Dangers for SAF soldiers in Afghanistan.
-
Latest report just in from Radio New Zealand News.
Posted at 5:58am on 01 Apr 2008
A patrol of New Zealand Defence Force vehicles in Afghanistan has been hit by an improvised explosive device.
The Defence Force says the four-vehicle patrol was en route in the Bamyan province to conduct a mobile medical clinic on Sunday.
No one was hurt in the explosion, which damaged the front lights and windscreen of one of the vehicles.
The Defence Force says the four-vehicle patrol was en route in the Bamiyan province to conduct a mobile medical clinic.
It says the patrol secured the scene and awaited the arrival of bomb-disposal experts, who are investigating.
The patrol is part of New Zealand's 100-strong Provincial Reconstruction Team, which is charged with improving security and helping reconstruction in Afghanistan.
Source : http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200804010558/34bc8143
For those not aware, the SAF deployed a five-man dental team and another five-man engineer team to Bamyan province, Afghanistan as part of the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) at Camp Kiwi. This year, we're sending out two rotations of 5-men engineering teams again to Bamyan, and, interestingly, a 20-man medical team to Tarin Kowt, the capital of Oruzgan province. Oruzgan is a hotbed for Taliban insurgents, with the Dutch and Australian forces stationed there coming under intense attack just last year. Look up the Battle of Chora.
Bamyan has been labelled the most safest and benign province of Afghanistan, renowned for its natural beauty. It is also the province where the famed giant statues of Buddhas, carved into cliffs, were blown up by the Taliban back in 2000 (IIRC). The population of Bamyan is largely made up of Hazaras, an ethnic group that faced immense persecution under the Taliban for being generally Shia muslims. In 1997, 10 000 Hazaras were executed by the Taliban in a genocidal campaign. Hence, I assume, though assuming seems a ludicrous thing to do sitting in my chair in Yishun right now, that the Bamyan locals are generally tolerant of the International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF) presence.
But now, a bomb, an IED to be precise, has gone off, in of all of provinces, Bamyan. Those New Zealand soldiers could have easily been killed. And those New Zealand soldiers could have easily been an SAF soldier on his way to teach kids about dental hygiene or building a bridge.
Food for thought.
I see a similar parallel in our Afghanistan commitments to those of our East Timor/Timor Leste peacekeeping contributions in that they have increased slightly from last year. Last year, it was ten men on the ground, officially. This year, add another twenty man-medical team operating in one of the top three hottest provinces in the A-stan. Perhaps we'll see a platoon or company of SAF peacekeepers from the ADF on the ground somewhere around 2010? The ongoing crisis in Afghanistan has no end in sight, and experts are predicting that the current conflict might drag for another ten, twenty even thirty years. Given the country's history of two fricking millenia of more or less continuous warfare, I reckon that that's not a long shot.
Hope our compatriots go there, do their jobs, and come home in one piece. Peace.
-
The news reports it was only vehicles were slightly damaged and no one was injured. It only involved Kiwi troops. No mention of our boys over there.
A while back, ST mentioned that our dental and engineer team have already returned home ages ago.
Anyway... there are risks for all soldiers involved in any kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian deployment in a conflict zone.
I'm sure our boys are taking care of themselves.
-
Originally posted by baseturn:
The news reports it was only vehicles were slightly damaged and no one was injured. It only involved Kiwi troops. No mention of our boys over there.
A while back, ST mentioned that our dental and engineer team have already returned home ages ago.
Anyway... there are risks for all soldiers involved in any kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian deployment in a conflict zone.
I'm sure our boys are taking care of themselves.
Yes, I am merely highlighting the possible dangers our servicemen face. To reiterate, the Singapore contingent will be based alongside the NZDF PRT and will face the same threats. The previous year's rotation have obviously returned - but MINDEF has not released the date of departure and duration of deployment of the current teams. They might already be there, or they might be leaving soon. Anyone have any news? Anyway, our teams are rotated on a 3 month basis and that is usually half the time of what most servicemen from other countries serve.
I am encouraged by the fact that we are sending professionals to face operational risks, unlike a certain's country cavalier self-declared Christian missionaries last year.
-
just imagine the amount of paper work the brass would have to write if any SAF serviceman would to die on UN duties ......
