Kabul attack underlines Taliban change of strategy

The latest attack on American troops in Afghanistan according to the Washington Post highlights the insurgents’ growing reliance on high-profile bombings in the capital and targeted assassinations that seem designed to destroy Afghans’ confidence in their struggling government.

The attack yesterday saw 13 Americans killed when a suicide bomber struck an armored military bus in Kabul.

It was the single deadliest attack on U.S. citizens in the Afghan capital since the war began a decade ago.

It is the latest in a series of high profile actions by the Taliban who waged a prolonged gun-and-grenade battle aimed at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and killed a key Afghan peace envoy and former president in a suicide bomb attack.

The drift in strategy says the report,is due to

the addition of 30,000 U.S. troops who have pushed insurgent fighters out of their rural havens in the south and made it harder for them to attack front-line U.S. combat forces.

Deadly attacks were relatively rare in Kabul but the new attacks underscore the resilience of the Taliban and difficulties NATO faces in keeping militants from attacking the heavily guarded capital.

Battlelines are set over Afghanistan at PMQs

One of the most divisive PMQ's for some time as the party leaders fell out over spending in Afghanistan.

A sincere anger from David Cameron who when quoting the views of several generals following Gordon's Brown's Chilcott appearance was met with taunts that they are all Tories.

He continuously asked the Prime Minister to disassociate himself from those remarks.He called it a "disgraceful slur" and accused the Prime Minister of not having the "character" to stand up to his backbenchers

Gordon meanwhile deflected any criticism by confirming that military spending was increasing under Labour.

But then scoring a large own goal when mentioning that it fell under the last Tory government forgetting that in fact that was when the cold war ended.David reminding him that the Tories won the Cold war whilst those on the benches opposite wore their CND badges.

So on the day that the platform for the general election was set,the battle lines are once again drawn.Is this going to be the issue that the Tories will concentrate on? And is Lord Ashcroft to which Gordon Brown insisted on mentioning over and over again going to be Labour's main issue.

Let battle commence

Cynicism on the part of Gordon as he heads to Afghnanistan

It is not only former Prime Minister John Major who is unhappy about Gordon Brown's trip to Afghanistan yesterday so soon after his appearance in front of the Chilcott inquiry.

Even Labour Home appears upset

I still cant get over this today . Is this the most cynical stunt ever pulled by an “elected” politician ?

It has to be up there with

David Mellor parading his family at the front gates of his home , after being all over the tabloids scoring goals in a chelsea shirt and his khacks and Gummer force feeding his daughter with a beefburger in the middle of a BSE crisis .

Battle in the poppy fields

The biggest conflict in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion is under way as the allies attempt to catch the Taliban off guard.

The offensive called Operation Moshtarak is homing in on over 1000 of the Taliban thought to be holed up in the town of Marjah in Helmand Province.

1,200 British troops were believed involved in the offensive and a further 3000 were available according to MOD sources.A total of 15,000 allied troops are said to be involved included 2,000 of the Afghan army

According to AP

Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, NATO commander of forces in southern Afghanistan, said Afghan and coalition troops, aided by 60 helicopters, made a "successful insertion" into Marjah in southern Helmand province. He said the operation was going "without a hitch."

Although Taliban spokesman says the Afghan insurgents are still in control of the town.

The objective of Operation Moshtarak, is to secure the region from narcoterrorism and establish basic services under supervision of the Afghan government.In order to do that, the allies will needto defeat the remaining insurgents and drastically reduce the number of heroin-producing crops that fund the Taliban.

Not a bad idea

One of the worst kept secrets of Afghanistan policy is now out in the open.

With President Karzi in London for the summit,talking to the Taliban is on the agenda.

This morning the Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth has backed calls to seek a way to bring the Taliban into the political system.

The plan seemingly backed by the United States will see a multimillion-pound "peace and reintegration" fund that would attempt to lure low ranking Taliban fighters away from the organisation and giving them an effective amnesty.

President Karzai has said that he would be prepared to give Mullah Omar "safe passage" if he agreed to lay down his arms.Although officials insist that the plan does not involve bribing the Taliban with cash handouts or Britain talking directly to them.

The role of the British ambassador to Afghanistan,Mark Sedwill,has been enhanced.He has been appointed to head the civilian wing of the Nato mission and will be at the heart of this new reconcilation initiative.

