Why Afghanistan was lost, AKA are we any better than the Russians?

[jakee 1,254]

I don’t even have the energy to describe how disgusting this is. Suffice to say it’s not surprising the Taliban had as much support as it did in the back country that allowed it to overrun the Afghan state. 
 

BBC - Systematic SAS murders in Helmand Province.

[Bokdrol 40]

It's always a bit sad when a clickbait post like this has no takers and drops down the list into oblivion. So I'll correct that. Of course, it's the BBC who have done the investigative 'journalism' (in this case a euphemism for stabbing our own military in the back, which the media do well in the UK). This is the same BBC who yesterday posted a picture of Raheem Sterling in a report on a footballer accused of a sex offence, only it wasn't Raheem who was accused.....so they obviously do their job so well....... One of the reasons, I suspect, for no bait takers might just be that a large percentage of the members on this site are American. Many are ex military or have familial connections to the military. The Americans that I know hold their military and veterans in high esteem and maybe they feel some affinity for their cousins across the pond. After all, it's a war situation the BBC are 'reporting' on and as some will know, in war sh*t sometimes happens, and it's not one way traffic either.  We in the UK might do well to learn to try and respect our military, especially Special Forces. We might just need them one day. 

[wmw999 2,120]

Personally, I think that both the military and the police are not, in fact, above investigation. Because they do have more liberty to kill, there has to be more judgment, not less, involved in those decisions. And, unlike Jack Reacher or James Bond stories, simply deciding someone is a bad hombre (even if the person really is), is a bad institutional doctrine. Eventually it leads to rogue leaders with an agenda.

How far do you think the SAS should be able to go? Simply take out everyone in a town and "let God sort them out" because it's been a problematic town?

We (the US and Britain and others) were the invaders in a foreign country. There was a reason in 2001. But "shit happens in war" is a lousy analysis. Yes, it does. But the whole point of the rules of engagement is to control how much shit. Active engagement -- any old soldier shoots back when shot at. If someone is standing in the way, sometimes it's tough. But "I thought I was being shot at" is the first step down a slope that doesn't lead to good places, because next is "good thing I have this throw-down gun," and on from there.

Wendy P.

[Bokdrol 40]

22 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Personally, I think that both the military and the police are not, in fact, above investigation. Because they do have more liberty to kill, there has to be more judgment, not less, involved in those decisions. And, unlike Jack Reacher or James Bond stories, simply deciding someone is a bad hombre (even if the person really is), is a bad institutional doctrine. Eventually it leads to rogue leaders with an agenda.

How far do you think the SAS should be able to go? Simply take out everyone in a town and "let God sort them out" because it's been a problematic town?

We (the US and Britain and others) were the invaders in a foreign country. There was a reason in 2001. But "shit happens in war" is a lousy analysis. Yes, it does. But the whole point of the rules of engagement is to control how much shit. Active engagement -- any old soldier shoots back when shot at. If someone is standing in the way, sometimes it's tough. But "I thought I was being shot at" is the first step down a slope that doesn't lead to good places, because next is "good thing I have this throw-down gun," and on from there.

Wendy P.

Fair comment  - but for me it smacks of a witch-hunt and, I'm afraid that in stress situations, sh*t does happen. This isn't My Lai (everyone in town) - far from it.  Furthermore we'll never get the actual testimony of the SF forces involved, only the bits the BBC has conveniently edited from sitreps.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Bokdrol
grammar!!!

[wmw999 2,120]

10 minutes ago, Bokdrol said:

Fair comment  - but for me it smacks of a witch-hunt and, I'm afraid that in stress situations, sh*t does happen. This isn't My Lai (everyone in town) - far from it.  Furthermore we'll never get the actual testimony of the SF forces involved, only the bit's the BBC has conveniently edited from sitreps.

And that may reflect bad ongoing post-situation analysis. Because a single event of someone innocent being killed in wartime doesn't usually attract that much attention back home. A pattern does, and post-situation analysis should make sure that patterns don't happen. This was over months if I read correctly, not a single engagement.

Wendy P.

