Para losses in Afghanistan

I am not too happy about how the government views the deployment to Afghanistan, Simon Jenkins is also getting rather hot under the collar about it. I also find it rather distasteful that the government says that more troops will be sent if needed but that no request has so far come.

This is an abuse of the relationship between the military and the government. When soldiers are given a task and to the resources available they have a habit of getting on with it without complaining. If the army were firemen, or train drivers they would have refused to go into Afghanistan so poorly resourced. They are not firemen or train drivers, they are soldiers and as such they get on with the job without complaint. They should be given the tools to do the job right from the start and not have to beg for them now.

We also need to ask ourselves whether the job that the Paras battle group is doing now is the job that we were told they were sent to do. It seems to me as if it is not. This is not the first time that British airborne troops have experienced “mission creep” recently. I am beginning to suspect that there was a political plan that was not made public and the troops mission has been amended once in theatre. I have no proof but if this is the case it shows a deep-seated lack of honesty both towards the troops involved and towards the country as a whole.

The Parachute troops (Para Reg and support regiments) are very, very good at what they do. The loss of five soldiers from this deployment in such a short space of time is very, very alarming. I wrote some time ago about my fears that the 16 Brigade deployment was being done on a shoestring and could end in disaster. I hoped then that I was wrong, I still hope I was wrong, I fear that I was not.

UPDATE 05-07-06

The BBC reports another member of the 3Para Batlegroup has been killed

4 responses to “Para losses in Afghanistan

  1. My worry is that the blouse wearing anti-military types in government will use it as n oportunity to put an end to the war fighting capabilities of the British military. They will use it as an argument to say “look they are not strong enough to look after themselves in a stand-up firefight, lets convert them to peackeeping only light roled (read cheap) forces”. This is just what the governments of Canada New Zealand et al have done. It seems that “taking it to” the baddies and having the capability of “giving them the good news” is an unsavoury idea nowadays!Who would want to join an Army like that? You might as well join the Police!

  2. My worry is that the blouse wearing anti-military types in government will use it as n oportunity to put an end to the war fighting capabilities of the British military. They will use it as an argument to say “look they are not strong enough to look after themselves in a stand-up firefight, lets convert them to peackeeping only light roled (read cheap) forces”. This is just what the governments of Canada New Zealand et al have done. It seems that “taking it to” the baddies and having the capability of “giving them the good news” is an unsavoury idea nowadays!Who would want to join an Army like that? You might as well join the Police!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s