"It is with great sadness..."
The deaths of three more British soldiers in Afghanistan were announced by the Ministry of Defence last night.
This brings the number of UK service personnel killed so far in the conflict to 204. With some predictions that there could be a British military presence in the country for 30 or 40 years, how are you feeling about the war as more troops lose their lives?
Earlier this morning, Phil Williams spoke to our defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt who is with troops in Helmand province and asks how they were feeling about the rising death toll. Plus, Shelagh Fogarty spoke to Major Roddy Sutherland, officer commanding of a new Army recovery centre in Edinburgh. Have a listen below.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
We'll be talking about this on the Breakfast phone-in this morning with Shelagh.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
Subscribe to 5 live Breakfast
You can stay up to date with 5 live Breakfast via these feeds.
5 live Breakfast Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Podcast
5LNPI: Do you have sympathy for Gary McKinnon?
10:21 Fri, 27 Nov 09
Do you have sympathy for Gary McKinnon? He's the British computer hacker who could be sent to the US to face trial. He's admitted to hacking into American military computers, and has since been diagnosed with a form of autism.
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
What exactly will you be talking about on the phone-in? "Oh, dear - another soldier has died in war." Sad, but that is what happens - it goes with the job - remember; we've no conscription in this country. No-one is obliged to serve. They do it by choice and doubtless understand what they're getting into.
All you'll get is the usual navel-gazing armchair generals and Guardian readers denigrating our troops and criticising their actions - again. All the while, these people will conveniently overlook that it is not the army that decides where it goes and why but it is the government, in the form of the Labour Party (for a few more months, at least), of which the denigraters will have voted for, that sends them.
Complain about this comment
New Labour are justifying being in Afghanistan because the population are under threat from Islamic ‘terrorists’.
Does this mean that Brown want to invade every country in the world which is in a similar situation?
Or just those dominated by unpleasant regimes?
We should not be in Afghanistan! We only have a problem with terrorists because Blair and Bush went to war in Iraq!
Michael
Complain about this comment
why did bob ainsworth have the need to lie during shelaghs interview?
- the taliban have never attacked the usa.
the usa have never provided any hard evidence that bin laden or al qaeda were responsible for 9/11.
the taliban offered to hand over bin laden if such evidence was forthcoming, instead we along with the usa attacked afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
Tempus - you were right.
Complain about this comment
Ta, Zelly.
I heard someone saying that his son died because of a lack of "basic" equipment - like night-vision goggles.
One has to wonder how we ever managed to defeat the Nazis, or the North Koreans, etc. as we didn't have NVGs then, either. They didn't exist. The Taliban fight in sandles, dish-dashas and turbans with an assault rifle and/or rocket launcher. They've next to no heavy weapons any more - and the instant they acquire any, like artillery, one of our aeroplanes drops a bomb on it. Meanwhile, our troops have camouflage uniforms, vehicles, heavy machine guns, artillery, air support, helicopters, tanks. It's not the equipment, it's the tactics. Our troops are constrained by a tactical situation dictated by Westminster with strict rules of engagement. The Taliban have no such strictures or impediments.
Did we learn nothing from Americas Vietnam experience or, indeed, that of the Soviets on that very terrain? That being the same Soviet forces who were not particularly concerned about civilian casualties, rules of engagement, etc.
Complain about this comment
Surveys for some time have shown the British public do not want military involvement in Afghanistan. THE question, surely, is why what the majority of the public thinks and wants is ignored as if it doesn't exist? What we are seeing is elite policy and elite concerns given priority over majority wishes, desires and intentions.
Complain about this comment
I am sure that a majority of the people don't want the troops to be in Afghanistan - I don't, but they ARE there along with other NATO troops, what do we do now?
Complain about this comment
the taleban may be undesirable lot but they are not the enemy never have been never will be its just the usuall propaganda and spin from our goverment and the usa goverment on this shambolic foreign policy which the british and american goverments were duped in with things like war on terror and being attacked in 45 minutes how are we meant to defeat the taleban when the super power of USSR were sent packing by the taleban warriors the only reason we are in afghanistan is the oil pipelines end of story
Complain about this comment
As I understand it the Russian Army was a conscript army, they weren't trained properly and didn't want to be there in the first place. The British Army and the Russian Army at that time are not comparable.
Complain about this comment
the afghan elections are what have been termed as demonstration elections:
"A demonstration election depends largely on the cooperation of the mainstream media. The patriotic media's role is to include in its reporting certain information or visuals while excluding others. For example, off the media agenda are discussions of the right of government opponents to campaign (without being killed); the absence of large-scale financing of favored candidates by foreign governments or patrons; the presence of meaningful freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly; the ability of voters to cast their ballots freely and safely without intimidation by domestic or foreign military forces or "death squads"; the existence of a truly secret ballot; an honest counting of the ballots; and the assurance that the person who gets the most votes will win the election. On the agenda for a patriotic mass media are primarily election-day items: a large turnout (indicating voter support for the election itself and thus identifying the election with "democracy"); statements by political leaders and "ordinary people" that they are voting because they want freedom; and ineffective opposition to the election, perhaps even military attacks, by opponents of the government. (In an election that the United States opposes, such as the Nicaragua election in 1984, the media's priorities are reversed: on the agenda is the question of the pre-requisites of democracy; meaningless and thus off the agenda are the election-day events, the long lines of voters, etc.)"
- Frank Brodhead, Reframing the Iraq Election,January 21, 2005.
Complain about this comment
jimmy-dean-2009 :
according to retd gen hamid gul (Director General of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence) the reason for being in afghanistan as of august 12, 2009 are as follows -
he states "And I say that America has launched this aggression without sufficient reasons. They haven’t even proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."
this is rather in the same way the uk govt now claim that the majority of terrorist attacks have some link to afghanistan , it was only 6 weeks or so ago that the govt and its media affiliates claimed and hyped (without any evidence) that the majority had links to pakistan.
he goes on to state - "observing that the ostensible purpose for the war was to bring the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, to justice. And yet there were plans to overthrow the Taliban regime that predated 9/11. The FBI does not include the 9/11 attacks among the crimes for which bin Laden is wanted."
however he does go onto explain the goals of the usa/uk intervention in afghanistan -
"the U.S. wanted to "reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and "open the door there" ... "was a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out.""
"Second, the war “was to undo the Taliban regime because they had enforced Shariah”, or Islamic law, which, “in the spirit of that system, if it is implemented anywhere, would mean an alternative socio-monetary system."
""Third, it was “to go for Pakistan’s nuclear capability", something that used to be talked about "under their lip", "but now they are openly talking about". This was the reason the USA "signed this strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi.""
hope its all clearer for you all.
Complain about this comment
wendymann thanks for that realy appriciate mate
Complain about this comment
From the opinions of individual people I have heard and read the people of Britain are against out forces being in Afghanistan
This must mean that either the cause as the Government has defined it is not worth the loss of life or that the reasons have not been fully communicated to us.
Either way, something needs to happen.
Complain about this comment
The great irony of why many people serve in the HMF these days is because in reality they want to escape from the effects and unreliability of the economic system the Armed Forces are there to protect!
The comradeship, leadership skills, personal discipline and the ability to better oneself in many different skills are very inviting incentives for many facing the prospect of unemployment or who want to escape the drabness of industrial life.
A parent of a soldier who was tragically wounded/killed who was interviewed by Ms Fogerty yesterday about 0800hrs summed it all up. He said his son didn't believe a thing Tony Blair said about WMD and all the other justifications politicians use to intervene military elsewhere in countries that arn't attacking us. However he (the son) didn't care at all about that because he loved the military life regardless.
In todays age, soldiers should have some understanding of the politics of why they are deployed and should have some say. Otherwise governments will just walk all over them!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS