Hundreds of well-wishers mob Joanna Lumley in Kathmandu on her first visit to Nepal after she helped overturn a government ruling on Gurkha veterans
Posts Tagged ‘Defence policy’
Brown declares first phase of Afghan offensive over
July 27th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Gordon Brown hails success of Operation Panther’s Claw
• David Miliband calls for renewed peace talks
• Soldier killed in explosion named as Bombardier Craig Hopson
Gordon Brown announced today that the first phase of an operation to drive back the Taliban in Helmand province is over.
The announcement came as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, called for “a more coherent effort” to achieve a political solution in Afghanistan by talking to the militants and offering them better alternatives to fighting.
During a constituency visit in Fife, the prime minister said it had been “one of the most difficult summers” since troops went into Afghanistan in 2001, with 20 British service personnel killed in July alone.
He added: “Now that Operation Panther’s Claw has shown that it can bring success and the first phase of that operation is over, it’s time to commemorate all those soldiers who have given their lives and to thank all our British forces for the determination and professionalism and courage that they’ve shown.
“What we’ve done is push back the Taliban ‑ and what we’ve done also is to start to break that chain of terror that links the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the streets of Britain.”
Brown echoed Miliband’s call for talks with more moderate Taliban elements: “Our strategy has always been to complement the military action that we’ve got to take to clear the Taliban, to threaten al-Qaida in its bases, while at the same time we put in more money to build the Afghan forces, the troops, the police.”
Speaking at Nato headquarters in Brussels earlier, the foreign secretary said the insurgency was a loose coalition of the Taliban, tribal groups and warlords with different agendas, and under intensified military pressure on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
He argued that the Afghan government, with outside help, could do more to widen those divisions by reconciling non-ideological elements.
The news came as the latest soldier to be killed in Afghanistan was named today as Bombardier Craig Hopson, who was serving with the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery.
The 24-year-old, from Castleford, West Yorkshire, was killed on Saturday when the Jackal vehicle in which he was travelling was struck by a roadside bomb, the Ministry of Defence said.
He was the 189th British soldier to have died in the country since the start of operations in 2001.
It also emerged today that Afghan authorities have reached a ceasefire with local Taliban fighters in Badhis province, near the north-western border with Turkmenistan.
The government in Kabul said it was prepared to strike more local truces ahead of presidential elections on 20 August.
British officials argue that such deals will only last if they are underpinned by a reconciliation process that offers protection and long-term alternative livelihoods for insurgent fighters.
They said Miliband had chosen to deliver the speech today in part because Britain and Nato were suffering their highest casualties since 2001 and the British public needed to hear a clear strategy. But, they added, it was also a message to the Afghan government that it needed to do more to achieve a political solution.
Miliband said the renewed military efforts against insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan could not end the war on their own. “We need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency, and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan constitution,” he said, in an early text of his speech.
The Afghan government has a reconciliation process that allows insurgents to return to civilian life, but one British official said “it needs to be supercharged and made a priority”.
“The basis for both reintegration and reconciliation is a starker choice: bigger incentives to switch sides and stay out of trouble, alongside tougher action against those who refuse,” Miliband said. “The Afghan government needs effective grass-roots initiatives to offer an alternative to fight or flight for the foot soldiers of the insurgency. Essentially this means a clear route for former insurgents to return to their villages and go back to farming the land, or a role for some of them within the legitimate Afghan security forces.”
Miliband said that for the strategy to work, the new Afghan government elected in August would have to take greater responsibility for providing services and development in villages.
“We talk often about burden-sharing between members of our alliance. But the biggest shift must now be towards the Afghan state taking more responsibility. Because it is only if the political will is there that a meaningful package of incentives and sanctions can be developed to support reconciliation and reintegration,” he said.
President Hamid Karzai is widely tipped to be re-elected in August, but after that he will come under more intense pressure from Britain and other Nato countries with troops in Afghanistan to ensure his government is more efficient and less corrupt.
The key to this, Miliband said, would be the choice of the 34 provincial governors and the 364 district governors, who would have to provide “local governance that is credible, competent and clean, properly resourced and supported from Kabul, and works with the grain of tribal structures and history. It is not possible to overstate the importance of these appointments,” he said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Britain pushes for Afghan peace talks with Taliban
July 27th, 2009 |
No Comments
David Miliband increases pressure for negotiations as Afghanistan agrees provincial ceasefire with militants
The British government today stepped up pressure for talks with more moderate elements of the Taliban as Afghanistan announced its first provincial ceasefire agreement with the militants.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, said the insurgency was “divided”, with many of those fighting against international forces doing so for “pragmatic” rather than ideological reasons.
Speaking at Nato’s headquarters in Brussels, he said the Afghan authorities should offer incentives to persuade insurgents to switch allegiances.
He also called for Britain’s Nato allies to take on a greater share of the military burden in Afghanistan.
Miliband said the insurgents were being squeezed by military operations either side of the Durand line separating Afghanistan from Pakistan.
“From this position, we need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency, and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan constitution.
“The basis for both reintegration and reconciliation is a starker choice: bigger incentives to switch sides and stay out of trouble, alongside tougher action against those who refuse.
“The Afghan government needs effective grass-roots initiatives to offer an alternative to fight or flight for the foot soldiers of the insurgency.
“Essentially this means a clear route for former insurgents to return to their villages and go back to farming the land, or a role for some of them within the legitimate Afghan security forces.”
The ceasefire between authorities and Taliban in the remote north-western Badhis province was agreed on Saturday, near the border with Turkmenistan, the presidential spokesman Seyamak Herawi told Reuters.
He said Afghanistan wanted to make similar deals with the Taliban in other parts of the country ahead of the presidential elections on 20 August.
“As long as the ceasefire holds, the government does not have the intention to attack the Taliban [in Badghis]. And the Taliban can also take part in the elections,” Herawi said.
The Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell told the Commons last year that the UK would support Afghan efforts to reach out to Taliban elements who were “genuinely prepared” to leave the insurgency and engage in the political process.
The US government has increased pressure on Kabul to begin such a process.
July has been the deadliest month for the UK and Nato since operations began in 2001. The Ministry of Defence is expected to name the soldier who died during a vehicle patrol in the Lashkar Gah district of central Helmand province on Saturday morning.
He was from the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery, and the 20th British serviceman to die in Afghanistan this month.
Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, a spokesman for Task Force Helmand, said: “He was one soldier, who was here for one cause, to help the Afghan people.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
MoD contests injured soldier payouts
July 26th, 2009 |
No Comments
Government seeks to overturn ruling that two servicemen who suffered complications should have compensation increased
The government is attempting to deny injured soldiers full compensation for their health problems, it emerged today.
The Ministry of Defence will go to the court of appeal on Tuesday to try to overturn a ruling that two injured servicemen who suffered complications should have their compensation increased.
