Taleban is active in Helmand

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4855634.stm

One soldier killed in the attack in Helmand province was an American, the military said. It did not identify the nationality of the second soldier.

Five other soldiers, including one American, were wounded in the attack on Wednesday morning.
RIP boys.

I have heard on radio Echo of Moscow that the second soldier is Canadian. Such sad losses. On Sunday I met with brither of my wife who spent two years in Afghanistan (in Kabul and Kandagar). He recalled killed fellows.

I'm sure that problem of Afghanistan can't be resolved without Afghans. There was pro-Soviet government in 80's. It was at least purely secular. As we see the danger of Taleban comeback is real. Present (really decorative) Afghani government is unable to resolve any serious problem. So all anti-Taleban forces should be mobilised to form (not pro-American, pro-European or pro-Russian) but simply normal secular government.

By the way my son recently met two Pushtuns from Kandagar, sons of Afghani general. They live in Moscow and speak Russian. They told that recently they visited their homeland and they told about unimaginable level of lawlessness. Anybody with Kalashnikov (they suspect that even soldiers, maybe even mostly) can demand $50 for right not to die.

Without joint efforts, it would be a waste of time and lives to sent troops in Afghanistan.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
...and the shame of it is, I'm sure the former Red Army has a lot of valuable operational understanding and "lessons identified" that would be a real help to the 5,000 Britfor troops who'll be deploying to Helmand province this summer. Not so sure about the Russian ' Hearts and Minds ' approach.....Peace Through Frontal Aviation ?

Let's hope some of the Soviet Lessons Identified can be made into Lessons Learned and save soldiers' lives.
 
#4
Goatman said:
...and the shame of it is, I'm sure the former Red Army has a lot of valuable operational understanding and "lessons identified" that would be a real help to the 5,000 Britfor troops who'll be deploying to Helmand province this summer. Not so sure about the Russian ' Hearts and Minds ' approach.....Peace Through Frontal Aviation ?

Let's hope some of the Soviet Lessons Identified can be made into Lessons Learned and save soldiers' lives.
The main problem in Afghanistan is WATER. A cousin of my father still lives in Tashkent (Uzbekistan). In 70's he worked as an engineer in the Nothern Afghanistan, installed irrigational systems. Soviet command helped local tribesmen to dig wells. It worked. Soviet civil specialists that determined the best places for wells were untouchable and were the most wellcomed guests to Afghans.

Soviet command used some regiments formed mainly from Soviet Tdjiks and Uzbeks. It worked too (in the Nothern Afghanistan). When the locals saw soldiers that speaks language that they speak then it was very helpfull to win hearts and minds.

There is a lot of Arabs in the UK. But how many of them are in the British armed forces? in Iraq? Too few I suppose.

The main point of course is a reliable, strong local army. It is obvious.

As for the experience then the British knows Afghanistan pretty well.
 
#7
A French SF patrol was subject to a RCVBIED a few days ago near Spin Buldack. A car loaded with rockets and artillery shells waited for the vehicle patrol, tried to force its way into it in order to detonate the charges in the midst of the convoy.

The driver was killed by a French SF trooper while trying to activate the IED and instead of blowing up, the shells just smouldered...

The incident was reported by a number of French dailies but I suppose it did not reach the British shores.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#8
well for sure Fantassin (why have you chosen the French Army's in-house magazine as a user name?) it came as news to me that there were currently MORE French troops in Afghanistan than there are British.... and twice as many Germans as Canadians...

As far as most of the British reportage is concerned it's us and the Yanks - who would know any better ?

source: ISAF site at http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

Which countries are contributing?

ISAF currently numbers around 8,000 troops from 36 NATO, nine partner and two non-NATO / non-partner countries. ISAF tracks individual contributions by each country but those numbers change on a regular basis due to the rotation of troops. Please contact the specific countries for their contributions.

ISAF contributing nations (as of 21 February 2005)

NATO Nations
Belgium 616
Bulgaria 37
Canada 992
Czech Republic 17
Denmark 122
Estonia 10
France 742
Germany 1816
Greece 171
Hungary 159
Iceland 20
Italy 506
Latvia 9
Lithuania 9
Luxemburg 10
Netherlands 311
Norway 313
Poland 5
Portugal 21
Romania 72
Slovakia 16
Slovenia 27
Spain 551
Turkey 825
United Kingdom 461
United States 89 ???? IS THIS CORRECT ?

Partner Nations
Albania 22
Austria 3
Azerbaijan 22
Croatia 45
Finland 61
former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1) 20
Ireland 10
Sweden 85
Switzerland 4

Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations
New Zealand 5
Bienvenu aux ARRSE ! 8)

Le Chevre
 
#9
The US figure probably is correct for ISAF. The US also has 18,000 or so troops in Afghanistan under the seperate Operation Enduring Freedom. If you recall, there was some debate amongst the Europeans about making sure ISAF and OEF were kept seperate.
 
