Slightly off topic, but...
Quote:
RUNNING OUT OF TIME: ARGUMENTS FOR A NEW STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN
By GILLES DORRONSORO Professor of Political Science at the Institut d'études politiques in Rennes, France, and Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.
In this working paper, co-produced by CIPS and the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Professor Dorronsoro argues that even with the addition of more US troops this year, there has been a startling lack of strategic innovation in the Afghanistan mission. There is very limited time to change the dynamics of the conflict. NATO should focus on redeploying its forces to the cities and to more stable areas of the country where it has a chance of making a difference, as a step towards eventual NATO withdrawal.
Full Text of this Working Paper
.............
A not embedded reporter reports
THis is a very odd story in The Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/A...the.5464013.jp
Whatever the truth it is an illustration of how the locals may view our presence.
davidbfpo
Britain at home and the war in Afghanistan?
I was reading a weekly column on Foreign Policy Magazine in joint collaboration with Small Wars Journal. About the war in Afghanistan and it's effects on polls on the UK homefront and British politics. From it as I'm sure many of you have read is that discontent over how the British Government and it's handling of it's part of the conflict in Afghanistan is growing stronger then ever before as the article stated. As casualties mount I'm strongly curious as to if the British commitment in Afghanistan will remain open ended? Or will the government under the very unpopular Gordon Brown and Labour Party opt to establish a timeline for a withdrawal date like Canada has kind of done or other countries have actually done? This should be especially interesting given that Britain is going to be having Parliamentary elections next year and how all three major parties will approach this increasingly loud debate.
Any opinions?
For one I could see Labour try to attach a date some considerable time from now to wind down the British commitment in Afghanistan. I also find it hard to see how the Conservatives will deal with this issue.
Initial comments from the UK
Kevin23,
I posted some earlier comments on SWJ Blog:
The current public and political debate over the UK's role in Afghanistan reflects the longstanding opposition to the policy, not the soldiers. Yes, the losses have been the catalyst. So has the USMC operation just to the south of the UK campaigning - with apparently fewer casualties.
The UK role in Helmand has appalling explained by the government before now. What are we doing, is it worth it and what national interests are involved.
A few weeks ago the Whitehall-Westminster coalition were all gloomy about the potential impact on the cherished 'special relationship' and sometimes that is still mentioned in press articles. That is not the argument the public will accept now; for a variety of local reasons the 'relationship' is no longer highly regarded and is under strain.
Even this morning on BBC Radio 4 two politicians were asked why. One of them, Patrick Mercer, Tory ex-soldier, mentioned the importance of Pakistan to UK national security and the impact of a retreat from Helmand. Explaining the role of Pakistan in UK national security is not made loud enough here.
The press and politicians have focussed on the lack of helicopters, that is one of many equipment issues. Yes, it is a scandal that so few are in theatre for so many who need them.
davidbfpo
Who Rory Stewart? The answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingo1rtr
I think Rory Stewart's view will gain traction.
(Taken from another thread re Rory Stewart's views) A lengthy commentary on the Afghan situation and whether it is really that vital a battleground; the author Rory Stewart has been a soldier, diplomat and academic and has travelled extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq. Living in Kabul in 2005: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...annot-win.html A slightly longer edition: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html
Worth reading through for its many pertinent comments and seems to fit here, even if killing is not the focus.
davidbfpo
Good article. Entirely too sensible for any
government to adopt... :mad:
Both authors have been there and speak truth. Thanks for linking it.
Unity of purpose, how about aims?
Quote:
Those who criticise our Afghanistan policy for lacking a credible plan and being lost in empty rhetoric are right. We are fixated on what allies and partners call "Helmandshire". Unlike our American allies, we lack a cross-government strategy and plan, the commitment, resources and Whitehall willingness to change sufficiently to deliver success.
What would success be? We have to stabilise the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan – bring the Pashtu into the fold, give them a stake in their nations' politics, wean them away from extreme Islam, deny sanctuary to terrorists and give the Afghans a state that can deliver what they want. Without Pashtu support, extremism in the region will decline. These are substantial aims, but failure, which would increase extremism – with inevitable and violent consequences within the region and internationally – is not an option.
From: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...p-1752208.html
Good article that assumes public unity in the UK on why we fight there and secondly what we aim to do is shared by the local population - as distinct from the state(s).
davidbfpo
An SDR for current operations?
Another good article. Well thought out and accurate on a number of levels. Its encouraging that the debate in the media is moving gently towards a more sophisticated level that just pure equipment shortfalls. Lets hope the politician follow on as the whore to her pimp!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...t-1753030.html
Liverpool Cathedral: a sign
From a well-known reporter, Robert Fisk; short article and I will show two paragraphs: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1751587.html
Quote:
I said that we should not be in Afghanistan, that we Westerners now have 22 times as many military personnel in the Muslim world than the Crusaders had in the 12th century .... Send them our doctors and our teachers and our agronomists – but not our soldiers. They should be brought home....And to my astonishment, the burghers and their families, students and their mums and dads – hitherto silent in expectation of a soft homily – began to clap, a great wash of sound that spread through the chapels and aisles of Scott's cathedral.
