Afghanistan




 
--
 
October 12th, 2011  
Alan P
 

Topic: Afghanistan


Hello Everybody

.I watched the British TV documentary on the front line this week about a Scottish Regiment in Afghanistan. The talk amongst themselves was not the fear of the firefights it was the fear of the I.E.D. They went on to say losing ones legs would be better than losing their arms. No doubt, because of this threat moral was dropping particularly by the younger element of the regiment.
In this present modern day with all this advanced technology, a better way of knowing where an I.E.D. is hidden must be a priority. This must be acted on very quickly, because our brave forces should not be subject to these horrible devices that cause such horrendous injuries every time they go out on the patrols.
It is has you know very dangerous on these patrols, but if the military big wigs and boffins can not protect our servicemen more safely, we should pull out altogether and bring them safely home.
How do you the readers of the forum feel a
October 12th, 2011  
42RM
 
We use a varying combination of robots, dogs, metal detectors and sensing equipment built into vehicles. But even then, efforts are never foolproof. Dirt roads and plowed fields make IED`s easy to plant. And a heavy reliance on household items like water jugs, fertilizer and saw blades — as opposed to the conventional munitions like the old rockets and artillery shells used in Iraq — make Afghan IED`s difficult to detect.

Equipment is being developed to protect troops from the threat. But this in itself solves only part of the problem. As protection improves, so the IEDīs get bigger. IEDs are simple, cheap and deliver a disproportionate effect and have become the weapon of choice of an agile and responsive insurgency . So having only a defensive approach to dealing with them is not sufficient. While continuing the development of protection, increasingly effort and expertise is being put into attacking the networks that produce and plant IEDs, and into preparing all military personnel to be able to deal with IEDīs. The insurgent has chosen to put his strength up against our weakness. It forces us into bigger and more protected vehicles, or even better for them, to stay in our bases and not have any access to the people. To do our job we must integrate with the people, and the insurgent wants to prevent us from doing that.

In combat, people will get hurt or die. There is nothing that can prevent this. There is no 100% guarantee of protection whatever you do!
October 12th, 2011  
03USMC
 
 
Nothing. No counter measure has a 100% success rate and every counter measure eventually begets a counter measure to the counter measure.
--
October 13th, 2011  
Warwick
 
Sadly the IED is such an effective weapon for the enemy and easy to knock up and then distribute it will be used at every opportunity.
Technology is making leaps and bounds in countering them but, they still are very effective and will be for the forseable future.
As been mentioned there are in use all the current gear to find them and prevent injury. But to pull out of Afghanistan because of them.......?????
October 14th, 2011  
Alan P
 
Good posts everyone.
I know pulling out of Afghanistan is the easy option. I personally would like to see the brains of the telephone world and scientists involved with explosives etc. to get round a table and come up with ideas to beat the IEDs. One might say they are doing this, if so quicken it up a bit. I am sure the foot soldier needs something doing quickly to boost up their confidence in going out on the patrols.
October 14th, 2011  
brinktk
 
 
It's not the cell phones or PIR that are the problem, we have pretty much defeated the signal based threat from the IEDs. It's the command wire and crush wire where we find the biggest threat...which to this day the best counter measure to defeating them is the good ole Mark 2 eyeball. That's just to find them though, a better strategy, as mentioned before, is to actively infiltrate/kill/capture the cells that are responsibe for them in the first place. Take away the makers haven to build them, then you have effectively defeated the entire enterprise. The problems are much bigger than that though, in order to take away an insurgents haven it takes tons of time in the villages, patrolling, doing leader meetings with the local elders/leaders. The people need to have a sense of security or they will not tell you who is doing what. So getting the security to the local populace 24 hours a day should be the main priority. With their security, you'll see the bad guys go away, or get rolled up. Of course, getting security is the hardest part of the problem.
October 14th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
It's not the cell phones or PIR that are the problem, we have pretty much defeated the signal based threat from the IEDs. It's the command wire and crush wire where we find the biggest threat...which to this day the best counter measure to defeating them is the good ole Mark 2 eyeball. That's just to find them though, a better strategy, as mentioned before, is to actively infiltrate/kill/capture the cells that are responsibe for them in the first place. Take away the makers haven to build them, then you have effectively defeated the entire enterprise. The problems are much bigger than that though, in order to take away an insurgents haven it takes tons of time in the villages, patrolling, doing leader meetings with the local elders/leaders. The people need to have a sense of security or they will not tell you who is doing what. So getting the security to the local populace 24 hours a day should be the main priority. With their security, you'll see the bad guys go away, or get rolled up. Of course, getting security is the hardest part of the problem.

Completely agree with this. Sure we can search over and over, but the best way is to get the people to aid us, which we need to ensure their security first.
October 19th, 2011  
MikeP
 
 
Yeah, wars are dangerous-let's tuck in our tails and run.
We must make sure we only get involved in safe conflcts where we don't get hurt..
Maybe we could just surrender.

Your "magic wand" thinking is unrealistic.
October 20th, 2011  
Alan P
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeP
Yeah, wars are dangerous-let's tuck in our tails and run.
We must make sure we only get involved in safe conflcts where we don't get hurt..
Maybe we could just surrender.

Your "magic wand" thinking is unrealistic.
Mike P. we all know wars and conflicts are dangerous. I would like too know how realistic you would be, in bringing about the Afghanistan problem to a successful conclusion
October 20th, 2011  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Nothing. No counter measure has a 100% success rate and every counter measure eventually begets a counter measure to the counter measure.

Such as the timeless story of the evolution of armed conflict and it's practices by the human race.

As for the aid of the local populace, it's very understandible why some may not want to cooperate with coalition forces in seeking and dismantling IED enterprises.

Many most likely fear the door crashing in during the middle of the night once Coalition forces leave and then local Insurgents retaliate against them and their whole family.
 


Similar Topics
Afghan police: 10 bodies found in N Afghanistan
Canada to vote on extending the mission in Afghanistan
PM Harper makes surprise visit to troops in Afghanistan
Suicide attack on Canadian convoy in Afghanistan
Uzbekistan halts NATO overflights to Afghanistan