Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Real heroes: soldier refuses to return to Afghanistan Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He gonna get court martialled.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A prison sentence is so harsh I kind of feel bad for the guy. But then again, what did he expect?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cardine92)
    Well at least he had the guts to stand up instead of just shooting himself in the foot or something to get discharged
    Family guy education? :p:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You speak as if when we leave they are going to just stroll back into Kabul and pick up where they left off. The Afghan people dont want the Taleban there anymore. For the most part the Afghan people are now united against the Taleban, they have their own army and police force, and to be honest the amount of individuals who own a gun would amount to a national militia that numbers in the miliions. So i ask you again, what makes you thinkk they will take back power so easily?
    They will not do it easily and I never implied it (so I have no idea where you are getting that from). However, they still have a lot of power and the Afghans will not be able to fight them fully, and for a long period now. I ask you to look at the situation now, with multinational task force with extremely powerful nations, they are by no means losing, by they are, also, by no means thrashing the Taliban. I would like Afghanistan to have as much help in defeating the Taliban. If the coalition are having problems (however minor), you can damn well bet that the Afghans by themselves will.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Court Martial him and set an example to other military men thinking of desertion. If they let this go due to some BS public appeal, it'll set a trend that would be unwise for the MOD. Wise decision would be to end this swiftly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    Family guy education? :p:

    Lol, yes now I think about it. Damn cartoons, have a way of getting into your brain and presenting themselves as facts :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He's RLC what do you expect?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    They will not do it easily and I never implied it (so I have no idea where you are getting that from). However, they still have a lot of power and the Afghans will not be able to fight them fully, and for a long period now. I ask you to look at the situation now, with multinational task force with extremely powerful nations, they are by no means losing, by they are, also, by no means thrashing the Taliban. I would like Afghanistan to have as much help in defeating the Taliban. If the coalition are having problems (however minor), you can damn well bet that the Afghans by themselves will.
    Agree 100%. If anything, we need more boots on the ground.

    compare that to the Taliban now, they are a minority among the tribes made up mostly of mostly foreign fighters, with tired old equipment.
    Extremists aren't exactly well known for giving up. Afghans have always operated in small groups, using guerilla tactics. They gave us a good beating back in the 1800s, when our equipment was top notch and we were the only army to train with real ammunition. They used the same tactics against the Soviet army in the 80s, and gave them something to think about.

    The brutality of the Afghans in conflicts is so famed that even Rudyard Kipling, famed for his children's literature, wrote a poem about them. It's almost like Vietnam over again. They're not an organised army, which makes the only option search and destroy, and quickly. You cannot destroy their morale, destroy the will of their citizens, cut supply lines and starve them out or any normal option. As for 'tired old equipment', i'd hazard a guess that they're mainly equipped with AK47s or other Kalashnikovs, which short of running over in a truck, will continue to fire fine, along with IEDs, which as we all know are more than efficient for their purpose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swi1ch)
    Agree 100%. If anything, we need more boots on the ground.
    I'd quote Aeolus for the second part of your post or he wont know it's directed at him
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    They will not do it easily and I never implied it (so I have no idea where you are getting that from). However, they still have a lot of power and the Afghans will not be able to fight them fully, and for a long period now. I ask you to look at the situation now, with multinational task force with extremely powerful nations, they are by no means losing, by they are, also, by no means thrashing the Taliban. I would like Afghanistan to have as much help in defeating the Taliban. If the coalition are having problems (however minor), you can damn well bet that the Afghans by themselves will.

    But there are a under 50,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. There are 34 million Afghans. If they did not want the Taleban in power. The Taleban would not come to power, it is like i said you cannot compare this situation to when the Taleban first came to power, Afghanistan was a country split into many warring factions of which the Taleban happened to be the strongest, that is no longer the case, it is them against the Afghans now. By organising Afghanistan we have done our part. They are united against the Taleban, why must we insist on fighting their battle for them. By using Air strikes where the Afghan army could use counter-insurgency we dramatically increase the amount of civilian casualties. After all this is their country and they have been fighting there alot longer than we have. Our tactics obviously arent working against the Taleban, so why not let the Afghans fight fire with fire, instead of teaching them how to do it wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He's getting what he deserves as he knew what this action would result in. He's changing nothing and as that is the case I can quite happily accuse him of being selfish, I hope they throw the book at him.

    By his definition all war is wrong and we would have been better off laying down to let Axis forces invade Britain during WW2 in the name of preventing more death.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swi1ch)
    Agree 100%. If anything, we need more boots on the ground.


    .

    You are aware that the Soviets applied that logic. Every time the war took a downrad spiral they would fly in more and more troops hoping to overwhelm the enemy. They had more than double the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan than the whole coalition does at present. The Afghan enemy back then was fighting using the same weapons they are today, and like us the Soviets were fighting using the most high tech weaponry available. over 10,000 deaths later, the Soviets withdrew. This tactic does not work. If anything it gives the Taleban more oppurtunity to kill our boys and girls. We havent got that many vehicles over there at the moment and they still manage to get hit by IED's imagine the rise in casualties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He knew what he was getting into. If he didn't like the war, he didn't have to enlist. He did enlist, now he is refusing to go back, he should be court-martialed, what if every soldier decided to do it? I feel for him, I do, but again he knew what he was getting into.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But there are a under 50,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. There are 34 million Afghans. If they did not want the Taleban in power.
    Wrong. That's like saying that by giving all the Palestinians a gun that they would be able to defeat Israel. If the coalition is struggling, the Afghans will struggle.

