The UK in Afghanistan

[Red Rat]

Well you see what the politicians have done with barley a peep out of the senior ranks of the military. The first five years are approached on a half ass'd basis while the last five years are not deemed important enough to take it seriously even at the end. Its a disgrace.

A disgrace yes, but in line with national strategy... And that is not to say that there have been serious miltary failings; I accept that.

Iraq will be defined as a failure of British intervention. As far as Afghanistan is concerned it was treated as a sideshow from beginning to end with predictable results. Is this so when the military failure in Afghanistan is raised the stock excusing response can be "oh but it was just a sideshow".

Iraq was a failure at the strategic level, yes. It exposed serious weaknesses in the military, yes. But seemingly we achieved our national goals - and therein lies the quandry...

Oh? When my regiment was disbanded I was gutted. Can't believe tha Brit army cares not about such matters. A case of maintaining a stiff upper lip?

No. the army has undergone a great deal of change. I joined my regiment in 1989, I never served outside of the battalion when at regimental duty, yet served in three different regiments/capbadges. The army is used to change and is much more operationally focused. It will be hard for the Royal Armoured Corps, but the remainder of the army has undergone prolonged and extensive change since 1990.

Maybe you can explain to me how the Brit army can be entirely focused on Afghanistan when they only have 10% of their force level committed there at any one time?

Oh that is simple - we use resources inefficiently.

Representing 25% of participating units time the balance of 75% is surely enough to allow adequate time for a professional army to balance their skillset? Methinks that Afghanistan is becoming the scapegoat for bigger problems elsewhere perhaps?

Only if you have the resources to train, but as the only resources to train are focused on Afghanistan or on very basic (sub-unit and below level) training... And therein lies the problem.

Pakistan is only a strategic concern because they were allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They have been allowed to assume greater importance vis-à-vis Afghanistan because they convinced the CIA/State Department to channel of the funds through them for the mujahideen. Who let this otherwise Mickey Mouse country rise up to sit at the top table?

Pakistan was always top dog in the region, Afghanistan was only ever a minor player. Even in the era of the 'Great Game' it was about Russia and British India, not about Afghanistan.

As I said I would have thought that the Brit military would have updated the threat scenario annually so would/should have a good idea of where this is all leading.

We do. But you train and equip for constants and likelihoods. The problem is that the UK public (and politicians) think that all wars are going to be like Afghanistan, despite what the professionals say. It reminds me very much of the 1930's scenario. Then (as now) the public expect changes to occur in a 10+ year framework. This mindset means they think that we can rebuild our military capability as required, forgetting our now very limited defence industrial base, let alone the training time required for some personnel (ie aircrew)

If the armoured units are withdrawn from the Afghanistan rotation and told to focus on their core role then they would be of value to the country. Surely the Brits can' go less than an armoured brigade?

Yes and yes. But there is extemely limited funding for armoured training at the momet (each brigade live fires 2 squadrons (out of 4) to crew level once a year).

The military should have done their homework and be in a position to explain current capability to the politicians? If there is a change then there should by now be a process by which changes would be addressed, yes?

Yes and yes. But politics is not rational and is not long term. The single most over-riding UK political factor at the moment is the deficit which is seen as an existentialist threat to our way of life.

The bureaucrats in the MoD are the go between the military and the politicians. And the MoD at any time has a bunch of senior officers on secondment. So quite frankly it should be a standard process that if the politicians task the military they should get a costing by return post with the cost implications.

I am sure that most people are aware that the idea is to costs not rebalance the military against any current of future anticipated threat. I suggest therefore that it would be better to be honest about that. The cuts therefore would be made out of financial necessity. Approach it on that basis.

The cuts are being made out of financial necessity. It is harder to weigh the opportunity costs without knowing what opportunites the government expects us to participate in.

5% plus a further 10-15% would be pretty brutal. Then if the cost of Trident is to be included in such a reduced defence budget it would be devastating.

The UK defence budget deficit was £38bn, even before suts and the Trident replacement was factored in...

What game is Fox playing? But I say again the danger of making the Brit army a one trick (Afghanistan) pony is in the main because the way in which deployments are organised. It is an own goal.

