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

3pm GMT update

Brown outlines UK's

role in future of Afghanistan

Wednesday December 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Louise Radnofsky

Britain will boost aid for Afghanistan's development and stabilisation by £450 million and set tough targets for the training of the country's own security forces, the prime minister said today as he unveiled "long-term" plans for the country to take more control over its own future.

Gordon Brown confirmed that former insurgents who renounced violence would be welcomed in civic life, but denied that he would enter into any talks with the leaders of the former Taliban regime.

He said his plans would "build on the military progress made so far by helping the Afghans take greater leadership across security, governance, and economic development" and described them as a shift "from short-term stabilisation to long-term development".

Brown told MPs that aid would be given for "high impact" projects such as better roads, power supplies and clean water, as well as loans for small businesses and funding for civic groups and community development projects to improve local and national government.

He said that in Musa Qala, the former Taliban stronghold recaptured by the military yesterday, there would be a cash-for-work programme and refurbishment of the district centre, high school and four mosques.

The town had been taken over by the Taliban in February after British troops left, ceding security to local tribal elders.

The prime minister contradicted newspaper reports that he wanted dialogue with Taliban leaders, saying he wanted to "make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiations with these people".

But he said that Afghan president Hamid Karzai had said that former insurgents could have "a place in the legitimate society and economy of Afghanistan", if they were prepared to renounce violence.

"We will support the government in their efforts to reconcile all parties to Afghanistan's democratic constitution," he added.

Brown did not confirm suggestions that the plan would include aid for farmers who gave up growing opium poppies, and restricted his description of the anti-drugs strategy as "stronger governance, targeted eradication, disruption of traffickers, strengthening the justice system, and promoting legitimate agriculture".

While visiting Afghanistan earlier this week, the prime minister had said that the British military presence of around 7,800 troops would remain "substantial" for the "foreseeable future".

He said today that the main military strategy now would be to "train Afghan forces to take ownership of their own security", and that he was aiming for there to be 20,000 new trained Afghan soldiers by next year, bringing the total to 70,000, supported by 340 British trainers and mentors.

Brown also announced that 150 new protected patrol vehicles had been specially procured for forces there.

But the Conservative leader, David Cameron, raised concerns over whether the number of Afghan troops would be high enough to maintain the successes of coalition forces.

The acting Liberal Democrat leader, Vincent Cable, asked the prime minister whether the number of British troops in the country was overstretching the armed forces. He also said he was worried about how much of the Afghan government's budget was lost in corruption.

Brown conceded that there had been corruption and waste, but said that he believed there would be progress in the future.

The prime minister also backed a "strong UN envoy" to coordinate efforts in the region, but did not confirm whether the former high representative for Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown, had accepted the post which he had reportedly been offered.

Britain will continue to work with Pakistan and the G8, Brown said, as well as urging Iran to play "a more constructive role", and encouraging other NATO countries to do more to boost security forces.

Brown outlines UK's role in future of Afghanistan, G, 12.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2226256,00.html

2.30pm GMT update

Afghan battle is crucial,

Brown tells troops

Monday December 10, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Tania Branigan in Camp Bastion
and Louise Radnofsky

The fight for the Taliban stronghold of Musa Qala was hailed by Gordon Brown today, as an example of British troops working to support Afghan forces who were "more and more in the lead" in protecting their country, as he continued a surprise two-day visit to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The prime minister also pledged Britain's continued support for Afghanistan's security, reconstruction and development as NATO and Afghan army troops entered the town in the southern province of Helmand.

"We are there in support of an Afghan decision that action had to be taken and we're there in support of Afghan forces who are showing they're in the lead in taking action at a local level," Brown said, speaking alongside Afghan president Hamid Karzai at a joint press conference in Kabul.

He said he expected the mission to be successful within the next few days and that it would bring "lasting results".

Yesterday, Brown announced the end of British military control in Iraq within two weeks, with local forces taking over in Basra province.

He spoke in Kabul after a morale-boosting visit to Camp Bastion, around 60 miles from the fighting, where he told troops fresh from the battle that victory at Musa Qala was crucial to the future of Afghanistan.

"I know this week in Musa Qala some of you here, and many of you not here, have been doing a very important job in clearing the Taliban from that area and the work you are doing today and over the next few days is important to the whole mission in Afghanistan," Brown said.

