Strategy Change

Jonathan writes:

It is fairly easy to see why the British Army is taking so many casualties in Helmand: they have abandoned their clear-hold-build strategy and returned to a search-and-destroy campaign against the Taliban. In clear-hold-build one principle is to never occupy territory you cannot hold, but the British have returned to patrolling and raiding across territory they do not have the troops to hold.

Why they have done this is less clear. British commanders have every reason to know that while clear-hold-build has some hope of success, search and destroy draws on a long record of failure for this kind of operation.

The Labour government deserves all the lumps it is getting for its failure to provide adequate resources for the Army in Afghanistan, but the debate is going down a blind alley. Search and destroy tactics may make it look like the Army needs more helicopters and mine-proof vehicles, but that is an illusion based on tactics that will fail even with more resources.

What the Army needs in Afghanistan and in general is more infantry. In clear-hold-build your defence against IEDs and other attacks is your ability to persuade the local population that you are there to stay and your presence is good for them. Show them that their bread is buttered on your side and they will show you the IEDs. In search and destroy they cannot help you because as soon as you leave the Taliban will return and kill them. Holding ground, in particular, is a labour-intensive task which cannot be done without more infantry.

This morning on Radio 4 General Dannatt was quite tactful about DfID, but I will be less so. In Afghanistan DfID has always been part of the problem. They have never been on the same page as the Army, always reluctant to work together with the Army in combined action against the Taliban.

Under clear-hold-build it should be obvious that the building is to be done by DfID. This means moving in behind the Army to implement quick-implementing local programmes for rural development. Instead DfID is concentrating on capacity-building with the central government. If you want to build a house, do you start with the roof? The British have the example of the Westminster Process, the stately but time-tested process by which they divested themselves of an empire, which built from locality to province to nation. The time is now for DfID to get with the programme and join with the Army in putting all possible resources into combined action against the Taliban. That this has not already been done speaks poorly of DfID’s grasp of British objectives in Afghanistan, as well as of the government’s effectiveness in directing the efforts of its agencies.

Classical counter-insurgency doctrine is a hard slog and by no means fool-proof, but it provides the best hope of success in Afghanistan. The Army needs to return to the doctrine it developed, and the government needs to provide leadership, discipline, and the necessary resources for the necessary combined action programme.

The Rule of Law

Hilde writes: one of my contacts in Washington is the US Institute for Peace who are doing a lot of work in Afghanistan. Although this report is from 2007, it gives a good background to the current trends in Afghan public op, especially in view of the importance of building a viable judicial system whoich build on existing mechanisms of conflict transformation and for implementing the rule of law: http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2007/0816_afghan_opinion.html

Going pear shaped

Things are going from bad to worse in Afghaistan. Anti government elements (AGE in local spook speak) are in control in the East, the West and the South - and are getting pretty strong in Kabul. Only the Northern region is moderately safe. Meanwhile there are two threads to policy. Policy a is let the elections proceed and let Karzai rig the.

Policy A is overthrow Karzai and establish a new grand Khan.

Policy B is allowing Karzai to continue cocking things up and make the best of it.

Policy A comes with getting rid of Karzai before the elections of course. Interesting times.

Iran is trying to back Kabul into a corner

Iran’s long and complicated relations with Afghanistan are of growing concern for the Obama Administration, as it sends more troops to reinforce its military campaign in the south of Afghanistan against the Al-Qaida and the Taliban insurgency.

Afghanistan is in a tough spot. The country is reliant on the U.S. and NATO for its security and, at the same time, shares its longest land border with Iran.

Afghanistan has long pleaded with the U.S. and Iran not to carry out their longstanding strategic rivalry on its soil. For several years that request has been largely honoured.

Iran has also helped more than any other neighbouring countries with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Since 2002, Iran has pumped millions of dollars into Afghanistan's western provinces to build roads, electrical grids, schools and health clinics.