#10
Darth_Doctrinus said:
KGB_resident said:
Without joint efforts, it would be a waste of time and lives to sent troops in Afghanistan.
How very true. Let's see how long it takes us to learn this singular fact.
1839
1879
1919

And now. Perhap we just don't get the message that the Afghans would perhaps like to rule themselves.
 
#12
AndyPipkin said:
The US figure probably is correct for ISAF. The US also has 18,000 or so troops in Afghanistan under the seperate Operation Enduring Freedom. If you recall, there was some debate amongst the Europeans about making sure ISAF and OEF were kept seperate.
Separate? Do you believe Andy that separate operations could be effective. Or maybe it is a right time to split NATO in separate parts. This separation could be very logical. Moreover the separation could give Russia an opportunuty to be a member of NATO. Why not?
 
#13
Would Russia ever want to be a partner of NATO. Considering some gen i learned a couple of weeks ago about a certain balkan airfield, NATO forces and Russians were hours away from exchanging fire.
 
#14
Canada has 2800 soldiers and supportin Afghanistan and the overall command of the Khandahar operation is under a Canadian general who just took over from the Dutch...
 
#16
307 said:
Would Russia ever want to be a partner of NATO. Considering some gen i learned a couple of weeks ago about a certain balkan airfield, NATO forces and Russians were hours away from exchanging fire.
As I remember mr.Putin proposed Russin membership in NATO but received polite NO. I guess that USA is a dominant force in NATO now. With Russia there would be a socond pole.

As for the insident then Russian soldiers received an order to guard airport in Prishtina. The British received an order to establish control over it. The incident ended by football match as I remember. The Russians won the match.
 
#17
307 said:
Would Russia ever want to be a partner of NATO...
(a) Well, Russian forces served in Bosnia under US Divisional and Brigade command, in a fairly troublesome area by the standards of the day.

307 said:
... Considering some gen i learned a couple of weeks ago about a certain balkan airfield, NATO forces and Russians were hours away from exchanging fire.
(b) A well-documented scenario, coincidentally involving the same Russian forces as in (a) above.
 
#18
Despite the recent unpleasantness in Afghanistan, it is nowhere nearly an 'active' military zone as Iraq in terms of enemy activity, etc..
what it is, however, is a completely wasted and impotent country which will take massive amounts of support, militarily, economically, governmentally to bring it up to anywhere near a 'standard' .. Iraq has all the modern trappings of any North American/European nation in terms of city infrastructure, communications, etc.. Saddam saw that Baghdad and the other major centres all ' benefited 'from the oil revenues, etc.. it was by no means a ' failed state ' and, even now, given the insurgencies, lack of reliable power and other problems it is still a fully operational country.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, is the sh*ts.. My wife's grandfather was a Royal Artillery officer in command of Pakistani units during WWi in Spin Boldak and environs.. We have his diaries and albums of photos he wrote/took during hisc sojourn there. To read his accounts and to look at the pictures you would swear that he was writing yesterday there has been such little or no changei in almost 100 years.. That, more than anything tells me how difficult the situation there is and how Afghanistan may play out to be the longer more difficult assignment in terms of nation building. It truly is a stone age land...
 
#19
Goatman said:
well for sure Fantassin (why have you chosen the French Army's in-house magazine as a user name?) it came as news to me that there were currently MORE French troops in Afghanistan than there are British.... and twice as many Germans as Canadians...

As far as most of the British reportage is concerned it's us and the Yanks - who would know any better ?

source: ISAF site at http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

Which countries are contributing?

ISAF currently numbers around 8,000 troops from 36 NATO, nine partner and two non-NATO / non-partner countries. ISAF tracks individual contributions by each country but those numbers change on a regular basis due to the rotation of troops. Please contact the specific countries for their contributions.

ISAF contributing nations (as of 21 February 2005)

NATO Nations
Belgium 616
Bulgaria 37
Canada 992
Czech Republic 17
Denmark 122
Estonia 10
France 742
Germany 1816
Greece 171
Hungary 159
Iceland 20
Italy 506
Latvia 9
Lithuania 9
Luxemburg 10
Netherlands 311
Norway 313
Poland 5
Portugal 21
Romania 72
Slovakia 16
Slovenia 27
Spain 551
Turkey 825
United Kingdom 461
United States 89 ???? IS THIS CORRECT ?

Partner Nations
Albania 22
Austria 3
Azerbaijan 22
Croatia 45
Finland 61
former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1) 20
Ireland 10
Sweden 85
Switzerland 4

Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations
New Zealand 5
Bienvenu aux ARRSE ! 8)

Le Chevre
These figures probably don't take into account the separate OEF French contingent (about 200 something) which is made only of SF units and has been there since 2003 after an earlier spell in 2001-2002.
 
#20
I've always thought that when it comes to Afghnaistan the best way of securing the place from Islamic extremism is to spend serious money on the infrastructure and services of the place. The main complaints of the troublesome border tribes has always been the lack of governmental services and infrastructure, simple things like offering law and order. I just don't think that western plans in regards to this effort are good enough also unless the farmers be convinced that there is viable alternative to growing poppies any Afghani developement in regards to stablization of the border regions is not going to happen.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts