The EU foreign-policy chief has criticized the arrest in Belarus of members of an ethnic Polish organization, condemning police action against the group. Catherine Ashton said in a statement she was “disappointed by the recent arrests of 40 members of the Union of Poles (UPB) and other civil-society representatives in Belarus.”
Posts Tagged ‘Foreign policy’
UK and US ready to talk to Taliban
July 28th, 2009 |
No Comments
A concerted effort to start unprecedented talks between Taliban and British and American envoys was outlined yesterday in a significant change in tactics designed to bring about a breakthrough in the attritional, eight-year conflict in Afghanistan.
Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with “second-tier” local leaders now the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.
They are hoping that Britain’s continuing military presence in Helmand, strengthened by the arrival of thousands of US troops, will encourage Taliban commanders to end the insurgency. There is even talk in London and Washington of a military “exit strategy”.
Speaking at the end of the five-week Operation Panther’s Claw in which hundreds of British troops were reported to have cleared insurgents from a vital region of Helmand province, Lieutenant-General Simon Mayall, deputy chief of defence staff, said: “It gives the Taliban ‘second tier’ room to reconnect with the government and this is absolutely at the heart of this operation.”
The second tier of the insurgency are regarded as crucial because they control large numbers of Taliban fighters in Pashtun-dominated southern Afghanistan. The first tier of Taliban commanders – hardliners around Mullah Omar – could not be expected to start talks in the foreseeable future. The third tier – footsoldiers with no strong commitments – are not regarded as influential or significant players.
The change in tactics was revealed as the Ministry of Defence announced that two more British soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan. One, from the Light Dragoons, was on patrol in Operation Panther’s Claw; the other, a soldier from the Royal Artillery, was killed on foot patrol in Sangin. Ten soldiers have died in Operation Panther’s Claw.
Mayall is responsible for formulating operational policy in Afghanistan and his remarks gave added weight to interventions by senior ministers yesterday.
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, yesterday held out the prospect of reconciliation between the Afghan government and Taliban fighters prepared to renounce violence.
For more than a year, British intelligence officers have been instigating contacts with Taliban commanders and their entourage. But their task has been very delicate given the sensitivities of the Karzai administration in Kabul.
The situation has been complicated further by the influx of hardline and ideologically motivated fighters joining the Taliban and other insurgent groups from across the Pakistani border.
But the fact that senior ministers and military commanders seized on the apparent success of Operation Panther’s Claw to highlight the possibility of talks with the Taliban reflects their concern about the lack of progress so far in Nato’s counter-insurgency. Significantly, and as if to counter public aversion to talks with the Taliban, ministers and military commanders alike compared the current campaign in southern Afghanistan to anti-terrorist operations in Northern Ireland.
A ComRes poll in today’s Independent suggests most people now believe British troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan. Most of those who responded (58%) said the Taliban could not be defeated militarily, and 52% of those surveyed said troops should be withdrawn immediately. This compares with a Guardian/ICM poll earlier this month which showed that 42% of those surveyed wanted troops to be withdrawn immediately.
America’s priorities in Afghanistan will be spelled out in a briefing paper drawn up by General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander in the country, due to be handed to Barack Obama tomorrow.
He will emphasise the need for speeding up the training of Afghan troops, according to defence sources. He is also expected to ask for more troops from Nato allies. British military commanders are drawing up contingency plans to increase the number of British forces to more than 10,000 from the current 9,000.
Asked whether he needed more troops, Brigadier Tim Radford, commander of British troops in Helmand, replied: “I have enough forces to do what I set out to do in Panther’s Claw.”
The number of British troops that might be deployed in future was “out of my hands”, he said. But he added that as the number of Afghan army recruits increased, the number of Nato forces required to train them also increased.
Miliband’s call for talks with more moderate Taliban elements was echoed later by Gordon Brown, who said: “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.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
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
MPs call for talks with Hamas
July 26th, 2009 |
No Comments
Commons foreign affairs committee says policy of non-engagement is achieving little
The government is facing fresh calls today from MPs to open contacts with the militant Palestinian Hamas movement in an attempt to inject new momentum into the Middle East peace process.
The Commons foreign affairs committee said the current policy of non-engagement with Hamas – which controls the Gaza strip – appeared to be achieving little.
It reiterated its call of two years ago for the government to “urgently” consider ways of engaging politically with “moderate elements” within the group.
The government refuses to talk to Hamas until it accepts the principles of the international Quartet – the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia – of non-violence and acceptance of the existence of the state of Israel.
