Article

2006-05-02 Afghanistan

UK Commander says mission is rebuild nation, not chase rebels

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-05-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What do they teach in Sandhurst these days?

Common sense. With Pakistan next door, you could be chasing bad guys 'til kingdom come, neither accomplishing the main task of rebuilding, nor eliminating the bad guys completely. There's also the notion that if the rebuilding comes first, perhaps eventually fewer bad guys will have the incentive to blow things up and attack people. Although with Pakistan next door, the probability of anything being rebuilt is very low indeed.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 03:19|| 2006-05-02 03:19|| Front Page Top

#2 A Soldiers job is to fight. Rebuilding is done after the fight and best done by locals with help from enginers and health specalists. The fight is still on. This hearts amd Minds stuff is great on pacificed populations. It's great PR. It's not the primary job of any military occupation but Engineers.

Screw Pakistan. They needed to get with the program and they haven't Instead they are making nice with Iran. They are allowing support for the Taliban in their military and inteligence orgs. We need to write them off for subversion against India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-02 04:43|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-02 04:43|| Front Page Top

#3 the Robert Fisk School for International Relations LOL!

Posted by 2b 2006-05-02 10:39|| 2006-05-02 10:39|| Front Page Top

#4 SPoD, from my reading of Rafael's comment it seems that his point is that to try to do both would be to accomplish neither.

Posted by Spomogum Fleper7978 2006-05-02 12:13|| 2006-05-02 12:13|| Front Page Top

#5 Does all that hand-wringing hurt?

Fred's right.

If Butler really believes the crap he told the BBC, then he's unfit for command in a war zone. If he's just feeding them the PCism they expect, then he's smart enough - we'll find out if he's tough enough.

Many men, many units. Some tasked to rebuilding efforts, as a reward for those local "leaders" who dial into the fact that there's a carrot if they're smart enough to avoid the stick. Some tasked to providing security, some tasked to hunting down bad guys. Duh.

Hand-wringing is NEVER the answer. Either do the job or get the fuck out of the way so someone else can get it done. Ideal situations don't exist in the real world, especially in the shithole zone. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Posted by Whaving Claiger1607 2006-05-02 14:56|| 2006-05-02 14:56|| Front Page Top

#6 Either do the job or get the fuck out of the way so someone else can get it done.

As you wish. If by chasing bad guys casualties start mounting for Canadians, then Harper will lose the next election, and Canada might even pull out altogether. It's not what the Canadian public signed up for. I imagine the situation is comparable for the British.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 15:29|| 2006-05-02 15:29|| Front Page Top

#7 LOL. To think that soldiers might actually have to do soldier things - oh the horrors!

I realize it's a stretch, but please tell us:
What if the miscreants don't let these people go about their peaceful business?

Will they issue the appropriate protestations and then run home, per your response?

The world can be so messy and inconvenient. Be well.

Posted by Ebbath Cromoting1943 2006-05-02 15:45|| 2006-05-02 15:45|| Front Page Top

#8 To think that soldiers might actually have to do soldier things - oh the horrors!

Soldiers can do many things. Soldiers can defend. Soldiers can provide security. Soldiers can actively hunt bad guys. Soldiers are also bound by the ROE. Sometimes these rules are implicitly defined by the electorate, not the military. In this case, Harper is in a weakened position. He has to tread lightly.

I realize it's a stretch, but please tell us:
What if the miscreants don't let these people go about their peaceful business?

Then at some point the question will be asked whether the situation is such that it can be saved, or even managed. If it is determined that Afghanistan is a lost cause...

Will they issue the appropriate protestations and then run home, per your response?

...then the appropriate protestations will be issued, equipment packed up, and they will simply leave.

The world can be so messy and inconvenient.

Tell me about it.

Be well.

You too.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 16:20|| 2006-05-02 16:20|| Front Page Top

#9 RE: #8. Wow! Am I reading this right?

Having actually been a soldier, and saddled with an ROE guaranteed to do more damage to our people than to the enemy, I understand the part about soldiers and the deadly limitations placed upon them by political creatures. I also understand that repeating the obvious mistakes of the past isn't something intelligent people do, it's what fools do. In a war with no front lines or state actors there are no "safe" zones, or hasn't that occurred to Canadians? Surely it has...

"...then the appropriate protestations will be issued, equipment packed up, and they will simply leave."

That's stunning... Yes, it's all very political and sensitive, as well as inconvenient and messy...

I hate to state the obvious, but when the crazies (or is that too strong?) are not far far away in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq, but are there under your noses, what will Canadians do? When the multitudes of shaheed in Montreal and Quebec and Calgary and Toronto decide the time is ripe, then where will you go?

The attitude of the response tracks downstream to the "maybe they will kill us last" variety. It has been awhile since I've seen a post (apparently) supporting a view so manifestly foolish. If that's truthfully how you and your countrymen see it, then be gone. Pronto. Same for the Brits. We should not lift a finger to help save such people from their just desserts, as they simply aren't worth the blood or treasure to save. If not, then pull your PC-shriveled rocks out of the fire and let Harper know you're no dhimmi.

Be well. LOL - great line, EC1943.

Over and out.

Posted by Jinetle Phomort3800 2006-05-02 18:02|| 2006-05-02 18:02|| Front Page Top

#10 Rafael take your troops and go home.

