I asked this question before in SC and didn't receive a satisfactory answer; if the RM and British Army are the best in the world, why are the Taliban being so effective against them? If it's only because of IED's (I prefer to call them land mines) then why aren't they adequately prepared for that particular tactic being used against them? What is the use of having the best troops in the world if they can't actually win wars?
I appreciate that's a difficult question, especially with our troops still fighting and dying in Afghanistan, but nevertheless I think it needs to be asked and addressed if we're going to meet the 2015 deadline.
The problem is the false perception that the Taliban and their insurgent allies are being effective against the Coalition Forces.
It is War, a guerrilla unconventional war, but war nonetheless and losses are to be expected, The losses we have sustained while regrettable are nominally very low.
As with all changes experienced while in Theatre, especially somewhere as remote and logistically difficult as Helmand it takes time and money to adapt to new tactics employed by the Taliban.
One of the problems as mentioned many times is the limitations created by the 'Hearts and Mind' terminology in the US enforced ROE which does limit the scope for high profile search and destroy tactics such as we employed in the early stages of 2002/03. If we had been permitted to continue across the Pakistan borders with our mission then we just may not be in this situation right now.
It is a difficult and complex question and probably deserves a thread in SC of it's own.
Simply though, I put a lot of the problems down to political maneuvering and an unwillingness to take politically damaging decisions in relation to the combat theatre. The stated deadline is a case in point, it serves no tactical advantage to coalition forces to state such a politically targetted statement at this time, all is does is increases the perception to the Taliban and the Coalition troops themselves that the coalitions resolve is faltering, decreasing allied morale and increasing Insurgency morale at the same time.
*EDIT*
IED's are a relatively new thing in Afghanistan, used sporadically untill 2007 and something al-Qaeda led insurgents imported from other conflicts such as Iraq, the problem isn't with disabling IED's it is with identifying there is even one present, and then for every IED there is potential for ambush and sniper attack. The best way of detecting IED's is sniffer dogs, so I'm sure you can understand the logistical and deployment issues with that.
Someone mentioned Snatchs being the only vehicle that is really suited to the narrow urban environment, well tis is true to some extent, there is also the problem with Mastiffs is there is a trade off with regard to protection and mobilty. However, as far I understand it, the Snatch is being replaced with a mixture of Mastiffs and the Panther CLV's in an attempt to address both issues around mobility and protection.