The MoD is arguing that the pair should be compensated only for the initial injuries and not subsequent health problems, the Sunday Times reports. The appeal follows the ruling of three judges that the injuries should not be treated as being separate from subsequent treatment.
British troops are suffering their heaviest casualties since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan in 2001. A soldier from the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery was killed in an explosion in Lashkar Gah in Helmand province yesterday, the 20th to die this month, bringing the total number of British casualties to 189.
The subjects of the MoD’s appeal are reported to be Anthony Duncan, a soldier with the Light Dragoons who was shot in the left thigh while on patrol in Iraq in September 2005, and Matthew McWilliams, a Royal Marine injured during a training exercise.
After a series of operations to close the wound, Duncan suffered constant pain in his leg and required counselling to deal with “mental anguish” brought on by the injury, the Sunday Times said. He initially received £9,250 in compensation, but he appealed and a tribunal awarded him a lump sum of £46,000 and a guaranteed weekly payment.
McWilliams is said to have been awarded £8,250, which was increased on appeal to £28,750 along with a guaranteed weekly payment because of damage to his knee following surgery.
The MoD confirmed that a high court appeal was in process, and said it was unable to comment on the cases. A spokesman said: “We are committed through the armed forces compensation scheme to paying appropriate compensation to wounded service personnel.”
Last week the former prime minister Sir John Major questioned whether troops were being adequately compensated when injured by Taliban bombs. He said the system “does not adequately address lifelong disability and, particularly, disabling mental conditions”.
Major said the gap between the maximum payment for physical injury of £570,000 and the maximum for mental injury of £48,875 was “too wide”.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
20th UK soldier dies in Afghanistan in a month
July 25th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Serviceman killed by explosion in Helmand province
• Seven Taliban militants die in Khost attack
A British soldier from the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery has been killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.
He was killed on a vehicle patrol in the Lashkar Gah district of central Helmand province.
Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, a spokesman for Task Force Helmand, said: “He was one soldier, who was here for one cause, to help the Afghan people.
“This true hero paid the ultimate sacrifice and his memory will live with us forever. We mourn his loss and our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this very sad time.”
Next of kin have been informed.
He is the 20th British serviceman to die in Afghanistan this month. Since the start of operations in 2001, 189 British service personnel have died.
An MoD spokesman said: “It is with great sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm that a soldier from 40th Regiment Royal Artillery ‘the Lowland Gunners’, attached to the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, has been killed.”
His death comes after the head of the armed forces warned that British troops in Afghanistan faced more tough fighting – and more casualties – in the weeks ahead.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff, said soldiers taking part in the Operation Panther’s Claw offensive had faced an “enormous battle” to break through Taliban defences.
Meanwhile, Taliban fighters today attacked the main police station in the city of Khost, triggering gunbattles that left seven militants dead and four people wounded, officials said.
At least six fighters wearing suicide vests and armed with AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed the area around the police station and a nearby government-run bank. All were shot and killed before they could detonate their explosives, the interior ministry said in a statement.
Another attacker blew up a car near a police rapid reaction force, killing himself and wounding two policemen, the ministry said. A woman and a child were wounded in the banki attack.
A ministry spokesman said all the attackers had been killed, but residents contacted by telephone from Kabul said sporadic firing could still be heard late today.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Reinforcements sent to Afghanistan
July 24th, 2009 |
No Comments
The high number of troops killed and wounded on the battlefield has led defence chiefs to send urgent reinforcements to southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence announced tonight.
In an unprecedented move, 125 personnel, some of them explosives experts, are being flown to Helmand where British forces have suffered the biggest attrition rate since the campaign against the Taliban and other insurgent groups began more than three years ago.
Within the past month, 19 British soldiers have been killed in Helmand and well over a hundred have been wounded, most of them in intensive fighting during Operation Panther’s Claw, a major offensive designed to clear the enemy out of key area.
It is the first time reinforcements have been deployed to replace British casualties in Helmand.
The MoD said that since deploying to Afghanistan in April, 19 Light Brigade has been engaged in a number of high-intensity operations.
“Most recently, Operation Panchai Palang (Panther’s Claw) has seen British forces engaged in hard fighting in an effort to bring security to parts of Helmand previously under Taleban influence,” said the MoD in a statement.
It added: “The operation has been extremely successful, driving fighters out of towns and providing the necessary security that will allow Afghan families to vote in next month’s presidential elections”.
But the statement, rushed out last night, continued: “This intense period has resulted in a significant number of casualties, both due to enemy action and the harsh terrain in which they operate.”
Today’s announcement follows requests by commanders on the ground to enable them to sustain the required operational effectiveness for the remainder of their tour, in particular, through the election period.
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, said: “I have always said that I will listen to the view of commanders on the ground in Afghanistan – they are the people best placed to know the resources needed for that operation. In this case they have told me that, after the sad and tragic casualty rate that we have suffered in recent weeks, reinforcements are necessary to ensure we can maintain our operational tempo and consolidate the real progress we have made.”
He added: “These additional troops will ensure we have sufficient troop levels and, crucially, the right specialist skills in theatre. Many of our brave young men have died fighting to protect our national interest in Afghanistan and I will not allow their sacrifices to have been in vain.”
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said soldiers taking part in the Operation Panther’s Claw offensive had faced an “enormous battle” to break through the Taliban defences.
However, he said they had also inflicted “enormous numbers of casualties” on the enemy in their stronghold in central Helmand province.
“It has been very tough, very hard fighting because Helmand is for the Taliban their vital ground. They are very, very unwilling to give it up,” he told BBC Radio 4′s The World at One.
“This is a tough military campaign, it is far from over, there will be hard fighting to come.
The reinforcements, who will start flying out to Helmand on Monday, will comprise a company from 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington’s), specialist counter improvised explosive devices specialists from 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps, and members of 19th Regiment Royal Artillery. They will deploy for the remainder of the current 19 Light Brigade tour, which is due to end in October when 11 Light Brigade take over.
All of them have received the appropriate training and personal equipment for conducting operations in Afghanistan, the MoD said.
There are 9,000 British troops in Helmand.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Expect more Afghanistan casualties – Ainsworth
July 23rd, 2009 |
No Comments
British troops have killed “significant numbers of fighters and their leaders” in the current offensive in southern Afghanistan, senior military officials said today as Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, warned the public to expect more UK casualties.
Commanders have not yet put figures on the number of dead insurgents, including what are described as “ideological hard core” Taliban or al-Qaida supporters. What is clear is that their aim to hold ground seized along the Helmand river valley north of Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, has been helped decisively by the deployment of some 12,000 US troops.
There are about 9,000 British troops in Helmand, including the 700 initially deployed to provide extra security for the Afghan presidential elections next month, but who will now stay on after defence chiefs applied pressure on Gordon Brown.
General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander in Afghanistan, is due next week to hand Barack Obama his assessment of the conflict and whether more US and Nato troops, notably the UK, should be deployed.
