# "Prepare for casualties" as new offensive begins in Afghanistan.



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2010)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tsOutRisksAndBenefitsOfOperationMoshtarak.htm


"O Lord, thou knowest how busy I must be this day; if I forget thee, do not thou forget me."

 [Prayer before Battle of Edgehill, 1642]
Sir Jacob Astley


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 8, 2010)

.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 8, 2010)

> "O Lord, thou knowest how busy I must be this day; if I forget thee, do not thou forget me."


 
Outstanding.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Outstanding.
> 
> Deaf


 

It's the soldier's prayer, there are no atheists under fire.

Half my Wednesday class are out there, the rest follow over the next few weeks with the rest of the Brigade.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 9, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It's the soldier's prayer, there are no atheists under fire.


 
That remark reminds me....

An old gent who lived near my parents house when I was little was known as 'Tuney' Grey. He drove his car like a bat out of... down the road all the time.

Well one day when my mother remarked, "there are no atheists in a fox hole" he looked at her and told her that was the truth.

For you see, he was in the Navy in WW2. A coxswain on a Higgins invasion barge in the Pacific. He took part in several invasion, including Iwo Jima.

He said when you heard the machinegun fire hitting the outside of the barge, knowing when you dropped the ramp those bullets would be coming in, well there were no atheists there.

I understand it's about to get hot in Afghanistan and I pray our GIs come back with their shields held high in victory and not on them. And if they are to busy to talk to the Lord, I'll do some talking for them.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2010)

Deaf, you and me both.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 10, 2010)

.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Feb 10, 2010)

A curious media/psychological campaign going on here.

Anyhow...  Go get 'em.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> A curious media/psychological campaign going on here.



That's interesting.  What do you mean by that?

Anyway, I hope our deal leaders will put an end to this insanity soon.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Feb 10, 2010)

They've been really advertising this operation in the media, which is interesting.  The conventional logic is that they want everyone to know, so that the non-combatants leave the area, although that doesnt seem to be happening in quite the numbers expected.  This being partly due to the IED threat, and possibly taliban pressure - leave and we shoot you.  

Makes you wonder if there is more to it, it's an unusual thing to do, warn of casualties before they occur.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> They've been really advertising this operation in the media, which is interesting. The conventional logic is that they want everyone to know, so that the non-combatants leave the area, although that doesnt seem to be happening in quite the numbers expected. This being partly due to the IED threat, and possibly taliban pressure - leave and we shoot you.
> 
> Makes you wonder if there is more to it, it's an unusual thing to do, warn of casualties before they occur.


 
Certainly is. The situation here is also odd, we have a General Election at some point this year and the inquiry into the war in Iraq isn't go well as far as the present government is concerned. The deaths are mounting in Afghan, it's now more than the Falklands total. Today it was announced that casualties are stretching the medical service here, this government closed the military hosptials so all wounded are going into the civilian system, so wrong. I don't think many appreciated how many injured there were coming back, the deaths are announced but not the wounded. 
Elsewhere in the government three MPs have been arrested for theft, fiddling their expenses so at the moment Labour don't look like winning the next election. I'm wondering if the government thinks if it warns us of casualties we won't blame them somehow! It may be a nasty political move by a desperate Labour government.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...igadePreparesForholdingPhaseOfOpMoshtarak.htm

(4 Mech is 'my' lot)

The other reason could be that Afghan troops are supposed to be heavily involved so perhaps the Allies are trying to show that Afghanistan is trying to take control of its own affairs? It could be a 'show'  to persuade the other Muslim countries like Pakistan etc that we are allowing the Afghans to take control of their own affairs.

To be honest I just wish we were all out of there.


----------



## teekin (Feb 10, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Certainly is. The situation here is also odd, we have a General Election at some point this year and the inquiry into the war in Iraq isn't go well as far as the present government is concerned. The deaths are mounting in Afghan, it's now more than the Falklands total. Today it was announced that casualties are stretching the medical service here, this government closed the military hosptials so all wounded are going into the civilian system, so wrong. I don't think many appreciated how many injured there were coming back, the deaths are announced but not the wounded.
> Elsewhere in the government three MPs have been arrested for theft, fiddling their expenses so at the moment Labour don't look like winning the next election. I'm wondering if the government thinks if it warns us of casualties we won't blame them somehow! It may be a nasty political move by a desperate Labour government.
> 
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...igadePreparesForholdingPhaseOfOpMoshtarak.htm
> ...


 
Amen Tez. I just want everyone home safe and sound. No more honor guard funerals.
lori


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 10, 2010)

I want them to come home safe. I want them alive. I pray for that.

But I want them to WIN. I mean WIN. No half measure. No politicians stopping short of victory. 

We are going to lose people, no way around that, but if you have to, at least WIN. Defeat the enemy.

Failure to win will just mean their lives were lost for nothing. Their sacrifice was for nothing. Their blood was just to make politicians happy. Failure to win and one day we will have to go in there again and do it under worse conditions.

I just hope our governments roll up their sleeves and go out to defeat the enemy. There really is no substitute for victory.

I do not fear our soldiers leaving their shields behind. I fear our leaders will be the ones to cut and run. And I pray that won't happen.

Deaf


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> I want them to come home safe. I want them alive. I pray for that.
> 
> But I want them to WIN. I mean WIN. No half measure. No politicians stopping short of victory.



The problem is that no one can agree on what winning looks like.  That's a recipe for disaster because the objectives are constantly shifting.  This is one of the reasons our Founding Fathers wanted Congress to declare war on an enemy and set those clear objectives.  

We are engaged in an undeclared war that is soaking up billions of taxpayer money.  That's good for the Military Industrial Complex the profiteer parasites, but it defies the ultimate law of the land.  The end result is an abuse to the oath our soldiers took and its a measure of what our politicians think of them that they are put into this position.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 11, 2010)

Actually, the war in afghanistan was declared by congress according to wikipedia. It's just that there was no thought spent on what was supposed to happen after the taliban army were beaten. So now the fighting continues and noone has a clue on how to proceed.

What doesn't help is that there is a sizable party attacking the US and UN soldiers, simply for occupying the country. Killing those people (while understandable) does nothing to solve the problem because now their relatives and friends have an axe to grind as well.

Personally, I think the best approach would be to annihilate the taliban (which still represent the original enemy and continue fighting to this day) in a shock and awe campaign and get the hell out. Otherwise, Afghanistan will just be a new Vietnam.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Actually, the war in afghanistan was declared by congress according to wikipedia...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

The last formal declaration of war made by the US was in WWII.  Congress authorized military force, but did not declare war.  The legality of the war is thus in question according to the US Constitution.  

That aside, I think we agree that there aren't any real clear objectives.  If we are going to defeat the Taliban, well no one can figure out what that looks like.  IMO, it all goes back to the original authorization for the use of military force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

We never defined what we wanted to do and this act has been used to introduce all sorts of quasi police state powers into the US...its insanity and it tears up our founding documents.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 11, 2010)

i believed it in 2001 and i believe it now.

this is going to be another vietnam. there is not going to be a 'win' by the us or its allies.

us thinks there is a this one spot and if they take this spot they got 'base of operation' They're kidding themselves. A big terrorist group like this doesnt NEED just one spot for a 'base' They are being funded by the civvies. What are the us gonna do, blat the civillian population, cause they fund them? the us sucks when it comes to guerilla warfare.

why didnt the us learn a lesson from vietnam, or that useless war in sri lanka against the LTTE?

The us dont know much about terrorism.

and the fact they're are helping to create hatred against them, not solve it. They are inivertently giving terrorists weapons. That is not to say I think they deserve to have planes flown into their buildings. But ordinary hatred - the US asks for it in a lot of cases IMO.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Feb 11, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8511187.stm



Nulli Secundus.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The problem is that no one can agree on what winning looks like.


 
That's easy. Taliban all dead, Al Qaeda all dead, Afghanistan another Iraq.

