• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

UK-Controversy over Afghanistan

big bad john

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2372134_1,00.html

The Sunday Times September 24, 2006


Heroic fight for British Afghan base
Michael Smith, Kandahar

Major reveals how engineers joined defence


THE commander of British troops at the outpost of Sangin in southern Afghanistan has described how a shortage of troops forced him to co-opt engineers and military policemen as infantry during a fierce battle with the Taliban in which one of his best soldiers died.
With considerable understatement, Major Jamie Loden of 3 Para described his period in charge of British troops defending Sangin as “fairly intense”. “I have been in the field since July 27 and have only had three days with no contact,” he wrote in a series of leaked e-mails.



While Loden was full of praise for his own men, he was highly critical of air support for his troops — accusing the RAF of being “utterly, utterly useless”.

“A female Harrier pilot ‘couldn’t identify the target’, fired two phosphorus rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming rocket-propelled grenades, and then strafed our perimeter, missing the enemy by 200 metres,” Loden wrote. He also expressed anger at the maverick behaviour of army Apache helicopter pilots, describing them as “egotistical”.

On Loden’s first day at Sangin, the British attacked a group of Taliban, only to discover that two other groups were waiting for them. The hero of that engagement was Corporal Bryan Budd, who had served in the Parachute Regiment’s elite Pathfinder unit on operations in Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

“We initiated a contact with enemy pre-seen,” Loden said. “Unfortunately the pre-seen were only one of the three firing points and two of Budd’s section were quickly wounded. He pushed forward to drive the enemy back, and personally dispatched some enemy taking cover with a couple of grenades and some rifle fire.”

Just over three weeks later, on August 20, one of the platoons, around 20-strong, was using explosives to punch holes in the walls of their base so that it would be easier to patrol.

Budd’s section was to the right of the group, providing cover to the troops using the explosives. To the left, another section with a Land Rover fitted with a heavy machinegun was doing the same.

“Budd saw the enemy 25 metres in front behind a bush line and, using hand signals, organised his section to attack,” Loden said. “As he went forward the Land Rover on the left was ambushed.

“Despite this, he led his section forward with heavy fire, personally accounting for at least two enemy.” But he and three of his section were then hit by Taliban fire.

“As the section pulled back in the face of heavy fire, no one saw Budd was down,” Loden said. “The other two casualties were pulled back, and shortly afterwards Budd was declared missing in action.”

The platoon commander and one of the sections tried to push forward to find him but were driven back by heavy fire.

The company sergeant-major drove forward on a quad bike to recover the casualties while the platoon commander tried to find another route, despite receiving “shrapnel in his backside”. A second section commander was wounded.

With intercepts of Taliban communications showing that they were trying to surround the troops, Loden began putting together two more sections using engineers and two military policemen who had been investigating the accidental death of another soldier.



“The company sergeant-major made another trip out and back on the quad bike to collect the third casualty, this time coming under fire himself but continuing nonetheless,” he said. “I began assembling more forces to push out to bolster the position on the ground. I sent forward a section of engineers with the second platoon commander to effectively control the rear.



“The second platoon commander tried to push round the flank towards Budd but was engaged by enemy across the river and pinned down. I now created two more sections, one led by a corporal from the sniper section with an engineer staff sergeant as the second-in-command and including the Royal Military Police sergeant and corporal.”

At this point there were 80 troops on the ground while Loden himself co-ordinated artillery, mortars and air support.

One team of soldiers to the east of Sangin reported that Taliban insurgents were moving more weapons out of a mosque and were engaged with mortars.

“RAF Harriers overhead could not identify a target, but would have been too close anyway for bombs. Nonetheless, they fired a rocket that missed by about 700 metres. Thankfully by this stage two Apaches arrived.”

Loden passed control of the Apaches to the first platoon commander who used them to bring down accurate fire on the Taliban positions. Then, with Taliban mortars beginning to home in on the British troops, the first platoon found Budd.

“It was around an hour since he had been hit, and initially (he) had no pulse,” said Loden. The troops tried to resuscitate him. “The company sergeant-major raced out on the quad bike and retrieved him, but the doctor was unable to save him.”

Budd, 29, who lived with his wife Lorena and their daughter Isabelle in Ripon, North Yorkshire, was the seventh British soldier to die in Sangin in the past few months.

As the two platoons — “now clearly exhausted” — half ran, half limped towards them, Loden and the other paratroopers watching from the roof of the British base shouted to them to run faster and spread out to avoid Taliban mortar fire. Afterwards, as the adrenaline seeped away and Loden and his men reflected on the battle, there were “plenty of tears, which is all rather humbling”.

While Loden’s criticisms of the RAF have made headlines this weekend, his pride in the sheer dogged bravery of what he calls his “Toms”, the ordinary British soldiers, shines through from his e-mails. “They were all exhausted and scared,” Loden said. “There were many people on that day who will go unrecognised but simply volunteered immediately to go out as part of the reinforcements regardless of rank or experience.”

It was the bravery of Budd, whose wife was pregnant with their second child, that Loden was determined to put on record. “He was an outstanding junior NCO and he will be sorely missed. I hope to get him more fitting recognition in the longer term.”



 
Once again a hero remembered and a Recce (Pathfinder) soldier shows just how hard they can soldier, Hero's are not born they are made either by training or circumstance IN this case this Jr NCO had both

You mates will miss you Cpl Budd.

RIP  :salute:
 
HitorMiss said:
Once again a hero remembered and a Recce (Pathfinder) soldier shows just how hard they can soldier, Hero's are not born they are made either by training or circumstance IN this case this Jr NCO had both

You mates will miss you Cpl Budd.

RIP  :salute:

Said from one modest hero to another.
 
