History > 2006 > UK > Wars > Afghanistan (III)

Airmen hit back at army

after 'useless in Afghanistan' claim

Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer
Mark Townsend, defence correspondent

Bitter recriminations broke out among British forces in Afghanistan last night as factions of the RAF and infantry rounded on each other amid continued combat in Helmand province.

Evidence of a split surfaced in the wake of comments by Major James Loden of 3 Para that the RAF had been 'utterly, utterly useless' during operations against the Taliban. A series of fractious emails emerged yesterday from furious service personnel, provoking fears that morale was at risk of collapsing. Further concern came with fresh evidence that the psychological fallout of Afghanistan may prove far greater than that from Iraq, while the number of UK casualties from Helmand was said to have caused British-based medical centres to be 'absolutely overrun'.

In one angry email to colleagues, a pilot operating in Sangin claimed that decisions taken by some senior infantry officers had put the lives of RAF crew at risk. He wrote: 'I take it was not this major's [Loden] troops I was picking up in Sangin whilst being RPGed? [attacked by rocket-propelled grenades]. Should I call his troops utterly useless when they lit up a landing site with a strobe for the second time because they forgot to switch it off and risk the lives of four blokes and 25 million quid plus the life of other casualty we were trying to pick up?'

Members of the infantry responded in kind. One soldier admitted that he had become so frustrated with an RAF crew who had landed at the wrong airfield that he could have resorted to physical violence. 'If I could have gotten hold of the pilot I would have kicked seven bells of shite out of him,' he said.

Another claimed that the RAF in Afghanistan 'is ... poor at identifying targets and timid about engagements'. One even alleged that some airdrops actually ended up supplying Taliban forces. The claims drew a stinging response from RAF crews supporting ground troops in southern Afghanistan. One email said that all their 'airdrops were bang on target. I know this because I've been involved in them!!!!!'

Many discussing Loden's comments on army messageboards praised the RAF for their support in Afghanistan and said the only result of Loden's criticism would be to 'hand a dollop of morale-boosting syrup to the enemy'.

Yesterday, the country's top soldier agreed, dismissing Loden's comments as 'irresponsible', while praising the RAF as 'exceptional'. The Chief of General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, added that mistakes were 'understandable in the fog of war and the heat of battle'.

The spat arrived amid fresh developments over a separate, but equally bitter, row over the true level of official information released by the government on the level of British casualties. Although the MoD will not reveal data on the number of British troops being treated for psychological illnesses following fighting in Helmand, The Observer has learnt that troops are being evacuated back to Britain after suffering combat stress in Afghanistan at a much higher rate than from Iraq.

Combat Stress, the charity that provides help for veterans with mental health problems, said the number of referrals from Helmand was already running into 'double figures'. By contrast, the group is helping 120 personnel from Iraq, three-and-a-half years after operations began there. Evidence has also emerged that the number of casualties is running higher than the MoD has so far publicly admitted.

The MoD is expected to release last month's casualty figures this week. Dannatt yesterday denied there was any attempt to cover up casualty figures in Afghanistan.

    Airmen hit back at army after 'useless in Afghanistan' claim, O, 24.9.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1879861,00.html

Officers warn

about plight of British troops

· Frontline messages tell of Afghanistan casualty rate
· Army let down by 'utterly useless' RAF

Saturday September 23, 2006
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor

British troops in Afghanistan are exhausted and desperately short of helicopters, and there is no sign that the casualty rate will fall, according to accounts yesterday from officers on the frontline.

The reports, including a leaked email describing the RAF as "utterly, utterly useless", put the government under fresh pressure over whether it adequately prepared British troops for operations in the hostile south of the country.

The most graphic accounts came in emails from Major James Loden of 3 Para, who described British forces as desperately short of reinforcements and helicopters, and berated the RAF for being "utterly, utterly useless". Maj Loden, who was awarded the Bronze Star medal in 2004 by the US military for his services in Afghanistan in support of its Operation Enduring Freedom, lambasted the pilot of a Harrier fighter bomber for firing phosphorus bombs closer to British troops on the ground than the enemy.

"A female Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorus rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], and then strafed our perimeter missing the enemy by 200 metres," Maj Loden said.

The major also said two junior colleagues appeared "very frightened and slow to react" when called on to help save a dying man during an intense ground battle last month. He said his men were exhausted and at times reduced to tears. The major's emails were leaked to Sky News.

They came less than 24 hours after it emerged that another army officer had described the scale of casualties suffered by British troops in southern Afghanistan as "very significant and showing no signs of reducing". The officer, Major Jon Swift, a company commander in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, added that "the current strategy was following political rather than military imperatives".

He was referring to pressure from local Afghan leaders on British commanders to send troops to forward bases in the north of Helmand province, where the Taliban was taking control. Most of the 17 British soldiers who have been killed by enemy fire in southern Afghanistan since 5,000 began to deploy there in June were shot in that region. A shortage of helicopters and problems with supply lines have also led to troops running short of food and fresh water.

The chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, played down the remarks last night: "Irresponsible comments, based on a snapshot, are regrettable," he said. "Following my recent visit, which happened after the incident described in the emails, the men of the battlegroup left me in no doubt as to the value of the RAF's support to their operations. The Harriers and the support helicopters have played, and continue to play, a vital role in ensuring the battlegroup's success."

The MoD said that between January and the end of July 37 British troops were wounded in action, nine of them seriously. However, this was before British troops were involved in heavy fighting against Taliban forces and their supporters. An MoD spokesman said the emails were a "moving and at times humbling account" of fighting in a part of Helmand province, but said the major's comments about the RAF were "unfortunate".

    Officers warn about plight of British troops, G, 23.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1879302,00.html

Emails: A Major's alarm

Saturday September 23, 2006
Guardian

Excerpts from three emails from Major James Loden, leaked to Sky News

First email

We are lacking manpower. Desperately in need of more helicopters. Attacks consist of regular rocket, mortar, RPG and small arms on the fire base, plus fairly heavy fire fights out on the ground. The RAF have been utterly, utterly useless. In contrast USAF have been fantastic. I have a couple of soldiers who I have concerns about after some heavy contact ...

Second email

By now [we] could see the Taliban were rushing weapons out of a mosque hidden in depth. We began to engage them with mortars. At about the same time the enemy engaged us with mortars ... The 2 platoons were trickling towards us now clearly exhausted ... Those of us on the fire support tower were shouting at them to keep running and spread out because of the enemy mortar fire

Third email

As for facts, I have been in the field since July 27th and have only had 3 days with no contact so fairly constant. [Referring to attack helicopters] The bottom line is that there are not enough of them.

[Referring to air support during a fight with the Taliban] Harrier couldn't identify and fired rockets that just missed Coy HQ compound. l Comd ... put in a snap ambush and slowed them up with a heavy rate of fire. ... no casualties, lots of ammo expended!

    Emails: A Major's alarm, G, 23.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1879378,00.html

11.45am

Taliban tenacity surprised us, Browne admits

Tuesday September 19, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

The defence secretary, Des Browne, today admitted that Britain and its Nato allies underestimated the strength of the Taliban and the violent resistance faced by western forces in Afghanistan.

He insisted he was not making a speech full of admissions of mistakes and that it was expected that the Taliban would fight hard but he added: "We do have to accept that it's been even harder than we expected."

His speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London comes amid a wave of violence in Afghanistan and concern over the scale and nature of the mission, which Mr Browne insisted today was for a "noble cause". Nineteen British soldiers have been killed in southern Afghanistan this month and a total of 40 have died there since November 2001.

Yesterday there was further bloodshed with three separate suicide attacks that killed 19 people.

"The Taliban's tenacity in the face of massive losses has been a surprise, absorbing more of our effort than we predicted it would and consequently slowing progress on reconstruction," he said.

The defence secretary said there was a consensus that Afghanistan needed help and that while success "won't be what we understand by security and prosperity and proper governance", it would be progress that was still worth achieving.

He admitted that this progress still seemed "some way off" against the current background of intense fighting. He said it was perhaps inevitable at this stage that there had been little progress on building up public institutions and infrastructure in southern Afghanistan.

He pointed to the "real success" in the north and west such as "more and better schools, new jobs and the return of millions of refugees", and said this must be extended across the country.

Mr Browne said that the Taliban's "hard core" numbered around 1,000 and that they were sophisticated and clever and used drug money to hire other Afghans to fight coalition forces. These hired fighters made up the majority of those involved in recent clashes, he said. "We don't want to kill them, or defeat them, we want to convince them to back peace," he said.

The US and UK are seeking to win more commitments to the Afghan mission from Nato partners; Nato commanders have said another 2,500 troops are needed.

Mr Browne said it was vital that Nato members, who had backed plans to help Afghanistan, played their part.

He said some countries doubted the mission could succeed while others were concerned about the level of risk their soldiers would be exposed to. But he stressed that the mission in Afghanistan remained as vital as it had ever been, not just to the region but to the wider world, and for Nato's own credibility.

He challenged Nato nations to "reaffirm" their commitment to seeing the task through, conceding it had been difficult to raise extra troops. "All partners should be prepared to face equal risk. No one has a monopoly on determination and courage," he said.

Mr Browne rejected the idea that Nato forces were bound to fail in the same way as the Russians and British previously had in Afghanistan, noting that the coalition troops were there at the invitation of a democratic government. "We are not invading," he said.

Mr Browne paid tribute to British troops who were operating in "arduous conditions, around the clock". The nature of the conflict was "hard, dirty and beyond the experience of most of us to understand".

Yesterday's violence came a day after a top Nato general declared an end to Operation Medusa in the Panjwayi and neighbouring Zhari districts in Kandahar province. Lieutenant General David Richards, head of the 20,000-strong Nato-led force in Afghanistan, called the operation a "significant success".

At the weekend Lt Gen Richards said he expects the military campaign against the Taliban to last another three to five years. British commanders have said British troops had used at least 400,000 rounds of ammunition during intense fighting.

Yesterday Mr Browne announced that Britain is to send another Royal Air Force Harrier fighter jet to Afghanistan to support ground troops. Six Harriers are already there based at the Kandahar airfield. Today, the defence secretary admitted Nato was "still learning" in Afghanistan, but urged commentators not to "second guess" the operational needs of commanders.

    Taliban tenacity surprised us, Browne admits, G, 19.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1876000,00.html

Full text

'It's been even harder than we expected'

Following is the full text of a speech today by the defence secretary, Des Browne, to the Royal United Services Institute in London.

Tuesday September 19, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

There may be some of you here expecting a speech full of admissions of mistakes. You can't believe everything you read.

I have described Afghanistan as "a noble cause".

We are there under the authority of a UN resolution, at the request of a democratic elected government, and with the support of the local people. We are there to ensure the country does not slip back under the control of the Taliban - an intolerant, brutal regime who oppose education, disregard the most basic human rights and place no value on human life. We are there to ensure Afghanistan does not slide into civil war - after decades of conflict in which 2 million of its own people have died and millions more have fled. If there is a chance to put a stop to this - however difficult - then there is a strong moral imperative to seize that chance.

But Afghanistan is not just a noble cause. It is also strongly in our own national interest. Lawless states or areas are always dangerous: to the people who live and suffer there, to regional stability, and in the end to global security. In the case of Afghanistan, the particular threats emerging from those lawless areas - terrorism and opium - were (and still are) delivered onto the streets of the west - as we know and remember all too well, particularly at this time of year.

It is no surprise, then, that there has been broad support for the cause from the beginning. People disagree about strategy, they disagree about tactics, they disagree about the shape of the force, about whether we are giving it enough support. But behind all this disagreement, at a more fundamental level there is a consensus that we must succeed in Afghanistan.

Even those few who disagree do so not because they question whether the mission is important, or indeed legitimate, but because they think it is impossible. Some think it impossible because of the nature of the country: because they think its size, terrain, and warrior culture stack the odds too heavily against any foreign force. They cite the experience of the Soviets, or the British a century before, and say: "If they sent in hundreds of thousands of troops, and still failed, how can we hope to succeed with a fraction of that number?" Others think it's impossible because of the nature of the mission: because they think that trying to build a nation through the use of foreign force is always self-defeating.

