Let’s stop beating about the bush.  The situation in Afghanistan is getting very unstable.  It is deteriorating.  As we hear of another British soldier being killed on patrol, we learn that the Taliban, (and by Association Al Qaeda), are back into mass recruiting phase, especially from the bloated prisons in Afghanistan.  Terrorist networks and training are in growth mode….not declining.  Who tells us this…not our own Generals, silenced by our Prime Minister but by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who took over as US Military Commander in May.  he has stated in an in depth report that the US mission in Afghanistan will “likely result in failure” unless troops are increased within a year.

If the USA are worried about failing.  So must we.  Will we be required to send more troops.  How many?  What if we don’t?  Will the Taliban be able to take control again in Afghanistan?  All questions that our politicians must be asking today. 

More than 30,000 extra US troops have been sent to Afghanistan since May – almost doubling the US contingent.  The number of US troops in Afghanistan is already set to rise to 68,000 by the end of the year.  American citizens question this war and strategy as much as UK public.

In his latest assessment, Gen McChrystal is quoted by the Washington Post newspaper as saying: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term [next 12 months]… risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” He warned that “inadequate resources will likely result in failure”. “Additional resources are required,” the general states in the summary of the report. He said that failure to provide adequate resources “risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support”. “Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.”

What is more fascinating is observations that McChrystal made about how the enemy, far from being on the run, are getting more sophisticated and back into growth mode.

The assessment offers an in depth critique of the failings of the Afghan government, stating that official corruption is as much of a threat as the insurgency to the mission. “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,” McChrystal states.  The result has been a “crisis of confidence among Afghans” . “Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”

As a summary, in the report Gen McChrystal:

- Provides new details about the sophisticated nature of the Taliban insurgency

- Criticises Nato forces for focusing more on tackling insurgents than protecting Afghan civilians

- Censures the Afghan government for lack of action on widespread corruption

- Warns that Afghanistan’s prisons have become a sanctuary for active insurgents

This must be a worry to all of us.  Not least to the families and friends of soldiers serving in Afghanistan.  We need to review strategy, equipment, squad numbers.  The enemy are on the move, starting to re-build, recruit new members.  If the purpose of the war is to promote democracy and ensure that we protect our citizens back home, then the strategy is not working.  Turnout at the recent election was low.  Electoral rigging widespread.  Corrupt politicians.  Terrorists back training, growing their numbers, new camps springing up…..time for action Mr Brown.

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.”

As we relax and enjoy a Bank Holiday, spend time with our family and friends, enjoy a pint at the local pub, spare a thought for our soldiers in Afghanistan, toiling away in immence heat and in perilious conditions that could see their lives snuffed out in the flash of a roadside bomb.

Two more British soldiers from The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, have been killed in Afghanistan, whilst on foot patrol.  Their deaths take the total number of deaths of UK service personnel since operations began in 2001 to 210.

How many more must die before these questions are answered by Brown & Ainsworth?

Don’t we owe it to our soldiers and their families to answer them?

-    What are our current mission objectives in Afghanistan?   (These have to be specific & measurable, not vague rhetoric of stopping terrorists reaching UK or provide democracy to the region….it could be argued that bringing democracy to the region will be achieved through the elections this month…but we know that troops won’t be pulled out post these elections as the region is still unstable, hence why we need more specific objectives).)

-    When do we know when the mission goals have been achieved?  Again, have to be specific so people can judge if we are achieving them.

-    What is our exit strategy?   When is this estimated to be?  Do the Government agree that, as reported by a Leading Army General, Britain will need to be there for 30/40 years, in what capacity and what numbers?

-    Do the Government agree with President Karzai that the Taliban and terrorist groups should be brought to the negotiating table today?  Would the UK Government negotiate with the Taliban?

-    What successes have been achieved thus far in this campaign?  Is Operation Panther’s Claw a success as Sky News on the ground reports demonstrate an enemy that is still very well organised and able to attack at will.  Why was Panther’s Claw judged a success?

-    On election day, the terrorists will be planning a series of atrocities.  What contingency plans have been made to protect citizens and British Troops?

-    How can Britain and the USA ensure a fair burden of military operations with NATO in this campaign?  We know that NATO partners have token forces in presence and those that are there are placed in more remote areas of Afghanistan with less chances of direct conflict.  Why is the Government silent on this issue and allowing Brits & Americans to shoulder the main bulk of the military offensive? 

