This bloody war: eight British soldiers killed in 24 hours
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
REUTERS
The coffin of Lance Corporal Dane Elson, who was killed in Afghanistan, at RAF Lyneham yesterday
More pictures
Five British soldiers were killed yesterday in a devastating roadside bombing, the largest number to die in one single attack, bringing to eight the number killed in the most deadly 24 hours of the Afghan campaign.
With it another bleak and poignant milestone was reached and passed: the lethal toll in forces' lives lost in the conflict is now more than that in the whole of the Iraq war.
The sombre unfolding statistics reflect the rising ferocity of this defining war between the West and fundamentalist Islam. Fifteen British soldiers died this week alone as UK and US forces launched a massive operation against the Taliban in Helmand. The latest deaths took the number killed in Afghanistan to 184, five more than Iraq.
Five bodies were flown in to RAF Lyneham yesterday, with crowds watching in silence as hearses carrying the coffins passed through the town of Wootton Bassett. Amid the accusations and recriminations of the conduct of the campaign, there was agreement among the military, politicians and diplomats on one fact – that Britain must brace itself for more casualties to come as long as the Afghan mission continues.
The deaths cast a shadow over Gordon Brown's final day at the G8 summit in Italy. The Prime Minister held talks with Barack Obama on Afghanistan and, on returning to the UK, he went straight to the military's Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood to be briefed on the crisis.
Bracing the country for further losses, Mr Brown acknowledged: "This is a very hard summer and it is not over." He sought to justify the conflict, stressing: "We knew from the start that beating the insurgency in Helmand would be hard and dangerous but it is vital. People in Britain are safer because of the courageous sacrifice of British soldiers."
The latest round of killings began with a member of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment dying in a firefight at Lashkar Gah, the Helmand capital, on Thursday evening. The soldier was attached to the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, whose commanding officer, Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe was killed earlier this week to become the most senior British Army officer to fall in combat since the Falklands War.
Two hours earlier another soldier from the 4th Battalion The Rifles died in a roadside bombing while on patrol in the Nad-e-Ali where British forces had been clearing out pockets of the Taliban. There was a second death in the same area yesterday morning when a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment was killed in another blast while on an operation to track down the insurgents who had killed his comrade.
But the most devastating attack was a sophisticated roadside bomb. Soldiers from 2 Rifles on patrol outside the town of Sangin had just alighted from their armoured vehicle when a bomb detonated. The initial blast was not particularly damaging, but a second one killed five members of the patrol, gouging a massive crater into the ground. Last night bereaved families of the men were being told about what had happened.
The sustained losses over such a short period were the worst experienced in combat by British forces in Afghanistan. In 2006 an RAF Nimrod crashed in the south of the country, killing 14 service personnel. It was, however, an accident caused by technical problems and not enemy action.
Last night, General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the British Army, told The Independent: "This is very sad and obviously a terrible loss for the families and friends of these fine men. But a very big operation had been going on in Afghanistan and I am afraid that losses such as these do occur in these circumstances."
The Government will, however, face questions about the way it has responded to the call from military commanders to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.
The senior command had wanted to send about 2,500 extra troops, but Gordon Brown refused the request, agreeing to the temporary deployment of 700 just for the period of the Afghan elections scheduled for August.
One of the senior officers intimately involved in drawing up the reinforcement plan said last night: "What has happened has shown the sheer danger our forces face out there day in, day out. We know the force levels needed for safety. This was not a spurious request and there is sincere hope the Government will think again."
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
I suppose the thing is to get used to this so-called news.
Their deaths were pointless, meaningless and definitely 'in vain.'
They were clueless as to what they were diong there and what was supposed to be achieved.
Why doesn't somebody tell these jerks that they are wasting their lives and that the Afghans, as usual, will not be defeated no matter how many 2000lb bombs destroy their villages and massacre their families?
Only their families and friends will miss these brainless losers. They had it coming.
