Originally posted at 19:30 hrs Friday. Updated and reposted.Saturday, July 11, 2009
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
The home front
It is essential to stop Afghanistan becoming an "incubator for terrorism" and a launchpad for attacks on the UK and other countries says David Miliband.
The badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan – that border area – have been used to launch terrible attacks, not just on the United States, but on Britain as well. Thus, he says, "We know that until we can ensure there is a modicum of stability and security provided by Afghan forces for their own people, we are not going to be able to be secure in our own country."
The thought is echoed by The Timeswhich affirms that, "The campaign in Afghanistan is crucial," adding that, "It has been advanced by British servicemen of extraordinary courage and real heroism."
"The failures in the campaign have been on the home front: the British Government has been dilatory and uncertain in making the case for the war," it goes on to say. "Nor has it provided sufficient armoured vehicles for the troops already there or adequate and consistent numbers of troops on the ground to establish the security that is the foundation for building a new nation in Afghanistan."
The paper then states the obvious: "The campaign for Afghanistan must be won," adding the rider: "And it is time the Government started doing a better job of fighting for it at home."
Here, there are many problems, to add to the extraordinarily difficult matter of defining "victory". Presumably, when the land is covered with Ferris wheels, packed with happy Afghani wimmin, spinning to the beat of the latest Michael Jackson release, that will be considered to be one measure. Short of that, though, it is difficult to know what our rulers have in mind.
Of the other problems, surely the most intractable is that the "home front" does not actually care enough – or at all - about the Afghani campaign.
As long as "Our Boys" are not getting killed in excessive numbers – as defined by the media when it can be bothered to report events - most people are more concerned with running their own affairs and warding off the depredations of this pitiful government which, in its own way, seems more destructive than the Taleban.
And, while one might expect the political classes and their associatedclaques to be more interested in such matters than the great unwashed – in that condition as hidden inflation makes the price of soap an unreachable luxury – there is no evidence that this is the case.
If the British political blogosphere is any guide – and it probably does reflect the prevailing obsessions – not only does its relative silence speak volumes but the rare foray by Tory Boy Blog is struggling to compete, in terms of comment volume, with the later entry covering that stunning revelation that: "CCHQ downgrades oak tree logo." One is amazed that they are not live blogging on it.
The Times does have a point though. It is very hard to engage in an issue where the objectives are poorly defined, vague or so obviously unrealistic that they lack credibility, where there is no narrative or measure of progress – other than the mounting death toll – and where there is no significant discourse which will fuel an ongoing debate.
Thus we are supposed to rely on the current CDS, Jock Stirrup, who lied his way through the Iraqi campaign and its aftermath and, for all we know, is lying to us now.
This may be especially so in terms of his less than credible statement that, " ... the Taliban have rightly identified Helmand as their vital ground. If they lose there then they lose everywhere and they are throwing everything they have into it."
Operation Panchai Palang - and the parallel operations being conducted by US forces may – or may not be vital in the short-term, but it is far from the "game-changing event" that Stirrup would have us believe. The Taleban will simply regroup, recover what losses they have sustained and continue to prosecute their insurgency.
Here, one takes note of the fact that the attack which killed five troops was mounted out of the immediate operational area of Panchai Palang which indicates that the Taleban, even when under pressure around Lashkar Gah, still had the resources to attack elsewhere, with devastating effect.
We could, on the other hand, take the advice of Lt-Col Tim Collins (ret) whoenjoins us to "support the judgement and experience of Brigadier Radford and his men. They are on the ground and we are not." Of course, we heard the same thing – or similar – of Iraq, where the "judgement and experience" and the military commanders of the time had our troops patrolling in Snatch Land Rovers, with effects which were predictable – it seems – to everyone but them.
Collins believes that, if we lose, it will be because we have defeated ourselves by a lack of nerve – that "home front" again - and if that happens the sacrifice will be in vain. "Keep the faith," he tells us.
However, in what should we keep our "faith"? Assailed by IEDs, our forces arestruggling to deal with this weapon which the Taleban are using to such great effect. However, the emergence of this problem was flagged up in January 2007 by The Financial Times yet it was not until October last year that the MoD focused on buying the essential equipment to deal with this threat, in the "Talisman" project – with deliveries not to take place until next year, leaving the Americans to do the work.
This is a military that also fielded the Viking and the Vector, both of which vehicles could not meet the threat present in the theatre by the time they were deployed, and certainly are not up to the current challenge. It is a military that, in effect, has been behind the curve from the very start, and is struggling to catch up, reacting rather than pre-empting the Taleban'sconstant evolution of tactics.
If the military have feet of clay then, perhaps we could turn to Rory Stewart, soldier, diplomat and academic who has travelled extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq. He tells us that Afghanistan is "a war we cannot win" and, in a long and rambling thesis argues that the best Afghan policy would be to reduce the number of foreign troops from the current 90,000 to perhaps 20,000 – turning away from the idea of state-building.
