Dont Miss.... Ross Kemp On Afghanistan

[Chainguy]

When you're lying wounded on the Afghan Plains
And the women are running to pick at your Remains
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your Brains
And go to your Gawd like a soldier


As true now as when Kipling wrote it in a very different century.

Tony T3 has it right. It's not easy fighting a war where the enemy soldier isn't a soldier, he's a terrorist who can become as one with the locals in an instant. The Americans had trouble with that 40 years ago as well.

That one didn't work out so great for the USA. Most American's I met in my time in the military still found the Vietnam conflict a very sore subject, even today, all these years on.

[disco1]

The Londoner said:

Along with this series, I have watched several other programmes with documentary teams embedded with UK and US forces and none of them answer a couple of questions.

Firstly, why are the Taliban such a foe to be reckoned with? They are up against some of the best trained and equipped troops in the world, they are running around in turbans and robes, yet no-one can defeat them. Why not?

Secondly, these programmes rightly concentrate on our troops and casualties, yet what damage is being done to the enemy? Are they losing large numbers of men in what ought to be totally one sided battles?

Oh dear, are you being serious?

The Afghans have been beating superpowers for hundreds of years inc the British in our 'pomp' and the Russians during the cold war.

The new taliban know their surroundings much better than we do, as someone mentioned they have no uniform, the country is covered in a massive mountain range making tracking them nearly impossible, they are very tribal, fit, battle hardened and believe in their cause.

In a full frontal or open they get smashed by our firepower but they rarely do this but it has happened on a few occaisons. 100's dead for no losses on our side.

Why would they fight on our terms of war when theirs is much more effective for them?

[Graham]

Tony*T3 said:

Have you ever fired the SA80?

I hope they are better now than when I used them ( late 80's early 90's) as they were a piece of turd back then... and the lsw another waste of space...

give me an slr/FN and a gimpy and I'll be happy...( I prefer the Idea of stopping power over tumbling rounds that cause casualties)

The slr even had the advantage that if you ran out of amunition you could always tt someone with it and do some damage, the sa80 would probably break in half !!!!


First time we were issued with sa80's guys cleaning them at the range, about 3 turned the gas plug the wrong way oops, thats three sa80's fubared then really what you need in the field... I assume they've at least fixed that.. and dont talk about the bits falling off and the jams..

[Engineer1]

Britian has fought insurgents successfully, Kenya, Aden and the Malayan Emergency, so we do have a better history and knowledge base than the Americans, Afganistan is probably a case of needing massive ammounts of commitment and time avoiding bailing out early.

[Chainguy]

Graham said:

Tony*T3 said:

Have you ever fired the SA80?

I hope they are better now than when I used them ( late 80's early 90's) as they were a piece of turd back then... and the lsw another waste of space...

give me an slr/FN and a gimpy and I'll be happy...( I prefer the Idea of stopping power over tumbling rounds that cause casualties)

The slr even had the advantage that if you ran out of amunition you could always tt someone with it and do some damage, the sa80 would probably break in half !!!!


First time we were issued with sa80's guys cleaning them at the range, about 3 turned the gas plug the wrong way oops, thats three sa80's fubared then really what you need in the field... I assume they've at least fixed that.. and dont talk about the bits falling off and the jams..

Ah, SA-80 and gas plug Have they fixed that? It was a 'return it to the armoury' job when we were trained on them in basic.

First time I put a round down it, I thought it had misfired. I'd spent years in the cadets getting to play with 7.62 and .303, and had memories of a bruised up shoulder to have as experience. Hence the first time with the SA-80, I thought I'd a hang fire.

Thank fcuk I wasn't a squaddie, I'd have needed bigger balls than I have to go to war with that thing as it was early 90's.

[audidoody]

There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citizen" army motivated by religious extremism and fantaticism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.

The lesson goes back to biblical times let alone 20th century guerilla wars (Rhodesia, Russians in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Palestine etc etc)

Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 12th February 09:50

[Tony*T3]

audidoody said:

There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.

Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?

Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority.

[Nuclearsquash]

I thought the boys on the hill were very pragmatic when Kemp asked them about the airstrike, and how it was one of those things, and the media is just looking for someone to blame. One of them pointed out it could just of easily been a Dutch or French pilot dropping the bomb, it just so happens there are more Americans over there.

[Eric Mc]

Tony*T3 said:

audidoody said:

There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.

Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?

Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority.

Absolutely. And that is the fundamental problem why "the war on terror" was such a misguided notion. How can you defeat an "idea" or a "style"?

[pablo]

Eric Mc said:

Tony*T3 said:

audidoody said:

There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.

Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?

Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority.

Absolutely. And that is the fundamental problem why "the war on terror" was such a misguided notion. How can you defeat an "idea" or a "style"?

you can defeat a style or idea by demonstrating that there is a superior alternative.

eg: there is a field full of fertile soil. someone makes you grow opium in it and will kill you if you dont. you grow opium and get a pittance, they keep most of the profits. I come along, give you more money to grow something else and in the mean time, kill the man forcing you to grow opium. you are happy because you get more money, can grow what you want and will not die as a result.

the war on terror was dreamt up on fleet street.

