Afghanistan - Where the Lunatics are Taking Over the Asylum

Given this blog’s obsession with the failure of the coalition to press home its original advantage in Afghanistan, it must seem churlish to complain at the new US willingness to step up the reconstruction process in Afghanistan. The more than £5bn that George Bush is putting into Afghanistan is very welcome, although since £4bn is for improving the security forces and only £1bn for actual reconstruction, its effect is unlikely to be obvious in the near term. But still a welcome move. Much less welcome are the ominous noises coming from those around the new American commander General Dan McNeil, who has apparently decided that the Brits are just too namby pamby and things have got to change.

Those of you who have followed the debate over the American approach to winning hearts and minds, or to be more precise not winning hearts and minds, will be aware that the US prosecution of the war on terror has killed a lot of terrorists but created a whole lot more. In Afghanistan for example, a series of indiscriminate attacks by US aircraft - often in situations where British and Dutch pilots have declined to attack because of the risk of collateral damage - has done nothing to endear the coalition to the Afghan people.

More recently, amid the obvious failure of what might be called the Fallujah approach to counter-insurgency, there have been a number of US generals who have praised the British response while admitting the failings in their own tactics. A new US Army counter-insurgency manual has been published, making clear the need to win over the local population. But if the Parachute Regiment’s journal Pegasus is anything to go by, those within the US military who believe this remain in a distinct minority.

The latest edition of Pegasus reveals that British paratroopers were forced into taking part in an overly aggressive operation against the Taliban which caused serious damage to the British mission before it had even begun. They arrived in Helmand in June 2006 to provide security for a reconstruction programme that would leave the local people happy with the coalition presence and with their own government, thereby sidelining the Taliban.

But they found the then US commander planning a large-scale offensive operation against the Taliban in Helmand province. Brig Ed Butler, the British commander in Helmand, opposed Operation Mountain Thrust taking place in what he foolishly thought was the area under his control, saying that he had his own plan and going in hard at the start of the mission, thereby leaving the local population unhappy with the presence of his troops, was not part of that plan.

Unfortunately, the south had not been handed over to Nato control at this point so the US commander not only ignored the British plea, he told Butler bluntly that he was going in hard with US troops and he didn't care whether the British liked it or not.

“Despite our ‘ownership’ of Helmand and our request to conduct ops in ‘the British Way’ we were unable to prevent Mountain Thrust occurring,” an unnamed senior officer says in Pegasus. “As a result of the threat of unilateral action and in order to ensure our own force protection UK task force’s involvement was forced. This operation forced a change in the security dynamic in a number of areas across the province and played, to a certain extent, into the hands of the Taliban.”

Then with the Americans still in charge, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that the British put troops into the northern district centres of Now Zad, Sangin and Musa Qala. This took up the entire infantry battalion that was supposed to provide the security needed to allow the carefully planned reconstruction programme to go ahead. General David Richards, the British general in charge of Nato forces, was furious.

This was scarcely surprising. Not only did it tie down much needed troops and put back the reconstruction process, it also gave the Taliban some wonderful targets which they could attack, raising their profile immensely, allowing them to claim fraudulently that they were fighting for the local people, and largely justifying their claim to be mounting a major offensive in the south. They could claim some useful successes. The first 14 British soldiers to die in Helmand were all killed at Sangin or Musa Qala.

So a deal was agreed with the local elders in Musa Qala under which the elders would set up a local police force to keep the town under government control, allowing the British to withdraw their troops. The hope was that it would provide a blueprint that would keep the Taliban out of the towns and allow the British infantry to do their real job, providing the security that would allow reconstruction to go ahead and bring the local population on side.

But McNeil has made it clear that he wants such deals to end and the British to take on the Taliban, which will of course continue to ensure that the British troops cannot provide the necessary security for the reconstruction process that just might win over the local people while at the same time providing the Taliban with a stage on which to posture once again as the brave defenders of the Afghan people.

The Taliban are of course no fools and ahead of today’s handover ceremony have walked back into Musa Qala, in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response. The sensible move would be for Nato troops to refuse to be drawn back in, to send in Afghan troops backed up by allied air support, clear the Taliban out of the town and allow the force set up by the elders to continue as planned. Should we expect the sensible response from a US general? I somehow doubt it.

Comments

[Frank Schnittger]

This may seem as silly question, but who is in charge? If the U.S. wants to do it their way, why not withdraw and let them draw the heat.

It probably suits some U.S. Generals career objective to be seen to be acting tough and challenging "defeatist attitudes". The British attitude has to be, "not on our patch" and at the expense of the our lives.

Re-construction and winning hearts and minds is for the long haul. If some U.S. Generals need to get their battle credits quicker than that they should try Baghdad. Or else the Brits should get the hell out.

Doesn't anybody understand that quiet diplomacy doesn't work with Bush? He acknowledges the realities of power - as in a Democrat controlled congress which can cut off funding. The whimpering of a few Brit Generals doesn't even register on his radar.

Does Briton still have an independent Government fighting for British interests or is it formally a U.S. colony now?

