History > 2007 > UK > Wars > Afghanistan (II)

Why? Six years on

from the invasion of Afghanistan

As another British soldier is killed in Afghanistan,
Patrick Cockburn asks what is the point of the mission

Published: 06 October 2007
The Independent

Six years after a war was launched to overthrow the Taliban, British solders are still being killed in bloody skirmishing in a conflict in which no final victory is possible. Tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan by the US, Britain and allies, an operation codenamed Enduring Freedom. But six years on, Britain is once again, as in Iraq, the most junior of partners, spending the lives of its soldiers with little real influence over the war.

The outcome of the conflict in Afghanistan will be decided in Washington and Islamabad. There is no chance of defeating the Taliban so long as they can retreat, retrain and recoup in the mountain fastnesses of Pakistan.

Yesterday, we learned of the death of another British soldier. Although his identity has not been released, it is believed that the dead man acted as a mentor to Prince William. Two others were injured when their vehicle was caught by an explosion west of Kandahar, bringing the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan to 82 since 2001.

The drip-drip of British losses underlines how little has been achieved in the past six years, and how quickly any gains can be lost. Most of southern Afghanistan was safer in the spring of 2002 than it is now and at no moment during the years that have elapsed is there any evidence from the speeches of successive British ministers that they have much idea what we are doing there and what we hope to achieve.

This week, the Conservative leader David Cameron told supporters that he would restore Afghanistan to the "number one priority in foreign policy" . The remark highlighted how this conflict has all but slipped from the political agenda.

Yet, Afghanistan is filled with the bones of British soldiers who died in futile campaigns in the 19th century and beyond. The lesson of these long forgotten wars is that military success on the ground in Afghanistan is always elusive and, even when achieved, seldom turns into lasting political success.

The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan through Pakistani support and it was when this support was withdrawn in 2001 that the Taliban abandoned Kabul and Kandahar in the days and weeks after 7 October without a fight. But six years later, the Taliban are back.

The violence shows no sign of ending. Suicide bombings, gun battles, airstrikes and roadside bombs have killed 5,100 people in the first nine months of this year, a 55 per cent increase over the same period in 2006.

I went to Afghanistan in September 2001 a few days after 9/11 when it became obvious the US was going to retaliate by overthrowing the Taliban because they had been the hosts of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

It was a very peculiar war that followed, distinguished, above all, by a lack of real fighting. When Pakistani support and Saudi money were withdrawn, the Taliban's regime unravelled at extraordinary speed. By early 2002, I was able to drive from Kabul to Kandahar without feeling that I was taking my life in my hands.

But, for all the talk of progress and democracy and the presence of thousands of British, American and other Nato troops on the ground, it is impossible to undertake such journeys across the country safely.

Yet, back in 2001, from the moment I saw the first American bombs falling on Kabul and the sparks of light from the feeble Taliban anti-aircraft guns, it was obvious the two sides were completely mismatched.

Taliban fighters who expected to be targeted, simply fled before they were annihilated. The victory came too easily. The Taliban never made a last stand even in their bastions of support in the Pashtun heartlands in south. It was a very Afghan affair in keeping with the traditions of the previous 25 years when sudden betrayals and changes of alliance, not battles, had decided the winner.

Driving from Kabul towards Kandahar in the footsteps of the Taliban, I visited the fortress city of Ghazni on the roads south where the Taliban had suddenly dematerialised and received a de facto amnesty in return for giving up power without a fight.

Qari Baba, the ponderous looking governor of Ghazni province, who had been appointed the day before, said: "I don't see any Taliban here", which was surprising since the courtyard in front of his office was crowded with tough-looking men in black turbans carrying sub machine-guns.

"Every one of them was Taliban until 24 hours ago," whispered a Northern Alliance officer.

One fact that should have made the presence of British, American and other foreign troops easier in Afghanistan was that the Taliban were deeply hated for their cruelty, mindless religious fanaticism (leading to the banning of chess and kite flying) and the belief that they are puppets of Pakistani military intelligence. And unlike Iraq, the foreign presence in Afghanistan has had majority support, though that is slipping.

Drawing parallels between Iraq and Afghanistan is misleading because Saddam Hussein had sought to run a highly centralised state. In Afghanistan power had always been fragmented. But Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were mired in poverty. One reason why both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein went down so quickly is that Afghans, like the Iraqis, hoped for a better life.

