QuoteClimbing toll raises British doubts on Afghanistan
By ALASTAIR GRANT and DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press
WOOTTON BASSETT, England – Thousands of mourners bowed their heads in tribute Friday to the passing coffins of British soldiers killed in a new offensive in Afghanistan, where the climbing toll has created doubts in Britain about the human cost of the war.
News of 15 battlefield deaths in 10 days has many Britons rethinking the country's commitment to a conflict that seems no closer to a successful conclusion than when troops first arrived seven years ago.
A Ministry of Defense spokeswoman said a total of eight deaths were announced Friday, making it one of the darkest days of the war. She spoke on condition of anonymity in line with department policy.
"The casualties should fix peoples' minds on the fact that we've let the soldiers down," said Adam Holloway, an opposition Conservative Party lawmaker who sits on Parliament's defense committee. "The death toll means we should do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all."
Holloway, a frequent visitor to Afghanistan, said Britain has never had the troop strength needed to hold ground there and has failed to provide the promised security or reconstruction, leading many Afghans to believe the Taliban militants will outlast Western forces.
"We're in a mess," he said.
He cautioned that there is still no widespread public revolt against the government's war policy. He said his constituents do not seem extremely worried about the troubled Afghan campaign, despite the increasing casualties.
But some communities are grieving. Schoolchildren, businessmen and army veterans stood side by side in Wootton Bassett, a small market town about 85 miles (135 km) west of London, as the bodies of five soldiers killed between Saturday and Tuesday were driven through the crowds after being flown to a nearby air base.
Wootton Bassett's mayor, Steve Bucknell, said it was becoming increasingly hard to accept the rising number of British casualties.
"We keep on asking ourselves how many more? Each time we pray it's the last one, knowing it probably isn't going to be," Bucknell said.
It has become traditional for the residents to line the streets when hearses carrying soldiers' coffins pass through the town on the sad trip from a military airport to a cemetery.
The casualty count mounted Friday night when officials said five soldiers were killed in two separate explosions while on patrol. Earlier in the evening, the Ministry of Defense announced that a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment had been killed in an explosion. Two other deaths were announced earlier in the day.
The names of the dead soldiers are likely to be released in the next 24 hours.
The deaths have come in volatile southern Helmand province in the past nine days amid a new offensive to uproot Taliban fighters. Seven years after British forces first deployed to Afghanistan — and after the loss of 185 troops — ex-military chiefs are criticizing tactics and equipment while members of the public wonder about the benefit of taking part in the conflict.
Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth and Prime Minister Gordon Brown claim that Britain's role in Afghanistan is crucial to root out extremist terrorists who could potentially attack the United Kingdom, and to prevent a tide of Afghan heroin from reaching British streets.
Brown said Friday that the war is vital to Britain's security.
"There is a chain of terror that runs from the mountains and towns of Afghanistan to the streets of Britain," he told reporters at the G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. "Having talked to President Obama and the rest of the world leaders, there is a recognition that this is a task the world has got to accept together and this is a task we have got to fulfill."
Michael Clarke, head of London-based military think tank the Royal United Services Institute, said public concern is mounting and urged politicians to be more honest about Britain's initial reasons for joining the 2001 invasion.
"What they won't really say is that it's about the credibility of the NATO alliance, and our military relationship with the United States," Clarke said.
Some critics say that Britain should either withdraw from the mission, or that troops must be provided with better equipment, including more helicopters. Britain, the United States and Canada have long complained that they have engaged in heavy fighting in Afghanistan while some European nations have shied away from combat roles.
Tony Philippson, whose son James was killed in Afghanistan in 2006, said the public remained skeptical about whether foreign troops will ever be able to suppress the Taliban and bring peace to the country.
"I've always felt it was a risky business and I think it's still on a knife edge about whether they can succeed," Philippson told the BBC.
Gen. Charles Guthrie, the head of Britain's military between 1997 and 2001, said he believes British soldiers have died as a direct result of a shortage of helicopters for troops in Afghanistan. British troops are suffering heavy casualties from roadside bombs, and a lack of helicopters mean soldiers must make more journey across Helmand by road.
