DebateGate

War in Afghanistan: Britain's Vietnam
by MARK NICOL
 
Last updated at 14:58pm on 1st October 2006
 

NEWS HOMEPAGE
A quad bike bounces across battle-ravaged desert, the remains of three dead British soldiers lashed to its back, while a Chinook buzzes overhead.

Exhausted squaddies exchange desultory small-arms fire with an invisible enemy. An infantry unit nervously patrols a burning village.

These are the images that reveal the gritty, deadly reality of the British engagement in Afghanistan. And they have been released to the world by the angry and beleaguered troops themselves.

The pictures were captured on digital cameras over recent months by infantrymen belonging to the Battlegroup of the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment. For the most part, they have been sent back to Britain by e-mail, sidestepping the Government's attempts to keep the true nature of the conflict away from the public gaze.

This is a deployment that Ministers, safe in their plush Whitehall offices, have characterised as a peacekeeping mission. John Reid, now Home Secretary, notoriously predicted that the British would serve their tour of duty without a shot being fired. Visits to troops by news teams have been discouraged or stage-managed.

But these unique pictures, backed up by commentary in the e-mails, tell the truth - of savage and bloodthirsty firefights, of unremitting skirmishes with the Taliban and of shortages of ammunition and even rations.

Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops.

Squaddies are tormented by sand flies and scorpions and are driven mad by stress. They are attacked by Taliban militiamen on motorbikes who open fire while clutching children in front of themselves.

Battles take place against a backdrop of burning villages reduced to rubble by aerial bombardment. On occasion, panic-stricken combatants have used satellite phones to call England with the harrowing message that they are about to die.

The evidence has been delivered to The Mail on Sunday by soldiers who say that their enemy is more numerous, more determined and better equipped than politicians have acknowledged. This, they say, is no peacekeeping mission. This is a new Vietnam.

A soldier who agreed to an interview via e-mail said: "It is a lot worse than people know back home. Politics f****** politics. It is a massive cover-up really, to not get the real truth."

There is also, allegedly, considerable pressure on the Paratroops not to talk about Afghanistan when they return to Britain this month.

"They are using scare tactics,' said the soldier. "It is not fair. The Commanding Officer said that he would mallet anyone he found out was speaking out about this."

Yesterday, however, the Ministry of Defence officially welcomed the soldiers' testimony - raising suspicions that the cloak of secrecy that has hitherto surrounded operations has been ordered by politicians rather than the military.

In the e-mails, the soldiers speak starkly of the savagery of engagements that are kept secret from the public back home.

One said: "You see the Taliban cutting around on dirt bikes, their weapons in one hand, their kids in the other. They think we will not shoot them. There have been some terrible incidents. It is horrible to kill a kid, nothing could prepare you for it."

During an ambush that led to the deaths of three British troops in the town of Musa Qalah on August 1, a senior NCO was forced to take drastic action to retrieve a body and try to rescue a captured soldier.

An e-mail in the possession of this newspaper says: "That place <\[>Musa Qalah] is a ****hole anyway. The first wagon got IED'd <\[>hit by an Improvised Explosive Device] then as a rescue wagon came down they RPG'd it <\[>hit by a Rocket Propelled Grenade]. It was war-fighting, even so much to say we had bayonets fixed."


The soldiers had to use a spade to cut the body of one of their comrades from the wreckage. "Then we released the hatch to get the body out while getting contacted <\[>shot at] at the same time. The worst bit was stepping over the body to gather it all up and looking for dog tags."

One of the British casualties was still alive and had been captured by the Taliban. About 100 British soldiers surrounded Musa Qalah and non-Taliban personnel were given 30 minutes to leave. Anyone who remained was considered a legitimate target - again raising shades of Vietnam.

The captured soldier was dead when found by his comrades. It is unclear whether he was killed by the Taliban or died of his wounds.

Last night the MoD said there was 'no better illustration of the extraordinary commitments being made by British soldiers'.