They did not get it. Lack of jobs and services like electricity, clean water, hospitals and food continued or got worse.

Iraq is potentially a rich country because of its oil wealth. In Afghanistan the only equivalent to oil money is the money from the poppy fields on which impoverished farmers increasingly depend. One of the reasons the Taliban lost the support of Pashtun farmers in 2001 – though this was hardly highlighted by the victors – is that they enforced a ban on poppy growing which was highly effective. If the US adopts a policy of killing the poppy plants by spraying them with chemicals from the air, then they will also be engulfed by the same wave of unpopularity. The opium trade is fuelling lawlessness, warlordism and an unstable state.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq are notoriously difficult countries to conquer. They have for centuries, been frontier zones where powerful neighbours have fought each other by proxy.

Victory in Afghanistan six years after the start of the war to overthrow the Taliban is not likely. Even massively expanding troop levels would just mean more targets, and more losses. Armies of occupation, or perceived occupation, always provoke a reaction.

Ultimately what happens in Afghanistan will be far more determined not by skirmishes in Helmand province, but by developments in Pakistan, the Taliban's great supporter, which are wholly beyond British control. And the agenda in both the Afghan and Iraqi wars is ultimately determined by US domestic political needs Successes in faraway wars have to be manufactured or exaggerated. Necessary compromises are ruled out, leaving Iraqis and Afghans alike with the dismal outlook of war without end.

Six years in Afghanistan

* October, 2001 – British-backed US-led air strikes against Taliban strongholds. Taliban leader Mullah Omar flees to Pakistan border as his forces forced to withdraw.

* December, 2001 – The Bonn deal on the future of Afghanistan sees the creation of an interim government, headed by the US-backed President Hamid Karzai. .

* January, 2002 – Nato peacekeepers arrive with a year-long mandate.

* June, 2002 – The "grand assembly" selects Hamid Karzai as interim president.

* July, 2002 – Attacks increase throughout country and a vice-president, Haji Abdul Qadir, is shot dead with his son-in-law in Kabul.

* September, 2002 – Assassination attempt on President Karzai.

* January, 2004 – The Assembly backs a new national constitution

paving way for elections.

* September, 2004 – Another attempt on life of Karzai who is confirmed as President with 55 per cent of vote in elections - first for a generation.

* Spring/summer, 2006 – Taliban regroup in the south and carry out a series of fierce attacks there and elsewhere.

* July-October, 2006 – Nato peacekeeping forces, 18,500 and rising, take over full control.

* Spring, 2007 – Renewed efforts made by British-led coalition troops to force Taliban out of south.

* October, 2007 – Violent incidents, especially suicide bombings, are up 30 per cent on last year, with an average of 550 a month.

Why? Six years on from the invasion of Afghanistan, I, 6.10.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3033321.ece

The daunting task

of bringing peace

to this bleak landscape

Published: 06 October 2007
The Independent
By Kim Sengupta in Lashkar Gar

British military and diplomatic teams were in Gereshk this week, an area which had just been reclaimed from the Taliban after months of ferocious fighting. The talk was of reconstruction, setting up civic society, the aims of the multinational mission. In the middle of this came news that another British soldier has died and two others injured in a bombing, a grim reminder of the stark reality of Afghanistan.

The attack was in Kandahar, on a unit from the 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles. They had been on their way to the airport following missions in the Gereshk Valley. An explosive device was buried into the tarmac of the road, nicknamed Baghdad Highway, because of the sheer number of explosions there.

As the remaining troops attempted to drive away after the blast, they faced sniper fire and rocket propelled grenades, but managed to burst through after a intense and prolonged exchange of fire, leaving burnt and shot-up vehicles in their wake. These latest casualties came on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the invasion by US and British forces, and at a time seen as being of crucial importance to the future of Afghanistan amid renewed war with the Taliban and the pressure mounting from a morass of infighting and corruption.

Afghanistan has now become one of the main points of focus of UK foreign policy. With the withdrawal from Iraq in full swing, there are now more than 7,000 British troops in the country, with many of those leaving Basra certain to end up in Helmand province.

The budget for reconstruction has been hugely increased, and Afghanistan is now among the top four recipients of British aid. In contrast to the desperate rush to get out of Iraq, the mission to Afghanistan, government ministers and the military declare, is in for the long haul.

