Three 18 Year Old Soldiers Killed In Afghanistan
LAST Friday Corporal Jonathan Horne, Rifleman William Aldridge, Rifleman James Backhouse, Rifleman Joseph Murphy, Rifleman Daniel Simpson and Corporal Lee Scott of The 2nd Royal Tank Regiment were killed in Afghanistan.
Rifleman Murphy, from Castle Bromwich, West Midlands, Rifleman Aldridge, from Bromyard, Herefordshire, and Rifleman Backhouse, from Castleford, West Yorkshire, were aged just 18.
whya re they dead?
A senior officer says: ‘I regard the losses of the past fortnight as a wake-up call to the Government. If we are going to fight this war as it needs to be fought, we need a properly-resourced army. We also need the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to explain to the British people, as they have never convincingly t”ied to do, why we are in Afghanistan and what we are trying to do there.”
Richard North looks at how too few people understand the war, or bother to try to:
One worries about some of the so-called experts called upon to pronounce on various aspects of the Afghani campaign, as to whether they really know what they are talking about.
One such who gives rise to not a little concern is Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, who is sternly holding forth on the objectives of the Taleban today in The Times.
He tells us, very much in line with British commanders in the field, that Taliban commanders have made Helmand their key objective, then going on to inform us that “new recruits to their units flow in from Pakistan, but they are not well trained or well led.”
Undoubtedly, it is the case that many Taleban recruits are poorly trained and led, but as a sweeping statement this sits ill with the observations from Jason Burke in The Guardian. He recently reported a “new peril for British troops in Afghanistan” telling us that the Taleban “have learned modern warfare.” Imagination, greater firepower and strengthening of Taliban’s ideological bond, he wrote, leaves the coalition facing higher casualty rates.
More recently, we read Sean Rayment’s excellent account in The Sunday Telegraph of last week’s attack on soldiers of the 2nd Bn, The Rifles, killing five of their number and seriously injuring three more.
According to Rayment, the Rifles patrol first triggered an IED as they entered an alleyway inside a small hamlet. One soldier died instantly and seven others were seriously wounded. Following standard drills, the patrol withdrew to a more secure location so that the wounded could be treated. And there, waiting for them was a massive IED which detonated killing another three soldiers, one of whom had been wounded in the first blast.
Meanwhile, a group of four soldiers who had left the area to secure a helicopter landing site discovered another IED which had been laid to destroy the approaching helicopters. Without the ability to defuse the bomb, the troops had no choice but to order the helicopter to land inside their base, leading to further delays in getting aid to the wounded. One other died on the operating table after he had been airlifted to Camp Bastion. And en route to their base, two more IEDs were discovered. Fortunately neither detonated.
Rayment asserts that the Taleban has predicted the troops’ movements and had laid their devices where they would have their most devastating effect – tactics which demonstrate a high degree of planning and some sophistication. But then, as Burke notes in his piece, the tactics of the coalition forces have been studied closely – and the Taleban commanders have learned from them and adjusted their tactics.
Professor Michael Clarke, therefore, does not seem to have the measure of the Taleban in his own analysis and nor would it be advisable to rely on him for his declaration that, while IEDs can be devastatingly effective even against the most heavily armoured vehicles, “they are the technique of the terrorist; not decisive and not the weapon that will win a campaign.”
Would that Clarke had read today’s newspapers, listened to the radio and watched television. The two bombs which caused such havoc and misery to the men of The 2nd Rifles have reverberated around the world, the effect here magnified by the intensive media publicity.
Clarke, in fact, is terribly, terribly wrong. The IED is a “war winner”, not as a military weapon but as a propaganda tool, weakening the resolve of the home front and the politicians as they see the coffins, one after the other, make their final journeys from the aircraft bearing them from foreign fields.
Yet, Clarke is the “expert”. It is he who gets to pontificate in The Times and, no doubt, has the ear of the powerful and the mighty. And it is the quality of analyses such as his that is going to lose us the war.
