War Of Words



The Telegraph reports:


Politicians ‘pulled combat troops out of Afghanistan too early’

Britain and its allies would have been more prudent to keep combat troops supporting the Afghan government for longer, a former head of the Army says

Britain pulled combat troops out of Afghanistan too early because of political considerations back home, a former head of the Army has suggested.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson said a recent spate of bloody attacks in Kabul and the weekend Taliban assault on Britain’s former main base in Helmand, Camp Bastion, were “somewhat depressing”.

Britain now had a responsibility to “give every possible support” to the Afghan forces once the Nato-led combat missions finishes at the end of this year.



That may well prove to be the case…but who is to blame for the politician’s turning tail on the Afghans?

Much of the blame lies with the Media which has been instrumental in opposing the war, reporting negatively on it and doing its utmost to exploit the casualties, our troops and Afghan civilians and of course not slow in doorstepping grieving widows and fatherless children.

The BBC has led the pack in painting the war in that negative light and is now leading the way in depicting it as a failure, a waste of blood and treasure.

The war it spent so much of its own time condemning will now be used for the next ten years and beyond for much pious, sanctimonius preaching about the hopelessness of war…never mind that it was the BBC and like-minded souls who ensured that failure could be a likely scenario as the necessary resorces were held back by politicians all too aware of Media reaction to any ‘mission creep’ and the army restricted in what it could do in order to avoid ‘collateral damage’…never mind that such a policy actually makes certain that fighting the war becomes much more difficult and actually prolongs that fighting…and increases the casualties.

The BBC is by default on the side of the Taliban, Hamas and Islamist terrorists at home for whom they make imagnative excuses when they bomb,  murder and maim British citizens…apparently being unemployed, or feeling a bit disgruntled with your lot in society, or having a feeling you are somehow disenfranchised or ignored is a good enough excuse for murdering 52 people and injuring over 700….or so thinks the BBC.

Always interesting who the BBC sides with.

Yesterday it was Hezbollah, the Party of God.

Naturally they are the good guys…America, Israel and the West the bad guys who force them to do such terrible things.









Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to War Of Words

  1. Merched Becca says:

    The very reason why the United States lost in Vietnam – their own demoralising press.


    • deegee says:

      I suspect the failure to invade the North; the resiliance of the North Vietnamese Army and civilian population and Viet Cong; corruption among the South Vietnamese army including phantom troops; poor US intelligence about the actual state of the opposition and a lack of clear goals may also have had a little to do with it.


    • D1004 says:

      If anyone wants to know why America lost the war in South Vietnam they need to read Neil Sheenan’s book, ‘ A Bright Shining Lie ‘ about John Paul Vann, a Lt Col US advisor in that country in 1962/63 ie, before US ground involvement.
      The failure to defeat North Vietnam through the air campaign ‘Rolling Thunder ‘ was down to the inherent problems of the strategic bombing theories developed by airman from WW1 Zeppelins through WW2 big bomber proponents to modern times. A full understanding of what went wrong can be gleaned by reading ‘Rolling Thunder ‘. John T Smith ( Air Research ) 1994. The media in both the wars in the North and the South were able to feed off the failures of the US strategy involved. No failed strategy would have meant no media reporting of failure, it’s as simple as that.


    • Amounderness Lad says:

      Yes, even their victories were twisted by their media to sound like disastrous defeats. Neither did it help that the US, and indeed our media, depicted the situation as the US military constantly being humiliated by a bunch of ill armed peasants when the truth was that they were being engaged by a huge battle hardened North Vietnamese Army who had constantly been fighting since the 1930s, first against the Japanese, then the French and finally against the South Vietnamese and the US.
      Not only that but the supposedly ill-armed North Vietnamese were being well armed and supported by mainly the Russians and, to a lesser degree by the Chinese.
      Even worse was the fact that the politicians I Washington, especially the incompetent President LBJ insisted on trying to control every detail of the military action by those on the front line from the comfort of the Oval Office, That disastrous concept is something politicians have increasingly done ever since with much the same end results.


      • Llareggub says:

        America won the war in Vietnam but lost the peace, says Bill Whittle


      • D1004 says:

        The war in the North was lost because you can not bomb a 3rd world communist country such as N Vietnam into surrender, because you run out of targets before they will admit defeat. The only 2 courses of action then were to go for genocidal WW2 bombing of civilian houses or start WW3 by attacking Soviet ships bringing in supplies into Hai Phong harbour. Neither of these was acceptable and therefore the war was lost.
        I will not point out the similarities with the current efforts to bomb ISIS into submission, bombing however well targeted will never win a war, it’s boots on the ground that are needed. Sorry to way off tangent here.