Questions, however, are being asked about just how much has been achieved. The need to succeed in Afghanistan and avoid costly mistakes has led to fundamental changes in British policy. The Independent has learnt that following rising controversy over civilian deaths in Nato operations – mainly through air strikes – and repeated protests by President Hamid Karzai, the Nato rules of engagement have recently been altered, although the exact details cannot be published for security reasons.

Furthermore British forces now notify the local population beforehand that they will carry out operations. At the same time major offensives now take place in consultation with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development in an attempt to ensure that development and reconstruction can follow.

One of the Foreign Office's rising stars, David Slinn, the former ambassador to North Korea, has been sent as the British government representative in Helmand along with a strengthened team, after criticism over lack of development in the province, to win the support of the local population.

The change of policy has been controversial, with complaints from soldiers that they are having to take part in some of the most intense fighting experienced by the British Army since the Second World War with too many restrictions. US and Afghan officials have also objected that some areas in Helmand, such as Musa Qala, have been allowed to remain in Taliban hands. British commanders and officials, however, are adamant that these places will only be cleared when aid projects can follow and local government can be reinstated.

"Mission Afghanistan", however, is a daunting task in a bleak landscape. Violence has surged by nearly 30 per cent this year with a marked increase in the number of suicide bombings; 43 people were killed in the capital, Kabul, in two bombings in three days. Opium production has rocketed and reached new heights, now producing 93 per cent of the world's supply, and Afghanistan is in the danger of becoming a "narcostate".

The country rates among the worst in the international league for corruption, much of it fuelled by drug money. President Karzai's brother has been publicly accused of being a opium trafficker. In the US a congressional committee on foreign affairs declared "there is no security in Afghanistan. The central government's grip does not extend much beyond the environs of Kabul. In the provinces, there is no functioning local government."

The British Government, nevertheless, holds that failure now to confront the Taliban and their al-Qa'ida allies in Afghanistan would mean once again letting the country become a haven for terrorism funded by the lucrative proceeds of heroin sales. It is also believed that fighting the Afghan conflict is more palatable to the British public than the deeply unpopular involvement in Iraq. Above all, Afghanistan, it is said in Whitehall, is " winnable".

The commanders are sceptical of such generalisations. Brigadier James Bashall, who is now leading 1 Mechanised Brigade in Basra, has served a number of times in Afghanistan. He said last month: "I have had visitors from London sitting here and saying that they want to invest troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq because it is more winnable. I think that is entirely the wrong terminology. These conflicts are not about winning or losing, they are about gaining local consensus, winning them over to our side, without that it means nothing."

The two injured members from the Royal Gurkha Rifles were airlifted to Camp Bastion, a British base, and Brigadier John Lorimer, the commander of the Helmand Force, flew over to visit them. He said: "You can see the kind of dangers these men face every day. These guys have been taking part in some pretty intense fighting and they had been very successful in what they had been doing.

"This is very much one aspect of our lives here, some of the fiercest fighting since British forces have been in Afghanistan. But I have heard the word 'winnable', what is winnable? What is the end state? This is not just about military victory, it is about winning trust. Counter-insurgency is about hearts and minds. I ask my soldiers to think about what they are going to do. It may be legal, but is it appropriate? The policies we have adopted does make it difficult for us, but it is not just morally wrong to kill innocent civilians, it understandably alienates the community. This is also why reconstruction is so important."

Brigadier Lorimer also has Iraq connections. He was commander at Basra when two British soldiers were abducted by rogue elements of the Iraqi police and he ordered armour to smash through a police station to rescue them. His great grandfather, J G Lorimer, was a famous Arabist who had spent an extensive amount of time in Iraq working for the British government in the 1920s and became a passionate advocate for the Iraqi people. " He would turn in his grave over what has happened to that country," said Brigadier Lorimer.

The view from London: 'It's in Britain's interest to stay in Afghanistan'

Sir Michael Jackson, Former Army Chief

"It is in Britain's interest to stay. If Nato were to [leave] ...the Taliban would turn over Karzai's government, al Qai'da goes back to its safe havens and we're back to square one, or worse."

Denis MacShane, Labour MP

"Afghanistan is very important. Whether you like it or not, the notion that pulling out troops will lead the country to stability and peace is nonsense."

Julian Thompson, Retired Major-General

If we dropped troop levels, the Taliban would make a comeback. Why put in all that effort just to chuck it all away? One problem is that some of our Nato allies don't pull their weight.

