Parity and more ...

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Parity and more ...

Originally posted at 19:30 hrs Friday. Updated and reposted.


Sooner than we feared, another British soldier was reported killed in Afghanistan, bringing the number to three on the day and the total to 179.

Then, early in the afternoon, we began to get very strong rumours of many more in what was said to be a "major incident". By early evening, five more were said to have been killed, three seriously injured and three more less badly injured.

Early, unconfirmed reports said soldiers had sought cover from direct fire in a compound which was booby-trapped with an IED. Later reports suggested that troops had been ambushed after they had dismounted from their vehicle to investigate an explosion, and were hit by another IED and took casualties. More were killed and injured when the medevac Chinook arrived to pick up the original casualties. The tactics were said to be "sophisticated".

A different report, in The Daily Mail tells a different version, suggesting that after the first hit, "amid the chaos and appalling scenes, the Taleban is said to have opened fire with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades on the injured soldiers and those going to their aid."

Apache attack helicopters are then said to have been called in to strike at Taleban positions and provide cover as a rescue operation was launched with helicopters ferrying the wounded back to the field hospital at the main British base at Camp Bastion throughout the night.

The men, from the 2nd Bn, The Rifles, were reported to have been in the Sangin area - near Musa Qala. This is not part of the current OperationPanchai Palang (Panther's Claw), which is being carried out north of Lashkar Gah.

The official total for casualties since 2001 now rises to 184, exceeding the number 179, which was the death toll in Iraq. Predictably, The Guardian - commenting on the level when it reached 179 - said that the death was likely to intensify the debate about whether the Afghanistan operation is worthwhile.

The 179th reported killed was a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, said to have died in an explosion during an operation near Nad-e-Ali. He was from the same regiment as Trooper Joshua Hammond, who was killed last week in a Viking. 

The AP report at that time was headed, "The Climbing toll raises British doubts on Afghanistan" and cited Conservative MP Adam Holloway, a defence committee member. He said, "The casualties should fix peoples' minds on the fact that we've let the soldiers down ... The death toll means we should do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all."

He added that Britain had never had the troop strength needed to hold ground there and had failed to provide the promised security or reconstruction, leading many Afghans to believe the Taleban militants will outlast Western forces. "We're in a mess," he said.

Guthrie, according to Channel 4 News blames Gordon Brown who, as chancellor when Britain went into Helmand, had given "as little money to defence" as the Treasury could get away with.

And, in The Daily Mail, Doug Beattie, retired recently after 27 years in the Army, said: "Whether it's the 179th or the 200th, the soldier will not think twice about that number. They're just numbers - but every number and every name has a story behind it."

He added: "No soldier serving in Afghanistan will say, 'that's 179', they will say, 'that's my friend, that's my roommate, that's my commanding officer'. Very soon we are going to hit the 200 mark. The likelihood is before we leave Afghanistan we are going to hit the 500 mark - maybe even the 1,000 mark. But they are all false landmarks."

"For the politicians and for the Ministry of Defence," he then said, "public perception of the loss is crucial. For the soldiers on the ground, it won't matter."

However, despite the growing list of British fatalities, troops are continuing to push the enemy back on operation Panthers Claw. This is seen as a "crucial" operation for the security of Helmand.

The fighting had been "exceptionally arduous" with the threat from the Taliban roadside bombs "enormous", Lt-Col Simon Banton tells The Daily Telegraph.

Gordon Brown, who was attending the G8 summit in L'Aquila in Italy, admitted that the troops faced "a very hard summer". He said that there was no question of Britain pulling out until the international community had finished its mission.

COMMENT THREAD

Friday, July 10, 2009

A slight crack ...

Today, which may prove to be a turning point in more ways than one, saw a partial success by Sue Smith in her ongoing battle with the Ministry of Defeat to gain a proper inquiry into the use of the Snatch Land Rovers – in one of which her son, Private Phillip Hewett, was killed in al Amarah on 16 July 2005.

According to The Times and others, in the High Court, Mr Justice Mitting gave Susan Smith permission to bring a judicial review challenge to the decision of Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Minister, not to hold a public inquiry into the past use of these vehicles. 

This is, of course, only the first step in the proceedings. There must now be a full hearing, when the arguments will be heard as to whether the minister was wrong in rejecting demands for an inquiry. Only if that is successful will the current defence secretary – also Bob Ainsworth – be required to re-examine the grounds for rejecting an inquiry. Even then, he may simply move the goalposts and come up with new and additional reasons for a rejection.

Already, the battle lines have been re-drawn slightly in that the judge refused Sue permission to challenge the future use of the vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The minister did so on advice from military experts and his decision and reasons were "completely unimpeachable". 

But, as to past use, he said there were insufficient reasons given for their use and it was at least arguable that he should have granted a public inquiry. With 38 soldiers having been killed in Snatches, the minister had not given adequate reasons why they had not replaced by more heavily armoured vehicles.

Sue is, of course, delighted and, even if the case does not succeed in the full hearing, it is partial vindication of her stance and many others of us. There is a case to answer, a case the Army have insisted has already been answered – as indeed have ministers. It is a reflection of the paucity of their arguments that they so far have not prevailed.

In fact, they do not have a case in our view. The Army from the very first knew full well that the Snatch was not capable of protecting from the types of bomb being used against them, and that the countermeasures available were entirely ineffective. It was not a matter of chance, therefore – or of misfortune – that men were going to die. And although it was inevitable, the Army sent them out.

The rationale, at the time, was that the size of the Snatch was such that only it could reach all the places which needed patrolling and then that its profile was such that it was an essential part of the "hearts and minds" campaign which the Army thought would win over the insurgents.

Neither of those elements was true in Hewett's case and in many others. The ground his patrol was covering was later covered by Warriors and eventually Challenger tanks, when the situation had deteriorated still further. As for "hearts and minds", this was a "combat patrol" carried out in the small hours of the morning, in total darkness, aimed at deterring mortar attacks on the nearby base in Abu Naji.

Any reasonable outcome, had the patrol been successful in interdicting mortar teams, would have involved at the very least, a contact battle. And, as an offensive patrol, there was every expectation that the insurgents might seek to attack it. Thus, men were being sent to do battle in a flimsy Land Rover designed for the streets and lanes of Northern Ireland.

Whichever way the ministers and the Army now play it, their cards are marked. For too long, these arrogant and sometimes stupid fools have taken it upon themselves unnecessarily to send men out to die and then regarded themselves as above challenge. 

Sue Smith – not some grand General, or preening, over-paid politician – says otherwise. "This is not just for me," she says. "Several other families who lost sons also want to know why? I accept that this is just the first small step but it is nice to know we are being listened to." 

"Nice," is not quite the word I would have chosen, and I suspect Sue might have said something different out of the earshot of the reporters. But it is good enough.