The UK in Afghanistan

[davidbfpo]

Infanteer,

A quick response from an "armchair" faraway from the combat frontline, but nearer the public frontline - to your first question:

.. what should the UK have done in early 2006? Ignored NATO? Deployed a different force structure?

The UK should have said no to an intervention in Helmand and stated a clear willingness to reinforce Kandahar, if necessary to work under Canadian command. There was no strategic gain in going to Helmand, either for the UK or Afghanistan. Would that mean ignoring NATO I doubt it. I cannot answer the final part. If we still deployed into Helmand, we should have told the Afghans the "battle over flags" or whatever the phrase was, was not worth the bones of a British soldier. We would of course happily insert and support the ANA to fulfill such a key mission.

[Infanteer]

Infanteer,

A quick response from an "armchair" faraway from the combat frontline, but nearer the public frontline - to your first question:

The UK should have said no to an intervention in Helmand and stated a clear willingness to reinforce Kandahar, if necessary to work under Canadian command. There was no strategic gain in going to Helmand, either for the UK or Afghanistan. Would that mean ignoring NATO I doubt it. I cannot answer the final part. If we still deployed into Helmand, we should have told the Afghans the "battle over flags" or whatever the phrase was, was not worth the bones of a British soldier. We would of course happily insert and support the ANA to fulfill such a key mission.

My armchair is just as far away now and it was in 2006 as well.

1. "putting all the eggs in one (Kandahar) basket" makes sense as a viable alternative. It would have provided RC(S) with better troop ratios. Can't make it from KAF to Maiwand without getting lit up, well we better not try the drive to Lashgar Gah then....

2. I don't think refusing to go with NATO would have been viable. We (yes we - meaning NATO countries that skipped or were looking for a way out of Iraq) were getting pressure from both the U.S., who needed forces for Iraq, and NATO, who was apparently searching for its next big thing? Regardless of real or percieved national interests, lowest-common denomintor policy at Brussels pushed us all there.

3. From the Kanadahar perspective, I've often thought the war was done for us in 2006. After the Taliban concentrations were smashed in Op MEDUSA, they shifted to a war of exaustion and simply avoided ISAF strength and ramped up the IED campaign. I figure we were probably just as useful (literally and politically) sitting in Kandahar Airfield and sallying forth to destroy concentrations when they manifested themselves. Let the ANSF deal with the unruly locals. Although Helmand was different, one wonders if seeing a British "bring out for the big fights" force in Bastion would have been more suitable.

Certainly, it would be more palatable politically than suffering the death of a thousand IED cuts to patrol the same trails and fight the same xenophobic farmers.

4. Finally, I feel a big lesson was go heavy or go home. Helocoptors are one thing, but they don't let you win a close fight in the kind of terrain that exists in southern Afghanistan. The Canadian decision to deploy mechanized infantry and armour proved to be a boon when the fighting got intense. I don't think the British ever had as good of odds with Vikings, Snatches and whatever else they could muster.

My 2 cents.

[JMA]

Soldiers face longer tours in Afghanistan because of savage cuts to troop numbers

"Soldiers face being forced to do extended tours of duty because of savage cuts to troop numbers, MPs have warned."

and

"Army chiefs have been under pressure to move to nine months on, followed by 27 months off, in a bid to increase the proportion of troops who can be sent to the warzone."

Then there is a comment about "harmony guidelines" as follows:

"... there must be a risk that the length of operational tours will be increased or that harmony guidelines, which set out what proportion of time personnel may spend away from home, will be breached.’"

What the hell are "harmony guidelines" and why would they apply in time of war?

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

IIRC 'harmony guidelines' are:

The Army guidelines determine that soldiers can be deployed for one six-month tour in every 30 months (six on, 24 off) and during that 30 month period a soldier should not expect to be away from his or her normal place of work for more than a total of 415 days.