Patrick Mercer, Conservative MP

I don't see what other solution [to sending more troops] there is. If we are going there to fight, we fight. There's no point sitting in the ring, hoping you don't take casualties.

David Cameron, Conservative leader

"My worry is that we could win the military campaign but lose the country. There are seven military chains of command and we don't have one person coordinating the aid."

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat Leader

Victory in Afghanistan is being sacrificed on the altar of our continued, unnecessary presence in Iraq. We should concentrate on the UN-backed effort in Helmand

The view from Lashkar Gar, Afghanistan: 'We are facing great problems'

Khairullah, labourer

We thought our life will change after this government took over from the Taliban but now that I see the Taliban were better than the foreigners. At least we had better security. These days no one knows when he will become a target of a bomb or a suicide attack. Yes the foreigners should leave because they lied.

Abdul Manan, 32, driver, Kabul

American and British troops should stay in Afghanistan. We do need their presence but they have to be careful of what is happening. During the fighting they are sometimes targeting civilian compounds. This just creates more hate among the ordinary Afghans.

Najibullah Hafizi, 48, Government worker

Life is better now than under the Taliban but the people's expectations have not been fulfilled. I hope the British and Americans won't repeat their mistakes as they did after the Russians left. The cost of living is very high and for a person like me it is very difficult to survive.

Abdul Ghafar, 51, Labourer, Kabul

We are facing great problems these days. There are no job opportunities for most of us with foreigners giving business contracts to foreign companies. The British and US troops should stay, but their governments should create job opportunities for Afghans.

    The daunting task of bringing peace to this bleak landscape, I, 6.10.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3033322.ece

Leading article:

Ignominy in Afghanistan

Published: 06 October 2007
The Independent

Six years ago, British troops went into Afghanistan in a fevered, and near universal, mood of support for the US in its time of trouble. Six years later, as Bill Clinton reminded us on a visit to London yesterday, that mood of fellow-feeling towards America has been largely squandered around the globe. What the ex-president could have added, but was too polite to, was that the same could be said of our standing as well.

That we were right to support America against its enemies seemed obvious then and is still defensible today. What has not gone right, in Afghanistan as in Iraq, is our role as an occupying power widely seen as a Western prop to a largely discredited regime, intent on rooting out a crop (opium) which provides almost the sole source of income for substantial areas and locked into a war with local as well as outside Taliban forces that has brought with it growing civilian deaths and ever more destructive bombing. Our generals talk of winning the war but needing 40 years or more to ensure its success. The suspicion of less committed observers is that we have become bogged down in a long-term foreign entanglement where our role as Western intruders has made us a target for insurgents and a threat to the peace of the locals. We have, in the classic manner of invading forces, become part of the problem rather than its solution.

The invasion of Iraq has doubtless had much to do with this. It diverted a huge proportion of our resources and virtually all of our attention just when the Western alliance should have been concentrating on bringing security to all parts of Afghanistan and undertaking a concentrated programme of redevelopment there. It gave us a reputation for anti-Islamic action that has resonated throughout the Muslim world, including Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown and now David Cameron have now committed themselves to redoubling our efforts, partly in compensation for a policy of shameless cut-and-run in Iraq. But now more than ever, we should be debating just what is our aim in Afghanistan, how long we are proposing to stay, whether we should be charged with rooting out the drugs crop at the same time as ensuring security and whether indeed we are the right people for the task of reconstructing a viable and prosperous country in Afghanistan at all. Repeating an error twice over is a no way to correct it.

    Leading article: Ignominy in Afghanistan, I, 6.10.2007, http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3033370.ece

11.30am

165 'militants' killed in Afghan battles

Wednesday September 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and agencies

More than 165 Taliban militants have been killed in fierce fighting with coalition forces in southern Afghanistan over the past 24 hours, Nato said today.

The fighters died in two separate clashes after they attacked Nato-led troops armed with machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars.

In Helmand province, a battle erupted yesterday near the Taliban-controlled town of Musa Qala, when fighters ambushed a joint Afghan-coalition patrol.

Taliban reinforcements emerged from the town - evacuated by the British in February after a contentious peace agreement with local elders - as the Western-led forces returned artillery fire and called in air support.

Nato said more than 100 Taliban fighters were killed while one coalition soldier was killed and four were wounded.