The performance of the Royal Air Force is also called into question by the ground troops. This follows the claim by Para Major James Loden last week that the RAF was 'utterly useless'.

Describing the failure to re-supply troops trapped in a compound in the war-torn village of Sangin, a Para NCO said: "A dz <\[>drop zone] was marked, under fire and at night. It was extremely obvious where it was. The Hercules came and totally ignored it.

"They dropped it straight into one of the Taliban strongholds about 100 metres from our camp. We heard a big cheer from the Taliban. It was a massive blow to us. We had been expecting it for two days. We were cheering when it came in. Then we watched it sail away into Taliban hands."

'They could not see properly'

This was not the only re-supply run to go badly wrong. Another almost cost the lives of Canadian troops. "We were told a British convoy was coming up with the re-plen so we expected Brit wagons. There were two guys in one of the sangars <\[>defensive positions built with sandbags]. It had got blown up twice by RPGs. They heard this rumbling and at the end of the street they saw some sort of tank poking around the corner. They had no idea what it was, but it was not Brit. They could not see properly. They thought it was ex-Russian stuff the Taliban had got hold of. So there's two guys running off down the street with 84s <\[>shoulder-held missiles] just about to blow them up, until one of the guys saw this maple leaf on the front of one of the wagons. We got on the net <\[>radio] and had a massive meltdown about why we were not told they were coming."

The mental and physical wellbeing of British forces is also called into question. E-mail testimony suggests that incidents of soldiers wetting and soiling themselves are now commonplace. They wake up screaming from nightmares and have even made harrowing calls to their families during enemy engagements.

In one incident, the Paras were called to rescue Afghan troops and French Special Forces who had been ambushed by the Taliban.

They were flown in by Chinook helicopter, but when they landed, were stunned by what they saw. The ground was littered with the bodies of Afghan soldiers, while incoming bullets hit the helicopter.

"I could not believe we were going to charge off this helicopter into a wall of lead,' said one. "Not everyone wanted to get off. One guy actually defecated. He sat rigid with fear inside the cargo hold until we pulled him up and pointed him towards the door.

"We had to fire and manoeuvre across open ground for 200 metres. The scene was like a human abattoir. We fought off the Taliban but were too late to save the French guys. All of us were shaking when we were flown back to base. One of the Afghan survivors said the French had been tied up then gutted alive by the Taliban. It was one of the most shocking things I had ever heard."


There have been mixed reports about the Afghan National Army. However, one soldier described them as 'shockingly hard'. They have continued fighting alongside the British despite having members of their families killed by the Taliban. Some British soldiers have told their families back home that they fear they are going to die. But after the French atrocity, they say would rather be killed than captured.

The Taliban, previously dismissed as a ragtag force without sophisticated weaponry or tactical knowhow, has evolved. The conflict has enabled the heroin trade to flourish, and with coffers overflowing the guerrilla army has bought equipment such as night vision goggles.

The Taliban has also contracted a legion of mercenaries who have poured over the border from Pakistan into the British-occupied Helmand Province. Contrary to MoD claims, soldiers say that the pace of the fighting continues unremittingly. In the past 48 hours, Paratroopers and Royal Marines, supported by heavy artillery, have conducted operations described as 'rip and insertions' in the Sangin area.

It is understood that at least two British personnel have been severely wounded in the fighting, which soldiers described as 'hardcore'. It was the last major thrust to be carried out by 3 Para before handing over to 42 Commando, Royal Marines.

The picture of life at the main British base, Camp Bastian, is a little more encouraging. Frustration at the rationing of food in the cookhouse leads to the soldiers pulling spoons from cooks' fingers and serving themselves.

They began the tour on what soldiers call 'peacetime munitions scalings', less than they would receive for battle. This supply was criticised as being too light - 120 rounds for their rifles and two grenades. Those with rifles now carry over 200 rounds, and many have exchanged their rifles for light machine guns, called Minimi.

Since British forces arrived in Helmand in May, there have been few success stories. One has been the effectiveness of the Apache helicopter, which has saved many lives.

