If its out there, its in here!
More British Dead in Afghanistan than in Iraq
by Lib Dem FoP
More British Dead in Afghanistan than in Iraq
Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:45:27 PM PDT
Around 11.00 local time Friday a transport aircraft did a circuit of RAF Lynham in the West of England. After landing, the plane was made safe and its protection armaments disabled. It then taxied to the main apron of the airfield to unload its cargo of five British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in a Repatriation ceremony. In accordance with a painful tradition established over the last two years, later the procession of hearses paused briefly in the nearby town of Wooton Basset for the townspeople to express their respects with a minute's silence (video).
By the end of the day, the deaths of another five had been announced, taking the total in 24 hours to eight and the total number of British killed in Afghanistan over the number killed in the Iraq War.
The Brown government is coming under attack from the two main opposition parties. Not to withdraw but, if anything to increase the numbers committed and to improve the equipment available to them. Also on Friday, a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq won a judicial review forcing an inquiry into the use of insufficiently armored vehicles.
Americans will be aware of the US operations that have started in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan. Rather less well known is the British operation around the province's capital and further north launched shortly before. Operation Panchai Palang, or Panther's Claw is similarly designed to drive the Taliban from the province, provide security in advance of the August elections and to separate the Taliban from the areas growing heroin poppies as their source of income.
While the British had been operating in Helmand, the too small numbers and lack of helicopter transport meant that ground gained could not be held. This meant that local tribespeople were unwilling to work with the British and the central government knowing that the Taliban would return to take vengence. The aim of the British and American operation is to end that cycle.
Serious discussion of the Afghanistan mission started after the publication in the Daily Telegraph of an article by Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in Parliament, the Liberal Democrats which broke the three party consensus.
First: equipment and troop numbers. If you send people to war, you must supply the resources they need, or you should not send them at all. Otherwise you are betraying the fundamental covenant between a nation and its armed forces. I am appalled that so many of our soldiers have been killed because of inadequate equipment, and disturbed to hear from experts that we don't have enough forces to hold and rebuild territory once it has been won.
The US seems to have come to the same conclusion, and has deployed its own forces in Helmand, relegating us to the background, as in Basra. I can only imagine how demoralising it must be for our troops to feel they have to be bailed out by Uncle Sam.
But as Paddy Ashdown has been arguing, military action will never be enough. We need a co‑ordinated political strategy. For too long, governments, international agencies and NGOs have been incapable of speaking with one voice. Britain's lukewarm support for European co-operation in defence and security planning has contributed to the fragmented nature of operations. Our soldiers' lives are being thrown away because our politicians won't get their act together. To help them, we need a single individual or institution with a strong mandate, co-ordinating the actions of all international players.
Finally, there is the issue of corruption. If the Taliban are to be defeated, the Afghan people need to learn to trust state institutions – a huge challenge in a country that's never had effective central government. Yet progress is made impossible by corruption. We all hope to see free and fair presidential elections next month, but there are growing concerns that the candidates could be too compromised by their pasts. Rooting out corruption at all levels must be given a higher priority. Afghanistan will never prosper until peasant and president alike are subject to the rule of law.
(Paddy Ashdown is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, former soldier, diplomat and the UN High Representative in Bosnia - the guy who ran the country - who was proposed as international co-ordinator in Afghanistan. His nomination was rejected by Karsai AKA the "Mayor of Kabul" very likely to preserve his own position as the center of a corrupt government whose writ runs barely outside his presidential palace.)
Note, by the way, that Clegg supports the Afghan War itself as legal and supported by the international community through the UN, unlike the attack on Iran which he and the party opposed from before day one.
The discussion continued in the the Friday edition of the Radio 4 Today programme. Unlike many US talk stations' output this is a heavyweight political programme which among other things, first revealled that the evidence to support the Iraq War had been "sexed up".
The Conservative Leader, David Cameron, is rather involved in a scandal involving the use of cellphone hacking by his Director of Communications when a newspaper editor so was probably glad of the opportunity to weigh in to oppose government policy.
Conservative leader David Cameron said the news of further UK casualties was "desperately sad".