“There continues to be few signs that the current policy of non-engagement is achieving the Quartet’s stated objectives,” the committee said.
“We further conclude that the credible peace process for which the Quartet hopes, as part of its strategy for undercutting Hamas, is likely to be difficult to achieve without greater co-operation from Hamas itself. We are concerned that the Quartet is continuing to fail to provide Hamas with greater incentives to change its position.”
The committee contrasted the government’s continued unwillingness to talk to Hamas with its decision to open contacts with the political wing of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It criticised both Hamas and Israel over the Gaza conflict at the end of last year, accusing Hamas of targeting civilians in its rocket attacks on Israel while describing the Israeli military action as “disproportionate”.
The committee also condemned Israel’s continuing refusal to allow unrestricted humanitarian access to the Gaza Strip.
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
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
Mother of Iraq hostage speaks
July 17th, 2009 |
No Comments
Avril Sweeney, whose son Peter Moore was abducted in 2007, wants high-profile Foreign Office campaign for his release
The mother of a British man held hostage in Iraq for more than two years has called on the Foreign Office to launch a high-profile campaign pressing for the release of her son and his fellow captives, expressing frustration at the government’s low-key approach.
Avril Sweeney, 53, said she had argued with the Foreign Office over its insistence of minimal publicity around the continued imprisonment of Peter Moore and two of his security guards, even after the bodies of two other guards were dumped in Baghdad last month.
“I’ve had arguments with the Foreign Office, I have felt frustrated,” said Sweeney, who describes the hostages as “forgotten men”. “They [the Foreign Office] wanted us to keep everything so low-key but that didn’t feel right to me. But if someone gets kidnapped abroad you have to rely on them [and] hope that they are doing the right thing.”
Moore, 35, an IT specialist, is being held along with two men who have not been officially named. The bodies of Jason Cresswell, 39, and Jason Swindlehurst, 38, were handed to the British embassy in Baghdad on 19 June. Both had been shot weeks or months before.
“After I found out that the two Jasons were dead, it did panic me,” said Sweeney. “But when I had a chance to calm down and reason about why the terrorists would do this, I thought in their culture this is probably a goodwill gesture to give the bodies back to their families. It’s not our culture but it was a goodwill gesture.”
Sweeney, from Blackpool, added: “But it made me think, I have had enough of this, I’ve got to get a message to him.”
Her message is simple: “Peter, you’ve never been forgotten.
“No one’s ever forgotten you. Peter, if you see this message, hopefully we will be seeing you soon.”
On Wednesday 29 May 2007, Moore was installing computer software at the finance ministry in Baghdad that would help track billions of dollars that were unaccounted for. Up to 100 men raided the offices, abducting Moore and four British security guards.
It is believed that for the past two years the men have been held separately with no contact with each other.
From the start, the Foreign Office insisted on a low-profile approach, refusing to release the names of the hostages. A high media profile was “no guarantee of success and there are often grounds to think it can worsen the situation”, according to an official.
Sweeney described her son as “a big guy” who “likes his food” and she was shocked by the first video of him, released by his kidnappers 10 months after his capture. “He looked absolutely terrible. He had lost so much weight. He had big black rings around his eyes. He looked really awful.”
A more recent video sent to the British embassy in Baghdad in May reassured his mother. “On it, he looks great. He has put on weight … and he says we are all coming home soon.”
His mother thinks he will cope with whatever he has to face. “Peter won’t go to pieces. I think after the initial shock he would be intelligent and strong enough to pull himself through. I don’t know how he is coping over the last two years but he is strong and clever. He will be strong enough to bear it.
“I still feel he will be released. How long, I don’t know. Terrorists don’t have time limits, do they? They can wait and wait until they get what they want. I don’t know if it matters what the Foreign Office does, it doesn’t matter what the media do. The only time they will be freed is when they want to do it, I suppose.”
Moore was born when Sweeney was 18, the son of a troubled and soon-to-be estranged marriage. Sweeney remarried, but that relationship ended too, and she moved out of the family home when Peter was 12. Mother and son have not lived together since.
“He was 12, he had his friends, he was happy at school, he didn’t want to leave and come with me,” she said. “He was a very independent boy. A very strong and independent boy and that’s what I think will help him through all this.”
Moore was then raised by his step-parents, Pauline and Patrick Sweeney, who have also appealed publicly through the BBC for his release.