"If we can succeed there, as we will, we can move forward events in Afghanistan in favour of a more peaceful future for the country."

He paid tribute to soldiers killed or injured in action including two recent casualties, Trooper Jack Sadler, from Exeter, and Sergeant Lee Johnson, from Stockton-on-Tees, saying,

"This is one of the most challenging environments, one of the most difficult of tasks, the most testing of times and the most important of missions." Musa Qala had been handed over to Afghan control at the request of local leaders earlier this year but was later reclaimed by the Taliban.

"This is a very important mission and we will continue to give it support," Brown said in Kabul.

He praised Karzai's government for its fight against terrorist enemies "who threaten not only your country but who are dangerous for the whole world."

"We are determined to give more support in times to come," said Brown, adding that he would make a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday about future British commitments to the country.

He also said he would continue to talk with Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf about "regional co-operation at the highest possible level."

Musharraf has been the subject of sharp international criticism, including from Britain, in the past month after he declared a state of emergency in his country and suspended its constitution.

Brown was visiting troops at Basra air station in Iraq yesterday, when he told them that British military control in Iraq would end within two weeks.

The prime minister heralded the decision to move to an oversight role as a sign that the southeast is moving into a new phase of reconstruction. It means the UK is on course to halve troop numbers by spring.

Speaking to troops at the air base, Brown said: "I have just talked to prime minister [Nouri al-] Maliki. It is because of all the operations over the last few years, particularly in recent times, that the security situation has not only improved, but that he could tell me he is now recommending we move to provincial Iraqi control within two weeks, so the Iraqis can take far more responsibility for security."

The Guardian understands the handover could come as early as Sunday.

Despite Brown's upbeat assessment, telling the forces that they had helped to build "peace and prosperity", others believe there is a long way to go before economic and social regeneration can take place.

The Commons defence committee said last month that, while attacks on British forces had plummeted since their withdrawal from Basra city to the remaining base at Basra air station, attacks on Iraqi civilians remained high.

It questioned the point of maintaining a garrison of 2,500 troops, as Britain plans to follow with further reductions next spring.

Questions also remain over the future control of US supply routes overseen by the British. While discussions have begun with American counterparts, arrangements have not been agreed. Des Browne, the defence secretary, said last year that British forces would oversee the supply lines for as long as the US needed.

The prime minister has argued that oversight would consist of two phases. The first will focus on training Iraqi forces, serving supply routes, policing the borders with Iran and remaining ready for reintervention if necessary. The second, from spring, will involve a "more limited" reintervention capacity and will emphasise training and monitoring.

    Afghan battle is crucial, Brown tells troops, G, 10.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2225149,00.html

Fierce battle rages

for Taliban stronghold

Royal Marines are among 6,000 troops fighting to seize a fiercely defended rebel headquarters that is key to the drug trade

Sunday December 9, 2007
The Observer
Mark Townsend


More than 6,000 troops were engaged in intense fighting last night as British and American forces led a major offensive to seize the largest Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan.

In what military commanders described as a defining battle for the stability of Helmand province, around 4,500 Nato soldiers and Afghan National Army troops launched a series of attacks against a 2,000-strong Taliban force entrenched in the town of Musa Qala. Fighting was expected to last for days.

Colonel Richard Eaton, spokesman for the commander of Task Force Helmand, told The Observer: 'There has been determined resistance and continual fighting throughout the day, but we are making progress.' Amid reports of close-quarters battle, a number of British troops were reported injured, while a soldier with the Second Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment was killed, it was announced last night. His death takes the number of British personnel killed in Afghanistan since October 2001 to 86.

Eaton added: 'The aim of this operation is to win over the people of Helmand. The support of the people is the prize. They have a choice of living under a free democratic government or under the tyranny of the Taliban.'

The operation, which has been codenamed Mar Kardad, meaning 'snakepit', is the biggest mounted in Helmand since the deployment of Nato forces last year. For both sides Musa Qala has become deeply symbolic - it is the only urban centre that the Islamist group has been able to take and hold.

Among the forces threatening its perimeter defences last night were more than 1,200 British troops, including sizeable numbers from the 1st Battalion Scots Guards and 40 Commando, Royal Marines. Sources in Helmand described yesterday's fighting as 'heavy', with US airstrikes continuously targeting Taliban positions around the town. Twelve Taliban rebels were declared dead in one attack, including a commander believed to be responsible for attacks against international troops.

