antonija 0
In the first ever unauthorised dispatch from an officer on the frontline, one young Captain offers a brutally honest account of life in Afghanistan
By
vortexring, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteDespite how loathesome certain politicians can be, isn't it truly honerable and worthy to serve ones country, to put that country before themselves?
No, its for idiots who lack a basic level of understanding with regards to both history and the world around them.
I've had to avoid replying to most of your points regarding the PA issue - but I'd still like to carry on the discussion - without the PA's.
It's this last point that interests me. In an ideal world, people wouldn't join the military, there wouldn't be a need for a country to have a military. Perhaps we'll one day evolve into such a scenario throughout the world but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Do you feel this way towards the police? The law? To any authoritive figure? Anyone who wields power over you? Your employer?
What feeling is that?
Quote
How many servicemen and women do you think question the reasoning for why they're in Afghanistan? How many resign over the fact they're unable to receive satisfactory answers?
I imagine a great many of them do and the ones with a moral compass which is actually working resign.
Quote
The fact remains that they were still willing to serve their country - to possibly die for their country.
Just like many stupid people throughout history.
Quote
The Western civilian workers in Afghanistan; the workers risking their lives to build back the nations infastructure - are they equally as bad? Or the military medics working to save not only NATO soldiers lives but guess who elses?
Not equally.
Quote
What sacrifices did you ever make?
A couple.
Quote
To speak of such people as being no better than the Taliban is wrong.
Only for a moral relativist and a hypocrite. This of course again highlights that you cannot actually follow an argument.
Quote
Perhaps you should study the Taliban a little closer.
It doesn't matter how bad the Taliban are - a fundamental part of you not understanding what other people are saying.
Thanks
I'm fascinated now. What sacrifices did you make for your country? I understand 'a couple'. What were they?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteAlthough I wouldn't put it as blunt as some people did I'd have to agree that the blind trust in the army values, politicians' decisions, etc. that I can see lately is repulsive to say at least.
What blind trust is that? Have incidents such as Abu Ghraib and the disrespect some governments have for their military not been demonstrated enough? I think you'd be mad to have blind trust. I don't know anyone who has. Seems you do know. Who are these people?
QuoteDuring first world war soldiers were told that this would be the war of all wars, so big and horrible that it would prevent any future war. While this idea certainly sounds pleasing and maybe even worth dying for (even to me and I am not prepared to die for sociological idea that we call Country) it was a lie... a big fat lie.
Then came another big one, even more horrible than the last one despite having restrictions on most "inhumane" (you gotta love it when someone distinguishes between humane and inhumane weapons) weapons such as gases and other non-discriminative shit.
Now the point of the WW2 was to free the world from fascist and social nationalist (nazi) threat. As far as I know idea of socialism is very much alive in just about every country in the world and is put to work even in the most "free" countries like US. Idea of nationalism seems even more popular these days. Combining the two is really not that hard and funny thing is we all know (or should know) how an experiment like that ends (Nazis are not the only example in our history).
Then we stumble upon "modern" wars where there is no such enemy as there used to be during "the big ones". The fact that US has been involved in majority of this conflicts does raise an eyebrow or two, but in the end it's just statistics and their involvement could be interpreted in different ways so lets not go into that now.
Why not? I, and I'm sure others, would be most interested to hear your analysis.
QuoteThe point is that a guy (or gal) on the ground with a bullet in his/her head basically has no idea why they are even there. Sometimes they don't know who they fight and they definitely don't know why they fight (except for PR buzzwords like "freedom of speech" and "democracy" and other "meaningful" words).
Why are they in Afghanistan then?
Who are they fighting?
Why are they fighting?
It seems you are happy in a knowledge that's somehow incomprehensible to servicemen and women so please feel free to enlighten us.
QuoteHere is where I get puzzled. My understanding is that there is a part of population that values the idea of country above their life, part of population that loves discipline and order and there is definitely a part of population that just likes to kill shit.
The people that like to kill will kill any time, anywhere. No questions asked.
The people that like discipline and order will feel really really good if they'll be able to complete their orders and I can understand that this (selfish, egoistic and overall bad) feeling can overcome the reasonable choice not to kill fellow man unless they are trying to kill you (self-defence; not breaking into their house and expect coffee and a cookie).
