The UK “surge” debate

Rhoda Klapp

Tell us about the Ferris wheel and the fertilizer, Daniel.

Searcher

Your comparison with MacArthur and Truman is off target. The parallel with Blair/Brown and the British Army would have been if Truman had told MacArthur to cross the Yalu River, but without more troops.

Rhoda Klapp

What to make of it? What we have seen this weekend is a tipping point. (As I predicted a couple of days ago.) This may be the Tet offensive of this war. Making the public question the sense of the whole thing. And be sure, while the enemy cannot win on the field, they sure as hell can win on the pages of our newspapers. That is what is happening now. Going on as we are, with or without extra troops, will not lead to success for us. We need to commit to win this, or go home.

Chuck Unsworth

Ministers do indeed decide. Thus they are each directly and personally responsible for any casualties or fatalities - particularly those attributable to their failures to provide appropriate and adequate equipment (such as helicopters, etc, etc - the list is huge).

But let's be frank. There is no definition of the aim(s) or objective(s) of this adventure, nor is there a definition of success. Without both of these there is no possibility of a 'victory'.

Short the UK

Wake me up in 2017. Maybe you'll have woken up by then.

Eight years and what have we got? Pakistan getting blowback from Afghanistan. 7/7 blowback in London. "Our boys" getting blown up. Our tax money going down the drain in the fiefdoms of Afgahnistan & Pashtunistan.

I offer no solutions, just my rage against the political elite who are toying with "our boys."

TrevorsDen

Surely your last paragraph encapsulates the Taliban's entire war strategy.

As such our government have been grossly negligent in all areas in combating it.

Andy

For someone with a history degree, Brown is woefully incapable of learning from the past. Afghanistan has defeated the best armies over the centuries. IF the job is to be done, it will require REAL investment in equipment, armament and manpower. Sending soldiers to do an impossible job with inadequate resources is nothing short of criminal.

Stephen

Is the whole idea to place our troops in danger for no discernible purpose? If so, the whole thing is a great success.

strapworld

Mr Korski. I am not scared. But we have not the manpower nor the equipment to mount the offensive they are now operating, alongside an American army that is well resourced both in manpower and resources!

That cannot be the fault of the Generals. But a fault directly at the door of one, Gordon Brown. He has much blood on his hands and history will not let him off that accusation.

I believe that David Cameron should tell Nato that unless France, Holland, Germany, Italy, especially, but NATO in its entirety, place their troops alongside the Canadians,Americans and ourselves in the frontline, he will, IF elected, withdraw our troops.

He should then direct a major assault on Brown over his disgraceful treatment of the military.Especially the serious lack of vehicles and helicopters.

Mr Korski, we cannot expect our people to lay down their lives for this rotten regime here in Great Britain.

John Law

The enemy is Gordon Brown. This Helmand deployment has always been badly misjudged. Some years back I recall a labour defence minister claim that they would not have to fire a shot. These Nulav morons are making it up as they go along. Our soldiers will as ever make the best of it, but throwing away lives, because you don't have a clue what to do next, is a disgrace and totally in keeping with useless depraved Government.
If you commit UK forces you should have a strategy and enough manpower and the right equipment to give it a chance of success.

richard miles

I completely agree with your comments about the dangers of being manipulated by the enemy, and the need not to be deterred by that.

But on the domestic front, don't you think the scandal is not 'miscalculation', but a sinister desire by Brown to avoid spending money and at the same time make Blair look unpopular, by going along with the latter's foreign policy adventures while declining to finance the army? His calculation probably took into account his instinct that soldiers mostly vote Conservative.

Charlie T

Britain has to pull out ASAP. This isn't our war. If the Americans want to find Bin Laden then good luck to them.

The under funding of the armed forces by this wretched labour misgovernment is a scandal but its also a red herring. We shouldn't bloody be there in the first place.Theres no strategy, no end game, no plan, no clue, no point. Getting involved in this mess was all down to Blairs vanity. All these fine British men and women are dead and dying because of this odious creep. I don't know how he can sleep at night.