Under cover supplied by US aircraft, international forces and Afghan infantrymen advanced on Musa Qala from three directions across mountainous terrain. Military strategists have been planning an attack for months, aware that it is encircled by many well defended positions and minefields. Taliban anti-aircraft guns are understood to line ridges above the town, which has just one road in and one road out.

With the fighting showing no signs of ebbing, a Taliban claim that several armoured vehicles had been destroyed was dismissed. British defence sources said there had been 'steady progress'.

Earlier, hundreds of US soldiers were dropped from 19 helicopters, including troop carriers. They fought throughout Friday night, a tactic designed to let Afghan government troops, backed by British units, move in.

Hundreds of UK soldiers have been deployed from the British army's forward operating base, Camp Bastion, in Sangin, around 20km away. Military commanders speculated that, if the Taliban sustained large casualties, they might flee the town and head north into mountains. 'In the past, Taliban have withdrawn when faced with a large force in the field, but that remains to be seen,' said Eaton.

For the Taliban, Musa Qala has become a key centre of military and drug smuggling operations. For the international forces, ousting the enemy would take away their last major stronghold before the winter sets in, a period when the Taliban traditionally build up their reserves.

Despite the intensity of the fighting, the Taliban claim they are confident of resisting the offensive. Taliban commander Mullah Ahmadullah said: 'Morale is high... we will not lay down our weapons. We will fight to the death.'

Taliban fighters have been given orders to carry out attacks far more widely than Musa Qala to try to deflect attention from the town, but Nato sources say they have contingency plans to deal with that. Militants overran Musa Qala in February, four months after British troops left the town after a contentious peace agreement that gave security responsibilities to Afghan elders. Musa Qala has been in the control of Taliban fighters ever since. Situated north of Helmand, Musa Qala and the region around it have seen the heaviest fighting in Afghanistan this year. It is also in the middle of the opium poppy-growing belt.

This year has been the deadliest since the US-led invasion in 2001. More than 6,200 people have been killed in insurgency-related violence, according to an AP news agency tally of official figures.

As the battle raged in Musa Qala, Taliban militants in the neighbouring Sangin district were accused yesterday of hanging a 12-year-old boy in an orchard earlier in the week. According to provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal, the boy was murdered because he had been giving information to the Afghan government and international forces, according to provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal.

In a speech, Afghan President Hamid Karzai also accused the Taliban of suspending a 15-year-old boy from a ceiling and lighting a gas stove underneath him, burning him alive. 'Does anyone believe a human being can be so savage as to burn alive a 15-year-old boy?' he said.

Battle breakdown

4,500 international and Afghan army forces are attacking Taliban positions.

2,000 Taliban troops are defending Musa Qala.

1,200 British soldiers are involved in the offensive.

500 US troops took part in the initial attack against Musa Qala under cover of darkness.

19 helicopters - Apache attack and Chinook troop carriers - were used in the first drop of infantrymen.

12 Taliban have been confirmed dead.

    Fierce battle rages for Taliban stronghold, O, 9.12.2007, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2224623,00.html

4.45pm GMT update

Fuel leak blamed for RAF Nimrod crash

Tuesday December 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke

An official report today found that known fuel leakage problems probably caused the most deadly air crash suffered by the British military since the Falklands war.

All 14 people on board an ageing Nimrod spy plane died after fuel leaked and caught fire during an operation over Afghanistan in September last year.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, today apologised in the Commons for the mistakes made.

"The board of inquiry established the most probable cause of the fire and the subsequent loss of XV230 [the Nimrod plane involved] and in doing so identified failings for which the Ministry of Defence must take responsibility," he said.

"On behalf of the MoD, I would like to apologise to the House of Commons, and most of all to those who lost their lives and their families. I am sorry."

The head of the RAF's air command, Sir Clive Loader, has ordered a high-level inquiry to establish how widespread the ageing fleet's mechanical faults are. That inquiry, to be led by a QC, will have the power to call for a full public inquiry.

In an annex to the report, Loader admitted there had been failure in the 1980s to take action to remedy the problem of fuel tanks overflowing during mid-air refuelling.