-    How has the Government reviewed whether military equipment used by soldiers is fit for purpose?  Why do military top brass criticise their equipment if it is fit for purpose??

-    Are their enough Army helicopters to get troops in and out of the theatre of battle quickly enough?  Can the Government see any evidence of troops entering the battle theatre in slow moving vehicles leaving them exposed to enemy attack?  Why did a now dead army soldier report back on video that US Soldiers were taking the piss out of British Military equipment for being so bad?  Is cost the key influencing criteria for issuing military equipment into the Theatre of battle?  If so, has cost led to any cutbacks of equipment thus far and in what?

-     Has opium production increased or decreased in Afghanistan in the past 12 months?  What evidence does the Government have when reports indicate Opium production has radically increased?

-     Has Taliban geographical control increased or decreased in past 12 months and will the Government map out their perspective of the locations of Taliban spheres of influence, (including that of Pakistan).

-     If there was a terrorist attack in the UK by Al Qaeda would that then signify a failure of mission objectives in Afghanistan?

-     How many terrorist attacks have been foiled by Scotland Yard in the past 2 years by groups linked to the Taliban/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda? 

-     How many terrorist sympathisers are being monitored/tracked in the UK at this current time?

-     How many people from Afghanistan & Pakistan entered the UK under a student visa and cannot currently be tracked?

The helicopter situation has again worsened in Afghanistan.  Nato forces have been forced to destroy a crashed British Chinook helicopter to keep it out of the hands of the Taliban for the second time in 10 days. 

Before the two crashes there were thought to be only 10 twin-rotor Chinooks, (key transporters), deployed in Helmand.  The loss of the latest aircraft will leave British forces even more dependent on American Black Hawk helicopters.

Never before have we been so under prepared for a war…we are letting down the finest forces in the world.

The next election is still a long way from being won.  We cannot be complacent.  But it is interesting to start reflecting, should the Conservatives win, what Gordon Brown’s legacy will be.  What has he achieved?  How will history judge him?

All big questions.  Historians would say it is too early to judge as Prime Minister’s have to be viewed after a passage of time.  But there is no harm looking at what Gordon will potentially bequeath an incoming Conservative Administration.

So let’s do this succinctly and look at the major policy areas.

Economy

- Britain is in a deep recession.  It has been savage.  Brown claims this is due to Global economic shocks but the IMF has stated in their most recent report:  ‘Imbalances and balance sheet strains had emerged even before the recent global shocks triggered a sharp decline in economic activity’.  ie we were heading into recession BEFORE the Global shocks took place. 

- Changes made by Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, to the way banks regulated, widely credited for the severest banking crisis in the history of the UK.

- Unemployment of nearly 3 million, (official figures), (in reality closer to 6 million).

- Unprecedented National Debt of £2.2 trillion – just under 150pc of gross domestic product. This would be the worst debt total since the 1950s, when Britain was in the process of paying back its war debts.

- Bailing out a banking system.  Cost of the bailouts - broken down. Total: £904bn or 63% of GDP. A few highlights:

Northern Rock — £14.6bn.
Bradford & Bingley — £24bn
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlaender — £3.3bn
Landsbanki — £4.5bn
Heritable — £500m
Dunfermline — £1.6bn
All bank recapitalisation — £78.1bn
Credit Guarantee Scheme — £250bn
Working Capital Scheme — £11.5bn
Asset-Backed Securities Guarantee Scheme — £50bn
Asset Protection Scheme — £466bn

TOTAL TAXPAYER EXPOSURE: £904bn or 63% of GDP.

- UK Households severely in debt.  In the run-up to the crisis household debt increased to 175 percent of disposable income—one of the highest levels among advanced countries

- House prices have dropped by more than 20 percent from their peak and commercial real estate prices are down by 40 percent.

- Endemic Fraud.  HM Customs and Excise looks odds on to miss its stated target of reducing fraud and error to 5% by 2011.  It has been revealed that mistakes had risen to 8.6%, (from 7.8), in 2007 – 08, which are the latest figures available. This means that fraud and errors in the tax credit system cost £2 billion last year, which amounts to £1 in every £10 paid out.

