"An' go to your Gawd like a soldier"

Kipling summed it up better than most but, of course, he has been out of fashion for decades so none of the semi-educated smart-arses who run our benighted country will have read him even assuming they have ever heard of him!

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

An' the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

It isn't just that it is my old lot who are taking casualties out there, although I confess it does strike home a touch when I see those proud, young faces with their hard-earned, red berets, but regular readers will know my deep aversion to the idea that we have anything to teach other people concerning their way of life.  However, setting that aside, our Victorian ancestors found out rather rapidly that Afghanistan was a 'no-no' and, indeed, the entire Soviet army re-learnt that lesson the hard way, so, why in God's name are we there?  Why are young British lives being thrown away on a futile and unwinnable campaign?  It doesn't make much difference if the Taliban take over because we can use B-52s, cruise missiles, even hit-and-run raids to smash any terrorist training camps they might build up.  Better still, we can always pop a Tomahawk missile down the flue of the Mosque favoured by members of the government.  I am always happy to put the boot into this government but now I am forced to swivel my aim in the direction of the General Staff, in general (no pun intended) and Gen. Sir Michael Jackson, in particular.  Dammit, he's an ex-Para, so what's he doing throwing away young 'Toms' on a totally futile exercise?  I'm not overly sentimental, if you take the Queen's shilling, you take the shit that comes with it, but you should be able to look to your officers to stand up for you in the face of political and military stupidity.

Post Script:  Max Hastings says it so much better than me in today's Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=394640&in_page_id=1787

Comments

[dearieme]

Yep, your modern version of sending a gunship would be a vast improvement on our present policy of providing the Afghans with target practice. As for the awfulness of the top brass: it reminds me of reading Max Hastings on Bomber Command - you'll remember how when the bombers saw action in 1939 and 1940, it revealed how brain-dead most of the RAF leadership had been between the two world wars.

[David Duff]

All too true, alas, but we must always remember that in a democracy we get the government we deserve, not least because we vote for it! In the 1930s much of the great British public was not minded to spend money on modern aircraft - no more than they are prepared today to spend more on the armed forces and less on so-called benefits. It was ever thus and as always it is 'Tom', 'Jack' and 'Biggles' who pay the butcher's bill!

[Lawrence Duff]

“…my deep aversion to the idea that we have anything to teach other people concerning their way of life.”

And if their way of life is predicated on the destruction of our way of life, we still have nothing to teach them?

“…our Victorian ancestors found out rather rapidly that Afghanistan was a 'no-no' and, indeed, the entire Soviet army re-learnt that lesson the hard way, so, why in God's name are we there? Why are young British lives being thrown away on a futile and unwinnable campaign?”

Afghanistan might have been the watershed of the Victorians’ hitherto successful campaign in bringing civilisation to the barbarians, but with a battalion or two - equipped only with the indomitable Lee Enfield - dotted around in countries the size of continents and to hold down a quarter of the planet for a century or two on that basis leads me, for some inexplicable reason, to cite Bruce Forsythe’s generation game one liner: “Didn’t they do well!” If Afghanistan in Victorian times had been the training camp for 10,000’s of people per annum hell-bent on and capable of exporting death and destruction to the Victorians’ own backyard, don’t you think they might have slipped a few more battalion’s in Afghanistan’s general direction and finished the job?

What the Soviet army faced was a different proposition: the same old savages, but rather than sporting Tommy Atkins’ left-over Lee Enfields, the barbarians boasted the training, equipment, logistics and supply of a super-power, the US, and its Western allies. The Soviets lost Afghanistan for the same reason the US lost Vietnam: because of the backing and sponsorship of their enemy by the opposing super-power (in the US’s case, two super-powers – USSR and China) and the engagement and pre-occupation of the main strength of their military machines on the other Cold War fronts.

What we face is a different proposition: the same old savages, sporting only the Russkies’ AK47 and RPG left-overs and no enemy super-powers under-writing their efforts or facing us off on other fronts.

And already, after only a handful of casualties, you think we’re losing and are going to lose? “Europe, thy name is cowardice”, wasn’t that the title of an article you admired enough to post about?

“It doesn't make much difference if the Taliban take over because we can use B-52s, cruise missiles, even hit-and-run raids to smash any terrorist training camps they might build up. Better still, we can always pop a Tomahawk missile down the flue of the Mosque favoured by members of the government.”

I’ve said before that aerial bombardments won’t deny an enemy their munitions and human ordnance factories, supported by all the historical observations of how ineffective warfare using this strategy has been for the task. You have to go in on the ground and hold it. Now that your brilliantly successful “raid them and run” tactic has seen the Islamo-fascists back to power in Somalia, we might be about to see what the “Missile down a Mosque flue” strategy brings? No prizes.