The alliance said there were no reports of civilian deaths or injuries but according to the BBC, local villagers said 12 civilians had died in the air strikes.

"The end is near for the Taliban that believe Musa Qala is safe from Islamic Republic of Afghanistan forces," said Major Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman.

"This combined operation is just one more step to securing the Musa Qala area of the Helmand Province."

In neighbouring Uruzgan province meanwhile, Nato said more than 80 Taliban militants armed with machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars and dug into bunkers, opened fire last night on an Afghan-led patrol.

A six-hour fire-fight ensued during which the ground commander called in artillery and air support. A Nato spokesman said forces bombarded "positively identified Taliban positions, killing more than 65 insurgents."

No Afghan or coalition forces were killed or injured, Nato said. More than 4,400 people - mostly militants - have died in fighting in Afghanistan this year, according to the Associated Press news agency.

In the southern province of Kandahar, a suicide bomber blew himself up next to a convoy of a border security commander, leaving five policemen dead, a local security commander said.

Meanwhile, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, yesterday called on world leaders to bolster his country's military and police forces in the battle against Taliban militants.

"The war against those who continue to pose a threat to the security of our people will continue unabated," he told the UN General Assembly. in New York.

He also urged international forces to avoid causing civilians casualties.

    165 'militants' killed in Afghan battles, G, 26.9.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2177399,00.html

5.15pm update

Browne signals Iraq pull-out

and opens door to Taliban

in Afghanistan

Tuesday September 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Deborah Summers, Haroon Siddique and agencies

Des Browne warned today that Britain still faced a "complex and difficult situation" in Iraq, hours after he said that Taliban participation was needed for the peace process to succeed in Afghanistan.

The defence secretary said last night that the UK could face civil or military commitments "for generations" in Iraq and Afghanistan but today raised hopes of a quick withdrawal from Basra.

"At some point in the near future, the Iraqi forces will be able to take full responsibility for the security of the Basra province," Mr Browne said at the Labour party conference in Bournemouth.

"In seeing that process through we will fulfil our obligations to the government and people of Iraq and to the United Nations."

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was overthrown by a US-led coalition in 2001 but the Islamic extremist group has been resurgent over the past 19 months and the number of British military fatalities now stands at 81 since the invasion.

Mr Browne said that the participation of the country's former rulers was necessary in the peace process if it was to be successful.

"In Afghanistan, at some stage, the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process because they are not going away, any more than I suspect Hamas are going away from Palestine," he told delegates.

The defence secretary suggested that that those overseeing the peace process would probably expect the former rulers to obey some "basic parameters" before becoming involved.

But he added that there was no possibility of establishing a western legal system in Afghanistan and argued that an "Islamic-based" solution must be accepted instead.

"I don't want to tell you the colour of the face of the Swedish defence minister when I suggested to her at some stage it may be necessary, in order to get to where we want to be in Afghanistan, for us to accept that there is some route through an Islamic-based legal system that will get us there," he said.

    Browne signals Iraq pull-out and opens door to Taliban in Afghanistan, G, 25.9.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2007/story/0,,2176882,00.html

10.45am

Afghanistan blast kills British soldier

Tuesday September 18, 2007
Haroon Siddique and agencies
Guardian Unlimited

A British soldier has been killed and another injured in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.

The soldier, from 36 Engineer Regiment, died after an army truck was attacked in Helmand province just after 3.30pm (12.30pm BST) yesterday.

The MoD said the soldiers were travelling with a routine logistics convoy nearly 12 miles north-east of the town of Gereshk.

A military spokesman said an emergency response helicopter was sent to the scene of the blast and the two injured soldiers were flown to the International Security Assistance Force medical facility at Camp Bastion.

One of the soldiers was pronounced dead on arrival at the camp. The second soldier's injuries were not thought to be life-threatening. Next of kin have been informed.

The death brought the number of British soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since 2001 to 77, 54 of them killed in action.

Violence in Afghanistan has surged over the past 19 months - the bloodiest period since US-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.

    Afghanistan blast kills British soldier, G, 18.9.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2171753,00.html

Army chief predicts

a 'generation of conflict'

August 28, 2007
The Times
Steve Bird

The head of the Army has ordered his senior staff to make preparations for “a generation of conflict”, in a speech that the Ministry of Defence tried to keep secret.

General Sir Richard Dannatt gave warning of the dangers posed by a “strident Islamist shadow” and suggested that the British Army was “on the edge of a new and deadly Great Game in Afghanistan”.