  2. Jerry Fletcher says:

    ‘The BBC is by default on the side of the Taliban, Hamas and Islamist terrorists ‘

    I believe they also torture small furry animals and babies.


  3. Sceptical Steve says:

    The collective attempts to rewrite the narrative about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are not simply a case of the BBC and Liberal Press trying to denigrate the armed forces.
    The likes of Generals Jackson and Dannatt are cynically trying to frame the debate in such a way that they can avoid scrutiny over their own failure to prepare, equip, and support the troops in their thankless task.
    The heads of the UK’s armed forces are so committed to preparing for a conventional high-tech war on the European plains that they agreed to our troops being sent into action with woefully inadequate equipment.


    • Merched Becca says:

      Our depleted armed forces defend this country to the very best of their ability and the equipment that they are supplied with by past and present governments.
      The morale of the people that they defend (us), can be undermined by the propaganda that is broadcast our very own liberal media.


      • pah says:

        Sadly that has always been the case.

        Under pressure from Labour and fellow travellers Britain failed to re-arm during the early 30’s and we were left with a lot of obsolete aeroplanes and tanks to fight Jerry.

        In the Napoleonic Wars our troops were often under fed and ill equipped, so much so that the cavalry units lost a good number of horses to neglect rather than battle.

        It is only the bravery of the troops that has kept us free.


  4. Guest Who says:

    On reflection, such a serious topic deserves a fuller reply.

    In conflict, offering succour to enemies in the form of propaganda (positive, or editorially omitted, to a favored side; negative to those not) can affect support from outside, policy and morale within.

    For instance posting imagery purporting to be the result of action from one side that turns out in fact to be self-inflicted unfriendly fire from another, Jon.

    Or going beyond insitutional astounding incuriosity to never see, hear or feel the launch of rockets that initiate exchanges that only get reported upon when responded to, Jeremy.

    Or it can be insidious undermining, for instance, inviting on a rigged panel on to all agree sensible defensive measures in face of belligerent actions from a quarter that had a proven history of surprise aggressive actions… is ‘sabre rattling’, Gavin.

    And speaking of the Falklands, there is of course more overt assistance.

    Imagine the reaction in WW2 if it turned out the state broadcaster was telling von Braun his terror weapons were falling short and best tweak the gyro? Or Rommel that Major Martin was a bluff. Or Guderian just where a British division was headed next, if he’d like to beef up defences.

    And then, having put folk in harm’s way, there is the always supportive if selective notion of empathetic interviews with enemy combatants to get their diet tips, or relatives back home to understand their motivations. And giving full megaphone to every lawyer and activist gunning for poor sods caught in the vast complexities of the fog of war, .whilst cutting those ranged against them all the slack they can hide behind.

    Do I endorse excesses in favour of the home team like claiming babies on bayonets? No.

    But for the National broadcaster of this country to sink to the depths it has, is and looks set to continue, makes it hard for me at least to often see it on the side of the country whose name it bears, Jerry


  5. Llareggub says:

    The media, especially the BBC here in the UK, must bear some blame for the war that has been lost in Afghanistan. It is not the premature pulling out that we should be concerned with but the constant undermining of the efforts of our troops, seizing on any malpractice and blowing it into a main news item. Then the constant references to the war with the Afghan people, not the Taliban, who were the enemy. And add to that the stupidity of our politicians who sent troops into a war zone with rules of engagement designed for community workers. But that, of course, was driven by the media.
    And now we face war in our streets, with the media leading the defence of an enemy whose beliefs and ideology must not be subjected to criticism.


    • D1004 says:

      The war in the sandpit was lost the day Bush decided to change from destroying all Al-Queda bases and informing the Taliban that the US would then leave them alone as long as they did not allow their friends back in. At that point he ought to have told then that an event like Shock and Awe would befall them if they did so and would keep happening until they learnt to do as they were told. Going for regime change was idiotic. Trying to change the Afgan mindset and their desire to live in the 7th C was always doomed to failure.
      Sorry to disappoint but the British actions were neither here or there in what followed. Yes the Bbc played its usual tricks, but so did the Generals who knew that no war = smaller Army and were quite prepared to waste lives to keep an Army in being which was not therefore going to be cut to the bone like the Navy or RAF. The Generals were either fools who did not read the history of British failure in Afghan or cold blooded murderers, reading what I can and looking at a lot of web sites where those at the bottom of the food chain had to shed the blood I favour the latter.
      And to be really, really honest at the guilt of the bbc , I do not remember them shouting from the rooftops at our defeat in Basra, indeed they barely covered this debacle. El beeb is guilty of many sins, loosing us the Afghan war is not one of them.


