I'm sorry, you are taking the smeg yes?
Afghanistan Fighting
- Thread starter rypt
- Start date
I'm sorry, you are taking the smeg yes?
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
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,166
- Location
- London
Why arent the French and Germans fighting for control of helmand? - this area is critical to any kind of success in Afghanistan as it is where the Taliban are most active.
When our troops die due to IEDs rather than from "normal" fighting it does bring into question certain things.
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.
The force is not invisible though; if the force is armed then you know who and where they are simply because they are armed ...
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.
I read up on this, but you cant patrol an area with a helicopter anywhere nearly as effective as with foot/vehicle patrols, its much more difficult to stop and interact with locals, harder to identify targets, door to door questioning and searching would mean the helicopters have to land making them vulnerable etc.
I do believe that more helicopters are needed in general, but some situations mean driving in a vehicle cant be avoided, unfortunately.
If they see a helicopter its far too easy for them to ditch their weapons, be it guns or explosives and go back to their 'daily routine'.
I think for a long time the americans were to busy with iraq, at the start of the war on terror the first us units on the ground were the special forces units (designated tiger teams) units like this in conjunction with uk and australian special forces teams helped the northern alliance overthrow the central taliban regime, after this the us tended to deploy national guard units in afghanistan, i remember the time of hurricane katrina in new orleans, bush sent the 82nd airborne into the city, a waste of an elite unit that would have been better of in astan, its only now that iraq seems to be settling down that america is going to commit larger troop numbers, but the type of warfare in afghanistan isnt the thing that most western forces have trained for over the years, in the 70's and 80's the threat came from the warsaw pact, mainly armoured thrusts into germany, afghanistan is classed as low intensity conflict (not very reassuring for the guy in the foxhole) hearts and mind plays an important part in a conflict like this, and the use of small units working with the locals is very useful.
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.
What does it bring into question.
You do understand what "peacekeeping" is don't you? The "peacekeeping" in question is denying the Taliban their respective AOs and preventing other insurgent groups gaining a foot hold. They also patrol the very dangerous Pakistan border region and carry out escort duties for the very convoys that bring all our kit into theatre.
The Afghan Army is not even close to being able to operate in many areas without NATO support. They are responsible for large areas in the north of the country however the south is still far to unstable for them to take full responsibility.
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. The actual insurgents for the most part hide their weaponry from sight right up until they actually engage coalition forces, then they quickly melt away into the general civ pop.
Once again, please don't mouth off about things you clearly don't understand.
What?
You wont win the minds and support of the local people by flying over their villages with multimillion pound jets dropping leaflets stating that you are here to change their culture or face death in such a sincere way.
If you read your statement back to yourself, you honestly still believe thats the way to win in afghanistan?
You cant just shoot anyone that looks suspicious, just like the police here cant arrest anyone that mearly 'looks suspicious'.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
To say the British are the only ones fighting is a bit of an exaggeration to be fair. Also my 2 pence is that I can't really see an end to the conflict there and the fact that the Taliban use Guerilla tactics makes this similar to Vietnam. Then again, the Pakistani's aren't exactly helping either.
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
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.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Posts
- 797
- Location
- Norwich
My dad looks arabic, and can look dodgy, I guess it would be bye bye for him under your laws!
I'm sorry but I can't find the words to tell you how wrong you are.
Erm, given that the French and German forces are BASED at Kandahar, do operate in Helmand and patrol the Pakistan border regions I once again say stop mouthing off about things you know sweet FA about.
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.
erm? i was saying that suggestion was flawed?
Yes, because he is in also in Afghanistan carrying an AK47.
What part of in Afghanistan, carrying a weapon didn't you see? o.o