He also told senior staff that the trust and respect of the public could be “increasingly difficult to gain” in the context of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The challenge of this generation is as great as any that have gone before us,” he added.

General Dannatt’s thoughts about the way forward for the Army were revealed in a speech given to a conference in London in June. The speech remained secret because the MoD did not allow the media to attend. However, under a Freedom of Information request, the contents of the address to senior British and overseas military have now been released.

In his address, General Dannatt underlined the importance of achieving success in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he said were the “all-consuming focus” of the Army at present. But he appeared to play down the prospects of achieving all of the main objectives.

“It is success today in these two theatres, however you define success, that, as far as I’m concerned, is both the top and bottom line because, if we fail in either campaign, then I submit that, in the face of that strident Islamist shadow, then tomorrow will be a very uncertain place,” he said.

However, he envisaged only “some form of success in Iraq” and spoke of “significant achievement in Afghanistan” as a short-term objective for the Army.

Gordon Brown said yesterday that progress in Afghanistan would be measured across a wide range of activity, covering governance, reconstruction, economic development and the building up of local security forces.

In a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, the Prime Minister also pledged that he would not seek an early withdrawal of British toops from Iraq for political reasons. “I believe that we have clear obligations to discharge,” he said.

Last year General Dannatt said he believed that the troops should be pulled out “some time soon”. However, in his June address, he seemed to be preparing for decades of fighting ahead — presumably with Afghanistan in mind. He had held a meeting of senior officers at an army development forum to address the question: “How do we prepare ourselves for potentially a generation of conflict?”

Hinting at his previously expressed fears that the Army may become burned out by the pressures of fighting two wars simultaneously, General Dannatt emphasised the need that soldiers and their families are cared for properly and given time to train for other types of warfare. “We need an army in being in five and ten years’ time, not just the memory of one that expended itself in the middle of the current decade,” he said.

“British soldiers should always expect the nation, the Army and their commanders to treat them fairly, to value and respect them as individuals and to sustain and reward them and their families with appropriate conditions of service,” he said.

The remarks were made during an address to the conference on future land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall. The MoD banned the media from attending because it wanted General Dannatt and other speakers to be able to discuss key issues away from the glare of publicity. Whitehall insiders told The Times that the MoD was worried about the conference leading to unpalatable headlines the next day.

General Dannatt, who is approaching his first anniversary as Chief of the General Staff, said he believed that the general public had not yet grasped that Britain’s Armed Forces were engaged “in a wider conflict that may last for a generation”, which meant looking again at the structure and equipping of the services.

Referring to the Government’s expeditionary strategy for the Armed Forces, first outlined in 1998, he said: “The heady appeal of ‘go first, go fast, go home’ has to be balanced with a willingness and a structure to ‘go strong and go long’.” He said that the Army was “enmeshed” in helping to construct a modern Islamic state “in the tinderbox that is Iraq in the face of extremism and jihad [holy war]”.

He added: “We are doing this in a region perched precariously above a large proportion of the world’s remaining supply of oil. So it is, indeed, some high-octane context that we find surrounding current events.”

He also hinted at the threat posed by Islamist extremism within Britain. “The threats and challenges to our society are . . . global and have sympathisers in many societies and countries, including at home,” he said.

General Dannatt said that these threats could not be resolved by military means alone but required a “battle of hearts and minds”, adding: “These threats do not just face us abroad . . . increasingly we have identified that we need to understand our own home front.”

He underlined the importance of maintaining the highest standards. “The British Army is currently held in high esteem by our nation but this is fragile and under no circumstances must we take this for granted,” he said.

In May he had made clear his dismay at the damage to the Army’s reputation caused by the fatal beating by British soldiers of Baha Musa, the Iraqi hotel receptionist who was arrested by a patrol from The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment and subjected to 36 hours of ill-treatment at a temporary detention centre in Basra in September 2003. He suffered more than 90 injuries before dying of asphyxiation.

After the acquittal of all but one of the seven soldiers charged in connection with Mr Musa’s death, General Dannatt said that the investigation would go on to find the culprits, and he attacked the fall in standards and discipline that led to the brutal treatment of the Iraqi detainee.

