09-07-2004, 03:14 PM
If The BBC is reporting accurately then we are being a bit unfair on the Russian Army
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/worl...an_s/html/1.stm
So the key failure was not a poorly launched attack but the failure to keep the parents and relatives out of the operation.
Once the parents were running in and children were running out to meet them and the terrorists had started shooting what was the army supposed to do?
I think at that point attacking was the correct option - the best of a bad set
I have no idea how difficult it was for the security forces to keep the parents out. We don't have entirely comparable situations since in most war-torn areas soldiers are reasonably comfortable with the idea of armed civilians on their side shooting at a mutual enemy
Possibly better training might have made the troops more aware of the danger of civilians taking action into their own hands.
It's a very large assumption that in the West our armed forces would be able to deal with a large, armed, frantic civilian crowd at the same time as coping with armed and hostile terrorists
We've failed on many occasions to control civilians crowds with feelings running far less high
There seems such an urge to blame people. The terrorists deserve blame. The troops seem here to be getting far more stick than they deserve. And in the Russian press the intelligence services are getting blamed for not anticipating it. The politicians are getting blamed for not having sorted this mess out
Just because the siege turned out dreadfully doesn't mean the soldiers who risked their lives were incompetent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/worl...an_s/html/1.stm
Quote:Special forces storm the school. However, the security cordon is breached by relatives, many of them armed, who mingle with the troops running towards the buildings.
Russian President Vladimir Putin later says the decision to go in was unplanned and taken after the attackers started shooting at children.
So the key failure was not a poorly launched attack but the failure to keep the parents and relatives out of the operation.
Once the parents were running in and children were running out to meet them and the terrorists had started shooting what was the army supposed to do?
I think at that point attacking was the correct option - the best of a bad set
I have no idea how difficult it was for the security forces to keep the parents out. We don't have entirely comparable situations since in most war-torn areas soldiers are reasonably comfortable with the idea of armed civilians on their side shooting at a mutual enemy
Possibly better training might have made the troops more aware of the danger of civilians taking action into their own hands.
It's a very large assumption that in the West our armed forces would be able to deal with a large, armed, frantic civilian crowd at the same time as coping with armed and hostile terrorists
We've failed on many occasions to control civilians crowds with feelings running far less high
There seems such an urge to blame people. The terrorists deserve blame. The troops seem here to be getting far more stick than they deserve. And in the Russian press the intelligence services are getting blamed for not anticipating it. The politicians are getting blamed for not having sorted this mess out
Just because the siege turned out dreadfully doesn't mean the soldiers who risked their lives were incompetent