Two distinct objectives would remain: development and counter-terrorism with the "good projects" allowed to continue in electricity, water, irrigation, health, education, agriculture, rural development – but not a single mention of roads. We should not control and cannot predict the future of Afghanistan, he says.
With such contradictory and unreliable advice, it is no wonder that we find it hard to engage in the issue – and retreat to the comfort zone of oft' repeated mantras. One can then only take comfort in the words of the MoD's own "spin doctor", Lt-Col Nick Richardson. He insists that operations in Helmand are achieving "a huge amount" and the soldiers had not died in vain. "It is fair to say that war is not risk free. We are taking the fight to the enemy," he says.
Even then one wonders, not least where the true enemy lies. More than the Taleban, the greatest threat to Afghanistan (and therefore our own security) could be the home front, here in the UK, bludgeoned into indifference by wholly unrealistic and ill-defined objectives.
COMMENT THREADA view from the blogosphere
Things must be pretty desperate – or appear to be so – if Tory Boy Blog wakes from its torpor and suddenly realises there's a war going on in Afghanistan.
But having awakened from the sleep of the dead, its stunning contribution is to observe that: "You can't win a war on a peacetime budget". It is apparently unaware of the fact that the Labour government is pouring money into the military campaign, approximately £3.5 billion this financial year – equivalent to a ten percent top-up on the defence budget.
Since all this is achieving is to keep a reinforced brigade in position, mowing the grass and getting an increasing number of vehicles trashed – unfortunately with troops still inside them – it might not be a terribly bad idea to ask what the military is doing, much less achieving, with the money in supporting what must be one of the most expensive brigade deployments in the history of mankind.
For want of this, the fair Montgomerie, noting in passing that, "It is not clear what the Tory position is" (we are shocked, I tell you, shocked!), posits the idea that we might consider raiding the NHS to pay for this gold-plated war which boasts amongst its achievements the installation of a Ferris wheel for the grateful citizens of Lashkah Gar.
One can doubtless make a case for British grannies – and even aged Afghani immigrants – being deprived of their hip replacements to fund yet more Ferris wheels, but, needless to say, Mr Montgomerie does not make it. Instead, he offers the "bold option" espoused by his hero, president Obama, that of pledging to do "whatever is necessary to secure victory."
What "victory" might actually be and what we might need to do to achieve it, is of course not specified. Once it is achieved though, we can look forward to riding off into the sunset to the applause of grateful Afghanis, breaking clear of the crowds of crippled grannies clutching their Zimmer frames in agony.
But there you are – there is no need to think about what is actually needed. The Boy has actually spoken, demanding a "clarification of our mission", and that should be good enough for the legions of adoring fans who can now flock to the polling booths in the certain knowledge that the brightest minds in the land are on the case, and that we will do "whatever it necessary", once they've worked out what that is.
COMMENT THREADParity and more ...
Sooner than we feared, another British soldier was reported killed in Afghanistan, bringing the number to three on the day and the total to 179.
Then, early in the afternoon, we began to get very strong rumours of many more in what was said to be a "major incident". By early evening, five more were said to have been killed, three seriously injured and three more less badly injured.
Early, unconfirmed reports said soldiers had sought cover from direct fire in a compound which was booby-trapped with an IED. Later reports suggested that troops had been ambushed after they had dismounted from their vehicle to investigate an explosion, and were hit by another IED and took casualties. More were killed and injured when the medevac Chinook arrived to pick up the original casualties. The tactics were said to be "sophisticated".
A different report, in The Daily Mail tells a different version, suggesting that after the first hit, "amid the chaos and appalling scenes, the Taleban is said to have opened fire with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades on the injured soldiers and those going to their aid."
Apache attack helicopters are then said to have been called in to strike at Taleban positions and provide cover as a rescue operation was launched with helicopters ferrying the wounded back to the field hospital at the main British base at Camp Bastion throughout the night.
The men, from the 2nd Bn, The Rifles, were reported to have been in the Sangin area - near Musa Qala. This is not part of the current OperationPanchai Palang (Panther's Claw), which is being carried out north of Lashkar Gah.
The official total for casualties since 2001 now rises to 184, exceeding the number 179, which was the death toll in Iraq. Predictably, The Guardian - commenting on the level when it reached 179 - said that the death was likely to intensify the debate about whether the Afghanistan operation is worthwhile.
The 179th reported killed was a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, said to have died in an explosion during an operation near Nad-e-Ali. He was from the same regiment as Trooper Joshua Hammond, who was killed last week in a Viking.
The AP report at that time was headed, "The Climbing toll raises British doubts on Afghanistan" and cited Conservative MP Adam Holloway, a defence committee member. He said, "The casualties should fix peoples' minds on the fact that we've let the soldiers down ... The death toll means we should do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all."