Unfortunately this major will be remembered for his email critical of the UK deployment to Afghanistan and not his heroism under fire.
 
Agreed T6, thats really the sad part. Though people will complain about certain things I do think that at the very least an OC has the right to say such things.
 
Both Patton and MacArthur to name a few both got in trouble for making comments that were contrary to government policy. In uniform we dont have the right to make comments critical of civilian leaders. In the past week there have been no less than 3 officers making open criticism's of the UK deployment and the media have run with it, because it fits their agenda [the media's].
 
This Officers email has caused wide spread articles from all sides of the politaical spectrum in thye UK.  The MOD has even issued a statement.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ForcesAndModRespondToleakedEmailConcerningOperationsInAfghanistan.htm

Forces and MOD respond to "leaked e-mail" concerning operations in Afghanistan
22 Sep 06
Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces spokespersons have responded to media reports today, 22 September 2006, relating to an e-mail "leak" from a British Officer in Afghanistan in which he outlines his experiences in theatre, and allegedly criticises RAF operational support to ground forces.


Ministry of Defence
An MOD spokesman said:

"Like many others published in recent weeks, this is a moving and at times humbling account of fighting in a part of Helmand province, Afghanistan. It reflects both how intense the fighting can occasionally be, and the enormous courage, dedication and skill of the British troops operating there. As the Secretary of State said only this week, British soldiers in Helmand are, in some cases, working to the limits of endurance, but their morale is high and they are winning the fight."

"The comments this Major makes about the RAF are, however, unfortunate. They do not reflect the view of the vast majority of soldiers about the Harrier Force in Afghanistan, which has consistently performed brilliantly in defending coalition forces, so much so that it is in regular demand not just from British commanders on the ground, but from our allies too. It must be remembered that this is the opinion of only one man.

The general view is very different. Captain Matt Taylor, 3 Para Operations Officer in Afghanistan said: 'The GR7’s have played a critical part in ensuring the security of the lads on the ground. They couldn’t have asked for better support during some very difficult times’."

"The GR7’s have played a critical part in ensuring the security of the lads on the ground. They couldn’t have asked for better support during some very difficult times."

Captain Matt Taylor, 3 Para
Additionally Lt Col David Reynolds, UK Forces Spokesman in Helmand province, said:

"The RAF is an absolutely essential part of the operations in Afghanistan. Many in theatre troop movements and sustainment missions are conducted by RAF Chinook helicopters, we have increased their numbers and continue to review our force allocation. Without the RAF’s contribution with air transport both C17 and C130, none of the operations would have been feasible.

"GR7A from Joint Force Harrier provide invaluable close air support and reconnaissance for all ground troops, UK and Coalition. They have been enormously effective but, necessarily, work within very clearly defined Rules of Engagement. The Harriers have been in theatre since 2004 and were seen as so effective by the US Forces that their deployment has been extended and their numbers increased.


"In addition, the UK operation continues to be supported by the air-bridge and reconnaissance aircraft."

The RAF’s Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice Marshal Chris Moran added:

"The RAF’s contribution is vital to achieving success in Afghanistan, both for UK and multi-national forces. Joint Force Harrier have been flying missions in Afghanistan for 2 years, providing invaluable close air support and reconnaissance. They are enormously effective and are highly regarded by the NATO Land Forces, often praised as the platform of choice."

"RAF Chinooks play an irreplaceable role in conducting in-theatre troop movements and sustainment missions, often under fire.

"The Nimrod fleet in the reconnaissance role, and strategic air transport, provided by C17s, C130s and Tristars, are also crucial components in providing support to operations.

"In addition, the RAF Regt has the key task on the ground of securing Kandahar Airbase as a HQ for British Forces."

"The way the RAF has performed in support of our operations in Afghanistan has been exceptional."

General Sir Richard Dannatt
The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, also had praise for the RAF:

"The way the RAF has performed in support of our operations in Afghanistan has been exceptional. Irresponsible comments, based on a snapshot, are regrettable. Following my recent visit, which happened after the incident described in the e-mails, the men of the Battlegroup left me in no doubt as to the value of the RAF’s support to their operations.

"The Harriers and the support helicopters have played, and continue to play, a vital role in ensuring the Battlegroup’s success."

 
tomahawk6 said:
Both Patton and MacArthur to name a few both got in trouble for making comments that were contrary to government policy. In uniform we dont have the right to make comments critical of civilian leaders. In the past week there have been no less than 3 officers making open criticism's of the UK deployment and the media have run with it, because it fits their agenda [the media's].

I was actualy reffering to the Major's commenst on the aspect's of the intergrated force he was commanding (IE: Harrier's) To which I think and OC in the theater can very well make commenst though I suspect these Emails were ment to be private and were sadly leaked.
 
There is a good article in today's Defense Industry Digest on the whole close air support question that the afore mentioned Major raised.  It compares the British to the US aircraft/systems.  A highly recommended read.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/the-majors-email-british-harrier-support-in-afghanistan-revisited/index.php#more
 
S_Baker said:
Okay,

I am going to make a huge leap here, why not have an ANGLO division?  Rotating command between UK, US, and Australian?  If Canada wants to join, cool, then we can split costs 4 ways.  That way we can incorporate the best of each others capabilities, to include close air support.  Each of the militaries I mentioned have weaknesses, if we all got together (we really are all brothers) we could do a much better job at a lower cost. 

Similar things have been done before, i.e. the Commonwealth Division and Brigades in Korea.  Why not?  It would be a good idea!
 
I suspect that part of the problem for the Brits was that their Politicians and senior military leaders where trying to paint a nicer picture of the theater than existed and now reality is forcing them to accept that their views were to say the least incorrect and that they allowed the political games to influence tactical decisions.
 
Back
Top