AFGHANISTAN

[miolchu]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

"...which has appealed for their privacy to be respected by the media - issued a statement through the MoD: "We wish to say that we are extremely proud of Lisa..."

Although we expect casualties in conflict, it is never easy to read about a young person coming into harm's way, when one has been there beforehand. I hope the media will respect Captain Head's family's wishes for privacy in this difficult time.

While I have always been grateful to live in a democracy with some consitutional freedoms, I have been very upset when fringe groups in the United States use difficult times to picket the funerals of servicemembers to garner attention to their fringe beliefs.

My thought are with Captain Head's family.

[1938 Observer]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

Scottish Troops on the job in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand province.

4 SCOTS educate Afghans in veterinary skills and personal safety
A Military Operations news article
14 Jun 11




As part of the ongoing effort to improve the lives of people living in Helmand, British soldiers have held a shura to teach locals farming and veterinary skills, and educate them on the dangers of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).



The shura (an Afghan meeting) was held at Checkpoint Yellow 14, in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand province, where The Highlanders, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (4 SCOTS), operate. Security for the shura was provided by members of the Afghan National Police who have been mentored and partnered by 4 SCOTS.

Many of the locals in the area are farmers and, while they are particularly adept at growing crops, they have had little training in how to care for and treat their animals.

The aim of the day was therefore to teach the farmers and community leaders about the need to properly look after their livestock. This was done through a series of lessons during which members of 4 SCOTS' Female Engagement Team explained the basics of procedures, such as worming, that could have an immediate and significant impact on the health of the animals.

Captain Hugh Wilson, D Company, 4 SCOTS, said:

"This might sound like really simple and basic information, but to these people it is essential. Without their animals they cannot make a living and then they are unable to feed their families, and that makes them more vulnerable to the insurgents who will seek to capitalise on their misfortune. Everything we can do to help them help themselves is really important."

While the first part of the day was intended to help the locals with their animals, the second half was to teach them how to look after themselves. IEDs continue to be a threat to ISAF and Afghan forces, but also to the many innocent civilians who are often badly injured or killed by the indiscriminate devices.

The lessons on how to recognise IEDs in the ground and what actions to take to avoid harm were delivered by an Afghan National Army Sergeant, who had been trained by members of the British Counter-IED Task Force.

The audience was also told how to inform ISAF and Afghan forces if they think they have found an IED so that specialist disposal teams can be called in to remove the devices safely.
Sergeant Gary William Waugh said:

"While the IEDs may be laid with the intention of harming us or other ISAF soldiers, sadly it is often locals and innocent children who are injured, maimed of even killed. We hope that by informing the elders about the risks and how to avoid them, they can pass this down to members of their family and community, and we can help reduce the risks."

The feedback from those who attended was that the shura was really useful, and more are now planned in other parts of the Combined Force Lashkar Gah area, and across Helmand, where British forces operate.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...onalSafety.htm

[1938 Observer]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

Reporter condemns silence on Afghan war
[Australia]

Source: ABC News
Published: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 1:15 AEST
Expires: Monday, October 3, 2011 1:15 AEST


Well-known war correspondent Michael Ware says Australian troops are "fighting, bleeding, sweating and dying" in a vacuum of silence in Afghanistan. Ware accuses the Australian Government of not informing the public about the broader nature of the Afghan war.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/05/3261513.htm

Watch the video at the link

[1938 Observer]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

Defence probes risk of repeat deployments to Afghanistan
[Australia]

By Simon Lauder

Updated 1 hour 4 minutes ago

ABC News.

The new chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) says he wants to find out more about the resilience of soldiers who are being repeatedly deployed to Afghanistan.



General David Hurley said he did not think fatigue was a factor when earlier this week he announced the death of veteran commando Sergeant Todd Langley.

But in an interview with the ABC, General Hurley says the Defence Force is investigating the long-term effects of multiple deployments.