Last night the Ministry of Defence said: "Incredible efforts are being made to ensure that front-line soldiers are given the best possible support in every way. The tough realities of combat will inevitably create friction about particular incidents, but each individual is doing their very best in the most challenging of circumstances.

"The MoD welcomes these gritty, hard- hitting reports, which portray the reality of difficult work on the front-line. The 3 Para Battlegroup has performed magnificently in extremely difficult circumstances. Alongside the Afghan National Army, they have stood up to the Taliban, who offer nothing to the Afghan people. We salute them."

from . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/7/212918/484

God's Test
by DFAer
Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:29:18 PM PDT

   God became interested in U.S. politics during the Clinton scandal, astounded that people living at the highest standards in the world could become so distraught over what was really just an issue between a man and his wife. So God decided to call in St. Politicus and said, "St. Politicus, I want to see what is truly important to Americans. We are going to do a test. I want you to do your best to shake them out of their complacency. When you do, please report the results to me."
     
•   DFAer's diary :: ::
•   
  So, on God's orders, St. Politicus:
1) Had President Bush appointed rather than elected.
    RESULTS: Nothing
2) Had President Bush start a war based on WMD, costing thousands of lives, and then had it revealed there were no WMD.
    RESULTS: Nothing
3) Had an entire city flooded, with President Bush abandoning U.S. citizens on rooftops, bridges and the Convention Center for days with no food, water, or medical care.
    RESULTS; Nothing
4) Had Bush imprison hundreds of people with no charges and no representation, even changing the Geneva Conventions and Constitution to suspend Habeus Corpus and permitting extensive torture.
    RESULTS: Nothing
5) Had President Bush increase the deficit to such an unprecedented level that we owe more money than we bring in each month.
    RESULTS: Nothing
6) He has the war go on indefinitely, with experts agreeing that it is actually making the U.S. less safe, and has President Bush dismiss it as a "comma" in history.
    RESULTS: Nothing
So, after six years of failing to stir the ire of the American majority, an exhausted St. Politicus went up to God and said, "I'm sorry to report that there just isn't anything that will shake the complacency of Americans. Nothing. I've tried everything! They even re-elected him. I just don't know what test to send them anymore." God answered, "Don't worry, St. Politicus, you were extremely thorough. I think I know the answer. Please leave it to me now."
    The next day, the Mark Foley story broke, resulting in the 24-hour non-stop  media coverage, the resignation of one Congressman, the anticipated resignation of the Speaker of the House, and plummeting approval ratings for Republicans throughout the country.
    St. Politicus was astounded as he watched this unfold, saying, "God, I understand that the Mark Foley scandal and cover-up were bad, but 19- and 20-year-old soldiers are dying every day for no reason in Iraq. More than 3,000 have died so far. Why is this Mark Foley issue so important?"
    God placed his hand on St. Politicus' shoulder and said, "It's simple, my son. Sex sells."

from counterpunch today - -
October 6, 2006

Gunning Down Itemad Ismail Abu Mo'ammar

Just Another Mother Murdered
By ALISON WEIR

Almost no one bothered to report it. A search of the nation's largest newspapers turned up nothing in USA Today, the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Houston Chronicle, Tampa Tribune, etc.

There was nothing on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, Fox News. Nothing.

The LA Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Associated Press each had one sentence, at most, telling about her. All three left out the details, the LA Times had her age significantly off, and the Washington Post reported that she had been killed by an Israeli tank shell.

It hadn't been a tank shell that had killer her, according to witnesses. It had been bullets, multiple ones, fired up close.

Neighbors report that Israeli soldiers had been beating her husband because he wasn't answering their questions. Foolishly or valiantly, how is one to say, the 35-year-old woman had interfered. She tried to explain that her husband was deaf, screamed at the soldiers that her husband couldn't hear them and attempted to stop them from hitting him. So they shot her. Several times.

Her name was Itemad Ismail Abu Mo'ammar.