Quote:
In just one month – May of 1941 – Liverpudlians lost 1,453 men, women and children to Luftwaffe raids. In my cruel calculations, this means that our 185 dead in Afghanistan in eight years – from all over Britain – represent a mere seventh of what Liverpool alone suffered in one month of the Second World War.
A different viewpoint I readily admit, worth reading in full.
davidbfpo
Missing the point, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
Highlights from Killcullen:
1- Iraq was a mistake never should have gone there, there was no threat!
2-Pakistan is the Center of Gravity not Astan!
True not a threat, not so easy a call on should have never gone. The problem is that the Bush Administration sold Iraq as threat for several reasons. They later acknowledged that was a mistake but have never announced the total rationale for going there. My contention is that reason was to shake up the ME, the source of the Islamist international terror business since the early1970s. If that is correct or even if it was a synergistic side effect, then Kilcullen (and Bacevich) are wrong and are homing in on the wrong rationale.
As for Pakistan, true -- but Pakistan did not host the guys that paid for the attack on US soil. Plus Pakistan was and is a far tougher nut to attack than was Afghanistan. Afghanistan was an announcement that attacks on US soil will not be tolerated and, as a Pakistani neighbor, a lever to influence Pakistan -- one that may or may not work. However, we sort of had to try...
Iraq was an announcement to the ME that attacks from there on US interests around the world, an issue since 1979, would no longer be tolerated. Had it been better executed by DoD and the Army, it would have made an effective and powerful message. In the event, the message got diluted a bit but it's still been made and will have an effect. The worst gig about attacking Iraq was the timing; later would've been better.
Too early to make sweeping pronouncements about either operation; it'll take another 20 years plus to even start getting a good handle on them. :wry:
UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'
This is the BBC's title for a short article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8191018.stm based on a far longer article, interviewing the General Sir David Richards, the UK's new top soldier (CGS), in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...ffset=0&page=1
Quote:
It will take time. This is nation-building – not the starry-eyed type, but nation-building nonetheless. It is not just reconstruction; jobs and simple governance that works are key, and there has to be a strong reconciliation element to the latter. The Army’s role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years. There is absolutely no chance of Nato pulling out.
Later
Quote:
I believe strongly that it is winnable. Demanding, certainly, but winnable. And when people say, ‘How can you use the term “win”?’ I retort, ‘Well, I will certainly know if we have lost.’ Can you imagine the intoxicating effect on militants if we were defeated? Can you be certain there would not be an export of terrorism to the streets of London? It’s a risk we should be very wary of taking... But, of course, the end will be difficult to define; it won’t be neat and clear-cut like the end of some old-fashioned inter-state war might have been. And, as I have said many times, everyone involved needs to realise it will take a long time and considerable investment. We must remember, though, that we are not trying to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland.
How the UK public react to such a statement by the CGS, starting a three year tour, is a moot point. Let alone the government or opposition, who for very different reasons see Afghanistan differently.
How would the US public react to a forty year presence?
We have discussed before the Western public and political impatience for long wars. A factor the Taliban appear very well aware of.
The latest BBC radio news had a very short item on the interview and a renewed call by a Labour backbench MP for other NATO nations to share the burden. A so far largely a forlorn hope.
davidbfpo
Minister disagrees with UK top soldier
In a BBC News report on 200+ deaths in Afghanistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8203975.stm there is a mild rebuke to General Richards recent '40 years' comment by the UK Secretary of Defence:
But, referring to comments by incoming head of the army Gen Sir David Richards, he said:
Quote:
"The notion that we are going to be in Afghanistan in 30 to 40 years in anything like the form we are now is ludicrous."
davidbfpo
The last winner of the VC from the Commonwealth was an Aussie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
I know similar stories have appeared here, this one is British and the young soldier has been nominated for the Commenwealth's highest military medal, the Victoria Cross. The last winner was L/Cpl. Beharry, in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/nhero109.xml
There is an option to post comments on the Daily Telegraph's website.
davidbfpo
Trooper Mark Donaldson VC, Australian Special Air Service Regiment, won a VC for actions in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan on 2 Sep 2008. Story from the Australian Defence Force Website (http://www.defence.gov.au/special_ev...kDonaldson.htm ) follows:
For most conspicuous acts of gallantry in action in a circumstance of great peril in Afghanistan as part of the Special Operations Task Group during Operation SLIPPER, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan.
Trooper Mark Gregor Donaldson enlisted into the Australian Army on 18 June 2002. After completing Recruit and Initial and Employment Training he was posted to the 1st Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment. Having successfully completed the Special Air Service Selection Course in April 2004, Trooper Donaldson was posted to Special Air Service Regiment in May 2004.