"If there had been more, it is very likely fewer soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs," Guthrie — a longtime advocate of higher defense spending — was quoted as telling the Daily Mail newspaper.
Britain's defense ministry declined to disclose how many helicopters Britain has in Afghanistan on security grounds, but said additional aircraft are being sent to support the mission.
The ministry said that the two latest casualties died in separate incidents Thursday. The bloodshed has intensified as Afghans prepare for elections planned for next month.
Associated Press Writer Gregory Katz contributed to this report.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20090710%2Fcapt.59baecf437df4f019dcbd6a39846f8d4.aptopix_britain_soldiers_return_xag112.jpg&hash=fb6fc25730a6b6e3f41d7d75e34324ec53979c6f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20090710%2Fi%2Fr537069551.jpg&hash=240a7add595309dd7ffd34af7bb64798a60f6a31)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20090710%2Fi%2Fr3641168363.jpg&hash=2b156eaaf161ff520589ed420db6c73f1c5e21af)
Quote
Friends and relatives of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan grieve as the hearses carrying the bodies pass through the town of Wootton Bassett in south west England July 10, 2009. The bodies of five soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Lance Corporal David Dennis, Trooper Christopher Whiteside, Private Robert Laws, Captain Ben Babington-Browne, and Lance Corporal Dane Elson were repatriated on Friday. REUTERS/Toby Melville
QuoteClimbing toll
I thought this might be a mountaineering tax.
These are the same people who conquered India and half the world. Suddenly they can't spare troops to defend themselves and the natives from the craziest, most evil motherfuckers on the planet?
:cry:
Quote from: Queequeg on July 11, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
These are the same people who conquered India and half the world.
by my reckoning most of them are long dead.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 11, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
These are the same people who conquered India and half the world. Suddenly they can't spare troops to defend themselves and the natives from the craziest, most evil motherfuckers on the planet?
There is so much wrong with this statement, I won't even bother to demolish it.
Anyway, I'm surprised with the lack of progress with Afghanistan. After all, every single invasion that tried to occupy Afghanistan before was a full success.
QuoteNews of 15 battlefield deaths in 10 days has many Britons rethinking the country's commitment to a conflict that seems no closer to a successful conclusion than when troops first arrived seven years ago.
Mr. Churchill would be disappointed.
The thread title had me hoping that Scotland was finally breaking loose.
Ah well, soon enough.
Haha! What a load of bollocks! I don't know anyone here "doubting" having our troops in Afghanistan, let alone a large number of people! War doesn't seem to be a big issue here like it seems to be in the USA - the war in Iraq, etc... were never big election issues like they were in the USA, and Afghanistan is still no issue here.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 11, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
from the craziest, most evil motherfuckers on the planet?
Amway?
Quote from: Lettow77 on July 11, 2009, 05:14:03 AM
The thread title had me hoping that Scotland was finally breaking loose.
Ah well, soon enough.
:lol:
Not really.
But I did expect something worse from the title. Some horrible financial stuff perhaps.
Quote from: Palisadoes on July 11, 2009, 06:33:55 AM
Haha! What a load of bollocks! I don't know anyone here "doubting" having our troops in Afghanistan, let alone a large number of people! War doesn't seem to be a big issue here like it seems to be in the USA - the war in Iraq, etc... were never big election issues like they were in the USA, and Afghanistan is still no issue here.
There is so much wrong with this statement, Martinus won't even bother to demolish it.
What impressed me is Canada has nearly as many dead as the UK.
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 07:24:07 AM
But I did expect something worse from the title. Some horrible financial stuff perhaps.
Is money all you ever think about? ;)
Quote from: citizen k on July 11, 2009, 01:18:01 PM
Is money all you ever think about? ;)
It is a nation of shopkeepers after all.
Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:41:19 AM
Anyway, I'm surprised with the lack of progress with Afghanistan. After all, every single invasion that tried to occupy Afghanistan before was a full success.