He said there was "failure to recognise and take alerting action" when the problem was observed during air-to-air refuelling shortly before the crash.

Loader also said the age of the fleet had been a contributory factor.

"I accept the compelling evidence that there has been an increase in fuel leaks over the years," he said.

The board of inquiry report found that the fire was probably caused either by a faulty fuel coupling or jet fuel overflowing during mid-air refuelling.

It is unlikely certainty about the cause of the crash will be established, as some of the flight data was destroyed during the disaster, and investigators had only limited access to the crash site because of a lack of security in the area.

However, one of the two main theories is that fuel from a faulty coupling near the right-side wing leaked onto an exhaust pipe from the engine, which was heated to 400C.

Leaking fuel on the planes, which had been due to leave service a decade ago, was a known problem highlighted years earlier, the report confirmed.

The head of the RAF, Air Chief Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy, said the crew on board the plane had acted in an "exemplary" manner during the flight and in trying to tackle the blaze.

He said the new inquiry would examine why it was that faults near one of the fuel tanks were not deemed a more serious fire hazard.

He added the compensation claims of relatives would be dealt with "expeditiously", with interim payments if necessary.

The report made 33 recommendations, including the improved maintenance of ageing aircraft.

Torpy confirmed that air-to-air refueling was suspended with most Nimrod flights last year after three incidents.

Although restored, it has since been suspended again after another incident last month.

The investigation found that no firefighting equipment was installed in the fuselage close to where the fire is believed to have started, despite a recommendation in a 2004 report by the manufacturer, BAE Systems, that one be put there.

A maintenance report released by the defence technology company Qinetiq in March 2006 is understood to have highlighted the problems of fuel leaks on the MR2 versions of the Nimrod, particularly aircraft flying intensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Earlier this year Graham Knight, the father of Sergeant Ben Knight, one of the servicemen killed in the crash, released a series of leaked emails which he said came from senior RAF officers.

One, dated December 2005, said the plane involved, designated XV230, had "fuel-leak issues" which needed to be rectified, while another, from February last year, warned that the age of the airframe combined with the high tempo of operations was adding to the "leak headache".

The Nimrod MR1 - which is based on the design of Britain's first airliner, the De Havilland Comet - first entered service with the RAF in 1969 and was upgraded to the MR2 version in the late 1970s.

The existing fleet of 15 aircraft had originally been due to leave service 10 years ago, but a series of lengthy delays to their replacement mean they will have to carry on to about 2011.

Critics have blamed cost-cutting by the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence for the hold-ups.

    Fuel leak blamed for RAF Nimrod crash, G, 4.12.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2221776,00.html

4pm GMT update

Decorated British soldier

was 'killed by Nato bullet'

Thursday November 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

A British paratrooper awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross for his bravery in Afghanistan was probably a victim of friendly fire, an inquest heard today.

The deputy coroner for Oxfordshire, Andrew Walker, said he was satisfied "on the balance of probability" that Corporal Bryan Budd was killed by a bullet fired from a Nato weapon.

The inquest heard that Budd, 29, from Ripon, North Yorkshire, was killed by a bullet of a type used by British forces.

Budd, a father of a two-year-old daughter, and whose wife was expecting their second child, was "caught in the crossfire," the coroner said. Budd, of the parachute regiment of the 3rd Battalion, died after being shot in the abdomen during the operation in August last year.

His commanding officer later described him as "one of the very best".

The inquest in Oxford was told that Budd had also spearheaded an attack on an enemy position one month before his death, allowing a wounded colleague to be evacuated for life-saving treatment.

The coroner heard that tests on fragments of the bullet which killed Budd showed it was likely to have been fired from a Nato weapon.

A ballistics expert, Ed Wallace, told the court that tests of 24 weapons used by Budd's comrades had failed to establish if any of them had fired the fatal shot. But Wallace said tests on two bullet fragments had established that they were from 5.56 calibre ammunition, which is used in rifles and machine guns issued to British troops.

After hearing Wallace's evidence, the coroner told the hearing: "In summary, I can be satisfied on the balance of probability that this was a Nato 5.56 projectile fired from a Nato weapon."

Wallace replied: "Yes, that's the most likely cause."

Recording a narrative verdict, Walker said Budd and his comrades in the Parachute regiment were a credit to their unit and the armed forces.