Thanks for the help Canada, it's been nice. Get out of the way and let people who want to do, it do it and shut the hell up same goes for the UK as well. We don't need the transnationl socialist blather whine and whinge brigade.

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-02 18:33|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-02 18:33|| Front Page Top

#11 Man you're arrogant beyond belief.

It has been awhile since I've seen a post (apparently) supporting a view so manifestly foolish. If that's truthfully how you and your countrymen see it, then be gone.

Critical reading isn't your forte, is it? If you'll notice I was describing how Canadians would react to large casualties as a result of chasing bad guys, and in no way expressing my own opinion on whether we should be in Afghanistan or not.

I'll say it again in case you missed it: Canadians will not stomach large casualties, and not everyone is convinced we should be there to fight offensive battles. That doesn't mean the Canadian military will shy away from combat, and the public won't either. But if this is going to look more like an escalating, offensive war, then our troops will be pulled, I can guarantee it.

In a war with no front lines or state actors there are no "safe" zones, or hasn't that occurred to Canadians?

Sorry to burst your bubble Anonymous but you can't even convince 50% of your fellow citizens that you are on the right track. The intricacies of this world are such that not everyone will follow your policies to a T, for various reasons. That's life. Get over yourself.

when the crazies ... are there under your noses, what will Canadians do? When the multitudes of shaheed in Montreal and Quebec and Calgary and Toronto decide the time is ripe, then where will you go?

Lol. When the crazies come they will be dealt with to the best of our abilities, don't you worry. Like you give a shit anyway.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 21:56|| 2006-05-02 21:56|| Front Page Top

#12 Americans do give a shit. It takes time to string concertina wire across all that border.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-05-02 22:10|| 2006-05-02 22:10|| Front Page Top

#13 Then by all means string it.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 22:23|| 2006-05-02 22:23|| Front Page Top

#14 Raphael exhibits the pussification of the Gray White North - there - I've said it, believe it, and your whiny replies won't change it. I'm done defending you. Ptui

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-02 22:40|| 2006-05-02 22:40|| Front Page Top

#15 It's not gonna be the same without you Frank.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 22:53|| 2006-05-02 22:53|| Front Page Top

#16 no it won't be...have fun, jerk

I'm in a bad mood and you made it worse. Your pusillanimous anklebiting is tiresome. Canada has heros and history to be proud of - try to live up to at least a minimal part of it or get the f*ck off anklebiting those who pick up your slack

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-02 22:58|| 2006-05-02 22:58|| Front Page Top

#17 For the record, and for those that are new here, my opinion is that Canadians should stay in Afghanistan and play a supporting role to US soldiers and other allies, including a limited role in chasing bad guys.
Wouldn't want Frank to distort things. It's not my problem he can't read.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 23:03|| 2006-05-02 23:03|| Front Page Top

#18 He's arrogant, Rafael? I must disagree - assuming that's okay with you. You seem to be rather sensitive about that.

Regards critical reading, it's certainly not your forte as JP gave you multiple "outs", obvious points that would allow you to gracefully distance and differentiate yourself from the Canadian public on whose behalf you cavalierly spoke:

"Surely it has..."

"(apparently)"

"If that's truthfully how you and your countrymen see it, then be gone... If not, then..."

I think you were treated quite fairly. You started this with your #1, which was a play both sides bit of hand-wringing, as #5 pointed out. I agree completely with Fred.

This was priceless:
"Get over yourself."

Good advice. Look up "projection" in a psychology primer.

BTW, your derisive sneering regards people who post anonymously is an irrelevant personal problem. Rafael? Yeah? You could be Dweezil McNutsucker for all I know. It's not the name that matters, it's the content of your ~~character~~ comments.

You've thoroughly reminded me why .com considered you a disingenuous and pointlessly argumentative bitch. I miss him.

Posted by lurking in Germany 2006-05-02 23:11|| 2006-05-02 23:11|| Front Page Top

#19 pointlessly argumentative bitch

Agree, he IS a pointlessly argumentative BIYOTCH

if you weren't being such a biyotch Rafael, you would start a thread with something like this example:

my opinion is that Canadians should stay in Afghanistan and play a supporting role to US soldiers and other allies, including a limited role in chasing bad guys.

but for the sake of developing my concept please challenge my opinion.

Posted by RD 2006-05-02 23:25|| 2006-05-02 23:25|| Front Page Top

#20 And you're intellectually dishonest. There. We're even.

Here's a challenge to you RD: Try to respond to any comment with which you don't agree, without using condescension. Or at least, try to take it like a big person when fire is returned.

Posted by Rafael 2006-05-02 23:32|| 2006-05-02 23:32|| Front Page Top

00:33 ed
00:23 ed
23:50 phil_b
23:49 CrazyFool
23:45 phil_b
23:40 Frank G
23:39 Frank G
23:39 ed
23:38 Frank G
23:32 Rafael
23:30 CrazyFool
23:25 RD
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:14 macofromoc
23:13 3dc
23:12 DMFD
23:11 lurking in Germany
23:03 Rafael
23:02 RD
22:58 Frank G
22:57 Seafarious
22:54 Frank G
22:53 Rafael
22:53 sludge