The UK and Afghanistan

Gordon Brown will try to rally faltering public support for the war against the Taleban today, as ministers insist that sending more troops would not cut British casualties in Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the offensive was gaining ground, despite the loss of eight soldiers in one 24-hour period last week. While the Government promised that money would be found for equipment, ministers denied that a lack of troops was behind the growing death toll.There are 9,000 servicemen in Afghanistan but that will drop to 8,300 after the presidential elections next month.

A senior government source said: "We are losing more men because we are taking the fight to the Taleban and more troops are being put in harm's way. But it is just not true to say that fewer would be killed if more were there. The opposite could be true. Many of our men have been killed by roadside bombs. Having more there would not prevent that happening."

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, former Chief of the Defence Staff, has accused the Treasury of being unsympathetic to the war and called for more troops. His views echo those of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff, who asked in March for at least 2,000 more troops. General Sir David Richards, who will succeed General Dannatt next month, is also in favour of sending reinforcements. However, the Ministry of Defence insisted that the brigade commander in Helmand had not requested more men...

More at The Times.

Brown Tries to Buoy Support for UK Afghan Mission - Adrian Croft, Reuters.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government tried to shore up public faith in the Afghan war effort on Sunday after the death of eight British soldiers in 24 hours sowed doubts over the mission. The number of British troops killed in Afghanistan - 184 - now surpasses the British toll from the Iraq conflict.

However, an opinion poll conducted for the Guardian newspaper and the BBC showed support for the war remained firm. The ICM survey put backing for British involvement at 46 percent, slightly behind opposition at 47 percent and up 15 points from the last time opinion was tested in 2006.

Brown said a major British and US offensive against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province was succeeding despite the heavy toll. Taking his message direct to the troops, Brown told the British Forces Broadcasting Service: "I know that this has been a difficult summer so far and it is going to continue to be a difficult summer." Asked if he was worried that the Helmand operation could become Britain's Vietnam, Brown said: "The operation ... is showing signs of success."

The operation is aimed at making Helmand safe for people to vote in Aug. 20 presidential elections...

More at Reuters.

Obama: British Help in Afghan War Effort Vital - Gregory Katz, Associated Press.

President Barack Obama waded into Britain's debate over the war in Afghanistan, calling Britain's contribution critically important in the struggle to prevent terrorists from establishing a stronghold in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In an interview with Sky News broadcast Sunday, Obama acknowledged the rising death toll - Britain has now lost more troops in Afghanistan than it did in Iraq - but said the mission is vital to US and European security.

"My heart goes out to the families of those British soldiers," he said. "Great Britain has played an extraordinary role in this coalition, understanding that we can not allow either Afghanistan or Pakistan to be a safe haven for al-Qaida, those who with impunity blow up train stations in London or buildings in New York."

Obama, interviewed in Ghana on Saturday, spoke as British leaders coped with new questions about the war in light of the loss of eight soldiers within a 24-hour period that ended Friday. Those deaths pushed Britain's overall toll in Afghanistan to 184.

Some former officers say British forces lack the proper equipment to prevail in Helmand Province, where they have been engaged in fierce fighting with Taliban forces.

Obama said US and British troops in Afghanistan face a difficult summer, and that the emphasis may shift from military to diplomatic and reconstruction efforts after national elections in Afghanistan. Afghans will choose a president and provincial councils in August...

More at The Associated Press.

Afghanistan: Gordon Brown Accused of 'Dereliction of Duty' - Jon Swaine, Aislinn Simpson and Thomas Harding, Daily Telegraph.

Gordon Brown has been accused of "the ultimate dereliction of duty" in his handling of the war in Afghanistan. Amid a bitter political row about the future of Britain's role in the conflict, Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said that the Prime Minister had "catastrophically" under-equipped the armed forces.

Mr Fox said that Mr Brown was now "resorting to spin rather than confronting the life-threatening reality" that the troops faced.

"For this Government to have sent our young people into battle without adequate equipment and protection is the ultimate dereliction of duty," Mr Fox said.

The Conservatives accused Mr Brown of attempting to cover up the fact that British troops do not have enough helicopters, which has forced them to travel by road and left them vulnerable to the Taliban's road-side bombs.

Twelve of the 15 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan this month, and three-quarters of those killed over the past two years, were killed by the so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs)...

More at The Daily Telegraph.

Gordon Brown Must Put 'Boots on the Ground' in Afghanistan - Brigadier Allan Mallinson, Daily Telegraph.