From a 2009 parliamentary question:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...2-11b.253717.h

The issue continues as there was a shorter exchange in parliament in July 2011. Note in 2008 there was an external, medical analysis of the impact of breaches of the guidelines you may enjoy:http://network.civilservicelive.com/...s/view/260118/

[JMA]

JMA,

IIRC 'harmony guidelines' are:

From a 2009 parliamentary question:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...2-11b.253717.h

The issue continues as there was a shorter exchange in parliament in July 2011. Note in 2008 there was an external, medical analysis of the impact of breaches of the guidelines you may enjoy:http://network.civilservicelive.com/...s/view/260118/

The quick answer to that David is (as I recommended earlier in this thread) is to base the battalions of the brigade in Afghanistan (Bagram) so that it becomes the "normal place of work".

I suggest that the 20% on operations (over 30 months) current requirement can be significantly increased with the proviso that regular short R&R breaks are arranged (accepting that in the main units deployed to Afghanistan do not get rotated "out of the line" in theatre like in the old days).

Your second source led me to the PTSD study of May 2010. I did not shell out the $30 for the full text version but note that they estimate a 4% PTSD rate among those who deployed to Afghanistan (where number of tours did not affect this rate). Alcohol abuse and other behavioural issues are reported but one would need to establish what the rates were at time of joining up and then also measured against a sample of those never deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan (not sure if the full text version does that).

I did not see reference to tour lengths nor can think how that can be a factor as all Brit tour lengths are 6 months (for the battalions). It appears there is a tenuous and circumstantial link created as a result of comparison with US PTSD rates (30%) and the longer combat tours they have.

The invisible division: US soldiers are seven times as likely as UK troops to develop post-traumatic stress

PTSD Affecting More U.S. Soldiers Than British

There must be a different method of PTSD diagnosis used in the US as a seven times difference is just too great to be accepted on face value.

A 30% PTSD rate? ... nah.

[JMA]

The quick answer to that David is (as I recommended earlier in this thread) is to base the battalions of the brigade in Afghanistan (Bagram) so that it becomes the "normal place of work".

I suggest that the 20% on operations (over 30 months) current requirement can be significantly increased with the proviso that regular short R&R breaks are arranged (accepting that in the main units deployed to Afghanistan do not get rotated "out of the line" in theatre like in the old days).

Just to expand upon this a little...

The rationale (as explained to me) behind the short (six month) tours was the potential for increased incidence of PTSD and the adverse effect on family lives.

My experience of these low intensity operations is that a 25% R&R rate (plus annual leave) is individually sustainable on a continuous basis for about three years. A 6:2 weeks (or a eight week to 18 day) ops to R&R mix is about right.

If these battalions are volunteer based (as discussed earlier) then the family issue is minimized.

The PTSD issue will be explored in another post.

[TDB]

The length of tours is a tricky one as you've said JMA the reationale behind the six month length is to avoid adverse affects on family life and to reduce the liklihood of PTSD. The issues surrounding the ability to impact on the ground with only a short period to build up relationships with the locals and ANSF is a problem, however i think they've nailed down the handover process. The 15 month tours the US Army do are beyond understanding in terms of the impact they must have on the soldiers and loved ones. NY Times did a series of articles entitled A Year At War, one of the soldiers explained that he was going back to an empty house because his wife had left him taking their kids with her. Now it would be easy to say "you signed up for this" but for many life in the army is as much a career as it is an adventure, so the government and the military have a responsibility to look after its employees. Since it was decided that British military personel could claim compensation for negligence, we've seen relatives of those who were killed as a result of poor equipment. I think this is a step in the right direction, not simply because i believe that if we send men and women to war we should spend whatever it costs to get them what they need. It is more that I think we need to realise these people are human and should be treated as such, not just tools for a job. Gone are the days "our's is not the reason why, our's is but to do and die".

[120mm]

The problem with the six month tour is that it is less than worthless.

Which is pretty much inline with ISAF's role in the war.

[JMA]

Your second source led me to the PTSD study of May 2010. I did not shell out the $30 for the full text version but note that they estimate a 4% PTSD rate among those who deployed to Afghanistan (where number of tours did not affect this rate). Alcohol abuse and other behavioural issues are reported but one would need to establish what the rates were at time of joining up and then also measured against a sample of those never deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan (not sure if the full text version does that).