Incidentally, I see the Islamo-fascists have already set to work bringing their notion of civilisation to the Somali locals. : -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2222409,00.html

No music, no dancing, no football – under pain of death (and I read today in the Times that they have already shot dead some young lads who were watching a game of football in a café). Fucking savages. Liking music, dancing and football, as we do, it won’t be long before Islamo-fascist Somalia exports something that makes us wonder, yet again, whether “not bothering about other people’s ways of life” is an entirely sensible world-view.

Son of Duff

[David Duff]

After I've altered my Will leaving everything to my favourite charity - Duff's Poor Children's Beer Fund - I will reply later! :)

[Lawrence Duff]

As I am poor and the only child of Duff and happen to like beer, aren’t I the beneficiary either way!? :-)

Son of Duff

[David Duff]

Curses! Foiled again.

[dearieme]

Listen, young Duff, just you be glad that you've still got a father to flyte with.

[David Duff]

"Flyte"! Dearieme, that had me reaching for my OED but no sign of it there so I tried the Crystal's (father and son, appropriately) excellent Shakespearean glossary but no luck there either. Please put me out of my misery and gloss it for me. You're getting as bad as 'Curmudgeon' and his "fewtrils"!

Lawrence, you are allowing your gung-ho nature to overcome your good sense. It is precisely because the 18th and 19th century British imperialists were so good at, er, imperialism that it should give you pause to wonder quite why they failed in Afghanistan. Even more should you ask why, more recently, the Soviets failed. You can, if you like, blame (or praise) it on the assistance provided to the Afghanis by America but you should bear in mind that the Russians and Chinese are likely to return the favour if we attempt to outstay our welcome. Just face it, the bloody place is unconquerable - and anyway, what need is there for us to conquer it all? What is the point in developing all those long-range, pin-point missiles and fleets of bombers if we don't use them.

I would remind you that although the media, in their sublime ignorance, prattle on about the "ordinary Afghanis" and "the Taliban", the fact is that, say, 20 miles outside Kabul there is no discernable difference! Every man in the place carries, at the very least, a Kalashnikov. He holds strict Muslim views many of which entail the superiority of men over women. Thus it has been for centuries and thus it will be for ever - he hopes. And he certainly doesn't want a lot of heavy-booted westerners trampling around *his* country telling him they know better than him how to run his life. Nor, I might add, does he appreciate westerners telling him he must stop growing the only crop that guarantees him and his family a good standard of living (by his terms) because they, the westerners, lack the guts to deal with the drug problem in their own countries.

Afghani society seems to me to be like a country in which *every* single man is in the Territorial Army. In other words they're all part-time soldiers and you will never be able to discriminate between one or the other. In the morning its poppy sowing time and in the afternoon its bagging British 'Toms' time!

The idea that Britain can make even a gnat's worth of difference with one batallion battle group is, and I use the word advisedly, insane! And don't look round for any more to send because they aren't there - they're all in Iraq - another place we should never have stayed in. You should know our regimental history and its unfortunate habit of being dropped into untenable places! So should Gen. Jackson which is why he should have had the guts to tell Tony Blair that the British army is not for the use of politicians with huge conceits and vague aspirations to "do good".

I say again, our strategy should be to hit, hit very hard, and then run - but promise to come back again if they don't straighten up and fly right! Somalia was, as Afghanistan will be, a military defeat because the Americans hung around. We shall suffer the same fate in Afghanistan.

[dearieme]

Guid auld Scots word, David.
"flyte

Flite \Flite\, Flyte \Flyte\, n. [AS. fl[=i]t. See Flite.] Strife; dispute; abusive or upbraiding talk, as in fliting; wrangling. [Obs. or Scot. & Prov. Eng.]"

[David Duff]

With a surname like mine I should have known that! Thanks, Dearieme.

'SoD' should read Max Hastings in today's Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=394640&in_page_id=1787

[Lawrence Duff]

“Listen, young Duff, just you be glad that you've still got a father to flyte with.”

Thanks, Dearieme, but I’m sure you’ve detected that I’d rather have Pater around alive and kicking than an unlimited supply of Starobrno!

“It is precisely because the 18th and 19th century British imperialists were so good at, er, imperialism that it should give you pause to wonder quite why they failed in Afghanistan.”

The goodies on offer in other places around the world meant that the Victorians were quite right not to try too hard for Afghanistan; the effort offered better returns elsewhere, and being “good imperialists” they deployed their resources accordingly. If Afghanistan had been a treasure trove it might have been another matter. Or, more relevantly, if it had been a dangerous threat to life and property in our backyard, they would have subjugated the threat and stayed on top of it for the duration.

“Even more should you ask why, more recently, the Soviets failed. You can, if you like, blame (or praise) it on the assistance provided to the Afghanis by America but you should bear in mind that the Russians and Chinese are likely to return the favour if we attempt to outstay our welcome.”

With Chechnya in Russia’s backyard and Ningxia province in China’s, do you think it is in either of their interests to stir up our Islamo-Fascist problem? Each I-F success will release resources and impetus to the other fronts on which I-F is fighting or wishes to fight. While whole-hearted co-operation is unlikely, providing succour to our common enemy is equally unlikely.

“Just face it, the bloody place is unconquerable -…

Afghanistan is one of those states that Machiavelli classified as “easy to take but difficult to hold”, it being disunited and a patchwork of powerbases. It was easy to take – by both the Soviets and US – in the same way that Iraq was easy to take: by leveraging the competing powerbases who sought to benefit from the outcome (Shia in Iraq, Northern Alliance in Afghanistan). Machiavelli classified united states as “difficult to take but easy to hold”; their cohesive nature meaning they put up a whole-hearted resistance, but once the military is defeated and the ruling class eliminated, the people find it easy to accommodate the new proprietor.

It does require military resources and statecraft to hold a disunited state, but I don’t accept it is unwinnable - for example, the Taliban were getting there. We have a golden opportunity that is currently viewed as an obstacle: the poppy-crop. This unique product gives us a fast-track negotiating process with the most powerful but dispersed powerbase in Afghanistan: the landowners.

We must ditch the centrally planned reconstruction projects that can’t begin because of the security situation and will all be Socialistic, command-economy, failures anyway. We should use the money to buy the poppy-crop at farm-gate prices from the landowners, in exchange for co-operation against the Taliban. The landowners may be part or full-time warlords, who currently can’t make up their minds whether to back us or the Taliban, but once we are the customer paying the market rate and offering security, their minds will be made up. As you are fond of saying: “they might be bastards, but they will be *our* bastards”.

“…and anyway, what need is there for us to conquer it all?”

Ensuring that training camps that could export a 7/7 every month never get established again, is the need.

“What is the point in developing all those long-range, pin-point missiles and fleets of bombers if we don't use them.”

We should use them – in conjunction with ground forces to show the Afghan landlords what very good value the farm-gate price we are paying for their poppy-crop represents.

“He holds strict Muslim views many of which entail the superiority of men over women.”

Afghan society may be conservative, but stoning women to death for dancing and listening to music, depriving girls of an education and shooting lads for watching football were all Taliban imports.

“You should know our regimental history and its unfortunate habit of being dropped into untenable places.”

2:35am. Out of ammunition, God save the King.

Son of Duff

[Simon Holyhoses]

David, thank you for your comments over at our gaff.

Further to your last comment, yes, I can see the parallels in what is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It always strikes me as odd that there seems to be an absence of pragmatism when an area or a people has been unmanagable throughout history. Then some cocky young upstart of a superpower comes along thinking that it can succeed where others failed.

It's another instance of the fallacy that new is, de facto, better perhaps.

If a power like Rome, that had little in the way of an international conscience or accountability like modern powers are supposed to have, couldn't assert itself effectively, while things can change there's probably a lesson to be had in there somewhere.

[David Duff]

Before you are too harsh on "the cocky new super-power" you should at least acknowledge that there is, and often has been, within their foreign policy an idealistic streak. Your studies of WWI will have introduced you to president Wilson and his peculiar form of humbuggery. The neo-cons, many of them ex-Marxist/Socialists in their youth, are simply the most recent in a long line. People like Putin and Chirac can pursue their power politics without ever worrying unduly about the lack of morality, but Americans, and to a certain extent the British, too, do worry. It stems from their culture and it often leads them into terrible confusions, of which Iraq and Afghanistan are but recent examples. I am often beaten up on this and other sites for insisting that morality has no place in foreign affairs, not least because self interest is at least fairly easily defined.

[Simon Holyhoses]

Interesting. Yes, probably I was unfair.

Morality is a slippery thing and it's very easy to get punched on the nose while you are weighing up the pros and cons of whether something is right or not. This is a downside to applying your own rules in a conflict that doesn't otherwise have any codes of conduct.

I suppose that at least they are trying to find some compromise between doing the right thing and self interest, and that feels like it is a Good Thing. Accountability feels reassuringly Good too.

It's very difficult though to decipher what is "right" or what represents an "interest" and for whom, in these scenarios.

I'm not a believer in ethical objectivity. I don't think there's a single true morality out there waiting to be discovered.

Most people don't like that point of view. I don't know all of the reasons why you think that there is no place for morality in foreign affairs, David, but I can see that being moral when dealing with entities outside the scope of your own ethics can lead to contradictions between what is said and done, conflicts of interest, mistaken beliefs in being on moral high ground, and, frankly, dishonesty.

From a personal perspective I frequently contradict myself when it comes to ethics in terms of what I say and what I do. I don't usually feel guilty for it either. Tell you what though, I'm definately a Nazi when it comes to my views on other people's driving.