We are forever hearing about British troops in Afghanistan being killed or injured by 'roadside bombs', also known as 'improvised explosive devices', but we seldom hear about native Afghans being killed or injured by the same. We know that these things are more sophisticated than yer average landmine, but why do they appear to be so much more likely to kill or injure British troops?
Thinking out loud, I'd suggest some combination of the following:
1. The Western media simply does not report it when native Afgh's are killed or injured.
2. Native Afgh's are warned in advance where they are planted and avoid those roads.
3. The Taliban only plant them on roads which native Afgh's don't use.
4. The Taliban lie in wait and press the trigger when they see a British Army vehicle approaching.
5. Native Afgh's get around on foot or by horse and cart and the roadside bombs are so sophisticated that they only detonate if they sense a largely metal vehicle approaching.
Does anybody happen to know?
UPDATE: somebody who does know emailed me to say it's partly a combination of 2. and 4., but mainly option 6: the Taliban watch troop movements and can plant these things at five or ten minutes' notice. If they miss their target, they just dig them up and wait for the next opportunity.
Two-Tier Prisoners
26 minutes ago
4 comments:
I doubt 5. I think they are produced by cannibalising mobile phones which suggests 4. 1, 2 & 3 also seem reasonable.
I think 1 and 4. though the press never fail to inform us of "friendly fire" or similar when US forces make a mistake. Apparently there are many of these attacks which range greatly in effectiveness. we only hear about the ones that kill.
@FT, i'd suggest that they only have to pop over the border for some refresher courses on improving their IED skills.
I'd say mostly (1)
I had a friend who was in Iraq some years back, just after the regime change. He reckoned that dozens of natives were killed on an almost daily basis, and that you literally had to have 50+ killed and injured before it was reported in the UK/US news, as opposed to 1 or 2 UK/US citizens.
Which does make a certain amount of sense, really. They don't want to flood us with the numbers of dead, because then we'll care a lot less when one of ours gets killed.
I'd say mostly 4.
That's what I'd do if my country was invaded and I knew every nook and cranny of my local area.
Post a Comment