I guess that explains the problem then - because the UK is not invading Afghanistan nor attempting to occupy it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2009, 10:58:29 PM
I guess that explains the problem then - because the UK is not invading Afghanistan nor attempting to occupy it.
To a Polack, one foreign adventure in Afghanistan looks much like another. When they tried to join the West, people tried to tell them about time, but time just isn't a concept that comes naturally to them.
The younger generation, luckily, appears to fully understand the concept of time and, after the Martinuses of Poland die out, this will be but a matter of gentle joking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
What impressed me is Canada has nearly as many dead as the UK.
We would have less if your pilots could see clearly that Desert CADPAT isn't a Taliban used camouflage.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 11, 2009, 11:19:46 PM
We would have less if your pilots could see clearly that Desert CADPAT isn't a Taliban used camouflage.
Tell your own dudes to stop killing each other in FF incidents, and
then complain about Yi's pilots. :contract:
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 11, 2009, 11:19:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
What impressed me is Canada has nearly as many dead as the UK.
We would have less if your pilots could see clearly that Desert CADPAT isn't a Taliban used camouflage.
Friendly fire is a sad reality in our line of work.
I've never been afraid of the enemy, but I have always been afraid of being in either end of a friendly fire incident.
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 06:03:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 11, 2009, 11:19:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
What impressed me is Canada has nearly as many dead as the UK.
We would have less if your pilots could see clearly that Desert CADPAT isn't a Taliban used camouflage.
Friendly fire is a sad reality in our line of work.
I've never been afraid of the enemy, but I have always been afraid of being in either end of a friendly fire incident.
Well, a boy can always hope.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
What impressed me is Canada has nearly as many dead as the UK.
Canadians never retreat. Canadians never surrender. Canadians die. :(
Most deaths are caused by IEDs. Most transports in done on the ground, we don't have much helicopters, though we rented a few ones from the Americans, I believe, and maybe the Russians too. The Canadians are in the south with the British, in the most volatile zone of the country. You got to understand that altough there are many nations there, most of them do not chase Talebans and some of them (the Germans for example) will never leave the base.
For every increase in vehicle armor the army brings, the Talebans seems to be able to match it with more powerful explosives.
I don't really know if helos would be the 'miracle' solution; they probably would get shot down anyway, but I suppose it's harder to find rockets than simple explosives.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 12:15:52 AM
Tell your own dudes to stop killing each other in FF incidents, and then complain about Yi's pilots. :contract:
I'm not aware of any such incident?
Anyway, if you want a Brit-in-the-defence-establishment's view on this, this is all really a media hurricane. Journalists do not seem to understand that you will sustain casualties when on offensive operations. Even the whole equipment fiasco is overblown. While there are genuine problems (and even the helicopters issue is not as straightforward as made out), shoving a microphone into the face of a grieving mother and asking her "Do you find it criminal that your son died because of a lack of equipment' is not analysis.
This is not to say, in any manner, that these deaths are not tragic. But they are professional soldiers. They understand the sacrifices they may have to make. They know what they signed up for, and they want to do a good job for their comrades, their regiments, and Afghanistan. Most military families feel the same way.
So to suddenly have the media harping on about the 'waste of life' in Afghanistan to me seems like a bunch of headline-happy journalists scrambling around for the most controversial angle on this story. Which is pretty ironic considering there's a much more meaty story just below the surface - the fact that no officer of whatever rank can criticise govt policy (like saying 'we need 2,000 more troops' or 'we need 50 more helicopters') even in private or they find their career brought to a swift halt.
Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:41:19 AM
Anyway, I'm surprised with the lack of progress with Afghanistan. After all, every single invasion that tried to occupy Afghanistan before was a full success.
Actually, there have been quite a few long term occupations and invasions of Afghanistan. They are tough, but so are a lot of the surrounding folks.
Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:41:19 AM
Anyway, I'm surprised with the lack of progress with Afghanistan. After all, every single invasion that tried to occupy Afghanistan before was a full success.
Cyrus, Alexander, the Kushans, the Mongols, and Tamerlane among others handled it fairly well. Tough fighting of course.