It's a far cry from 1940 when Churchill, against the advice of his military commanders, wanted to send more RAF fighters to France: in Afghanistan the commanders want more helicopters, but Gordon Brown won't send them. Nor will he send more men, which the chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, says we need.

It's in sharp contrast too with President Obama's steely determination to make progress, bringing in thousands of new troops and a new commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who has lost no time closing with the "centre of gravity" - the Afghan people - in Operation Panther's Claw: "We are fighting for the population," says McChrystal. "That involves protecting them both from the enemy and from unintended consequences of our operation." In other words, troops have to get stuck in and rely less on "heavy ordnance". There is just no substitute for that most conventional of assets: boots on the ground.

But General Dannatt's military advice is proving uncomfortable: ministers are said to be furious at his remarks that Gordon Brown vetoed more troops, with David Crausby, a Labour member of the Commons defence committee, adding bafflingly: "Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict, if there are lessons to be learnt, we should do so in a considered manner." Much comfort will that be to widows and orphans...

More at The Daily Telegraph.

Brown Stands by Afghan Strategy - BBC News.

Gordon Brown has said the UK's commitment to Afghanistan is "undiminished" despite the death of a further two British soldiers in action.

Nine British personnel have died in the past nine days, leading to criticism of the UK's strategy in Afghanistan from the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said Mr Brown should "stop pretending that this is someone else's conflict".

Mr Brown said "success" in the mission would honour those who had died...

More at BBC News.

Afghanistan Offensive 'Shows Signs of Success' Says Gordon Brown - Patrick Hennessy, Sean Rayment and Miles Amoore, Daily Telegraph.

Britain's offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan is showing signs of success, despite the heavy losses of recent days, Gordon Brown has insisted.

The Prime Minister said the campaign in Afghanistan was a "patriotic duty" to keep the streets of Britain safe from the threat of terrorist attack.

In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, he paid tribute to the "sacrifice" of the 15 troops who had died since the start of the month in the bloodiest fighting the Army has seen in the Afghan campaign.

They joined politicians and former Armed Forces chiefs in demanding that ministers provide more money to pay for helicopters and armoured vehicles for troops fighting in Helmand.

But Mr Brown said that he had been assured in a lengthy briefing by commanders that the Operation Panther's Claw offensive to drive the Taliban from central Helmand province was making "considerable progress"...

More at The Daily Telegraph.

British Army Vehicles Must Withstand Taleban Test in Afghanistan - Michael Evans, The Times.

Doubts are already being raised about the extra armoured vehicles and troopcarrying helicopters that are being prepared for British soldiers in Helmand province.

Experience from the past three years has shown that when better and tougher vehicles are dispatched the Taleban adapts its technology and methods to overcome them.

The Jackal, a well-armoured, open-top vehicle that is supposedly mine-resistant, was sent to Helmand because of the extra protection that it would provide, but it failed to stand up to the Taleban test.

Although the Jackal has exceptionally good cross-terrain manoeuvrability, about ten soldiers have been killed in the vehicle since it was deployed last year. All were victims of roadside bombs that proved too powerful for the Jackal's armour.

The Viking and the Vector will be withdrawn after 12 soldiers and Royal Marines died while travelling in them...

More at The Times.

Helicopters 'Do Not End War Risk' - BBC News.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has rejected claims UK troops in Afghanistan are ill-equipped, saying more helicopters could not remove risk.

Opponents said up to 4,000 more troops - backed by helicopters to keep them away from roadside bombs - were needed, after 15 soldiers died in just 10 days.

Former defence secretary Lord King says the helicopter shortage is "critical".

In the first 10 days of this month, 15 members of the UK's armed forces were killed in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown insists the mission is showing "signs of success".

He told the British Forces Broadcasting Service: "Despite the losses, our forces are doing a magnificent job."

More at BBC News.

Public Support for War in Afghanistan is Firm, Despite Deaths - Richard Norton-Taylor, Julian Glover and Nicholas Watt, The Guardian.

The mounting number of casualties in Afghanistan has not led to increased public hostility to the war, according to a new ICM poll for the Guardian and the BBC's Newsnight.

Research carried out as news broke of the deaths of eight soldiers in 24 hours - taking the British death toll in Afghanistan past the total for Iraq - shows support for the war remains firm while backing for UK involvement in the conflict has grown.

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 be strengthening public backing.