In his June speech, he said: “The public will not continue to support the use of force in their name unless the Army is trusted and respected, and this may be increasingly difficult to gain. It is, therefore, vital that we, as an army, know what we stand for — thus our core values of selfless commitment, courage, discipline, integrity, loyalty and respect for others are increasingly important as the foundation on which success will be built.”

He concluded: “The challenge of this generation is as great as any that have gone before us in the last century. It is a battle of ideas, and the battleground will be unpredictable.

“We need to be prepared for a very wide range of tasks, from warfighting . . . operations to low-level combat within a complex environment, whilst critically maintaining the support of the population, the consent of the nation and maintaining our own values and reputation.”

Opium increases

— Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, where 6,000 British troops are based, has become the biggest source of illicit drugs in the world, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, said yesterday

— The UN organisation said that Helmand had produced more than half of Afghanistan’s opium, which increased this year to 8,200 tonnes compared with last year’s official figure of 6,100, a 34 per cent rise. Afghan opium generates 93 per cent of the world’s heroin trade.

— Despite the presence of British and other troops and an objective of eliminating the opium crops, the area of cultivation increased this year by 17 per cent to 193,000 hectares (477,000 acres)

— The US says that Afghanistan has more land producing drugs than Colombia, Bolivia and Peru combined

    Army chief predicts a 'generation of conflict', Ts, 28.8.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2337285.ece

Two soldiers killed by friendly fire

were teenagers on their first tour

of duty


Sunday August 26, 2007
The Observer
Ned Temko

Two of the British soldiers killed by an apparent 'friendly fire' air attack in Afghanistan on Thursday were 19-year-olds on their first tour of combat duty, it emerged yesterday.

Privates Aaron James McClure, Robert Graham Foster and 21-year-old John Thrumble - all from the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment - died after US air support was called in during a fierce firefight with the Taliban, a Ministry of Defence statement said. It was accompanied by moving tributes from the men's friends, comrades and family and by an expression of 'profound sadness' from Defence Secretary Des Browne.

The deaths triggered a sharp political row as the Conservatives attacked Gordon Brown for having demanded cuts in defence spending when he was Chancellor. In a strongly worded attack, shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: 'As Chancellor, Gordon Brown never gave defence much priority and now the skies are black with chickens coming home to roost.

'We know what he thinks about casinos and cannabis but we have heard scarcely a word from him on Afghanistan. When it comes to people putting their lives on the line there is a deafening silence.'

However, his comments were rebutted by the Defence Secretary. 'I know the safety and security of our armed forces and the wellbeing of their families is an absolute priority for the Prime Minister - just as it is for me,' he said last night. 'The Prime Minister has visited Iraq and Afghanistan this year to meet our troops and when he met President Bush, they were at the top of his agenda.'

Browne added: 'People should look at our record in government when it comes to delivering for our forces and judge us on that. We have spent £750m on force protection; earlier this year we announced that we are making 14 more helicopters and an additional C-17 [plane] available for operations.

The minister said that when he was Chancellor Gordon Brown approved extra funding in order to introduce a tax free operational bonus for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and over £50m of additional funding to invest in new armoured vehicles.'

Both government and opposition spokesmen stressed that despite indications that the men were killed by a bomb from an American F-15 fighter, a definitive ruling on whether friendly fire was responsible would have to await British and US investigations.

But a damning report from the Commons Public Accounts Committee earlier this year said there had been 'little progress' improving measures against friendly fire. The most ambitious Combat Identification scheme had been repeatedly delayed due to an inability to agree on ways of making it compatible with American systems, the study said. It urged the MoD to either finally push for an agreement, or move ahead with 'a more limited national programme focusing on key risk areas'.

It also said that while the Defence Ministry had designated an official to 'champion' combat-identification schemes, the post had no 'budgetary responsibility' or 'direct authority'.

In announcing details of the battle in which the young British soldiers lost their lives, both Browne and the regional commander for Helmand were at pains to couple expressions of regret with an emphasis on the importance of American air support. 'This incident is all the more devastating,' said Brigadier John Lorimer, 'because on numerous occasions, bombs dropped by US aircraft have saved the lives of British troops.'

McClure and Foster enlisted last spring, while Thrumble joined the army in 2005 and had also served in Iraq. All were sent to Afghanistan's Helmand province last March and were weeks away from ending their tour when the platoon came under 'accurate fire from a determined Taliban force' on Thursday.

Among the tributes to Private Foster, who is from Essex and described by comrades as a 'hugely popular extrovert', was a message from his parents.