Labour has ploughed on with many failed polices but this one means real people are being killed for no reason. Its not like messing up Rover or fiddling the immigration figures. Peoples sons, husbands, fathers are dying here. Every death out of Afghanistan is gut wrenching to all decent British people.

How the media spouters and scribbles can come out the trash that our involvement is in Britain's interest is unbelievable. Its nonsense to say that this is stopping terrorism at home. I couldn't give a damn what government Afghanistan has and neither should any other conservative. Liberal interventionism isn't conservatism and British people should never ever be killed for it.

Furthermore the creepy overgrown frat boys who run the US media don't even mention the bravery or acknowledge the loss of Britain's troops. Sickeningly the only time these creatures mention Britain's armed forces is to run them down.

The anti war movement failed because it didn't look like Britain. It was the usual shower of the vile anti British far left sects and Islamic bigots.Thats why its vital conservatives speak out against this futile war which isn't in Britain's interests.

These brave men and women aren't the kind of people Britain can afford to lose. For gods sake bring them home before anymore are killed.

trevorsden

It is not simply underfunding. We are spending alot of money (belatedly) on vehicles biut many of these vehicles are the wrong type.

We are certainly very short in numbers of helicopters and we are probably mismatched with too few (if any) combat engineers.

For all of this the MoD and generals are as guilty as labour politicians. We need an accurate debate if the Tories are not to follow

Barman at The Red Lion, Whitehall.

Under funded, under resourced, under equipped - some things never change for the poor bloody Infantry...

Charlie T

Just correct the typo in my first post.

I of course ment Britain cant afford to lose them.

TomTom

If Labour had not created Pakistan in 1947 it would be Indian troops fighting in Afghanistan today

Barry

Perhaps we should heed the advice of the Rand Corporation:

Unify the military command.
Unify the civillian reconstruction command. The two are each very disparate with the US military at operational odds with NATO and the various national reconstruction teams sometimes working at crossed purposes.(and sometimes just plain potty like the ferris wheel and fertilizer)
Improve road networks to give better access to markets for farmers and better access to the hinterlands for troops and Government workers. Provide alternatives to growning poppies such as orchards. Provide infrastructure the villagers need - schools, electricity, roads etc). Try to break the Taleban's tax raising powers.

More joined up thinking. More aggressive tactics as and when the Taleban show themselves. Adopt a bottom up approach to counter-insurgency rather than the current top down 'install a national Government' approach. In the remote tribal areas the locals are reckoned to not want the Taleban but can do nothing about them, and they are utterly indifferent to the Government as well.

Given the high tempo but infrequent warfare our troops are taking part in the losses are remarkably low. But they could have been lower still had better vehicles been deployed - blast resistant patrol vehicles, tanks and combat engineering vehicles.

Tankus

“Probably the troops won’t have to face one shot being fired”
John Reid

Paul

The Taleban have adapted to British procedure. They know what our soldiers are going to do in every instance. Therefore, they can set traps for optimum effect (i.e. BBC funereal voices, and so called experts providing the wrong advice).

We do need better equipment, but we need to evolve one step ahead of the Taleban.

Paul

I know how this is going to be taken in some quarters, but I'd feel better about the sacrifice if I was told how many of them we were killing.

Flemingcrag

The first time I saw Sir Jock Stirrup with his jacket buried beneath a sea of gold braid and medals I knew the armed forces had just had a "sycophant to his political masters" foisted on them as Head of Armed Forces.

This post should have gone to Sir Richard Dannatt but, in speaking up for the men in his ranks he was deemed to have criticised Government poicy and as is Gordon Brown's way was considered not on song for this top post.