On 2 September 2008, during the conduct of a fighting patrol, Trooper Donaldson was travelling in a combined Afghan, US and Australian vehicle convoy that was engaged by a numerically superior, entrenched and coordinated enemy ambush. The ambush was initiated by a high volume of sustained machine gun fire coupled with the effective use of rocket propelled grenades. Such was the effect of the initiation that the combined patrol suffered numerous casualties, completely lost the initiative and became immediately suppressed. It was over two hours before the convoy was able to establish a clean break and move to an area free of enemy fire.
In the early stages of the ambush, Trooper Donaldson reacted spontaneously to regain the initiative. He moved rapidly between alternate positions of cover engaging the enemy with 66mm and 84mm anti-armour weapons as well as his M4 rifle. During an early stage of the enemy ambush, he deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire in order to draw attention to himself and thus away from wounded soldiers. This selfless act alone bought enough time for those wounded to be moved to relative safety.
As the enemy had employed the tactic of a rolling ambush, the patrol was forced to conduct numerous vehicle manoeuvres, under intense enemy fire, over a distance of approximately four kilometres to extract the convoy from the engagement area. Compounding the extraction was the fact that casualties had consumed all available space within the vehicles. Those who had not been wounded, including Trooper Donaldson, were left with no option but to run beside the vehicles throughout. During the conduct of this vehicle manoeuvre to extract the convoy from the engagement area, a severely wounded coalition force interpreter was inadvertently left behind. Of his own volition and displaying complete disregard for his own safety, Trooper Donaldson moved alone, on foot, across approximately 80 metres of exposed ground to recover the wounded interpreter. His movement, once identified by the enemy, drew intense and accurate machine gun fire from entrenched positions. Upon reaching the wounded coalition force interpreter, Trooper Donaldson picked him up and carried him back to the relative safety of the vehicles then provided immediate first aid before returning to the fight.
On subsequent occasions during the battle, Trooper Donaldson administered medical care to other wounded soldiers, whilst continually engaging the enemy.
Trooper Donaldson’s acts of exceptional gallantry in the face of accurate and sustained enemy fire ultimately saved the life of a coalition force interpreter and ensured the safety of the other members of the combined Afghan, US and Australian force. Trooper Donaldson’s actions on this day displayed exceptional courage in circumstances of great peril. His actions are of the highest accord and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the Special Operations Command, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.
UK Parliament Sees TIC Stats from Helmand
Looking for something else, I spotted this little chart in the UK's Hansard from earlier this week:
http://milnewsca.files.wordpress.com...pg?w=300&h=268
Some caveats apply, of course:
Quote:
Without undertaking a detailed assessment of each engagement, it is not possible precisely to define in every case whether an attack was aimed at UK forces, at our ISAF partners, or against Afghan units. Data is therefore collected on the number of incidents involving ISAF forces in Helmand without attempting to identify the nationality of the forces actually being attacked. The environment in which forces are operating makes it extremely difficult precisely to distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgent forces and those initiated by ISAF. This data is based on information derived from a number of sources and can only be an estimate
Still, it looks like the numbers are steadily rising.
UK's most senior officer who died - gave a warning
The (UK) Daily Mail is running a piece today which reveals that Lt-Col Thorneloe, of the Welsh Guards wrote a secret memo, a month before he was killed by an IED while riding in a Viking, complaining of the shortage of helicopters. the full article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ater-dead.html
On June 5, reports the Mail, he had chillingly predicted the circumstances of his own death in his weekly report to the Ministry of Defence. Headed "'Battle Group Weekly Update", it reads in part:
Quote:
"I have tried to avoid griping about helicopters - we all know we don't have enough. We cannot not move people, so this month we have conducted a great deal of administrative movement by road. This increases the IED threat and our exposure to it."
There is a fuller comment on: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.co...dead-body.html
The issue for the UK remains mirred in accusations of a lack of resources, coming a poor second is the strategy (covered consistently by KOW blog) and a substantial body (majority) of public opinion opposed to our campaign in Afghanistan.
davidbfpo
Challenging the conventional
A few weeks ago there was a discussion at The Frontline Club, London on Afghanistan, this is the video: http://www.terraplexic.org/visual-st...n-and-now.html (Frontline site currently offline). This is an astute challenge to why and our 'Special Relationship': http://www.terraplexic.org/review/20...h-america.html
The last paragraph:
Quote:
The lessons of Afghanistan for the UK ought to be entirely chastening – a more modest assessment of our capabilities, a more realistic understanding of what a nation-building intervention can achieve, and a realisation that once you make a commitment, you may well be stuck there for much longer than your public is willing to tolerate.
davidbfpo
London summit to decide end game in Afghanistan
As part of the 'spin" for an annual speech by the UK Prime Minister in the City of London; he will announce that he plans to hold a summit for the Nato allies to discuss a timetable for withdrawal starting in 2010.
He will be mindful of an opinion poll on Sunday that showed 71% of British voters now back a phased withdrawal of British troops over the next year.
From:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ghanistan.html