Afghanistan Fighting

[rypt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8145603.stm
8 killed in 24 hours ....

WHY are the Brits the only ones doing any fighting in Afghanistan? Where are the Yanks, the Canadians, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, etc?
It is a NATO war afterall.

And why do we still not have enough helicopters for your troops to use - can we not borrow some helicopters and pilots from some of the other NATO countries? Or the Aussies?

 

[rypt]

There is a difference between having thousands of troops in an area and having those troops on the front lines.
We had thousands of troops in Iraq too .. they just weren't on the front line.

Right now we are doing all the heavy fighting in Afghanistan as we are on the front line - clearly it seems that we are struggling though. I know we use equipment from other countries but one of the calls being made is that we need more helicopters to prevent the IEDs - hence why I said that we borrow some from other NATO countries.


It's shocking though how we've gone from the best man for man army during the Falklands to struggling to kill some Arab ragheads :/

 

[rypt]

Troops taking part as of April 2009...

United States - 26,215
United Kingdom - 8,300
Germany - 3,465
France - 3,200
Italy - 2,850
Canada - 2,830
Poland - 1,990
Netherlands - 1,770
Australia - 1,490
Romania - 860
Bulgaria - 820
Spain - 780
Denmark - 700
Turkey - 660
Belgium - 650
Norway - 588
Czech Republic - 580

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Again, having troops in a country is different from having them on the front lines.
I'm not saying we should let other people do all the work - but I think that we need to have some more support.

 

[rypt]

The Yanks aren't in barracks. They're also on the front line, taking losses just like us. Don't be silly.

Majority of other NATO losses at the moment are from attacks elsewhere within the country - on things such as routine patrols in towns/villages.

EDIT: The peacekeeping side of things should be carried out by the Afghan army (who are actually better equipped than the Brits thanks to the Americans) while the better trained NATO forces should be almost complete in Helmand / on Pakistan border

 

[rypt]

Yes, but they aren't in Helmand, The Yanks are and are taking a beating like us.

There are plenty of coalition troops fighting in afghanistan, the news we here in the uk concentrates on the efforts of the british army, sadly there are soldiers of various nationalities being killed out there, our own media highlights the british army's perspective of the campaign, im sure maybe in america canada etc they have to report their own casualty figures, and the progress of the fighting.

I don't only look at BBC, I regularly read CNN as well and while the Americans are suffering some casualties they are not as bad as ours at the moment.
UK were designated as the leaders in this push with the US Marines (and the Aussies I think) as backup.

The issue I have is that the other NATO casualties are all away from Helmand and in fact most NATO countries are not participating in Helmand at all - and never have. It has been the Brits, the Americans, the Aussies and the Canadians in Helmand only more or less from day one. All the others just have the peacekeeping and patrol jobs elsewhere.

 

[rypt]

We do have more support, everyone is out on the ground. There is no "front line" as you put it, there are many separate ops going on throughout the AO at any one time. Every unit and nation has done and continues to do their fair share and take more than their fair share of casualties. May I suggest you quiet down rather than mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about.

So the Germans and French doing peacekeeping else where is doing their fair share?

 

[rypt]

The Afghan army or the local warlords can do the peacekeeping ...

The French and Germans have not never had any troops in any of the major hotspots

 

[rypt]

Helicopters arent always a viable option, also I wouldnt say we are struggling to kill some ragheads. Im pretty sure we outgun them every chance our boys are given, their casualties must be far, far higher than ours.

When our troops die due to IEDs rather than from "normal" fighting it does bring into question certain things.

I'm sorry, you are taking the smeg yes?

We are in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and their terror training camps - we did not go to Afghanistan to "liberate" the people - if they are unable to hold their own politics together that is their own damn fault. As far as I'm concerned the majority of NATO troops should be being used to fight the Taliban and not to keep the peace.
We have trained an Afghan army for 6 odd years to keep the peace - so let them do it.

as other people have mentioned, there is no front line, as it's not a "war" in the traditional sense, army vs army. the coaltion forces are fighting a force that is all but invisible before an attack.
i dont see your argument, because the french and germans arent dying they arent doing their fair share?
if there wasnt a presence in those areas, provided by the french and germans for example, im sure those places would come under threat, the mere presence is a deterrent

The force is not invisible though; if the force is armed then you know who and where they are simply because they are armed ...

 

[rypt]

coaltion army: large convoys of vehicles, uniformed, heavily armed Soldiers

their enemy: no vehicles/civillian vehicles, no uniform, carrying easily concealable weapons, or simply the fact that a lot of civillians also carry weapons, as can be seen easily on the news when they are firing AK's into the air at celebrations etc.

So give our boys the right to shoot anyone who is armed and is non NATO soldier or Afghan army (or militia working for us) and looks even slightly suspicious. Have them confiscate weapons as they pass though villages.
Drop fliers over the region stating that the troops have these orders first though.

 

[rypt]

That's just it. Half of the population are armed (including many of the kids) and most of those are not part of any insurgent group, they are simply going about their business.

So tell them that they may become targets if they are armed and also actively disarm them...

As for peacekeeping, the only hotspots are Kandahar, Helmand and the Pakistan border - everything else can does not have major fighting and can be patrolled by the Afghan army or local militia working with Afghan army.
Funnily you wont find any French or German troops in Kandahar, Helmand or the Pakistan border areas.

EDIT: What we need to do is take all the NATO forces that are doing peacekeeping and flood the Pakistan border with them to prevent movement in and out as the Pakistanis are not doing much of anything

 

[rypt]

oh dear, right to shoot anyone that looks suspicious.

not through the door: dont look suspicious- you'll be shot.

we have no right to enforce that on people, it's about winning the people over to 'our' side, not about making them live in fear of being shot for looking at someone the wrong way.

No, it's about minimising the casualties that our troops can potentially suffer due to the fact that they are fighting an irregular army in a place where everyone is armed.
You need to start by making sure that ordinary people do not carry guns so that you can then easily discount them as being a potential threat.

 

[rypt]

Eddie, the Canadians and Americans are in Kandahar - the last French deployment was to the South to allow Americans to move troops to Kandahar and Helmand

 

[rypt]

Hmm, I'll tell the French & German guys I used to sit next to in the mess nearly every day during the 7 months of my life I've spent there then that then shall I.

You do that, tell them they are supposed to be patrolling Kabul and then the South after the mini surge they had last year