Being a gateway to both India and Persia made it hard to hold. But historically, it was other nomads/foreign armies that were the major threats to longer lasting Afghan states, not really the inhabitants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
What impressed me is Canada has nearly as many dead as the UK.
I don't find our bodycount very impressive, just sad.
We've had about 120 casualties in the theatre, and so far, about 60 suicides after deployment/discharge.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 13, 2009, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:41:19 AM
Anyway, I'm surprised with the lack of progress with Afghanistan. After all, every single invasion that tried to occupy Afghanistan before was a full success.
Cyrus, Alexander, the Kushans, the Mongols, and Tamerlane among others handled it fairly well. Tough fighting of course.
Being a gateway to both India and Persia made it hard to hold. But historically, it was other nomads/foreign armies that were the major threats to longer lasting Afghan states, not really the inhabitants.
All true. The Safavids made a pretty good go of it fairly recently, so did the Mughals.
Wow, Marty gets punked yet again, and on such a predictable subject.
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2009, 03:33:48 PM
Wow, Marty gets punked yet again, and on such a predictable subject.
To be fair this is a pretty common myth that Afghans tend to talk up as much as anyone else. And I think it is fair to say that they've been a real thorn in every civilized army's side since at least the Durranis.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 13, 2009, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2009, 03:33:48 PM
Wow, Marty gets punked yet again, and on such a predictable subject.
To be fair this is a pretty common myth that Afghans tend to talk up as much as anyone else. And I think it is fair to say that they've been a real thorn in every civilized army's side since at least the Durranis.
That isn't really the point though - it isn't that he isn't some expert on Afghan history, it is that he constantly gets himself all emo-raged up about issues that he actually only has this ridiculously cursory knowledge about, and it always turns out to be this pop/mass culture kind of "everyone knows" sort of stupidity.
Just like this.
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2009, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 12:15:52 AM
Tell your own dudes to stop killing each other in FF incidents, and then complain about Yi's pilots. :contract:
I'm not aware of any such incident?
http://www.thestar.com/article/189052
Also, Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 05:47:21 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2009, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 12:15:52 AM
Tell your own dudes to stop killing each other in FF incidents, and then complain about Yi's pilots. :contract:
I'm not aware of any such incident?
http://www.thestar.com/article/189052 (http://www.thestar.com/article/189052)
Also, Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh
I don't know them all by name, but thanks for reminding me this one.
2 others died in mysterious circumstances too, maybe suicide, I never read the follow up.
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/04/24/Canadian_soldier_found_dead_on_Afghan_base/
Opposition to the war is polling one point behind support for the war (46-47%, I believe). But the last time it was polled (2006) support for the war was 15 points lower (31%) and opposition 6 points lower (41%).
The Taliban is on the decline again. Those soldiers shall not have died in vain. :bowler:
Condolences on the loss of the soldiers. :cry:
Afghanistan has been on the back burner for a while, too long, and is now getting a priority. Sadly, we'll see more casualties from all our nations but I hope, and I do think, that the commanders and political leadership has begun new strategies learned from lessons there and elsewhere. It has a long ways to go though, and the Afghan government is pretty weak and corrupt, and the military isn't apparently isn't nearly what's needed. It will take time, and unfortunately the last seven years haven't been used to make enough progress, certainly due to the focus on Iraq. So it seems to me like we're almost starting over, or nearly doing so. One significant note would seem to be the change in attitudes towards the Taliban and AQ by Pakistanis, where tribes and the government have gone against them now quite heavily.
The thing with Afghanistan was generally it wasn't worthwhile to hold it.
The British were happy with it being neutral as long as it didn't bother India. There was nothing to be made out of occupying the place afterall.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 13, 2009, 03:29:28 PM
All true. The Safavids made a pretty good go of it fairly recently, so did the Mughals.
They did a good job of holding onto it? The Afghanis revolted a lot under those two regimes and went on to topple the Safavids...