Operation Panther’s Claw is a key test of whether British soldiers, with crucial US help, can hold ground captured from the Taliban and their supporters rather than simply take a village but then have to leave for lack of numbers and resources.
Thirteen British soldiers have been killed in the operation, out of the total of 19 who have died in southern Afghanistan this month.
Christopher King, 20, of the Coldstream Guards, was named as the soldier killed yesterday by an improvised explosive device.
UK defence officials said the British role in Panther’s Claw had helped to restore the “national reputation” in the US of British troops after their controversial withdrawal from Basra in southern Iraq two years ago.
Ainsworth expressed concern that the public were starting to think deaths of British troops in Afghanistan were in vain. He said: “I’m worried there’s an impression we are not moving forward and these sacrifices are being made at a time when we are not making progress.
“Please don’t believe we are going to be able to remove the risk of war and that casualties will stop … When Panther’s Claw draws to a close it doesn’t mean people are going to stop dying. We are holding ground in some of the most treacherous terrain among supremely capable insurgency.”
He said he was “busting a gut” to get more helicopters out to Afghanistan.
A former SAS commander, Aldwin Wight, in an interview with ITV News said tonight: “I talked to a lot of people responsible for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Virtually all of those would argue that they need more [helicopters].”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Biden: More will die in Afghan war
July 23rd, 2009 |
No Comments
• US vice-president says war is in interests of UK and US
• British soldiers among ‘bravest warriors’ in world
More British and American troops will die in Afghanistan, but the war against the Taliban is in the national interests of both countries, the US vice-president, Joe Biden, said today.
Speaking in the deadliest month for British troops since the US-led invasion in 2001, Biden insisted that the current offensive against the Taliban in Helmand province was worth the effort and was a “prerequisite” to get the country ready for presidential elections next month.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4′s Today programme Biden said: “In terms of the national interests of Great Britain and the national interests of the United States and Europe, it is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt and more will come.”
The 19th British serviceman to be killed in Afghanistan this month is expected to be named today.
Biden refused to be drawn into the row over resources – particularly helicopters – for British forces, but he praised British soldiers.
“I think they are among the best trained and the bravest warriors in the world,” he said. “I am not in a position to make a judgment as to whether or not the weapons inventory, the equipment they have, is all they need. I assume it is, I am just not prepared to comment on that.”
With the British government under increasing political pressure as casualties mount, Biden restated the case for Nato’s presence in Afghanistan.
“This is the place from which the attacks of 9/11 and all those attacks in Europe that came from al-Qaida have flowed – between Afghanistan and Pakistan … It is a place that, if it doesn’t get straightened out, will continue to wreak havoc on Europe and the United States.”
Gordon Brown was forced on the defensive yesterday when he said that British deaths were not due to a lack of helicopters. He also rejected Lord Malloch-Brown’s suggestion that the true threat from al-Qaida lay in Somalia and Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
Lord Malloch-Brown, the outgoing Foreign Office minister, told the Daily Telegraph that “we definitely don’t have enough helicopters”, and claimed “mobility” was crucial for the dangerous operations. But in a statement an hour before Brown’s regular Downing Street press conference, Malloch-Brown, who is leaving the government at the end of this week, said his comments had been misunderstood.
After the latest British death was announced last night, Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, spokesman for Task Force Helmand, said: “We share in the pain that is felt by his family, friends and colleagues at the loss of this courageous soldier; our thoughts and prayers are with them.”
Since the start of operations in 2001, 188 British service personnel have died. Many of the deaths this month have come from roadside bombs, prompting criticism that Britain lacks helicopters to transport troops so they can avoid roads and the threat of mines.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Brown: Tories wouldn’t act on recession
July 22nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Prime minister contrasts government action – which will ‘shorten the recession and reduce its impact’ – with the policies of opposition parties
Gordon Brown’s press conference – as it happened
Gordon Brown today accused the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats of planning to “let the recession take its course” as he insisted the government had put a programme in place to weather the economic downturn.
At his monthly press conference in No 10, the last before he leaves London for August, the prime minister claimed “the action we have taken has saved probably half a million jobs from being lost” as he insisted “the government’s action will shorten the recession and reduce its impact”.
He said the great dividing line in British politics was that he was taking action while “the opposition parties would let the recession take its course”. The opposition said no to increasing spending now to tackle the recession, while Labour said yes, Brown said.
His government would be “judged by results” and in recent weeks had put in place conditions for long-term economic success, reforming public services, and promoting the growth of a low-carbon economy, Brown said.
Measures had been introduced, among other things, to ensure tougher regulation of banks, a shake-up of social care and schools, a bill to clean up politics and steps to make Britain the world leader in low emissions vehicles.
“We made a deliberate decision that in a recession you maintain capital spending throughout and spending on infrastructure … The evidence is that that is seeing results.”
No government had faced the two big crises of the economic crisis and the expenses scandal in parliament, Brown said. It was inevitable that people were angry but the government was taking action which would be felt in the longer-term.
“When people see these results and the action has been taken … Then I think people will see very clearly the choice between the parties.”
Some ministers believe Brown needs to be more open about the need for tough decisions on spending in the future ahead of a general election.
But today he said the general election would not be a “referendum” on the government but a choice between parties, and he was confident about the choice voters would make. “It has been a difficult year because we have had to take tough decisions and tough choices.”
Brown said Operation Panther’s Claw in Afghanistan is making “good progress” despite the criticisms of senior military figures and the Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown – hastily retracted today – about the lack of helicopters in Helmand province.
“I am satisfied that Operation Panther’s Claw has the resources it needs to be successful,” Brown said. “For the operation we are doing at the moment we have the helicopters that we need.”
Brown said: “I think the fact that it is making progress at the moment and yielding results already shows that that is the case. I am confident that we will bring this operation to a successful outcome. It is very important to recognise what the commanders are saying on the ground, the increase we have already made in helicopters, and what we are going to do in future months.”
He quoted a commander in Afghanistan who said: “It is a sad fact that helicopters wouldn’t have saved the lives lost last week.”
Britain was the second largest contributor in Afghanistan, Brown said, rejecting claims that he had turned down the military’s request for more troops in March. The number of troops had increased from 8,100 to 9,150, he said.
On swine flu, Brown told reporters that “robust plans” were in place to fight the virus, and measures were being taken in a “calm and organised and ordered way”.
Brown defended the long parliamentary recess, which started today and is not due to end until 12 October, by saying MPs had a duty to listen to their constituents.
Asked how he was going to spend his break, Brown said: “I am looking forward to a holiday with my children, and it will be in this country and not abroad. I want to catch up on a lot of sport because it has been a great summer of sport and I have missed too much of it.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Malloch-Brown makes Afghan helicopter U-turn
July 22nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Minister who claimed machines were scarce now says British troops have ‘without doubt sufficient resources’
A senior government minister was forced to make a humiliating public climbdown today after saying in an interview that British troops lacked enough helicopters in Afghanistan.
The Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown, who is leaving the government at the end of this week, also admitted the public had been inadequately prepared for the US and British offensive in Helmand before the recent rise in casualties.
He told the Daily Telegraph: “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters. When you have these modern operations and insurgent strikes what you need, above all else, is mobility.”
But this morning the peer was forced to issue a embarrassing clarification in which he said that there were “without doubt” sufficient resources in place in Afghanistan.
“On the issue of helicopters in Afghanistan, I was making the point – as the prime minister and commanders on the ground have also done – that while there are without doubt sufficient resources in place for current operations, we should always do what we can to make more available on the frontline.
“I know from my role as FCO minister for Afghanistan that this is a high priority for the prime minister and that there is a huge procurement effort ongoing in the Ministry of Defence to deliver just this.”
In the statement, he said helicopter capability had already increased by 84% over the past two years, and would increase further when the additional Merlin helicopters were deployed into Afghanistan later this year.
Malloch-Brown’s intervention in the row over the lack of helicopters is particularly damaging for the government because his role as Foreign Office minister includes responsibility for Afghanistan.
His comments came as it was confirmed that the 18th British soldier this month had been killed in Afghanistan. Captain Daniel Shepherd, 28, a bomb disposal expert from Lincoln, was killed as he defused a device while on patrol in central Helmand on Monday. A second soldier was injured in the blast.
Defence chiefs asked weeks ago for more troops, and have expressed concern about the lack of helicopters for some time. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the retiring head of the army, said he had “no regrets” at speaking out publicly about soldiers’ needs.
“There is a line which generals speaking publicly should not cross … I don’t believe I crossed it. We may have got quite close, but I will look back over my shoulder with no regrets at three years as chief of the general staff.”
In the Telegraph interview, the peer admitted that the public had not been prepared for the intense fighting in Helmand, a stronghold of the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.
“We didn’t do a good job a month ago of warning the British public that we and the Americans were going on the offensive in Helmand,” the peer said. “This is a new operation; the whole purpose is to win control. These deaths have happened … after we chose to go on the offensive.”
Adding to Gordon Brown’s discomfort, Malloch-Brown conceded that the prime minister’s future looked “bleak”, while also casting doubt on the future of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
Malloch-Brown controversially suggested that the Taliban may have to contribute to a future Afghan government for there to be peace in the region.
Elements of the insurgents’ “support group” may have to be invited back into “the political settlement” as a price of victory, he said.
Professor Michael Clarke, director of the defence thinktank the Royal United Services Institute, said Malloch-Brown’s original comments were an “astonishing” challenge to the government to rethink its Afghanistan strategy.
He told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme the row over helicopters had assumed a “totemic” significance.
“Everyone agrees it would be better if there were more lift helicopters … in Afghanistan because they give you the flexibility to move people around,” he said.
“But on their own, helicopters are no silver bullet for winning wars.”
Clarke added: “It is astonishing to me that Malloch-Brown has said this before he steps down from the government because he seems to be throwing down a challenge, which is to say: ‘We have to rethink our strategic priorities over Afghanistan and what we are trying to achieve there.’
“That is something a number of people have said, but for a government minister to say this at this time is very interesting.”
The chancellor, Alistair Darling, also stepped into the debate over armed forces equipment levels, saying in an interview with Tribune magazine that he had funded all requests from the military.
“The army has said this is what we want in terms of troops and equipment, and we have provided that and financed it … In the face of acute danger in somewhere like Afghanistan, you have to make sure there are sufficient troops and that those troops are sufficiently equipped to do what is asked of them.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Minister admits need for helicopters
July 22nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown weighs into debate, admitting Britain has a shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan
Gordon Brown is likely to face fresh questions over British military resources in Afghanistan today after a senior government minister admitted that troops lacked enough helicopters as it was disclosed that another British soldier had been killed.
The Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown, who is leaving the government at the end of this week, also admitted the public had been inadequately prepared for the US and British offensive in Helmand before the recent rise in casualties.
Adding to Brown’s discomfort, Malloch-Brown conceded that the prime minister’s future looked “bleak”, while also casting doubt on the future of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
The prime minister will come under pressure over the minister’s remarks when he holds his final press conference before the summer recess in Downing Street today.
Lord Malloch-Brown’s intervention in the row over the lack of helicopters is particularly damaging for the government because his role as Foreign Office minister includes responsibility for Afghanistan.
His comments came as it was confirmed that the 18th British soldier this month had been killed in Afghanistan. Captain Daniel Shepherd, 28, a bomb disposal expert from Lincoln, was killed as he defused a device while on patrol in central Helmand on Monday. A second soldier was injured in the blast.
Defence chiefs asked weeks ago for more troops and have expressed concern about the lack of helicopters for some time. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the retiring head of the army, said he had “no regrets” at speaking out publicly about soldiers’ needs.
“There is a line which generals speaking publicly should not cross … I don’t believe I crossed it. We may have got quite close, but I will look back over my shoulder with no regrets at three years as chief of the general staff.”
Malloch-Brown also spoke frankly today about the shortage of equipment, providing political cover for Dannatt.
“We definitely don’t have enough helicopters. When you have these modern operations and insurgent strikes what you need, above all else, is mobility,” he told the Daily Telegraph.
The minister went on to admit that the public had not been prepared for the intense fighting in Helmand, a stronghold of the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.
“We didn’t do a good job a month ago of warning the British public that we and the Americans were going on the offensive in Helmand,” the peer said. “This is a new operation; the whole purpose is to win control. These deaths have happened … after we chose to go on the offensive.”
Lord Malloch-Brown also controversially suggested that the Taliban may have to contribute to a future Afghan government for there to be peace in the region.
Elements of the insurgents’ “support group” may have to be invited back into “the political settlement” as a price of victory, he said.
Professor Michael Clarke, director of the defence thinktank the Royal United Services Institute, said Lord Malloch-Brown’s comments were an “astonishing” challenge to the government to rethink its Afghanistan strategy.
He told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme the row over helicopters had assumed a “totemic” significance.
He said: “Everyone agrees it would be better if there were more lift helicopters … in Afghanistan because they give you the flexibility to move people around.
“But on their own, helicopters are no silver bullet for winning wars.”
Clarke added: “It is astonishing to me that Malloch-Brown has said this before he steps down from the government because he seems to be throwing down a challenge, which is to say ‘we have to rethink our strategic priorities over Afghanistan and what we are trying to achieve there’.
“That is something a number of people have said, but for a government minister to say this at this time is very interesting.”
The chancellor, Alistair Darling, also stepped into the debate over armed forces equipment levels, saying in an interview with Tribune magazine that he had funded all requests from the military.