'To us, Robert was the most wonderful son,' they said. 'He was the life and soul of the party and had a very loving and caring nature.'

They added: 'The only consolation is that he died doing the job he loved... Our thoughts are also with the other families affected by this tragedy, and we pray for a full recovery for the two soldiers injured.'

    Two soldiers killed by friendly fire were teenagers on their first tour of duty, O, 26.8.2007, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2156494,00.html

Three British troops killed by US jet

· US jet kills three British soldiers
· Soldiers were under Taliban attack
· Two more seriously injured by bomb

Saturday August 25, 2007
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor
and Ewen MacAskill in Washington

An urgent investigation was under way last night into why a US fighter plane killed three British soldiers, and seriously injured two others, after it was called in to support UK troops engaged in a fierce battle with Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan.

In the worst "friendly fire" incident involving British forces in the country, an American F-15 long-range strike aircraft dropped a single 500lb bomb killing the soldiers from 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment.

The investigation will need to determine whether the accident was the result of a communications or technical failure, why an American rather than a British plane was involved, and why such a relatively big bomb was dropped close to British positions on the ground.

The soldiers were part of a 60-man patrol deployed to disrupt Taliban movements north-west of Kajaki, the site of a hydroelectric dam under repair and potentially significant irrigation projects for Helmand province. At about 6.30pm local time on Thursday the patrol was attacked by Taliban fighters and came under heavy gunfire from several directions.

In a statement yesterday the Ministry of Defence said: "During the intense engagement that ensued, close air support was called in from two US F-15 aircraft to repel the enemy. A single bomb was dropped and it is believed the explosion killed all three soldiers who were declared dead at the scene."

The next of kin had been informed, the MoD said. The two injured soldiers, including one critically ill, were evacuated by helicopter to the medical facility at Camp Bastion. Nine soldiers from the battalion have been killed in southern Afghanistan over the past four months.

The latest friendly fire deaths are thought to be the second incident involving British soldiers being killed by Americans in Afghanistan. Eight British military personnel have been killed by US fire in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003.

Yesterday's incident brings the total number of British troops killed while on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 to 73. Fifty have been killed in action.

Lt Colonel Charlie Mayo, the British army spokesman in Helmand, said: "There are a handful of different reasons why this tragic incident has happened and we are not in a position at the moment and I don't think we will be for some time to find out exactly what has happened."

The Ministry of Defence was criticised by MPs earlier this year for delays in installing new technology in systems designed to prevent friendly fire. However, in past friendly fire incidents human error has often been the cause.

The MoD said British troops in Afghanistan had frequently relied on US and British air support to get them out of trouble. The government made clear it is anxious that the incident did not further exacerbate relations and is stressing there is no assumption that the US is to blame. It is emphasising that there are parallel investigations: while the US will investigate the role of its pilots, the British will check whether the British soldiers may have given the wrong coordinates.

Des Browne, the defence secretary, said the investigation into the incident would be "thorough", adding that he would not "indulge in any speculation" about the causes. He described such incidents as "rare". He added: "We go to extraordinary lengths to ensure these things don't happen but at the end of the day combat environments are very complex environments. Human error is always a possibility."

The shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, said: "It is wrong to jump to any conclusions. Many issues including combat identification systems will need to be considered in the investigation."

In Washington, Lt Colonel Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman, said: "We express deep condolences to the families and loved ones of the British soldiers who died and we wish those who were injured a full recovery." He added: "Close air support in a combat environment is tremendously challenging and our forces train and prepare for operations to eliminate incidents to the greatest extent possible."

The Pentagon is sensitive about friendly fire incidents, particularly those involving British troops. It regards US airmen as unfairly stereotyped as trigger-happy.

It is still angry over the leaking earlier this year of a classified video it sent to Britain for the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, killed by a US air attack in Iraq in 2003.

Relations between the US and Britain have been strained in recent weeks, with the British criticising US bombing in Afghanistan for alienating the local population after of a rising toll of civilian death. US officers have been critical of the British performance in southern Iraq.

The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force, Isaf, said it had procedures in place to minimise the risk of friendly fire incidents. Spokeswoman Lt Col Claudia Foss said: "Isaf is committed to finding out exactly how this tragedy occurred and how similar incidents can be avoided."

Three British troops killed by US jet, G, 25.8.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2155924,00.html