Then you have the nationalists. The patriots. This group is (for me) most difficult to understand. They fight for an idea (surprisingly similar to the one today's terrorists fight for) with no regard to cost (either material or human lives).
Cobblers. Utter nonsense.
QuoteI also can't understand why the phrase "if you don't want to get shot don't serve" got so much responses as it is nothing but logical conclusion. It's merely cause and effect.
The author of that phrase (at least I think it was him) then explained that there are many other ways of how to show your affection towards your country in a non-military way (so the chances of you dying are lower) and without killing other (often innocent but always forgotten) men. And he got shit for that too.
Who was that?
QuoteIn the end I have to admit I have never served in the army. All I have to go is my fathers army career as an high ranking officer and most of my friends being stationed all over the most shittiest places on earth. Yet none of those has been able to come with a reasonable answer why do they do it (kill others and allow themselves to be killed) for no reason/reasons they do not know and will most likely never find out.
Like duh! Shootin' folks is fun! Didn't your father tell you this? And there's you earlier alluding to knowing answers servicemen and woman do not.
QuoteI also understand the comparison between terrorists and invading armies. Again I wouldn't put it as blunt but the point is the same. No-one should be allowed to just walk into my front yard with a gun and tell me what to do. Americans should be familiar with this concept even more according to the news.
Wouldn't it also depend on what you're doing in your front yard? Are you sunbathing and minding your own business or are you terrorising and illegally killing your family whilst harbouring a major terrorist organisation? If it's the latter do you still think nobody should be allowed to walk into your front yard and tell you what to do?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteThanks
For what?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
nerdgirl 0
QuoteUmmmm "the first ever unauthorized dispatch" my ass. I've been getting unauthorized dispatches from my friends for 6-7 years.
Concur.
And at the same time, in many ways the words of the soldier printed in The Independent remind me of the "12 Army Captains" Op-Ed ("The Real Iraq We Knew," October 2007 from Washington Post) and the "7 NCOs" Op-Ed ("The Way We Saw It," August 2007 from the NY Times). Previous discussion here.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
The headline is typically sensationalist of a newspaper. What else would you expect?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteit's very simple - if you don't want to be sent to die in a pointless, needless war then don't join the military - duh!
The use of that term, "needless war" is interesting. What war would you say has been necessary? I think there have been some that have been justified, and moral, but none that have been necessary.
You ask an interesting question, imo. I'm going to think about it more. I suspect my thoughtful answer would be longer than most here would read.
Some might argue that the US Civil War was necessary to preserve the United States of America. If one sided with the Confederates States, it was an unnecessary war tho'.
In my thinking, I go back to “St Carl” von Clausewitz’s principle On War that “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means.” Therefore necessary can be determined or gauged in terms of political ends, i.e., war as a means to accomplish political may be necessary. But that's a hard-core realists (political science/IR 'realist' not general vernacular) perspective that many/some are likely to find unsatisfying.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteThe headline is typically sensationalist of a newspaper. What else would you expect?
The headline, at least as I view it, is "There is no refuge, no place to go to deal with your grief."
Rather than a criticism of the choice of introductory comments by the newspaper editor, my response (& perhaps ... or not ... this may be [labrys]'s as well) is recognition that the thoughts expressed are not unprecedented. That does not in any way, shape, or form mean they do not deserve to be heard. Perhaps that they are not unprecedented might be seen as a stronger indictment of the failure of those in charge to respond to the needs of deployed service members?
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteQuoteThe headline is typically sensationalist of a newspaper. What else would you expect?
The headline, at least as I view it, is "There is no refuge, no place to go to deal with your grief."
Ok, the introductory phrase or secondary headline, Miss Pedantic - you're not still annoyed over the cumulous/cumulonimbus debacle are you?
QuoteRather than a criticism of the choice of introductory comments by the newspaper editor, my response (& perhaps ... or not ... this may be [labrys]'s as well) is recognition that the thoughts expressed are not unprecedented. That does not in any way, shape, or form mean they do not deserve to be heard. Perhaps that they are not unprecedented might be seen as a stronger indictment of the failure of those in charge to respond to the needs of deployed service members?
Perhaps the article isn't quite as unprecedented as the newspaper makes out, although I do struggle to think of any so hard hitting - that speak of so many issues dogging our current government, written by serving British officers and dispatched from the frontline. Perhaps it wasn't written by an officer from the WG's Battle Group, or any Battle Group for that matter. . .
