon Brown, are you...?
But, I forgive you. Now off you go, like a good little girl, back to reading The Sun and plucking your eyebrows before your boyfriend comes home.
The Taliban aren't Afghanis?? ROFL, you are the most misinformed clod on the internet.
I've been to that region over 20 times; including during when the Russians were there; close enough to see their Hinds bombing the hell out of the same border areas that NATO are bombing now. I speak fluent Pushto; I know the Pathan culture & psyche intimately; I've even met young people crossing from Pakistan to join the Taliban to fight the Russians (incidentally, the guys I met were Pakistanis).
I never said there are not Afghanis in the Taliban;
I said that the Taliban is neither exclusively Afghan or Pathan.
Let me spell it out:
Firstly, I think that the tag 'Taliban' is a misnomer; it's become a way to lump all the anti-NATO fighters into one group; 'Taliban' in Pushto is roughly translated as 'someone seeking (religious) knowledge' and is a term that originated around 8 century AD. It's outdated when applied to this conflict, I think. The current 'Taliban' is not even an Afghan creation - it was created by the ISI.
Now, the current 'Taliban' is a collection of a wide range of groups who are fighting NATO for different reasons; yes, many are Afghan Nationalists who want to throw out any foreign power that is in Afghanistan or it's simply a job for them, paid by foreign players; other groups are mercenaries, paid by those controlling the drug trade (many Pakistanis involved in that, as much of the drug is exported via Pakistan); there are fighters who claim to be Al Qaeda (not an Afghan invention) and this group includes many foreign fighters (many, many Pakistanis, Arabs, & even some British guys); then we have tribes (mostly Pathan) that have sided with the 'Taliban' because it helps them to settle old scores vs other tribes. There are even credible reports that the ISI send Pakistani soldiers to fight NATO (especially attacking the supply chain from Pakistan to Afghanistan).
You can continue to sit at your PC and believe what you are force-fed by the media, or you can get a life and begin to question what the mass media throws at you; it's never as black & white as it seems (more so in this conflict); even the news has become 'fast-food' style - packaged for easy, mass consumption.
I think it's you who has no basis, or experience in the matter at hand, for the argument you are trying to make, another armchair expert; you're a sheep; suffering from the malady of ignorance of the current times.
I've been to Uzbekistan six times, to Kazakhstan seven times.
You are warmongering nutter.
Just as Brits see Yanks, as brainless.
If there is any spinelessness about the Brits, it is in the parliamentary ranks, where the US bumlickers sit on their padded seats and send young people off to do their US masters' bidding and fulfil Corporate demands.
There is nothing spineless about opposing a brainless war--and don't kid yourself that, there is a democratically elected government of Afghanistan, which is being defended.
I'm also opposing 'war' - but it's not as simple as that.
And no, I never, ever thought that we were defending a democratic government in Afghanistan - I thought we were defending the AFghan people and their right to have a future without more oppression, more war and more suffering.
Just doing what they are told by their masters
Suppose Ainsworth was in the Military, where would he be? He clearly is not officer material, but what about non-commissioned? Even there he does not quite ring true. I could just about imagine him as a Corporal in the Catering corps although responsible for spoon counting. What is very clear to me is that some very fine men are being killed or physically disabled who have been sent to their fate by turds like Blair and Brown and Ainsworth. I for my part will never vote for a party which is not calling for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Our enemy are the Neocons and those with corresponding objectives; politicians who support these loathsome fanatics and their evil and unconstrained ambitions should be voted out at the next election.
When it comes to Asymmetric warfare, its pretty hard to defeat the afghans. Already 25 NATO soldiers have died in the first 8 days of July and there will be a thousand more. As for the TAPI pipeline, it will always be a pipe dream.
The war in Afghanistan is surely getting more interesting by the day.