I'm quite quite sure that our SAF servicemen would be far far away from any danger .....
-
ISpeak,
I too share your concern for our servicemen on peacekeeping duty and deployments.
I totally agree that our chaps are professionals ... and way better armed than those unfortunate cavalier christian missionaries
. -
i wonder if they are in their last stage of training in Australia or New Zealand.
I sense that perharps SAF is slowly emerging to take up more responsibilities, but slowly. Its first few deployment needs to be successful inorder for publics to accept further risk. Given that if the US decided to pull out of mid east and Terrorist threat increase or spread in the region. SAF will need to have the experience to counter against a more experience and battle harden enemy.
-
For the Gulf deployments, the fellas are undergoing the required training needed for such AORs.
If need be, they are more than able to protect themselves. For every detachment there's support elements. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
i wonder if they are in their last stage of training in Australia or New Zealand.
I sense that perharps SAF is slowly emerging to take up more responsibilities, but slowly. Its first few deployment needs to be successful inorder for publics to accept further risk. Given that if the US decided to pull out of mid east and Terrorist threat increase or spread in the region. SAF will need to have the experience to counter against a more experience and battle harden enemy.
I agree ... our friendly northern neighbours got into real gunfights with real casualties in bosnia and somalia, while we send dentists ! .... (who the fark would be concerned about their teeth in the middle of a shooting war or a hot insurgency anyways ?!?!)
they are absorbing lessons from real combat experiences while we continue to emasculate the SAF with more TSR and less tekaning ...
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
For the Gulf deployments, the fellas are undergoing the required training needed for such AORs.
If need be, they are more than able to protect themselves. For every detachment there's support elements. ;)
Hi, a little confused by your post because strictly-speaking, Afghanistan is not a Gulf deployment. Gulf deployments will be Iraq, Kuwait. Sorry for the nit-picking. :)
Support elements? I don't know if the SAF is providing a security element for our own treams. Well, maybe not in the public domain, anyhow. I know that some people here with friends in certain units might say otherwise, but saying so might get them into trouble. Thus, I will assume that security and protection will be provided by other nations i.e the NZDF in Bamyan, Dutch and Ozzies in Oruzgan or even ANA.
How many here think our commitment to Afghanistan will escalate within the next five years? Given that members of local terrorist cells received training in-country and that evidence of a plot to bomb Yishun MRT station (just five minutes walk from where I live) was uncovered there, I believe it is more likely that not that our involvement will deepen.
Afghanistan, the centre of the world.
-
Originally posted by iSpeak:
Hi, a little confused by your post because strictly-speaking in a geographical sense, Afghanistan is not a Gulf deployment. Gulf deployments will be deployments to Iraq, Kuwait and etcetera. Sorry for the nit-picking.
Support elements? I would not know if the SAF is providing a security element for our own treams. Thus, I will assume that security and protection for our teams will be provided by other nations i.e the NZDF in Bamyan, Dutch and Ozzies in Oruzgan or even Afghan National Army troops.
How many here think our commitment to Afghanistan will escalate within the next five years? Given that members of local terrorist cells received training in the country and that evidence of a plot to bomb Yishun MRT station (just five minutes walk from where I live), I believe it is more likely that not that our involvement will deepen.
Afghanistan, the centre of the world.
-
Originally posted by iSpeak:
Hi, a little confused by your post because strictly-speaking, Afghanistan is not a Gulf deployment. Gulf deployments will be Iraq, Kuwait. Sorry for the nit-picking. :)
Support elements? I don't know if the SAF is providing a security element for our own treams. Well, maybe not in the public domain, anyhow. I know that some people here with friends in certain units might say otherwise, but saying so might get them into trouble. Thus, I will assume that security and protection will be provided by other nations i.e the NZDF in Bamyan, Dutch and Ozzies in Oruzgan or even ANA.
How many here think our commitment to Afghanistan will escalate within the next five years? Given that members of local terrorist cells received training in-country and that evidence of a plot to bomb Yishun MRT station (just five minutes walk from where I live) was uncovered there, I believe it is more likely that not that our involvement will deepen.
Afghanistan, the centre of the world.