The posthumous award of the Victoria Cross - Britain's highest award for military bravery - to Budd was the first for almost a quarter of a century.

The soldier's widow, Lorena, accepted the honour, which he received for two separate acts of "exceptional valour" while deployed in southern Afghanistan, on his behalf in December 2006.

Budd had been in the army for 10 years, enlisting into the parachute regiment then joining 16 Air Assault Brigade's pathfinder platoon, an elite unit trained for long-range reconnaissance missions.

He had served in Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In May 2002 he passed his section commander's battle course with distinction, and was on the verge of promotion to platoon sergeant.

Budd was a qualified combat survival instructor, rock climber and freefall parachutist. He was posted to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate in 2004, where he trained young soldiers. He joined A Company, 3 Para, in June as part of the 3,600-strong British task force.

His commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Tootal, said: "Corporal Bryan Budd was an outstanding young man who had quickly risen through the ranks in the regiment. Extremely popular, he had a calm and professional manner that inspired confidence in all that worked with him; a natural leader.

"Bryan died doing the job he loved, leading his men from the front. Bryan was proud to call himself a paratrooper and we were proud to stand beside him. One of the very best in all respects, he will be sadly missed by all his comrades in 3 Para and our thoughts are with his family and friends at this difficult time."

After the inquest, Budd's widow said she would ensure her daughters grew up to know what a "courageous man and loving father" her husband was.

    Decorated British soldier was 'killed by Nato bullet', G, 29.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2219061,00.html

12.15pm GMT

Guards shot children dead

after Afghan suicide blast, says UN

Monday November 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran and agencies

Many of the children who died in Afghanistan's worst-ever suicide attack were actually shot dead by bodyguards who fired indiscriminately into the crowd after the blast, a UN report said.

The department of safety and security report, which was obtained by the Associated Press, said it was not clear how many people died in the bombing or from the gunfire immediately after the attack on November 6 in Baghlan province.

Sixty-one children, five teachers, six MPs and five bodyguards died in the attack. Ninety-three other children were injured, some critically.

One estimate said up to two-thirds of the 77 people killed and more than 100 wounded were hit by gunfire; other estimates put the numbers shot much lower.

"Regardless of what the exact breakdown of numbers may be, the fact remains that a number of armed men deliberately and indiscriminately fired into a crowd of unarmed civilians that posed no threat to them, causing multiple deaths and injuries," the report said.

"It is believed that at least 100 rounds or more were fired into the crowd with a separate group of school children off to one side of the road bearing the brunt of the onslaught at close range," it added.

Adrian Edwards, the UN spokesman in Afghanistan, said the report was one of several conflicting views inside the UN and that its findings had not been endorsed.

"What you are seeing at the moment represents part of the picture only," he said. "What hasn't been resolved is that there is widely diverging, contrary views on this, and until those have been resolved, there is no complete finding."

The UN report said bodyguards opened fire into the crowd for several minutes.

"It has been confirmed that eight of the teachers in charge of this group of school children suffered multiple gunshot wounds, five of which died," it said.

The report said that further inquiries "are being hampered by restrictions on witnesses and officials, and that despite several arrests, there have not yet been any reports of who is responsible". According to the Afghan authorities, most of the casualties resulted from the suicide attack. The interior ministry spokesman, Zemeri Bashary, had said most of the victims were hit by ball bearings in the bomb, and not by bullets.

The children, all boys aged between eight and 18 from the same school, had gathered to welcome a visiting delegation of MPs to a sugar factory outside the town of Pul-i-Khumri, 90 miles north of the capital, Kabul, in a region which has remained largely peaceful.

Hundreds of children had crowded on to the tree-lined drive leading to the factory. Witnesses and survivors described guards firing into the thick black smoke for up to five minutes after the attack.

Among the MPs was Sayed Mustafa Kazimi, the chief spokesman of Afghanistan's only opposition group, the National Front.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. Afghan officials said they do not know who was behind the bombing. The Taliban denied responsibility.

The deadliest previous suicide bombing in Afghanistan took place in June, when 35 people died in a bomb attack on a police bus.