He added that Britain had never had the troop strength needed to hold ground there and had failed to provide the promised security or reconstruction, leading many Afghans to believe the Taleban militants will outlast Western forces. "We're in a mess," he said.
Guthrie, according to Channel 4 News blames Gordon Brown who, as chancellor when Britain went into Helmand, had given "as little money to defence" as the Treasury could get away with.
And, in The Daily Mail, Doug Beattie, retired recently after 27 years in the Army, said: "Whether it's the 179th or the 200th, the soldier will not think twice about that number. They're just numbers - but every number and every name has a story behind it."
He added: "No soldier serving in Afghanistan will say, 'that's 179', they will say, 'that's my friend, that's my roommate, that's my commanding officer'. Very soon we are going to hit the 200 mark. The likelihood is before we leave Afghanistan we are going to hit the 500 mark - maybe even the 1,000 mark. But they are all false landmarks."
"For the politicians and for the Ministry of Defence," he then said, "public perception of the loss is crucial. For the soldiers on the ground, it won't matter."
However, despite the growing list of British fatalities, troops are continuing to push the enemy back on operation Panthers Claw. This is seen as a "crucial" operation for the security of Helmand.
The fighting had been "exceptionally arduous" with the threat from the Taliban roadside bombs "enormous", Lt-Col Simon Banton tells The Daily Telegraph.
Gordon Brown, who was attending the G8 summit in L'Aquila in Italy, admitted that the troops faced "a very hard summer". He said that there was no question of Britain pulling out until the international community had finished its mission.
COMMENT THREADFriday, July 10, 2009
A slight crack ...
Today, which may prove to be a turning point in more ways than one, saw a partial success by Sue Smith in her ongoing battle with the Ministry of Defeat to gain a proper inquiry into the use of the Snatch Land Rovers – in one of which her son, Private Phillip Hewett, was killed in al Amarah on 16 July 2005.
According to The Times and others, in the High Court, Mr Justice Mitting gave Susan Smith permission to bring a judicial review challenge to the decision of Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Minister, not to hold a public inquiry into the past use of these vehicles.
This is, of course, only the first step in the proceedings. There must now be a full hearing, when the arguments will be heard as to whether the minister was wrong in rejecting demands for an inquiry. Only if that is successful will the current defence secretary – also Bob Ainsworth – be required to re-examine the grounds for rejecting an inquiry. Even then, he may simply move the goalposts and come up with new and additional reasons for a rejection.
Already, the battle lines have been re-drawn slightly in that the judge refused Sue permission to challenge the future use of the vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The minister did so on advice from military experts and his decision and reasons were "completely unimpeachable".
But, as to past use, he said there were insufficient reasons given for their use and it was at least arguable that he should have granted a public inquiry. With 38 soldiers having been killed in Snatches, the minister had not given adequate reasons why they had not replaced by more heavily armoured vehicles.
Sue is, of course, delighted and, even if the case does not succeed in the full hearing, it is partial vindication of her stance and many others of us. There is a case to answer, a case the Army have insisted has already been answered – as indeed have ministers. It is a reflection of the paucity of their arguments that they so far have not prevailed.
In fact, they do not have a case in our view. The Army from the very first knew full well that the Snatch was not capable of protecting from the types of bomb being used against them, and that the countermeasures available were entirely ineffective. It was not a matter of chance, therefore – or of misfortune – that men were going to die. And although it was inevitable, the Army sent them out.
The rationale, at the time, was that the size of the Snatch was such that only it could reach all the places which needed patrolling and then that its profile was such that it was an essential part of the "hearts and minds" campaign which the Army thought would win over the insurgents.
Neither of those elements was true in Hewett's case and in many others. The ground his patrol was covering was later covered by Warriors and eventually Challenger tanks, when the situation had deteriorated still further. As for "hearts and minds", this was a "combat patrol" carried out in the small hours of the morning, in total darkness, aimed at deterring mortar attacks on the nearby base in Abu Naji.
Any reasonable outcome, had the patrol been successful in interdicting mortar teams, would have involved at the very least, a contact battle. And, as an offensive patrol, there was every expectation that the insurgents might seek to attack it. Thus, men were being sent to do battle in a flimsy Land Rover designed for the streets and lanes of Northern Ireland.
Whichever way the ministers and the Army now play it, their cards are marked. For too long, these arrogant and sometimes stupid fools have taken it upon themselves unnecessarily to send men out to die and then regarded themselves as above challenge.
Sue Smith – not some grand General, or preening, over-paid politician – says otherwise. "This is not just for me," she says. "Several other families who lost sons also want to know why? I accept that this is just the first small step but it is nice to know we are being listened to."
"Nice," is not quite the word I would have chosen, and I suspect Sue might have said something different out of the earshot of the reporters. But it is good enough.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Posts
