Linda Norgrove.....
Discussion
armynick said:
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Let me tell you about Afghanistan...The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Her security are not the "Blackwater types" as you describe. I know the company and I am working for a similar company doing the same thing. You'll find that most non-convoy security teams that operate outside of Kabul adopt a lower profile than others trying to look good and the majority of the team will be Afghans (Led by a couple of expats)
It's all very well trying to adopt a low profile out here but it's different to Iraq. It's still an on going battlefield and there isn't as much other traffic about. Everyone knows who you are, they know any strange vehicle so trying to go discreet doesn't work. Going covert might for a while, until you ran into a Tabliban checkpoint or go through a town with bandits but of course, then you would have no defence.
If you don't display a show of strength, even a disreet one without getting in people's face and pissing them off, the locals here see it as a weakness and you will be making yourself a possible target. It's their culture, you have to know how they think and adapt to that in order to try and keep one step ahead without highlighting yourselves.
The very fact that she was a women with authority in this enviroment is a problem to start with, the locals lock their women up in the compounds from the about the age of 16 to 60. (Apart from Kabul) The locals outside of Kabul are brainwashed sheep. The sheppards are the local elders, then you have the, supposedly elected, community councillers who are like our local council and local polititions. EVERYONE is corrupt, it's normal behaviour and expected. During community council meetings they swabble like 12 year old children, over all the aid and contruction that people are trying to give out. You have to see it to believe it. They demand everything yet throw obstacles in your way, everytime they open their mouths a lie comes out and again, this is normal and accepted. They are very ungrateful and they are also very dangerous and think nothing of killing each other over a petty arguement just because someone insulted them. It's very rarely that the correct people are getting the aid as the lists drawn up by the coucillers for distribution are mostly their buddies and relatives. The aid agencies, usualy led by USAID, are genuinely trying to dish out things to the right people and are trying to make sure things are done right. In this country though, it's impossible.
There is no national structure here. The national identity card (Taskera)is not widely used and there are very few genuine ones. Most are bad photo copies Genuine ones have photos of 35 year old men when they were 9 and yet it was only issued last year. People don't know their date of birth, some only know the year. Some people only have one name (and that changes depending on who you ask) so you have to go on their father's name/s.
There are very few street names. Many smoke opium. The cops get paid pittance and so have security jobs elsewhere when they are supposed to be on duty.
ISAF are trying to fight the Taliban with one hand held behind their back by their own goverments. They are losing in a lot of key areas.
The Taliban will take over again once we have pulled out but this time they will have new goverment offices and new roads, thanks to the west. Schools that have been built are empty, the computors gone.
The whole place has been badly mis-managed from the start, which is why there has been little progress since 2001. It's not just the fault of the West though, it's this place, even if they had got it right, it still wouldn't have worked here. Something has happened to these people, they have had the intelligence bred out of them and only exist now, in order to pray to Islam.
Their farming methods are medieval, their construction work laughable yet dangerous. There are ancient ruins here with more elaborate brickwork that then can build now. There are no skilled people, there is nothing , nothing but opium, that's all this place is good for.
This country is not worth the effort and the people not deserving of it. You wouldn't believe how ungrateful they are. They do not respect the aid agencies, they just want free stuff and demand it. Their social structure, idleness, corruptness, their method of doing business and whole general way of thinking, means that they will stay in the the stone ages. Why do you think this country has never evolved? Sorry, gone backwards, as I understand that many moons ago, it wasn't as bad as it is now, however I find that hard to believe having travelled a lot of it.
So, the female aid worker trying to get the job done, is not realistic. We had one and she was sent home for causing too much trouble. You cannot leave a Western woman out here to do business alone. She will be killed or taken. Same with the males. My client is himself a war vet from the Rodesia wars and he also used to do security, yet I still will not allow him to wander around on his own. You start doing that and word will get around locally and it will only be a matter of time.
She still could of done the same job with her security, many others have and are doing it. If she was like most female clients out here, they deliberately try to get rid of their security because they think they have something to prove to everyone else being in this unfemale enviroment. It's stupidity and cost people their lives.
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
The British Army tried that in Basra - 'look at us in our berets winning hearts and minds as we did in Malaya'. Didn't work. The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
From what you wrote armynick (probably the only one here with 1st hand experience) it seems even more clear to me that we should get the hell out and stop interfering in foreign countries, especially the obviously failed states, and repeating the mistakes and disasters we've caused before.
The only alternative I can see is if a regime were so dangerous to us/others - or maybe to its own people - that regime change was absolutely necessary and then it should, if possible, be done whole heartedly without the incompetent muddling, working to budget, letting down of the poor buggers sent in to the front line to do the leaders' biding and the in-built failure of trying to put in place corrupt and/or incompetent locals who won't or can't run the place properly.
This would of course need loads of resource/manpower, be tantamount to full on occupation and so very unpopular and hard to sustain, so absolutely last chance option only imho. We certainly don't seem to have done much for our or the locals' good in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I hope you can keep yourself safe until you can get out of the s
thole.
The only alternative I can see is if a regime were so dangerous to us/others - or maybe to its own people - that regime change was absolutely necessary and then it should, if possible, be done whole heartedly without the incompetent muddling, working to budget, letting down of the poor buggers sent in to the front line to do the leaders' biding and the in-built failure of trying to put in place corrupt and/or incompetent locals who won't or can't run the place properly.