Most of the 28 Australian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan were Special Forces troops and questions are being asked about the increasing burden being placed on a relatively small group who keep being sent back.

"We've got people going back to Afghanistan five, six, seven and eight times," said the executive director of the Australia Defence Association, Neil James.

"That's a hard call as we've seen in a recent case, where the [digger was] killed on his fifth rotation."

General Hurley has told the ABC's Sunday Profile program he is asking some serious questions about current practices.

He says the ADF has major studies underway looking at the long-term effects of multiple deployments.

"I suppose the bigger question I'm asking myself at the moment is how much is enough?" he said.

"Our psyche research at the present time indicates that number of deployments, for example, is not necessarily directly connected to future mental health issues. So the research is saying that it's early days," he said.

"So we're trying to very effectively manage getting the soldiers in a position to deploy, in the right state of mind and so forth, and looking at shorter and longer-term consequences of that deployment."

General Hurley says the question of how many deployments is too much is not just about the welfare of soldiers, but also about how the mission is maintained.

"There are multiple factors in this, it's not a simple linear thing," he said.

"The nature of the work will change over time as well so it's not a simple question."

Mr James says it may be many years before the mental health impact of the war in Afghanistan is known.

For now he says the burden of Australia's mission should be shared around other units.

"The main strategic question is, are our politicians relying too much on the Special Forces because of a fear of causalities, and therefore, [are] Special Forces to an extent being over-committed?"

For the first time Australian Defence Force personnel have been surveyed to determine the prevalence of mental health problems, the results will not be known until later this year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...09/3265424.htm

[Alastair]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

That's a considerable number of deployments.

I know this syndrome is relatively new as I don't recollect this being mentioned in the two world wars. However this suicide bombing is certainly new to this generation. Also in the two world wars it was a matter of survival for our own countries whereas this war isn't. I'm wondering if that has something to do with it?

Alastair

[Kelly d]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

From the stories Derrick told me in Iraq, they other side did not dress as soldiers so it was hard for the military to know who were civilians plus the stories of how they use women and children as suicide bombers.

[1938 Observer]

Re: AFGHANISTAN

When is this exercise in futility going to end????????


British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to win the war of Whitehall


Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Tuesday 2 October 2012 20.30 BST



Only one battle matters to the Ministry of Defence – the battle for resources. In this the Taliban is not an enemy, but an ally


British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to win the war of WhitehallOnly one battle matters to the Ministry of Defence – the battle for resources. In this the Taliban is not an enemy, but an ally
Share 107
Email
Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Tuesday 2 October 2012 20.30 BST Jump to comments (…)
A cortege carrying the bodies of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan passes through Wootton Bassett in 2010. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Next week Nato defence ministers meet in Brussels, reportedly to start planning an Afghan army "retraining mission" next year. Start planning? What have they been doing for over a decade? When will spades be called spades and retreats retreats?

Afghanistan has become another war of the Spanish succession, its cause long forgotten by the opponents but an unending parade of pride, money, heroism and national prestige. It is no longer a war of retribution for 9/11, no longer a war of democratic nation building. It is merely a place where soldiers are sent by politicians to pretend to win, even as they die.

The one straw at which ministers and generals will grasp is that as long as the war lasts, it helps them lobby for money. Ever since Nato lost its reason for existing, its task has been to find a purpose. It has dragged out the insane Afghan conflict for 11 years. Why stop now? In the one battle that matters to a modern army – the battle for resources – the Taliban is not an enemy but an ally.

What do officials say nowadays to the relatives of the 433 British and 2,000 American who have died fighting in Afghanistan. Do they say they have avenged the dead of 9/11, taught the Taliban a lesson, "sent a message" to militant Islam, helped rebuild a poor country? They cannot surely be repeating Gordon Brown's line, that their deaths are making Britain's streets safer. London now has to be patrolled by armed policemen, and a billion pounds spent protecting the Olympics.