She didn't die, though. That took longer. It required her life to flow out of her in the form of blood for several hours, as Israeli soldiers refused to allow an ambulance to transport her to help. Her husband and children could do nothing to save her.

Finally, after approximately five hours, an ambulance was allowed to take her to a hospital, where physicians were able to render one service: pronounce her dead, a few days before the commencement of Ramadan, a season of family gatherings much like the Christmas season for Americans. She left 11 children. None of this was in the Washington Post story, which had reported her death in one half of one sentence.

Her husband's brother, who lived in the same house, was also killed. He was a 28-year-old farmer.

Why did this all happen? The family lived behind a resistance fighter wanted by Israel. They were simply "collateral damage" in a failed Israeli assassination/kidnapping operation.

All together, five Palestinians were killed that day. The other three were young shepherds killed in another area, two 15 years old and one 14, who seem to have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Gaza.

None of this was reported in most of America's news media, and so the American public never learned about a mother bleeding to death in front of her children, or young shepherds being blown to pieces. Apparently, it just wasn't newsworthy.

from daily kos - -

<<Conservative activist Richard Viguerie told CNN Hastert should go. "We are not going to get to the political promised land until we have new leaders, and it's time for pretty much all of the leaders to leave," Viguerie said.>>

This might be the first time that wagons drawn up in a circle around a wounded member and his apparent enabler have turned their guns around to point in instead of out.

From time to time in this group, I've posted about the pan-Arab movement and I've also posted about the artificiality and colonialist mentality implicit in the creation of the Arab states (Iraq being a prime example) that were cobbled together out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the European victors of WWI.  Somehow the two seem related in the sense that a successful pan-Arab movement would solve the problems of the deficiencies of the Arab state.  One of the problems of pan-Arabism is the ostensible exclusivity of the original concept and its failure to include Turkey and Iran - - and, some would say, even Egypt.

This article, without once mentioning pan-Arabism, deals quite well - - IMHO - - with the deficiencies of the modern Arab state; by Soumaya Ghannoushi, "a researcher in the history of ideas" at the School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London.  Nothing really new in it, but it's well-written, informative and a good summary of events and concepts.  I didn't get the web-site address, but it's from the Al Jazeera site:

The Israeli assault on Lebanon has poignantly brought two truths home: that some Arab states are unable to respond to ever- mounting external threats, and that the burden of homeland protection is increasingly shifting from the standard political order to non-state actors.
The Lebanese case offers a glimpse of the shape of the balance of powers in the Middle East in years to come.
 
The modern state, we should recall, derives its legitimacy from the right to monopolise and use the instruments of organised violence for the purpose of maintaining internal stability and civil peace on the one hand; and securing its borders, or what is conventionally referred to as national sovereignty, on the other.

Some Arab states have failed on either or both counts. Of these, the worst and most striking has been its impotence to confront external dangers, be it in Syria, Iraq or Lebanon.

Official failure to provide adequate defence systems and maintain homeland security has generated a vacuum, which is being gradually filled by non-governmental socio-political movements with armed wings. Lebanon and Palestine are two cases in point.

 

"Wars have proved to the whole world that Arabs have had enough of the Zionists."

Hussein, Kenya

More comments...

Increasingly, the Arab public feels that the political system is unfit to respond to the question of destiny and provide the basics for preserving sovereignty. There is a striking dichotomy at the heart of the Arab state.

While enormously powerful at home, it is pitifully weak in responding to foreign challenges. A number of inter-related factors have converged to produce this odd state of affairs, geopolitical and structural.

These are largely to do with perpetual interference in the affairs of the Middle East from the Western powers that continue to hold the reins of its fate, with the superiority of Israeli military capabilities propped up and backed by the US and its allies, as well as with the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Arab state itself.

Official failure to provide adequate defence systems and maintain homeland security has generated a vacuum, which is being gradually filled by non-governmental socio-political movements with armed wings.
Child of the colonial legacy, of Sykes/ Picot and the European powers' scramble for the Ottoman inheritance, the Arab state has always carried deficiency and impotence as part of its genetic make-up.

