Sunday, July 10, 2011

You what????

I do not believe we can win in Afghanistan, I do not believe we should be in that barbarous place, I believe that we should have gone in to be sure, but should have wrecked the terrorist training camps and their support mechanisms from one end of the country to the other killed every terrorist we could get our hands on and simply left. We should have then kept an eye on the place and if they attempted to rebuild, do the same again (including in Pakistan) ad infinitum. As we are there, I expected that we would deal with any problems in a robust manner. I would have been wrong of course.

British soldiers who spot Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs are told not to shoot them because they do not pose an immediate threat, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.
They are instead being ordered to just observe insurgents and record their position to reduce the risk of civilian casualties.
The controversial policy emerged at an inquest into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier from the 2nd Batallion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Wendy Rayner, 40, disclosed that in the days leading up to his death her husband been told that it was not his job to attack insurgents laying bombs.
Mrs Rayner, who lives with their young son in Bradford, told the inquest that the insurgents were being allowed to get away with the murder of British troops.
She said: “They are not allowed to fire on these terrorists. If they can see people leaving these IEDs, why can’t they take them out? One officer even told him 'I am an army Captain and you will do your job'.
"We have lost too many men out there, they had seen people planting IEDs yet could not open fire or make contact with them. I believe strongly if people had taken on board what he was saying more he might have been here today.” 
Under the Geneva Convention and the nationally administered Rules of Engagement the 9,500 British troops in Afghanistan are told they can only attack if there is an immediate threat to life.
I would have said that planting an IED would have been an immediate threat to life as the next person past it would have been killed or maimed. Besides, these people need to learn if they do this sort of thing, there are consequences and the terrorists there certainly do not follow the Geneva Convention and the nationally administered Rules of Engagement so neither should we. They will kill our troops given any opportunity, the only thing they really understand is strength and we appear to be anything but strong. No, I'm not advocating random violence nor reprisals, though I do believe there might be a case for reprisals but anyone seen planting a bomb should simply be shot pour encourager les autres, to coin a phrase.
Our troops have a hard enough job on their hands as it is, our idiotic politicians, the U.N. and the Ministry of defence have hobbled them and tied one hand behind their backs by insisting on civilised rules for dealing with barbarians.
Either let loose the dogs of war or leave, what we are doing now will never work in a million years.

3 annotations:

Tattyfalarr said...

"Either let loose the dogs of war or leave."

Yep but airlift the women and children out of there and leave the men to fight/abuse/oppress each other to their hearts content. Give the women and children a taste of a free life and see if they want to go back.

O/T but your Live Traffic Feed is rubbish. I am not from London ;)

Quiet_Man said...

The live traffic feed works off your IP address which is linked to your provider, it occasionally put me in Southampton :D and has to do with where your provider gives you an outlet

JuliaM said...

"Yep but airlift the women and children out of there and leave the men to fight/abuse/oppress each other to their hearts content."

That rather assumes that the women and children are all angels and it's all the fault of the menfolk. I can't help but feel it's more complicated than that...