I respect these views. But I believe both are wrong, and that they are wrong for the same reason: they don't fully appreciate the nature of what we are trying to do. We are not "invading": we are there at the invitation of a government which has legitimacy and support. And we do not kid ourselves that we can build institutions by force. Everyone I work with in the military is acutely aware that in a mission like this, military force cannot deliver success by itself. It can create however a set of conditions - a level of security, a shift in the balance of power - in which political progress can deliver success. But that political progress itself must be legitimised and reinforced by improvements in basic services like water and sanitation, and eventually by economic development. And lest we forget, this is a process well underway in Afghanistan. Security in the North and West has brought real change over the last 5 years: more and better schools, more and better hospitals, new jobs, and the return of millions of refugees. We are not just hoping that this mission can work - we know it does. But it has to work throughout the whole of Afghanistan if we want to secure what has already been achieved.

Let's be clear - success won't be what we understand by security and prosperity and proper governance, but it will be progress and it will be massively worth achieving, both for them, the Afghans, and for us. I accept that this looks some way off, against a background of intense fighting and, to be frank, currently relatively little direct progress on governance and reconstruction in the south. In part, this was inevitable at this stage. Nato has been in charge in the south for less than two months. And we always knew the south would be hard, as John Reid made clear when he announced the deployment in January. There has been no effective governance in the south for decades, it is the centre of the drugs trade, and most of all it is the Taliban heartland. It has been lawless for years, perhaps it always was, and all of those who have profited from this lawlessness were bound to go to any lengths that they could to resist any attempt to bring it under the rule of law.

We do have to accept that it's been even harder than we expected: the Taliban's tenacity in the face of massive losses has been a surprise, absorbing more of our effort than we predicted it would, and consequently slowing progress on reconstruction. This year's poppy harvest, planted before we arrived, is larger than ever before; and across the border in Pakistan, a new approach to security in the border areas may hold hope for the future, but might even see an increase in Taliban activity in the shorter term.

So we face a number of challenges.

The first is to try to ensure that the intensity of the campaign against the Taliban does not distract from the core mission, of following security with political and economic progress. In Helmand, the best prospects for this progress are in the central area around the provincial capital. But to bolster the government, and to prevent the Taliban from operating in the outlying areas with impunity, we took the fight to the Taliban in their own back yard, in northern Helmand, establishing what are called 'platoon houses'. This was a necessary measure to enhance security in the province, but defeating the Taliban in a campaign of attrition is not an end in itself - we must not lose sight of the overall central mission.

The decision on how we position our forces is not straightforward. Six months into the campaign, we are still learning about the Taliban insurgency. There are signs this may be having an effect, and that the Taliban, and local Afghans, are tiring of this constant fighting. Local leaders in some areas are showing signs of wanting to reach an accommodation to limit or indeed to stop the fighting. It is too early to say where this may lead, but it does show the picture is complex, changes from day to day, and is not the simple narrative which it is sometimes portrayed to be. This reinforces my view that only operational commanders should make decisions, about which forces go where, and when. I am not prepared to second-guess them from Whitehall. I urge others not to do so either. I know people are interested - and rightly so. But maintaining a running commentary on this can only put at risk the lives of the very soldiers that those people purport to be speaking out for.

This brings me to the second challenge - which is making sure these commanders have the forces they need to give them the flexibility to carry out the mission. As has been widely reported, Nato have estimated they need 2,500 more troops - 1,000 of whom are combat troops. We are still in the middle of the process of finding them. I've been in close, often daily contact with my counterparts and with the secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. There was some good news last week, with the Poles announcing their intention to provide a battalion - which will go a long way to meeting the requirement - and with no caveats. The Canadians are also increasing their contribution, notably sending out additional engineers to reinforce the development effort, much as we have done. There are others also considering whether they can do more, but it is for individual nations to make public their own decisions on this. But there is no denying it has been difficult, and that we're not there yet.

It is important, however, to understand the context of these discussions. When Nato agreed to take on the Afghan mission, it did so against a clear plan which started in Kabul, then the north, and then the west. Many nations have taken their turn providing troops to get us to where we are now, and there has been a considerable collective investment, and a considerable collective sacrifice too. I know that some of our partners feel, with some justice, that they have done their bit, and many are now focused on other tasks elsewhere in the world. Some have doubts that the mission will succeed. Others, candidly, have more direct concerns about the level of risk they are prepared to expose their soldiers to. These are understandable concerns.

But those of us who are already fully committed in the south - ourselves, the Canadians, the Dutch, the Danes, the Estonians and the ever-present Americans - must remind our partners that it was their agreement and support that brought us to this point, and that the mission is as vital as it always has been. In fact, it is vital not only for Afghanistan, but also for the threat that a lawless Afghanistan poses to the region and world; and also, now that Nato has taken it on, for Nato's own credibility. We have reached the point, which we always knew we would, where Nato is tackling the most difficult regions, the south and soon the east. Nato nations must decide whether to back their investment, reaffirm their original intent - and to send a clear signal to the Taliban, and the Afghan population, that Nato as an alliance is strong and determined to see the task through. The fundamental point is that Nato is an alliance. When it decides to use military force, all partners should be prepared to face equal risk. While particular skills and capabilities may be stronger in some armed forces than in others, no one has a monopoly on determination and courage. I suspect most armed forces are like our own - they relish the challenge, even when it is as difficult as this, and I am sure they want to honour their countries' commitment to the task we have taken on. We must persuade our partners - and help them persuade their publics - to let their forces do just that.

The third challenge is understanding the nature of the opposition. We have fought to a standstill those who are trying to destroy the security we are creating. They cannot beat us and in some places, as I have said, there are signs they may be beginning to see this - but this is only the first necessary step in the path we hope they will take, and at the same time there is still much to learn about them. We must understand the motivations of those who are fighting us, since not all of them are the same.

Foremost among them are the Taliban - the same group who ruled Afghanistan with intolerance and repression up to their overthrow in 2001. Since then they have been under pressure from the American-led coalition and from the Afghans themselves. There have been some high profile defections. The Governor of Oruzgun province for example, in the south, is himself ex-Taliban, brought in by the government's reconciliation programme and now backing political and economic progress. Some of his associates have joined him, and we need to persuade more to follow. But there will always be a hard core who are implacable, irreconcilable and determined to fight to keep their impunity in the south, and possibly to reclaim the whole country.

This hard core is small - maybe a thousand, it is hard to tell. But the leaders are clever, sophisticated and well aware of how to play to the world gallery. They are adept at forming alliances of convenience with the drug barons and criminal gangs, who likewise have everything to lose from any move towards legitimate governance. And together they recruit foot soldiers from among poor, ordinary Afghan tribesmen. These tribesmen are persuaded to fight not because they hate us, or because of an Afghan culture of resistance, but simply because they are paid - often with money made from drugs. It is this group, probably the majority of those involved in the recent fighting, that matter to us most.

We don't want to kill them, or defeat them - we want to convince them to back peace, to back the view of the future represented by the Afghan government, rather than by the Taliban or the drug lords. I fully acknowledge that if we cannot do this, if we cannot persuade them to put down their guns, then we will struggle to make progress, and there will be a real danger that their deaths will motivate others to join the fight, and potentially turn this into a conflict of a different kind.

But I do not believe we are at that stage. If we can create security, the reconstruction will follow and it will show them the benefits of peaceful co-operation. But in the short term we also have to convince them that we will not be beaten in combat, and that the Taliban lack the strength to impose their vision of the future of Afghanistan. This has cost lives, lives of our people, and of people we could have worked with - but for that we can blame the Taliban unreservedly. They have an utter lack of regard for the value of human life.

So we face a difficult task - we must win the battles through force, but not in a way that loses the whole campaign. If there is any armed forces that can tread this line, it is ours - honed by training, experience and culture to apply force with proportionality and with judgement. So when you hear on the news that we have fought the Taliban in Musa Qala or Sangin, recognise that this terrible and dangerous work is being done by soldiers who understand the challenge completely - they will fight like they were at war, but if there is an opportunity instead to silence the guns by persuasion, they will take it - even if you don't read about that part in the papers, or see anything of it on TV.

What we do read about is that they are fighting incredibly hard. They are working in arduous conditions, around the clock, up to and sometimes beyond the bounds of stamina and endurance. The public rightly are concerned they are getting the right support but - please, please, do not demean their effort by thinking that they are fighting like this by accident, or because in some way they have not been properly supported. They are fighting and working in these conditions because that is the nature of conflict - hard, dirty and beyond the experience of most of us to understand. They do this because they are superb professionals and we should recognise their courage, skill, and spirit for what it is.

I have made the point already that as soon as we do create security, we need to follow it, straight away, with progress on reconstruction, to consolidate the security we have created, and to reassure the people that there is a real future for Afghanistan. This brings me to the final challenge I want to talk about today: the application of the comprehensive approach, that is, the interweaving of different elements - security, reconstruction, law and order, and governance, reinforcing each other "like the strands of a rope".

The need for a comprehensive approach is, I think, well understood in theory, but Afghanistan is showing us how challenging it can be in practice - more so than in some other countries where we have worked. In some countries, poverty is overwhelming, but security is less difficult. In others, the machinery of government may be broken, but neither poverty nor security are so threatening. The challenge we face in Afghanistan is that these different elements of the problem are so ever-present and interdependent. As we address one, it starts to expose the gravity of the others - and that is clear to the Afghans themselves. A British soldier may bring security, but if nothing comes behind it - if we can't bring clean drinking water, or a proper school - this raises the question "what for?" If we can't arrest drug lords, because the police are corrupt or scared, or because there are no courts, or no prisons, how can we expect the villages where they work to back our view of the future instead of their view? Why does any of this need British soldiers, rather than Afghan soldiers or police? And so on, the questions come.

These problems are often so acute we are discovering they all need to be tackled early, if not simultaneously. What this shows us most clearly is that we must find robust, quick and above all simple solutions that reflect the requirements of Afghanistan, not the standards or mores of Western society. In some cases this means starting from the bottom up, not the top down as we would normally do. It means clean drinking water and basic sanitation for local doctors, simple, workable laws in the hands of local law enforcement, well-dug ditches for farmers. Of course we also need to develop proper working government ministries in Kabul, Supreme Courts and so forth - but make no mistake, we have to do this in parallel, not first. We recognise this, and we have some of our best minds working on it, but it is new, and it is difficult.

It is most difficult because it has to be done in a small window of relative safety, guaranteed by a British soldier on a street corner, watching everyone's back. If the work is done, then the locals start to watch our backs too - and then we get momentum. But such an environment is inevitably a perilous one for non-military staff to work in. That's why we announced in July, among the wider reinforcements for the Helmand task force, the deployment of additional Royal Engineers, precisely to start work on reconstruction in the kind of security environment where DfID or NGOs would not be able to work. But they cannot do it all themselves and we will have to be imaginative in finding ways to get this part of the job done.

The obvious and immediate priority in southern Afghanistan is creating security. It will be a difficult road - and the headlines will be full of fighting. This is unavoidable. But I hope I have made clear that some of the most difficult challenges lie beneath that surface. The requirement for Nato to live up to its intentions and to all our moral obligations is vital, though also difficult when the fighting seems to be so all-consuming. But also the need to learn, quickly, about the hostile forces we are facing, to understand how to persuade them that we are there to help their country, and that we can actually do so. That we can bring them better healthcare, an honest job, the security and stability which comes with the rule of law - essentially, some hope that the future might be different, and might be better. If we can persuade them of this, both by the skill and resolve of our frontline troops, but also by our imagination and teamwork across the full spectrum of challenges - then they will start to work with us, and join us in facing down those who try to stop progress.

My priority, for now, is to make sure our people engaged in this most vital and difficult of tasks, have the support they need and the support deserve. I have already said that I am expending every effort with our allies to see that our people are not left exposed in this fight. I am expending every effort too to ensure they get the equipment they need, even if that means rebalancing some of the overall effort in defence towards the here and now, rather than the possible challenges of tomorrow. Across government I am urging us to be imaginative in our approach and not let habit, or bureaucracy, constrain the solutions we need on the ground.

Above all I am determined to ensure that the British public know the truth about the fantastic job our people are doing. They are fighting tooth and nail for the things I have described, not because they blindly follow orders but because they see the answers there in front of them, and because they are the most professional and committed people in the world. I hope they will enjoy your support too.

    'It's been even harder than we expected', G, 19.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1876019,00.html

Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again

Kandahar under threat, war raging in two provinces and an isolated president. So what went wrong?

Saturday September 16, 2006
Guardian
Declan Walsh in Ghazni

Reedi Gul is probably dead now. Two weeks ago masked gunmen abducted the 24-year-old on a lonely mountain road in central Afghanistan. The next day his father, Saleh Gul, received a phone call, and realised he was the real target.