Afghanistan is a stick the opposition use to bash the present government repeatedly over the head with - although their motivation to do so is somewhat dubious.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe headline is typically sensationalist of a newspaper. What else would you expect?
The headline, at least as I view it, is "There is no refuge, no place to go to deal with your grief."
Ok, the introductory phrase or secondary headline, Miss Pedantic - you're not still annoyed over the cumulous/cumulonimbus debacle are you?
Nope, you were right, I was wrong there. And I corrected that with explicit acknowledgement.
Now those pics that you promised of some big mountains might be another story ...
QuoteQuoteRather than a criticism of the choice of introductory comments by the newspaper editor, my response (& perhaps ... or not ... this may be [labrys]'s as well) is recognition that the thoughts expressed are not unprecedented. That does not in any way, shape, or form mean they do not deserve to be heard. Perhaps that they are not unprecedented might be seen as a stronger indictment of the failure of those in charge to respond to the needs of deployed service members?
Perhaps the article isn't quite as unprecedented as the newspaper makes out, although I do struggle to think of any so hard hitting - that speak of so many issues dogging our current government, written by serving British officers and dispatched from the frontline. Perhaps it wasn't written by an officer from the WG's Battle Group, or any Battle Group for that matter. . .
I don't have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the asserted authorship.
And a number of the statements in that Op-Ed sound a lot like things I've written (& others), e.g., purely conventional military approaches won't work:
"Despite our dropping bombs on compounds that the enemy is using as firing-points, the very next day, new enemy fighters are back.Technologically-driven, conventional militaries are very good at bombing and destroying things. Rebuilding is the (long-term) challenge. In the US (& I suspect the case is similar for UK), the military has been the "stuckee" for reconstruction. Why? Largely because USAID's budget and workforce has been so eroded over the last 20 years. Remember SecDef Gates speech in Kansas in fall 2007 in which he spoke about the problem with the last 20 years of foreign development (among other topics),
"On the one hand, perhaps the enemy command is so feared, authoritative and manipulative that they force unwilling fighters into those compounds as pure cannon fodder. On the other, perhaps, the fighters willingly go back, despite their comrades having been killed there, so strong is their faith in an afterlife, or so strong is their belief in the jihad they are fighting.
"Whatever the reason, they come back undaunted to the same firing-points, despite our overwhelming fire power. Their numbers seem to stay constant, as opposed to decreasing – all of which gives a strong indication that we will not be able to reduce their numbers to a level where they are tactically defeated."
"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."As he notes in that speech, US capabilities have decreased substantially due to cuts in career civil servants. One of the results is that the DoD is doing more, even before DoDD 3000.05 went into effect.
More recently, in the January/February 2009 issue of Foreign Aiffairs article "A Balanced Strategy" he argued for a better focus on the roots of today's unconventional conflicts, which includes corruption. His recommendations have significant implications for the development mission of this country and for USAID in particular. It's notable (to put it diplomatically [ironically]) to have the head of one department arguing for increases in the budget of another department. Strategically, it makes complete sense.
Why do I bring that up (again)? Back to the Op-Ed from The Independent:
"However, as the British Army units here are increasingly sucked into the turmoil of the latest 'fighting season' [i.e., summer - nerdgirl] there seems little evidence that anything is happening on the political and diplomatic stage. In the meantime, tour follows tour, during which the most intense fighting appears to achieve not much more than extremely effectively inflicting casualties on both sides, whilst Afghanistan remains the sick man of Central Asia."How many times have folks in this forum mocked and derided diplomatic efforts? Yet that *is* what the author of the Op-Ed is asserting is needed. And if Pres Obama did shift emphasis to diplomacy (rather than counterinsurgency), I strongly suspect he would be vilified as "soft." (And at this point, that would not be my recommendation either. It's not a binary option.) So British troops and US Soldiers and Marines, with 100-lb gear loads, are doing everything from traditional military operations/combat through counterinsurgency to counternarcotics (yesterday’s print Wall Street Journal had an article on the front page, can’t find link to the exact article) to reconstruction.
QuoteAfghanistan is a stick the opposition use to bash the present government repeatedly over the head with - although their motivation to do so is somewhat dubious.