Sweeney remembers her son as having an early aptitude with computers. “He got his first job in computers working for an American lady who opened a computer shop in Lincoln. I remember her saying how brilliant he was at the computer thing. So he had to go off and get his qualifications.”
Moore was also an adventurer, signing up for the Voluntary Service Overseas, which sent him to Guyana to work in the IT department of a college of education.
Periodically he would turn up at Sweeney’s home on his motorbike. “One Easter, he turned up at my door in his big black helmet, black leather jacket and frightened the life out of me. He stands there like Schwarzenegger, takes his helmet off , and I just said well come on then, let’s go for a ride, and that was it. He loves his motorbike. It is a big thing for him. He was very much a free spirit.”
Additional reporting by Guy Grandjean and Mona Mahmoud
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
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
General urges bigger Helmand force
July 15th, 2009 |
No Comments
General Sir Richard Dannatt says success in Helmand can only be achieved with more British, US or Afghan troops
The head of the British army said that more coalition troops were needed in the Afghan province of 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.
Dannatt, paying his last visit to Afghanistan before retiring later this month, also said he would like to see “more energy” put into speeding up the provision of equipment to UK troops.
He was transported around Afghanistan by a US Black Hawk helicopter from a pool of resources shared by British and American forces, and said it was important that the UK was able to put as much into that pool as it took out.
“I have said before, 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 [of Helmand] confidence in us,” Dannatt told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.
In the town of Sangin, the scene of fighting between British troops and the Taliban over recent years, control had been imposed to such an extent that local people were willing to bring their goods to what is now a bustling market, he said. That could only be maintained by a security presence on the ground.
Asked whether Britain’s 9,100-strong force in Afghanistan has the equipment it needs, Dannatt said: “We have got a plan to increase the amount of campaign equipment we have got. It has probably not moved as fast as I would have liked it to have moved, but we are increasing the numbers.
“I would like to get more energy behind it if we possibly can.”
Noting that he was being transported in a US helicopter, Dannatt said: “There is a pool and we share the assets, but we have got to put as much into the pool as we take out.
“We are reworking a number of Chinook helicopters – eight – which will come on line soon, and a number of Merlins that were previously in Iraq … Air mobility is a key enabler and I know the commanders need a lot of that.”
After 15 British deaths so far this month in Afghanistan, Dannatt said it was “a sad fact and part of reality” that casualties would occur during operations to tackle the Taliban insurgency.
“Of course, we do the absolute maximum we can to protect our people and give them as good equipment as we can, but we are pushing to increase our influence and increase the number of people who are exposed to our influence,” he said. “When we push, inevitably there is a possibility of taking casualties.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Pride and anger for dead soldiers
July 15th, 2009 |
No Comments
Prime minister’s absence criticised by onlookers
The eight soldiers killed in the most deadly 24 hours of British operations in Afghanistan were repatriated today amid emotional scenes before hundreds of onlookers in a Wiltshire market town.
The bodies of the men, including three 18-year-olds, were driven in a cortege along a packed high street in Wootton Bassett, whose residents have borne witness over the last two years to the increasing bloodshed in Afghanistan.
The bodies were brought home in front of a guard of honour formed by colleagues and veterans as the government announced said 140 troops from the 2nd Battalion Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, currently based in Cyprus, would be deployed to Helmand province to join the Operation Panther’s Claw offensive under way against the Taliban. A 700-strong battalion deployed to Afghanistan as reinforcements to bolster security before the presidential elections next month is also expected to remain there longer as part of the government’s review of the British military presence in the country.
As the tenor bell of St Bartholomew’s church tolled to mark their return, the assembled townspeople fell silent to witness the human cost of the recent hand-to-hand combat in Helmand, which the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, has said is unavoidable if the British military are to rout the Taliban.
The hearses passed one by one, each with a coffin tightly bound in a union flag. At one point, the silence was broken by the family of Corporal Jonathan Horne, 28, who was killed by a roadside bomb near Sangin as he tried to rescue his comrades from an earlier blast. Horne’s brother, Andy Lowe, 25, ran out with members of his family and friends to the hearse. They threw red roses on top and one said: “Love you, man.” “At the back of my mind, I always feared it could be JJ, but I didn’t want to think about it,” Lowe said. “All I was thinking about was when he was due to come home in a few weeks and going down town for a couple of drinks.”