Sir Jock has prioritised his budget to buy super duper some time tomorrow never jetfighters these with some inevitable M.O.D
tinkering on design might be capable of delivering bombs as well. As to ferrying troops about in helicopters to avoid unnecessary losses to I.E.Ds well there is no glory in that workhouse role for the RAF. Disgracefully we have 8 chinooks parked in a hangar somewhere for the last 4 years, due to M.O.D specification changes they cannot fly. Meanwhile in 2004 Sir Jock sat on his hands as the helicopter budget was slashed by £1.4 billion.

mac

Competence at the top of the Defence ministry would help. Instead, we have a third-rate, fish out of water nonentity placed there by Brown as a deliberate put-down to an exasperated CGS who tells it as it is because of the lies and the misleading and contrived - and now crumbling narrative - preached by Brown and the bunker.

This is the nature of the vindictive Brown, the risible self-styled patriot. Brown is despicable on so many counts.

Susan Hill

If the Russians were forced to retreat from Afghanistan with bloody noses then we haven`t a prayer. But how many American soldiers have died there ? And is Obama committing to a surge ? That's the only thing that will make the vital difference.

Pat

Can someone please explain why we need all those extra helicopters? Do the taliban have helicopters? It seems like the guys with NO helicopters are winning.

Bob.India

Daniel Korski: You end your excellent piece with the words "But we should also be clear that we are being manipulated by the enemy".

Would it be true to say that this manipulation originates in the Baluchistan capital Quetta, Western Pakistan, where Mullah Omar and his Talliban high command are sequestered and protected at the express wish of the Obama Administration, on standby for future hand-over negotiations in the event of an eventual US led pull-out from Afghanistan?

I paid a circumspect business visit to that city three or four years ago and was often regaled with the local joke about the place being Talliban R&R central and how the porous Afghan border was four easy hours away on a well surfaced road.

Whilst the current tactical difficulties in country require urgent address, perhaps similar attention needs to be directed towards the, perhaps unintended, consequences of a wider strategic calculation?

Rina Smith

Despite MS Clapp's defeatist nonsensical talk of a tipping point, British support for the war is holding firm:

"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%."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/13/afghanistan-war-poll-public-support

The British public is made of sterner stuff than Ms Klapp and her defeatist ilk would suggest.

A.F

The truth is that our armed forces try their utmost to succeed,they won't roll over for anyone,it's not in their DNA.Sadly our present government take full advantage of this,giving them the bare minimum to work with.

RobertD

It is for the government to decide on the objectives.It is for the military to tell them what resources they require to achieve that objective. The only alternative is for the government to determine the resource available,and the military to tell them how much, or how little they can achieve with those resources, but that is not a sensible way to set policy.

However for the government to set the objectives and constrain the resources is unaccepable madness. For once the military top brass are right to speak out and say they can't do what is being asked of them.

Vulture

Labour have never understood the military. Never have, never will - despite the fact that most soldiers come from traidtional Labour areas. Their Foreign Affairs mindset has always been defeatism/pacifism.

Putting them anywhere near a military operation is like putting Stephen Fry in charge of the Dunkirk evacuation: it creates a God-awful mess.

When you have a Defence Secretary with the intellectual capacity and mindset of a NAAFI stores corporal, and a Prime Minister who's a cross between John Knox and Al Capone - what do you expect.

They are despicable scum playing with the lives of our best and brightest.

I agree with Strapworld, John Lqaws and other posters. Dave should attack the 'GOvernment' relentlessly over its failure to support our troops - its a vital ( and popular) issue.

And Britain should quit NATO unless all the other so-called members start taking casualties and doing the heavy lifting that we are bearing almost alone.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Paul

First you have to establish who 'they' are.

TrevorsDen

I do not think Reid said 'probably' I think he said 'hopefully'.

Unfortunately Labour planned for hope not reality.

"This may be the Tet offensive of this war. " -- Ms Klapp, this is in fact more like the Somme, except we have not planned as well as for the Somme.

Indeed we are very slow, far slower, at learning and implementing the lessons of the conflict.