"I am an Afghan Muslim Talib," the voice announced. "If you want to see your son alive, listen carefully."

Three weeks earlier Saleh Gul had been appointed governor of an insurgent-infested district in Ghazni province. The Taliban demanded he quit his job, pay a ransom, attack US forces and assassinate local officials.

Mr Gul paid $2,000 and resigned his position, but refused to kill. "I am not a terrorist," he barked down the phone. So the Taliban added an impossible demand: the freedom of an imprisoned commander.

Last Sunday their deadline passed. "Still no news," the anguished father said four days later. "I think they have killed him by now." Mr Gul's face was lined with worry but his voice rang with anger. "I had warned the government this might happen. I told them Taliban was taking over. Why can't they stop them?"

Brazenness

That question is resounding across Afghanistan following a summer of chaos. In the south war has gripped Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where British and Canadian troops are stationed. In the past fortnight Nato has launched a blistering offensive, killing more than 500 Taliban, to stave off an attack on Kandahar city - a previously unthinkable notion.

Elsewhere, suicide bombers are striking with Baghdad-like brazenness. In the boldest attack yet, last week two American soldiers and 14 Afghans were shredded by a huge blast outside the US embassy in Kabul, one of the country's most tightly guarded areas.

Opium cultivation has soared. This year Afghanistan will produce more heroin than western addicts can consume. The main hub of cultivation is British-controlled Helmand. Since August 1 Britain and Canada have each lost 11 soldiers in combat, a high toll for what was originally presented as a peacekeeping mission.

It was not meant to be like this. When American troops started to flounder in Iraq after 2003 President George Bush lauded Afghanistan as a major victory. When presidential and parliamentary elections passed peacefully, his generals wrote the insurgency off. "The Taliban is a force in decline," declared Major General Eric Olson 18 months ago.

Today, to many observers those words look foolish. While northern and western Afghanistan remain stable, President Hamid Karzai is isolated and unpopular. Comparisons of the southern war with Vietnam are no longer considered outlandish. And dismayed western diplomats - the architects of reconstruction - are watching their plans go up in smoke. "Nobody saw this coming. It's pretty dire," admitted one official in Kabul.

No single factor explains the slide. But some answers can be found in Ghazni, a central province considered secure until earlier this year. Now it is on the frontline of the Taliban advance, just a two-hour drive from Kabul.

In the past two months the Taliban has swept across the southern half of the province with kidnappings, assassinations and gun battles. American officials believe Andar district, a few miles from their base in Ghazni town, is the Taliban hub for four surrounding provinces. This week they launched a drive in Andar, searching houses and raking buildings with helicopter gunship fire into a Taliban compound. At least 35 people died including a mother and two children.

"We've warned people they may see soldiers shooting in their villages. I tell them this is the price of peace and freedom," said US commander Lieutenant Colonel Steven Gilbert.

Travel along the Kabul-Kandahar highway that slices through Ghazni - once a symbol of western reconstruction - has become a high-stakes game of power. The Taliban sporadically mount checkpoints, frisking Afghans for ID cards, phone numbers or any other sign of a link to the government or foreign organisations. Those caught are beaten, kidnapped or killed. Foreigners travel south by plane, passing high over the road they once boasted about.

In the surrounding villages people are frightened and angry. In Qala Bagh district bands of 20 to 30 fighters descend at night. They demand food, shelter or a son to join the fighting, said Maulvi Aladat, the new district chief. A judge, a school principal and the local director of education have been assassinated in the past two months. The two girls' schools are closed.

The government offers scant protection. Ghazni's untrained police are outnumbered and outgunned. Huddled inside poorly protected compounds with few radios or vehicles, they are little match for large Taliban squads armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The US-trained Afghan army is curiously absent. Ghazni has just 280 soldiers, according to the governor, Sher Alam Ibrahimi. Although on paper the army has 35,000 soldiers, desertion rates are believed to be high.

Murky background

After his cousin was abducted by the Taliban, Yar Muhammad appealed to the provincial and national authorities for help. None came. Days later the body of his cousin - an education department official who offended by teaching girls - was discovered on a stretch of desert. "The government did absolutely nothing. They didn't even help to find the body," he said bitterly.

Local government is plagued by corruption and weak leadership. Ibrahimi, a former warlord, seems an unlikely candidate for governor with his grindingly slow speech and murky background that includes allegations of war crimes. Many believe Mr Karzai appointed him for his links to a more powerful warlord now in parliament.

Disillusionment with the president, who once promised so much, is high. "We are like a herd with no shepherd," said one elder. In desperation, his government has doubled the number of police through the use of arbikays - untrained tribal fighters paid directly by the governor. They are a mixed blessing. On Wednesday Dawlat Khan, one of the arbikay commanders, stormed into the police chief's office in Ghazni, bursting with anger. "The Taliban attacked my house. My wife and children were inside. What sort of government do we have that cannot protect us!" he yelled.

Mr Khan typifies the compromises Mr Karzai has had to make to maintain law and order. A life-long warrior with a fierce and unsmiling face, he has a reputation for ruthlessness and brutality. Lt Col Gilbert said Mr Khan was "covered in blood" the first time they met. But he is a fierce foe of the Taliban, standing to fight when trained policemen scurry away. "In an environment where peace is the norm, he wouldn't have a place," Lt Col Gilbert said. "But after 30 years of war, famine and fighting, you don't have the luxury of saying I don't want these hard core guys."

Poverty also fuels the fighting. Several elders said the Taliban was offering upwards of 20,000 rupees (£180) a month to local unemployed men. Western officials are beginning to scrutinise the source of the funds.

Mr Khan told the Guardian the militants have bigger guns and more fighters. They have powerful friends. Several times he had collared Taliban fighters only to discover days later they had been released following a call from a powerful politician or influential tribal leader. They also have surprising amounts of money.

Last year, he said, he captured two insurgents, "one of them alive". Mr Khan asked him why he was fighting. The man replied: "You are being paid 5,000 Afghanis (£54). I am making 20,000 Pakistani rupees. So now you tell me why you are fighting."

This year the Taliban formed an alliance with drug kingpins, offering to protect poppy farmers and smugglers in exchange for a cut of the $3bn trade. But diplomats believe most funding comes from fundamentalist sympathisers in Pakistan and the Middle East. Some believe governments may be also involved.

"I would be shocked if the Saudi intelligence service and the Kuwaitis were not trying to find ways to get money to the Taliban," said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent with 20 years' experience in the region.

Many Afghans are bewildered by the west's failure to bring the fight to the heart of the problem - neighbouring Pakistan. Maulvi Aladat pointed to the glowing horizon. "It is as clear as the sun is setting," he said. "Everyone knows where they are trained and funded, where the suicide bombers come from. Everyone knows."

Military officers and diplomats also say Pakistan's tribal belt is the engine room of the insurgency. From its remote mountain sanctuaries along the border the Taliban has re-emerged from the shadows as a potent force. Two shuras, or tribal councils, coordinate the attacks - one in the western city of Quetta, the other in South Waziristan, a lawless tribal area that is also a crucible of al-Qaida terrorism.

In an interview published yesterday, a senior Dutch officer estimated that 40% of Taliban fighters come "straight from Pakistan". The steady flow meant that Nato operations, despite their successes, were "like trying to mop with the tap still open", said Colonel Arie Vermeij.

Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, said that after being driven into Pakistan's tribal areas in late 2001 the Taliban "reconstituted their command structure, recruitment networks, and support bases ... while Afghans waited in vain for the major reconstruction effort they expected to build their state and improve their lives".

Sincerity

Joanna Nathan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, said closing down the Pakistani staging areas was vital. "This conflict will never be more than contained without stamping on the staging posts and sanctuaries in Pakistan."

Western officials are also divided about the sincerity of Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, in combating the Taliban. In Kabul last week he offered his help in defeating the Taliban, later describing them as a "bigger threat than al-Qaida". But that was undermined by a deal with tribal militants in Waziristan. In return for Pakistan soldiers withdrawing to base, the pro-Taliban militants undertook to stop harbouring foreign fighters and to halt cross-border infiltration. Within hours of the deal being inked, some tribal leaders claimed there had never been any foreigners in their area.

Last Sunday - two days after Mr Musharraf left Kabul - a man wearing an explosive vest hurled himself at a vehicle containing Abdul Hakim Taniwal, the governor of Pakita province. The killer is believed to have come from Waziristan.

Friends said Mr Taniwal, a university professor who returned from Australia to serve his country on pay of $200 a month, was the sort of man Afghanistan needs. He had argued for reconciliation with the Taliban and a resolution of tensions with Pakistan. He was a good man among rogues. "Many governors are former commanders involved in drug trafficking, land grabbing and corruption. Why did they kill this one? Because he was completely clean and a wise man of peace," said Mr Rubin. "It is a big blow against peace."

Drug boom

Shutting down the Pakistani sanctuaries would not necessarily end the insurgency. This year the Taliban's strength has been nourished by a new source: heroin. After spurning the opium trade as un-Islamic and immoral, this year the Taliban leadership reversed its position and allied with drug smugglers. The 59% surge in opium production to an unprecedented 6,100 tonnes will swell the Taliban war chest. "This is going to put a lot more money into the pockets of the insurgency," said one drug official.

More ominously, the drugs boom feeds cynicism about the Karzai government. "You can't tell poor farmers not to grow drugs and then you have civil servants driving a luxury car and living in a huge house," said Ms Nathan.

Dismay about the drugs epidemic has given way to arguments about how to tackle it. US and European military commanders, particularly the British, insist their troops should not get directly involved in fighting the trade. This week the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, called on them to wade in. "Counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts must reinforce each other so as to stop the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorists and terrorists protecting drug traffickers," he said, calling on Nato to destroy heroin labs, disband drug bazaars, attack convoys and arrest smugglers.

The speed and scale of this summer's violence has disoriented both Afghans and foreigners. In the south outlandish theories that the US is covertly supporting the Taliban, or that British troops have come to avenge colonial-era defeats, are common.

The underlying factors - cross-border sanctuaries, corrupt governance and drugs - have been in place for years. But what changed is the aggressive Nato deployment. After a difficult start, Nato has scored some successes. With more than 500 Taliban killed in Panjwayi, the Taliban stronghold west of Kandahar, soon the area will be cleared of insurgents, said the British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards. With luck, Nato hopes it will soon revert to its original goal, facilitating aid projects and strengthening the Karzai government.

But others question whether an insurgency can be defeated by death tolls alone. The only durable solution is to talk to the Taliban, said Wadir Safi of the University of Kabul. "Without negotiation this could go on for decades. The government must accept the Taliban as partners in these areas. You can't simply kill them all."

Afghans have a long history of ejecting foreign armies. The good news for Nato is that most still believe the military visitors are a force for good. "People are tired of fighting. Nobody wants to go back to that," said one official in Ghazni, who requested anonymity. "But if the people are disappointed much more, they could unite against the foreign forces. History could repeat itself."