This would of course need loads of resource/manpower, be tantamount to full on occupation and so very unpopular and hard to sustain, so absolutely last chance option only imho. We certainly don't seem to have done much for our or the locals' good in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I hope you can keep yourself safe until you can get out of the s
thole.armynick said:
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Let me tell you about Afghanistan...The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Her security are not the "Blackwater types" as you describe. I know the company and I am working for a similar company doing the same thing. You'll find that most non-convoy security teams that operate outside of Kabul adopt a lower profile than others trying to look good and the majority of the team will be Afghans (Led by a couple of expats)
It's all very well trying to adopt a low profile out here but it's different to Iraq. It's still an on going battlefield and there isn't as much other traffic about. Everyone knows who you are, they know any strange vehicle so trying to go discreet doesn't work. Going covert might for a while, until you ran into a Tabliban checkpoint or go through a town with bandits but of course, then you would have no defence.
If you don't display a show of strength, even a disreet one without getting in people's face and pissing them off, the locals here see it as a weakness and you will be making yourself a possible target. It's their culture, you have to know how they think and adapt to that in order to try and keep one step ahead without highlighting yourselves.
The very fact that she was a women with authority in this enviroment is a problem to start with, the locals lock their women up in the compounds from the about the age of 16 to 60. (Apart from Kabul) The locals outside of Kabul are brainwashed sheep. The sheppards are the local elders, then you have the, supposedly elected, community councillers who are like our local council and local polititions. EVERYONE is corrupt, it's normal behaviour and expected. During community council meetings they swabble like 12 year old children, over all the aid and contruction that people are trying to give out. You have to see it to believe it. They demand everything yet throw obstacles in your way, everytime they open their mouths a lie comes out and again, this is normal and accepted. They are very ungrateful and they are also very dangerous and think nothing of killing each other over a petty arguement just because someone insulted them. It's very rarely that the correct people are getting the aid as the lists drawn up by the coucillers for distribution are mostly their buddies and relatives. The aid agencies, usualy led by USAID, are genuinely trying to dish out things to the right people and are trying to make sure things are done right. In this country though, it's impossible.
There is no national structure here. The national identity card (Taskera)is not widely used and there are very few genuine ones. Most are bad photo copies Genuine ones have photos of 35 year old men when they were 9 and yet it was only issued last year. People don't know their date of birth, some only know the year. Some people only have one name (and that changes depending on who you ask) so you have to go on their father's name/s.
There are very few street names. Many smoke opium. The cops get paid pittance and so have security jobs elsewhere when they are supposed to be on duty.
ISAF are trying to fight the Taliban with one hand held behind their back by their own goverments. They are losing in a lot of key areas.
The Taliban will take over again once we have pulled out but this time they will have new goverment offices and new roads, thanks to the west. Schools that have been built are empty, the computors gone.
The whole place has been badly mis-managed from the start, which is why there has been little progress since 2001. It's not just the fault of the West though, it's this place, even if they had got it right, it still wouldn't have worked here. Something has happened to these people, they have had the intelligence bred out of them and only exist now, in order to pray to Islam.
Their farming methods are medieval, their construction work laughable yet dangerous. There are ancient ruins here with more elaborate brickwork that then can build now. There are no skilled people, there is nothing , nothing but opium, that's all this place is good for.
This country is not worth the effort and the people not deserving of it. You wouldn't believe how ungrateful they are. They do not respect the aid agencies, they just want free stuff and demand it. Their social structure, idleness, corruptness, their method of doing business and whole general way of thinking, means that they will stay in the the stone ages. Why do you think this country has never evolved? Sorry, gone backwards, as I understand that many moons ago, it wasn't as bad as it is now, however I find that hard to believe having travelled a lot of it.
So, the female aid worker trying to get the job done, is not realistic. We had one and she was sent home for causing too much trouble. You cannot leave a Western woman out here to do business alone. She will be killed or taken. Same with the males. My client is himself a war vet from the Rodesia wars and he also used to do security, yet I still will not allow him to wander around on his own. You start doing that and word will get around locally and it will only be a matter of time.
She still could of done the same job with her security, many others have and are doing it. If she was like most female clients out here, they deliberately try to get rid of their security because they think they have something to prove to everyone else being in this unfemale enviroment. It's stupidity and cost people their lives.
The only thing I want to add really is with respect to your question I've highlighted. I would imagine the answer lies in the fact that Afghanistan has, for most of its history, been invaded by one country after another for generations. Their religion is probably the only stable element in their lives.
Ayahuasca said:
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
The British Army tried that in Basra - 'look at us in our berets winning hearts and minds as we did in Malaya'. Didn't work. The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
rhinochopig said:
Ayahuasca said:
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
The British Army tried that in Basra - 'look at us in our berets winning hearts and minds as we did in Malaya'. Didn't work. The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Looks like the US SEAL who used the grenade is in a spot of bother:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/linda-...
Hoo-yah.
Ayahuasca said:
rhinochopig said:
Ayahuasca said:
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
The British Army tried that in Basra - 'look at us in our berets winning hearts and minds as we did in Malaya'. Didn't work. The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Looks like the US SEAL who used the grenade is in a spot of bother:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/linda-...
Hoo-yah.
Excellent write up by the guardian there highlighting the extremely high risk nature of the mission.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff