Culture House Daily

Kajaki review: never have I seen a more gruesome depiction of war

19 November 2014

11:07 AM

19 November 2014

11:07 AM

On September 6th, 2006, a mortar unit from 3rd Battalion, 3 Para, defending the Kajaki dam over the Helmand River in Afghanistan, spotted an illegal road block set up by the Taliban. The enemy were too distant for the unit’s sniper, Lance Corporal Stuart Hale, and to call in an airstrike would have caused civilian casualties, so Hale set out with two other paratroopers to get close enough for his sharpshooting talents. En route, Hale walked into an old Soviet minefield which had not been marked on their maps and lost his leg.

Hale survived, but by the time he and his comrades were rescued four hours later, another six men were seriously injured, two other losing legs, and one, Corporal Mark Wright, his life.

In that time their actions, in what can only be described as a combination of blindfold chess and Russian roulette conducted under a burning sun, warranted a George Cross (the award for the ‘greatest heroism’), two George Medals (for ‘acts of great bravery’) and the Queen’s Gallantry Medal (‘exemplary acts of bravery’). The absence of the Victoria Cross is telling: it is only awarded for valour in the face of the enemy. The Taliban had quickly evaporated into the wilderness, and the only enemy these men faced were the residues of a previous war in that torn place. That, and the ill-equipped incompetence of those above them in the chain of command. They were, in a sense more literal than poetic, killed by war itself.

[Alt-Text]


The first-time director Paul Kakis and screenwriter Tom Williams have attempted, and largely succeeded, in their dramatic reconstruction of these events to turn the laws of tragic art on their head. There is no redemption in this story, although there is heart-wrenching camaraderie and gut-wrenching courage, but certainly no catharsis, no purgation of the dark emotions. The viewer is left, if anything, wounded. And that was the film-makers intent.

This reviewer watched it at the invitation of writer – Tom Williams has been a friend since 2010 – at a charity premiere alongside an audience of decorated veterans from that conflict, including many of the survivors of the incident itself. The film has no soundtrack, but my screening did: the harrowingly hoarse and unstable breathing patterns of one veteran behind me.

I don’t think I have ever seen a more gruesome representation of war, and given that the entire incident centres on misadventure, miscommunication and collateral damage, the pointlessness of it all leaves one wrung out and jaded. Like the soldiers on the screen, acted by an exemplary cast, the final appearance of the extraction helicopters, and the end of the film which is largely in real-time, is greeted by the watcher with a sotto voce ‘thank God’. (The first helicopter to arrive had no winches, attempted to land, and ended up detonating more mines, leading to the fatality and other injuries.)

If there is such a thing as an apolitical, indeed existentialist film about the horror of war, it is this. The most striking shots of all are of the dozen men in that field seen from the perspective of other members of the regiment watching from the crests of surrounding hills, defending their colleagues from hostile forces that never materialise, all the while hearing their brothers-in-arms scream, then weep, then laugh, then sing in an attempt to maintain morale and ward off shock and despair. All the while they stand like sentinels, unable to help, an audience looking on in horror.


New Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • sfin

    I look forward to this film.

    I was there in 2006 (In Southern Afghanistan) and was on duty as that incident unfolded.

    My abiding memory of that tour was the men of the match of that pitiful brigade we deployed in Helmand province.

    3 Para – every man jack of them – from the Boss down – absolute lions!

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Screw collateral damage. Hearts and minds is a lost cause. Some culpability can be laid at the door of the MSM.

  • John Cronin

    Every member of the cabinet who sent them there ought to be executed.

    • http://www.thebullsofpamplona.com fiskeharrison

      You seem to imply this was an exclusively British campaign? It was very, very far from that indeed. It actually went like this:

      Having identified al-Qaeda as the architects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an ultimatum was issued by the US, supported by all its allies, to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader who ruled the majority of Afghanistan, a failed state where al-Qaeda were housed and trained in return for giving financial and military assistance to their hosts, with whom they had common anti-Western cause.

      The ultimatum was yield up al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin-Laden or suffer invasion.

      The ultimatum expired and the initial inasion was effected by combat troops from the US, UK, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Estonia, Australia and New Zealand, although other countries, including non-Nato Muslim nations such as Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan and Oman offered logistical support, airbases and overflight corridors.

      • John Cronin

        I am entirely aware of all of the above. The governments of the U.S., Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Romania Estonia Australia and New Zealand, are however, not the governments of the UK.
        Blair et al could have kept out of it if they wanted. Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as he realised there was no vital British interest involved (or American vital interest as far as I can see, but that’s a whole different debate)
        After thirteen years, the campaign has been a total failure, Islamic fundamentalism is stronger than ever, the heroin trade is more lucrative than ever, and the UK armed forces are stretched beyond breaking point

        • http://www.thebullsofpamplona.com fiskeharrison

          Actually, the United Kingdom could not have opted out as a fellow NATO member had been attacked, and had massive civilian casualties inflicted on it, by a terrorist organisation given safe haven by an explicitly hostile government in Afghanistan. What is more Al-Qaeda having safe haven presented a clear threat to the vital interests and security of the United Kingdom.

          To quote General Lord Richards, former Chief of the Defence Staff, who was in turn quoting Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, the Afghanistan operation was a success in so far as not a single terrorist attack has been planned out of, let alone launched out of that country since.

          (The invasion of Iraq led to the initial overstretch you describe, the ludicrous cuts in the military spending budget have made things worse since.)

          • John Cronin

            I can’t remember who it was that said the policy of the last Labour govt appeared to be summed up in the phrase “Invade the world, invite the world” but that was about the size of it. I was watching BBC breakfast tv a few weeks ago when a father of one of the troops who had died in Afghanistan was asked by Mr Liberal from Al-Beeb if he thought his son’s sacrifice had been worth it.
            “Of course not” he replied. “It was a total waste of lives and resources.”
            He then went on to point out that his son’s comrades had come back from combat to be given their P45s and all went down to the dole office to find out their previous jobs had mostly been taken by immigrants from, well Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
            I genuinely thought that the interviewer was going to hit him. For Chrissakes shut up….You just can’t speak the truth on the BBC….he changed the subject very very swiftly.

            • http://www.thebullsofpamplona.com fiskeharrison

              All of which may be true aside from the judgment of the grieving man on invading Afghanistan in the first place. The NATO treaty stipulates for exactly situations such as 9/11 that if one member is attacked, all are. Your suggestion seems to be that if thousands of your citizens are killed by a foreign power or non-state actor hosted by a foreign power which it supports and funds, we should just ‘take it on the chin’. The reconstruction of Afghanistan is a completely different point.

              • John Cronin

                I don’t think there was anything in the Nato treaty about non state actors or terrorism. Makes you wonder why the UK didn’t invade the U.S. on account of their toleration of Noraid for twenty years.

                • http://www.thebullsofpamplona.com fiskeharrison

                  “I don’t think”??? Read it. Article 5. ANY armed attack on one member state is an attack on all.

                • Bill_der_Berg

                  But each member state decides for itself what action it should take.

                  “If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances”.

    • Mc

      Agree with you up to a point. The latest Aghan war should remind people that if they sign up to the military, they are almost always treated as cannon fodder by military top brass and often for pointless political ends. Then after the war, often after they’ve been maimed, the demobbed troops are not taken care of.

      If one doesn’t want such treatment, don’t sign up. No one forces volunteers to join the military.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here