[Bokdrol 40]

14 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And that may reflect bad ongoing post-situation analysis. Because a single event of someone innocent being killed in wartime doesn't usually attract that much attention back home. A pattern does, and post-situation analysis should make sure that patterns don't happen. This was over months if I read correctly, not a single engagement.

Wendy P.

Let's see what comes out in the wash, if it ever does - until then, thanks for your rational, intelligent observations and comments (and I'm not being sarcastic, either). Over - and Out.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Bokdrol

[gowlerk 1,905]

5 hours ago, Bokdrol said:

We in the UK might do well to learn to try and respect our military, especially Special Forces. We might just need them one day. 

The UK military has a very long history of being one of the most brutal occupiers ever. The BBC has a long history of being one of the world's best news organizations.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And that may reflect bad ongoing post-situation analysis. Because a single event of someone innocent being killed in wartime doesn't usually attract that much attention back home. A pattern does, and post-situation analysis should make sure that patterns don't happen. This was over months if I read correctly, not a single engagement.

Wendy P.

When I read that what popped into mind was the opening to Lone Survivor. The inserted SEAL Team let go the kid and the old man which, if true, led to not only three team members killed but also, I think, 19 Seal Team rescuers. I don't draw a precise analogy for comparison, rather it causes me to think just how weighty and elastic so called rules of engagement must seem in real combat.

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, Bokdrol said:

We in the UK might do well to learn to try and respect our military, especially Special Forces. 

Respect for the military means rooting out corrupt and murderous officers and soldiers, and preventing illegal ‘illegal unofficial policies’ like this one from developing.
 

I don’t know why you hold our soldiers in such contempt that you would ask good people to serve with and under psychopaths.

 

I don’t know why you believe our soldiers lives are of so little value that you would support actions that directly aided the strength and ferocity of the Taliban insurgency.

Edited July 15, 2022 by jakee

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, Bokdrol said:

Fair comment  - but for me it smacks of a witch-hunt and, I'm afraid that in stress situations, sh*t does happen. This isn't My Lai (everyone in town) - far from it.  Furthermore we'll never get the actual testimony of the SF forces involved, only the bits the BBC has conveniently edited from sitreps.

Errm, do you not think they’ll just repeat what they wrote in the reports? That they led an unrestrained captive back into a building and he grabbed a gun or a grenade. Then they did the same thing the next day. And the next day. And all the next week. And the week after that. 
 

Funny thing is I’ve known people who were in the SAS and they didn’t give me the impression of being total morons.

[Stumpy 256]

7 hours ago, Bokdrol said:

We in the UK might do well to learn to try and respect our military, especially Special Forces. We might just need them one day. 

We've needed them many times in the past.

I think the UK actually does a great job of respecting the special forces without the slightly weird idolisation and hero worship that seems to happen in the US.

[jakee 1,254]

Just now, Stumpy said:

We've needed them many times in the past.

And when elements of them behave like this, we’re much more likely to need them again. But the purpose of the Special Forces is not to maintain the job security of the Special Forces.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

7 hours ago, Bokdrol said:

Furthermore we'll never get the actual testimony of the SF forces involved, only the bits the BBC has conveniently edited from sitreps.

All the more reason to allow the legal process to take place and refer problematic actions through the right channels.

[riggerrob 558]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

All the more reason to allow the legal process to take place and refer problematic actions through the right channels.

Just be cautious about which branch of the military you assign to investigate alleged war crimes.

Canadian Captain Robert Semrau's (?) trial was a flaming fiasco and wasted millions of Canadian tax-payer dollars. The trial include flying a stack of military legal types to Afghanistan many years after the crime. What they could learn years after the crime is a mystery to me???????????

There was also the miserable treatment of Canadian snipers serving in Afghanistan. It seems that a Canadian Army padre was offended by some snipers' black humor. My brother's (retired Warrant Officer) suggestion was to hire padres with tougher senses of humor.

A recurring theme in "Canadian military justice" is to hold Canadian soldiers - serving in Afghanistan - to the same standards as Toronto municipal police officers. ... a ridiculous concept in a country as poor as Somalia or Afghanistan.

