Russian troops to return to Afghanistan?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ctory-impossible.html

Another step at improving relations with the Russians, something we should rejoice at, or something we should question?

Myself, if it shortens the time we are out in Afghanistan, then I rejoice.

Scroll down the Daily Mail report further and one sees a calls for an inquiry as details of Afghan civilians killed by British forces emerge.

Although these cases are unfortunate, I cannot see any of the killings were deliberate, but then they wasn't accidental.

They all took place in a war situation, where the enemy wear the same uniform as the civilians, vehicles refuse to stop on the request of the soldiers, and decisions have to be made in a split second, on whether to kill or be killed.

To all those who are ready to put the blame fairly and squarely on our troops, I say what would have been your action, in a similar circumstance?

[alexanderd]

I am with our troops, the way things are out there, shoot first and ask questions later, they dont know who the enemy are

[123everton]

Shoot first will only make more enemies, if you follow that analogy once you hear a gunshot just floor it, you dunno who's doing the shooting or when they'll stop.
The example you've given plays directly into the Taliban's hands, they welcome distrust, they welcome these accidents as it adds to their support, professional soldiers should not make such mistakes, Ulster serves to remind us how rare these events can be made to happen.
We're not at war with Russia, we deal a lot with Russia and they could teach us a thing or two about how to invade a country without flattening everything in sight and the killing of innocent civilians.
See South Ossetia/Georgian war.

[anotheoldgit]

Just say that to a Berliner.

[123everton]

My dear AOG, I think you'll find the vast majority of bombs dropped on Berlin were ours.
I'm not actually a huge critic of the Harris doctrine, Robin Cook used it in Serbia.

[anotheoldgit]

123everton

With more than a little help from the Russian artillery shells and the Katyusha multiple rocket launchers.

[123everton]

Well yes, but they were putting boots on the ground whilst doing so.
We bombed Belgrade to protect Kosovo hundreds of miles away, all the troops were in Kosovo not Belgrade, read Cook's comments at the time, it's the Harris doctrine it could almost pass for Churchill's speech "Growing Confidence."
In the first Gulf War, we bombed Baghdad, when the Iraqi army was in Kuwait, what operational advantage did that give to the troops on the ground? We even had the audacity to criticise Saddam for bombing Isarel for the same principle, attacking Israel was strategic manouvere that failed on Saddam's part.
In The Second Gulf War, we again bombed Baghdad when the invasion would have been much better served with limited bombardments in the areas we were operating in, cheaper for rebuilding too.
All of these things are part of our strategic policy, it's called "Shock And Awe" it's not a good policy.
Have you looked up Russian tactics in the South Ossetian War yet?
If you do then perhaps you'll understand my point better without the historical narratives, although I'm more than happy to talk about history with anyone.

[ichkeria]

"We're not at war with Russia, we deal a lot with Russia and they could teach us a thing or two about how to invade a country without flattening everything in sight and the killing of innocent civilians. "

Now you ARE joking ...