Afghanistan
Time to pull troops out of Afghanistan?
by admin on Nov.04, 2009, under Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Britain, International Security Correspondent, Paula Newton
As I sat in an armed American convoy, speeding through the streets of Kabul earlier this year, we passed an Afghan police checkpoint.
The U.S. commander in the front of the vehicle turned to me and said: “I hold on pretty tightly to my firearm whether we see a crowd of civilians or Afghan police or the Afghan National Army or whatever. You never know who’s going to turn on you.”
It was a shrewd analysis and the officer meant every word. His opinions were formed after a few tours of duty in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
His comments came to mind as Britain’s Ministry of Defence announced the deaths of five soldiers at the hands of an Afghan policeman who turned his gun on the allied forces trying to train him. You could hear the skepticism about this war building on radio morning shows in Britain this morning.
Many quoted from the unsolicited remarks of Kim Howells, the government’s current intelligence and security watchdog but more importantly, the British minister responsible for Afghanistan until just last year.
Howells’ assessment in an editorial published in The Guardian newspaper was unequivocal: Britain should begin pulling out of Afghanistan now.
Howells writes: “Bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, expand our intelligence operations abroad, co-operate with foreign intelligence services, and counter the propaganda of those who encourage terrorism.”
His comments could not have been more at odds with his former and current boss, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Embedded in Brown’s statement of condolences to the families of the five killed was a pointed statement often repeated: British soldiers are not just trying to make Afghanistan safer; this war is about keeping Britain safe.
“They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Fewer and fewer people seem willing to believe that statement. A handful of polls this year confirm a majority of British citizens want their troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. And now an influential government voice is adding to the chorus.
“Such a shift in focus would have the benefit of exposing far fewer British servicemen and women to the deadly threats of Taliban snipers and roadside bombs, but would also have momentous implications for UK foreign and defence policy. We would need to reinvent ourselves diplomatically and militarily.” wrote Howells.
His analysis is at odds with that of General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander in Afghanistan who Pentagon insiders say is publicly urging U.S. President Barack Obama to beef up the mission with at least 40,000 additional troops.
On British soil to deliver a lecture, General McChrystal last month set out his arguments to a London audience.
“We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter, waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely public support will not last indefinitely but the cruel irony is to succeed we need patience, discipline, resolve and time.”
He added: “The situation is serious and I chose that word very carefully. I also say that neither success or failure for our endeavour there in support of the Afghan people in the government can be taken for granted.”
But Howells directly refutes those arguments in his editorial.
“I doubt whether the presence, even of another 40,000 American troops – brave and efficient though they are – will guarantee that the Taliban and their allies will no longer be able to terrorize and control significant stretches of countryside, rural communities and key roads.
"Recent attacks in Kabul and other centers suggest that the present balance of territorial control is at best likely to remain – or, more likely, to shift in favor of the Taliban.”
There is a good reason that finding a middle-ground on Afghanistan isn’t that easy: There doesn’t seem to be one.
Tell us what you think. Do you think it’s time to rethink the Afghan strategy and pull troops out?
Kabul’s enemy at the gates
by admin on Mar.11, 2009, under Afghanistan, International Security Correspondent, Paula Newton, Taliban
KABUL, Afghanistan — I knew something was wrong the minute I took a look at the police sniffer-dogs tasked with protecting a key checkpoint just outside the walls of the presidential palace. They looked tired, they weren’t interested in the cars, they had to be coaxed into sniffing around and they had sores on their hind legs. Great, I thought, that’s all that’s coming between me and a catastrophic explosion in Kabul: Work weary dogs and their underpaid masters.
Can you really blame the dogs or the cops though? Kabul is clogged with traffic and people and at the best of times there is no way to assure safety in this city. And it’s alarming for this correspondent to hear the same line from both the Taliban and one of the city’s top cops: Insurgents can hit the city anytime, anywhere.
That’s not to say the Kabul Police force isn’t trying. They are now talking about a double ring of security around the city and they’ve gotten better at enforcing it. Many cities around the world with many more resources, are having their own battle with terrorists and so in that context, the security forces here aren’t doing a bad job.
Securing this capital is a crucial test not only for the city’s police force, but for the whole country. They need to know they can stand on their own and sort out their own security without thousands of foreign troops turning their capital into a fortress.
Less than three years ago, foreigners could walk the streets of Kabul in relative safety and have the luxury and freedom to hail their own cabs and try out the local food. Some foreigners of course still do that, but the majority live in armed camps throughout the city, fearing both random attacks and targeted kidnappings.
I saw first hand the pictures from inside a recent attack on the Justice Ministry here. It was gruesome, stomach-churning stuff. The images of dead employees with bullets to the head and chest were bad enough, but the placid expressions of the dead Taliban fighters, some of whom had major body parts blow off, were chilling.
The Taliban claims it controls several of the main routes just outside the city and not many Afghans are willing to test that claim. Roadside bombs have tripled so far this year and then there are the “Taliban checkpoints” that are harrowing for Afghans, let alone foreigners.
The fact is, even if Kabul becomes more secure in the coming months it may remain virtually cut off from the rest of the country for some time. And then there’s still the issue of how to secure the city itself with a police force of grossly underpaid officers who claim they are on the take just to survive?
When I stopped at police headquarters at District #2, the commander there showed equal amounts of hubris and humility. Of course he said, he and his officers are heroes. But how else would you describe men who willingly walk the city knowing they could be target practice for the Taliban? And all for less than $200 a month.
I would like to hear what you think of the mission in Afghanistan. Let me know.