I did not see reference to tour lengths nor can think how that can be a factor as all Brit tour lengths are 6 months (for the battalions). It appears there is a tenuous and circumstantial link created as a result of comparison with US PTSD rates (30%) and the longer combat tours they have.

The invisible division: US soldiers are seven times as likely as UK troops to develop post-traumatic stress

PTSD Affecting More U.S. Soldiers Than British

There must be a different method of PTSD diagnosis used in the US as a seven times difference is just too great to be accepted on face value.

A 30% PTSD rate? ... nah.

Was directed to the full text version of the study mentioned above. (Many thanks and much appreciated)

First, the issue of tour durations/lengths. The Australians have found in their study:

"The number of months on deployment was categorized as follows: 1 to 3 months, 4 to 7 months, 8 to 10 months, and 11 to 36 months."

and

"There were no statistically significant associations between duration of deployment and either perception of general health or indicating 20 or more symptoms of any severity on the symptoms checklist."

followed by:

"... significant associations were not observed with either of these outcomes when the odds for those who deployed for 1 1 to 36 months were compared to the group who had deployed for one to three months."

(One needs to read the whole study to fully understand the basis for these conclusions)

The Brit study finds reservists more prone to PTSD than regular soldiers:

After the publication of our previous report,1 the UK MoD responded with a series of initiatives designed to improve the mental health of reservists both during and after deployment and to assist in the integration of reservists alongside their regular counterparts. However, reservists still seem to be at greatest risk of the eff ects of deployment.

And finally the Brit study tried ti explain the differences with US findings as follows:

Since the UK are fi ghting the same enemy, on the same terrain, facing similar risks, and using similar tactics, the reason for these diff erences is unlikely to be attributable to the operational location. Many other differences exist between the US and UK military that could account for some of the diff erences in prevalence, including the sociodemographic structure (US troops are younger), length of deployment (12–15 months in the USA vs 6 months in the UK), greater use of reservists within the US military, a higher ratio of troops to leader in the US military, and higher casualties and fatalities in the US military in Iraq, although not in Afghanistan. However, why there are diff erent temporal trends in the UK and the USA is diffi cult to understand.

[TDB]

US Marines do six month tours as well don't they? I remember seeing it in some documentary. They do six months because they often do more intense ops, not sure what Army units would have to say on that.

[JMA]

The Brit study included findings relating to alcohol abuse and common mental disorder.

The tests are very basic and can be found here:

Alcohol Screening Test

General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)

I took the alcohol test answering as accurately as I could going back 30 years and scored Exceeding 'Safe-Use' Guidelines. I was late for work once (by 15 minutes) during my career due to a binge the night before and don't and never have had a substance problem. So at a score of 13 I would have been just two points away from the Hazardous Usage: Help Strongly Urged which would indicate to me that they set the bar too low on this one.

Don't know how they score the mental health one.

[JMA]

The length of tours is a tricky one as you've said JMA the reationale behind the six month length is to avoid adverse affects on family life and to reduce the liklihood of PTSD. The issues surrounding the ability to impact on the ground with only a short period to build up relationships with the locals and ANSF is a problem, however i think they've nailed down the handover process. The 15 month tours the US Army do are beyond understanding in terms of the impact they must have on the soldiers and loved ones. NY Times did a series of articles entitled A Year At War, one of the soldiers explained that he was going back to an empty house because his wife had left him taking their kids with her. Now it would be easy to say "you signed up for this" but for many life in the army is as much a career as it is an adventure, so the government and the military have a responsibility to look after its employees. Since it was decided that British military personel could claim compensation for negligence, we've seen relatives of those who were killed as a result of poor equipment. I think this is a step in the right direction, not simply because i believe that if we send men and women to war we should spend whatever it costs to get them what they need. It is more that I think we need to realise these people are human and should be treated as such, not just tools for a job. Gone are the days "our's is not the reason why, our's is but to do and die".

Look at it from this angle if you will.

There is a war the politicians want to start or get involved in. So they deploy troops there into an environment totally foreign to the soldiers being deployed. Sticking to their comfort zone we hear them saying things like "this is what we do" and "this is how we do it" as they shoe horn their previous experience into the new theatre whether it fits or not.

