Article

2007-03-21 Afghanistan

British troops have switched tactics to fight Taliban

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 2007-03-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 We recognise that the (wholesale) eradication of the Taliban is not a sensible option. That alienates the public, locally and internationally.

Translation: Our casualties are too high. We're leaving the fighting to those simplistic Americans, while we sit around and high-five everyone like we did in Basra.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-21 02:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-03-21 02:43|| Front Page Top

#2 they were now deliberately targeting key Taliban leaders

Funny thing, I seems to remember Brits criticising Israel targeted assassinations.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-03-21 06:56|| 2007-03-21 06:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Zhang Fei,

fuck you! It's the yanks sitting around in Kabul, and Air national Guard at 50,000 ft, while the UK are on the ground in Helmand.

With comments like yours, it's no wonder the left gets traction.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-03-21 07:34|| 2007-03-21 07:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Bright Pebbles

The Americans wonder why people think their arrogant/smug when they even slag of their best allies ffs!!!!

Posted by Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-03-21 07:46|| 2007-03-21 07:46|| Front Page Top

#5 Hey, BP, cool your jets. You've got 5K troops in Afghanistan and 7K in Iraq. We've got 140K in Iraq alone. It's not 1940 and you're not exactly carrying the load all by yourselves.

I'll grant that you British are the only Euro country in NATO to even begin pulling their weight in Afghanistan (or anyplace else), but with that said, you're really not doing that much. And the little you are doing has got your military straining mightily at 115% capacity, as your treasonous national radio/tv service never fails to point out.

You just lost your 100th soldier in Iraq recently. Big UK hue and cry. Long way from losing 20k in one day at the Somme, isn't it?

Posted by Mac 2007-03-21 07:54|| 2007-03-21 07:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Boys, boys, don't make me come in there ....

Britain is doing what it can, and I thank the British people for it. We're doing what we can. We have a common enemy, so there's no need for 'polite discussion' with each other.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-03-21 09:34|| 2007-03-21 09:34|| Front Page Top

#7 What SW said.

Now, as to tactics, this raises the question of whether you alienate the hearts and minds more by killing a footsoldier, whos somebodys cousin, or killing a genooine civilians. The Israelis have found its NOT easy to kill leaders without killing civvies too. Ditto the USA has found that. While intell is good, its not clear a high tempo campaign against the leaders can be maintained that also avoids hitting civvies. If you also decide not to go after foot soldiers, can you maintain a sufficient operational tempo to disrupt the adversary?

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-21 09:53|| 2007-03-21 09:53|| Front Page Top

#8 The Brits have the right approach, given that the Taliban will not come out and engage anymore.

Its akin to deliberately out the cplt leaders and company commanders, so the troops will lose their leaderhip and eventually dissolve. onc eyou break the back opf the middle command structure, their abilityto do any sort of coordinate operations will dissolve, as will their tropp strength. But it will take longer, need better mobility, and much better intel.

We had the same policy for dealin with Soviet armor (Gunner Antenna tank front, Sabot UP, got it, ON THE WAY BOOOOOOM, lather rinse repeat).

You take out the leadership and they lose cohesion and the ability to operate. Plus, given the circumstance, its hearder for them to train new leaders when they know they can disappear in the night or that they are prime targets for a .338 lapua in the noggin.

The Brits are punching above their weight, but dont denigrate the US troops - we have a larger number there and so need a longer logistics tail. there are plenty of US grunts out there humping it in the boonies in indian country - and fighting just as hard.

We just dont get the headlines because our press is trying to bury the war in Afghanistan. Heavens forbid that our papers actually have to report on military success and victory by the US military anywhere.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-03-21 11:59|| 2007-03-21 11:59|| Front Page Top

#9 "Killing the leaders" sounds good, but it's going to take making the average Afghan afraid to join the taliwhackers to end this war. That means taking them ALL out, and hunting them down in their "safe havens", including pakistain. We used the "take out the leaders" tactic on Saipan, and STILL had to kill the grunts. There are more similarities between the Japanese Army of WWII and the taliban than differences, as far as fighting is concerned. Let the Brits follow their strategy, and let the US continue to kill anyone that picks up a weapon to use against a US citizen. We can discuss how effective each of these tactics were after we've won.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-03-21 14:36|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-03-21 14:36|| Front Page Top

#10 BPB: Zhang Fei,

fuck you! It's the yanks sitting around in Kabul, and Air national Guard at 50,000 ft, while the UK are on the ground in Helmand.

With comments like yours, it's no wonder the left gets traction.

EG9608: #4 Bright Pebbles

The Americans wonder why people think their arrogant/smug when they even slag of their best allies ffs!!!!

We lost 100,000 men in WWI bailing Britain out. We then lost 350,000* men in WWII fighting Germans and Italians who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, once again, bailing Britain out. It's not arrogance you're looking at - it's disgust, with Britain, Europe and the world at large, and with a system of alliances that may have outlived its purpose.

We did fine in the 19th century without getting involved in other people's wars. Nonetheless, American flags were seen all over the world, except they were on our merchant vessels. The 21st century will hopefully be a repeat of that state of affairs, once we extricate ourselves from the Middle East and South Asia.

* Only 50,000 died in the Pacific Theater fighting the Nips.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-21 20:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-03-21 20:43|| Front Page Top

#11 When an ally becomes a casualty, it hurts. I, for one, am thankful for the ARVIN, ROCs and Aussies I came across. Somehow, numbers don't mean a damn thing to me, only the individuals.

Posted by Xenophon 2007-03-21 21:53|| 2007-03-21 21:53|| Front Page Top

#12 The shit-ass Brit press, BBC, al-Guardian, Channel 4 etc. endlessly slimes America, President Bush and the WOT, seems like even more than our media does.

But they usually do a fairly sympathetic job of reporting on the British troopers, and their ops in A-Stan and to a lesser degree Iraq. That's my impression anyway, and I'm glad they do.

Thank You England and Thank You to every Brit serving in the Armed Forces and for helping in the WOT. ;-)

Posted by RD 2007-03-21 23:00|| 2007-03-21 23:00|| Front Page Top

#13 We did fine in the 19th century without getting involved in other people's wars.

Yeah, we pretty much kept to killin ourselves and the odd Mexican, Canadian or stinkin injun.

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-03-21 23:50|| 2007-03-21 23:50|| Front Page Top

23:50 Shipman
23:43 Shipman
23:38 Kofi Fleager2979
23:35 Kofi Fleager2979
23:31 Old Patriot
23:30 Zenster
23:29 Old Patriot
23:22 RD
23:14 Zenster
23:09 Hank
23:00 RD
22:39 Zenster
22:23 trailing wife
22:22 Eric Jablow
22:14 trailing wife
22:13 trailing wife
22:10 trailing wife
21:53 Xenophon
21:46 RD
21:37 xbalanke
21:35 Xenophon
21:32 Jackal
21:30 Frank G
21:29 Procopius2k