    Guards shot children dead after Afghan suicide blast, says UN, G, 19.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2213549,00.html

59 children die

in deadliest Afghan suicide attack

· Anger over boys' presence at high-profile event
· Taliban denies involvement in bombing

Saturday November 10, 2007
Guardian
Ian Black and Richard Norton-Taylor


The number of children killed in Afghanistan's deadliest ever suicide attack this week was put at 59 yesterday, possibly the largest number to die in a single suicide attack anywhere in recent times.

The revelation, grim even by the wretched standards of Afghanistan and Iraq, set off immediate recriminations about why such a large number of children were involved in a high-profile public event. The education ministry in Kabul insisted it had instructed schoolchildren to be kept away from the kind of function targeted in Tuesday's bombing.

The children, all boys aged between eight and 18 from the same school, had gathered to welcome a visiting delegation of parliamentarians to a sugar factory outside the town of Pul-i-Khumri, 90 miles north of the capital, in the province of Baghlan. Five teachers, six MPs and five bodyguards were also killed in the attack, and 93 other children were injured, some critically. Witnesses have said some victims may have been killed or wounded by guards who opened fire after the blast.

The Taliban, who have vowed to step up a campaign of suicide attacks as part of an insurgency launched after they were ousted from power six years ago, denied involvement in the attack.

"It would be the largest number of children killed in a single incident this year without a doubt," a western security expert in Kabul told the Guardian. "And it's likely to be the largest ever."

A spokesman for Nato's international security assistance force (Isaf) agreed with this grim assessment.

The provincial governor said that two men had been detained on suspicion of involvement. President Hamid Karzai declared three days of mourning on Wednesday, and ministers and MPs attended a prayer service at Kabul's mosque yesterday to honour the dead.

In the wake of the incident the education minister, Mohammad Hanif Atmar, reissued a ban on children being assembled to welcome visitors to functions.

"The minister has repeatedly requested schoolchildren not to be sent to any welcoming ceremony unless it is purely for educational programmes," said his spokesman. "We told the provincial educational heads not to involve children in any programme other than educational, but they did not listen to us."

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for 130 suicide bomb attacks this year and up to 5,700 people have been killed - most of them rebels. But their denial of involvement in this one, in the relatively peaceful north of the country, has fuelled a climate of fear and speculation about who might be behind it.

The attack was strongly condemned by the charity War Child. "This incident demonstrates yet again that the protection of children is not only a development imperative but needs to be central to the humanitarian agenda," it said.

Meanwhile in London, the Ministry of Defence confirmed that a soldier serving with 36 Engineer Regiment was killed yesterday in a road accident in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan. Another soldier and an interpreter were also injured. No enemy forces were involved. The latest death brings the total number of British personnel killed in Afghanistan since November 2001 to 83.

    59 children die in deadliest Afghan suicide attack, G, 10.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2208759,00.html

UK's new Afghanistan plan:

pay farmers to ditch opium

Troops may target drugs factories
as part of strategy to combat Taliban

Saturday November 10, 2007
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor


Gordon Brown is planning a radical scheme to subsidise farmers in Afghanistan to persuade them to stop producing heroin, as part of a wide-ranging drive to re-energise policy in the conflict the prime minister now regards as the front line in the fight against terrorism.

The Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown has admitted that the rise in opium production in the country means Britain "cannot just muddle along in the middle" and must come up with more imaginative ideas on opium eradication.

Ministers are looking at what Lord Malloch-Brown describes as a system of payments loosely along the lines of the common agricultural policy to woo the Afghan farmers off opium production. The government is conducting joint research on suitable economic incentives with the World Bank.

British and allied forces are also looking at destroying drug factories inside Afghanistan, and a much better-targeted drive against the big traffickers responsible for 90% of the opium which reaches the west.

Mr Brown is expected to make a Commons statement on security and development in Afghanistan in the next few weeks, and is likely to highlight the strategic importance of the war against the Taliban in his first annual foreign affairs speech at Mansion House on Monday.

The focus on Afghanistan comes as British troop levels there are now higher than in Iraq. There are approximately 7,700 British troops in Afghanistan, compared with around 5,000 in Iraq.

Critics in the British aid agencies claim that too little western aid is set aside to provide alternative livelihoods for opium farmers in Afghanistan, and comparatively too much going on building state structures or funding public sector salaries.