They demonstrated the "very high price" that the Army was paying for its efforts in Afghanistan.
"It really does show how we have got to redouble our efforts to make sure everything we are doing is actually working."
On Friday the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq won an action for judicial review of a Ministry of Defence decision not to hold an inquiry into the use of poorly armored vehicles which is one of the criticisms currently levied against the operations in Afghanstan.
Mr Justice Mitting said three issues could be investigated if a full inquiry is held:
* Should different equipment, such as the more heavily armoured Cougar Mastiff, have been procured and deployed in 2005 and 2006
* If so, could the deaths of some or all of the soldiers have been avoided
* And if so, why was that equipment not procured and deployed
Unfortunately, the court could not order an inquiry into the current and future use of such vehicles. There are, in any case, criticism of the Mastiff vehicles for not providing adequate defense against the IEDs currently being employed by the Taliban. The father of one of the first soldiers killed in Afghanistan called the Snatch Land Rovers still used for some operations "ridiculous tin cans" Much of the problem goes to a similar problem experienced by US forces - an over reliance on high tech equipment not suitable for the missions they are now expected to undertake largely to provide work in areas where politicians can get support. In the case of the UK, this has resulted in commissioning two new huge "Queen Elizabeth" class aircraft carriers and an ongoing commitment to replace the Trident nuclear armed submarines into the future at the expense of helicopters, body armor, armored vehicles and night vision and mine detection equipment.
The good people of Wooton Basset organized the first of their ceremonies spontaneously when British dead were first repatriated to RAF Lynham. Now they are rather more formal with representatives of the Town and veteran's organizations attending. The equivalent of about half the town's population stand in silence at these vigils. They see it as their duty on behalf of the nation to express thanks for the sacrifice in honor of the fallen. They will have to turn out for months and probably years to come but the Brown government has a duty to lessen their and the force's burdens.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/10/8483/23224
More infos: http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1093-More-Combat-Deaths-in-Afgha...
More British Dead in Afghanistan than in Iraq
Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:45:27 PM PDT
Around 11.00 local time Friday a transport aircraft did a circuit of RAF Lynham in the West of England. After landing, the plane was made safe and its protection armaments disabled. It then taxied to the main apron of the airfield to unload its cargo of five British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in a Repatriation ceremony. In accordance with a painful tradition established over the last two years, later the procession of hearses paused briefly in the nearby town of Wooton Basset for the townspeople to express their respects with a minute's silence (video).
By the end of the day, the deaths of another five had been announced, taking the total in 24 hours to eight and the total number of British killed in Afghanistan over the number killed in the Iraq War.
The Brown government is coming under attack from the two main opposition parties. Not to withdraw but, if anything to increase the numbers committed and to improve the equipment available to them. Also on Friday, a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq won a judicial review forcing an inquiry into the use of insufficiently armored vehicles.
Americans will be aware of the US operations that have started in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan. Rather less well known is the British operation around the province's capital and further north launched shortly before. Operation Panchai Palang, or Panther's Claw is similarly designed to drive the Taliban from the province, provide security in advance of the August elections and to separate the Taliban from the areas growing heroin poppies as their source of income.
While the British had been operating in Helmand, the too small numbers and lack of helicopter transport meant that ground gained could not be held. This meant that local tribespeople were unwilling to work with the British and the central government knowing that the Taliban would return to take vengence. The aim of the British and American operation is to end that cycle.
Serious discussion of the Afghanistan mission started after the publication in the Daily Telegraph of an article by Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in Parliament, the Liberal Democrats which broke the three party consensus.
First: equipment and troop numbers. If you send people to war, you must supply the resources they need, or you should not send them at all. Otherwise you are betraying the fundamental covenant between a nation and its armed forces. I am appalled that so many of our soldiers have been killed because of inadequate equipment, and disturbed to hear from experts that we don't have enough forces to hold and rebuild territory once it has been won.
The US seems to have come to the same conclusion, and has deployed its own forces in Helmand, relegating us to the background, as in Basra. I can only imagine how demoralising it must be for our troops to feel they have to be bailed out by Uncle Sam.