Chronology: From victory to bloody stalemate in five years

2001

March Taliban blow up giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan
September 11 World Trade Centre attack, New York
October US and the UK start air strikes against Afghanistan after Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden
November Opposition forces seize Mazar-e Sharif and within days march into Kabul and other key cities
December 5 Afghan groups agree deal for interim government and Taliban give up last stronghold of Kandahar
December 22 Hamid Karzai sworn in as head of an interim government

2002

January First contingent of International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) peacekeepers in place
June Loya Jirga, or grand council, elects Hamid Karzai as interim head of state
December President Karzai signs deal to build gas pipeline through Afghanistan, carrying Turkmen gas to Pakistan

2003

August Nato takes over security in Kabul
March Afghanistan secures $8.2bn (£4.5bn) in aid over three years
September Rocket fired at helicopter carrying President Karzai misses

2004

October and November Hamid Karzai declared the winner of presidential elections, with 55% of the vote. He is sworn in, amid tight security, in December

2005

September First parliamentary and provincial elections
December New parliament holds inaugural session

2006

January 4 UK government announces deployment of 3,400 British troops to Helmand province
January 15 Suicide bomber targets Canadian Nato troops in Kandahar, killing a Canadian diplomat and two Afghans
January 16 Two attacks in Kandahar province kill 24 people
March 28 An American and a Canadian soldier are killed in fighting with militants at a base in Helmand province. More than 220 US troops have died in the conflict so far
April 22 Four Canadian soldiers are killed by a roadside bomb in Kandahar
June 21 Four US soldiers killed fighting Taliban insurgents in Nuristan province
July 1 Two British soldiers with the 3rd Para Battlegroup are killed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Helmand province
July 22 Eight people, including two Canadian soldiers, are killed in a double suicide attack in Kandahar
August 1 Three UK soldiers killed after an ambush in Helmand the day after Nato forces take over from US troops
August 3 Four Nato soldiers, all Canadian, killed in southern Afghanistan and 21 civilians killed in a suicide car bombing in Kandahar province
August 6 Private Andrew Barrie Cutts of the Royal Logistic Corps killed in Musa Qualeh in northern Helmand
August 11 Suicide car bomber kills a Canadian soldier in the south
August 13 Three US soldiers killed in heavy fighting with Taliban guerrillas close to the border with Pakistan
August 20 One UK soldier and four Americans killed in fighting in the south
August 26 Two French special forces soldiers killed in an insurgent ambush
August 28 Suicide bomb in Helmand province kills 17
September 1 Ranger Anare Draiva of 1 Royal Irish Regiment, who was Fijian, dies in Helmand
September 2 Fourteen UK armed personnel die in a Nato aircraft crash near Kandahar
September 3 Nato and Afghan forces kills dozens of Taliban fighters in an air and ground offensive in the south
September 4 One Canadian soldier killed by friendly fire and several wounded during a major Nato offensive. One British soldier and four Afghans killed by a suicide bomb in Kabul
September 6 One British soldier killed and six injured by a landmine in southern Helmand. Second British soldier killed in another clash in the province and a third dies of injuries sustained in a clash the previous week
September 7 Two US soldiers among 16 killed when a suicide bomber targets a convoy near the American embassy in Kabul
September 9 40 suspected Taliban fighters and one Nato soldier are killed during fighting in Kandahar province's Panjwayi district

    Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again, NYT, 16.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1873769,00.html

1.45pm

Blair tells Nato: send more troops to Afghanistan

Wednesday September 13, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
David Fickling

Tony Blair today called on Nato members to contribute more troops to Afghanistan.

The prime minister's appeal came as a difficult campaign to take control of two insurgent-held districts approached its second week.

"Nato is looking at what further requirements there are and ... Nato countries have got a duty to respond to that," Mr Blair said. "It is important that the whole of Nato regards this as their responsibility."

The prime minister was speaking after Washington's ambassador to Nato today urged other members of the military alliance to send forces to help stabilise the country.

"What we are looking to do is to put more forces in so that we can turn the tide faster," Victoria Nuland told BBC radio. "The issue here ... is the fighting capability and the fighting willingness of all allies.

"The US, the UK, Canada, the Dutch, have been in the tough, pointy end of this fight, and more allies need to be willing to be ... in the fighting."

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, underlined the importance of tackling the insurgency, saying "we owe it to the people of Afghanistan to help them finish the job".

"An Afghanistan that does not complete its democratic evolution and become a stable, terror-fighting state is going to come back to haunt us," she said at a news conference with the Canadian foreign minister, Peter MacKay.

"It will come back to haunt our successors and their successors."

Nato governments are meeting in Belgium today to address shortfalls in troop levels in Afghanistan.

The force is currently running at 85% of capacity, and military chiefs have called for more soldiers to tackle an insurgency in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.

However, member governments with few or no troops in the troubled provinces argue they are already over-committed in other peacekeeping operations and do not want to be drawn into the bloody battle.

Italy and France are both sending troops to the Unifil peacekeeping force in Lebanon, while Germany already has 2,600 troops stationed in the relatively calm north of Afghanistan.

Twenty-six troops, including 14 British soldiers killed when their Nimrod reconnaissance plane crashed in Kandahar province earlier this month, have died in southern Afghanistan over the past month.

In total, more than 2,000 people have died in fighting in the country in the past year.

Around 20,000 troops from the Afghan army and the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force are currently in the country. Some 8,000 of those are Isaf soldiers, and Britain is currently contributing just over 4,000 soldiers to the force.

Over the past fortnight, Isaf troops have been waging a bitter battle in Kandahar in which hundreds of Taliban guerrillas are reported to have been killed.

    Blair tells Nato: send more troops to Afghanistan, G, 13.9.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1871541,00.html

Soldiers reveal horror of Afghan campaign

By Kim Sengupta
The Independent
Published: 13 September 2006

Soldiers deployed in Helmand province five years on from the US-led invasion, and six months after the deployment of a large British force, have told The Independent that the sheer ferocity of the fighting in the Sangin valley, and privations faced by the troops, are far worse than generally known.

"We are flattening places we have already flattened, but the attacks have kept coming. We have killed them by the dozens, but more keep coming, either locally or from across the border," one said. "We have used B1 bombers, Harriers, F16s and Mirage 2000s. We have dropped 500lb, 1,000lb and even 2,000lb bombs. At one point our Apaches [helicopter gunships] ran out of missiles they have fired so many. Almost any movement on the ground gets ambushed. We need an entire battle group to move things. Yet they will not give us the helicopters we have been asking for.

"We have also got problems with the Afghan forces. The army, on the whole, is pretty good, although they are often not paid properly. But many of the police will not fight the Taliban, either because they are scared or they are sympathisers."

British officers in Helmand acknowledge that the next few months will be crucial in this conflict, which they insist can still be won with an additional thousand extra fighting troops.

Last week General James Jones, the Nato military chief, called for 2,500 extra troops, armour and helicopters from member states. But at the Warsaw summit currently under way, the countries with significant forces, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, say they will have their hands full with Lebanese peacekeeping duties and have no troops to spare.

The anxiety has been deepened by the decision of the Pakistani military to do a deal with militants and withdraw from some of the border areas. The government of President Pervez Musharraf said the Taliban had promised in return not to continue to cross into Afghanistan to mount attacks, a declaration that a senior British officer described as "risible".

British forces in Helmand had not originally planned to go into Sangin. But when the provincial governor, Mohammad Daoud, appealed for help from President Hamid Karzai to counter increasing Taliban activity, the US commander in the country asked British troops to move in. The result has been that overstretched forces have come under constant attack.

Lt Gen Richards, who says British forces have been involved in some of the fiercest fighting since Korea, has now decided to withdraw from outlying positions, which will be taken over by the Afghan forces. It is a decision that some have questioned. An officer who has served in Helmand said: "We have to ask, can we rely on them? Especially the police."

He continued: "We did not expect the ferocity of the engagements. We also expected the Taliban to carry out hit and run raids. Instead we have often been fighting toe to toe, endless close-quarters combat. It has been exhausting. I remember when we had to extract a Danish recce group which was getting attacked on all sides; it was bedlam. We have greater firepower, so we tend to win, but, of course, they can take their losses while our casualties will invariably lead to concern back home.You also have to think that each time we kill one, how many more enemies we are creating. And, of course, the lack of security means hardly any reconstruction is taking place now, so we are not exactly winning hearts and minds."

In the market town of Lashkar Gar, Afghan civilians are increasingly concerned about security. One man said: "We are not safe now; it is more dangerous than it was just a few months ago."

Bodies of Nimrod crash victims return home

The flag-draped coffins carrying the bodies of the 14 British servicemen killed when their reconnaissance plane crashed in Afghanistan were returned home yesterday to a sombre reception in Scotland.

A ceremony for the victims of last week's Nimrod crash, Britain's worst single loss during its current deployment, was held at RAF Kinloss in Moray. Air force chiefs and the Duke of Edinburgh joined the families of the airmen for the repatriation, at which Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, described the 14 as "outstanding, brave and dedicated".

He said: "They were working towards making Afghanistan a safe and secure place as well as protecting our nation and its interests. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude."

    Soldiers reveal horror of Afghan campaign, I, 13.9.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1523144.ece

Medals for acts of valour in Afghanistan and Iraq

Friday September 8, 2006
Richard Norton-Taylor
Guardian

A Harrier pilot who dive-bombed fighters attacking allied troops in Afghanistan, a soldier who took a "long walk" through an Iraqi crowd to defuse a bomb, and another who joked as he rescued a British foot patrol are among 64 military personnel honoured today.

Wing Commander Martin Sampson, described as a "fearless and courageous airborne warrior", has been awarded the Distinguished Service Order for action in southern Afghanistan. His citation says that in April 2006, his squadron was scrambled to help troops coming under extremely heavy fire. After the squadron attacked one target, the radios and weapons systems of other Harriers failed.

As panic began to set in and the troops' position became desperate, "at low level and again in the face of heavy enemy gunfire, he received a broken message to drop all his rockets on to a different aim point", the citation says."Unflustered, he readjusted his aim and neutralised the target."

Wing Cdr Sampson flew more than 100 missions in 12 months in Afghanistan.

Captain Kevin Ivison of the Royal Logistic Corps is awarded the George Medal for risking his life to defuse a bomb after an explosive device killed two of his colleagues in Amara, southern Iraq, in February 2006.

"An angry crowd of Iraqis had gathered and disabling the device was necessary to protect them and to allow casualties to be removed," his citation says. "Without a robot to defuse it", it adds, Capt Ivison "took the decision to approach and disable the bomb himself. He realised the device was highly likely to detonate and kill him, and that terrorist snipers may still be in the vicinity. [He] set off past the casualties on the 'long walk' to the device" before detonating it from a safe distance.

Sergeant James Newell is awarded a Military Cross for his bravery in rescuing foot patrols which came under fire in Samawah, Iraq, in January 2006. He saved the lives of his colleagues from 2 Para and the Iraqi police service as they came under small arms and grenade attack. He twice drove into the heart of the firefight to extract foot patrols which had become pinned down by enemy fire. He told them: "Come on! ... Don't take all day!"

Corporal Trevor Coult of the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his actions during an ambush involving suicide bombers in Baghdad last year. Others honoured include Fusilier Daniel Smith, who receives the George Medal for rescuing colleagues from a burning vehicle in Iraq.

The Ministry of Defence last night named two of the three soldiers who died in Afghanistan on Wednesday. It said that Corporal Mark William Wright, 27, of the 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, had died in Helmand province while trying to save the life of a comrade injured in a mine explosion. Lance Corporal Paul Muirhead, 29, of the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, died on the same day from injuries suffered in a Taliban attack on his base last Friday.

    Medals for acts of valour in Afghanistan and Iraq, G, 8.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1867540,00.html

Three British troops killed in action

The week's death toll in Afghanistan has risen to 19, as a US general talks of a new al-Qaeda threat
 

September 07, 2006
The Times
By Michael Evans

THREE British soldiers died in Afghanistan yesterday. One of them was killed when a landmine exploded in northern Helmand province; another died in a clash with the Taleban, also in northern Helmand; and the third soldier, from the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment, died of wounds he suffered in an incident last Friday.

It was the same incident in which Ranger Anare Draiva, a Fijian soldier, was killed. The family of the soldier was with him when he died in hospital.

In the landmine incident, a British patrol strayed into an unmarked mined area. Five others were “very seriously” injured and another soldier received minor injuries. They have all been moved to a military hospital at Camp Bastion, the main British base in Helmand.

In the second incident yesterday, in which there was a shoot-out with the Taleban when one soldier was killed, another received serious wounds. He was also taken to the Camp Bastion military hospital.

Nineteen servicemen have now died in Afghanistan in less than a week. Of those, 14 were on board the RAF Nimrod MR2 that crashed on Saturday.

America’s top military commander in the country told The Times that Nato and the US coalition forces in Afghanistan were now faced with an alliance of three foreign-trained enemy forces, all of whom were affiliated to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda ideology.

Lieutenant-General Karl Eikenberry, commander of Combined Forces Command in Afghanistan, with 20,000 US soldiers under his wing, said that foreign fighters had come back into Afghanistan and were providing training to all the groups who had now sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda.

President Musharraf of Pakistan arrived in Kabul yesterday to talk about forging closer links between the two nations in countering terrorism and stopping insurgents using the border to cross into each other’s territory.

The head of Nato, accompanied by alliance ambassadors who were also in Kabul yesterday, declared that the alliance would not be deterred by the resurgence of the Taleban.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, said: “The ongoing violence in some areas will not deter Nato from carrying out its mission.”

He signed a declaration with President Karzai of Afghanistan, pledging Nato’s long-term commitment to his country.