    The Taleban would not come to power, it is like i said you cannot compare this situation to when the Taleban first came to power, Afghanistan was a country split into many warring factions of which the Taleban happened to be the strongest, that is no longer the case, it is them against the Afghans now.
    Nobody is comparing it to when they first came to power. They are powerful, they have the power to divide and get people to fight for them. The strong coalition are having problems. The Afghans will have twice the amount of problems considering they are weaker (compared to the coaltion).

    By organising Afghanistan we have done our part. They are united against the Taleban, why must we insist on fighting their battle for them.
    We helping a democratically elected government maintain its position in power. That doesn't mean that if we left, they would "stroll" in. It means that they need all the help they can get. The Afghans will suffer if coalition troops leave more than they do now. You know aside from the fact, this is better for the long term.

    Our tactics obviously arent working against the Taleban, so why not let the Afghans fight fire with fire, instead of teaching them how to do it wrong.
    My argument: the Afghans will suffer more and they will struggle more if we were to evacuate. Our tactics can adapt and change (and recently, it seems its working). I would prefer a powerful military task force fighting for the Afghans than letting the Afghans down with a high-risk of the Taliban taking over parts of the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You are aware that the Soviets applied that logic. This tactic does not work.
    The regime at the time did not have the backing of Afghan people. This regime does and they are united. You don't think that makes a bit of difference when it comes to tackling the Taliban (and some much lesser factions)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is a JUST war!!!



    Iraq wasnt

    Afghanistan IS


    Iraq= failure
    Afghanistan = turning into a failure I think


    but we NEEDED to go to Aghanistan and we NEED to stay there\
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Real hero? Don't make me laugh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You are aware that the Soviets applied that logic. They had more than double the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan than the whole coalition does at present. The Afghan enemy back then was fighting using the same weapons they are today, and like us the Soviets were fighting using the most high tech weaponry available. over 10,000 deaths later, the Soviets withdrew. This tactic does not work.
    Two points. Firstly, the Soviets were using AKs. Not the highest tech available at all, although yes probably the most reliable. With the exception of some breakthrough advances in markmanship technology and the support of armour the Soviets didn't exactly one up the Afghans, especially as we were supplying them with nice weapons. Plus they were more scared of a more simple weapon the Afghans held; knives.

    The thing is boots on the ground Soviet style is a hell of a lot different to anyone else's idea. The Soviets were deeply entrenched in doctrine. Always pushing forward regardless of the costs. Insufficient clothing for the bitter Afghan nights. Generals and Political Commissars at each others throats. Doctrine and successful warfare do not go hand in hand, and the Commissars overruling real tactical decisions by Generals caused a lot of problems. Soviet tactics was the equivalent of throwing men at walls until the walls crumble.

    Nightly patrols would be forced. The Afghans were using Guerilla tactics, capturing Soviet soldiers and torturing them within earshot of the main Soviet line, attempting to draw out rescue squads to save their comrades from the Afghan women and their incredible abilities with knives, including removing the intestines and keeping a man alive for an hour. Using main battle tanks against guerilla fighters doesn't achieve much either.

    As for our forces today, the main point is they're not ordered by political doctrine. We have fast air, heavy air, close and long range artillery. Our troops can keep up a constant rate of fire and carry twice as much ammunition as the Soviets ever could. We have little to fear from torture. Sniper teams are now more adapted to their roles in such an environment and don't need to provide close fire-team support due to the new role of the designated marksman. Combat is taking place at longer ranges, reducing the effectiveness of Taliban forces to provide adequate firepower to outclass our fireteams, who're trained to engage effectively up to 300m.

    There's a lot of difference between us and the Soviets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    Wrong. That's like saying that by giving all the Palestinians a gun that they would be able to defeat Israel. If the coalition is struggling, the Afghans will struggle.
    Ha! Thats a ridiculous comparison, the Isreali's are a at a massive advantage in regards to weapons,technology and tactics. The Taleban are not at any kind of advantage at all compared to other Afghan tribes and the convential Afghan forces actually have a pretty big advantage in terms of new weaponry and equipment thanks to us.



    Nobody is comparing it to when they first came to power. They are powerful, they have the power to divide and get people to fight for them. The strong coalition are having problems.The Afghans will have twice the amount of problems considering they are weaker(compared to the coaltion).
    The only reason an ordinary Afghan would fight for the Taliban at the moment is because they want to kill Americans and British and drive us out of their country. There is no ideaological incentive as there are over four other legitimate hardline Islamic parties who are democratically represented in Afghan government, the Taleban are also incredibly unpopular, mostly due to the fact that the majority of them are foreign now.



    We helping a democratically elected government maintain its position in power. That doesn't mean that if we left, they would "stroll" in. It means that they need all the help they can get. The Afghans will suffer if coalition troops leave more than they do now. You know aside from the fact, this is better for the long term.
    Could you please explain how they would suffer more if we left, and how it is better in the long term.



    My argument: the Afghans will suffer more and they will struggle more if we were to evacuate. Our tactics can adapt and change (and recently, it seems its working). I would prefer a powerful military task force fighting for the Afghans than letting the Afghans down with a high-risk of the Taliban taking over parts of the country.
    The Soviets tried to play the overwhelming card.... It failed with thousands of young Russian lads dead in the dust.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by General Ourumov)
    He's RLC what do you expect?
    And you're what, pray?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.