Partially, but there are systemic factors at play as well.

Regardless of the way in which the politicians approach Afghanistan when it gets down to the soldier level they should surely try to do their best as soldiers coming from a great tradition, yes? Sadly it seems that the military is more keen than the politicians to get out of Afghanistan. That doesn't send the right message.

At the tactical and operational levels there is no stinting of effort. The military is keen to stay in Afghanistan because it ensure funding and capability. If we were not in AFghanistan we would probably be facing much more extensive cuts.

So my question is... is the army just going to sit on its hands and wait for the amateurs in government to figure out some dumb plan? Maybe young David should hire Dannatt as an advisor after all.

No, the military is waiting for the government to formulate what it regards as 'the National Interests', then to allocate the role and resources for the military's part in meeting the National Interests. The military will then formulate a plan to do so - that is how it works in western liberal democracies.

You considering a career move to the marines?

Nope; I get seasick And I enjoy soldiering with jocks far too much!

[JMA]

The cuts are being made out of financial necessity. It is harder to weigh the opportunity costs without knowing what opportunites the government expects us to participate in.

The UK defence budget deficit was £38bn, even before suts and the Trident replacement was factored in...

Well the decision seems to have been made. 7% cut in defence spending.

'Who the hell has ever heard of an aircraft carrier with no jets?': Defence chiefs' reaction as the iconic Harrier is axed

Noticed that Hilary woman got involved along with Gates. I would suggest that if the US are so concerned about the Brit state of readiness that they push the Brits up the queue for the delivery of F-35s to meet the carrier delivery schedule for which the Brits can pay for them as if they had been delivered at the current planned dates. Everybody happy?

Nope; I get seasick And I enjoy soldiering with jocks far too much!

Yes, out of all the Brits who ended up in our neck of the woods the jocks IMHO were way ahead. It seems that they have benefited from not having been conquered by the civilising Romans back then... they still seem to have a warrior edge to them others have lost. Wonderfully aggressive soldiers.

[JMA]

Young David announces armed forces cuts and says this re Afghanistan:

There would be no cuts to support for troops in Afghanistan - which is funded separately from the Treasury's special reserve, the prime minister stressed in his statement.

You got to hand it to him (having watched his announcement in Parliament per kind favour of SkyTV)... this guy guy has got the balls to make the tough decisions.

[davidbfpo]

An intriguing story tucked away on the BBC News:

UK forces in southern Afghanistan were under-resourced until extra foreign troops arrived earlier this year, the spokesman for the head of the Armed Forces has told an MPs' committee.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11629098

Bearing in mind the testimony was before a Select Committee, where criticism is muted normally, I noted the closing paragraphs:

Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock said: "We've been told by successive secretaries of state that when commanders asked for it they got what they wanted, whether that was equipment or manpower. If that's true what you are saying I can't understand why it took you so long to realise that we were badly off personnel-wise and that the only way we could deal with it was by having an enormous surge by the Americans."

Committee chairman James Arbuthnot, a Conservative MP, told Maj Gen Messenger: "You are an immensely reassuring man... but it would be more reassuring if you told us 18 months ago that we were getting things wrong, but I can't remember your doing so.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the place of a select committee overseeing the UK defence sector. Re-assuring! Economical with the truth.

[davidbfpo]

Immaculate timing and part of the build-up to the NATO meeting in Lisbon:

Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, who retires as Chief of the Defence staff on Friday, told the BBC that a significant cut in numbers would not come until the end of Prime Minister David Cameron's 2015 deadline for the end of combat operations.
"I suspect that our reduction is going to be fairy rapid and steep towards the end of that period rather than gradually over the next four to five years," he said. "It would be wrong to suggest that from next year you could start to see significant reductions in numbers of British forces; I really do not think that would be sensible."

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Taliban.html

[JMA]

This is an interesting view on Gen Messenger who is now a soldier acting as spin doctor for the political aims of the government to drum up support for the war in Afghanistan.

However, we should question this. The military in a modern democracy are under civilian control and supposedly non-political. Generals should merely carry out orders from civilians rather than take political responsibility for them. So, why are military officers, whose traditional roles are tactical and strategic, defending the foreign policy positions of the government?

