Intensity of Fighting in Afghanistan

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes friendly fire has been reduced. In WW2 I believe it was estimated at 12 to 20 percent of the casualties were friendly fire. In Iraq and Afganistan I believe I saw a report that puts friendly fire casualties at 4 percent.

[plan_D]

But back to Afghanistan, the British have encountered some real opposition for once. Whatever has happened, has made the Taliban and insurgency come out in force. I am getting the idea that the British troops are doing their job out there, but they're missing the vital equipment (i.e ammo!) to have the done job properly.

Because the spotlight is on Iraq, this unexpected surge has caught the Coalition unawares. And something really needs to be done about it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think for the most part the whole coalition in Afganistan is doing the right thing and getting the job done.

Here is the latest talley on coalition soldiers killed in Afganistan and by what country:

Military Fatalities By Country:

Australia 1
Canada 42
Denmark 3
France 9
Germany 18
Italy 9
Netherlands 4
Norway 1
Portugal 1
Romania 4
Spain 19
Sweden 2
UK 40
US 343

Total 496

[pbfoot]

Our guys certainly have their hands full but I am curious as to why the casualties are high is it because of the area we are in Khandahar or bad tactics

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The area that the Brits are in is very high with Taliban activity.

[ndicki]

Look on the bright side - that's the sort of figures the Sovs were taking per MONTH!

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The area that the Brits are in is very high with Taliban activity.

I think we the Canadians have the tougher slog not to demean anyone but our Commanders have stated they are dismayed by some other NATO forces who are restricted as to the type of Ops they are allowed . Some of the NATO forces are restricted in not being allowed to engage at night or are restricted geographically to "tamer" areas

[plan_D]

While it is true that some countries are restricting their troop operations; Britain are not. The British, U.S and Canadians are all in the thick of it. And it seems British troops are the ones without any support from the government, despite all the words.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by plan_D

But back to Afghanistan, the British have encountered some real opposition for once. Whatever has happened, has made the Taliban and insurgency come out in force. I am getting the idea that the British troops are doing their job out there, but they're missing the vital equipment (i.e ammo!) to have the done job properly.

Because the spotlight is on Iraq, this unexpected surge has caught the Coalition unawares. And something really needs to be done about it.

Don't automatically assume that increased action and losses indicate that the battle is going bad. I have heard politicians say that, because attacks are going up, or casualities are increasing, we are losing the war. Many times, in warfare, as the enemy is fatally threatened, intensity increases dramatically, attacks increase and damage increases. The slaughter at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the Battle of the Bulge, was not an indication that the Allies were losing the war but rather the Axis was getting desperate and was making every effort to fend off defeat. Even in the wild, the word is, beware a trapped animal.

[plan_D]

I don't believe the war is being lost in any sense, not a single unit has been dislodged in Afghanistan. However like in the Ardennes Offensive, the Allies did not prepare for the surge in violence. The British government more so is not equipping it's troops properly and this is causing more losses.

The war is being won but at a higher human cost because the British government is not willing to put in the pounds to save the lives. Not only would it save lives but also speed up the victory process.

[mkloby]

this is the recurring theme in one of the other threads. Question for the Brits - which party is opposing the funding of such things as helos as mentioned there?

[Glider]

The Labour Party. Tony Blair has said that whatever the troops need they will get, but so far nothing has been ordered or delivered.

[mkloby]

Has opposition put forth any proposals to increase funding, or has labour voted against and shot them down? I really don't know much at all about British politics.