Flowers were tossed from rooftops and the roadside and a football shirt was thrown on to another hearse as a ripple of applause spread through the crowd. When the cortege moved on, the tears came. Group after group were huddled together, eyes filled with tears, saying very little, only to comfort the most grief stricken.
Eight families were grieving and many more friends too.
Rifleman James Backhouse, 18, had been due to return home on leave today to his family in West Yorkshire. The family of Rifleman William Aldridge, 18, who died in a roadside blast, sat beneath homemade bunting carrying his picture and the words “Our lad”.
Rifleman Joseph Murphy, 18, was killed carrying Rifleman Daniel Simpson, 20, away from a blast. Corporal Lee Scott, 26, died in an explosion on the same day just north of Nad-e-Ali. Private John Brackpool, 27, was shot at Char-e-Anjir, near Lashkar Gah, while on sentry duty and Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22, was killed in an explosion while on foot patrol.
The day had begun at noon, when the C17 cargo plane bearing the coffins flew low over the cemetery of St Michael and the Angels at Lyneham, home of the RAF base, before banking to complete a flypast above Wiltshire and Oxfordshire, where country pubs flew flags at half-mast.
Waiting in the VIP area of the base were the families. There was time for a moment of private grief in the chapel of rest before a more public repatriation in Wootton Bassett.
The hearses that today crawled down the high street brought to 184 the number of British troops killed, more than the death toll in Iraq. Veterans, uniformed soldiers, leather-clad bikers and the general public were touched by anger and pride. There was anger at the age of the soldiers dying and the absence of a government minister to see them return, and pride at the servicemen’s role in a war to tackle terrorism.
David Sinclair, 20, a shopworker from Maidenhead, came to see his schoolfriend, Rifleman Dan Hume, be repatriated.
“The age of the soldiers dying is sickening,” he said. “This shouldn’t be about money. They have not been given the proper equipment. We shouldn’t be in this war in the first place, but now we are there, we have to sort out what we are doing.”
“Gordon Brown has never met a coffin off a plane,” said John Lawton, 42, a former corporal in the Royal Green Jackets.
“It is his lot that sent us there and he couldn’t even be bothered to come to see them back. Bush has met coffins, Obama has met coffins, but this has become an embarrassment for the government.”
Helena Tym, 48, the mother of Cyrus Thatcher, a 19-year-old rifleman who was killed by a roadside bomb in Helmand six weeks ago, said she felt pride as well as grief in her loss.
“This turnout shows it’s not just us as families that feel that, but also the whole nation,” she said.
“As soon as you hear that awful sentence on the TV news ‘the family has been informed’, you know how they feel. It just hurts all over again.”
Thatcher’s father, Robin, 49, said he believed in the war, but the increasing numbers of dead should force a rethink of tactics. “It may take these eight deaths for Gordon Brown to think something should be done,” he said.
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
PM defends Afghanistan policy
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
Prime minister says helicopter capacity has doubled over last two years, but David Cameron disputes this
Gordon Brown today delivered a robust defence of government policy in Afghanistan amid signs that the cross-party consensus on the issue is starting to break down.
In a statement to the Commons, the prime minister said that helicopter capacity in Afghanistan had almost doubled over the last two years and that commanders on the ground were satisfied that they had the manpower they needed.
But David Cameron, the Tory leader, said that in reality there had been “no increase in helicopter capacity at all” because the number of troops in Afghanistan who needed them had doubled since 2006.
Ministers have faced a barrage of complaints following the death of eight soldiers within 24 hours at the end of last week, which took the death toll in Afghanistan above the total for the number of British soldiers killed in the Iraq war.
The Tories and the Liberal Democrats support the Afghan mission, but they have been increasingly critical of the way it is being conducted.
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, told MPs that they should “try to make the maximum contribution to maintaining cross-party support” for what the troops were doing. But, during defence questions, several Labour MPs criticised the Tories for supposedly playing politics with the issue.
In his statement, Brown said that in the last two years the government had increased helicopter numbers by 60% and, taking into account the provision of extra crews and equipment, helicopter capacity had increased by 84%.
On troop levels, he said: “I have been assured by commanders on the ground and at the top of our armed services that we have the manpower we need for current operations.”
He said that three quarters of terrorist plots against the UK originated from the area around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that the case for intervention in Afghanistan now was the same as it was in 2001: “to prevent terrorist attacks here in Britain and across the world”.
He also said that he had been assured that Operation Panther’s Claw, the ongoing operation in Helmand, was having “a major impact on the Taliban” and the morale of British forces was “high”.