- Falling tax receipts… Tax receipts have fallen by £32 billion according to the National Audit Office.  This includes a £6.4 billion drop in VAT income following Alastair Darling’s decision to cut the rate to 15% last November. 

- The policies that Brown has employed no-one knows if they are working.  The IMF cannot make any judgement on the effects of Quantative easing.  Is it working?  Has it had any effect?  Who knows?  The IMF don’t

- Lack of support for Small Business.  Claim:  This Government has offered more support to small businesses in the recession. Reality:  Official statistics show that it has guaranteed fewer loans in the year to march 31st. Businesses received 2,360 loan guarantees worth £177.8m under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) scheme and its successor the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) scheme, launched by Peter Mandolsen. Please remember…….This was a central plank in the Governments economic strategy for the recession. But this total, which includes loans approved before April 3rd is significantly less than the £205 guaranteed in the previous year, (taken from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report). This is also far below the scheme’s £360m budget set by the Government in March 2008, which was raised to £1.3bn in January.  This lack of lending under the schemes runs contrary to the banks’ pledges to make more use of the SFLG and EFG schemes.

Defence & Afghanistan

- An ongoing war, with no end date in sight.  No clear, measurable, objectives.

- A British Army with insufficient resources, including manpower and equipment eg helicopters.

- 207 dead soldiers and rising

- With a stated aim of helping democracy Helmand’s province, a region with a potential electorate of 80,000 voters….only 150 voted.  That’s a turnout of 0.18% .

 A dis-United Kingdom

- Between 1998 and 2003, for example, economic growth across different local areas of the UK ranged between the drastic extremes of minus 1.2 per cent and 9.6 per cent, expanding the gulf between the poorest and the most prosperous. These marked trends have persisted through the rest of the decade, further aggravating the national divide. The latest data for the 12 principal regions of the country show that total GDP growth from 2004 to 2007 ranged between 13 per cent in the West Midlands and in Wales to more than 20 per cent in London. The divergences of performance become ever greater, too, as one considers smaller localities. The consequence is that the gap between the standard of living in the most affluent parts of the nation and its poorest areas is now wider in Britain than in any other developed economy.

Politics

- Politicians with no respect and distrusted by the electorate following the expenses scandal.

- Brown’s team closely associated with the politics of smear and lying, the Damien McBride affair typifying the lows of Brown’s closest aides.

- Lack of Leadership.  Ducks the big issues eg whether he agreed with Megrahi release

Education

- 50,000 A-level students will miss out on a place at university.  This year 52,000 more people applied to University but only 13,000 extra places were made available.

- The number of young people not in employment, education or training (Neet) has leapt by more than 100,000 in the past year.  Government statistics show there are now almost 960,000 16- to 24-year-old Neets in England, more than 230,000 of whom are aged between 16 and 18. 

Welfare dependency

- NEARLY two-thirds of council housing tenants get all their rent paid by the taxpayer.  dip their hands in their pocket to pay a total of £10billion a year.  That is the equivalent of £476 every year for every privately-owned home in Britain.  How do you feel paying £476 of your money to this cause?

 Health

- A society ill prepared for Swine Flu.  Call centres manned by non medical professionals prescribing Tamiflu to everyone that calls.  Children advised not to take Tamiflu.  Vaccine in full production but untried and untested.

- Almost 1 in 4 adults in England are currently obese, and if we carry on as we are by 2050, 9 in 10 adults will be overweight or obese.  Did you know about 46% of men in England and 32% of women are overweight (a body mass index of 25-30 kg/m2), and an additional 17% of men and 21% of women are obese (a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m2 ).  The cost of overweight and obese individuals to the NHS is estimated to be £4.2 billion and is forecasted to more than double by 2050. The cost to the wider economy is £16 billion, and this is predicted to rise to £50 billion per year by 2050 if left unchecked

- Britain has the worst cancer survival rate in Western Europe.

Immigration

- MigrationWatch UK has provided an estimate that the population of the UK, (which is already the most overcrowded country in Europe), will hit………a massive 70 million in the next 20 years, (whoever is in power). Yes that is 9 million more than today.

- Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has announced that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have entered Britain posing as students at bogus colleges and coupled with this the Government is doing nothing to track them down.

