Thread: General's fury at Allied troops 'too hungover for duty' in Afghanistan

General's fury at Allied troops 'too hungover for duty' in Afghanistan
Ed Harris
08.09.09

Troops in Afghanistan are to be banned from drinking after US military chiefs found soldiers reporting for duty either drunk or too hungover to work.

It comes after claims that too many soldiers and staff had been “partying it up”, it is reported.

Some were said to have been reprimanded for not “having their heads in the right place”.

It follows a row after an airstrike ordered by German forces and carried out by a US jet killed more than 100 people, most of them civilians, last week in Kunduz provine.

General Stanley McChrystal, head of International Forces in Afghanistan was said to be furious that he could not get hold of the people he needed to contact that day.

He “blamed it on late-night partying”, a military source said.

The main military HQ in Kabul has seven bars that serve tax-free beer and wine.

An insider told The Times: “Thursday nights are the big party nights, because Friday's a low-ops' day. They even open a bar in the garden at headquarters. There's a two can' rule but people ignore it and hit it pretty hard.”

The problem became so severe that military police started breathalysing drivers and pedestrians around the base.

British troops are allowed to drink only at official functions, with special permission. Soldiers from the rest of the 42-nation alliance are governed by a variety of guidelines.

At least two people were killed and six injured today when a suicide car bomber rammed into a Nato convoy near the entrance to Kabul's military airport.

The huge blast, which was felt in the capital a mile away, destroyed three Landcruisers. The Taliban claimed responsibility.General's fury at Allied troops 'too hungover for duty' in Afghanistan | News

take that massive US cock out of your fat ass Jet, you sound insane

^ Part of the french fairy forces are ya, Buttfly?

^^^Trying to minimise civilian casulaties is somehow a bad thing??

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Part of the french fairy forces are ya, Buttfly?

you are a dyke, aren't you ? no man would be mad enough to date such a loony

you would fit perfectly with the Goth lesbo underworld,

^^ Did you read the article, Ant, or do I have to spell it out for you?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

But, gee, I wonder why the US guys would get drunk -- mebbe it's Obama's new touchy-feely approach to how Americans can fight that has changed the military.

Seems to me like some things never change; Anyone for poppys?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

But, gee, I wonder why the US guys would get drunk -- mebbe it's Obama's new touchy-feely approach to how Americans can fight that has changed the military.

Quite right. Having a President who is fractionally less right-wing than the fools Americans usually feel duty-bound to elect is the reason young men drink too much alcohol. Democrats all too often blamed every ill in America on Bush; Republicans seem keen to out-do them 10 to 1.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^^ Did you read the article, Ant, or do I have to spell it out for you?

Yep I read it, and:

Air power, in the form of helicopters, only arrived after more than an hour “despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away,” McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay wrote

sounds like it was a military cock-up as opposed to some new policy that Obama may or may not have hd a hand in implementing. I'm sure he, as with every other President, simply takes advice from his military advisors and those developing rules of engagement on the ground.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^^^Trying to minimise civilian casulaties is somehow a bad thing??

not when they are mixed in, supporting, or otherwise at sympathy with the with the oposing forces and at the risk of jepordizing allied forces under attack by those mixed in with, supporting or otherwise sympathetic to the talaban terrorists.

And they can tell that from flying around above? Technology has advanced a lot.

Originally Posted by SEA Traveler

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^^^Trying to minimise civilian casulaties is somehow a bad thing??

not when they are mixed in, supporting, or otherwise at sympathy with the with the oposing forces and at the risk of jepordizing allied forces under attack by those mixed in with, supporting or otherwise sympathetic to the talaban terrorists.

And how are you going to tell that? 'Those that run are VC, those that stand still are well-trained VC'?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

sounds like it was a military cock-up

Ya, because the CO had his hands tied because of possible civilian casualties.