But, replying to the prime minister, Cameron said that “more needs to be done to set out and explain” British policy in Afghanistan. He also pointed out that, when Brown was chancellor in 2004, the Ministry of Defence’s helicopter budget had been cut by £1.4bn.
Earlier today, at the launch of a Tory policy document, Cameron described the lack of suitable helicopters in southern Afghanistan as “an extreme emergency”.
Cameron said: “The government made a historic mistake with a cutback of the helicopter programme, and they did it at a time when our troops were engaged both in Iraq and Afghanistan … In these conflicts, mobility is absolutely key.
“You have got to commit the resources so that they can do the job properly. The other thing we should do is [make] much more effort to go to every single Nato country and really hold their feet to the fire about why their helicopters are not there.
“If you do a desktop search on how many helicopters and troop-carrying helicopters different Nato countries have, you come up with a very significant number. When you see what’s actually in Afghanistan, it is a much less significant number.”
Cameron said that many of those helicopters would be “being repaired, being mended, deployed elsewhere, but I would like to see a real effort by the government to get around every single Nato capital and put a maximum amount of pressure on to beg, borrow or, frankly, steal those helicopters that are necessary for our troops in Afghanistan”.
Earlier today, Ainsworth accompanied Gordon Brown on a visit to the RAF Benson helicopter base, in Oxfordshire.
They met the chief of staff, personnel and families and were briefed on the timeline for the planned deployment of Merlin helicopters in Afghanistan at the end of the year.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Cameron: helicopter deficit is scandal
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
Conservative leader’s comments come as poll reveals backing for British involvement in war has grown
David Cameron today said it was a “scandal” that the British army did not have enough helicopters to transport troops around Afghanistan.
Speaking as a new poll suggested that the growing British casualty rate had not increased public hostility to the conflict, the Conservative leader said the government should deal with the helicopter problem “as a matter of urgency”.
Cameron will have the chance to challenge Gordon Brown on the issue when the prime minister makes a statement to the Commons, which will cover the latest deaths in Afghanistan, later today.
In a speech on international aid today, the Tory leader said the government should supply British troops with more equipment.
“Of course we must do that – it is a scandal in particular that they still lack enough helicopters to move around in Afghanistan,” he added.
“The government must deal with that issue as a matter of extreme urgency.”
Research carried out as news broke of the deaths of eight soldiers in 24 hours – taking the British death toll in Afghanistan to more than that in Iraq – revealed support for the war remained firm and backing for British involvement had grown.
The poll of 1,000 showed that people appear reluctant to turn against a conflict while soldiers are fighting and dying on the front line, and the increasingly high-profile nature of the war appears to have strengthened public backing.
Opposition to the war, at 47%, is just ahead of support, at 46%, according to the ICM poll for the Guardian and the BBC’s Newsnight.
Backing for Britain’s role in the conflict has grown since the last time an ICM poll was conducted on the subject in 2006.
It is up 15 points from 31%, while opposition has fallen over the same period by six points from 53%.
The poll also showed that 42% are in favour of the immediate withdrawal of British troops, and a further 14% want them home by the end of the year. These figures are almost identical to the results in 2006.
A further 36% want troops to stay as long as they are needed – again a similar proportion to 2006, when British casualties were lower.
The findings came as ministers drew up plans to devote more troops and resources to Afghanistan after dismissing repeated requests from defence chiefs for reinforcements.
The shift in approach follows the rising death toll, outspoken criticism from opposition politicians and the prospect of a long period of intense fighting against the Taliban.
Gordon Brown will today confirm that the number of British troops is increasing to 9,000 from a base of 8,300.
One favoured option, which has not been agreed, is for the number of troops to be kept at 9,000 after the next general election.
Today, Miliband told GMTV the government’s strategy in Afghanistan was clear.
“This is a mission that’s been developed with a very clear strategy: above all, to make us safer here because we know these areas of Afghanistan and its neighbour Pakistan are used to launch terrorism around the world,” he said. “So the mission for us is clear.”
Miliband admitted there had been a “terrible casualty toll” and paid tribute to those who were killed, but added that more helicopters alone were not the answer.
John Maples, the Tory deputy chairman, yesterday told the Guardian: “Increasingly, people are starting to ask whether this war is winnable and whether our military objectives are sensible given the number of troops and the amount of equipment we are prepared to commit.”
Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader who almost became the UN special representative in Afghanistan last year, was scathing about British and US conduct.