Going Green

- Going Green ….at a cost and massive debt.  It is reported that Britain faces a bill of up to £1.2 trillion to meet the agreed target set by G8 nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions in each country by 80% by 2050. This is made up of £600bn from the estimated cost of making all transport low-carbon by switching to electric or furl efficient vehicles.  £350bn which is the estimated cost of moving the majority of industrial and domestic energy needs to low carbon electricity. £250bn estimated cost of moving all heating from gas boilers to low carbon equivalent.

I could go on…and on…..please let me know what you would add to this.

Not a great legacy Gordon.  How can you sleep at night?

First up our Troops are magnificent.  The honour they bring to this nation is immense.  Brave, loyal…we owe them so much.  That is why we need to help the troops and question the Government.  Whatever one thinks of the merits of this campaign we should do all we can to help support our troops.  Hence this blog has been very critical on the strategy employed during the campaign and also the lack of equipment & support we provide our troops to get the job done.

Bob Ainsworth made it VERY clear that THEaim of Panther’s Claw, the military campaign which saw British forces lose 10 men, was to bring peace to Helmand’sprovince, so democracy could take place, as voters felt safe and secure when casting their ballot papers.  On the news today he is backpeddling from that stated aim but that is to be expected from a Government caught up in its own web of deceit.

So did we achieve the objective of bringing democracy to Helmand’s and people feeling safe to cast their vote?  Yes, if you say that 107 / 107 polling stations were open…the only problem with that was that, in a region with a potential electorate of 80,000 voters….only 150 voted.  That’s a turnout of 0.18% .  This figure has yet to be fully confirmed but it wont suddenly jump above say 5%.  That was a sign that the local population still felt threatened by the Taliban.  Hence in Helmand’s the Taliban secured their goal….make feel too scared to vote.

This again throws into question the strategy employed by the Government. 

We owe our forces so much more than this.  Bob Ainsworth consistently shows himself to be out of his depth in this role and is possibly one of the most uncaring Ministers I have seen explain away soldier’s deaths on television. 

God bless our troops for operating under such poor leadership.

The more we move further into this conflict, the more disgust I feel at Government inactivity and cover-ups.  They are beyond contempt and an embarrassment upon the great reputation of this country abroad.

The Telegraph reports today that the Head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has called for more resources in Afghanistan.  This is finally after the Government have admitted key staff shortages are undermining operations to protect troops from roadside deaths.  Whilst Gordon remains on holiday, troops fighting on his direct command, take unnecessary risks and lose their lives.  Never has a leader had so much blood stains on his hands.

As deaths continue to mount up, we all have a duty to pressure this Government.  It is clear, we dont have enough protective equipment in the region, especially against roadside bombs, which have claimed the last 20 deaths.  We don’t have enough helicopters to ensure are troops are transported safely—or have the element of surprise on the enemy, by popping up in different positions.  The more that soldiers take risks because of shortages and the absence of a clear strategy, (as TBB blogged about 2 days back : http://bit.ly/QamCh), the casualty level will rise and success will be even further away.

What does Labour do?  It’s first, natural instinct is to attack and belittle the reputation of Sir Richard Dannatt.  Paul Waugh is reporting on his superb blog that an unnamed Labour Minister is making Freedom of Information requests requests targeting the “entertainment” costs of Gen Dannatt, who is now being seen by Labour as the Govt’s chief critic on poor resourcing of the troops.  The FoIs seek to find out just how much taxpayer cash has been spent wining and dining guests.  Obviously Labour wants to leak an expose on how much public money Sir Richard spent wining and dining guests at his official residence in Kensington Palace.  Take a look at Paul’s overview here.  http://tiny.cc/1kkJB

Thankfully Liam Fox has come to the defence of this dreadful attempt of smear.  Fox, an increasingly impressive front bench spokesperson, has stated: “Labour has now become the government of fear and smear. Whilst suppressing reports of their own incompetence, they attempt to undermine the reputation of one of our most distinguished generals.  At a time when our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, ministers spend their time in puerile personality politics. General Dannatt is a man of honour and integrity who leads from the front. His Labour detractors are squalid and cowardly, undermining from the shadows.”

So Draper & McBride may have gone, their ethos and natural tendencies to smear and spread lies remains very much at the heart of Labour.  What a disgrace and shamble this Government are in their final dying days.

The ghosts of Christmas Past….their tactics live on at the heart of Labour