General Eikenberry said,from Kabul, that the alliance linked to al-Qaeda consisted of the Taleban, which he described as a loose confederation of militant Afghans; Haqqani, led by Jalalludin Haqqani, a former Mujahidin commander and a radical Islamist; and HIG, Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin, run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a war-lord and long-time associate of bin Laden.

General Eikenberry said these three groups had a symbiotic relationship and were receiving money from abroad.

    Three British troops killed in action, Ts, 7.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2346318,00.html

7.30pm

Further British casualties in Afghanistan

Wednesday September 6, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Three British soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan today, the Ministry of Defence said.

Following the death of one soldier in a landmine explosion in Helmand earlier today, the MoD said tonight that two further soldiers had died. Of those, one was a soldier who had been seriously injured in an incident last Friday, a spokesman said.

Four other British soldiers were also reported to have been "very seriously wounded" in today's explosion.

Another soldier received less serious injuries in the incident in the north of the southern Helmand province today at 12.20pm local time (0850 BST), the MoD said.

The troops were on patrol when they strayed into an unmarked minefield in Helmand, the volatile area where 3,600 British troops are based.

The soldiers were evacuated from the scene and are being treated at military medical facilities at Camp Bastion, the British base in the province, which was constructed earlier this year to house the increased British deployment in the region.

"No further details will be released until next of kin have been informed," an MoD statement said.

The latest British fatalities come after Private Craig O'Donnell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was killed on Monday alongside four bystanders in a suicide bomb attack in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

On Saturday, 14 British personnel died after an RAF Nimrod reconnaissance plane crashed.

The latest fatalities brings to 26 the number of British troops who have died in Afghanistan since August 1. A total of 117 British soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the invasion three years ago.

Earlier this week, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the new head of Britain's army, told the Guardian that his troops could only just cope with the demands placed on them. Defence officials have admitted that the situation in Afghanistan was worse than military commanders had anticipated.

The British assumed command of multinational forces in the south of the country earlier this year.

It was unclear where today's incident was, but the fiercest fighting has been in northern Helmand's Sangin valley, a fertile strip of land cut through the desert that is home to hundreds of small poppy farms.

British troops have had problems winning the support of farmers because Nato forces ostensibly back the Afghan government's measures to eradicate the opium trade, which many farmers rely on.

UK politicians continue to debate to what extent British troops have the capability to back opium eradication.

    Further British casualties in Afghanistan, G, 6.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1866121,00.html

Another fatal day in the 'war on terror'

Patrick Cockburn, the award-winning journalist and author, has reported extensively from Iraq, Afghanistan and Jordan. Here, he explains how the 'war on terror' has fuelled resentment of the West and brought new levels of death and destruction

Published: 05 September 2006
The Independent

Yesterday was another black day in the "war on terror". Across the Middle East, wave upon wave of violence engulfed the region and paid testament to the new, bloody reality five years on from 11 September.

The focus of some of the violence yesterday, the victims of attacks in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Jordan, were Britons. Be they military or civilian, British citizens are increasingly at risk everywhere in the area because Britain is seen as the closest political and military ally of the US.

A group of tourists were looking at the remains of a Roman amphitheatre in the heart of Amman, the capital of Jordan, yesterday morning when a lone gunman approached them, shouting "Allahu Akbar" - " God is Great" - and opening fire. One Briton was killed and six other people, including two UK nationals, were wounded. A Jordanian man was arrested for the shooting. Hundreds of miles away across the great stony desert dividing Jordan from Iraq, a British military unit came under attack at Ad Diyar, north of Basra. A roadside bomb tore apart their vehicle, killing two British soldiers and severely wounding a third. The deaths bring the total number of British dead in Iraq to 117. Still further east in Kabul, Afghanistan, a suicide bomber in a car blew himself up beside a British convoy, killing one British soldier and wounding three others, one of them seriously. Four Afghans were also killed.

It may be egocentric to write only of British dead. They are but a small percentage of the casualties in the multiple crises which are now cross-infecting each other in the Middle East.

Abdul Rahman Imran, a Palestinian I met in Nablus in the West Bank yesterday, spoke with anger of the plight of his people while the world looks away. In July and August, 251 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army. Half of them were civilians, including women, children and the elderly, the Israeli daily Haaretz said.

It may soon become uncommon for a day to pass without a Briton, soldier or tourist, to be killed somewhere in the Middle East. It is dangerous to be a foreigner in any part of Iraq but I noticed last year that my Iraqi translator had started stressing to anybody we met that I was Irish rather than British. He claimed that The Independent was a well-known Scandinavian publication. Mr Imran is just one of many in the region whose outrage at the British and US governments is growing every day. "I want to kill Bush and Blair because of what they have done to us," he said. "They are against Islam whether it is in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan."

To Tony Blair, due to visit Israel next weekend, the problem is very straightforward. Speaking in Los Angeles last month he produced a terrifyingly over- simple view of the Middle East saying "the Iraqi and Afghan fight for democracy is our fight. Same values. Same enemy." He claimed that "we have to empower Moderate, Mainstream Islam to defeat Reactionary Islam". The American and British governments will apparently decide in future just who belongs to the latter strand of Islam and go to war with them. They will have their work cut out. The Britons who were killed yesterday in attacks across the Middle East died at the hands of very different people. The suicide bomber in Kabul was almost certainly sent on his mission by the Taliban, who are fundamentalist Sunni Muslims.

The Taliban might not even recognise as Muslim the men, almost certainly Shia in the south of Iraq, who planted the roadside bomb that killed two British soldiers north of Basra.

I have spent most of my time since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason for the rise of radical Islam is foreign occupation. Iraq had a secular tradition. Fanatical Islamic groups made little headway under Saddam Hussein not only because he persecuted them but because they had little popular support.

But the five million-strong Sunni community in Iraq almost entirely supported armed resistance to the US occupation. Fanatical Islamic groups were for the first time operating in a friendly environment.

At one moment in the past year the many Sunni insurgent groups debated whether they should try to hammer out a common platform. They eventually decided that their differences were too deep for unity on most issues but they were all agreed on opposition to the occupation and they concluded this was sufficient to hold them together.

One of the most extraordinary aspects of Tony Blair's analysis of militant Islam is his blindness to the extent to which foreign invasion and occupation has radicalised the region and legitimised militant Islam. For instance this weekend a group of Palestinian students in Jerusalem were debating the impact of the war in Lebanon on Palestinian fortunes. The issue which most interested them was the reason why Hizbollah was able to withstand Israeli attacks compared with the failure of secular nationalist movements such as Fatah, led by Yasser Arafat for so many years.

Across the Middle East secularist and nationalist regimes are being discredited by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. Most governments in the region are corrupt patronage machines backed by brutal security services. They are close to the US but have little influence over it. All are becoming unstable in a way not seen since the 1960s.

The attack by a lone gunman in Jordan holds another dangerous message. At the end of 2001 I was able to stroll through the streets of Kabul and Kandahar without fear of being attacked. I drove between the two cities in a taxi. The same was true in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein and during the first months of the occupation. In 2003 I drove down to Basra in southern Iraq and up to Mosul in the far north without incident.

If I tried to repeat any of these journeys in Iraq or Afghanistan today I would certainly be killed. The rest of the Middle East is becoming more dangerous by the day.

The real reason of the increasing violence in the Middle East is the return to imperial control and foreign occupation half a century after the European colonial empires were broken up. This is the fuel for Islamic militancy. This is why fanatical but isolated Islamic groups can suddenly win broader support. Governments allied to the US and Britain have no legitimacy. The attempts by America and Britain to crush Islamic militancy across the Middle East are making sure it will become stronger.

    Another fatal day in the 'war on terror' , I, 5.9.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1362708.ece

4.15pm update

British military toll continues to rise

Monday September 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


Three British soldiers have been killed and two seriously injured in ongoing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq today, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The deaths came amid increasing concern about the army's overseas deployments and two days after 14 British soldiers were killed when an RAF Nimrod plane crashed in southern Afghanistan.

General Dannatt, the new head of the British army, told the Guardian today that soldiers were fighting at the limit of their capacity and could only just cope with the demands placed on them by the government.

"We are running hot, certainly running hot." He added: "Can we cope? I pause. I say 'just'."

The MoD said today that one British soldier was killed and another seriously injured when a four-wheel drive vehicle drove into a Nato convoy on Jalalabad Road, one of the busiest streets in Kabul.

Four Afghan civilians were killed and another nine, including three Nato troops, were injured in the morning attack. The driver of the vehicle was also killed.

"Sadly, one UK soldier has been killed and another very seriously injured as a result of this attack," said a spokesman from the MoD. "The injured soldier has been evacuated to a military medical facility for treatment."

Nato spokesman Major Toby Jackman said it was unclear if the attack was a suicide bombing or caused by a bomb that was being transported in a car, exploding prematurely.

The United Nations placed restrictions on movement of its personnel as British soldiers blocked the road leading to the site.

Suicide bombings in the capital have been rare, and have mainly take place in southern provinces where Afghan and Nato troops continue to fight anti-government elements.

Attackers have tended to target Jalalabad Road, which is home to Afghan and international military bases, a large United Nations compound and local shops.

A spokesman for Downing Street said the prime minister's view was "obviously one of sadness but it underlines again our debt of gratitude to the Army and the security services".

In Iraq, a roadside bomb north of Basra killed two British soldiers and injured two more, one seriously, said Major Charlie Burbridge.

The soldiers were travelling near the town of Ad Dayr in an armoured Land Rover, commonly known as a "snatch vehicle".

"It appears a roadside bomb was used to attack the convoy," Maj Burbridge said. "They were in a snatch vehicle. They have been designed to protect the crew against a certain threat and on occasion they have been defeated."

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said the injured men were taken by helicopter for emergency medical care at a British field hospital at Shaibah logistics base.

The identities of the dead soldiers were not being released until their families had been informed.

Twenty service personnel have been killed while on patrol in snatch vehicles in Iraq. Many experts have questioned whether the Land Rovers provide adequate protection from the weapons used by Iraqi insurgents.

Meanwhile, Nato in Afghanistan announced that warplanes had accidentally killed a Canadian soldier and wounded five others in a "friendly fire" incident in southern Afghanistan.

The incident happened today during an operation in Kandahar province, where Nato troops fighting anti-government elements in the western Panjwayi district called for air support.

Two Nato aircraft "regrettably engaged friendly forces during a strafing run, using cannons", a Nato statement said. An investigation was being launched.

"It is particularly distressing to us all when, despite the care and precautions that are always applied, a tragedy like this happens," the Nato commander Lieutenant General David Richards said.

    British military toll continues to rise, G, 4.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1864625,00.html

Spyplane crash that killed 14 is blamed on electrical fire

September 04, 2006
The Times 
By Michael Evans

Ministry of Defence scorns Taleban claims over worst disaster to befall British Armed Forces since the Falklands




::nobreak::SHORTLY before 11am BST on Saturday the pilot of the RAF Nimrod MR2 surveillance aircraft told ground control that he was facing a serious technical malfunction.

According to reports last night, air traffic controllers received several mayday calls before the plane crashed.

It was on its descent to Kandahar air base when it crashed 12 miles west of its destination.

It is believed that fire warning detectors went off in the aircraft as flames spread through the fuselage and disabled the controls. What followed happened very rapidly, according to a military source.

A massive short circuit in the hundreds of feet of wiring inside the aircraft caused a spark and smoke engulfed the work stations of the 14 men on board. The source said: “There was a message reporting a serious technical problem shortly before the catastrophic event happened.”

The disaster that befell the Nimrod, flying at 20,000ft (6,100m) above the terrain of southern Kandahar province in the south of Afghanistan, killed 14 highly experienced specialists, men who will be hard to replace, and devastated the community of RAF Kinloss on the Moray Firth in north Scotland, which was home to 12 of the dead. A board of inquiry has been set up into the worst casualty toll from a single incident suffered by the Armed Forces since the Falklands conflict in 1982, when 18 SAS troopers died in a helicopter crash.

The Ministry of Defence was sufficiently confident yesterday of the cause of the Nimrod crash to rule out any enemy involvement. But the Taleban quickly claimed to have shot down the aircraft with a shoulder-launched Stinger missile, one of the American weapons that was left over from the days when the CIA was supplying such systems to the Mujahidin to fight Soviet occupying forces.

However, the versions of the Stinger that were sent covertly to Afghanistan are 20 years old and have a maximum range of 11,000ft. Even if the surviving Stingers were in operational use, which seems doubtful, they would not have been able to reach a Nimrod MR2 whose normal operating altitude would be about 20,000ft.