“The army has said this is what we want in terms of troops and equipment, and we have provided that and financed it … In the face of acute danger in somewhere like Afghanistan, you have to make sure there are sufficient troops and that those troops are sufficiently equipped to do what is asked of them.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Minister admits need for helicopters
July 22nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown weighs into debate admitting Britain has a shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan
A dispute over military resources Afghanistan intensified today when a senior government minister admitted that British troops lacked enough helicopters as it was disclosed that another British soldier had been killed.
Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown – who is leaving the government at the end of this week – also admitted that the public was inadequately prepared for the US and British offensive in Helmand before the recent rise in casualties.
Adding to Gordon Brown’s discomfort, Malloch-Brown conceded that the prime minister’s future looked “bleak,” while also casting doubt on the future of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent. Lord Malloch-Brown’s intervention in the row over the lack of helicopters is particularly damaging for the government because his role as Foreign Office minister includes responsibility for Afghanistan.
His comments came as it was confirmed that the 18th British soldier this month had been killed in Afghanistan and the son of a general had lost a leg fighting in the country. The soldier, a bomb disposal expert, was killed as he defused a device while on patrol in central Helmand on Monday. A second soldier was injured in the blast.
In a separate explosion Captain Harry Parker, 26, son of Lieutenant General Sir Nick Parker, suffered multiple injuries as he led a foot patrol of the 4th Battalion The Rifles on Saturday. He is seriously ill in Selly Oak hospital, Birmingham.
Defence chiefs asked weeks ago for more troops and have expressed concern about the lack of helicopters for some time. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the retiring head of the army, said he had “no regrets” at speaking out publicly about soldiers’ needs.
“There is a line which generals speaking publicly should not cross … I don’t believe I crossed it. We may have got quite close, but I will look back over my shoulder with no regrets at three years as chief of the general staff.”
Malloch-Brown also spoke frankly today about the shortage of equipment, providing political cover for Dannatt.
“We definitely don’t have enough helicopters. When you have these modern operations and insurgent strikes what you need, above all else, is mobility,” he told the Daily Telegraph.
The minister went on to admit that the public had not been prepared for the intense fighting in Helmand, a stronghold of the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.
“We didn’t do a good job a month ago of warning the British public that we and the Americans were going on the offensive in Helmand,” the peer said. “This is a new operation; the whole purpose is to win control. These deaths have happened … after we chose to go on the offensive.”
Lord Malloch-Brown also controversially suggested that the Taliban may have to contribute to a future Afghan government for there to be peace in the region.
Elements of the insurgents’ “support group” may have to be invited back into “the political settlement” as a price of victory, he said.
Chancellor Alistair Darling also stepped in to debate over armed forces equipment levels, saying he had funded all requests from the military in an interview with Tribune magazine.
“The army has said this is what we want in terms of troops and equipment and we have provided that and financed it … in the face of acute danger in somewhere like Afghanistan, you have to make sure there are sufficient troops and that those troops are sufficiently equipped to do what is asked of them.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Over 150 UK casualties in a week in Helmand
July 20th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Figure in addition to 17 soldiers killed this month
• Field hospital has to break rules to treat wounded
Recent fighting in Afghanistan led to a record number of British casualties since the start of the war against the Taliban, with more than 150 badly wounded within a week, defence officials said yesterday.
The figures are in addition to the 17 soldiers killed this month so far. The latest, the victim of a roadside bomb while on foot patrol near Sangin on Sunday, was Corporal Joey Etchells, 22, from 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. It was his third deployment to Afghanistan. He told his local paper, the Oldham Evening Chronicle, last month: “It’s a great job and a big responsibility to have out here, but I really enjoy it. I can’t see myself ever wanting to do anything else.”
His death takes the British toll in Afghanistan since 2001 to 186.
More than 157 soldiers were treated at the field hospital at Camp Bastion in Helmand province last week, according to army medics. Numbers were so high that medics have been forced to break their own rules by accepted more wounded than the hospital is designed to take.
“The last few weeks have been an extremely busy period. There have been injuries like you’ve probably never seen or experienced,” one medic told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, referring to the horrific wounds explosions roadside bombs can inflict.
The latest figures officially published by the Ministry of Defence reveal a significant increase in the number of wounded even before the latest fighting, which has produced the highest recorded so far. Forty-six soldiers were admitted to field hospitals in Afghanistan in June, compared with 24 in May and 11 in April. The figures are to some extent seasonal, they were higher last summer than in the winter.
With more than 150 admitted last week, the next set of official figures will reveal a huge increase over last month’s total.
The MoD’s figures do not give a detailed rundown of the severity and nature of the injuries to British soldiers. But they say that 13 were “very seriously” or “seriously injured” last month, descriptions which include life-threatening injuries and amputations. More than 200 soldiers have suffered such injuries since British forces began their campaign in Helmand three years ago.
Most of the deaths and serious injuries in recent months have been the result of roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices becoming increasingly sophisticated and deadly.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, has said electronic countermeasures and explosives experts are a priority in Helmand along with helicopters.
Commanders have been asking for more helicopters ever since 2006. They would avoid British troops having to make more dangerous tasks by travelling on roads in some missions. But the government argues that helicopters would not have saved those soldiers killed undertaking other missions, such as foot patrols.
Two RAF crew members were being assessed in hospital yesterday after a Tornado jet fighter crashed during takeoff at Kandahar airfield, east of Helmand.
A spokeswoman said the crash was not the result of enemy action.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary general, who retires next week, said last night that, despite the casualties, coalition forces needed to stay.
“If we were to walk away, Afghanistan would fall to the Taliban, with devastating effect for the people there – women in particular,” he said in a speech to the thinktank Chatham House, adding: “Pakistan would suffer the consequences, with all that implies for international security.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More helicopters ‘would save lives’
July 17th, 2009 |
No Comments
Sir Jock Stirrup says military is ‘busting a gut’ to draft more of the vehicles into service
The deployment of more helicopters in Afghanistan would save soldiers’ lives, the head of the armed forces said today.
Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff, said his forces needed as many helicopters as they could get and were “busting a gut” to draft more into service.
His comments came as the British death toll in Afghanistan continued to rise as another soldier was killed in an explosion while on foot patrol.
Speaking in Downing Street after talks with Gordon Brown, Stirrup said: “In this situation where you have lots of improvised explosive devices, the more you can increase your tactical flexibility by moving people by helicopters then the more unpredictable your movements become to the enemy. Therefore it is quite patently the case that you could save casualties by doing that.”
But he warned that helicopters were “not invulnerable either”, adding: “There is no panacea to this problem.”
Asked about the row over whether British forces in Afghanistan had enough helicopters, the air chief marshal said there was “no such thing as enough helicopters in an operational campaign”.
“If you are an operational commander you can always do more and do things better the more helicopters you have,” he went on.