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

I agree, especially as the author on the link is a regional expert:

John Heathershaw is Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Exeter. His recent book is Post-conflict Tajikistan: the politics of peacebuilding and the emergence of legitimate order (London: Routledge, 2009). It will be released in paperback later in 2010.

Now as for the "home front". There is no 'stab in the back' going on, if anything the public distinguish between the 'Heroes' fighting and the policy makers whose decisions led to our commitment in Afghanistan. Such a strategic commitment needs the public to have strategic patience and that is fickle, nay ebbing away. Elsewhere we have discussed the impact of public opinion in wartime.

If the USA was not in Afghanistan and the 9/11 attack hit say Amsterdam, would NATO et al be there now? No. We (UK) are there because it's the hole the USA has dug us into (adapted from WW1 cartoon).

[JMA]

From the newspapers we get:

Evidence of systematic and brutal mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at a secret British military interrogation centre that is being described as the UK's Abu Ghraib emerged today during high court proceedings brought by more than 200 former inmates.

[JMA]

From the Telegraph: SAS commander quits Army amid claims defence cuts have hit morale

It appears that all this has more to do with conditions of service benefits being hit by the SDSR than other reasons.

One officer of General rank, who asked not to be named, said Ministry of Defence civil servants who "only did money" were undermining morale in the Army.

He said: "Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA) is vital ground for the Army. Following SDSR it has been tinkered with in order to save some money. As a consequence some officers are already leaving.

[JMA]

Afghanistan injured cost government £500,000 a week

The cost of treating injured soldiers at Selly Oak hospital between May and July this year was £10.25m

[JMA]

From the Beeb

The Ministry of Defence has signed a £180m contract for 200 new patrol vehicles to replace the controversial Snatch Land Rover.

[120mm]

Personally, I'd be satisfied if the British Army would stop their soldiers from driving like such maniacs on shared auto/pedestrian roads on post, and teach their soldiers not to carry their L82 rifles with the muzzle pointing forward and up, aimed at passerby's midsection.

[JMA]

Personally, I'd be satisfied if the British Army would stop their soldiers from driving like such maniacs on shared auto/pedestrian roads on post, and teach their soldiers not to carry their L82 rifles with the muzzle pointing forward and up, aimed at passerby's midsection.

If thats the total of the Brit problems in Afghanistan then we should be thankful.

On post? Why the concern? Probably the weapon is loaded but not cocked so no danger there. Do US troops walk around with a round up the spout on post? (How many ADs - accidental discharges do you get?)

[Dayuhan]

Why the concern? Probably the weapon is loaded but not cocked so no danger there.

The passersby would presumably be unaware of the status of the weapon. Strange but true, in some benighted corners of the world pointing a rifle at someone's sternum is still regarded as a hostile and threatening act. Can't imagine why.

[JMA]

The passersby would presumably be unaware of the status of the weapon. Strange but true, in some benighted corners of the world pointing a rifle at someone's sternum is still regarded as a hostile and threatening act. Can't imagine why.

That is why I asked the status of US weapons on a post. Can't see that "on a post" (unless when under attack) that any weapons would be cocked and ready. That said if the US have no specific policy on this then I can understand why 120mm would be concerned... and indeed terrified.

When weapons are carried the barrel always points somewhere. Silly to think that the weapons are being deliberately pointed at someone passing.

[Dayuhan]

120mm referred to:

the muzzle pointing forward and up, aimed at passerby's midsection.

Whether deliberate or not, one can imagine that this would be less than conducive to the winning of hearts and minds.

Certainly the muzzle has to point somewhere, but for the sake of public relations a conscious effort not to point it at the ordinary citizen's center of mass would seem desirable.

[JMA]

120mm referred to:

"the muzzle pointing forward and up, aimed at passerby's midsection."

Whether deliberate or not, one can imagine that this would be less than conducive to the winning of hearts and minds.

Certainly the muzzle has to point somewhere, but for the sake of public relations a conscious effort not to point it at the ordinary citizen's center of mass would seem desirable.

The Brits are careful about such matters (good basic training you see) so I would need to wait for a photo to see what he means. If the weapon is not cocked when who cares where it is pointed? Unless of course you don't know what that post's weapon state is... then there lies the problem.