The fact is there is a lot of evidence ponting to tje London bombings being orchestrated by the UK government to create a mood of fear and retaliation, just as the 9/11 chirade was orchestrated by th US government for the same reasons.
Read Orwell's 1984: it's all there , including false flag attacks.
The war on terror will end the moment he war of terror ends -when Britain and the US stop interfereing in other nations' affairs. But bad habits are very hard to change.
The London bombing were caused by the illegal invasions and nothing to do with the Taliban.
If we stop the illegal invasions, then there is no need for wasted lives on all sides.
This is Bush's invasion, UK has been drawn in because of Blairs "special relationship".
There is no better death for Muslims than defending ones land against an unjust invader.
Taliban are muppets - but we shouldnt expect them to just give up and take it.
Taliban made the mistake of allowing people from al-queda to live amonst them - At that time, Bush's view was, "anyone who is a friend of my enemy - is my enemy". But al-queda have buggered off and now we are left fighting the wrong enemy.
If you know your history you will understand that the money-lenders, the real power behind the facade of government, always back both sides of any conflict. It's been that way for at least the past 200 years, and probably long before that.
Ordinary folk are just cannon fodder -hence 58,000 casualties in one week in the Somme and poorly led, under-resourced, futile attack at ANZAC Cove, Turkey etc.
His predecessor, Tony B Liar showed how the system works -cheat, lie and sabotage, then leave in disgrace, but have no worries whatsoever because you fall immediately into a UN appointment, followed by a very cosy $1 million a year JP Morgan package, with the possibility of the EU presidency still to be confirmed.
Silly boy. Everyone knows Brown always loathed the British armed forces (referring to them as 'the militarists'), never showed any interest in defence, tried to undercut Blair's adventurism in that field by denying him funds, and since becoming PM has starved the army of the equipment, funding and manpower needed to properly fight the Afghan war.
His lunatic proposals remove 1,500 troops from Afghanistan after the August elections there, and to soon cut the size of the army by three battalions even as it is facing the worst overstretch since WWII, show what utter piffling nonsense you are spouting.
Clausewitz would have said that war is the pursuit of politics by other means, with the aim of bending your opponent to your will. But what is our "will"? I've never been clear about own war aims, and I just don't know what sort of "win" we are looking for. Meanwhile, our ill-equipped forces are suffering casualties in what is fast looking like a lost cause. I feel for them and their families who are paying the ultimate price for our dithering politicians.
We need an exit strategy from Afghanistan. We have neither the will nor the resources for a long conflict. The policy of both the government and the Tory opposition is unclear. Why are we in Afghanistan at all, and what must we do before our troops can come home? And if they are no properly equipped for the task, what is being done to give our forces the equipment to achieve their objectives.
We don't belong in Afghanistan. We need to see an end to our involvement. We owe it to our armed forces, who are taking all the risks, to get our act together.
www.millarcrime.com
The argument we are supporting the Afghanistan [corrupt] government doesn't hold water either because as with so many of these governments, they are simply "our boys". They do not enjoy wide support from the average Afghanistan citizen, only support from western governments who bend them to their will. None of the Afghanistan government will travel outside Kabul with very good reason.
For better or worse the Taliban are the only form of government across much of the countryside and bring some order to the chaos we've created. Every time we stick our noses into other peoples business we create chaos.
Afghanistan is a very tribal nation and irrespective of tribal differences, they'll unite to fight infidel invaders and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
Afghanistan walks like Vietnam, quacks like Vietnam and world wide the politicians can't seem to join the dots.
Big Brother will set up thrilling scenario in home turf to divert public's attention and dissent from increasing death toll of soldiers. Beware!