Good summary of Afghanistan

The Afghan police were supposed to be layabout drug addicts and petty crooks, but that the force has been infiltrated by murderous, cowardly fifth columnists has concentrated Westminster minds. Current strategy in Afghanistan is failing.

Concise and to the point by the Spectator's David Blackburn

A scathing attack on the MOD

It really is pretty shocking the damning report on the crash of the RAF Nimrod in Afghanistan in 2006.

Fourteen servicemen lost their lives,the biggest single day loss of life since the Falkland's war.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth,was forced to make a statement in the Commons in which he said that the “MoD must take responsibility for many of the failings identified in the inquiry."

The coroner's eport was essentially a scathing attack with Charles Haddon-Cave QC said the loss of Nimrod MR2 had occurred because of a "systemic breach" of the military covenant.adding that

He blamed financial cuts within the MoD after a review in 1998 had resulted in a "cascade" of organisation changes.

Ageing components, the RAF's maintenance policy and a lack of modern fire suppressants were among the "contributing factors".

Welcome to Stalingrad-is it time to bring the boys home

This morning's Independent paints quite an awful picture of British troops in North Helmand province.

In an article which will add to the pressure on the government to pull out of Afghanistan Terri Judd describes a base that the troops call Stalingrad

Beyond the hulking form of Mount Doom, an ominous landmark dominating the skyline, the enemy fighters operate freely across the district and into the mountains of Baghran. They are held back by a circle of a dozen small patrol bases – inhabited by British and Afghan forces – that stand on the front line and battle any incursion from the insurgents who surround them in every direction. A home-made wooden sign in one camp said it all: "Welcome to Stalingrad

Reading this after reading the Economist's leading article over the weekend,it seems to be that our tactics including that of propping up the corrupt regime of President Karzai need to be seriously examined.

As the Economist points out

The country’s unruly tribes and mountainous landscape make the place hard to pacify. Voters thousands of miles away struggle to remember why their soldiers are dying there.

bt it is the type of democracy that we are trying to implement that is wrong.The constitution written after the Taliban regime was toppled

envisages a centralised state. Provincial governors, for example, are appointed by the president. This flawed framework needs to be replaced with one which reflects the reality of a diverse, decentralised country. Agreeing on a new constitution would also help shift the focus of political debate and get around the election debacle.

Fighting for democracy?

No one will ever know how Afghans voted in their country's presidential elections on Aug. 20, 2009

.writes Peter W.Galbraith over at Time magazine.

It is a rather uninspiring fact that Western soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a democracy which for all intent and purpose is a sham

In some provinces, many more votes were counted than were cast. E.U. election monitors characterize 1.5 million votes as suspect, which would include up to one-third of the votes cast for incumbent President Hamid Karzai. Once fraud occurs on the scale of what took place in Afghanistan, it is impossible to untangle.

It is therefore becoming increasingly difficult to justify either a continued presence or committing more troops to the region

Brown on tour and a snub

It looks as though gordon Browmn has upset the Pakistani President during his trip to the country.

President Zardari has announced that he will not be in attendance at what was supposed to be a joint press conference.

This is no doubt connected to our Prime Minister's comments following the "Easter Bomb plot" arrests and after describing the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan was a "breeding ground for international terrorists".

Earlier our Prime Minister appeared alongside the Afghan President Hamid Karzai another leader in the region who has been critised by the West.

Brown said during that press conference

"I come here as a friend of Afghanistan, wanting to continue to work with you in the best ways we can to strengthen the democracy of Afghanistan, to give support to the Afghan people, social, economic and political ... help for the future and, of course, to join the work of eradicating terrorism from this area and, of course, from the borders of Pakistan as well."

(Source Guardian)

Binyan revelations Britain is surely implicated

The interview that Binyam Mohameed gave to the BBC this morning is attracting a fair amount of coverage,not least for if true it more or less confirms British compliance in torture.

Michael White is quickly off the mark writing that

It all sounds ridiculous, but to my mind ridiculous enough to be plausible. As noted here before, crucial to the politics of Mohamed's campaign now is that M15 provided data to the Americans about him that led to him being sent to Morocco. Thus to the BBC today: "If it wasn't for the British involvement right at the beginning of the interrogations in Pakistan, and suggestions that were made by MI5 to the Americans of how to get me to respond, I don't think I would have gone to Morocco," he said.