Posted: 12th, July 2009 | In: Media Comments (10) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
July 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
June
I could not agree more with the points you covered.
We have a totally inadequate Defence Secretary, totally out of his depth.
He is a former trade unionist promoted well above his abilities and held in contempt
by the armed forces.
However, the under-manning and under-resourcing is before his time, he is just too
useless to improve it.
The personnel in Afghanistan deserve our full support, the government does not.
If we could withdraw I would be delighted but public feeling will not be enough to
make this happen - I suspect the government will be intransigent on this.
I was no fan of Thatcher but she made sure that the troops in Falklands got all
that was needed,costs to be dealt with later. Brown will never do this, so we,
but more importantly rhe troops, get the worse of both worlds.
My sympathies go these boys’ families and of course the families of the other
soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for something most of us do not
even understand.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Judging by the comments that have emitted from No10 today, nothing much will change.
WW1 was the same, the politicians had to save face, and the life of the common soldier (or other service) isn’t worth tiddly squat compared to that.
They need people with military experience, preferably some with wounds to prove it serving in Parliament.
I put a small item about the Minister of Defence in the forums, this is an important post and the incumbent should be military, and is he? is he hell..
I’m not a pacifist or concientious objector, neither do I have flesh and blood serving, but this skirmish is pointless until the UK Govt recognise it needs money and some guerilla training so that people come home alive and not in bodybags
July 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Clive - I appreciate that many people say that it is not possible to pull out now, but I would really love to know why that is the case? I am not saying it would be easy and your point about the ones who have already died is well observed, but surely we are talking about the best of a bad job here? The Americans pulled out of Vietnam - why can’t we pull out of Afghanistan? is it just a sense of not wanting to give in that’s keeping the government from doing what - IMO - is the right thing?
surely a bit of damaged ego is worth the number of lives which would be saved if the British Army was not involved there anymore…?
I know next to nothing about the current structure you refer to, so would appreciate the information - expecting others to do their bit has cost this country in the past, why can’t we now take the decision just for ourselves and let those who think it is still worth it get on with what seems increasingly like a futile effort…?
I don’t remember voting for NATO at the last election….
July 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
When I was younger, everything seemed black or white. Now I am older I see there are many shades of grey and I have become much more cynical. Yes, the idealist
in me says cut our losses, pull out, take the insular approach. Sadly, the current structure means this is pie in the sky. That is why I would promote a more equal sharing of the burden in dealing with Taliban in Afghanistan ( we must also address withuin UK) but we are in too deep both in sense of troops committed and the agreements we have with NATO.
As June says, Britain is now a very small player on the world stage.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Its an absolute bums rush we got involved in the first place, I understand Clive’s rasons about not pulling out, but I feel we’d be better off pulling out; and learning some lessons - just defend our own country and finance our military properly.
We no longer have the might we once had, and I don’t feel any country has in these days of modern warfare, so defending ourselves against others is our safest bet
July 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
IMO their deaths are futile enough as it is, without wasting any more lives.
better to spend the money (and possibly spare more lives) defending THIS country against the Taliban threat - bringing such a conflict to a conclusion has already taken years - how many more? when will we see an end to it? who is going to stop the next generation of Taliban…?
even the president of Afghanistan is not totally on our side, for heaven’s sake!!!!
sorry but the “let more die so the ones already dead haven’t died in vain” line doesn’t really work for me Clive….
July 13th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
This is a dreadful state of affairs. My stepson recently completed a stint there and came back a different person. He lost two stone as he got insufficient rations and had to resort to stealing food so it is not just equipment they are short of. He is only 20. At least he survived but is likely to be sent back shortly.
The knee jerk reaction is to pull them out but in my view this makes the deaths of their comrades to have been futile.
Much better to beef them up with all proper gear and support, ensure other countries do the same and bring this to a conclusion.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am
get them out of there now - it’s not our war.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am
More realities of war, the field hospital
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5811459/Afghanistan-field-hospital-experiences-bloodiest-week.html
July 13th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Here’s the full list of all killed in Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7799610.stm