“The army were persuaded, for political reasons, to follow a Beau Geste strategy – putting our people out in forward forts largely because the politicians were persuaded by [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai that this was where his supporters and family lived,” he said.
“It led to a military error of major proportions. The army’s job in a war is to find and kill the enemy.”
After previously blocking requests by the chiefs of staff for 2,000 more troops to be deployed in southern Afghanistan, Brown has said in a letter to senior Commons committee chairmen: “We will of course continue to review our force levels based on the advice of commanders and discussions with our allies.”
The Treasury has previously blocked the defence chiefs’ request on the grounds of cost.
However, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, said over the weekend: “If [British troops] need equipment, whatever it is, to support them in the frontline then of course the government, through the Treasury, is ready to help.”
He told the BBC: “You can’t send troops into the frontline and not be prepared to see it through in terms of the … resources they need.”
Significantly, given the government’s past decisions to cap resources for Afghanistan, Darling added: “You’ve got to listen to what the chiefs of staff tell us.”
Commanders on the ground have made no secret of the fact that they want more helicopters and more British troops.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, was yesterday reported to have told a private dinner of MPs that too few troops and helicopters were available.
In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service on Saturday, Brown paid tribute to the “sacrifice” of the 15 troops who have died since the start of the month in the bloodiest fighting Britain has seen in the Afghan campaign.
“I know that this has been a difficult summer – it is going to be a difficult summer,” he said.
The prime minister said he had been assured, in a lengthy briefing by commanders, that Operation Panther’s Claw to drive the Taliban from central Helmand province was making “considerable progress”.
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, said troops were “attacking the Taliban in one of their heartland areas”.
“The reason they are standing and fighting is they know that what we are doing potentially hurts them seriously and strategically,” he said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Afghan deaths match Iraq toll as three Britons killed
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Afghan conflict has now claimed lives of as many British servicemen and women as that in Iraq after MoD announces third casualty in 24 hours
The conflict in Afghanistan has now claimed the lives of as many British servicemen and women as that in Iraq after the Ministry of Defence announced today that another soldier had been killed.
Ten servicemen have died within the last nine days and the casualty rate is as high as at any point since Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terror attacks on the US.
The latest casualty – the third to be announced today – was a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. He was killed in southern Afghanistan, the MoD said. Next of kin have been informed.
Officials said the soldier was killed in an explosion during an operation near Nad-e-Ali, in central Helmand province.
“The loss of this brave Tankie has hit us all deeply,” Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, a spokesman for Task Force Helmand, said.
“We grieve for him at this very sad time. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and colleagues who feel the greatest loss. His loss has not been in vain.”
The death is likely to intensify the debate about whether the Afghanistan operation is worthwhile.
Ministers still strongly insist that the deployment is vital for British security, but the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, this week questioned whether the government had “the will, strategy or tactics” to do the job properly.
Gordon Brown will go straight to the Northwood headquarters of the armed forces in Middlesex for a private briefing on Afghanistan with military chiefs when he returns to Britain from the G8 summit in Italy.
Speaking at the end the talks today, before the latest casualties were formally announced, the prime minister said that it was “vital” that the British mission succeeded.
He also robustly denied claims by General Lord Guthrie, the former head of the armed forces, that soldiers were dying because the military was short of money.
Earlier, the MoD announced that two soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan yesterday.
One of the men, from 4th Battalion the Rifles, was killed in an explosion while on a foot patrol near Nad-e-Ali.
The other, from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment attached to 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, died from a gunshot wound following a battle with insurgents near Lashkar Gah, also in Helmand.
The latest casualties take the Afghanistan death toll to 179, equalling the total number killed in Iraq.
“This tragic milestone must be a reminder to all of us of the huge sacrifices made day after day by our brave servicemen and women and their families,” Clegg said.
“The courage and professionalism of our armed forces are second to none.
“We must never forget the massive debt we owe to those who have paid the ultimate price to ensure we can live in safety.”
The war in Afghanistan, where the British are fighting with other Nato countries to stop Taliban fundamentalists regaining control of the country, has had the backing of all the main political parties as well as the general support of the public.
But ministers are worried that, with the death toll rising and no prospect of an end to the campaign in sight, public opinion could turn.
Brown said: “This is a very hard summer, and it is not over yet.
“It is vital that we see this through. Our resolution to complete the work that we have started in Afghanistan and Pakistan is undiminished.
“It’s in tribute to the members of the armed forces that have given their lives that we should succeed in the efforts that we have begun.”
