US Pressure for Irish troops and gardai help in Afghanistan

[Victor]

And I was on the very first trip there- just in case.

In 1853?

[SwiftandSure]

Afghanistan has become like a military Mecca, drawing in those who seek to test their dedication; whether it's to their faith, their country, their unit, their comrades, or even just their own training and skills.

I can understand the need to be tested in contact, I've never fired a round in anger, but there's always going to be a part of me that wishes that one day I'll be put to the test. But let's not allow the lure of battle cloud the justification for war.

Afghanistan, for all the battles won, is a war all but lost.

The West have lost the initiative there, now the insurgency have the upper hand, and are prepared to play the long game. A game the West can't afford to play. We can kill all the insurgents/Taliban/AQ/10 Bob-a-day gun-slingers we find in Afghanistan, but more will come from Pakistan.

The only people that can control the Afghanis is the Afghanis themselves, and that doesn't necessarily mean the Afghanis the West put in place to control Afghanistan either.

I by no means hope to discredit all those who have fought and continue to fight in Afghanistan. I have nothing but respect for them. The soldiers shouldn't be seen in a bad light in this case; for it is the political puppetry that has undermined the campaign, not the professionalism of the military/police/security forces on the ground.

Ireland has no reason to be in Afghanistan. If we want to contribute to Global War On Terror, then let's take a more aggressive stance against home-grown terrorism, or go elsewhere in the world where terrorism is writhe and hosted by unstable states, like Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia, or Sudan, to name a few places.

Afghanistan isn't the be all, end all of the GWOT. Terrorist attacks on Western nations is an inevitability, a matter of when, not if, and no amount of bombing the shite out of Helmund is going to prevent it.

[Aidan]

Victor, Hedgehog is so old, he probably means he was there with Alexander the Great in 326BC.

To be fair, it's not as if the Wikileaks article is suggesting that the US were looking for a Battalion scale deployment - just a small number of Officers and NCOs to help train the Afghan Army. That probably could have been arranged -after all, PDF troops were involved in training soldiers in Africa in the same period.

The issues associated with a larger deployment are more complex. Even if the DF is equiped and resourced to actually do it (and I'm not qualified to judge if they are or not), there a load of political problems here with actually sending Irish troops into what is regarded as an unpopular and largely unwinnable 'war' - it's just part of our political culture to avoid this. This is partly to do with a pathetic post-colonialism, and partly out of narrow self interest - after all, our presence there would be unlikely to have a material effect on the outcome given the scale of the resources that NATO have been pouring into the country, so why spend our blood and treasure to no end?

That said, there is another moral element to this as well - the threat posed to the west by Islamic fundamentalists is small, but it is real, and it affects countries regardless of political vanities like 'neutrality'. Helping to drain the swamp that is Afghanistan does have a measurable effect on the security of our citizens, and on the stability of the global economy.

[DeV]

The West have lost the initiative there, now the insurgency have the upper hand, and are prepared to play the long game. A game the West can't afford to play. We can kill all the insurgents/Taliban/AQ/10 Bob-a-day gun-slingers we find in Afghanistan, but more will come from Pakistan.

The West never had the initiative the coalition were unwilling to put substantial numbers of troops on the ground in the first place to defeat the Taliban (instead using local forces, SF troops and airpower). The West are unwilling to play the long game, they are unwilling to put the required numbers of troops on the ground, decentralise deployment and win the hearts and minds (as required for counter-insurgency).

Terrorist attacks on Western nations is an inevitability, a matter of when, not if, and no amount of bombing the shite out of Helmund is going to prevent it.

And the more innocent Afghans that get killed in Helmund, the more terror attacks there will be as it fuels it.

To be fair, it's not as if the Wikileaks article is suggesting that the US were looking for a Battalion scale deployment - just a small number of Officers and NCOs to help train the Afghan Army. That probably could have been arranged -after all, PDF troops were involved in training soldiers in Africa in the same period.

It article goes through the potential reasons why a training element wouldn't be deployed problems with eg CASEVAC, logs support, rotations and most importantly security (remember that there have been a number of cases of the Afghans turning on their trainers).

The Irish troops that were training Somali soldiers were training them in Uganda (not Somalia).

[SwiftandSure]

The West never had the initiative the coalition were unwilling to put substantial numbers of troops on the ground in the first place to defeat the Taliban (instead using local forces, SF troops and airpower). The West are unwilling to play the long game, they are unwilling to put the required numbers of troops on the ground, decentralise deployment and win the hearts and minds (as required for counter-insurgency).

Actually Dev, you'll find that the unconventional warfare approach adopted by US SF was working.