[air cooled]

Agree completely!
Ideas cannot be bombed or shelled away.

There was an interesting article on Thursday last on the BBC website
"Why British - Afghan relations have hit a low"

Worth a read, coz the it puts a big emphasis on the Afghans remembering history as well as us. They don't trust the British Empire!

Maybe a greater emphasis on NATO and less on individual nations may help.
Maybe better still would be a UN beret!

[Tony*T3]

pablo said:

Eric Mc said:

Tony*T3 said:

audidoody said:

There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.

Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?

Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority.

Absolutely. And that is the fundamental problem why "the war on terror" was such a misguided notion. How can you defeat an "idea" or a "style"?

you can defeat a style or idea by demonstrating that there is a superior alternative.

eg: there is a field full of fertile soil. someone makes you grow opium in it and will kill you if you dont. you grow opium and get a pittance, they keep most of the profits. I come along, give you more money to grow something else and in the mean time, kill the man forcing you to grow opium. you are happy because you get more money, can grow what you want and will not die as a result.

the war on terror was dreamt up on fleet street.

In implementing your idea of 'killing the man that forces you to grow opium' you sadly, accidentally kill a ratio of around 30 to 1 'innocent collatoral' civilians to every 'terrorist'. You destory the infrastructure but talk of 'rebuilding' (but dont). The releatives of those killed no longer want your help, and become your enemy.

Yes, you can defeat ideas and styles, such as Fascism. You remove the (mortal)figure heads. But I cant see how you can defeat a faith, without actually killing everyone, because you cant remove the the figure head. Even slotting Osama wont help, someone else will take his place, and he'll gain martyrdom.

[escargot]

Nuclearsquash said:

I thought the boys on the hill were very pragmatic when Kemp asked them about the airstrike, and how it was one of those things, and the media is just looking for someone to blame. One of them pointed out it could just of easily been a Dutch or French pilot dropping the bomb, it just so happens there are more Americans over there.

[pablo]

Tony*T3 said:

pablo said:

Eric Mc said:

Tony*T3 said:

audidoody said:

There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.

Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?

Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority.

Absolutely. And that is the fundamental problem why "the war on terror" was such a misguided notion. How can you defeat an "idea" or a "style"?

you can defeat a style or idea by demonstrating that there is a superior alternative.

eg: there is a field full of fertile soil. someone makes you grow opium in it and will kill you if you dont. you grow opium and get a pittance, they keep most of the profits. I come along, give you more money to grow something else and in the mean time, kill the man forcing you to grow opium. you are happy because you get more money, can grow what you want and will not die as a result.

the war on terror was dreamt up on fleet street.

In implementing your idea of 'killing the man that forces you to grow opium' you sadly, accidentally kill a ratio of around 30 to 1 'innocent collatoral' civilians to every 'terrorist'. You destory the infrastructure but talk of 'rebuilding' (but dont). The releatives of those killed no longer want your help, and become your enemy.

Yes, you can defeat ideas and styles, such as Fascism. You remove the (mortal)figure heads. But I cant see how you can defeat a faith, without actually killing everyone, because you cant remove the the figure head. Even slotting Osama wont help, someone else will take his place, and he'll gain martyrdom.

30 to 1? which conflict are you talking about, afghan or iraq? i dont think the afghan figure is that high. if it is, then sadly that is part of war and it makes the need for men on the ground to direct fire even more important to eliminate such casualties. so much has been said on the programme about winning "hearts and minds" and it is this which will turn the locals against the taliban but its a slow process, nobody who knew the situation well thought this conflict would be over quickly.

removing osama, a genuinely charasmatic leader, will help. it can serve to generate questions from the fringe followers of the taliban who may consider the struggle a lost cause. yes someone else may step into his place but it is unlikely they will be as effective. there is a lot more to this than religion, beliefs and faith. namely power, money and land control.

[air cooled]

I would like to agree again with the continued ideas.
The Taleban is not just about religion it's ideas also contain the ideas of Bin Ladin that the west is evil and oppressive to the muslim faith.

We have not been very active in facing down these lies.
As has been posted we must show that there is a better "system",
that the ideas being promoted by the Taleban are false.
Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq and US/UK support for Israeli action in Lebanon make that an uphill struggle - for the present.

We can win the hearts and minds but not with our present strategies.

[Hobes]

This guy has all the episodes on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/MAVERICKxGB

It's a great series.

[RDE]

Nicholas Blair said:

Seems a bit of a Walter Mitty character - what with that SAS programme etc.

Why didn't he just join up for real ?

Well, strictly speaking 'walting' is when you imply you're part of an organisation when you're not. Though he may be playing at soldiers, he's hardly going to be able to convince someone he's one of the pilgrims, is he?

Because they'll say "aren't you Ross Kemp?".

[camgear]

I used to target shoot .22 rifles with a sling (Yeah, I know, not the same as serving in combat) and we were taught to always adjust the weapon personally, everyone has a slightly different perception as to whether the iron sight is centered, I guess.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean to bump this (Forgot it wasn't a current topic, searched it because I watched it last night, doh!)

Edited by camgear on Monday 9th March 11:48