Domestic politics are at play in UK too?
surprise>
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
antonija 0
QuoteWhat blind trust is that? Have incidents such as Abu Ghraib and the disrespect some governments have for their military not been demonstrated enough? I think you'd be mad to have blind trust. I don't know anyone who has. Seems you do know. Who are these people?
Anyone still fighting for the people that torture other innocent people with no one taking responsibility (and I'm pretty sure the CO of those accused in Abu Ghraib was in it as well, just covered his ass better).
Not to mention all other atrocities that media has no access to, as a soldier you should be familiar with them.
QuoteWhy not? I, and I'm sure others, would be most interested to hear your analysis.
I will skip this obvious flamebait as it has nothing to do with this thread.
QuoteWhy are they in Afghanistan then?
Who are they fighting?
Why are they fighting?
It seems you are happy in a knowledge that's somehow incomprehensible to servicemen and women so please feel free to enlighten us.
I was hoping you as a serving soldier will be able answer these questions for me as I (as stated) was able to and neither were others involved. I would very sincerely like an honest answer why people still go abroad for no obvious reason and/or benefit.
QuoteCobblers. Utter nonsense.
Well formulated and logical response.
QuoteLike duh! Shootin' folks is fun! Didn't your father tell you this? And there's you earlier alluding to knowing answers servicemen and woman do not.
No, my father explained to me that it does get easier as individual people turn to statistics. I guess he quit the army when he was ordered to kill people who used to be his countrymen (countries do brake apart and usually shit follows). Most people involved in army are not capable of this.
And I never said I have the answers, I was simply asking anyone that has them to provide them.
QuoteWouldn't it also depend on what you're doing in your front yard? Are you sunbathing and minding your own business or are you terrorising and illegally killing your family whilst harbouring a major terrorist organisation? If it's the latter do you still think nobody should be allowed to walk into your front yard and tell you what to do?
Of course it would. But somehow I don't feel it's up to any army to decide if what I'm doing is right or wrong (as a mere idea of a totalitarian organisation deciding rights and wrongs is perverse to say the least).
If I'm breaking the law, feel free to report me to proper authorities (that is why they're there). If I'm threatening your human rights or maybe even your life with my actions in my backyard, you're also free to report me.
However I do expect (just like you do) to be trialled according to the law, have proper legal representation and a chance to present my case. You would agree this is only fair, wouldn't you?
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne
Skyrad 0
QuoteOf course, we're more than happy to instead wait for 62 (?) Westland Wildcats (Future Lynx) to come into service by 2014 (??) for a reported price of around £1 Billion and reject offers from Sikorsky for 60 Blackhawks which we could have received in 2008 & 9 for around £480 million. . . .
Its not about how much you spend its about where you spend it.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
QuoteQuoteIf you really wanna trade stories someday, I have some that will gag a maggot.
Gag a maggot? That's a term commonly used to describe a particularly bad smell, as in: 'That could gag a maggot!'.
So let's hear your tales then. What was the smell? Did you fall into an overused shitpit or something?
LMAO
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
QuoteThanks, but I prefer the sacrifices we make for our own country and NATO Hippy.
Stop, I'm goning to cry
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
So just what do you believe in? if anything
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
QuoteSo just what do you believe in? if anything
Any enemy of the U.S. is his friend?
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
nerdgirl 0
Quote(and I'm pretty sure the CO of those accused in Abu Ghraib was in it as well, just covered his ass better).
I'm not sure to whom you are referring?
The Commanding General, BG Karpinski, US Army Reserves, was relieved of command, demoted to Colonel, and subsequently retired.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteI'm fascinated now. What sacrifices did you make for your country? I understand 'a couple'. What were they?
None, dividing people by country is for idiots I thought this part was pretty clear.
QuoteSo just what do you believe in? if anything
There aren't any confusing messages in this thread - killing innocent people is terrorism for everyone and we do the most of it unless you wear glasses of Western exceptionalism.
QuoteQuoteSo just what do you believe in? if anything
There aren't any confusing messages in this thread - killing innocent people is terrorism for everyone and we do the most of it unless you wear glasses of Western exceptionalism.
Wow, talk about an outright LIE. If you had any idea how much planning and effort goes into minimizing civilian casualties, youd be gobsmacked. The difference between the US military and terrorists is that terrorists TARGET the civilian population to incite fear.
