See it here mate:

 

 

If you go on that user's profile, he's got a lot of modern British military stuff - Commando on the front line, Above enemy lines, Guarding the Queen, and so on...

 

 

 

 

Argh why has the website replaced the address I put up with the word 'link', which then fails to function as a link!

 

Alright, search for the user called oddball71 on Youtube, he has a veritable goldmine of British military prowess on video!

 

 

Argh why has the website replaced the address I put up with the word 'link', which then fails to function as a link!

 

Alright, search for the user called oddball71 on Youtube, he has a veritable goldmine of British military prowess on video!

 

 

On 'Taking on the Taliban' - it was very frustrating to see them coming back in from a patrol with the comound they cleared already reoccupied by the en! Surely they need to back up any gains with a permanent presence, but there again I suppose that all depends on what forces they have available...

 

It's also quite crazy to see the ANA getting stoned out in the field - what a massive contrast to the drugs policy in HM armed forces! Was a bit shocked by the reported desertion rate too, obviously theres a lot of work to be done before they are in any position to take over... Ah well at least we weren't treated to a showing of 'man love night'...

 

Reconstruction & development didn't seem to feature massively, these would seem to be vital in giving the locals a vested interest in supporting the British-backed Afghan Govt rule over the Taliban.

 

On the explosion of recent programmes about operations, good stuff! Hopefully this kind of exposure will make the public realise just what is ongoing and what the troops are experiencing, particularly the psychological insight featured quite a bit in Taking on the Taliban.

 

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Having recently read '3 Para' (well worth the cash) and hearing now of the lack of development, the contrast couldn't be greater. The campaign was initially conceived as a developmental effort - the battlegroup was meant to be there to just provide security for DFID et al. Now we have the situation where DFID have gone home and the troops are in very much a combat role. Pretty much the polar opposite!

 

The fact that resistance provoked did not equal resistance expected makes the fighting unavoidable. But that doesn't mean the other half of the concept has to be thrown out of the window does it? 3 Para's MO makes an observation on Gereshk hospitals unusable washing machine - that in their 6 months there they had failed to implement even 1 quick impact project. Surely with such fighting, development almost becomes more important?

 

You must give the undecided population a reason to back you. Abstract ideals such as democracy don't really cut it when civilian casualties mount and livelihoods are lost. We must make life demonstrably better under Govt control than it is under Taliban control, and if that means pumping aid into a recently-secured environment then why not, at least until the major combat operations are over and the people's basic needs are catered for. Thats when the Afghans own desire to rebuild and better their country come into play, and they should be fully encouraged to take that opportunity and run with it.

 

Seeing the ANA on that video was disturbing though. How long will it be before they can take responsibility for their own security, and what sort of force will emerge in the future? Honestly, if the ANA are getting high on a patrol, they are hardly a professional or committed force, and this means reliance on us far into the future... not good. Perhaps the formation of a militia of locals from each village as a sort of home guard force could work - coupled with the development effort, they would have more of a vested interest in protecting their own livelihoods, and hopefully tackle small-scale infiltration themselves whilst providing sighting reports to us to act on anything more threatening...

 

It's distressing how quickly the lessons we learned during the Kosovo crises in 1999 were forgotten.  The first 100 days post warfighting in conflict resolution are essential where it comes to national building, fixing the nations infrastructure and economy.  If the local inhabitants don't notice a real improvement in standards of living during that time, they will never remain "on-side".

 

I don't think you will be able to 'fix a nation' 100 days after war has ravaged it. Yes you can patch up the infrastructure, treat casualties using your own medics whilst getting hospitals back to work, and feed people. But creating a successful state; thats a lot more involved and will go on for decades.

 

Like your sentence, 'fix the economy'. I can't see how that is possible in the kind of environment that recent warfare leaves behind.

 

Yet you must win people over and make life better under the new system so as to gain their allegiance.

So what I'd advocate is essentially subsidising the contested areas for a period of time with aid - their immediate concerns will be taken care of and hopefully life for them will be at a level to not cause massive dissent against the new order.

Once the immediates are taken care of, thats when you can deal with the economy, installing a system of governance, institutions, education, and the 1001 other things a successful state draws upon.

 

I dont doubt that the 100 days are crucial, but we would be mad to think we can develop a country in that timeframe.

 

I never said we could completely.  What I am saying, is that Bush and the pentagon have ****** up big time, where Clinton was far more successful.  It is almost as if the Bush administrations only certain policy is that they are not Clinton, and heed none of the lessons he and Blair previously learned.

The first 100 days are esential in rebuilding the nations infrastructure and economy, for the sake of the locals standard of living.  If the local civilian populations standard of living does not noticably go up after our (our being the UN, NATO or EU et al) intervention, we will not be the saviours and peace builders, but the occupiers and the oppressors.

 

When a peace has been secured, however shaky, our attention must turn to rebuilding bridges, power stations and other elements to ensure the provision of electricity, clean water and safe passage.  We must also provide jobs and circulate money in the local economy to bring a level of normality back into peoples lives.  If we can't achieve this, then committing our forces was a waste of time.  We don't (we being the British) commit our forces as a politiccal end, we commit them as a means to the political end.  I am not so sure about the Americans (who I am afraid these days seem to think bombing the **** out of foreigners and then waving the stars and stripes will somehow bring lasting peace, stability and Democracy.) 

I may be being overly pessimistic here, but when I look at Iraq I don't see infrastructure being fixed (at least to the levels it should be), I don't see locals being given work (again - levels of success), and I certainly don't see us meeting any objectives of won normality.  What I see are American companies making bucket loads of hard currency in supplying arms and contractors to Iraq.  The picture of bomb them down, and then pay our companies to build them up, looks disturbingly akin to Hoovers "make work" schemes of digging a hole only to employ someone else to fill it in.

 

Sorry for the rant - I just hate to see us piss away old lessons previously learnt.