[Chuck Unsworth]

Mick

Very good to see your post after the short break.

The latest American intervention in Afghanistan is bound to fail. Casually spraying Dollars around - with much the same accuracy as their munitions - will not do anything at all. One is reminded forcibly of the phenomenal amounts of cash which were (still are) being doled out to the Iraqis. Virtually anyone who looked like they had an outside chance of influencing matters - and many who quite clearly did not - were (are) having their bank accounts stuffed with the mighty Dollar. This financial profligacy serves no purpose whatsoever.

The American military approach both in Afghanistan and Iraq has been entirely predicated on the notion that these various 'enemies' can somehow be militarily defeated and thence brought into line. Obviously this is not the case.

So we're now faced with an overall command which is militarily and politically incompetent. If we do not wish to see a further and dramatic increase in the dangers to our people we should withdraw rapidly. I have no faith that American 'expertise' will win the day. And the recent concerns about one particular Coroner's hearing in Oxford merely serves to underline the point that we should under no circumstances entrust the lives and well-being of our troops to an American Command.

[Neil Murphy]

the American approach is simply that it is good to kill. Keep killing and eventually you win. It has failed dismally in Iraq, and now they are busily screwing things up in Afghanistan. Britain can't pull out of Afghanistan without wrecking the atlantic alliance, and British forces will have to do what the US Psycho Driller Killers From Hell want. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We need to find a 'peace with honour' or way of declaring victory and get out at the earliest opportunity.

[Neil Murphy]

"Does Briton still have an independent Government fighting for British interests or is it formally a U.S. colony now?"

Airstrip one, Blair is Air Chief Marshal.

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

"But they found the then US commander planning a large-scale offensive operation against the Taliban in Helmand province."

Pure tactical fantasy copied from the Soviets.

The US Commander is another one of those gung-ho soldiers; gets over-excited and trigger happy, targets anything moving in a conflict situation much like what we see in American Westerns (movies.)

The Brits were doing what had to be done in Helmand and it wouldn't be farfetched to say that they were achieving results until this US commander comes into the picture.

See Mick why there couldn't be any workable all NATO nation troops doing a single joint operation on the ground?

If British-US commanders who speak English can't get their acts together what more with NATO member nations whose troops could only understand their own native tongue?

[Karen Tabaka]

I my humble opinion: Bush is mad. Mad as in Mad as a Hatter!

".....a sensible response from a U.S.general..." has an oxymoronic quality to it! There's nothing sensible in U.S. responses. Win the locals with positives such as reconstruction of the devastated areas.....doesn't even cross the minds of the Alice in Wonderland group making the decisions in the U.S. government. The U.S. policy is folly as well as disgusting. The loss of life can't be forgiven in light of the failure to first try diplomacy.

The world's opinion of the U.S. is well deserved and so very sad.

[Chuck Unsworth]

A small observation on Karen Tabaka's comment.

I think it's true to say that most reasonable people recognise the gulf between American policy (and consequent military action) and the views of many Americans. The recent elections have demonstrated to the world the huge public disquiet within the USA. Much of that disquiet is directly the result of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures.

So she should take heart. Most external observers know that the policy pursued by the current administration is that of a small centrist elite, and that it does not reflect the views of all Americans.

As to American military competence, well that may be a different discussion...

[Saladin]

I firmly believe that the U.S. should pull out of Irag,Afganistan,
Europe,United Nations ,Nato, Atlantic Alliance,etc,etc.

Since Europe has regressed to the Appeasement Policies of the 1930's so should America.

In the interim,should you ,our esteemed allies? need help:

CALL THE FRENCH !!!!

[Ray Bronski]

Mick, It was extremely interesting reading your columns and getting a fresh point of view. As a former American Marine, I have to say that regretably, my country is being led by an incompetent with little knowledge of the big picture, who is probably influenced by a vice president, who at best could be described as belicose, defensive and incapable of explaining anything to anyone.

Nonetheless, we are at war with suicidal Islam not by choice but by the very nature of being an open, liberal society. Great Britain also faces this hard fact of reality, and will have to fight in the future to maintain its proud history and culture, or surrender to militant Islam.

The hostage situation of your people is but a blimp on the screen, perhaps a humiliation but in the end, perhaps a wake-up call to what we all face in the future. Why Blair decided to join the incompetent Bush admininstration in Iraq will no doubt be an unfolding story in the future, but it makes me sad to see some of your readers refer to Great Britain as a lackey or lapdog of the United States. I don't know anybody in the United States who thinks in these terms and from my vast experience, I have encountered only an attitude of respect toward the British military and its people, Irish Americans excluded from this observation.

Support for Great Britain was very high during the Falklands War and the American military was very supportive of this effort so much so that we studied many of your tactics used in defeating Argentina.

From what I have observed both of our countries now suffer from a lack of leadership. The whole world knows the example of Winston Churchill and Britain facing the Nazis with tremendous heart and courage. This is your legacy and ours. Let's work to make the future brighter for our children and hopefully avoid the appeasement and avoidance of reality apparent in those who are siding with a theocratic police state and its attempt to humiliate a great nation.