Here's an argument for you. The gas pipeline that was planned by a Unocal led consortium would have been about 20-40 bcm per annum maximum size. Tariffs for similar pipelines around the world would be in the region of perhaps a hundred million USD per annum. From this costs (construction of pipeline and running it) plus taxes paid top the Afghan govt would have to be deducted. This might leave about 40 million a year "profit". So, why would you argue that the USA would spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to get this 40 million? Is it not a cretinous argument?
p.s. Unocal withdrew from the consortium in 2002 and the project is now looking very unlikely as Iran and Pakistan have agreed to develop a different route from Iran to Pakistan direct. This was agreed at the first tripartite meeting of the Iranian, Afghan and Pakistani presidents a few weeks back. Did you know that? Does this news affect your assertion that the USA is out to steal and gain advantage? You might also look at the only major resource Afghan has, copper. Thats been contracted to Chinese to produce, a bit like Iraqi oil that the US was supposed to be stealing.
Is it the case that some people feel they must invent these theft fantasies as the alternative would be to acknowledge that the USA is indeed doing just what it says, trying to help these countries achieve peace and freedom form their people. I think so. I think its just a pathetic childish excuse to avoid facing the "challenging" reality of Taliban and insurgents who are a hated and evil minority
"Caspian and Central Asian natural gas and oil reserves only reason about this bloody episode."
I asked you to explain this assertion. You don't seem to be able to and are now trying to divert away with questions about China. How odd then you accuse me of transforming when of course that is what you are doing in the next breath.
The export of Caspian gas south and eastwards would benefit India yet you seem to think it would contain it. India currently gets its oil and LNG (gas) from the Gulf and the South (mainly Indonesia I think). What is this strategic advantage for the US then?
And what does "world dominance" actually mean? Nothing more than they are the most successful I expect. Still, maybe you can expand? Or, maybe you might realise you don't really understand and conclude that in such circumstances offering your view might be premature. Do you think baseless views can be turned into the justification for terrorist atrocity? Just a thought.
"Caspian and Central Asian natural gas and oil reserves only reason about this bloody episode."
I thought this was untrue so I asked you to explain and justify what I think is a baseless assertion.
I did so because insurgents and extremists argue the same as you that the evil USA is out to control them and steal their stuff. Thus this idea does indeed form the basis and justification for much violence suffering and death. As I know this idea to be a lie, and one that can easily be seen to be a lie by spending 30 minutes on the internet, maybe even reading the link you posted and doing some maths, I feel some obligation to hold to account those that promote the false idea publicly.
I see that you do not welcome being asked to account for or justify your views that you choose to publicly announce. I don't think thats very big, and you are not my brother. I welcome comment on my views. I do not think intellectual challenge is inquisition. I think witch hunters will call their accusers witches.
... to satisfy your intellectual interest... lets start with the basics first : Statement by VP Unocal (now as you are no doubt aware is now part of Chevron-Texaco ) to the US Congress. Note - it was given at the start of 1998 - well before 9/11 .... ! .
QUOTE :
From the 1998 Congressional Record.
QUOTE :
"U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 1998
" ... believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.
I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region....
...One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure....
... The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. ...
END QUOTE
... plenty more where that came from - ...you may also wish to ponder over the significance of Georgia and Kosova, Iran in the Oil & Gas pipeline geo-strategy and the spin the press gives to cloud the real issues at stake - Cheap Oil (& Gas)
...Europe and the US needs cheap oil and gas to maintain and fuel 'our way of life' - thats why NATO is there - there is nothing wrong about losing professional soldiers for national self interest ... lets just be honest about it and not pretend its for some glorious crusade ... "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.. " comes to mind ... but this time round these professional soldiers have given up their lives for Big Oil (& Gas)... and by the time its over, many many more will have been fallen - and all for Oil - they might as well carry the Corporate Standard into battle instead of the Union Jack.... such a waste of fine young men, because they are going to carry on failing like ten pins.... till the public sees the pathetic reality and wants out....
I wonder whose son (or daughter) is going to be the last soldier carried out horizontal before the plug is eventually pulled out - someone reading tomorrows papers over breakfast perhaps ? Poor sods.