Senior British officers believe the Afghan war remains largely misunderstood in Britain, and say security is the precondition for building alternatives to opium production. Lord Malloch-Brown recently returned from Afghanistan to tell peers: "The Department of International Development is looking at whether we can put on a more formal and structured long-term basis what one would controversially describe as an Afghan equivalent of a CAP, with subsidised purchase of legal crops to make returns more like those from poppy."

But he added: "We have to do a much better job of not targeting the farmers, the producers whose hearts and minds we are trying to win in the counter-insurgency effort. We have to target the industry above that - the financiers, the shippers, the drug big men who are benefiting from the production. We know who they are and the government of Afghanistan know who they are. A system banning them from travel, listing them and freezing their bank accounts, hitting at the industry's infrastructure, strikes me as an area in which more can be done."

He pointedly added that only the US favoured aerial spraying of opium crops.

Illegal Afghan opium was selling for as much as $125 per kilo in 2006. The UN said the area under cultivation rose this year from 165,000 to 193,000 hectares and the harvest rose from 6,100 to 8,200 tonnes.

Opium production is heavily concentrated in areas of insecurity, with the British area of responsibility in Helmand now the world's biggest source of illicit drugs.

The UK has provided $20m to an Afghan criminal justice taskforce that has managed to secure only 400 convictions.

Some influential figures, including the former Foreign Office permanent secretary Lord Jay, have become so despairing of the fight that they are backing calls for opium to be produced legally and used as medical morphine, but the idea appears to have been rejected.

Christian Aid has also called for an aid switch to improving irrigation and water management; achieving food security through expanded cereal production; credit facilities for farmers; and building export markets for fruit and nuts.

    UK's new Afghanistan plan: pay farmers to ditch opium, G, 10.11.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2208736,00.html

Lest we forget

In Afghan fields, the poppies blow...
and another British soldier dies in a war without end

Published: 10 November 2007
The Independent
By Raymond Whitaker in Kabul

Staff at the British embassy in Kabul are wearing poppies in honour of the country's dead in Afghanistan, as well as the other conflicts in which British soldiers have fought over the past century. But Afghans do not understand the meaning of the symbol.

"Why do you have that paper flower pinned to your clothes?" the proprietor of a bookshop in Kabul asked a British customer yesterday. " I have seen the newscasters on BBC and Sky wearing them too. What is it for?" The explanation seemed to leave the bookseller even more confused – in Afghanistan, poppies have a very different significance.

The income from opium poppies is helping to fuel a conflict in which Taliban insurgents, drug traffickers and simple resistance to the presence of foreigners in southern Afghanistan are often indistinguishable. It is a struggle which has so far claimed the lives of 83 British soldiers, 57 of them in combat. The latest death occurred yesterday: a soldier serving with 36 Engineer Regiment was killed when his vehicle rolled off a bridge near Sangin in Helmand province, the scene of some of the most bitter fighting since British forces were sent to there early last year.

Although British troops in Helmand and the Canadians in Kandahar have regained some of the territory lost to the Taliban, they simply do not have the troops in numbers to hold the ground. As a result, repeated operations have to be undertaken to recapture strategic positions.

The battle being waged against the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan can seem remote even in Kabul, let alone Britain, though insecurity has crept closer to the Afghan capital in recent months. A new front was opened this week, when more than 70 people were killed and more than 100 injured in the northern town of Baghlan in the worst suicide bombing in the country's history.

Almost 60 schoolchildren who had lined up to greet MPs visiting a sugar factory were among the dead. Such is the fear of violence spreading that yesterday the Education Minister ordered that it was no longer safe for children to be included in public ceremonies of this kind.

The northern Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras who dominate the life of the capital certainly do not want the Taliban back. But they fail to understand why the battles being fought against the Pashtuns, both Afghan and Pakistani, who constitute the majority of Taliban fighters, along with a small but significant number of extremists from other Muslim countries, have not made their own lives safer. They are uneasy too at the growing toll of Afghan civilians, often in air strikes called in by Nato forces spread too thinly on the ground.

Despite urgent appeals most of the other Nato members have failed to come up with troops for Afghanistan and even some who have deployed there have put caveats on these forces, effectively shielding them from full-scale combat.