But as Paddy Ashdown has been arguing, military action will never be enough. We need a co‑ordinated political strategy. For too long, governments, international agencies and NGOs have been incapable of speaking with one voice. Britain's lukewarm support for European co-operation in defence and security planning has contributed to the fragmented nature of operations. Our soldiers' lives are being thrown away because our politicians won't get their act together. To help them, we need a single individual or institution with a strong mandate, co-ordinating the actions of all international players.
Finally, there is the issue of corruption. If the Taliban are to be defeated, the Afghan people need to learn to trust state institutions – a huge challenge in a country that's never had effective central government. Yet progress is made impossible by corruption. We all hope to see free and fair presidential elections next month, but there are growing concerns that the candidates could be too compromised by their pasts. Rooting out corruption at all levels must be given a higher priority. Afghanistan will never prosper until peasant and president alike are subject to the rule of law.
(Paddy Ashdown is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, former soldier, diplomat and the UN High Representative in Bosnia - the guy who ran the country - who was proposed as international co-ordinator in Afghanistan. His nomination was rejected by Karsai AKA the "Mayor of Kabul" very likely to preserve his own position as the center of a corrupt government whose writ runs barely outside his presidential palace.)
Note, by the way, that Clegg supports the Afghan War itself as legal and supported by the international community through the UN, unlike the attack on Iran which he and the party opposed from before day one.
The discussion continued in the the Friday edition of the Radio 4 Today programme. Unlike many US talk stations' output this is a heavyweight political programme which among other things, first revealled that the evidence to support the Iraq War had been "sexed up".
The Conservative Leader, David Cameron, is rather involved in a scandal involving the use of cellphone hacking by his Director of Communications when a newspaper editor so was probably glad of the opportunity to weigh in to oppose government policy.
Conservative leader David Cameron said the news of further UK casualties was "desperately sad".
They demonstrated the "very high price" that the Army was paying for its efforts in Afghanistan.
"It really does show how we have got to redouble our efforts to make sure everything we are doing is actually working."
On Friday the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq won an action for judicial review of a Ministry of Defence decision not to hold an inquiry into the use of poorly armored vehicles which is one of the criticisms currently levied against the operations in Afghanstan.
Mr Justice Mitting said three issues could be investigated if a full inquiry is held:
* Should different equipment, such as the more heavily armoured Cougar Mastiff, have been procured and deployed in 2005 and 2006
* If so, could the deaths of some or all of the soldiers have been avoided
* And if so, why was that equipment not procured and deployed
Unfortunately, the court could not order an inquiry into the current and future use of such vehicles. There are, in any case, criticism of the Mastiff vehicles for not providing adequate defense against the IEDs currently being employed by the Taliban. The father of one of the first soldiers killed in Afghanistan called the Snatch Land Rovers still used for some operations "ridiculous tin cans" Much of the problem goes to a similar problem experienced by US forces - an over reliance on high tech equipment not suitable for the missions they are now expected to undertake largely to provide work in areas where politicians can get support. In the case of the UK, this has resulted in commissioning two new huge "Queen Elizabeth" class aircraft carriers and an ongoing commitment to replace the Trident nuclear armed submarines into the future at the expense of helicopters, body armor, armored vehicles and night vision and mine detection equipment.
The good people of Wooton Basset organized the first of their ceremonies spontaneously when British dead were first repatriated to RAF Lynham. Now they are rather more formal with representatives of the Town and veteran's organizations attending. The equivalent of about half the town's population stand in silence at these vigils. They see it as their duty on behalf of the nation to express thanks for the sacrifice in honor of the fallen. They will have to turn out for months and probably years to come but the Brown government has a duty to lessen their and the force's burdens.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/10/8483/23224
More infos: http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1093-More-Combat-Deaths-in-Afgha...
Tags: afghanistan, clegg, dead, democrats, iraq, liberal, military, nick, uk
About
Groups
-
Skype Users
11 members
-
The Verbal Militia ARMY
10 members
-
Level 7
9 members
-
Expanton Street Team
9 members
-
Verbal Militia Missouri
1 member
Photos
Internet News
Loading feed
Music
© 2010 Created by Eric Arthur Blair on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