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 05:47:21 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2009, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 12:15:52 AM
Tell your own dudes to stop killing each other in FF incidents, and then complain about Yi's pilots. :contract:
I'm not aware of any such incident?
http://www.thestar.com/article/189052
Also, Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh
Accidental shots going off in barracks is different from American planes dropping bombs on our troops which was the point Viper was making.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 01:20:44 PM
They did a good job of holding onto it? The Afghanis revolted a lot under those two regimes and went on to topple the Safavids...
Between the two of them they held onto it for a century at least. That counts as a reasonably successful occupation, as we haven't even been there for 10 years. And the Qajaris were Oghuz Turks, not Pashtuns, which is what Afghanis would mean in this period (and still means, for the most part, as they form the plurality in Afghanistan).
Quote from: Queequeg on July 14, 2009, 02:48:57 PM
Between the two of them they held onto it for a century at least. That counts as a reasonably successful occupation, as we haven't even been there for 10 years. And the Qajaris were Oghuz Turks, not Pashtuns, which is what Afghanis would mean in this period (and still means, for the most part, as they form the plurality in Afghanistan).
The Safaivds were pretty much toppled by the Hotakis. What came with Safavid restoration until complete demise was pretty much an abortion. I also wouldn't really say that either the Safavids or the Mughals really had good control over the Afghani tribes of the regions, although they may have had governors installed in the major cities.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 02:55:39 PM
The Safaivds were pretty much toppled by the Hotakis. What came with Safavid restoration until complete demise was pretty much an abortion. I also wouldn't really say that either the Safavids or the Mughals really had good control over the Afghani tribes of the regions, although they may have had governors installed in the major cities.
Be careful to differentiate Afghanis (Pashtuns) from other Afghans (Tajiks, Baluchis). You and I know the difference, but ignorant folks (like say, certain Polish lawyers) don't.
That's fair on the Hotakis, I'd forgotten about them. I presumed you meant the Qajar, for some reason. That said, the semi-independent Beyliks of Azerbaijan (and other areas of Oghuz settlement) were the traditional trouble spots, areas of recruitment and birthplace of post-Timurid Persian dynasties. The Pashtuns were relatively unimportant.
That seems fairly reasonable, though I think it is necessary again to differentiate Tajik Afghanistan (which is, historically, ethnically and linguistically part of a nation that includes modern Iran and Tajikstan) from batshit Pashtunistan. Cities like Herat were pretty central to Iranian culture and for a while very wealthy and influential, though the areas of the Pashtun probably haven't seen real civilization since the Greco-Bactrians.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 14, 2009, 03:05:11 PM
Be careful to differentiate Afghanis (Pashtuns) from other Afghans (Tajiks, Baluchis). You and I know the difference, but ignorant folks (like say, certain Polish lawyers) don't.
That seems fairly reasonable, though I think it is necessary again to differentiate Tajik Afghanistan (which is, historically, ethnically and linguistically part of a nation that includes modern Iran and Tajikstan) from batshit Pashtunistan. Cities like Herat were pretty central to Iranian culture and for a while very wealthy and influential, though the areas of the Pashtun probably haven't seen real civilization since the Greco-Bactrians.
Mir Wais and progeny were chilling in Kandahar before they moved on Isfahan.
Hey Squeelus, who in Afghanistan speaks Farsi? I got the impression from The Kite Runner that it was/is the first language of the educated urban elite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2009, 05:00:24 PM
Hey Squeelus, who in Afghanistan speaks Farsi? I got the impression from The Kite Runner that it was/is the first language of the educated urban elite.
The language in Afghanistan is called Dari and I believe it's a slightly archaic version of Farsi and is largely spoken by people in the North and West (the areas you'd expect there to be Persian influence). I don't know if it's ethnic or a class thing. For example the elites of India and Pakistan still use English a lot, in their private schools modeled on the English public school or in the legal system. I wonder if something similar's happened here, just with a different Empire?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2009, 05:53:57 PM
The language in Afghanistan is called Dari and I believe it's a slightly archaic version of Farsi and is largely spoken by people in the North and West (the areas you'd expect there to be Persian influence). I don't know if it's ethnic or a class thing. For example the elites of India and Pakistan still use English a lot, in their private schools modeled on the English public school or in the legal system. I wonder if something similar's happened here, just with a different Empire?