“If I thought we had enough helicopters in Afghanistan frankly we wouldn’t be busting a gut to get the Merlins we had deployed in Iraq ready to go out this time to Afghanistan. We wouldn’t be working as hard as we are to try to get these eight Chinooks that have been sitting on the ground unusable for years into a condition where we can deploy them next year.
“We need as many helicopters out there as we can get.”
Stirrup insisted that the current force size in Afghanistan was a “baseline”.
“We are at 9,000; that is our baseline. After the elections we will see what else we can do.”
He said he had put chief of the general staff Sir Richard Dannatt’s “shopping list” of extra equipment for operations in Afghanistan to Brown during their talks.
“The prime minister was very interested in that and we will be looking at that as a matter of urgency,” he added.
Stirrup said news of the latest British fatality in Helmand province was “extremely sad”.
“We said that this is going to be a hard summer of fighting in Afghanistan, and that is how it is turning out to be. But it is also a very successful summer of fighting,” he said.
“We are taking away from the Taliban some of their vital ground, and they are desperately trying to stop us taking it away from them. And they are failing.”
Downing Street said Dannatt’s recommendations would be looked at “very seriously”.
“There will be an internal process in the Ministry of Defence to look at how these recommendations can be implemented,” a spokesman said.
He added: “Of course we will look at this very seriously.”
The spokesman refused to say how any changes would be funded.
“The recommendations will be looked at by the Ministry of Defence in the normal way and they will look at both the impact on the Ministry of Defence budget and the urgent operational requirements.
“But I’m not at this stage going to make a judgment on where they will be resourced from.”
Stirrup and the prime minister spoke for 40 minutes this morning.
The Downing Street spokesman said it was “entirely normal” that the head of the army should return from Afghanistan with recommendations.
“The chief of the general staff, the chief of the defence staff, the prime minister and government ministers are working very hard to ensure that our troops and commanders on the ground have what they need to ensure they can carry out their operations successfully,” he added.
Dannatt said this morning that a planned reduction in troop numbers from 9,000 after the Afghan elections this year would be the “wrong thing to do”.
“There is a thought out there that, from 9,000 that we are growing up to, that it might come down to 8,300,” he said. “My observation from looking at this operation over the last couple of days is that would be the wrong thing to do.”
He warned that the UK may even have to increase its military presence in Afghanistan if the case for a “short-term uplift” is made by the United States.
General Stanley McChrystal, the new US military commander in Afghanistan, is conducting a review.
Dannatt, who is retiring as chief of the general staff this month, said: “There may well be a case for what I would call a short-term uplift. Let’s not use the ‘surge’ word; that’s sort of been worked to extinction in Iraq previously.
“But there may well be a case – and our government will have to confront it if asked – for about 12 to 18 months while the Afghan national army can get the right strength down here, for us to uplift.
“It would be the right thing in the short term for us to stay at 9,000. Down to 8,300 would be wrong – militarily I’m quite clear about that, and, as a member of the chiefs of staff committee, I couldn’t sign up to that now.”
Lady Taylor, the junior defence minister, said Britain had enough troops in Afghanistan for the task and she was not aware that the armed forces had requested any equipment that the government had not provided.
Speaking on a tour of a BAE Systems munitions factory near Usk, Monmouthshire, Taylor said: “The head of the army has been giving us his views for the last few years while he has been in charge, and we have responded and the Treasury responded to the urgent operational requirements that we need.
“I don’t know of anything that the armed forces have asked for that we’ve not been able to provide by way of equipment. And if you talk to people who are on the frontline on operations they will tell you that the equipment that the British military has is the best that they have ever had in their history.
“We are not complacent. We still want to improve it further because we need to keep developing it to keep one step ahead of everybody else.”
She said troop levels were under “constant review”. “What we have got are the troops we need for the task that we are doing at the moment,” she said.
“It is a difficult phase. We’ve sent extra troops because we know we are in the run-up to the elections and we know that the insurgents are trying to disrupt those elections.”
She said UK forces could share helicopters with their allies in Afghanistan.
“I think there are some simplistic approaches taken sometimes about helicopters, because whilst helicopters are extremely important there are lots of things they can’t do and they can be vulnerable.
“They can’t help if you want to get somewhere quietly at night for a surprise attack. They can’t help you to hold the ground that you have taken and that’s very important in the phase that we are in.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Helicopter shortage ‘risking troops’
July 16th, 2009 |
No Comments
Cross-party Commons defence committee warns that government’s procurement policy could make situation worse
British military operations in Afghanistan are being seriously undermined by the shortage of helicopters, with commanders having to rely on ground transport at greater risk to soldiers, a hard-hitting report by the Commons defence committee concluded today.
The cross-party report is likely to cause ministers severe embarrassment because they have persistently denied that a lack of helicopters is having any adverse impact on operations.
The document warns the problem could get worse as a result of the government’s procurement policy.
“We … are convinced that the lack of helicopters is having adverse consequences for operations today and, in the longer term, will severely impede the ability of the UK armed forces to deploy,” the cross-party MPs said.
“We are concerned that operational commanders in the field today are unable to undertake potentially valuable operations because of the lack of helicopters for transportation around the theatre of operations.
“We are also concerned that operational commanders find they have to use ground transport when helicopter lift would be preferred, both for the outcome and for the protection of our forces.
“Furthermore, we are troubled by the forecast reduction in [the] numbers of medium and heavy lift battlefield helicopters, which will make this worse.”
The Tory leader, David Cameron, questioned Gordon Brown over the lack of helicopters in Afghanistan twice in the Commons this week.
The Conservatives are expected to return to the issue in a debate on Afghanistan today, but Brown yesterday told MPs: “It is not the lack of helicopters that has cost the loss of lives.”
Medium and heavy lift battlefield helicopters are playing an increasingly vital role in current counter-insurgency operations such as those in Afghanistan, and will continue to do so in the future, military analysts have said.
Today’s report criticises the plan to extend the lives of Sea King and Puma aircraft in an attempt to bridge the existing “capability gap”, which, the document says, will exist before the introduction of the Future Medium helicopter “in about 10 years”.
“Given the age of these fleets and the poor survivability of the Puma, extending their lives at considerable cost is not the best option, either operationally or in terms of the use of public money,” it adds.
“The committee does not believe that the planned life extension programmes will provide adequate capability or value for the taxpayer.
“Only a procurement of new helicopters can meet the original objective of reducing the number of types of helicopter in service within the UK armed forces.”
James Arbuthnot, the chairman of the committee, said helicopters were “becoming increasingly relevant to current and contingent operations”.
“It is essential that the fleet should be fit for purpose, both in terms of quality and quantity,” he added.
The committee report describes how the concept of “helicopter capability” depends equally upon manning, equipment, training and support.
It praises the work of helicopter pilots and ground crew, but voices concern over a shortage of manpower and lack of time off between operations.
Britain’s 9,000 troops in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province have fewer than 25 helicopters – 10 Chinooks, five Sea Kings and eight Apache attack aircraft – at their disposal.