Karzai, once infiltrated into Helmund with ODA 574 was credited among the Afghanis with the Taliban surrender of Kandahar. Whilst the Northern Alliance/United Front, supported by US SF, made significant progress in Kabul and most of the country. It was an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem.

Deploying thousands of Western troops only united the Afghanis regardless of tribal loyalty against a common foreign enemy. Repeating the same mistakes made by Russia, and Britain before them.

[RoyalGreenJacket]

I dont know about your gang RGJ because I am not in it- but the ways its looked at here is- before we risk Irish Soldiers- it should be asked- is it a worthwhile sacrifice.

so what makes Irish lives anymore precious than any other nations?

what makes your UN missions anymore worthwhile than an ISAF mission?

you are already sacrificing soldiers - if an Irish soldiers dies in Lebanon, was his death more worthwhile than a soldier in Afghanistan?

maybe that bo||ox helps you sleep easier at night but it doesn't wash.

[Jungle]

The West have lost the initiative there, now the insurgency have the upper hand.

Care to explain that ? Because that's not what I'm seeing here; we are 1 month into the fighting season, and the insurgents are short of material ressources (due to our Clear ops of the winter) and have restricted freedom of movement. They are unable to mount a coordinated, aggressive campaign this year. Most of the IEDs we find now are small, hastily-laid DFCs. Most contacts are quick hit-and-runs by small groups, who fire a few shots and an RPG, then vanish into the grape fields. The ANSF will be ready to take over security in 2014; by that time, the insurgency will likely be marginalized, much like organized crime is in our societies and like the IRA is in your country. In fact, some ANA units have started to plan and mount operations on their own, without mentors or partners. And they are successful.

Remember the vast majority of insurgencies reach a tipping point, where they lose the support of most of the population. That point will likely be reached next year.

But if Ireland is ever in trouble and asks for help, we will gladly send 7 personnel to work in your HQ...

[hedgehog]

maybe that bo||ox helps you sleep easier at night but it doesn't wash.

Does sentiments like - send them over the top- or The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori helps you sleep at night- If so I wouldnt call it bollix, I would respect your sentiments.

If so fine- thinking of Sharon Ni Bhriaolan helps me sleep at night- what heps me to have a peaceful sleep is the fact that no Irish Soldier is going to be sacrificed on a battlefield to help clear up the mess made by other countries failed diplomacy.

It is your mess mate- there fore you get to clean it up and I pray everynight that I dont have to read updates in your RIP postings of young British lads.

so what makes Irish lives anymore precious than any other nations?

Because they are Irish lives- plain and simple.

what makes your UN missions anymore worthwhile than an ISAF mission?

Because they are Missions we chose to go into- not ones we were pressurised into- but Missions we beleive in.

you are already sacrificing soldiers - if an Irish soldiers dies in Lebanon, was his death more worthwhile than a soldier in Afghanistan?

Thats the point mate- we are not sacrificing Soldiers- we are sending them out- inevitabley Soldiers die- but its not a sacrifice.

[hedgehog]

But if Ireland is ever in trouble and asks for help, we will gladly send 7 personnel to work in your HQ...

Actually we were in trouble and not only did you not send anyone to help - you also sided with our occupying power-

And in the treaty of Versailles- you know the one to help small Nations, well Canada was one of the votes that specifically excluded Ireland from the talks-

But thats in the past and we forgive you-

[DeV]

Actually Dev, you'll find that the unconventional warfare approach adopted by US SF was working.

Karzai, once infiltrated into Helmund with ODA 574 was credited among the Afghanis with the Taliban surrender of Kandahar. Whilst the Northern Alliance/United Front, supported by US SF, made significant progress in Kabul and most of the country. It was an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem.

Deploying thousands of Western troops only united the Afghanis regardless of tribal loyalty against a common foreign enemy. Repeating the same mistakes made by Russia, and Britain before them.

For a counter-insurgency you need boots on the ground where the people live and not to commute to war and end up fighting for the same ground repeatedly.... it worked eventually in Iraq!

so what makes Irish lives anymore precious than any other nations?

what makes your UN missions anymore worthwhile than an ISAF mission?

you are already sacrificing soldiers - if an Irish soldiers dies in Lebanon, was his death more worthwhile than a soldier in Afghanistan?

maybe that bo||ox helps you sleep easier at night but it doesn't wash.

Irish lives are more precious to Irish people, same that British lives are more precious to British people

ISAF is a UN mandated mission, hence we can participate

The ANSF will be ready to take over security in 2014; by that time, the insurgency will likely be marginalized, much like organized crime is in our societies and like the IRA is in your country. In fact, some ANA units have started to plan and mount operations on their own, without mentors or partners. And they are successful.

