SASR "Execute" unarmed Afghan

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The Malayan Emergency, Dhofar Rebellion, Operation BANNER were all in support of functioning governments. The UK were in control of the overall operation and could set the goals and the means.

The Afghanistan-US war was and is a US led operation that overthrew the existing government and tried to set up a completely new government in its place. The Americans went into the war no clear objectives other than to gain revenge for a terrorist attack. Everything after that was just an after the fact fig leaf for finding a way to leave without losing face.

Other countries were only there as a way of supporting the US in order to keep the NATO alliance together or for other diplomatic reasons unrelated to Afghanistan itself. Nobody else had or has any direct interest in what happens in Afghanistan.

So you have two completely different scenarios. In the one case the military are providing security assistance to a civil power, and the civil power are the ones who need to create a political solution to resolve the conflict, with the advice and assistance of the military power as required.

In the second case what could have been a simple punitive expedition turned into a project to create and mould a new state from the ground up for the benefit of a largely unwilling populace, an utterly futile project if there ever was one.
Point taken about origins, however my point stands about the level of commitment in terms of time and resources.
 
Point taken about origins, however my point stands about the level of commitment in terms of time and resources.
People on this thread are arguing that the reason the war in Afghanistan hasn't been "won" is because we aren't being harsh enough on the populace.

You're arguing that there just isn't enough time and resources to do things the "right" way.

I'm arguing that nobody other than the Americans has any genuine interest in what happens there, and that the Americans have no real idea why they're still there other than they don't want to leave without having "won" while having no idea how to bring about a "winning" that Afghans are willing to accede to. The root of the problem is an American cultural aversion to being seen to lose face.

Britain fought several wars in Afghanistan in the 19th century over who was going to run the country before realising that they didn't care who ran Afghanistan so long as it wasn't the Russians. A much more rational British Afghanistan policy then followed.
 
The root of the problem is an American cultural aversion to being seen to lose face.
Pinned that one to the board. Britain's role in the fiasco is more complex.

Mmm; no, it isn't. A political leader with an urge to see a statue of himself in Westminster. I'd topple that, me with me gout an all.
 
I think it was real, but the two heads been taken from dead terrorists as a means of identifying them, rather than humping the whole bodies out of the jungle.
And after the kerfuffle about that photo the troops wern't happy as they then had to porter the whole corpse out for SB Identification.
 
People on this thread are arguing that the reason the war in Afghanistan hasn't been "won" is because we aren't being harsh enough on the populace.

You're arguing that there just isn't enough time and resources to do things the "right" way.

I'm arguing that nobody other than the Americans has any genuine interest in what happens there, and that the Americans have no real idea why they're still there other than they don't want to leave without having "won" while having no idea how to bring about a "winning" that Afghans are willing to accede to. The root of the problem is an American cultural aversion to being seen to lose face.

Britain fought several wars in Afghanistan in the 19th century over who was going to run the country before realising that they didn't care who ran Afghanistan so long as it wasn't the Russians. A much more rational British Afghanistan policy then followed.
The British were only interested in keeping Afghanistan as a buffer state between British India and the Russian Empire. They had no interest in ruling it. There was nothing there worth looting and they didn't want the expense of ruling and occupying it. The NW Frontier was enough problem.
 
You be'd hard pushed to name one 'recent' enemy we've have who played fair ..hence getting our arrses kicked before we sussed out the game.

Warfare is shit, the sooner our Generals and Government accept that and let us fight it with a winning mentality not restricted by whiny bleeding hearts the better - cos it always ends with those who did no fighting shaking fecking hands anyway
The LAOC was drawn up by civilised people post 2nd WW and TBH it does not mean shit east of a line between Monaco and Rostock and even there I could find a few exceptions. We need to wake up and get out and let them kill each other like they were working on a quarry face like they have been doing for centurys. If you want to protect global security start at home and get rid of the enemy at home and stop them coming in and stop all future entry. No fundamentalists no terror.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
The British were only interested in keeping Afghanistan as a buffer state between British India and the Russian Empire. They had no interest in ruling it. There was nothing there worth looting and they didn't want the expense of ruling and occupying it. The NW Frontier was enough problem.
but it was a good source of raisins for all those traditional british stodgy puddings.
 
but it was a good source of raisins for all those traditional british stodgy puddings.
The Afghan oil was good too and how did we keep it secret from the US for so long, it took 09/11 for them to figure out about the Afghan secret we had suppresed it from them for 150 years
 
The Police had primacy throughout the campaign. The massacre did not come to light until 1970.
Not so. The massacre was public knowledge at the time, sadly. It's scandalous that no one was held to account, in spite of a detailed investigation by Special Branch at the time. Not one of the British Army's greatest moments.
 
Not so. The massacre was public knowledge at the time, sadly. It's scandalous that no one was held to account, in spite of a detailed investigation by Special Branch at the time. Not one of the British Army's greatest moments.
It was hailed in the local press as a great success. British troops kill 24 bandits. The fact that they were unarmed civilians didn't come out until one of the members of the patrol wrote to the Sunday People in 1970 after the My Lai massacre in Vietnam came to light.
 
The problem is that in some parts of the world - including many that we've been to recently - you have to prove to the enemy that you're more savage than they are to be respected.

That was understood even up into the 1970s and 80s.

I agree that gratuitous cruelty has no place. I also feel that to hold ourselves to increasingly impossible standards hampers us militarily whilst earning us no kudos at all with those who oppose us.

This is a nuanced debate that could run to hours in the same room or thousands of typed words, so I hope that you can see in these few words the point I'm trying to make.
Well, we the western world are tied in the court of public opinion, while those we fight against are not, have sympathetic newspapers, politicians who blindly ignore the crimes committed by them, just look at how the far left have worshiped BLM and antifa. It’s not just politics, it’s celebs on social media, spin doctors etc. Then add nation state intervention and “fake” news.

So we have to fight smarter, cleaner and actively show in big bright letters the A-Z why Terry Taliban or Steve ISIS had a 0.338 lapua round drilled threw his swede.

Other wise you’d have Kier,in the HOC, Garry Lineker on Twitter big timing it.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The point is, if they're all savages and there's no way to control them other than through fear, what are you trying to achieve by being there in the first place? How do you achieve victory such that you can leave, or did you plan on staying there forever?
Worked in Oz.
 

Latest Threads

Top