And if Afghans are unclear about the purpose of the war, now into its seventh year, the British public can often seem no less bemused. Marchers who recently carried posters down Whitehall demanding, "Stop the war in Iraq and Afghanistan", are by no means the only ones seeing the two conflicts as one and the same. In vain can London and Washington argue that they are completely different, when they failed to conclude one, before plunging into the other. The worsening violence in Afghanistan since the beginning of last year, which has claimed thousands of Afghan lives as well as all but a handful of the British casualties, has been the result.

British commanders in the country openly admit the Taliban's propaganda has been far more effective than their own. One of its most telling slogans, addressed to Nato, has been: "You have the watches but we have the time. " In other words, all the money and technology Nato has brought to bear will be of no avail, because its commitment will not last.

Farmers in Afghanistan may soon be subsidised in an effort to stop them producing heroin, in a radical plan proposed by Gordon Brown. Ministers are looking at introducing a system of payments, similar to the Common Agricultural Policy, to encourage farmers away from opium production.

Britain has recognised that it must emphasise, both to Afghans and its own people, that it is in for the long haul. The beefing up of the diplomatic mission in Kabul – which will in due course move back to the grand 19th-century premises built in Lord Curzon's day – is one clear token of that. And this week the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, made it clear that the British military commitment would last at least until 2010. Mr Browne announced that a temporary brigade headquarters was being set up to command British forces in Afghanistan after October 2009, when the current British deployment ends, to April 2010.

"The precise size and duration of the UK military in Afghanistan will depend on a number of factors, including the ability of the Afghan security forces to take greater responsibility for the security of their own country," he said on Thursday. "However, to ensure that any forces we might deploy are properly prepared and commanded, it is necessary for the brigade headquarters to be established now."

The Nato secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, appealed for more troop contributions, disclosing that the alliance has only half the trainers it needs for Afghan security forces, adding: "This is obviously a problem. We have to find an answer and member nations need to do more".

By contrast, the Taliban fighters are increasingly well trained and using sophisticated techniques, according to the commander of the 1,200-strong Polish contingent in Afghanistan. Brigadier General Marek Tomaszycki added: " We have more and more examples of tactics which are used in Iraq and are being imported to Afghanistan. We have to consider the enemy as very dangerous."

But even so, the baffled bookseller of Kabul is not alone in needing to be reminded why British troops are in his country. They went there to oust a movement which had reduced Afghanistan to anarchy and penury, and gave safe haven to al-Qa'ida, which wants to Talibanise the whole world.

But at least Britain now has more troops stationed in Afghanistan – 7,700 – than it does in Iraq. They face a task made more difficult because of the West's, and their own Government's, fitful attention to it. But the 83 British soldiers who have given their lives there will not have not done so in vain if Britain stays the course – something it owes to its own people, as well as to those of Afghanistan.

Troubled country still in turmoil

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

* December 2001: The Bonn deal on the future of Afghanistan creates an interim government, headed by the US-backed Hamid Karzai

* January 2002: First contingent of foreign peacekeepers arrives with a year-long mandate

* May 2002: UN Security Council extends mandate of International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) until December 2002

* June 2002: The first post-Taliban "loya jirga", or grand assembly, selects Hamid Karzai as interim president

* July 2002: Attacks increase throughout country and a vice-president, Haji Abdul Qadir, is shot dead in Kabul

* September 2002: Assassination attempt on Hamid Karzai in Kandahar

* August 2003: Nato takes control of security in Kabul, its first operational commitment outside Europe

* 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 first elections for a generation

* May 2005: Details emerge of alleged prisoner abuse by US forces at detention centres including Bagram air base.

* February 2006: International aid donors pledge more than $10bn (£5.7bn) in reconstruction aid over five years

* Spring/summer 2006: Taliban regroup in the south and mount a series of fierce attacks there and elsewhere

* July-October 2006: Nato peacekeeping forces, totalling 18,500 and rising, take control of security, first in the south of Afghanistan and then throughout the country

* May 2007: Taliban's most senior military commander, Mullah Dadullah, is killed during fighting with US, Afghan forces

* 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

* November 2007: Sixty-eight people die in Afghanistan's worst suicide bombing in Mazar province, an area previously spared such violence. Six members of parliament and dozens of children are among the dead. A senior Nato commander admits Taliban insurgents were now "better prepared" than they were a year ago

Lest we forget, I, 10.11.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3146457.ece