Confusion of aims, poor resourcing and NATO weakness all dog Afghan campaign

A sixth British soldier died in Afghanistan yesterday and Peter Hitchens is just one commentator who thinks that 'our troops' should come home now.  That is not the view of the Government or the Opposition, however.  The Defence Secretary told the Commons earlier today that active consideration was now being given to a larger force.

The Conservatives support the need for British troops in Afghanistan but worry that their mission is very unclear.  Are they there to defeat Taliban elements?  For general reconstruction?  To suppress the heroin trade?  Some of the objectives appear to be contradictory.  Can British troops really win local peoples' support for the battle against the Taliban if they are simultaneously dismantling the poppy trade on which they depend for their livelihoods?  Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox believes that the Government has been consistently vague and panglossian about the mission.  He has been asking questions about the nature of the mission since 26th January and has always regarded John Reid's statement that British troops might have left Afghanistan "without a shot being fired" as hopelessly naive.  Dr Fox has said that the Operation Enduring Freedom - the mission to bring peace to Afghanistan - probably needs to be merged with the reconstruction and peacekeeping efforts of NATO's International Security Assistance Force.

In addition to a lack of clarity on objectives, two other underlying problems dog British troops: (1) inadequate resourcing (powerfully documented by Richard North on the EU Referendum blog) and (2) an unwillingness of other NATO countries to shoulder a fair share of the burden.  The Times' Gerard Baker has written about this on RealClearPolitics.com:

"The fear has long been that many of the Nato troops operating in Afghanistan did not seem to be up to the task of actual fighting. This is no reflection on those countries' servicemen, most of whom are brave warriors and eager to take on the bad guys. It was a comment on the political willingness of their governments to fight the good fight if it meant they might incur significant casualties. These governments have imposed all kinds of restrictions, called "caveats", on the way their forces can conduct themselves in ISAF. These include restrictions on planes flying at night, for example, or rules that require soldiers not to fire on the enemy until they are fired on first."

Speaking to ConservativeHome Dr Fox said that various NATO forces in Afghanistan had added more than 70 caveats to their operational commitments.  He called on more NATO nations to make an adequate contribution to the combat effort (an issue raised by David Cameron at yesterday's PMQs).

Comments

[malcolm]

Perhaps the MOD should have clarified our 'allies' position before they sanctioned this operation.If anyone wants to see what our troops themselves think of this venture read the army rumour website (arrse.co.uk) it should make you weep.
Their utter contempt for the politicians at the MOD knows no bounds.I agree with them.

[TomTom]

How many TA soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan ?

[David Banks]

What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? They are not going to invade britain, or if they are there already living in London claiming benefits like the rest of the known world. Its always been a wild place - lets get out NOW and leave them to their , doubtless endless, religious wars. Unless they are spotted off the coast of Calais we should not waste our men on them. Who really cares if Afghaistan is thronging with frothing - at the - mouth jihadists? There next door to Pakistan so what do you expect - Quakerism?

[Editor]

Did you hear about 9/11 David?

[David Banks]

Was that around the same time the government started attacking our liberties and the US opened a concentration camp in Cuba?

All together now , to the tune of 'Tipperery'..." It's not far to a police state , its not far to go, its not far to a police state the prettiest police state i know."..

[David Banks]

sorry, think that should be 'Tipperary'. anyway my point is , bush hi jacked that event to start a new empire and reduce civil liberties.

[Editor]

What would you have done to stop more 9/11s and worse, David?

[Mark]

The Taliban have successfully painted foreign troops in Afghanistan as high-handed invaders and occupiers out to change the fundamental fabric of Afghan life by, for example, importing Christian missionaries. We're losing the battle for hearts and minds and this is causing a sea change. Foreign troops are now part of the problem, undermining the democratic Karzai government by making it appear to be a western puppet government.

According to the Asian Times, up to 80% of the Helmund population support the Taliban. In such a resilient country, I can’t see any way that our troops can achieve a result against those odds – when every bit of military action plays into the Taliban’s invader / resistance rhetoric.

We have to recognize our limits and, from this point, provide the Afghan government with whatever practical and commercial support that we can, but not troops on the ground.

[TomTom]

We're losing the battle for hearts and minds

BS...these hill tribes have neither minds nor hearts - they are backward and primitive and corrupt. The whole border region of Afghanistan has always been a disaster and creating Pakistan in 1947 was the most stupid thing the British ever did on The Subcontinent...............far from disengaging in 1948 the British imported the problem three years later from Kashmir and then found as many areas of friction as it could to keep the pot stirred

[Mark]

these hill tribes have neither minds nor hearts - they are backward and primitive and corrupt.

TomTom, following the immigration thread I don't want to rise to you again, but this can't go without comment. What you've said here is obnoxious and disrespectful. I worry that the people trying to fix these problems might one day be people like you.

[malcolm]

'These people have no hearts and minds'-what sort of a comment is that?
They do sadly have a remarkable skill for fighting and have a record of success in difeating foreign troops whether they be from the USSR or from Britain.
What we need to be told now is the truth.Does Karzai have any popular support in southern Afghanistan and is there any realistic chance of the Afghan government imposing its will in the region in the forseable future.
If the answer to either question is no,then what do we do? There does not seem to me a cat in hells chance that foreign (and by that I mean NATO) troops will be able to force the issue without incurring the sort of casualties that will be completely unacceptable to western people.Is there a strongman/warlord who can impose his will and defeat the Taleban?Could we control such a person?Could we pay a massive bribe to the poppy farmers of that region to prevent them growing this produce?These are the questions I hope the government are asking themselves.I hope so but I fear not.
Iread in the press that we are contemplating sending one more battalion (600 men) to Afghanistan.Does Blair and our increasingly ludicrous Defence Secretary really think this will make a difference?

[Mark]

TomTom - you had me going. Welcome back Rick. Have you paid your £20 to the TPA yet?

[TomTom]

Well Mark go and show your respect to the Pathan tribesmen in the border areas of Pakistan - I am sure they will have a long chat with you about non-discriminatory language, but I doubt you will find anyone conversant in history or on the ground today has anything good to say about these primitives and the kinds of mutilation practised on prisoners.

Then again you probably think they are disadvantaged because 300 years of history passed them by.

[Cllr. Gavin Ayling]

Their utter contempt for the politicians at the MOD knows no bounds.I agree with them.

Odd, then, that so many soldiers oversees couldn't vote at the last election...

[David Banks]

Instead of being in Afghanistan , how about redeploying the troops to combat the terrorists who really pose a threat , the members of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah etc in Gaza / west Bank.
As far as the Editors question goes , i do not believe that the way to prevent Islamofascism is to remove the liberties which the terrorists wish to destroy. Our response to their threat has been their greatest coup so far.
Of course if we hadn't provided a safe haven for people like Abu Hamza for years that would have been a good thing to prevent such terrorism.
If the muslim community was better integrated and less sanguine ( eg the Rushdie affair), that too would be a good thing.