When I tried to make a comparison between the behaviour of Russian soldiers invading Ukraine (2014 to present) with Quebec Provincial Police Officers in Oka, circa 1990 ... my high school history teacher cousin was shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Part of the problem is that the Canadian public never hears about some of the nastier things done for their benefit.

What was that quote from an American SF type who said "We are rough men who do rough things to other rough, nasty, brutish people (e.g. Taliban) to allow gentle people (e.g. citizens of the USA) to sleep peacefully in their beds?" The only difference is that North American soldiers attack nasty people (e.g. Boko Haram) on the far side of the planet.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

23 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Just be cautious about which branch of the military you assign to investigate alleged war crimes.

Canadian Captain Robert Semrau's (?) trial was a flaming fiasco and wasted millions of Canadian tax-payer dollars. The trial include flying a stack of military legal types to Afghanistan many years after the crime. What they could learn years after the crime is a mystery to me???????????

There was also the miserable treatment of Canadian snipers serving in Afghanistan. It seems that a Canadian Army padre was offended by some snipers' black humor. My brother's (retired Warrant Officer) suggestion was to hire padres with tougher senses of humor.

A recurring theme in "Canadian military justice" is to hold Canadian soldiers - serving in Afghanistan - to the same standards as Toronto municipal police officers. ... a ridiculous concept in a country as poor as Somalia or Afghanistan.

When I tried to make a comparison between the behaviour of Russian soldiers invading Ukraine (2014 to present) with Quebec Provincial Police Officers in Oka, circa 1990 ... my high school history teacher cousin was shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Part of the problem is that the Canadian public never hears about some of the nastier things done for their benefit.

What was that quote from an American SF type who said "We are rough men who do rough things to other rough, nasty, brutish people (e.g. Taliban) to allow gentle people (e.g. citizens of the USA) to sleep peacefully in their beds?" The only difference is that North American soldiers attack nasty people (e.g. Boko Haram) on the far side of the planet.

Sure, there has to be a standard for the legal side as well.

But letting people kill with impunity and without oversight, nor penalty for misbehaviour is not quite the right way to run a military, or nay branch of it.

Fucking up a judicial case is not a reason not have a judiciary.

[olofscience 420]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

But letting people kill with impunity and without oversight, nor penalty for misbehaviour is not quite the right way to run a military

As the soon-to-be-former PM has repeatedly demonstrated, rules are only for ordinary people like @Bokdrol.

People like the SAS, the Royal Family, and of course the soon-to-be-former PM don't have to follow any rules or laws for that matter. Because "you might need them one day" is enough excuse to get away with anything!

/s

[jakee 1,254]

45 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

A recurring theme in "Canadian military justice" is to hold Canadian soldiers - serving in Afghanistan - to the same standards as Toronto municipal police officers. ... a ridiculous concept in a country as poor as Somalia or Afghanistan.

What was that quote from an American SF type who said "We are rough men who do rough things to other rough, nasty, brutish people (e.g. Taliban) to allow gentle people (e.g. citizens of the USA) to sleep peacefully in their beds?" The only difference is that North American soldiers attack nasty people (e.g. Boko Haram) on the far side of the planet.

Fuck that amoral bullshit.

 

When you send your military to occupy a nation and control a civilian populace who never wanted you there and have absolutely no recourse or access to due process of their own when your military commits crimes against them, then you have to demand an even higher standard.

[Phil1111 910]

25 minutes ago, olofscience said:

As the soon-to-be-former PM has repeatedly demonstrated, rules are only for ordinary people like @Bokdrol.

People like the SAS, the Royal Family, and of course the soon-to-be-former PM don't have to follow any rules or laws for that matter. Because "you might need them one day" is enough excuse to get away with anything!

/s

The UK defense minister has promised "no investigation". So the realpolitik is alive and well in the UK.

[riggerrob 558]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, there has to be a standard for the legal side as well.

But letting people kill with impunity and without oversight, nor penalty for misbehaviour is not quite the right way to run a military, or nay branch of it.