The last thing President Karzai wants is to be forced into making a choice between Iran and the U.S.

Iran, a long-time supporter of the Northern Alliance, was instrumental in bringing about the fall of the Taliban in 2001. However, “Iran has become a more and more hostile power” according to the Afghanistan's ambassador, Said Tayeb Jawad. Iran was doing more than just bringing western Afghanistan into its sphere of influence. Iran has played both a constructive and destructive role in Afghanistan.

It has been reported that Tehran was financing and providing weaponry to Afghanistan's militant groups, specifically those groups fighting against the U.S. presence in the country. These new developments show that Iran has been increasing its operations in Afghanistan in an effort to gain influence with the contending insurgent factions and to hasten the departure of U.S. troops from the country.

On top of this, Iranian agents are dumping bags of cash in the laps of tribal leaders in Afghanistan's west, clearly intended to purchase influence and remind them: The Americans may be here for 10 or 20 years, but we will be here forever.

A call for a Cease-fire

The internment will begin on Monday with Royal family members and then on Tuesday the first President Daoud Khan in a State funeral, the following has come from Prince Nadir tonight, that was announced in the Afghan media today.

We, the surviving family members of Shaied Mohammad Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan, call for an immediate weeklong ceasefire throughout our beloved country to remember and honor the memory of eighteen members of our family and the million and a half Afghan martyrs who have since lost their lives for the protection of the holy religion of Islam and for the freedom of Afghanistan. We pray for their souls.

We believe that the sacrifices made by all Afghans and their families should be recognized, honored and respected. We call upon all Afghans and the international community to show goodwill and to commit to our request.

Let us put our guns to the side, honor those who have suffered the loss of their loved ones during this painful thirty year struggle, and pray for the souls of our brothers and sisters who have made us proud to be Afghan.

Shaied Daoud Khan and countless other brave Afghans gave up their precious lives for a better future for the next generation.. As we pray for their souls, let us stand together to fulfill their hopes and dreams of a peaceful, united and prosperous Afghanistan.

On the eve of this new year (1388), as we mourn and release our family and all our martyrs back into the ground of this soil from which they’ve come and to which they return, let us bury with them the seeds of an intention; that this cease-fire be turned into the flowering of a lasting peace. In so doing, may they rest at peace and bring peace upon us all, at last.
A statement from the families of Shaied Daoud Khan and his brother Shaied Naim Khan.

Sentenced for 20 years for downloading a human rights article

A 23 year old reporter for a local newspaper (Jahaan Naw) and a journalism student from Afghanistan has been sentenced for 20 years in prison for allegedly circulating an article about women's rights.

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, had hoped that Afghanistan's top judges would quash his conviction for lack of evidence, or because he was tried in secret and convicted without a defense lawyer, Afzal Nooristani, to submit so much as a word in his defense.

Since he was arrested, Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has spent almost 18 months in prison. During this time, he was sentenced to death in 5 minutes by Enayatullah Baleegh for allegedly downloading and distributing a report criticizing the treatment of women under Islamic Law. The motion was later withdrawn due to international pressure, giving Kambaksh the right to appeal the sentence.

That appeal however was quashed and Mr Kambaksh's case has been passed to the prosecutors' office for "execution of the sentence", which means he could be moved to Kabul's notorious Pul-e Charkhi prison, or north to Mazar-i-Sharif, where he was first found guilty. Mr Kambaksh’s lawer has even been threatened with murder.

Mr Kambaksh's case has highlighted the tension between the voices of conservative Islam in Afghanistan and the liberal international backers of President Karzai. Mr Karzai is left in a difficult position - not wanting to appear to bow to international pressure in what is a strongly Islamic country. Mr Kambaksh's best hope is now a presidential pardon, which will force president Hamid Karzai to choose between fundamentalists in his government and the rule of law.

The Need To Win

Tim Pendry sends his personal reflections on Afghanistan which are of interest.

YOU CAN FIND THEM ON THIS LINK