The problem has been compounded by the purchase of eight Chinooks from Boeing, which were not fitted to British standards.
Arbuthnot, a former Conservative defence minister, said: “The time has come to appreciate fully the role of helicopters in modern operations. The MoD should seize the opportunity to recognise the importance of helicopters.
“[It should] work towards strengthening all aspects of capability: the number of helicopters in the fleet, the support structure that underpins their operations, manning, both in the air and on the ground, and finally, the training for the full spectrum of capabilities described by the review itself.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Helicopter shortage ‘risking troops’
July 15th, 2009 |
No Comments
Ministers will come under intense pressure tomorrow over their handling of Britain’s military operations in Afghanistan when an influential committee of MPs challenges Gordon Brown’s insistence that a lack of helicopters has not cost lives.
With General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, openly calling for more “boots on the ground”, the Commons defence select committee is expected to rush out a damning report that is likely to say the shortage of helicopters has increased the danger to British soldiers
The report’s publication is being speeded up in time for a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan and the prime minister’s appearance in front of the liaison committee of MPs. The shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, has been criticising Brown for cutting the helicopter budget by £1.4bn in 2004.
The committee will say that the lack of helicopters has restricted the ability of British forces to undertake potentially valuable operations. It will also reject claims that an increase in flying hours overcomes the problems, as a helicopter can only be in one place at one time. The report will also suggest that a larger helicopter fleet would allow forces to undertake operations by flight rather than on more dangerous operations by foot.
The committee will challenge the Whitehall decision to renovate old Puma and Sea King helicopters, arguing that it would have been better to buy new Merlin helicopters that would have cost little more and been available sooner. Overall the report will claim the government is planning to cut the number of helicopters by as many as 100 by 2020.
The MPs strongly criticised the lack of helicopters in hearings leading to tomorrow’s report. They said they had heard that on visits to Afghanistan “every brigade commander in Helmand has lamented the lack of sufficient helicopters”.
Today it emerged that Dannatt is being flown around Afghanistan in an American Black Hawk helicopter. “If I moved in an American helicopter, it’s because I haven’t got a British helicopter,” he said.
Challenged over the shortage of helicopters in the Commons today by David Cameron, the prime minister referred to the recent high death toll in a big offensive against Taliban fighters.
“I think that we should look at this particular operation, Operation Panther’s Claw, and be absolutely clear that it is not an absence of helicopters that has cost the loss of lives,” he said.
Lord Guthrie, former chief of the defence staff, told the Guardian that it was disingenuous of the government to say British forces had enough helicopters in Afghanistan. He has said fewer British soldiers would have died if they had more helicopters.
Asked whether a shortage of helicopters was putting soldiers’ lives at risk, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the army, told the BBC: “If a commander wanted to make a manoeuvre by air and couldn’t because there weren’t available helicopters and was forced therefore to do it on the ground against his own judgment, then yes, that would arguably be the case.”
Dannatt further increased pressure on the government by saying more “boots on the ground” were key to success in Helmand and that he would like to see “more energy” put into speeding up the supply of equipment to British troops.
Asked whether they have the equipment they need, he said: “It has probably not moved as fast as I would have liked … but we are increasing the numbers.”
He said: “We can have effect where we have boots on the ground. I don’t mind whether the feet in those boots are British, American or Afghan, but we need more to have the persistent effect to give the people confidence in us. That is the top line and the bottom line.”
Brown said at prime minister’s questions that President Hamid Karzai had acceeded to his request to send more Afghan troops to Helmand province to back up UK and US forces. The prime minister’s spokesman also indicated more strongly than before that the British troop presence is likely to remain at the current higher number of 9,000 troops after the Afghan preisdential elections, and that the extra troops will be detailed to train the growing Afghan army and police.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Act now over Afghanistan, says Cameron
July 15th, 2009 |
No Comments
Tory leader says the government should act to reduce the number of lives lost in war against Taliban
David Cameron today told Gordon Brown he had to provide more leadership to reduce the numbers of British lives lost in Afghanistan.
In the last prime minister’s question time before the summer recess, the Conservative leader said the government should “show greater urgency and make more visible progress” in Afghanistan and said forces needed a more tightly defined mission.
This month 15 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan, taking the death toll to 184, more than that of the Iraq war.
Cameron also accused the government of failing to provide enough helicopters. He told Brown: “The number of helicopters we have in Afghanistan is simply insufficient.” Britain had fewer than 30 in Helmand while the Americans, with similar numbers of troops, had 100.
But as he and Cameron traded quotes by military figures on the issue, Brown said: “We have done everything we can to increase the numbers of helicopters and there will be more helicopters on the ground … While the loss of life is tragic and sad, it is not to do with helicopters.” The budget for helicopters was £6bn over the next 10 years.
The prime minister added: “The purpose of our mission is very clear: to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain.”
Brown said that Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, had responded favourably to his request that the Kabul government provide more police and soldiers in Helmand. “President Karzai has promised that he will provide additional resources to do that.” After October, Britain will provide more training to the Afghan security services, he said.
The head of the British army said earlier today that more coalition troops were needed in Helmand to provide the security for its people to go back to their ordinary lives.
General Sir Richard Dannatt said that “more boots on the ground” were key to success in Helmand, though he stressed that it did not matter whether they belonged to British, American or Afghan troops.
At PMQs, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, accused Brown of promising lots but doing nothing on bankers’ bonuses, the recession and cleaning up parliament. It was just “business as usual”, Clegg said.
Brown said the opposition parties should go away over the summer and reflect on why they had no policies to deal with the big issues facing Britain.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
PM demands more troops from Kabul in Helmand
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
PM says Afghan soldiers must hold ground taken by British forces
Gordon Brown has told the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, to put more Afghan troops into Helmand province immediately to make sure the costly territorial gains made by UK forces are not lost and British soldiers do not die in vain.
Amid mounting political pressure on the government over the sharp rise in British fatalities this month, Brown issued his demand to Karzai in a phone conversation on Sunday after talks with the US president, Barack Obama.
Less than 10% of the 80,000-strong Afghan army are stationed in Helmand even though 50% of the fighting is being conducted in the Taliban stronghold.
British forces have been repeatedly frustrated that they capture vital ground only for it to be ceded within months due to the lack of Afghan soldiers to move in and take control. There are only 500 Afghan troops involved in the British Operation Panther’s Claw in Helmand province.
Brown said bluntly he wanted to see “a very substantial increase” in Afghan troop numbers.
He also gave a strong indication that the British presence will remain at the current figure of just over 9,000 troops, or might even increase after the Afghan presidential elections in August and a US-led 60-day review of the entire Nato Afghan strategy. Britain is also temporarily sending an extra 140 soldiers from Cyprus.
