Heads Up new TV show: Heroes of Helmand: The British Army’s Great Escape

Djer know when I scanned the thread title I thought it said herpes of Helmand
 
Briefly, that John Reid as Defence Secretary said in April 2006 "We would be perfectly happy to leave in 3 years time without firing a shot", or words to that effect, based on the stated Helmand Plan, the ink spot strategy around Lashkar Gah.

That about one month later British soldiers were fighting for their lives defending outposts c.70 miles from the intended area of operation and that neither John Reid or his replacement defence secretary Des Browne had any any idea that this was going on or who had ordered it.

In summary, the command in Helmand was doing it's own thing entirely independently of the British governments wishes and that both Brigadier Butler and Colonel Tootal said it was all Helmand Governor Daoud's fault because he made them do it, 'even using harsh language'.


i thought you might say that because you've said it before, even when it doesn't really answer the questions or counter arguments posed.

now, as discussed earlier you refuse to accept the accounts of people in theatre with a front row seat to how events were playing out, why is that? we can agree that the decision to create a western democracy in Afghanistan was a mistake and that the expansion of the ink spot strategy with so few troops was folly but why do you cling to your second hand version of events and your conclusions drawn so dearly.

also, on the melodrama, could you try and reign in the "fighting for their lives" chat, its infantile. they were fighting and fighting hard, which they should be commended for, but we're not talking about units being overrun. if they'd been is LKG its not like their deployment would've been spent handing out pencils and organising sports days with the locals.
 
My issue is that the orders were
  1. Illegal
  2. Ineffective
  3. Against the mission as stated
Regardless of 1 and 3, if the orders had worked then i would probably of followed them, but they didn't work and only endangered our lives more for no effect.

I do appreciate there are some informed posters & watchers on here, but there are also those who resort to pissy memes and insults o try to bury the topic and close down the discussion.

I am so vocal about it because if we don't learn what went wrong in Helmand, how will we avoid repeating them in the future? The politicians and generals who sent soldiers to the Platoon Houses are now advising the government and demanding 'boots on the ground' in Syria and the like. I believe they are nothing more than profiteers, now getting payoffs on speaking engagements for the accountancy firms who audit the equipment manufacturers books.

Brigadier Butler has been left hung out to dry over his command decisions over the Platoon Houses fiasco, but i believe (from info gleaned from very well informed senior ranks publications on the matter) it was all at the behest of General Richards, the ISAF commander at the time. General Richards is now a Baron and a member of the house of Lords. Here's a list of the business interests he has accumulated in just 3 years since leaving the army - i wonder how the men he sent on pointless missions are fairing now, and their families? The documentary suggests not so well.

I wouldn't be surprised if you have been rifling through Richard's bins!

What brand of toothpaste does the peer prefer?;)
 
There was a shortage of red London busses at the time, and as the say in Para Regt, a third class ride is better than a first class walk.

I am not questioning the troops on the ground, but they were sent there under gunned, under manned, under resourced. If that's the plan fine! But at least have a pls of extraction when the inevitable happens. The numbers they were being attacks by with a bit of leadership could have over ran the out post, it seemed from the film that it could have happened. What was the plan then, the enemy with their tail up would not have negotiated an extraction then!
 

No.4 Mk.1

On ROPS
On ROPs
I wouldn't be surprised if you have been rifling through Richard's bins!

What brand of toothpaste does the peer prefer?;)
I don't need to, his book "Taking the piss" is full of his trash. Here's a favourite bit:
General Richards Diary said:
Saturday 9th September 2006
Well, I thought I'd had everything possible chucked at me but now General Jones has told General Back that he is not prepared to let me leave theatre for a planned few days R&R before the children go back to school.
To give that huge blow some context, in the previous week, just seven days, 27 men under the General's command had died.

18 British fatalities plus 5 Canadian and 4 US. The British fatalities included Paul Muirhead who died on 6th September. I don't think it's unreasonable to call the ex-General an utter **** under the circumstance.

(i use arm & hammer toothpaste)
 
I don't need to, his book "Taking the piss" is full of his trash. Here's a favourite bit:
To give that huge blow some context, in the previous week, just seven days, 27 men under the General's command had died.

18 British fatalities plus 5 Canadian and 4 US. The British fatalities included Paul Muirhead who died on 6th September. I don't think it's unreasonable to call the ex-General an utter **** under the circumstance.

(i use arm & hammer toothpaste)
What about the generals who were in charge when casualty rates were higher?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
i thought you might say that because you've said it before, even when it doesn't really answer the questions or counter arguments posed.

now, as discussed earlier you refuse to accept the accounts of people in theatre with a front row seat to how events were playing out, why is that? we can agree that the decision to create a western democracy in Afghanistan was a mistake and that the expansion of the ink spot strategy with so few troops was folly but why do you cling to your second hand version of events and your conclusions drawn so dearly.

also, on the melodrama, could you try and reign in the "fighting for their lives" chat, its infantile. they were fighting and fighting hard, which they should be commended for, but we're not talking about units being overrun. if they'd been is LKG its not like their deployment would've been spent handing out pencils and organising sports days with the locals.

I think being told to destroy their photographs and family letters is about as close to over run as it gets and proves you a bit of a ****.
 
Same in Belfast in the late 70's - over 100 injuries recorded by the med centre in my company - virtually all riot or hand thrown missile related. Two injuries due to a grenade attack and no shootings. Lost of injuries, including broken bones, due to impacts from bricks, iron bars, bottles etc.

At least when the kids cleared the area you knew an attack was imminent.
Did you fire mini flares?
 

X59

LE
I think being told to destroy their photographs and family letters is about as close to over run as it gets and proves you a bit of a ****.

Why? Because I don't feel there's a need to use sensationalist language?

I'm not disputing that these men did some very, very hard fighting.
 
Top