      • TigerOC says:

        100% D1004! They failed to learn from experts on this type of warfare; Israel. Intel driven; take out key targets with Special Forces and air assets and keep going until their capability is completely degraded.
        Any idiot with half a brain cell would understand from the history of this sh*thole that the people and place are beyond reform. Ask the Soviets.


      • dave s says:

        Completely agree. The West has overwhelming power which could have been used without any need for any long term involvement in the place.
        I remember being told at school that the Roman way in Britain was to make it clear that any rebellion would be put down without any mercy shown. All that was needed was to behave and live peaceful lives. Co-operate or suffer. Nothing fancy . No vague talk of nation building.


    • Amounderness Lad says:

      Sorry, I accidentally hit the Report Comment first. I do wish the editors would separate it from the Reply Button to prevent that happening. Now, back to what I intended to do.

      The whole situation was not helped by the BBC almost gleefully reporting at length the loss of every British Military Death, as well as those of the US, and virtually rubbing their hands in delight at their opportunity to keep totting up the latest total of deaths like they were commentating on the latest score in a cricket match.

      ‘Today the Taliban have added two more deaths to their score increasing their total for their innings to (whatever the total) with no sign of them being bowled out in the near future. So far the British bowling has shown no sign of being able to bring their brilliant tactics to a close and prevent a disastrous defeat.’

      And that gleeful attitude was presented to us day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year.

      Despite the fact that any military death is a tragedy the reality, in order to give the number of deaths some kind of perspective, is that every year more people in Britain died from such simple accidents as falling off ladders than were killed annually in Afghanistan, but that didn’t stop the BBC from trying to present the situation in Afghanistan as being some kind of the constant mass slaughter of British Soldiers on a regular daily basis.


  6. flexdream says:

    I think the BBC is not particularly culpable. Apart from sharing the sentimentality to military casualties which is part of the zeitgeist there has been a lot of good features. They gave the Tory Rory Stewart(?) a couple of programmes and Bluestone 42 was great comedy and pro Army.
    I’d like to hear from the BBC why the Afghan war is a NATO mission yet NATO was absent in the Falklands war.


    • D1004 says:

      The reason NATO was in Afghan was due to a desire to find a relevant role post the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. There was no official NATO involvement in The Falklands War because it was outside their area of interest and the British government did not ask for official help. the fact remains the US gave considerable help from KH11 satellite coverage ( not actually of much use) through the offer of the helicopter carrier Iwo Jima as a battle causality replacement to the game changing flying of AIM-9L Sidewinder all aspect missiles in USAF C141s to Ascension Island. The French and the Spanish both gave a lot of help which was kept generally quiet for political reasons. As to the belief that the bbc gave away the plans to attack Goose Green, this was mainly them airing what was already common newspaper talk promoted by many armchair experts and retired generals, look at a map of the area, it’s not rocket science to see what the first target would be. Bbc reporters were on the front line and would have been causalities in a major setback, so once again not guilty this time, however do not get me started on the myths around the sinking of the General Belgrano which any decent news organisation would have found out the truth years ago.


      • Merched Becca says:

        The Belgrano was sunk because it was an enemy ship and a threat to our task force.


        • D1004 says:

          Very true, and the sinking was called for by the Task force commander on the spot, NOT Mrs Thatcher searching for any reason to scupper the Peruvian peace plan, which in any case was a effort by Argentina to drag out time with Winter coming.
          What the bbc, the left wing hyenas, the bloody guardian et al ignore is that Wreford-Brown fired 3 torpedoes at 1557 GMT on May 2, 2 Super Etendards of the Argentinian Navy took off on a mission to attack the Task Force with Exocet missiles from Rio Grande at 1705 GMT on May 1 ! The mission being scrubbed because the aircraft could not make a successful refuel from an airborne tanker. At dawn on May 2 they tried again and failed with the same problem, ALSO the squadron of A-4 Skyhawks on the 25 de Mayo were bombed up and sitting on the deck unable to take off because they could not get a strong enough wind to take off fully fuelled and bomb heavy. 3 missions, planned, prepared, on deck and in the air stopped only by chance from attacking the Fleet HOURS before Belgrano was sunk. Why it is beyond the wit of the beeboids and their fellow travellers to find this out is beyond me, it’s public knowledge for gods sake. The Argentinian Navy flyers are quite happy to acknowledge they attempted a first strike, the sinking of Sheffield was not a ‘revenge’ attack but finally at the FOURTH attempt getting success.


          • John Anderson says:

            How very dare you challenge the armchair admirals and generals at the BBC? You surely can’t be suggesting that they are grinding axes ?

            Especially when their admiration for Mrs Thatcher and for our armed forces knows no bounds !