A military source in Kabul said: “Everyone in Kandahar would have witnessed the Nimrod on fire and coming down, so the Taleban just grabbed their opportunity to claim responsibility. But the first calls said they had shot down a helicopter, so they clearly didn’t have a clue what was involved.”

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, dismissed as propaganda claims that the Taleban had shot down the Nimrod. He said it had been a terrible accident.

The Nimrod MR2, which used to have a straightforward antisubmarine warfare role, and is known as “the Mighty Hunter”, has been adapted to take on other surveillance functions, and on Saturday the doomed aircraft was providing crucial intelligence on Taleban concentrations in the district of Panjwayi, about 20 miles west of the city of Kandahar.

The four-engined aircraft, with its 14 crew — 12 RAF, one Royal Marine and one Army — has the ability to eavesdrop on enemy radio signals.

Beneath them, as the crew monitored their computer screens, Canadian-led Nato troops from the International Security Assistance Force were engaged in one of the biggest battles with the Taleban since Nato took over responsibility for security in southern Afghanistan from the Americans on August 1. The objective of Operation Medusa was to clear out the Taleban from the Panjwayi district. Nato reported yesterday that 200 Taleban had been killed, and that four Canadian soldiers had also died.

Yesterday, at the scene of the Nimrod crash, investigators retrieved vital parts of the wreckage to help in an inquiry into its cause. The bodies of the 14 men have already been recovered and will be repatriated.

The new head of the British Army has said that his soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting at the limit of their capacity, adding that they were “meeting challenges on the hoof”. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as Chief of the General Staff from Sir Mike Jackson last week, said: “We are running hot, certainly running hot. Can we cope? I pause. I say ‘just’.”

General Dannatt said his forces would be in the country for the “long term” adding, however, that they were not fighting the “fourth Afghan war” — a reference to past military disasters in the country — and were in Afghanistan at the invitation of President Karzai. In an interview conducted before the crash and published in today’s Guardian, General Dannatt refused to set a schedule for the withdrawal of the 7,200 British troops in Afghanistan.



The 14 victims were:

Flight Lieutenant Steven Johnson

Flight Lieutenant Leigh Anthony Mitchelmore

Flight Lieutenant Gareth Rodney Nicholas

Flight Lieutenant Allan James Squires

Flight Lieutenant Steven Swarbrick

Flight Sergeant Gary Wayne Andrews

Flight Sergeant Stephen Beattie

Flight Sergeant Gerard Martin Bell

Flight Sergeant Adrian Davies

Sergeant Benjamin James Knight

Sergeant John Joseph Langton

Sergeant Gary Paul Quilliam

Lance Corporal Oliver Simon Dicketts

Royal Marine Joseph David Windall

    Spyplane crash that killed 14 is blamed on electrical fire, Ts, 4.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341955,00.html

Small town reacts with shock and disbelief

September 04, 2006 
The Times
By Michael Evans

IT WAS the blackest day in the history of RAF Kinloss, a quiet coastal town where the Nimrod aircraft and their crews are part of a broader family.

The Rev Duncan Shaw, the minister at the Church of Scotland’s Kinloss and Findhorn parish church, summed up the feelings of the community. “There is shock and disbelief,” he said.

Group Captain Chris Birks, who is due to hand over as station commander this week, said that the 12 members of No 120 Squadron who died in the Nimrod were first-class personnel, colleagues and friends. “This is a day no one ever wants to have to experience. The station is in mourning,” he said.

The population of Kinloss in Moray is tiny, just a few hundred residents. Alisdair Urquhart, a local Moray councillor, said: “It is devastating news. It brings home to the people of Moray the harsh reality of Afghanistan and the war on terror.”

Andrew Gittings, a garage owner, said: “We are all very shocked by what has happened and feel deeply for the families.”

Dating back to the late 1930s when it was a pilot training school, RAF Kinloss has come through many periods of mourning.

During the Second World War, many of the pilots who were rushed through training to supply frontline squadrons were inexperienced and they crashed frequently. The station became used to flying the flag at half mast.

After the war the station became home for antisubmarine warfare operations, seeking out Soviet submarines trying to sneak through the Iceland Gap. But the Nimrods no longer have an exclusive maritime role and are expected to play their part in Britain’s operational campaigns.

The Ministry of Defence said that, despite the crash of the Nimrod MR2, none of the other 15 Nimrods would be grounded unless a serious fault was discovered that might affect other aircraft.

    Small town reacts with shock and disbelief, Ts, 4.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341956,00.html

The drain on men and machines

September 04, 2006
The Times 
Analysis by Michael Evans

THE British troops who have been sent to southern Afghanistan and the equipment supporting them, especially the helicopters, ground attack, transport and surveillance aircraft, are under increasing strain.

Operation Herrick, the codename for the Afghan campaign, may sound like some sort of fishing expedition, but it has become one of the toughest assignments for the British Armed Forces for decades.

The casualty toll has risen dramatically since the weekend crash of the RAF Nimrod MR2, with the deaths of the 14 on board, but it has also served as a reminder that it is not only the combat troops of 3 Para battle group who have had to endure the perils of fighting the Taleban. All three services are heavily involved in the campaign and many of those who have died have been serving in crucial supporting roles.

Despite the claims by politicians that the dispatching of troops to Helmand province was all about assisting the Afghans to rebuild their lives after years of war, the senior military commanders given the job of carrying out the political objectives knew that the Taleban would not look favourably on the arrival of thousands of foreign troops in an area of Afghanistan where they had previously enjoyed a dominating role.

However, even the British commanders have had to acknowledge that the assignment has proved tougher than expected and, in a hostile environment where temperatures in the summer can reach 50C (122F), anything mechanical starts to suffer.

All the helicopters, from the Apaches to the Chinooks, have been worked so hard that frequently they have to be taken off operational duties to be given a thorough overhaul. Clearing out the sand and dust is one of the key tasks for the mechanics. There are never enough helicopters for all the potential requirements.

The Nimrod MR2, like the C130 Hercules, is an old-stager, but without these aircraft Operation Herrick would grind to a halt. The Nimrod provides invaluable airborne surveillance, and the Hercules, like the old trooper it is, weaves back and forth with troops and supplies.

There is only one road in Helmand going north to the British military outposts at the far end of the province, in isolated places such as Musa Qala, Sangin, Nowzad and Kajaki, so supplies have to go by helicopter as well as by truck.

Often, when it is too dangerous to get a road convoy into these places, there is no alternative but to send a helicopter.

On one occasion in July, a group of 25 soldiers from the Pathfinder Platoon of 3 Para, who had been holed up in the reinforced district centre in Musa Qala for eight weeks, ran out of food and water because attempts to resupply them were thwarted by the Taleban.

In some parts of Helmand, Operation Herrick is more like a full-blown counter-insurgency war, although the Taleban attacks are by no means province-wide.

A large chunk of Helmand is desert. But RAF Harrier GR7 bombers, Army Air Corps Apache attack helicopters, which have been providing firepower and intelligence while hovering a mere 10m (33ft) from the British combat troops engaged in fighting the Taleban, the Nimrods, Hercules, Chinooks and other aircraft have to traverse the province from south to north every day. At the current level of combat operations, that is a flying endurance course which matches anything the troops on the ground have to face each day.

PREVIOUS BRITISH CASUALTIES

The deaths of 14 Britons in an aircraft crash on Saturday brings the death toll of British Forces personnel in Afghanistan to 36 since the start of operations in November 2001. Of these, the MoD classifies 15 as killed in action, including as a result of hostile action, while 21 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents

April 9, 2002 Private Darren John George from the Royal Anglian Regiment, serving with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul, died during a security patrol. Hostile action was not a factor

August 17, 2002 Sergeant Robert Busuttil and Corporal John Gregory, both 30, died from gunshot wounds at the British base at Kabul airport. Both served with the Royal Logistic Corps

January 28, 2004 Private Jonathan Kitulagoda, 23, was killed in an apparent suicide bomb attack. A member of the Rifle Volunteers, a Territorial Army battalion, he was in Kabul with the ISAF

October 29, 2005 Lance Corporal Steven Sherwood, 23, was killed during hostile action in Mazari-Sharif. He was a member of the 1st Battalion of The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry

March 22, 2006 Corporal Mark Cridge died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds three weeks before his 26th birthday in Camp Bastion

March 27, 2006 Lance Corporal Peter Edward Craddock of 1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, died in Lashka Gah after a road accident

June 11, 2006 Captain Jim Philippson, 29, of 7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, died in a firefight with Taleban rebels while providing assistance to Afghan forces

June 27, 2006 Captain David Patten and Sergeant Paul Bartlett were killed when their patrol came under attack. Captain Patten, 38, of the Parachute Regiment, and Sergeant Bartlett, 35, of the Royal Marines, are believed to have been on a mission in the Sangin valley

July 1, 2006 Corporal Peter Thorpe, 27, of the Royal Signals, and Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi, 24, of the Intelligence Corps attached to the Royal Signals, were killed following an attack on their base in Sangin

July 5, 2006 Private Damien Jackson, 19, was killed while taking part in a 3 Para battle group foot patrol in Sangin

August 1, 2006 Lance Corporal Ross Nicholls, 27, 2nd Lieutenant Ralph Johnson, 24, both of the Household Cavalry, and Captain Alex Eida, 29, of 7 Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery, were killed when their patrol vehicle came under attack in northern Helmand

August 6, 2006 Private Andrew Barrie Cutts of the Royal Logistic Corps was killed in Musa Qala in northern Helmand

August 9, 2006 Private Leigh Reeves, 25, of the Royal Logistic Corps, died in a road accident at Camp Souter in Kabul

August 12, 2006 Lance Corporal Sean Tansey, 26, of the Household Cavalry, was killed in an accident in northern Helmand while servicing a Scimitar tank at a British base near Sangin

August 20, 2006 Corporal Bryan Budd, 29, from 3 Para, was killed in a fight with the Taleban in Sangin while on a routine patrol

August 27, 2006 Lance Corporal Jonathan Hetherington, 22, from 14 Signal Regiment, was shot dead during an assault on his platoon house in Musa Qala in northern Helmand

September 1, 2006 Ranger Anare Draiva of 1 Royal Irish Regiment, who was Fijian, died when he was attacked by insurgents in northern Helmand province

    The drain on men and machines, Ts, 4.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341962,00.html

Britain in Afghanistan

A dangerous but necessary mission that must be properly equipped

September 04, 2006
The Times

The loss of 14 service personnel in Afghanistan on Saturday illustrates again the danger involved in this mission. The crash was reportedly an accident, but that will be of little comfort to the families concerned and to a public which is waking up to the fact that the Taleban, which appeared to have been defeated nearly five years ago, is attempting to reassert itself. While there are parts of Afghanistan where outside forces really are serving at “peacekeepers”, many areas within the Helmand province and Kandahar are, in effect, a combat zone. Those who were on board the crashed plane were monitoring Taleban activities to relay that information to Nato troops.

In overall military terms, however, this is an operation that can be won even if it has proved to be more arduous than anticipated. The quality of British soldiers on the ground is very high and the damage that they have inflicted on the Taleban rebels is considerable. These men are being well supported by units from the Canadian armed forces — four of whom were killed in action yesterday. It is inevitable that there will be more military casualties in Afghanistan to come.

The scale of those losses depends in part on the performance of the equipment assigned to the troops. Conditions in Afghanistan are challenging. The climate varies between searing heat for much of the year and heavy snowfall once winter sets in, as it will do shortly. Most of the material which Nato has at its command was never designed with this sort of conflict in mind. Improvisation has been essential. The Nimrod MR2 which went down this weekend was originally meant for maritime warfare and had to be adapted for local circumstances. This may be irrelevant to its fate but it is indicative of what is occurring.

If the military had large amounts of surplus resources elsewhere, then it would obviously redirect it to Afghanistan. The blunt truth, though, is that it does not have sizeable stocks instantly on call. Where, for example, helicopters that can be reconfigured with relative ease have been identified, they are seconded. This is, of practicality, a rather piecemeal procedure. That in turn means equipment in the theatre is being quite severely stretched. Reinforcement, as should be provided, would means spending extra money.

For if the fighting in Afghanistan is to continue at the current level, then the financial allocation that was initially made — £1 billion taken from the Treasury contingency reserve, not the defence budget, to be accounted for over five years — will obviously be inadequate. It is perfectly possible that the threat posed by the Taleban will be reduced in a relatively short order, but it would be wise to increase the sum that can be spent by the military. They should not have to penny-pinch.

