Always great when we have a guest blog on the site.  John Laity is a great friend to this site and again has written a very thought provoking piece on what more can be done in Afghanistan.  Thanks John.  Keep them coming. 

Over to John.  Let him know your views…..

——————————————-

Afghanistan

Trueblueblood has been very active in highlighting issues with resourcing and strategy in Afghanistan. Under which you will usually find a ranting (badly spelt) comment from me. The PM’s Friday’s speech drew me out a bit earlier  than usual :0)

On Friday Gordon Brown announced that the UK’s aims in Afghanistan are “realistic and achievable” in a speech defending the government’s strategy.

Prior to this speech and in a move reminiscent of Robin Cook’s resignation Ministerial aide and ex-army Major, Eric Joyce (MP for Falkirk) quit, questioning the government’s strategy.

I salute Eric Joyce for being honest and having the courage to speak out.

WE MUST HAVE A CLEAR AND UNWAVERING STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN.

Eric Joyce is wholly correct that such a strategy must address public opinion and recognise the courage and sacrifice of our UK Armed Forces and their families.  Any strategy we devise is built on their sacrifice:

“The number of UK troops killed on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 stands at 212 after the death of a soldier from 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment due to a gunshot wound sustained while on patrol in Helmand province on 3 September.” BBC Website

Even as I type, this statistic is already out of date! So please check for yourself:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8040620.stm

This site details all UK casualties in Afganistan and Iraq…It is a troubling site where the face of nearly every casualty has been recorded. A reminder of the cost of the conflict, but  also a chance to remember.

To date we have been fighting a “search and destroy” action, to break down organised Taliban forces. Panthers Claw illustrates how our conventional forces can successfully clear an area of insurgent forces. Albeit at a high cost.

Here is the bad news, fighting a group of insurgents is an achievable task for a superior force, but it drives the enemy into smaller fragmented units…Harder to find, harder to stop. Denied open movement these groups will now employ guerrilla and terror tactics…with time on their side.

IED’s, Sniping, Poisoning, mines, traps, trip wires, suicide bombs, rocket attacks, kidnapping, rape and intimidation.

It is at this point of the conflict that the Government has to truly commit to the “long haul” with a clear strategy for when to withdrawal. Failure to do so will simply create a meat grinder, where the lack of a clear objective and timetable gives advantage to the guerilla’s fighting tactics.

The long haul means MORE troops and MORE money to be spent. It also means MORE casualties and MORE fatalities. All this will be over a long, long time.

Let’s be clear, if you have children aged 10 – 12 now, they could be serving in a police action in Afghanistan by the time they are 18. This is not a guess, you can look at the world’s history on guerrilla conflicts:

Examples of successful guerrilla warfare against a native regime;

Cuban Revolution

Chinese Civil War

Sandinista Revolution

Uganda

Liberia

Vietnam

Cambodia

Foreign forces intervened in all these countries, but the power struggles were protracted and eventually all resolved locally. I.E. Foreign forces did not “win” they moved out to allow for a local reconciliation.

Lest we forget, we can also specifically consider Afghanistan’s own history of guerilla action:

First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838–1842

Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878–1880

Third Anglo-Afghan War 1919 – where the Afghan people gained independence from the British Empire

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 1979 – 1989

So can a strategy of “Regime Change” establish democracy and a fairer society? Will this really establish a safer western society? Will it eliminate terrorist training grounds?

Possibly, but the creation of a new regime, lawful state and stable society will take at least a generation…Look to Northern Ireland to understand how difficult such things are and how long things will take to establish peace…Also, in this case you must factor the enemy’s resolve.

“Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery.” Che Guevara

Social reform may not seem to the case with the Taliban, but by imposing religious beliefs and religious law, the Taliban believe they are improving the lives and well being of their people in this life AND the next one! As such you have to consider the fact that the general population within Afghanistan may not like the Taliban regime, but are driven by faith not to question huge parts of Taliban belief.

In stopping the Taliban our strategy moving forward has to be to deny popular support from the civilian population. This has to be done by improving the lives of the population…A population that has been in conflict for over 3 generations.

A friendly population will be of immense importance to the Taliban fighters, providing shelter, supplies, financing, intelligence and recruits. The “base of the people” is thus the key lifeline of their guerrilla movement. Bullets, helicopters and personnel vehicles will not “win the fight against the Taliban”. Education, Schools, healthcare, water, roads and commerce might…Most of which we can’t seem to get right for our own citizens!

Simple things we should be seeing and asking of the Government:

1. The deployment of dog handlers – Trained dogs can locate explosives and those individuals who handle them

2. The deployment of bomb disposal teams and robots – Technology proved in Northern Ireland!

3. The deployment of large numbers of UAVs – safely monitor roads, recon remote areas and  prevent the planting of IEDs

 4. The deployment of scout aircraft and helicopters  – to monitor roads and patrol remote areas

Question: Hey be radical… Why can’t this extend to inclu de £20,000 Microlights?  Below is a picture from a trial in  Iraq.

They can fly at 110 mph well above the effective range (365 m /1200 ft) of the AK-47…Quite happy at 6000 ft

 Lastly, some simple lessons we should have learned by now:

Painting a landrover defender a sandy colour and adding some steel plate does not
make it armoured or safe from IEDs…

Helicopters are a good thing to have deployed in large numbers if you don’t want to drive from A to B…

The 1 – 3 rule: If we loose one soldier a day, then we have to deploy one solder a day to remain at the same level of operational strength. However, this also means we need to place another soldier in reserve and then recruit and train another to remain at the same level of operational readiness. 

 The 1 – 10 rule: Casualties draw down far more resources than fatalities, so have a greater impact on operational effectiveness.

Lastly, The Total Bullshit rule: “we are raising troop numbers from 8,300 to 9,200” …Total spin! When this was announced, 2,469 UK personnel had been aeromedically evacuated on medical grounds and 212 deaths. Casualties mean smaller numbers in units, which means our combat effectiveness must be reducing.

We can only raise operational effectiveness by deploying a greater number of active units and reserve personnel. These aren’t individual policemen patrolling on street corners, they are fighting units.

Stop quoting big numbers about troops on the ground. Fighting units are teams! How many teams are on the ground at full fighting strength?

“Just point at them like this, they don’t like it up em you see.”