Opposition to the war, at 47%, is just ahead of support, at 46%. And backing for Britain's role in the conflict has grown since 2006, the last time an ICM poll was conducted on the subject - up 15 points from 31%. Opposition has fallen over the same period by six points, from 53%.

The poll findings come as ministers are drawing 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...

More at The Guardian.

Afghanistan is a War the World Can't Afford to Walk Away From - Daily Telegraph editorial.

The number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the invasion of that country eight years ago has reached 184. Eight soldiers were killed within 24 hours last week, the single bloodiest day for frontline combat troops since the Falklands conflict. It is a terrible and depressing toll, and there is a growing, and increasingly insistent, body of opinion which asserts that those soldiers have died in vain: our presence in Afghanistan is pointless, because the war can never be won. The country is ungovernable, and the best option is to get out as soon as possible, before more Britons die.

We do not accept that argument, but it is important to confront it head on, because we certainly appreciate the awful sacrifice that British soldiers are being asked to make.

Yesterday, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, stated that the purpose of the war was to "ensure that Afghanistan can never again become an incubator for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on Britain". Mr Miliband's statement is clearly correct: preventing the return of Afghanistan to a safe haven for terrorists to plot mass murder -- which is what the country was before it was invaded by a coalition led by America and Britain in 2001 -- is indeed the point of continuing to station Nato troops there. The prospect of a resurgent Taliban, free to control Afghanistan, and able to concentrate on its next goal, the takeover of Pakistan, is a hideous nightmare: control of Pakistan would give the Taliban, and hence al-Qaeda, access to nuclear weapons...

More at The Daily Telegraph.

It's Tough, But We Have to Soldier On - The Times editorial.

The toll in Afghanistan has been rising for weeks but it took the deaths of eight soldiers in the space of 24 hours to bring home the extent of the sacrifice military families are making on our behalf. Those deaths meant a grim milestone was passed: with 184 dead, more British soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

With each death, the inevitable cry goes up that we do not have enough troops; that they have the wrong equipment and insufficient helicopters. Other voices demand that we get out and leave the Afghan army to battle it out with the Taliban. That, of course, is one option. At the other end of the scale is what President Obama sees as the goal in Afghanistan, "democracy and a strong Afghan state", which the troop surge is intended to help bring about. The losses of recent days, in other words, are part of the price that has to be paid for taking the fight to the Taliban.

In truth, neither of these goals stacks up. One is defeatist, the other too ambitious. You do not need to have gone up the Khyber to know that Afghanistan has traditionally been the graveyard of such ambitions. Even the goal of making Helmand secure may be unachievable. While it is right to stand up to the Taliban, the old idea that Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan provided havens for Al-Qaeda is no longer valid. That was true in 2001 but it is not now. The strategy for Afghanistan cannot simply be a rerun of Iraq, despite Washington's keenness to draw the parallel...

More at The Times.

Were we Wrong? - The Times editorial.

Gordon Brown said yesterday that Britain's military commitment to Afghanistan was undiminished. But an unpopular Government is in a weak position to expound a coherent purpose to the campaign. Those, including The Times, who have supported the intervention since the outset must respond to a question that has become increasingly urgent. Were we wrong?

Fifteen British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the past ten days. In all, 184 British soldiers have died since the US-led invasion in 2001. For the public, never mind grieving family and friends, these deaths are especially disheartening when there is no indication of when Britain's military commitment will end.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, spoke this week of the danger that the mission in Afghanistan would become a quagmire if the Government did not provide proper resources and a political strategy. In US debate, "quagmire" is forever associated with the disastrous military campaign in Vietnam 40 years ago. Its principal architect, Robert McNamara, died this week having long regretted his decisions.

Mr Clegg has done a public service in forcing the defenders of the Afghan intervention to consider whether the means are sufficient to the ends, and what those ends realistically are. So let it be stated plainly: the cause in Afghanistan is just, the fight is necessary, and a withdrawal would damage British security as well as betray a country to which we have an obligation...

More at The Times.

Government Must Answer Questions Over Deaths of Troops in Helmand - Anthony Lloyd, The Times opinion.

British soldiers have a phlegmatic approach to death. The thought of dying often bothers them less than the thought of their lives being thrown away for nothing. Death is part of their contract, binding troops to the concept of military honour, so essential to the British Army's self-image.

When it comes to the death of comrades, soldiers can display the same horror, rage and grief familiar to civilian society - but in other ways their emotions are uniquely reserved.