Kim Howells, the Foreign Office Minister, arrived in Kabul yesterday for his fourth trip to the country and pointed out the achievements that have been made in reconstructing Afghanistan despite the Taleban’s campaign. Those who have visited British soldiers there do not detect any crisis of morale. But when the winter arrives the soldiering season will largely stop, and an assessment has to be made as to whether the number of troops is sufficient for the task in hand and, vitally, what is to be done about their equipment. The Ministry of Defence should not shirk in submitting its supplemental bid, nor should the Treasury withhold backing for that sum of money.

    Britain in Afghanistan, Ts, 4.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2341520,00.html

Our men can't fight a war on Treasury rules — it's time to pay up or pull out

September 04, 2006
The Times 
William Rees-Mogg

THE LOSS of 14 men in the Nimrod crash in southern Afghanistan is a tragedy for their families and for the nation. It is the heaviest loss our forces have suffered in a single engagement since the Falklands war. It follows a similar level of earlier casualties in Helmand province: 13 British soldiers have been killed supporting the Nato operation since the beginning of May.

In January, John Reid, who was then Secretary of State for Defence, told the House of Commons that additional troops were being sent to Afghanistan to help to provide the security conditions in which reconstruction could take place. They were not being sent “with the purpose of waging war” and would not be “seeking out and destroying terrorists”.

According to a report in The Sunday Telegraph, the rules of engagement have recently been changed to permit commanders to mount “offensive strike operations” against the Taleban, using every weapon at their disposal. Before this leak occurred there was no government statement, although it altered the basis of engagement to one of war against the Taleban. There had, however, been an earlier government admission that Mr Reid had understated the dangers that would be faced by British troops.

Our troops are fighting in hellish conditions, in temperatures of about 50C. Even the most skilful and well-trained units are liable to suffer physical breakdowns, as well as the breakdown of equipment and machinery. There are frequent complaints about the quality of the equipment. In particular the “snatch” Land Rovers, which were used in Northern Ireland, are said not to give adequate protection against roadside bombs. One soldier is quoted as saying: “The snatch is good for stopping bricks and petrol bombs in Londonderry. That’s about it.”

Colonel Tim Collins, who commanded a regiment in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, says that the Land Rovers are “not fit for purpose”. He also argues: “It all boils down to money and pride. The Government has not spent enough money on the Afghanistan operation, but doesn’t want to admit it. But there is an alternative. They have to find more funds or pull out. They seem to be more concerned about their reputations and their jobs than with the servicemen and women who are putting their lives at risk for their country.” This view seems to be confirmed by the press reports of comments from the troops; a House of Commons committee recently visited Afghanistan and found significant deficiencies in the equipment. You cannot fight a war on Treasury rules.

Afghanistan has historically been a very dangerous theatre of war. In the 19th century its tribesmen defeated two big British expeditions, annihilating one of them; in the late 20th century, Mujahidin defeated the military power of the Soviet Army — that defeat led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Field Marshal Lord Montgomery once lectured the Staff College on the principles of military strategy. His opening words were: “Gentlemen, there are only two principles of strategy. The first is: Do not march on Moscow. The second is: Do not fight a land war in South East Asia.” He might have added a third: Do not invade Afghanistan.

However, Britain is now stuck in Afghanistan and has been there for almost five years. The Prime Minister may well be right to think that British forces are engaged in “a vital mission” there. Yet, one would welcome greater strategic clarity. There are three questions to which every strategy should be subjected. What is the objective? What resources will be required? What will be the exit? Unfortunately Afghanistan has been one of those issues on which the three main parties in the House of Commons have agreed. That always inhibits parliamentary scrutiny. The Labour Government took the original action in conjunction with the United States. As the Taleban were then protecting al-Qaeda, the policy of overthrowing the Taleban was generally accepted and had UN backing.

One or two backbench Conservatives, such as Sir Peter Tapsell, raised the right strategic questions, but they did not extract many answers. I suspect there is now a split developing between the parliamentary parties and public opinion. My impression is that the public have become suspicious of the Afghan project on two grounds. They doubt whether enough resources have been given to the protection of our troops and are not willing to take many more British casualties in order to prevent Afghan peasants growing poppies. They also doubt whether we shall ever get out.

There are, of course, answers to these strategic questions, some of them convincing. America and Britain are in difficulties in Iraq; the US is close to conflict with Iran; Israel has recently invaded Lebanon; Pakistan is a crucial swing state; and Islamic terrorism is an immediate reality, particularly in Britain. Defeat or withdrawal in Afghanistan would have a disastrous effect on the whole precarious balance between Islam and the West. That is why no one dares to contemplate it. Well, then, we should give our soldiers the numbers and resources they need for the job. But we should first be given a coherent strategy. At present British policy seems to be drifting towards disaster with no strategic objective in Afghanistan at all.

The strongest argument for the Government’s policy in Afghanistan is that the costs of defeat would be even greater than the costs required for victory, or even to sustain Nato’s position. The Government has never faced the implications of that. Britain has been involved in several wars, or peace, operations since 1997, yet the defence budget has been cut to the bone. If our forces are to tackle jobs as difficult as Afghanistan, they must have the best equipment and sufficient men. That will cost money. Colonel Collins is quite right, the choice in Afghanistan is pay up or pull out.

    Our men can't fight a war on Treasury rules — it's time to pay up or pull out, Ts, 4.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2341666,00.html

Britain's new top soldier: 'Can the military cope? I say - just'

Troops 'running hot and at limit' as alarm grows over 14 deaths in Afghanistan

Monday September 4, 2006
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor

The new head of the British army has told the Guardian that his soldiers are fighting at the limit of their capacity and can only just cope with the demands placed on them by the government. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over from Sir Mike Jackson last week, called for a national debate about what resources the armed forces should be given, and what value society should place on them.

In his first interview since taking up his post as chief of the general staff, General Dannatt warned: "We are running hot, certainly running hot." He added: "Can we cope? I pause. I say 'just'."

His warning comes as the government faces renewed pressure over Britain's involvement in Afghanistan after the deaths of 14 military personnel on Saturday, when an RAF Nimrod based at RAF Kinloss, in north-east Scotland, crashed in Kandahar province, in the south of the country. The MoD named the men last night and released pictures of 10 of them.

The crash was described yesterday as a tragic accident by the defence secretary, Des Browne, who angrily denied Taliban claims they had shot down the plane. But the crash - the biggest single loss for the British military since the start of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 - brings the four-month toll of British military killed in action in southern Afghanistan to 27, and has once again focused attention on whether the armed services are "overstretched".

Speaking exclusively to the Guardian before Saturday's crash, Gen Dannatt said British soldiers were not fighting the "fourth Afghan war" - a reference to past military disasters in the country. He said they were in Afghanistan at the request of President Hamid Karzai and would be there "for the long term".

On whether other Nato countries should contribute more, Gen Dannatt said Britain was doing "more than its share of what is required in Afghanistan".

Asked about suggestions that the 7,200-strong British force in Iraq could be halved by the middle of next year, he stressed that that had been described only as a "hope". Previous hopes about Iraq had not been fulfilled, he pointed out. He also refused to set a timeframe for an eventual British withdrawal from Afghanistan.

He said the army was "meeting challenges on the hoof". But it was not for him to say whether the 5% of public spending (about £30bn) earmarked for defence - a figure he compared with the 29% spent on social security - was sufficient. "There is room for debate," he said. "There should be a national debate about whatever [is judged] enough."

But soldiers had to "feel valued by society and feel well looked after", and he pointed to the poor state of accommodation for them and their families.

The Nimrod plane, stuffed with intelligence-gathering equipment, was flying at a little under 30,000ft when the pilot reported a serious problem. Wreckage of the aircraft was found 12 miles west of Kandahar. "We know what happened but we don't know why," a senior defence source said yesterday. The Ministry of Defence would not disclose what went wrong, other than saying that there had been a technical problem.

    Britain's new top soldier: 'Can the military cope? I say - just', G, 4.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1864263,00.html

Close-knit RAF base mourns 14 dead

Comrades stunned by heaviest loss since Falklands conflict

Monday September 4, 2006
Guardian
Steven Morris

The families of 14 servicemen were yesterday grieving for their loved ones and wondering what mechanical fault could have brought down the Nimrod in which they were flying. Attention focused on RAF Kinloss in north-west Scotland, where 12 of the dead, all members of the 120 Squadron, were based.
The squadron leader, Wing Commander Martin Cannard, led the tributes, saying: "They were hard-working guys doing important jobs which they were committed to, which they enjoyed. They were professional, cheerful and positive in everything they did."

The men from 120 Squadron who were killed are Flt Lt Steven Johnson, Flt Lt Leigh Anthony Mitchelmore, Flt Lt Gareth Rodney Nicholas, Flt Lt Allan James Squires, Flt Lt Steven Swarbrick, Flt Sgt Gary Wayne Andrews, Flt Sgt Stephen Beattie, Flt Sgt Gerard Martin Bell, Flt Sgt Adrian Davies, Sgt Benjamin James Knight, Sgt John Joseph Langton and Sgt Gary Paul Quilliam.

Also on board the Nimrod MR2, which crashed near Kandahar, were Lance Corporal Oliver Simon Dicketts, of the Parachute Regiment, and Joseph David Windall, of the Royal Marines.

Senior officers, trained military counsellors and colleagues of those who died spent the day comforting families at Kinloss. Floral tributes were placed at the gates to mark the biggest single loss of British troops since the Falklands war.

The station commander, Group Captain Chris Birks, said: "All were long-serving and experienced air crew and were known to me personally. The station is in mourning." Group Capt Birks said his priority was to provide support to the families of those lost.

Flags flew at half mast at the base while local people left messages at the guardhouse. A candle was placed on one of the base's walls, surrounded by sunflowers and a stone with the saltire painted on it.

The base chaplain, Father Ivan Boyle, said it was the "blackest day" he had known at Kinloss. "Everyone is struggling, everyone is dealing with this thing in different ways," he said. "Death is part of our business. But no one wants it or looks for it and it still comes as a shock. I think at the moment people have questions."

There were concerns on the base about what went wrong on the Nimrod. The planes did not fly yesterday and checks were carried out on them, but Group Capt Birks insisted they would fly if needed.

The community is particularly close because the base is the only home of the Nimrods, which means that service personnel spend lengthy tours in Kinloss. They are proud of the history of 120 Squadron - motto "Endurance" - which flew B-24 Liberators on anti U-boat patrols over the Atlantic in the second world war, and more recently served in the Falklands and Gulf wars.

Outside the base, members of the civilian community paid tribute, with a junior football team holding a minute's silence before its game yesterday afternoon. Andrew Gittings, owner of Seapark filling station near the base, said: "We can't understand how such a sophisticated aircraft could just simply fall from the sky."

Tony Blair said: "This tragedy will distress the whole country and our thoughts go out immediately to the families of those who have died. British forces are engaged in a vital mission in Afghanistan. This terrible event starkly reminds us of the risk that they face daily." The accident was the subject of prayers at yesterday's morning service at Crathie Kirk, near Balmoral Castle, which was attended by the Queen and the prime minister.

The Rt Rev Alan McDonald, moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, asked a member of the congregation to light a candle to help people remember the 14 servicemen who died. He also asked that God give leaders such as the prime minister "wisdom to make decisions".

    Close-knit RAF base mourns 14 dead, G, 4.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1864199,00.html

Biggest military loss since start of Afghan war is 'terrible accident'

September 03, 2006
The Sunday Times
Michael Smith

AN AIRCRAFT carrying 14 British military personnel crashed in Afghanistan yesterday, killing all on board. In one terrible blow for the armed services it was the biggest single loss of life since the Falklands war.

The Nimrod MR2 reconnaissance aircraft is believed to have been brought down by a technical fault, possibly a fire in its electronic equipment.

The Ministry of Defence quickly moved to deny that the Nimrod had been shot out of the sky, despite a claim by the Taliban that the plane had been hit with a ground-to-air missile.

The aircraft crashed at about 4pm local time, 12.30pm British time, a dozen miles west of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

Twelve RAF servicemen, a Royal Marine and a soldier died in the incident.
The crash more than doubles the number of British forces killed in the past three months in southern Afghanistan. The total dead has now risen to 27.

The £100m aircraft was on a mission for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and was supporting a Nato mission.