~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~
I think we all know what you have sacrificed...
Darius11 12
I have friends in the military who I care about, but I see your point and am always surprised when others seem to miss it.
Most of the people on here do not have a strong ethical backbone, and lack honesty.
If you simply change the names on any story they have the opposite opinion. Killing inocent people is bad and is terrorism but only when it’s done to us. When we do it Not only is it treated as an action that should be praised, but anyone who does not must be a traitor.
The hypocrisy is as clear as day for me, and I am always blown away by people who seem to casually change what’s right and wrong depending on who is doing the action and not the action it self.
I wish my morals were just as easily flexible, life would be so much easier. Ignorance is bliss.
For many it is easier to think of bad guys and good guy then to take the time to think and gather information to form an opinion.
Most of the people on here do not have a strong ethical backbone, and lack honesty.
If you simply change the names on any story they have the opposite opinion. Killing inocent people is bad and is terrorism but only when it’s done to us. When we do it Not only is it treated as an action that should be praised, but anyone who does not must be a traitor.
The hypocrisy is as clear as day for me, and I am always blown away by people who seem to casually change what’s right and wrong depending on who is doing the action and not the action it self.
I wish my morals were just as easily flexible, life would be so much easier. Ignorance is bliss.
For many it is easier to think of bad guys and good guy then to take the time to think and gather information to form an opinion.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
During first world war soldiers were told that this would be the war of all wars, so big and horrible that it would prevent any future war. While this idea certainly sounds pleasing and maybe even worth dying for (even to me and I am not prepared to die for sociological idea that we call Country) it was a lie... a big fat lie.
Then came another big one, even more horrible than the last one despite having restrictions on most "inhumane" (you gotta love it when someone distinguishes between humane and inhumane weapons) weapons such as gases and other non-discriminative shit.
Now the point of the WW2 was to free the world from fascist and social nationalist (nazi) threat. As far as I know idea of socialism is very much alive in just about every country in the world and is put to work even in the most "free" countries like US. Idea of nationalism seems even more popular these days. Combining the two is really not that hard and funny thing is we all know (or should know) how an experiment like that ends (Nazis are not the only example in our history).
Then we stumble upon "modern" wars where there is no such enemy as there used to be during "the big ones". The fact that US has been involved in majority of this conflicts does raise an eyebrow or two, but in the end it's just statistics and their involvement could be interpreted in different ways so lets not go into that now.
The point is that a guy (or gal) on the ground with a bullet in his/her head basically has no idea why they are even there. Sometimes they don't know who they fight and they definitely don't know why they fight (except for PR buzzwords like "freedom of speech" and "democracy" and other "meaningful" words).
Here is where I get puzzled. My understanding is that there is a part of population that values the idea of country above their life, part of population that loves discipline and order and there is definitely a part of population that just likes to kill shit.
The people that like to kill will kill any time, anywhere. No questions asked.
The people that like discipline and order will feel really really good if they'll be able to complete their orders and I can understand that this (selfish, egoistic and overall bad) feeling can overcome the reasonable choice not to kill fellow man unless they are trying to kill you (self-defence; not breaking into their house and expect coffee and a cookie).
Then you have the nationalists. The patriots. This group is (for me) most difficult to understand. They fight for an idea (surprisingly similar to the one today's terrorists fight for) with no regard to cost (either material or human lives).
I also can't understand why the phrase "if you don't want to get shot don't serve" got so much responses as it is nothing but logical conclusion. It's merely cause and effect.
The author of that phrase (at least I think it was him) then explained that there are many other ways of how to show your affection towards your country in a non-military way (so the chances of you dying are lower) and without killing other (often innocent but always forgotten) men. And he got shit for that too.
In the end I have to admit I have never served in the army. All I have to go is my fathers army career as an high ranking officer and most of my friends being stationed all over the most shittiest places on earth. Yet none of those has been able to come with a reasonable answer why do they do it (kill others and allow themselves to be killed) for no reason/reasons they do not know and will most likely never find out.
I also understand the comparison between terrorists and invading armies. Again I wouldn't put it as blunt but the point is the same. No-one should be allowed to just walk into my front yard with a gun and tell me what to do. Americans should be familiar with this concept even more according to the news.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites