www.news-alliance.com

KILLED IN ACTION: Nine British soldiers killed in ten days in the Afghan war shows the terrible cost of fighting a war of attrition without proper funding and equipment!


British Armed Forces Tribute - Afghanistan & Iraq - More amazing video clips are a click away

The distraught father of Corporal Sarah Bryant, killed in action in Afghanistan two days ago, has released his favourite photographs of his beautiful daughter. The images of marital bliss when set against the reality of Corporal Bryant's death cannot fail to bring a tear to the eye of any decent person.

But there is a greater cause for tears than the death of one female soldier and that is the fact that more British soldiers will be killed in Afghanistan due to underfunding which has left them without the right equipment to fight, survive and win the Afghan war.


Mr and Mrs Bryant, both British Army Corporals

Corporal Bryant was on patrol in a soft-skin Land Rover adapted to rugged terrain when it was struck by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) killing her and three SAS reservists. The death of Corporal Bryant and her colleagues, Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Private Paul Stout came in a week when five British Paratroopers had been killed in action in the Afghan war.

It is been a costly ten days for the British Army in theatre and the death of a female soldier simply compounded the terrible loss in the eyes of many Britons. And yet for all their bravery, courage and self-sacrifice these soldiers were betrayed by the incompetent New Labour regime from day one. A swathe of cutbacks under New Labour has seen the British Armed Forces dangerously underfunded and as a result not able to deploy the necessary equipment to give our men and women the best possible chance of survival in a theatre of war.

The soft-skin Land Rover the five soldiers were patrolling in is completely inadequate in the Afghan theatre, with the ever-present threat of suicide bombers and IEDs which when detonated will rip a Land Rover to pieces.... In this particular attack four soldiers were killed and a fifth soldier seriously wounded.

The reason they were travelling in a soft-skin vehicle is twofold: On one hand underfunding has left the Army without the equipment they need and on the other hand politically motivated interference has led to the idea that soft-skin vehicles create a more 'friendly' and approachable 'appearance' to Afghan civilians.

The cunning Taliban have exploited this weakness to their advantage in exactly the same way as Iraqi insurgents who inflicted dozens of British casualties as a result of Army patrols travelling around Basra in soft-skin Land Rovers. One might wonder is these lessons have been learned and make no mistake about it because Army officers have learned their lesson and advised against the use of soft-skin vehicles in the first place. But political interference in the shape of economics and public relations has again caused the deaths of British soldiers.

If the soldiers killed and injured in attacks on Land Rovers had been patrolling in APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers) far fewer of them would have been killed and injuries minimised. But politicians and civil servants in Whitehall have obstructed sensible military command and caused the deaths of over 40 British soldiers killed in soft-skin vehicles.

Only when the politicians stop interfering with their deadly brand of liberalised public relations and underfunding will the situation improve. In the interim, British soldiers in Iraq and particularly Afghanistan should stop using soft-skin Land Rovers immediately and switch to 'hard-skin' APCs which afford greater if not immaculate protection against IEDs and suicide bombers.

But as ever there is a shortage of funds and as we reproted in February this year, British soldiers are being sent into battle without the full complement of proper equipment they need to fight, survive and win.

And quite apart from the deadly serious issue of not using Snatch Land Rovers, an even bigger problem comes in the form of manpower. At present there are around 8,000 British soldiers in Afghanistan and 250 extra ancilliary staff have just been ordered to theatre to maintain broken and damaged equipment. This may seem like the idiotic New Labour regime are taking the issue seriously but in reality this simply represents fighting war on the cheap, again!

Because New Labour under Blair and Brown failed to support and fund the Armed Forces, the Army does not have the extra 5,000 infantry soldiers needed to send another battle group to the region to finish off the Taliban rebellion. Until another British battle group is sent to the region to detemine the military aspect of the Afghan war, stalemate will prevail.

It is nonsense to say that the war is being won because this war is about more than just engaging the Taliban in firefights, giving them a bloody nose for a few days and then sitting back and waiting for the inevitable counter-attack and then pushing them again and again....

We are now witnessing another replay of the Vietnam war, when U.S. forces were denied the manpower on the ground needed to capitalise on military success and consolidate captured territory. And the same thing is now happening to British troops in Helmand who are being prevented from winning this war.

Territory is captured in fierce fighting, then adandoned and taken back by the Taliban without a fight, and then recaptured in battle by British troops. This constant attack/retreat/counter-attack 'strategy' is demoralising British soldiers and damaging their will and ability to win the war.

The message is clear from London to Camp Bastion and back: Only the removal of the New Labour regime at the next General Election will improve the lot of the British Armed Forces and restore their ability to fight and win wars armed with the requisite manpower and firepower backed up by a loyal and mature government based in London, not in Brussels... or Washington.

Leave a comment