The Taliban continues to threaten locals for their support/help/to keep quiet.

We are to assume that the ANSF aren't doped up, abusing children, not Taliban etc etc

[SwiftandSure]

Care to explain that ?

Sure, although I do feel uncomfortable debating this with you of all our board members, having never stepped foot in Afghanistan myself. As you know yourself, in military circles, if one party hasn't toured the AO, and the other has, it's usually a case of STFU. But this is the internet, where we can all be swivel chair warriors

The West ousted the Taliban (I'll use "Taliban" to mean all insurgent groups) in 2001, then the West took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan and concentrated on Iraq. Then the Taliban got a master class in guerilla warfare from the insurgency in Iraq.

Since then, the Western campaign is suffering a death by a thousand cuts. While your AO may well be secure, places like the Korangral Valley have had to be abandoned due to the overwhelming insurgency. If you kill a hundred of them, no one really cares. If they kill one of you, they'll exploit it, and you lose a little more public support back home and with that, the political backing that supports you.

The Taliban now realise that they don't need to beat you militarily, they just need you to exhaust your own resources and political backing. Maybe that's why your AO is quieter this year, because they know that next year or the year after, you'll be on the way out. Once you're gone, taking your technological advantage with you, they'll flood the vacuum left behind.

The ANA / ANP recruits aren't being properly vetted and churned out of basic training at a rate that is operationally ineffective. With student/teacher ratios around the 200:1 mark, where many students are illiterate and speak different languages being taught by English speaking instructors through the medium of interpretors , you can't seriously be hoping that within 10 weeks, the ANA are up to the required standard to secure Afghanistan by themselves?

The initiative has been lost, because no matter what the West does now, the inevitability is that when it leaves Afghanistan, it'll leave behind a government of little credibility, supported by a security force that is woefully inadequate and no doubt riddled with Taliban sympathisers. It'll then be left fighting an insurgency who have successfully combated the most powerful combined nation armies in the world, and not relented, but instead evolved and adapted. Civil war will follow, and the West will do it's best to distance itself from the clusterfúck left behind.

But if Ireland is ever in trouble and asks for help, we will gladly send 7 personnel to work in your HQ...

Fair one

[trellheim]

Personally ( and I think this robust debate is essential ) I am reminded of that scene in "They Died With Their Boots On" where the southerners are kicked out of West Point due to the Civil War about to start where the commandant of West Point says to the Senator.

" We don't concern ourselves with the making of wars here , Senator, just the fighting of them".

Fine Gael policy on this should be interesting.

[SwiftandSure]

For a counter-insurgency you need boots on the ground where the people live and not to commute to war and end up fighting for the same ground repeatedly.... it worked eventually in Iraq!

Dev, it wasn't a counter insurgency mission initially, it was a regime change mission. The boots on the ground were predominantly Afghan supported by the US and UK SF. The previous regime surrendered, a new regime was available to fill the void with a public figurehead who had international and local tribal support, Hamid Karzai.

All would have gone swimmingly, until thousands of Western troops landed, started fúcking shit up and turned the whole nation against them.

If there was a conflict between rival factions in Ireland and a foreign force came into to "sort it out" what to you think the outcome would be? ...........oh wait..............

[SwiftandSure]

it worked eventually in Iraq!

Did it?

Here's today's news from Baghdad:

Baghdad:
#1: A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol wounded four people, including two policemen, in central Baghdad's Karrada district, an interior ministry source said.

#2: A sticky bomb attached to the car of a government employee exploded, wounding him and two passers-by in the Binoog district of northern Baghdad, an interior ministry source said.

#3: Gunmen using silenced weapons attacked Interior Ministry Colonel Mussab Kamil and his family, wounding the colonel and his wife and killing their son in the Jamiaa district of western Baghdad, the interior ministry source said.

Source: http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com/

[RoyalGreenJacket]

what heps me to have a peaceful sleep is the fact that no Irish Soldier is going to be sacrificed on a battlefield to help clear up the mess made by other countries failed diplomacy.

as a veteran of UN operations Hedgy - i find that utterly hypocritical that you have the audacity to say that Irish troops are not deployed as you put it "to help clear up the mess made by other countries failed diplomacy" - that is EXACTLY what the UN does!

besides - the Irish DF are already in Afghanistan and you have been there too - you can't really sit back and criticise and say you shouldn't be there when you have already been there!

by the way - you are a lovely bloke Hedgie and it's nothing personal.