That the Arab region should have been divided into 22 entities is a measure of its significance for the relations of dominance that emerged towards the end of the eighteenth century with Napoleon's expedition to Egypt (1798), the first major European incursion into a central country of the Muslim world.

For Britain and France - just as it is for the United States today - control of the Middle East was important not only because of their interest in the region itself, but because it corroborated their position in the world.
 
Not only was the region rich in raw materials, with cotton from Egypt, oil from Iran and Iraq, minerals from the Arab Maghrib (North Africa), it was a vast field of investment, and a route to other continents.

For Britain, the sea route to India and the Far East ran through the Suez Canal. For France, routes by land, sea and air to French possessions in West and Central Africa passed through the Maghrib.
 
Presence in the region strengthened the two countries' position as Mediterranean powers and world powers. These vital interests were protected by a series of military bases like the port of Alexandria, military bases in Egypt and Palestine, and airfields in those countries and in Iraq and the Gulf.

The Arab state replaced the complex network of local elites, tribal chieftains and religious groupings through which the imperial authorities had maintained their grip over the territories they dominated.
 
Its mission was the regulation of the indigenous population's movement, a gigantic disciplinary, punitive and coercive apparatus designed for the purpose of imposing control over the local populations.

The Arab state replaced the complex network of local elites, tribal chieftains and religious groupings through which the imperial authorities had maintained their grip over the territories they dominated.
In an article published in the Guardian on September 2, Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister, said: "Israel should ... support the legitimisation of one single authority in the whole of Lebanon - indeed in all countries of the region ... The Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority have lost control of their territories and armed forces ... Israel must support the governments of Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, in their struggles for exclusive territorial and military control over their lands."

It might be reasonable to think it is illogical that a country frequently painted as a beleaguered entity in a hostile environment should be advocating a policy of strengthening its neighbours' authority over their territories. 

Not so, for the system of indirect control over the region, which assumed its present shape in the aftermath of World War I, specifically requires a "state" that is capable of keeping the local populations under check and maintaining "stability" at home, but too weak to disrupt foreign influence or disturb the balance of powers in the region.

Disillusionment with the official political order and growing cynicism about its ability to preserve a semblance of sovereignty, liberate occupied land, or safeguard national interests has brought new actors onto the stage of Arab politics.

These non-state players, which include Hizbollah in Lebanon and several armed groups in Palestine, are increasingly occupying the centre of the public sphere in the Middle East, profiting from the declining legitimacy of the political elite tied to the stakes of foreign dominance in the region and lacking popular support to speak of.

While already fulfilling many of the state's conventional functions such as the provision of social services like health and education, in countries subjected to military occupation (such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine) they are increasingly taking on the state's defence responsibilities.   

Child of the colonial legacy, of Sykes/ Picot and the European powers' scramble for the Ottoman inheritance, the Arab state has always carried deficiency and impotence as part of its genetic make-up.
This has earned these movements the admiration of the Arab public, which frequently contrasts their political and military performances in the face of the gigantic Israeli military machine with the redundancy of Arab armies permanently frozen in military stations and barracks.

In light of the turbulent situation in the region and receding allegiance to the political establishment, it is possible to predict that the coming years could see an extension of this popular model to neighbouring countries acutely sensitive to threats to their security.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been evangelising about the "New Middle East". This rhetoric, which had retreated under the stench of burnt cities and piles of dead Iraqi bodies, has lately resurfaced once more.
 
Though certain to leave long-lasting marks on the region's map, the current frenzy of interventions is unlikely to engender the Middle East Washington and London desire.

The likelihood is that this new Middle East born in the womb of pre-emptive strikes and proxy wars will neither be American nor Israeli but will gravitate between "deconstructive chaos", and the rise of popular resistance movements.
 
The lesson we would do well to learn from Iraq's unfolding tragedy is that the Middle East is far too complex, far too unruly for the grand fantasies of conquest and subjugation.