Yes I know what is left of Al Qaeda can run to another country, like Yemen, but like Iraq, one country at a time.

This 'war on terror' is going to take a century, just as it took a century to bring it to this level. We let it get this far out of hand by our own spineless behavior when confronted with such people.

But right now it's Afghanistan that's on the plate, and we need to WIN.

Cause if you don't win here, then where?

Deaf


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> That's easy. Taliban all dead, Al Qaeda all dead...



Who is Al Qaeda?  Who is a Taliban?  To say that we have a loose definition of who these people are is an understatement.  We'd basically have to genocide the place if we are going to fit this criteria for winning.  Not even Ghengis Khan could do that...




Deaf Smith said:


> Afghanistan another Iraq.



I see your point, however, I'd also like to point out that these are two different countries with completely different histories and people.  I have a friend who is in Afghanistan right now building a school so he's getting a first hand glimpse into what the culture is like.  There's no way Afghanistan can be another Iraq.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Who is Al Qaeda? Who is a Taliban? To say that we have a loose definition of who these people are is an understatement. We'd basically have to genocide the place if we are going to fit this criteria for winning. Not even Ghengis Khan could do that...


 
Taliban used to run Afghanistan. I have no doubt their leaders are well known to the U.S. government. They didn't hide. During WW2 we hosted the Free French, and their shadow government declaired war on German.

Al Qaeda? Some guy named Osama bin Laden. Seems he has even gotten on TV alot proclaiming his cause. And his underlings are well known to and have been on TV to. Many of those that work for Osama have been identified.

And idiots like the underwear bomber brag that they are members of Al Qaeda and who am I to object?

These groups declaire war. And their form of war targets civilians on purpose. That is one of the definitions of 'unlawful enemy combatants'. 

As for 'The Powerline' Blog. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025574.php

In 1942, German saboteurs landed on Long Island and in Florida. That they were eventually captured by the FBI did not stop President Franklin Roosevelt from directing that they be treated as *unlawful enemy combatants*. They were ultimately tried before a military commission in Washington and executed. Their status had nothing to do with who held them, and their treatment was upheld in all respects by the Supreme Court. 

This SCOTUS court case was called the Ex Parte Quirin and SCOTUS decided it was quite legal.

So yes we are at war and the enemy does not abide by the rules of war and thus are to not be treated by the same rules as those who signed the conventions.

What happens in Afghanistan will take time. LOTS of time. And Afghanistan does not have to be a mirror image of Iraq. It takes quite a bit of time to turn a feudal system into something more like ours.

Deaf


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 14, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> These groups declaire war. And their form of war targets civilians on purpose. That is one of the definitions of 'unlawful enemy combatants'.
> 
> As for 'The Powerline' Blog. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025574.php
> 
> ...



The case you refer to was upheld because they came to your country to commit an act of war. Whether you like it or not: In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is the occupier and they are in their own home country. they are trying to kick you out. Different scenario, kinda like how various organizations tried to kick the English out of Northern Ireland. They had many US sympathizers too... And of course, the English never left either.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 14, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> The case you refer to was upheld because they came to your country to commit an act of war. Whether you like it or not: In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is the occupier and they are in their own home country. they are trying to kick you out. Different scenario, kinda like how various organizations tried to kick the English out of Northern Ireland. They had many US sympathizers too... And of course, the English never left either.


 
It's always been a great bone of contention just how much support for the terrorists in the form of money and arms came from the Americans.
The Northern Ireland situation has been going on for centuries, it's not settled now there are still terrorist attacks. It's an awful thing to lay on your children, your children's children and their children that you started a war you can't end.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 14, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It's always been a great bone of contention just how much support for the terrorists in the form of money and arms came from the Americans.
> 
> The Northern Ireland situation has been going on for centuries, it's not settled now there are still terrorist attacks. It's an awful thing to lay on your children, your children's children and their children that you started a war you can't end.



People are acting crazy no matter the culture or skin color.


----------