The prime minister said it was vital the Taliban were pushed back in Helmand province and al-Qaida thwarted across the border in Pakistan.
“We can’t allow the borders of Afghanistan to be lawless places,” he said. “The streets of Britain are safer places as a result of the armed forces’ work in Afghanistan.
“Our job is to secure a stable and democratic Afghanistan.”
Brown also spoke of the “sadness” he felt about young soldiers who were “incredibly professional” and “very courageous” losing their lives.
“My sympathy goes out to every one of the families who have suffered the pain of losing a loved one,” he said.
Bernard Jenkin, a member of the defence select committee, said: “It is astonishing that we are fighting high intensity operations the scale of Afghanistan on a peacetime budget without enough protection mobility and with fewer helicopters per head for armed forces than we had three years ago.”
Guthrie was quoted in the Mail today as saying the Treasury had spent “the minimum they could get away with” on defence.
He said fewer soldiers would be dying if commanders on the ground had more troops and more equipment.
“I spoke to an officer the other day who said that the Treasury had affected the operational safety of our soldiers, by preventing an uplift in our numbers,” Guthrie added.
“As far as helicopters are concerned, of course they need more helicopters. If they had more, it is very likely that fewer soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs.”
Guthrie blamed Brown directly for the state of MoD funding.
“It is an indication of the unsympathetic view the chancellor of the day [Brown] and the Treasury had of defence when Britain went into southern Afghanistan in 2006,” he said.
“They were prepared to give very large amounts of money to other departments, but the minimum they could get away with to defence.”
When asked about Guthrie’s comments, Brown said the troops in Afghanistan had twice as much helicopter capacity as they did two years ago.
“We have spent over £1bn on vehicles,” he added.
News of the latest casualties came as the bodies of another five British servicemen killed in Afghanistan over the past week – four in Operation Panchai Palang – were returned to the UK.
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, acknowledged this week that there was “gloom and worry” about the British fatalities and admitted more lives would be lost.
But he insisted morale was high in Afghanistan and said it would be a “good thing” for Clegg to talk to some UK troops.
Around 3,000 troops are involved in the British-led Operation Panchai Palang, which began on 19 June and has seen fierce fighting and significant casualties on both sides.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Gaddafi demands Lockerbie bomber’s return
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Prime minister tells Libyan leader at G8 summit that Megrahi case is matter for the Scottish courts
In his first face to face meeting with Gordon Brown, Muammar Gaddafi today demanded the return of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.
Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union.
He has pitched a bedouin-style tent outside the G8 barracks in which world leaders are staying during the three-day summit.
In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.
Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi’s conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.
The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.
Gaddafi’s demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.
The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher’s killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.
Brown also called on Gaddafi to help bring about the return of six-year-old Nadia Fawzi, who was abducted by her Libyan father in 2007.
Her English mother, Sarah Taylor, wants her daughter returned, and Gaddafi promised Brown that the Libyan courts were on course to reunite the two shortly.
More broadly, Brown – who was accompanied by three UK officials – also urged Gaddafi to use his influence to persuade Middle Eastern countries to renounce nuclear weapons.
It is not clear whether Gaddafi has any influence over the Iranian regime.
The 67-year-old leader, wearing dark glasses for much of the day and sporting long dark hair, resembled an ageing rock legend and was generally seen as the star of today’s meetings.
Brown praised him for abandoning his chemical weapons programme unilaterally in 2003, a move intended to bring about a normalisation of relations with the west.
The two leaders also agreed to work together to bring stability to the oil market, with Brown promising to use his influence to improve African representation on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
British officials admitted the meeting had started formally, but gradually warmed up as discussions continued.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Mired in deceit and denial
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
Robert McNamara was haunted by an act of great military folly. Those who order war in Afghanistan risk a similiar, awful fate
Until late in life, Robert McNamara was a familiar presence on the streets of Washington. You would see him walking along Connecticut Avenue on his way to and from his office. Most of the time he was in a light suit, a white shirt and trainers, a distinctive mix of dapper and dishevelled. But the thing you noticed most was the look in his eyes – what the New York Times obituary this week rightly called his thousand-yard stare.
That stare told you everything. It told you that McNamara was haunted by the Vietnam war. Once, he had owned the Indochina conflict. People called it McNamara’s war. “I am pleased to be identified with it and do whatever I can to win it,” he said. As defence secretary he sent half a million Americans to war, of whom 58,000 eventually died. He launched three times as many bombs on Vietnam as were dropped in world war two. By 1967 McNamara had privately concluded that the effort was futile. Much later he admitted in public that Vietnam was “wrong, terribly wrong” and that nuclear weapons, which he had once seen as indispensable, served “no military purpose whatsoever”.
