Is it patronising?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/ MilitaryOperations/baptismOfFireForGrenadierGu ardsOfficerInAfghanistan.htm

Since we do not receive much news from Afghanistan, it was interesting to come across the linked site, which reported the fact that The Grenadier Guards now have their first Black officer, why this needs to be reported when we are constantly being told to ignore a person's skin colour.

But this is not an isolated case Tiger Woods the first Black to win the Masters golf tournament, Lewis Hamilton, the first Black F1's racing driver, etc, etc. Is not all this highlighting of Black's achievements somewhat patronising towards Blacks or is it political correctness rearing it's ugly head once again?

Incidently reading his experience of combat in Afghanistan, should not heavy weapons have been used in the first sighting of the enemies Mortar, instead of putting the lives of our troops at risk, just in case it was later proven that it was not a mortar?

With yet another soldier's life lost, the time has come to stop trying to win the hearts and minds of these people, at such a high cost to our own people.

[Kromovaracun]

Not patronising at all. It merely reflects social change after years of campaigning.

With yet another soldier's life lost, the time has come to stop trying to win the hearts and minds of these people, at such a high cost to our own people.

That's how counter-insurgency warfare works. Look, for example, to Malaya. Or Algeria. In each case insurgencies were utterly thrashed (though in the latter case the war was lost for political reasons, it was won militarily).

[ruby27]

I don't think so, if you are discriminated against and in a minority I think you want to celebrate achievements.

I don't understand the part trying to win the hearts and minds of these people. If you are referring to Iraq, we have gone in and taken over a country forcibly removing the head of state - that is bully boy tactics and with that kind of force you don't have to worry if the people are in accord with you or not

[Kromovaracun]

In order to stay there, you have to conduct a 'hearts and minds' campaign. The French called this 'special administration' in Algeria, and it basically consists of integrationist policies regarding military deployment and operation. Plus small-scale and precision-based warfare designed to minimise civilian casualties (which in the long-run becomes very effective, as you gradually gain the co-operation of civilians once you get them thinking you're on their side)

Even if you're an invader, civilians are more likely to align themselves with you than with insurgents who are blowing them up frequently.

I'm grossly oversimplifying the theory, but I can't really be bothered to go into it in detail right now (plus I need to do some work), but there is a literature available on the subject.

[ruby27]

Kromovaracun
thank you for the information I didn't know that the hearts and mind was a military tactic, I thought it was AOG's own words.

[anotheoldgit]

ruby27

Oh so that is the reason then? I do not agree, there is no evidence to back-up your claims that they are discriminated against, if this was true then they would not have been given the chance to achieve. It is also a fact that it is the white majority that is celebrating the black's achievements, listen or read any news reports, this is patronising towards them in my opinion.

If you had taken the trouble to read the link I posted ruby27, you would have known that It was appertaining to Afghanistan, and not Iraq, in fact I did mention Afghanistan in my question, but then I suppose you would not have had the chance to wheel out the bully boy tactics used in Iraq that you refer to, then.

You would have also been made aware that ` Winning hearts and minds ` was also mentioned in the link, and not my own words at all. This phrase has also been widely used on TV news reports and in the press.

Please try and keep up dear.

[ruby27]

AOD. Your were correct, I was wrong I didn't read your post properly, I fell into the trap of assuming that we were going to disagree that I didn't pay enough attention. It�s that same as not listening properly as you are more interested in your answer than the question - something that I am at times guilty of.
I don't listen intently to news reports on Afghanistan or Iraq because I find the subject to depressing so I kind of switch of and deliberately do not read accounts. So this accounts for my ignorance on the wording being used

[anotheoldgit]

Thanks for your opology ruby27, I know exactly what you mean, although I must admit I try to listen to the other persons point of view, even though I sometimes disagree, but then this is what makes this site so entertaining at times. What did suprise me though ruby, was the fact that you were prepared to disagree with me before reading my question.

Regarding switching off to news coming out of Afghanistan & Iraq, I more than most people would love to switch off to this news, but I cannot afford this privliege since I have two young grandsons out there in Afganistan risking their very lives, for what? I think it is the duty of everyone living a safe and free life here in the UK to sit up and take notice of the daily risks that our politicians are committing our troops to, fighting on behalf of foreign goverments.

We are a queer bunch of people, we will protest with vigor if an animal gets hurt, cause almost an international incident over a TV reality show, create mass hysteria when a little girl goes missing, but then bury our heads in the sand when our country is locked in wars that cannot be won.