The US-led review is likely to see General Stanley A McChrystal, the new senior commander in Afghanistan, recommend that the Afghan army will have to grow even faster than the planned expansion from 85,000 to 134,000, which was initially expected to take five years but now fast-tracked for completion by 2011.
US marines, currently deploying to Helmand, have been struck by the lack of support from the Afghan army.
The Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown recently highlighted the UK’s concern, saying: “We need to look at some slightly out-of-the-box solutions to supplement the numbers we have who are willing to protect communities from Taliban activity.”
There is also a growing worry that the presidential election in August will fall way short of a democratic poll, with some observers fearing ballot rigging that will make the recent Iranian elections look like a model of western democracy.
In a Commons statement today, Brown brushed aside Conservative and Liberal Democrat claims that British troops are dying due to insufficient troop numbers or resources. He said: “It has been a very difficult summer and it is not over yet but if we are to deny Helmand to the Taliban in the long term, if we are to defeat this insurgency, and by doing so make Britain and the world a safer place, then we must persist with our operations in Afghanistan … I am confident that we are right to be in Afghanistan, that we have the strongest possible plan.”
But a Populus poll for ITV’s News at Ten found 75% of the population believe that the troops are inadequately supplied and equipped for the war.
The Tories claim there is a shortage of helicopters and blame Brown for cutting the helicopter budget by £1.4bn in 2004.
It was noticeable that the Tories reined back on some of their rhetoric today, but the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, said the government strategy was “over-ambitious and under-resourced”.
Brown said the British military had told him that they had sufficient troops for current operational requirements. He also denied that any helicopter shortfall had led to the recent British deaths.
Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, an army spokesman, offered Downing Street a measure of support, saying: “You could put as many helicopters as you wanted in here, but sadly at the end of the day troops have to go on the ground. You cannot defeat the enemy from a helicopter.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
UK revokes licences for Israeli navy guns
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
Exports of spare parts halted in response to Gaza Strip attacks in December-January
Britain has revoked export licences for weapons on Israeli navy missile boats because of their use during the offensive against the Gaza Strip.
The licences apparently covered spare parts for guns on the Sa’ar 4.5 ships, which reportedly fired missiles and artillery shells into the Palestinian coastal territory during the three-week war, which started in late December.
Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, shrugged off what he called one of “many embargoes”. The foreign office in London insisted the rare move did not constitute an embargo but was the application of normal UK and EU export licensing criteria. Still, it linked the decision directly to Operation Cast Lead – the Israeli codename for the attacks – and described it as similar to action taken against Russia and Georgia after their conflict last year.
A spokesman for Amnesty International, citing the “weight of evidence” that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza, said: “It’s a step forward but it doesn’t go nearly far enough.”
Israel’s defence ministry made no comment but Lieberman told state radio: “We’ve had many embargoes in the past. This shouldn’t bother us.”
Israel gets the bulk of its military requirements from the US, more than 95% according to some estimates. The UK accounts for less than 1% or about £30m worth of exports a year.
The decision came after a review of UK defence exports to Israel announced in April by David Miliband, the foreign secretary. Israel’s London embassy ascribed the revocation of the licences to pressure from MPs and human rights organisations, the Ha’aretz newspaper reported.
Israeli officials confirmed the UK had reviewed 182 export licences, including 35 for exports to the navy. It decided to cancel five, all relating to spare parts for Sa’ar weapons. The arms involved include anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, cannons and heavy machine guns.
Israel launched its Gaza attack after the expiry of a ceasefire put in place to halt the firing of missiles into Israel, and as part of a strategy to weaken the Islamist movement Hamas. More than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
Ha’aretz said the British decision was not expected to have any impact on the navy’s operational capability. But it added: “It has great political significance and could encourage other countries to halt defence exports to Israel. The country considered most likely to be next is Belgium, which sells Israel equipment used to disperse demonstrations.”
Amnesty had previously highlighted Britain’s role in supplying engines for Hermes drone aircraft. In another report this month, it detailed how Israeli forces killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of homes in attacks that breached the laws of war.
“Amnesty has uncovered evidence of war crimes committed by both sides in the conflict,” it said. “We are calling on all countries to suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions, to Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups until there is no longer a substantial risk that it will be used for serious violations of human rights.
“We will also be monitoring closely to ensure that the UK does not renege on its promises. In the past we have seen a tightening of restrictions against Israel in the wake of a major offensive, only for them to be loosened again once the issue falls out of the public eye.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Grandmother brings war home
We must debate and define our objectives in the increasingly disastrous fight against the Taliban
A grandmother’s piercing cry as the coffin of her grandson moved in front of her sounded of more than the anguish of one family. It heralded, I believe, the end of the government’s current strategy in Afghanistan.
The grandmother’s cry, which was carried on the news broadcast two weeks ago, has done more than all the groups campaigning against the British strategy in what Neville Chamberlain would have called a “faraway country”. The intensity and drama of the pain has made the bringing back of soldiers’ bodies a media and hence a political event of real significance.
What began as a politically thought-out campaign to overthrow a Taliban government has become a war that dictates the politics. Putting the politics back into the war is urgent.
Tony Blair managed, as usual, to confuse the issue. A new government that did not support or give cover to al-Qaida was required. The Taliban government was overthrown by invading forces.
This key issue of a non-supporting al-Qaida government was wrapped up in the most daring of liberal agendas. The war was also being fought for the equality of women; although that is a goal that is yet to be fully achieved in our own country.
The Taliban-enforced inequality is symbolically represented by the burka. But what can those soliders make of this kind of campaign when we allow such symbols to reign in some areas of our own country?
The most urgent task is to give our troops the very best equipment, including helicopters, pilots and more troops, but this must only be a holding operation.
Politics must now come to the fore. How much longer can we go on supporting a corrupt government that cannot even deliver order? Sooner rather than later we need to talk to the Taliban.
There is a huge difference between our wish to impose a western-type democracy of Afghanistan and of the political tradition of that country being able to respond positively. The one objective on which we should have majored is a Taliban that would attack al-Qaida as effectively as they have been fighting us.
We owe it to those Afghans who have supported us to take some time in letting them know that a change in policy might be on the way. They must be given the chance to make their own deals long before we cut and run.
Those chilling pictures of the South Vietnamese struggling to get on the last helicopters leaving Saigon are a reminder of how a withdrawal should not be accomplished.
Those who criticise this idea argue that the front line in fighting al-Qaida is clearly drawn in Afghanistan. I agree with them. The debate, however, has to be how we defend that line.
How many more coffins will have to come home before the political class realise that our strategy is losing this very war?
The chief of staff should argue rigorously for resources. But it should be the politicians who dictate the politics of the wars. At the moment the two sides are playing out each other’s role.
In another context the poet RS Thomas wrote of nailing our doubts to an untenanted cross. That single piercing cry of pain from one grandmother has ensured that a growing concern about the war is now being nailed to that cross. It cannot be long before British politics responds to the sounds that nailing.
www.frankfield.co.uk