McNamara was a brilliant obsessive in command of an act of epochal military folly. He learned a hard lesson the hard way, though others paid a higher price. But he has died when history increasingly seems to be repeating itself. Today’s policymakers are playing out their own Vietnam in Afghanistan. The fear that this too is an unwinnable war grows more widespread, and thus more politically influential, by the week. And this has been a terrible week, with the US, Canada and Britain all taking fatalities, and a large civilian death toll from a bomb near Kabul today.
Bob Ainsworth is no Bob McNamara. But Britain’s defence secretary was worried enough about the unravelling in Afghanistan to make it the focus of a speech at Chatham House on Wednesday. There were compelling reasons to be in Afghanistan, Ainsworth said. The engagement went to “the heart of this country’s national security” and to “the core of our national interests”. It was a “hard and dangerous” conflict in which more lives would be lost. But the US and its allies were a force for good. There was new military momentum. There was no defined date for the end of the campaign, but “we will win”.
We have heard every bit of this before. It doesn’t make it wrong, but almost everything that Ainsworth says about Afghanistan is an echo of what McNamara once said about Vietnam. There too the conflict was supposedly vital to the national strategic interest. There too there was always new momentum. There too there was nothing that could not be achieved by another infusion of fresh troops.
That’s not to pretend that the two campaigns are identical, because they are not. On grounds of scale, Ainsworth was right to reject comparisons with Vietnam, as he did this week. It was the draft, as well as setbacks in the field, that turned the tide against Vietnam. But it is significant that Ainsworth was challenged to deny the parallel, and the difference in scale is not as reassuring as he implied. If 1,200 allied casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 can generate current levels of western scepticism and disillusion about the Afghan campaign, then think what opposition would be generated by Vietnam levels of losses.
Not for the first time, though, the Liberal Democrats have been proved right about Britain’s wars of intervention. Nick Clegg’s indictment of the government’s Afghan policy was an important domestic political move, because it challenges the eight-year UK party consensus over Afghanistan. But it was the more significant precisely because Clegg is an interventionist by nature, who leads a party which backed the military and legal case for the original engagement in the aftermath of 9/11. Clegg’s attack stopped short of calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but his charge that the government lacks the will, strategy and tactics to see the job through puts the other parties on notice, if nothing else, that Afghanistan could be an election issue.
The real difficulties of the mission are immense, but absence of political will is at the heart of this too. No disrespect to Ainsworth – as footballers would say – but the appointment of a previously middle-ranking minister of no very obvious outstanding qualities to run a war tells you that Gordon Brown does not take Afghanistan seriously. Four defence secretaries in three years tells you that No 10′s mind is not focused on the conflict either. I’m sure Brown would rather the Afghan war didn’t exist – so would we all – but pretending it isn’t there won’t make it go away.
Ainsworth’s announcement this week of a new strategic defence review could in theory provide much-needed focus. It is the first since 1998 but, more important, the first since 9/11. But the review hasn’t a chance of providing what this country requires – an objective account of Britain’s national security aims and needs for the foreseeable future, in the context of what we can afford and what we can achieve with our allies.
The review will be a useless deceit because Britain’s nuclear weapons are not included, and neither are our two still-unbuilt new aircraft carriers. Nor, for electoral reasons, will Labour or the Tories be honest about what might or might not be done better through European defence co-operation. Yet cuts of at least 10% to the defence budget seem inescapable under whichever party wins the general election.
As a result, Britain has the worst of all worlds. We refuse to talk truthfully about national, regional and global security priorities. We are dishonest about what we can afford on our own and about how we can co-operate with others. Meanwhile we go on fighting the wrong war in the wrong way in Afghanistan, creating enemies abroad and disillusionment at home. When outside experts try to do the job that government ducks – as the IPPR security commission did last month – ministers run a mile while shadow ministers stay in denial. The result is that we talk loud and carry a small stick.
Robert McNamara may have gone to his grave. But his spirit – that disabling inability to speak sense in public about the profoundest of policy issues until after the damage has been done – is alive and well and living in Britain. In years to come, watch out for the once proud former ministers shuffling silently along Whitehall. You will know them by their thousand-yard stare.
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