One young captain, a wounded veteran of two tours in Afghanistan, told me of his reaction to the killing of one of his soldiers outside Musa Qala. The dead man appeared to have been shot in the leg. But the lethal bullet had exited through his eye. As the captain continued his patrol, he kept vomiting with grief and horror. On each occasion, he had his driver stop so he could walk away to throw up out of sight of his men. "Appearances matter a lot," he told me in an earnest, rather chilling fashion.

Another time, I met a British major who had seen three of his men blown to bits by a bomb. He admitted weeping over their deaths, but implored me - tears in his eyes and clearly in deep shock - never to mention his grief, as it might undermine the distance he needed to maintain from his troops...

More at The Times.

War on the Cheap is Costing Soldiers' Lives - Lary Elliott, The Guardian opinion.

British troops are dying in Afghanistan because of a lack of money. Whatever ministers might say about their commitment to make sure the army has the best possible equipment, that's the reality.

What's more, the penny-pinching has nothing much to do with the fact that Britain is skint. The cost of the recession will push the budget deficit to some 12% of GDP this year, but the squeeze on the defence budget began years ago.

It is possible to provide the forces in Afghanistan with the helicopters and heavily armoured vehicles they need but something will have to give.

The fiscal facts of life are these. Just over four decades ago, Harold Wilson announced the end of Britain's East of Suez policy. At that time, Britain had a sizeable military presence in the Middle East plus bases in Singapore and Hong Kong. All but Hong Kong were abandoned because money was tight as a result of the economic problems that culminated in the devaluation of 1967...

More at The Guardian.

Lord Ashdown: 'Afghanistan is a War We Should be Fighting and We Have to Win -- but We are Losing' - Nicholas Watt, The Guardian opinion.

Britain and the US are losing the war in Afghanistan and will see the return of al-Qaida and the possible collapse of Pakistan unless they succeed, the former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, warned today.

In his gloomiest assessment of the war, Ashdown said Britain made a military error of "major proportions" in Helmand province after being persuaded by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, to adopt a "Beau Geste" strategy of protecting his supporters in forward forts.

In remarks likely to fuel the debate about the future of the war, Ashdown accused Britain and other European countries of setting "ludicrously ambitious targets" of attempting to turn Afghanistan into a fully democratic and progressive nation.

The former international representative to Bosnia, who nearly became the UN representative to Afghanistan last year, made his remarks in an outspoken interview with the Guardian after an increase in British casualties in Helmand.

Ashdown said the "jury was out" on whether the recent US reinforcements in the province would succeed. "This is a war we should be fighting, it is a war we have to win," he said. "But it is a war we are currently losing and the dynamic has been accelerating away from us. The consequences of not winning it are grave. If we lose southern Afghanistan, if we lose to the Taliban, then al-Qaida will be back." He went on say that the west could lose Pakistan if Afghanistan was lost.

Ashdown said Britain had made "classic errors in Helmand"...

More at The Guardian.

Enough. This Senseless Folly in Afghanistan Must Stop - Peter Preston, The Guardian opinion.

Our soldiers are dying in a false, hopeless war. The true battle for security is about hearts and minds in Pakistan.

When something you're doing is going badly wrong, the options are always limited. You can carry on, spade sinking deeper into the mire; you can take your shovel somewhere else; or you can take heed of the solid 42% demanding withdrawal in today's Guardian/ICM poll - and just stop digging. There's no "indefinite" hope left around Afghanistan for Nato troops now. There are 184 young British lives lost, and counting. Inescapably, the long overdue moment to stop has arrived - because none of the reasons for ploughing on makes the slightest sense.

But surely this war is about destroying "an incubator of terrorism" and thus "about the future of Britain itself"? Thank you, foreign secretary. Surely "denying Helmand to the Taliban in the long term" will help "defeat this vicious insurgency and prevent the return of al-Qaida"? Thank you, prime minister. I haven't the heart to quote Barack Obama on the twin towers and "impunity" in similar vein. So much intelligent promise, such a grisly mistake.

The world is full of places where al-Qaida can hide and operate. Somalia, Sudan, twisting back streets from Jakarta to Casablanca. You don't need the full military monty to wreak death and destruction. A few deluded kids from Bradford will serve quite as well. And, anyway, to quote Gordon Brown again: "Three-quarters of the most serious plots investigated by our British authorities have links to al-Qaida in Pakistan." Downing Street's "crucible of terrorism" is somewhere east of the Durand Line. Our soldiers are fighting and dying in the wrong country -- and that's the idiocy that has got to stop...

More at The Guardian.