10 August 2009

Afghanistan: Who to believe

Quentin Davies, that pompous turncoat Minister for defence equipment, has taken to the airwaves this morning accusing journalists of sensationalising stories about troop equipment shortages in Afghanistan.

Perhaps Davies should read a despatch from an officer in the frontline published in the Indy this morning where he talks about equipment shortages and much else besides:

Then there are the equipment shortages. Due to the pitiful numbers of support helicopters and Apaches needed to escort them, every day troops on the ground are forced to expend an enormous amount of hours and manpower just standing still. They sacrifice their reserves of energy, motivation and willpower securing and picketing routes for the never-ending vehicle convoys that have to keep happening in order to resupply the patchy spread of patrol bases with water, ammo and rations; as well as recovering the vehicles that invariably go into ditches and securing helicopter landing-sites for the evacuation of casualties from improvised explosive device strikes.

Everyone seems to already agree on this issue of the equipment, in particular the lack of support helicopters – which rather begs the question of how on earth is nothing done about it? And how does the fact that nothing gets done about it seem to be the status quo and keeps occurring year after year, budgetary policy after budgetary policy, operational tour after operational tour? If a magic genie were to appear in front of my eyes, who in keeping with the spirit of the present credit crunch cutbacks, could afford to grant me just one wish, I think I would simply choose a massive increase in helicopters and pilots – a wish that would have such a crucial influence on what is happening to the British Army out here.

He goes on to question whether the war can be won and offers this inclusion;

I think of a scene near the end of Pat Barker's novel The Ghost Road, set at the end of the First World War, in which a seriously injured soldier lies in hospital, gradually dying. The soldier regains consciousness but due to his injuries can only slur a sentence together, which he keeps repeating. His family agonisingly try to decipher what he might be saying, which sounds like "shotvarfet, shotvarfet". His doctor realises what he is trying to say and translates: "He's saying, 'It's not worth it' ."

The man's father, a retired Army major, in grief blurts out: "Oh, it is worth it, it is."

This incredibly powerful passage goes some way to articulating our response to this conflict. We seem to know and say that it is not worth it, whilst instinctively reacting and saying that it is worth it – it has to be worth it. If I am honest, I do not know what I think about it all conclusively; my reasoning is lost in the storm of media, opinions, analysis that are at play here.

However, I know that no matter how hard I try to see through the clutter of opinions and utter something of my own in order to explain or justify what I'm involved in, I just cannot shake off that nagging, repetitive voice in my head that says "shotvarfet, shotvarfet".

The whole piece is well worth a read and remembering the next time the pompous Davies or the incompetent Ainsworth stand up and say the troops have the equipment they need and this war is worth the fight.  From this officer the answer to both points in one big NO.

Digg This

2 comments:

  1. Super post Howard. Can I suggest you put a link to ForcesTwitter at the end? It's a list of our soldiers who have been killed. Everyone should know about it.

    http://www.forcestwitter.com/pages/sites/r_i_p.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks. Readers will see this in your comment if this wish to link to it.

    ReplyDelete