# Brit Paras Want Jump Op in AFG



## The Bread Guy (18 Apr 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409)

http://tinyurl.com/m462w

Dramatic plan for parachute assault on poppy fields
By Sean Rayment, Telegraph Online, 16/04/2006

''British Commanders in Afghanistan are planning the first operational parachute assault into "enemy territory" since the Suez crisis, writes Sean Rayment.

Senior officers hope that a "dramatic show of force" will deter attacks against British troops when they begin anti-drug operations later this year.

By the end of this month, most of the 3,300 strong British force - including 650 members of the 3rd Battalion of The Parachute Regiment - will have arrived in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, a former stronghold of the Taliban.

It is understood that Army commanders want to demonstrate to Afghan warlords and drugs barons that they have the capability to drop 650 heavily armed men, supported by Apache attack helicopters, virtually anywhere in the country.

If the mission goes ahead, the troops will jump from Hercules C130 transport aircraft at a height of between 250 and 300 feet and will be ready to fight within seconds of hitting the ground.

*A Parachute Regiment officer confirmed that the troops would be taking their parachute equipment to Afghanistan and said that senior officers had a "very real desire" to carry out an airborne assault. * One officer said: "Airborne assaults are very high-risk operations. There is a thin line between success and disaster.

"An airborne assault on to a poppy field would send out a powerful message of intent. But if there is any intelligence that the enemy may have surface-to-air missiles, then it would not go ahead."

The last time British troops took part in a airborne assault was during the Suez crisis of 1956 when soldiers from 3 Para jumped into the El Gamil airfield in Egypt as part of an Anglo-French operation to capture the Suez canal. 
(...)''


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Apr 2006)

Are the war weary Afghans really impressed with anything we do?  The Brits must be hot to trot though.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2006)

I think they have had problem's getting their jump's in due to the heavy use of C-130's on operations.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2006)

In the article it says, They may think they "are getting away with it" in relation to getting rid of the poppy fields, but this may seriously may come back to bite them in the south end. It is really going to depend on what the farmers receive in "actual compensation" that will largely determine whether they tolerate it or whether they begin to covertly help the Taliban. Apparently, in previous years the Kabul government promised compensation, but paid none. That may work for someone sitting in Kabul or in Canada, etc, but for the farmer it only comes down to one thing....food for his family. The drug lords/war lords are paying approximately 2000 Afghani ($40.19 US) for a crop, while alternate crops are only bringing in around 400 Afghani ($8.04 US)----- (1 Afghanistan Afghani = 0.02010 US Dollar ), thus we are not talking huge amounts here in relation to armed forces costs and Coalition lives. Pay it, then gradually reduce it over time as their production rates are able to increase with better farming methods.
This kinda reminds me of the Marines doing an amphibious assault on Da Nang, to be joyously greeted by the street vendors/joy house girls. Good practice from a military point of view, but in the public domain, especially in Afghanistan I wonder what it's effect will be, given the present Canadian approach of diplomacy/help/security.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Apr 2006)

> The drug lords/war lords are paying approximately 2000 Afghani ($40.19 US) for a crop, while alternate crops are only bringing in around 400 Afghani ($8.04 US)----- (1 Afghanistan Afghani = 0.02010 US Dollar ), thus we are not talking huge amounts here in relation to armed forces costs and Coalition lives. Pay it, then gradually reduce it over time as their production rates are able to increase with better farming methods.



That sounds like a great idea to me.  Buying and destroying the opium crop at $50 Cdn/field while simultaneously encouraging other crops has got to be a better and cheaper idea than bombing or burning the fields.  Is anyone on this?


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2006)

> I am not sure what affect a British operation would have on the "PRESENT" CDN approach.



Right now Canadians are somewhat into Hilmand Province. The British are slated to go in there. The British are proposing to make a grand entrance to "serve notice" That's good, and I don't have too much of a problem with that, with the one exception. Do you really think the Afghan people know or care about what "uniform" destroys their crop? They will not distinguish between the two, all they know is they were told the crops would not be destroyed and they were, meanwhile they have got nothing to show for it. They are normal human beings and will find someone to blame.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Apr 2006)

If they get paid for their fields I don't think they will give a rats ass.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2006)

The numbers 2000 and 400 were plucked out of a CTV interview on the opium production. I am positive they explained that the funds were in Afghani not US dollars, but could stand to be corrected.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2006)

> If they get paid for their fields I don't think they will give a rats ***.



That's the big *if*. I didn't see any mention of that in the article, but if they ensure they do, then the parajump will probably be more effective in "serving notice"


----------



## geo (18 Apr 2006)

Hmmm.... are the Brits planning to "stomp" out the poppy fields?
gotta be a more effective way of destroying the poppy fields would be my guess (JK) 
but all kidding asside - as has been stated - to win the hearts and minds of the local population, we have to ensure that the stomachs are not overlooked - IMHO


----------



## Cliff (18 Apr 2006)

US Army Rangers were also involved in some jumps early on. But it involved raids on compounds = not poppy fields.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Apr 2006)

Well, FWIW, a year and a half ago the Brits were firmly - and officially - opposed to an eradication strategy to deal with the poppy problem.  Sounds like a lot of Para "talk" to me...


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Apr 2006)

What wold be the purpose of dropping in about 100 highly trained soldiers into a poppy field...besides possibly earning a 'combat jump' badge?


----------