This will once again bring to the fore questions to be raised about British entanglement with the war on terror as fought from Guantanamo bay.

The Economist sums it up nicely

Britain was the only western European country to be named as one that “facilitated” renditions. There are “consistent, credible reports” that British personnel have “provided intelligence or have conducted the initial seizure of an individual” for extraordinary rendition,

Time to negotiate with the Taliban

Imran Khan was being interviewed by Andrew Marr earlier and made the suggestion that it would be better for the Western powers to leave Afghanistan immediately.

His rational was two fold.Firstly that the conflict was destroyed his own country Pakistan,and secondly that history has taught us that any conflict in Afghanistan is unwindable.Just ask the Soviet army of the 1980's and the British army of the 19th century.

More controversially he also suggested that Barack Obama should immediately ope negotiations with the Taliban.They,he argued were never the West's enemy.

Today's New York Times on that very subject carries an interview with the American President in which he

declared the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

It will be seen in some quarters as a controversial policy but with the war seemingly deadlocked and western patience with the Karzai regime seemingly running out it may be a way forward.

How conflicting strategy may prevent stability in Afghanistan

Do read Mary Kaldor excellent piece over at Open Democracy.

She writes about Afghanistan and says

A surge will be pointless unless it also involves a fundamental change of approach. At present, there is a huge tension between the War on Terror, the goal of militarily defeating America’s enemies, and the goal of stabilisation and protection of the Afghan population

adding that

the thrust of the international intervention remains within a traditional security narrative that focuses on stabilizing the state militarily and prioritizes the hunt for terrorists and insurgents over the protection of civilians.

She goes onto argue that the various military tactics such as a reliance on air strikes as well as

other heavy-handed measures, such as torture, arbitrary searches, and detentions, have also damaged the credibility of the multi-national forces.

But what are the solutions?

Firstly she argues

a human security approach would end air strikes and reorient military tactics away from attacking insurgents towards protection and engagement at local levels

secondly

there is an urgent need to rebalance economic and military efforts and give priority to the provision of basic services and legitimate ways of making a living

Thirdly,

the key to both security and the establishment of a functioning licit economy is the establishment of legitimate political authority and an end to the culture of impunity

Dangers of not learning the lessons from Iraq

It is well worth reading Simon Jenkin's piece in this morning's Guardian in which he claims that "The errors of Iraq are being repeated - and magnified."

Jenkins argues that

Britain and now the US are both led by men whose heart was never in this war, and want only to get out with some dignity intact. The much oversold "surge" has offered such a screen. War fever has given way to war weariness. Nobody has a clue what will happen next in Iraq, and ever fewer care

and reminds us that

After five years of occupation and £7bn of public money, London's finest minds joined with those of Washington to reduce what should be one of the world's richest countries to shambles. Iraq is still an economic and social basket case compared with its neighbours, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Jordan.

So what will the next 2 years bring? Well if nothing else

It should teach a lesson that foreign expeditions undertaken in a spirit of jingoist revenge, with a crazed optimism and no strategic plan, are usually a bad idea.

And the danger for Jenkins is that Afghanistan will slip into the same routine but

The awful prospect is that Obama and Brown may feel too weak to learn from Iraq and pull back. They will blunder on, not to a clean defeat but to something far worse, a war of attrition whose poison will spread across a subcontinent

Quentin in trouble

James Kirkup looks forward to defence questions in the Commons this afternoon.

Following the weekend's resignation of Major Morley he has taken exceptions to the comments of a certain Quentin Letts

Mr Davies was wheeled at the weekend to respond to Thomas Harding's scoop about the resignation of an SAS squadron commander over the death of three of his men in what he considered an inadequately-protected vehicle.
The essence of the minister's response: commanders are killing their troops by choosing the wrong vehicle for operations.
No, really, that's what he said. Here's the quote: "Obviously there may be occasions when in retrospect a commander chose the wrong piece of equipment, the wrong vehicle, for the particular threat that the patrol or whatever it was encountered and we had some casualties as a result."

And as James points out

By wonderful coincidence, the first question that will be put to John Hutton is: "To ask what recent steps he has taken to maintain and enhance morale in the armed forces."

