Afghanistan first, quintessential asymmetrical conflict in which the challenge is to identify an enemy that does not wear a uniform in a country where everyone is armed! The enemy is thus above all one that shoots you (or carrying heavy weapons) and saw a helicopter, locate and eliminate it proves far from simple. The risk is great to kill civilians, women, children, the notorious "collateral damage" of which we speak so disembodied media. So one can only admire the composure and restraint shown by the captain and his crew Erbland in the treatment of goals, then it would be so easy to destroy everything.
It also realizes that these interventions are in a constrained budgetary environment, because flying hours and ammunition are expensive (not to mention the material) and there is no question of doing anything. The pursuit of cost effectiveness is an ongoing concern, sometimes even limited operational possibilities. Finally, although we perceive in the difficult geographical context of Afghanistan, the Tiger has shown a tactical support weapon unique, highly versatile and extremely effective, which often allowed ground troops to get out of a scrape.
The intervention in Libya is in a context different from conventional war, as part of an aero-naval operation against a regular army whose care has been taken beforehand to neutralize the air assets. In this respect, the most interesting chapter is where the captain Erbland speaks of fear in combat. This is not really afraid, but a dull anxiety and, in the Libyan context, one wonders if this "fear" is not linked to the widespread feeling of risk taking (too) high. For send frontline, apparently without support ,, helicopters face a regular army can have powerful anti-air assets, was it not a reckless risk taking, even if all operations were conducted at night for more safe? No French helicopter shot down in Libya will sign the professionalism and luck can sometimes be on the same side. It is well however perceives that determining the level of acceptable risk remains a complicated exercise in this type of mission and that zero risk does not exist ...
If I had a criticism addressed to this work, it might be to say that I find the captain Erbland sometimes leaves a little too carried away by his emotions. Everyone reacts according to his character, but it is clear that this is a trend (and weakness) of our modern and compassionate societies give expression unrestrained emotional aspect of all situations; each expressing legitimate reasons to complain or seek to be pitied. Now, in the military context, when observing the permanence and intensity of armed conflicts around the world, one can only note that the number of fighters, certainly more rustic, show an impressive determination that leaves no room for emotional and history of recent wars has shown that it is often the most determined and not those enjoying the most sophisticated weaponry armies won.
Of course, the book contains no development on the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan and Libya, the reasons on which there would also be many things to say, but as he does not belong to an active military comment and even less to criticize political decisions, it would be unfair to make him the reproach.
The program of scientific prépa figure this year the theme of "war", with three works of choice: "Persians" by Aeschylus, "war" Clausewitz and "fire" by Henri Barbusse. But for a slightly more modern view of the war, they can usefully supplement their reading of the Book Erbland captain "In the claws of the tiger."