Fucking up a judicial case is not a reason not have a judiciary.

My experience with the Superior Court of British Columbia points to the opposite conclusion. The problem arises when arrogant lawyers start to believe that they are more important than victims or surgeons.

[wmw999 2,120]

4 hours ago, riggerrob said:

What was that quote from an American SF type who said "We are rough men who do rough things to other rough, nasty, brutish people (e.g. Taliban) to allow gentle people (e.g. citizens of the USA) to sleep peacefully in their beds?" The only difference is that North American soldiers attack nasty people (e.g. Boko Haram) on the far side of the planet.

Not every person in those foreign places is actually an enemy. Even if they're rough, nasty, and brutish. After all, our rough men are considered to be the good guys, right?

Consider the people at Gitmo. They, too, aren't all important Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives. Some of them are just opportunists. We seem to have sent back (finally) most of the actually innocent, but not until imprisoning them to the point of bitterness.

What would our (either the US or Britain) reaction be to invaders -- say, in the case of the US, from Mexico, wanting to liberate the interned children?

Wendy P.

Wendy P.

[riggerrob 558]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:01 PM, SkyDekker said:

Sure, there has to be a standard for the legal side as well.

But letting people kill with impunity and without oversight, nor penalty for misbehaviour is not quite the right way to run a military, or nay branch of it.

Fucking up a judicial case is not a reason not have a judiciary.

My experience with the Superior Court of British Columbia points to the opposite conclusion. The problem arises when arrogant lawyers start to believe that they are more important than victims or surgeons.

[riggerrob 558]

Try to think of this from the perspective of a British Red coat fighting in the American Revolutionary War. Even worse if he is a Hessian (mercenary from Germany) press-ganged into fighting a war thousands of miles from home where he does not understand the local language. He knows that George Washington can only feed and cloth a small, uniformed Continental Army. Meanwhile, he knows that a non-uniformed Minute Man killed his buddy last week with a squirrel gun. He also knows that the same Minute Man will toss his rifle in the weeds to resume plowing any time Red Coats march by. He has also heard rumors of Washington's supporters using tar and feathers to terrorize people who remain loyal to King George.

How does the Taliban differ from Minute Men?

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

How does the Taliban differ from Minute Men?

Fuck that amoral bullshit.

No one in the SAS was press ganged, and the fact that some of the people whose home you invaded want to kill you doesn’t mean you get to shoot everyone standing next to a plow ‘just in case’.

Not only is that rationale vile and abhorrent it doesn’t even stand up to a pragmatic evaluation, since it is very much a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Phil1111 910]

On 7/15/2022 at 5:16 AM, wmw999 said:

And that may reflect bad ongoing post-situation analysis. Because a single event of someone innocent being killed in wartime doesn't usually attract that much attention back home. A pattern does, and post-situation analysis should make sure that patterns don't happen. This was over months if I read correctly, not a single engagement.

Wendy P.

The urge to self investigate, cover up and lightly punish is strong. In all militaries. "Wahedullah was passed between troops from three different nations' militaries over the course of 10 hours".

Here is a story on how a uninjured captive was passed from one NATO country to another. Until he was dead.

[jakee 1,254]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:21 PM, Bokdrol said:

Let's see what comes out in the wash, if it ever does - until then, thanks for your rational, intelligent observations and comments (and I'm not being sarcastic, either). Over - and Out.

In the wash today an Australian SAS VC recipient was found in court (in almost a carbon copy of the BBC reporting on the UK SAS) to have deliberately murdered Afghan civilians and prisoners, and to have ordered and bullied his colleagues and subordinates into murdering civilians and prisoners. In one instance, pushing a handcuffed man off a cliff. He also sent threatening letters to another soldier he believed was informing on him, saying he would expose murders that guy had committed.

I wonder what you’ll have to say about respect now? About standards of reporting? Any concern about how these guys were out there materially aiding the Taliban and undermining the new Afghanistan we were supposed to create? Or maybe you’d rather just keep your head stuck firmly under the sand.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942