I'm confused by what you mean when you say "the language of Afghanistan." Aren't there a number of languages spoken there?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2009, 06:04:46 PM
I'm confused by what you mean when you say "the language of Afghanistan." Aren't there a number of languages spoken there?
I said 'the language in Afghanistan' by which I meant the Farsi, or form or it spoken in Afghanistan. I believe that Afghanistan's got a ridiculous number of languages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2009, 06:18:16 PM
I said 'the language in Afghanistan' by which I meant the Farsi, or form or it spoken in Afghanistan. I believe that Afghanistan's got a ridiculous number of languages.
Ah.
But if it's the language of the north and west why are the Kabulis in the book speaking it? They're ethnic Pashtuns, living in the east.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2009, 06:26:01 PM
But if it's the language of the north and west why are the Kabulis in the book speaking it? They're ethnic Pashtuns, living in the east.
Well as I say I'm not sure if it's an ethnic thing, or a class thing. If it's class then the Kabulis would also speak it. Just looking at Wiki it seems that way. About 41% of the population are Pashtun but only 35% mainly speak Pashto. This map also indicates that Dari's far more widespread than I thought:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc8%2FMap_of_Languages_%2528in_Districts%2529_in_Afghanistan.jpg&hash=7567ef9a74233b7db10b3c219a79189165bff64b)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2009, 06:26:01 PM
But if it's the language of the north and west why are the Kabulis in the book speaking it? They're ethnic Pashtuns, living in the east.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan,_by_district.svg
Ethnic map of Afghanistan, Green being Tajik (Persian-speaking Iranians, though largely Sunni), Yellow being Hazara (racial admixture of Mongoloid type, monolingual in Persian), Brown being Pashtun, Grey being Baluch and Red and Orange being Turkic minorities, presumably raised speaking Uzbek or Turkmen.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Map_of_Languages_in_Afghanistan,_by_district.svg
This, on the other hand, is a linguistic map of Afghanistan, with Green now representing Persian and then everything else breaking down on Ethnic lines. As you can tell, in the vicinity of the big cities, and generally close to the Tajik-Pashtun border, Pashtuns speak Persian. It is also, as you guessed, the language of the educated classes.
This is very, very complicated, but I'll try to break it down.
First, there is what may be called the Persian language, which is largely intellidgeable from Kermanshah the West in Iran to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the East. This language comes by three names and two orthographies. In Persia, it is "Farsi", the name for the central-southern province in Iran from which the Sassanids and Achaemenid sprang, as does our word "Persian" (Arabic has no P phoneme, so P=F) . In Afghanistan it is Dari, or Court, which is actually fair as the post-Islamic Persian language really developed in Khorasan, modern day Afghanistan, Tajikstan, southern Uzbekistan and eastern Iran. In Tajikistan it is called Tajik, and it is written in the Cyrilic alphabet.
Secondly, this is further complicated by the fact that Pashtun, Kurdish and Persian (as well as some random languages like Ossete, in Russia and Georgia) are all related Aryan languages with quite a bit of shared vocabulary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2009, 05:53:57 PM
The language in Afghanistan is called Dari and I believe it's a slightly archaic version of Farsi and is largely spoken by people in the North and West (the areas you'd expect there to be Persian influence). I don't know if it's ethnic or a class thing. For example the elites of India and Pakistan still use English a lot, in their private schools modeled on the English public school or in the legal system. I wonder if something similar's happened here, just with a different Empire?