The Paras got involved in a bunch of mini-Arnhems, while the Marines even managed to do an amphibious landing across Kajaki Dam and the mech boys drove up and down "mowing the grass". Each in their comfort zone, each doing what they know best and in the process leaving the Pashtuns who were sitting on the high ground watching them asking each other WTF the British were doing.

Little attention to terrain and enemy (the whole METT-TC thing).

To make matters worse prior to deployment in Afghanistan they go to Kenya for a month to prepare. Another month away from home where other than the ability to conduct live-firing (away from the prying eyes of the Health and Safety Nazis) any link with Afghanistan is tenuous.

The whole focus is doing the six months tour as per the 'harmony guidelines' and then getting back home (and back to some real soldiering maybe?) The brigadier aims at a CBE rather than a mere DSO and so on down the line to the troopie who just wants to make it home alive and with all his limbs intact.

Some don't make it and the family's pain and suffering is compounded by a public inquest which raises doubts about leadership, training, equipment shortages and the lack of resources (which all serves to undermine the war effort).

Now what is really startling is that the Brit military used to be skilled, resourceful and competent and certainly since Iraq seems to have collapsed in a heap.

Where does the fault lie?

Certainly with the politicians... but then you voted for them so you get what you deserve.

Certainly with the civil servants in the MoD (who IMHO are nothing but flame thrower material ) and should be cleaned out root and branch during the cost cutting.

Certainly with the general staff who have been contaminated (I believe) by their contact with the civil servants in the MoD and Foreign Office (during their attachments to these departments from the rank of major up).

How far does this contamination reach down the ranks?

Then sadly there is a cancer spreading upwards much along the lines of what you mention.

Now while I am in agreement that the military has a duty of care towards its soldiers there must clearly be a limit to what can be tolerated in terms of interference from families on behalf of their poor little darling (who has had his feelings hurt by the drill sergeant who swore at him).

Now when it gets to the serious stuff like sending troops into battle without the correct kit (or IMHO sending them into battle with the correct kit but to the extent that all they can do is waddle around like the Michelin Man) then the families are correct in believing it is tantamount to criminal negligence. (Look back in this thread and you will see that I didn't get too much support for my position at the time.)

My subunit in 1979 had seven married members out of the hundred odd in number. They were among the officers (2) and the senior NCOs (4) and one troopie. Now at the risk of being contentious (which hasn't bothered me before ) I assume that (as in my day) junior officers and troopies have to ask permission to get married? IMHO you don't want to encourage officers to marry before the rank of captain and other ranks until they have been in the service for 5+ years at least.

Sadly the type of girls who often hang around military barracks and prey on the troopies most often don't share middle class family values and would snare a troopie for a roof over their head, spend his money and play the field when he was in the bush. Then there were the girls who were seeing three different guys from different subunits as they rotated for R&R which led to a major show down and fights between troopies when the whole battalion came back at the same time to receive the Freedom of the City. So to be brutally frank domestic issues and dear John letters comes with the territory and is something officers and (mainly) the SNCOs must deal with.

All this said there is a specific type of wonderful woman who as they say is prepared "to follow the drum". They do not compete against the army for the affections of their soldier. When he arrives home to announce that he is off to war in the Falklands, Aden, Borneo, Malaya or wherever she is genuinely happy for him and hides her worries for his safety and keeps her personal considerations to herself. These women are as valuable as gold but sadly they are quite rare. Officers and SNCOs have a duty to keep their troopies out of the clutches of the predatory vixens out there as in no time they can destroy a good soldier.

Then it comes down to the soldier himself. Why did he join up? This is why I believe the units of the greatest value are those where members are required to undergo a "challenging" voluntary selection course. It is quite obvious (IMHO) that it is found that a lower incidence of PTSD is found among the Marines and the Paras as opposed to the crap-hat and fish-and-chip units.

The bottom line I believe is that Britain needs to get a military that want to be soldiers in word and deed and will be found ready and willing when the nation calls. The opportunity in this time of cuts to ring the changes is in the offing... but will they take advantage of the opportunity?