This is why I was fully supportive a of a nuclear strike in the first place. Turn afghanistan into a lake full of mutant fishes.
-
the neighboring countries will also suffer
-
get this from http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105325&page=40
medic deployment in timor leste
-
Fatum---The Malaysians can afford to deploy combat troops because they have far more combat troops than we have. For eg, if we deploy 1 x Infantry Battalion, that is already 1/5 of our Infantry forces (discounting 6 SIR because of their POI duties). Also, because our forces are NSF, it would be much, much harder to deploy versus a regular force that the Malaysians have-- the link between such a deployment and national security is much more tenuous and the public may not accept it. Realising our limitations, such deployments and other bilateral/multilateral exercises are about the best experience we can give to our military personnel.
Given our emphasis on force protection, though, I would find it hard to believe that the medical and CEC teams would be deployed without sufficient guarantees for their safety.
-
In my opinion, there is a possibility that we already have a small force of armed combat regular soldiers taking part in combating militants in Iraq and Afganistan.
This is feasible as Mindef is very likely to cover-up the news of such a deployment. This may be due to political considerations as it will be a political disaster is the public know that one of our soldiers died there when the primary mission of SAF is to defend Singapore.
This way we can gain combat experience with this kind of warfare using IEDs and ambushes, something which SAF have little real experience in.
-
Originally posted by tankee1981:
In my opinion, there is a possibility that we already have a small force of armed combat regular soldiers taking part in combating militants in Iraq and Afganistan.
This is feasible as Mindef is very likely to cover-up the news of such a deployment. This may be due to political considerations as it will be a political disaster is the public know that one of our soldiers died there when the primary mission of SAF is to defend Singapore.
This way we can gain combat experience with this kind of warfare using IEDs and ambushes, something which SAF have little real experience in.
not directly..... deploying soldier in a direct action mission which also reflecting on our foreign policy is a NO NO....deploying soldier under UN peace keeper or enforcer is more likely. I personally dont think we will see our soldier directly asisting American soldier in combating terrorism on foreign soil... too much at stake. -
Observers tagging and trailing coalition forces on operations is the most likely scenario.
I would think that it would be pretty difficult, even with heavy censoring, to base a platoon or company-sized deployment of armed SAF peacekeepers in a forward operating base to conduct regular security patrols. Pretty much fricking impossible with the spotlights of the world media trained on Afghanistan. Might be plausible in a slight sense if they sat on their butts and did nothing, but that would be counter-productive. Chances are, something's going to happen that will catch attention. Afghanistan is not East Timor and Oruzgan is not Cova Lima.
In terms of operational experience to be gained, the SAF would indeed miss out of if it does not commit, at some point in time or another, regular combat soldiers to the theatre. If East Timor was a BMT for our ADF peacekeepers, then Afghanistan would be a full-fledged ATEC if they are deployed to hot zones like Helmand, Oruzgan and Kandahar. Apologies if it's a callous analogy. Perhaps it's already happening now. We might never know for certain.
Or perhaps it will never happen.
Because I doubt the average Singaporean truly understands the threat that global terrorism poses to us. Perhaps it's not worth a cabinet minister's seat in a GRC if body-bags come home from distant lands.
-
If, and this is a big if, we have combat troops in Afghanistan, they will very likely be confined to doing guard duty in one of the big bases dotted in the country. Many other countries are doing this. On paper, many countries have sent troops in support of operations in Afghanistan, but in reality, most of these nations do not allow their troops to leave the base. They are only there as a token gesture. This is not a secret and it is likely that is the case with Singapore. I am not sure if our medical staff leave the base but looking at the behaviour of the other nations mentioned before, I think it is unlikely they will be allowed out of the heavily defended bases.
That will be why the Americans and the UK are now making noises about some 'allies' not doing much work in afghanistan.
Btw: Not saying that imo SAF troops are not facing any dangers. AFAIK, the big bases get hit by IDF fairly regularly. However, the level of danger in the bases is imo minimal.
-
I thought in the old days SAF boy school churn out some combat regular eventually become combat NCO.
For the laterest deployment i believe they do combat train prior to deployment. But i have to admit this annoucement came without a follow up news almost Oops! raise few unanswer questions.
but i agreed that SAF will not deploy people without public info.