That Afghan feeling

It seems that even whilst visiting the troops in Afghanistan,Gordon Brown cannot escape from his woes at home.

Rosa Prince relates an incident whilst talking with the Afghan President Hamid Karzi

As Brown dodged yet another question about Miliband with his stock response - "I'm getting on with the job." - Mr Karzai clearly decided the PM needed a little help.
"Cabinet ministers plotting is nothing new," he declared airily. "We have it in Afghanistan."
There was a squawk from an appalled-looking Afghan politician sitting beside the platform, and the president hastily added to laughter: "Not my foreign minister, though."

Suicide bomb in Kabul kills 41

Not very good news coming out of Afghanistan this morning.

In Kabul 41 people are reporting dead and over 140 injured after a suicide bomber rammed a car into the gates of the Indian embassy.

It is the biggest loss of life in the capital since the fall of the Taliban and perhaps the attack illustrates that whilst the standard military battle against the Taliban is being won,this will simply lead to them resorting to hit and run tactics.

Afghanistan -Time to set some objectives

Staying on the Afghanistan subject there is much comment in the papers this morning following the deaths of three young soldiers in a suicide bomb attack on Sunday which brought British casualties to 100.

The Times leader starts to question whether we should be there at all given the paralysis of the Afghan state

Britain’s forces in Helmand deserve nothing but our admiration, thanks and praise. The same cannot be said of the civilian governance bequeathed by that historic Loya Jirga. Five years on Kabul’s writ scarcely extends beyond the city limits. Warlords retain control of most northern provinces. The Taleban have quietly reimposed Sharia in Kandahar. What civil service existed in 2001 has defected en masse to serve the tangle of aid agencies that constitutes Kabul’s main industry. In rural Afghanistan, opium rules. Corruption, everywhere, is rampant.

The Guardian gives the same argument

Troops fighting with great commitment and bravery in extreme conditions would be better served if politicians were more modest in the objectives they set and clear about the possibility - and consequences - of failure. It has never been agreed whether Britain is in Afghanistan primarily to protect British interests, fighting terrorism and opium cultivation, or to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan; or what would happen if, as looks likely, the mission falls short on all these tasks. Success, of some form, may still be possible, if western commitment lasts. But the confident language still used here has little to do with the reality of the country, seven years after the fall of the Taliban

It is an emotive subject and politians from all sides have shyed away from questioning what we are doing there as it has been seen as an attack on our armed forces.

Perhaps now it is time to set some objectives for all the coalition forces out there

Dannatt on soldier's pay

I am not sure whether using the Sun is the right platform for the head of the British army to air his concerns about the state of the forces,although General Sir Richard Dannatt has never been one to hold back.

In an exclusive interview with the paper,he claims that

pay for his men and women was the most important Army issue that needed to be tackled. and that

Troops were given a pay rise this year of just 2.6 per cent – widely derided as nowhere near enough to stop a mass exodus

Perhaps though the most damning comments and those getting the headlines were the comparison with the lowly traffic warden

If you compare a police constable on overtime, I think you will find that an individual serviceman gets quite a lot less.”
A soldier’s starting salary is £12,572 a year, rising to £15,677 as a Level 1 private. A traffic warden’s basic pay is £17,000.

This is a touchy subject for the government.It is not the first time tat tis has flaired up,there have been issues over accomodation,medical treatment,payments and compensation for injuries and recently over the suitablity of equipment.

It is not a good idea for the public to beleive that the services covemant has been broken and Brown and Co need to keep a watch on this.

Des Browne mauled on Today

If you want to hear an example of a politician being publically mauled then listen to defence secretary Des Browne being interviewed by John Humphreys on Today this morning.
It started badly with Browne accusing Humphreys of not having read the ruling and saying his introduction was full of inaccuracies.

Humphreys then attempted to go thru his introduction point by point with Browne digging his heals in over every point.

Humphreys insisting on reciting what the judge said and accused Browne of splitting hairs.

The breaking point came as the Today presenter accused the Defence secretary of going to court to stop the legal process investigating the failings of equipment in Iraq.Browne would not except that issue and Humphreys kept asking why he is appealing against the judgement.

By the end of the interview Browne was flaying seemingly losing the plot and repeating the same line over and over again.Then to finish him off,Humphreys brought up the issue of Bae.

Marvellous listening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!