[Granite_State]

US Marines do six month tours as well don't they? I remember seeing it in some documentary. They do six months because they often do more intense ops, not sure what Army units would have to say on that.

Yup, you beat me to it. Seven month USMC tours don't seem to have crippled us in Helmand.

[Granite_State]

Another month away from home where other than the ability to conduct live-firing (away from the prying eyes of the Health and Safety Nazis)

Is this true? I trained briefly with Royal Marines last summer (two weeks) and they talked about and showed us videos of pretty aggressive live fire training. I also remember Patrick Hennessey mentioning the British Army's "live fire tactical training" as a particular point of pride in his (great) book.

[Infanteer]

Since we are all calling it from the armchairs, what should the UK have done in early 2006? Ignored NATO? Deployed a different force structure?

How about late 2006 when we all realized that southern Afghanistan was a s**t-storm?

I'll repost this in response to a nice little PM I got from JMA, keeping in line with the debate as per the moderator direction.

JMA has been critical of the UK effort in Afghanistan since day 1 - which is fine; I've been critical of ISAF as well. However, it's one thing to be critical but its another thing to simply hag on the guy who made the decision without pointing out what he should have done, while being able to (a) admit the circumstances that were beyond the control/knowledge of the decision makers (both military and civilian) (b) understand events that came up after the commitment that may not have been predictable before.

Hence my question - what were real options in 2005 and early 2006? I asked the question, so he can provide the courtesy of an answer, or of at least admit he doesn't have one (if that is the case). That's generally how questions work.

[JMA]

The Brits have been slow learners on this but they seem to be coming round slowly...

Afghan tour of duty could double to 12 months for some British army units

(Brigadier Ed Davis, commander of Task Force Helmand) suggested that the work of the British army in Afghanistan would benefit from increased continuity: "The constant churn of people with whom you have really strong relationships is hard, so I think you need to reduce that by having people in theatre for longer."

"I suspect over time we'll see these changes and a larger percentage of people doing longer tours … We are looking at nine to 12 months."

Well yes... it is truly sad that a once fine military took nearly six years to figure this out.

I wonder if the clowns who thought up the 'harmony guidelines' will ever be named and shamed in public?

[JMA]

Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan

While sure to be a painful read I will buy this and read it.

Reviews

'a passionate and at times profoundly shocking account of dysfunction at the heart of Britain's armed forces... razor sharp.' --James Fergusson, author of 'A Million Bullets' and 'Taliban'

'carefully researched and full of telling anecdotes, Ledwidge's book may make uncomfortable reading for politicians and some senior military figures.' --David Loyn, BBC foreign correspondent and author of 'Butcher and Bolt: Two Hundred Years of Foreign Engagement in Afghanistan'

[Infanteer]

The Brits have been slow learners on this but they seem to be coming round slowly...

Afghan tour of duty could double to 12 months for some British army units



Well yes... it is truly sad that a once fine military took nearly six years to figure this out.

I wonder if the clowns who thought up the 'harmony guidelines' will ever be named and shamed in public?

Based upon your previous post and this response, are you saying that if the British units in Helmand spent 12 months in theater instead of 6 months, that they would be much more successful?

[120mm]

Yup, you beat me to it. Seven month USMC tours don't seem to have crippled us in Helmand.

Depends on what you want the Marines to do, there.

Do you want them to take a bunch of casualties doing stupid stuff? They did, you know.

The problem is, the Marines all are saying "yay, we won!!!" and no-one is really externally evaluating that. Not that I'm aware of, anyway....

[120mm]

Based upon your previous post and this response, are you saying that if the British units in Helmand spent 12 months in theater instead of 6 months, that they would be much more successful?

Seriously, I think the UK should get out and stay out of Central Asia. The mythology going on about what they are still doing here is rapidly growing to be a major tripping point to winning the war, imo.

The current belief, shared by nearly every Afghan, is that the Brits are running the Taliban through Pakistan, and using the naive Americans to "have their way" with Afghanistan. Whatever that means.

The Brit army in Afghanistan is rough analogous to bringing and IDF battalion to do maneuvers in Saudi Arabia.