Quote from a comment posted to patriotboy blogspot,
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

<<I find it truly ironic that the same people who claim not to trust some government bureaucrat to choose your doctor, or to manage your old age social insurance, will turn around and trust the government to identify who should be locked away, tortured, and never have the opportunity for a review in the light of day.>>

That's funny, I find that ironic too.

What if a bunch of conservative billionaires started to worry about the growing power of China and India, and the future demand for and supplies of oil?  And what if they figured out there might not be enough to go around?  And what if they figured out that they had better grab some while they still could, before China and India got strong enough to stop them?  Because otherwise they all might lose shitloads of money and the American economy might go down the tubes and the people might want to look for new ways of governing themselves and distributing the wealth, kind of like in the 1930s.  And this wouldn't be good.  For anybody.

So for the good of everybody (everybody in America, anyway) they might want to occupy Iraq and then Iran.  And of course they couldn't tell the people of the U.S.A. "Hey let's go to war and secure us a  long-term supply of oil," so of course they would have thought of other reasons to put to the American people as to why they were going to Iraq and Iran.  For the sake of argument, say they came up with "WMD" and then later with "democracy."

Well, I'd say that in that case, Phase I of the plan was a success.  A big success.  They're in Iraq and they've got the oil fields.   The cost in human life is (in their frame of reference) negligible - - 40,000 Iraqis (who are only technically human) and a couple thousand Americans, the lowest of the low, the unemployables, the drop-outs, the un-connected, 30% of them not even citizens, just desperate Hispanics from some Latin American shit-hole or other, risking their poor pathetic lives in the hope of surviving and being rewarded with citizenship and finally, escape from the shit-hole.  (No, it isn't Cuba the Communist hell-hole that we're talking about, but the free-enterprise paradises of El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, etc. that these folks are literally "dying" to escape from.)
2600 American soldiers are NOTHING to these billionaires.  They blew off twenty times that number in Nam before finally pulling the plug on that one.  But maybe you think the price in dollars (half a trillion) is too high?  NOTHING could be further from the truth.  You see the half-trillion comes out of the public purse.  It's EVERYBODY'S money so in a sense it's nobody's money.  The PROFITS that will come out of this little escapade - - that is definitely NOT "everybody's money."  What's Halliburton's is Halliburton's and what's KBR's is KBR's, and so on - - less a small cut (and I MEAN a small cut) for Uncle Sam and another slice to grease a few choice Republocrat palms.  Big Oil (I just LOVE using that phrase!!!) is not one to share gladly.  But - - but what if the "terrorists" prevent them from getting as much oil out of the ground there as they used to?  Oy.  You just don't get it, do you?  Who gives a shit if THEY can't get it out of the ground?  At least their Chinese and Indian competitors won't be getting any more of that stuff than they will, and if or when it finally DOES start to flow, just exactly where do you think it'll be flowing to?

The hell of it is, the Republicans can't TELL anyone that Iraq is a success.  Not in terms that don't excite ridicule and disbelief.  The Republicans, unfortunately, are now the prisoners of their own bullshit.  Since they lied to the American people TWICE - - once, that they were going in for WMD, then that they were there to establish democracy and justice - - they can only evaluate the project in terms of its stated goals - - yet to do so only invites ridicule and disbelief for obvious reasons.

What's a self-respecting crypto-fascist to do?  Fortunately, they don't give a shit.  They don't have to.  They don't need to WIN elections any more.  Stealing them is good enough, and they have THAT down to a science.

Saddam Hussein's "genocide" trial which was drifting off course under a judge who couldn't or wouldn't provide opinions in the case sufficiently pleasing to the puppets and their US overseers, was given a sharp course correction when the Shi'ites responsible for running the administration of "justice" in the "Iraqi" government unceremoniously yanked the presiding judge off his bench and substituted a new guy who presumably has a better idea of what is expected from him.

Although you would have a hard time figuring that out from the headlines in the American on-line media. "New Judge Throws Saddam Out of Court," as if the real story concerned the unruliness of the defendant rather than the blatant, shameless rigging of the court system.