1. UNOCAL's business has for some time been primarily in the Asian continent, they are the local experts amongst American oil comps and have projects that produce wealth for the states they operate in and themselves in many Asian countries
2. UNOCAL pulled out of the proposed Afghan pipeline in the early 2000's.
3. There are currently no plans for US comps to build any pipelines
4. There are plans to build a pipeline from Iran to Pakistan direct
So where is the profit for US big oil here then? I see the potential for the lives of Caspian people and Pakistani's and Indians to be improved vastly in return for some company, private or state, earning a profit by building the infrastructure to make the mutually beneficial trade happen. What is wrong with that? It seems that your problem is if a US oil comp makes any profit. Why? (the other consortium that was bidding against UNOCAL is Brindex, a Brazilian outfit so maybe they will now do it)
If a US comp will provide the service for less than someone else why is this profit not in fact to be celebrated as it is the outward sign of the trade that is now enriching poor peoples lives in Caspian and India more than some state owned oil disaster who produces less revenue at higher cost (not profit so thats OK! ).
Why does oil blow peoples minds like this?
The profits from such a trade might be in the hundreds of billions over many years. The flow would be, as your article suggests eastwards to India etc. The costs of Afghanistan to the US are in the hundreds of billions EVERY YEAR. No US pipelines have been built or are planned after 8 years occupation.
Afghanistan was occupied to remove the Taliban because they harbored a terrorist who organised the deaths of 3,000 innocent people of all races and religions in New York and Washington
The oil and gas fantasies are an excuse. Now we are there we have a duty to the majority of Afghans who want us to stay and defeat the Taliban who they understandably hate and fear.
Not exactly Henry V is it?
Gordon Brown should be made to explain, in what way people are safer? The man is becoming an Orwellian character and this remark, could have been from "Animal Farm".
Not one life of a British soldier, however courageous, is worth sacrificing on this Corporate altar.
So if you consider it took them 30 years to get themselves back to where they started in Northern Ireland and declare a draw, how long will it take in Afghanistan with less than half the troops and 4 times the area and a hostile population.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Plus - the terrain is very different from NI and suited to take-on the worlds best armies. Ideal for small units to take on superpowers like USSR, USA and anyone else who wants to give it a try...
Terrorism will automatically stop, when the West corrects the way it conducts its clandestine operations. The whole thing started because USA and its helpers want to control fossil fuel supplies. For exapmle, consider the protection afforded to Saudi Arabia, even though many of the terrorist are from that country. Those who dont comply with the West, are assimulated, Borg style.
There are two options:
1) take it from the weak, install a puppet
2) make a deal
They choose option 1 - that is what humans do.
But then al-quaeda started taking action in the late 1990's - but in a way thats against the laws of Islam. This is why the Muslim world doesnt support al-quaeda.
The hatred against the hidden way the West wants to impose its will on these countries, it is easy to recruit angry young men. Sadly, these angry guys dont stop to think, that their actions against civilians, are going to land them in trouble, when the face God on the day of judgement. The rules of engagement in war are well defined in Islam - there is very little ambiguity in this matter.
Your denigration of the British soldiers killed in action is offensive beyond words. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the war in Afghanistan, these young men were killed in the line of duty, and yes, I do agree that their deaths were probably in vain, but that does not give you the right to post such puerile comments. Don't ever forget, that is through the sacrifice of countless numbers of servicemen and women that you have the freedom to make the comments you have. I suspect that the bravest thing that you have ever dome in you obviously worthless life is to get out of bed in the morning
Barack Obama told about these enemies on his speech on January 03, 2008, after Iowa election victory :
"You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don't own this government, we do; and we are here to take it back"
adroog@planet.nl
Where have you been?
I wonder, should i contact the EAAP to see if it is you?
Hope to hear from you soon, i have missed your chats!
Lets catch up.
Please, not again; History and Russia's army has already shown the inevitable outcome for our forces so can we have them out of Afghanistan?
How long before we hear the dreaded phrase "body count"?