Pretty much. The language of the educated in the Muslim world outside of the Peninsula and Africa has been Persian almost consistently since the end of the Abbasids, and even then a lot of the intellectuals were Persian. So the Turkic-run Ottoman and Mughal Empires both tended to speak Dari or a kind of well educated patois at court, though ironically the early Safavids used Turkish at court. In the Mughal period, Persian had the same role as the language of the educated and inter-regional communication that English now has. Classic Persian stories like the Shahnameh played a role fairly analogous to the Classics in the Muslim (and Muslim-dominated) world, especially east and north of the Peninsula. Huge chunks of the Urdu and all Muslim Turkic vocabularies are Persian based, and even Malay, Albanian (curiously more than Turkish, iirc) and Swahili have some words from it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2009, 02:05:56 PM
Accidental shots going off in barracks is different from American planes dropping bombs on our troops which was the point Viper was making.
No, he was being a smartass and so was I. I don't think anyone is more dead if mortally shot by accident than mortally bombed by accident. Blue-on-blue fatalities are tragedies no matter how they occur. It is just easier to blame someone when you know their name.
Interesting article Armyknife. Appropriate in several ways I'd say. One, for showing the differences in the intervention of today vs those of many years ago. And on that note, points out how if similar mind sets and tactics are used again then similar failure would likely be the result. Not that there's any guarantee of success, or failure for that matter, but maybe we don' t have to feel it can't be successful just because of past history.
Seems like a BBC PC version of history.
The British didn't shoot their way into Afghanistan in 39. Their "instinctive response to rebellion" was not to "meet violence with violence." If anything the opposite was true--they did nothing in response to the murder of their top civilians and this in turn emboldened the Afghanis.
Hmmm....surely the 2nd Afghan war was a success, since it led to "quasi-British rule" for 40 years?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2009, 04:07:13 PM
Seems like a BBC PC version of history.
The British didn't shoot their way into Afghanistan in 39. Their "instinctive response to rebellion" was not to "meet violence with violence." If anything the opposite was true--they did nothing in response to the murder of their top civilians and this in turn emboldened the Afghanis.
Exactly. They did precisely what the article suggested, and that led to their failure.
They also were not "routed" and thus "forced to flee Kabul in the winter of 1841" with a "16,000 strong army." They negotiated a withdrawal for their 4,000 strong army and its 12,000 dependents, and this withdrawal then collapsed as the Afghans violated the ceasefire and failed to deliver the promised supplies.
The article also fails completely to note (presumably because it would counter the "routed and fled" paradigm) that the British returned to Afghanistan after several signal military successes and left again in 1842 because their candidate for the throne had been assassinated.
The campaign overall was a failure, no question - but not for the reasons postulated in the article.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 15, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
Hmmm....surely the 2nd Afghan war was a success, since it led to "quasi-British rule" for 40 years?
Nope. Never happened. It was a failure, because the BBC has so ordained it.
Are you serious?
The Battle of Maiwand was 25 000 afghanis vs less than 2500 brit-indians.
The indians broke after their artillery ran out of rounds.
The few englishmen had no chance after that.
Perhaps the problem with Afghanistan is, that it's full of Afghans.
In an unrelated note, Kitchener was an asshole. And incredibly gay.
KoK was never an asshole!
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 15, 2009, 09:16:09 PM
KoK was never an asshole!
The fuck he wasn't. Between he and Roberts, they couldn't have fucked up South Africa more if they had Monty with them. Wasn't called K of Chaos for nothing.
No one deserves to be compared in any way to that showboating limey tool Monty. Nobody.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2009, 09:21:16 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 15, 2009, 09:16:09 PM
KoK was never an asshole!
The fuck he wasn't. Between he and Roberts, they couldn't have fucked up South Africa more if they had Monty with them. Wasn't called K of Chaos for nothing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2009, 09:21:16 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 15, 2009, 09:16:09 PM
KoK was never an asshole!
The fuck he wasn't. Between he and Roberts, they couldn't have fucked up South Africa more if they had Monty with them. Wasn't called K of Chaos for nothing.
He made his bones early, and then his political connections were enough to cover the fact that he was lazy and barely competant. He died at the best possible time, right before he was about to be shitcanned and his reputation destroyed.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 15, 2009, 09:22:15 PM
No one deserves to be compared in any way to that showboating limey tool Monty. Nobody.
Kitchener made Monty look like Wellington.