The aircraft is believed to have been co-ordinating special forces operations against the Taliban, intercepting their communications and providing real time video surveillance of what was going on on the ground.

The plane came down near a village called Chil Khor in the Panjwai district, a Taliban stronghold.Special forces are engaged in a major operation codenamed Medusa to clear the Taliban from the Panjwai district.

Shortly after the crash Abdul Khaliq, a purported spokesman for the Taliban, claimed responsibility. “We used a Stinger missile to shoot down the aircraft,” he said.

However, Major Scott Lundy, an ISAF spokesman, said: “Their claims are absolutely false. There was no indication of an enemy attack on the aircraft.”
Des Browne, the defence secretary, who described the news of the deaths as “dreadful and shocking”, said: “This is not the time for speculation, as the operation to secure the crash site is ongoing.

“I can say, however, all the indications are that this was a terrible accident and not the result of hostile action.”

Senior officials dismissed any suggestion that the aircraft was shot down. The Nimrod would have been flying far higher than the range of any weapon available to the Taliban, including the Stinger.

Nevertheless, the speed of the Taliban claim suggested that their forces were in the area of the crash, which may hamper the recovery operation.

News of the crash emerged shortly after 2pm British time, when ISAF reported an aircraft “missing” in Afghanistan.

Major Luke Knittig, another ISAF spokesman, said that the aircraft made an emergency call shortly before it disappeared.

Niaz Mohammad Sarhadi, district governor of Panjwai, said: “The plane was coming over Panjwai and there was flame coming from the tail and there were flares being shot out from the plane. It crashed between two villages called Chil Khor and Fatehullah Qala in vineyards. In a short period the troops surrounded the area and no civilians were allowed to enter.”

Abdul Manan, a witness in Chalaghor village in Kandahar, said the plane crashed about 100 yards from his home and pieces of wreckage landed nearby. He reported seeing a small fire at the back of the plane before it hit the earth with a huge explosion that “shook the whole village”.

Manan said young men in the village wanted to go closer but American helicopters landed around the burning wreckage and established a cordon to keep onlookers away.

Haji Agha Lalai Dastageer, head of the Shura council for Panjwai, denied that the Taliban could have shot down the plane. “The Taliban do not have heavy weapons because of the fighting that is going on, they have buried them,” he said.

British officials said flames from the back of the plane could be consistent with a fire caused by equipment failure.

Operation Medusa was launched in Panjwai district, the spiritual and symbolic heartland of the Taliban movement, after residents had been warned to leave the area, officials said. It involved “hundreds” of Nato troops and a similar number of Afghan police and army soldiers, ISAF said.

Panjwai, about 20 miles west of Kandahar, has seen months of intense fighting, with ISAF officials saying that it has one of the main concentrations of Taliban in south Afghanistan.

Seasoned fighters had been “hardening their defence positions, sandbagging buildings and bringing in ammunition”, Lundy said. “We have had indications that these Taliban fighters are of the hardcore variety as opposed to the soldiers-for-a-day we see sometimes.”

Charles Heyman, a former major and former editor of Jane’s World Armies, said: “It’s a black day. It’s a disaster for our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.”

The Nimrod MR2 is based on the Comet airframe that dates from the late 1940s. Best known for its maritime search and rescue role, the Nimrod has been probably the most important of the RAF fleet in the war on terror.

The 12 man RAF crew appear to have been augmented by a Royal Marine and an army intelligence specialist, who was probably intercepting Taliban communications.

The MoD has set up a helpline on 08457 800900 for concerned relatives.

    Biggest military loss since start of Afghan war is 'terrible accident', Ts, 3.9.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2340566,00.html

14 British troops die in Afghan air crash

· Worst military disaster in war on terror
· MoD says tragedy was an accident

Sunday September 3, 2006
The Observer
David Smith, Mark Townsend and Peter Beaumont


The British forces suffered their most deadly day since the war on terror began when a Nimrod surveillance aircraft from RAF Kinloss in Scotland crashed yesterday while supporting Nato ground operations in Afghanistan, killing all 14 servicemen on board.

Twelve RAF personnel, a Royal Marine and a soldier were among those who died when the aircraft came down in Kandahar province during an operation against Taliban insurgents.

The aircraft, which was due for replacement, was flying out of Oman, and is one of 12 Nimrods in service. It is equipped with some of the RAF's most secret and sophisticated communications, surveillance and communications equipment.

Sources at the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Kabul and the Ministry of Defence in London say the plane's crew radioed to warn of a technical problem on the aircraft, before it disappeared from radar screens.

Major Luke Knittig, said it had made an emergency call shortly before it disappeared. People described how coalition helicopters were seen flying towards the crash site. Witnesses in the village of Chalaghor, 10 miles from Kandahar city, told how they saw the plane crashing into fields after flames were seen at the aircraft's rear.

Shortly after the crash at 4.30pm, a purported spokesman for the Taliban, Abdul Khaliq, claimed responsibility for bringing it down, saying: 'We used a Stinger missile to shoot down the aircraft.' This claim was denied by Nato, and seems unlikely given that the aircraft operates above missile range.

Until yesterday the British forces' previous biggest loss of life since 2001 was the death of 10 servicemen in January last year when their Hercules aircraft was shot down north of Baghdad. It was also the British military's worst air disaster since an RAF Chinook helicopter ferrying intelligence officers from Northern Ireland crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, killing 25.

In a statement last night, the Prime Minister extended condolences to the families of the victims. The British forces were 'engaged in a vital and dangerous mission in Afghanistan', he said. Defence Secretary Des Browne described the news as 'dreadful and shocking', and said it appeared to have been a 'terrible accident'.

Browne added: 'This is not the time for speculation, as the operation to secure the crash site is ongoing. We will provide further information as soon as there is more to say.

'Everyone will understand that our first priority is to inform and support the families of those on board. I can say, however, at this stage that all the indications are this was a terrible accident and not the result of hostile action.'

Recently 14 British troops were killed in clashes with resurgent Taliban fighters and foreign extremists. Last week a civil servant admitted the risks of the deployment were 'insufficiently communicated' by the government.

'I am deeply shocked and saddened to hear of the deaths of 14 British service personnel in Afghanistan and send my condolences to their families and friends,' the Defence Secretary said.

'Our servicemen and women are engaged in a dangerous mission in Afghanistan, working alongside our Nato allies to bring stability and security and support the elected government.

'Afghanistan was the cradle of 9/11. We cannot allow it to slide back into being a failed narco-state and a global exporter of terrorism, at the mercy of a resurgent Taliban.

'Today's tragic loss is a reminder of the extraordinarily difficult conditions in which our armed forces are operating in Afghanistan.

'I saw that for myself when I visited Kandahar, Lashka Gar and Kabul a few weeks ago. Our forces are, as ever, doing a magnificent job. I pay tribute on this sad day to their skill and their courage.'

The Nimrod crash comes after a run of fatalities among British troops in Afghanistan, as well as being the third aircraft to be lost by Isaf recently.

Last night army investigators were examining the wreckage of the aircraft for clues to the tragedy. A recent parliamentary report found that the lives of British troops in Afghanistan were put at risk by inadequate equipment.

Earlier yesterday Nato said its forces had launched an offensive against hideouts of Taliban insurgents in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar, with the aim of driving them out of the area. There was no indication of an enemy attack on the plan.

A special helpline is available on 08457 800 900 for families concerned about relatives.

    14 British troops die in Afghan air crash, O, 3.9.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1863822,00.html

Fourteen British troops die in Afghan plane crash

Sat Sep 2, 2006 3:04 PM ET
Reuters

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A British plane crashed in Afghanistan on Saturday, killing 14 military personnel in Britain's worst single loss in the country, British and NATO officials said.

The Royal Air Force Nimrod MR2 aircraft was supporting the NATO mission in the country when it went down, apparently due to a technical problem, in the southern province of Kandahar.

"The Ministry of Defense is extremely sorry to have to confirm that the aircraft lost in Afghanistan earlier today ... was British, and that the crash led to 14 fatalities," a ministry spokesman said in London.

He said the dead included 12 Royal Air Force personnel, a Royal Marine and an army soldier.

The RAF's Nimrod planes carry sophisticated reconnaissance and communications equipment enabling them to relay messages from troops on the ground.

"This tragedy will distress the whole country and our thoughts go out immediately to the families of those who have died," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a statement.

"British forces are engaged in a vital and dangerous mission in Afghanistan and this terrible event starkly reminds us of the risk that they face daily," he added.

Calling the crash "dreadful and shocking", Defense Secretary Des Browne said all the indications were that it was "a terrible accident and not the result of hostile action".

The crash was Britain's worst single loss in Afghanistan and caps a month in which British forces in the country have suffered severe casualties.

Military analysts said the crash would revive the political debate in Britain about the country's role in Afghanistan and whether its forces are over-stretched given they are also working flat out in Iraq.

The last significant British military crash was in January 2005 when a C130 Hercules transport plane was brought down by hostile fire in Iraq, killing nine Britons and one Australian.

NATO said in a statement the British plane crashed after declaring a technical problem. "Enemy action has been discounted at this stage," it said.

The crash came at a time when the Taliban and other insurgent and criminal groups have stepped up attacks on Afghan and foreign forces, plunging the country into its bloodiest period since the Taliban were toppled in late 2001.

About 2,000 people, most of them militants but also including civilians, Afghan forces, aid workers and more than 90 foreign soldiers, have been killed in violence this year.

On Saturday, suspected Taliban fighters assassinated a senior Afghan police officer, his three bodyguards and a female relative, leaving only the woman's three-month-old baby alive.

Suspected Taliban also assassinated a district police chief in neighboring Nimroz province, killing three of his bodyguards. Three attackers were also killed, police said.

FIERCE RESISTANCE

Britain has faced unexpectedly fierce resistance from Taliban fighters since sending the first large foreign force to the southern province of Helmand this year as part of an expanding NATO peacekeeping mission.

A NATO force spokesman, Major Scott Lundy, rejected Taliban claims to have shot down the British aircraft as "absolutely false". "It went off the radar and crashed," he said.

The Taliban, fighting to oust foreign forces, invariably claim to have shot down aircraft that foreign forces and the government say came down accidentally.

The last time the insurgents were known to have brought an aircraft down was last year when they hit a U.S. military helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade during a battle in the eastern province of Kunar.

The crash brings to 36 the number of British forces personnel who have died while serving in Afghanistan since November 2001. That includes soldiers killed in action and some who died in accidents or due to illness.

Seven British soldiers have been killed in fighting in Helmand since the beginning of August, when NATO formally took over southern Afghanistan from U.S. troops to allow Washington to scale back.

Britain said in July it would send 900 more troops and extra helicopters to southern Afghanistan after commanders asked for additional manpower.

It will bring the total of British personnel in the south to 4,500. A thousand more are based at NATO headquarters in Kabul.

    Fourteen British troops die in Afghan plane crash, R, 2.9.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-02T190439Z_01_L02739882_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHANISTAN-BRITAIN-CRASH.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-1

6.30pm

British soldier killed by Afghan insurgents

Friday September 1, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke

The Ministry of Defence confirmed today that another British soldier has been killed in action in Afghanistan, the 15th since June.

The soldier, who has not yet been named, was killed during a raid by insurgents at 4pm (1230 BST) in the volatile Helmand province. A second soldier was seriously injured.

"It is with deep regret that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of a British soldier in Afghanistan today," the ministry said in a statement.

"The soldier was killed during an attack by insurgents in northern Helmand, Afghanistan, at 1600 local time. A further soldier was seriously injured in the attack, and has been evacuated to a medical facility for treatment.

"We are currently in the process of informing next of kin. No further details about the incident or the identity of the soldier will be released until that process is complete."

The soldier is the 22nd to have been killed in the country since operations began in October 2001. Most of the deaths have occurred since British forces were deployed earlier this year to lead Nato troops in Helmand, regarded as an insurgent stronghold.

More than 1,600 people - mostly militants and mainly in the south - have died in Afghanistan in the past four months, according to a tally of reports compiled by the Associated Press.

After the deployment was announced, the government implied that the main jobs of the 4,500 troops would be to help Afghan authorities extend their control and to support development work. The then defence secretary, John Reid, said he hoped the British forces would leave "without firing a single shot".

Last month, the Economist reported that 80,000 shots had been fired by British troops since their three-year peacekeeping mission began in May.

    British soldier killed by Afghan insurgents, G, 1.9.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1863223,00.html