The truth is that British troops are dying in Afghanistan because no British government has the guts to admit they are there to no purpose. Military lobbyists shelter behind the "bravery of our boys" to sustain defence spending. No party dares question the war or its objective, for fear of demeaning heroism. The war is not mentioned at party conferences. Money is poured into drone bombing, despite its manifest counter-productivity. The coalition claims to be "training" a 350,000-strong local army and police force, but knows them to be unreliable, a new Taliban in the making.

There is evidence that Philip Hammond, the least gullible of defence secretaries, is starting to cleanse the Augean stables of defence spending. Trident is being mothballed. Regiments are being disbanded. Hammond is demanding the army get below 100,000 soldiers, given that after Afghanistan it will have little to do beyond changing the guard. The navy and air force crave another Libya, where they "bravely" spent half a billion pounds replacing a nutcase with a bunch of bandits. Their reckless procurements are at last being addressed.

Whether Hammond survives long enough to do more than scrape the surface of his £37bn budget has yet to be seen. He is still buying jet fighters, destroyers and "hunter-killer" submarines, designed by military lunatics to fight Hitler. In 2010 Cameron was bamboozled by the defence lobby into the nonsense that it would cost more to cancel aircraft carriers than to build them. He then found adapting F-35 fighters to use them (one day) had tripled in cost.

These are not sums attributable to the vagaries of war. They are normal day-to-day spending, as on schools and hospitals. If any other government department, let alone a council or private company, behaved like the MoD it would be bankrupted and replaced, its officials probably up before the Old Bailey.

Senior politicians are putty in the hands of military posturing and hard-graft lobbying. That is how Britain has come to spend more on defence than Germany, Japan, India and even Russia. The MoD has seen 250 senior staff leave to work for defence contractors in a single year, without batting an eyelid. Defence spending is one vast job-creation scheme. It has not made Britons safer, merely some Britons richer.

Each attempt to cancel or cut a programme is greeted with howls from the lobbyists. A marine general, Julian Thompson, popped up recently to say that "the Falklands war would be lost today", so deep are the cuts. Admirals deplore the "hollowed out navy, holed below the waterline". Dan Jarvis, an ex-paratrooper and Labour MP, wails to the Guardian that army cuts damage "our ability to leverage influence in the world". Spending on defence is like the Olympics, a matter not of security but of global leverage and influence.

Afghanistan policy no longer uses the word victory. It needs only to engineer a future that preserves Nato dignity and saves its generals from humiliation, however long it takes. Today's wars of intervention are like medieval conflicts, causes so lofty that mere mortals cannot see the point. They are an outlet for heroism, a reason for lucrative taxation and, with luck, a source of glory.

I have never read a coherent explanation, in simple English, of why Britain still spends money on defence, long after the cold war is over. If anyone were to emerge to pose a conventional and existential threat to the British state, which is wildly unlikely, we would have time to rearm. As for our current obsession with fighting wars in small countries, the future is said to lie with hi-tech cyber-weapons, not lumbering armies and manned weapon platforms.

Nothing illustrates the thinness of the case for military spending so much as the airy language nowadays used to justify it. We no longer need to stop invasion. We merely need to "punch above our weight" and "stand tall in the world". This is fatuous. An attaché swaggering at an embassy drinks party is not influence. China and Germany are proving that influence in the modern world comes from working hard, from a tight budget and a sound economy. Britain has neither.

When public money is spent to no purpose it is usually wasted. Defence money merely encourages government to indulge in one stupid war after another, killing Britons and foreigners in conflicts we are never going to win. Rory Stewart's recent television history of Afghan disasters was irrefutable.

This week another British soldier is likely to die in Afghanistan. His death will be greeted with heroic rhetoric, intended to imply that his sacrifice is keeping this country safe. That will be a lie. Britain is less safe for fighting this war. Soldiers are dying to defend a Whitehall budget, enrich a commercial lobby and protect a politician's back. They are wretched reasons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...in-afghanistan