...but after what the US military and the Afghans have said about the British contribution in Afghanistan I can understand his concern. Getting shot by a Brit?... nah... but we can expect the odd yank who may open his mouth a little too wide to get a good kicking.

Up to company level (certainly) and probably for most at battalion level the Brits are solid. From Brigade level up it gets a little shaky. The best advice is not to pick a fight with a squaddie over something he had no part in the decision making of.

[JMA]

Report in the Sunday Times (but behind a paywall) states:

Men from the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment dropped from RAF Hercules C130 aircraft to take on unsuspecting fighters.

...

The soldiers carried little equipment and used low-level parachutes that allow them to jump from as low as 250ft.

Note: 1 Para's role is SFSG (Special Forces Support Group).

Suez - 5 Nov 1956

From one para to another - Utrinque Paratus - always proud of fellow paras.

--(we share the feeling one gets in the gut when the aircraft turns to start the run in and you receive the command - "stand-up, hook-up, check equipment")--

[davidbfpo]

The UK press corps must have a detachment in Helmand, to report on Xmas celebrations and then accept MoD briefings (as indicated by JMA's post above).

Clearly 3 Para have snared this reporter, who starts with this:

This is the 10th Christmas that UK forces have spent looking out on to Afghanistan's seemingly untamed landscape. But while no one is clamouring to say it – there have been too many false dawns – there is a feeling in the air that, as yet another year of the campaign comes to a close, a corner has been turned.

...Commanders are understandably reticent about trumpeting success in Helmand but they are getting close enough to whisper phrases such as "irreversible gains" and "unstoppable momentum".

They also mention "virtuous circles", one of which will become apparent in early spring with the next poppy harvest. If it is like last year's low yield – due in part to the farmers' fear of eradication, which led them to harvest too early – then there will be less money for the insurgents. That means fewer guns, bombs and hired foot-soldiers, which in turn means a less cowed population who will be more inclined to believe Nato's promises of security.

Then there is this classic:

Precision strike is also slowly winning over civilians, who are beginning to understand the efforts made to avoid unnecessary deaths.

There are signs that the precision strikes have contributed to a growing trickle of junior Taliban commanders changing sides – a process known as "reintegration" – in exchange for their removal from target lists.... People want to stand up and reject the insurgency. They'd rather give up the fight than fight to the death.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Helmand.html

[JMA]

The UK press corps must have a detachment in Helmand, to report on Xmas celebrations and then accept MoD briefings (as indicated by JMA's post above).

Clearly 3 Para have snared this reporter, who starts with this:

Then there is this classic:

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Helmand.html

David, how I wish this were all true.

Couple of points.

First, 16 Air Assault Brigade (of which 2 Para is a part) has only been in theatre since October. That means (according to previous Herrick debriefs that they are only now settled in. Good to think positively but quite honestly it may just be too early to call this supposed improvement.

Second, they quoted a Lt Luke Wilson who said:

... it has massively quietened down. They have gone back home to rest until it gets warmer. In the meantime, we are moving into their space and when they come back in the spring they will come back to a place where we are in control."

I think this kid has probably put his finger on it. The problem could well be that when the Taliban have regrouped and come back for a fight 16 Air Assault Brigade will have been replaced by 3 Commando Brigade and its troops will be acclimatising and therefore vulnerable. Its the continuity thing again.

We covered the poppy growing/heroin trade thing a while ago and I can't remember who (if anyone) sided with me that it was insane to allow the drug production to continue and indirectly fund the Taliban's war against ISAF. I still maintain that there should be serious effort to locate and destroy any poppy fields and apply punitive action against the farmer/farmers/farming community involved. So put the word out now that if you plant a crop of poppies... you will see what you will see.

Of course with the surge the Taliban must (in classic Mao fashion withdraw and) seek out other areas where ISAF is more vulnerable.

Mao said: “When the enemy advances, withdraw; when he stops, harass; when he tires, strike; when he retreats, pursue.”

and the Taliban have said:

NATO has the watches and we have the time

I still have my doubts that the use of the UKs best forces (the Paras) to guard villages is the best possible allocation of troops to task.