The harsh reality is that you cannot win a was without losing men from your own side. This is were Reid and the govt have been derelict in preparing the public.

Minnie Ovens

"They want us to be scared and demand a pull-back even though the damage they inflict has little military-strategic impact"

Oh! Really?
We have such minimal forces in the area that killing over one soldier a day will soon impact our (UK) strategic aims, whatever they are.
That point becomes more important if this war continues over a five year period.
By the way I think most of us are somewhat confused as to how a "surge" is going to help with 600 or 6000 extra troops.
The Taliban/Al Quaeda seem to have unlimited (how many from the UK?) men. They have as much time as they want. They have a theatre which is larger than Europe and very much more desolate, they can attack, withdraw, adopt guerilla tactics, roadside bomb at will etc, etc.
This means that with intelligent planning they can fight where and when they wish, foreever!
If our strategic time frame is less than 7 years then I think we have a problem.
Afghanistan? Everyone read Matthew Parris' aticle in The Times to start understanding (or not!) the complexities of this wild and woolly country.
The James gang and the Hole in the Wall gang, The Krays and the Mafia would be out of there screaming in terror in less than two days.
It's worse than Iraq in the 20's.
As for the Government elections??? Don't make me laugh.

Ruairidh

The west has made a rod for its own back over the years by repeatedly showing that our principles are seldom matched by our commitment. You mention the Tet offensive (a military disaster but a PR triumph) but there are other and more recent examples from Rwanda and Somalia. Our opponents know that the western public cares little for foreign affairs but will put up with overseas engagements as long as there are few deaths. We see peace keeping / nation building foreign engagements (quite understandably) in national interest terms. If stopping a country descending into murderous and chaotic civil war costs a single life of one of our soldiers then a large chunk of our society would happily leave them to it whatever the cost.

Our opponent’s strategy is therefore to keep killing as many western soldiers as they can until we give up and go home. It doesn’t matter to them how many of their own that they lose along way. They recognise this as a war of attrition where they have a greater capacity for loss than we do. That’s why we have to get the Afghan army to a point where it is doing the bulk of the patrolling fighting on the ground supported by a more stand off NATO force with NATO air support. Then the algebra shifts and the prospect of an undermining shift in public opinion recedes. I recognise though that getting the Afghan army to that point is not a simple process but after so many years it should be getting there.

Verity

"And be sure, while the enemy cannot win on the field, they sure as hell can win on the pages of our newspapers." You forget the BBC, Rhoda K.

Rhoda Klapp

Rina Smith.
What part of 'we need to commit to this or go home' do you not understand?

I care not what a poll says from before the recent losses. The support will be eroded from now on. We will be defeated if we don't find a better strategy.
I don't think it is defeatist to say that. Unless you think what we are doing now, with no xhange, will lead to victory?

Paul

@Unsworth:Whoever pops up in the field and shoots at a British soldier. Them and Us. Who else?

Minnie Ovens

We will be defeated if we don't find a better strategy.

Yup, Rhoda, possibly if we didn't invite them here, give them council houses and money to live.
But the horse has bolted out of that gate.
Today Mr Brown and Fotherington- Milleband stated that fighting in Helmand has stopped terrorists blowing up the UK which proposes the question as to who let the terrorists in in the first place.
Too right when Obama says we are more vulnerable.
In Helmand Ruairidh's second paragraph sums it up.

Daveyone

We should leave Afghanistan!
Many years fighting the Russians must have proved this historically difficult land will never be over come! We should bring home our troops and get the US to carpet bomb the region with a GM crop that will prevent Poppies being grown there.
It may give some local farmers hardship whilst they seek out a more sustainable crop but could just save the lives of many soldiers some of whom are little more then young boys and the peaceful indiginous population.
Prevent the funding that generates this inpenitrable terror machine and perhaps we can rest easier at night in the West and don't forget all the years of the Cold War we did not start digging at parts of the former Soviet Superpower with the exception of the Cuban Missle crisis a war of words was enough.
Was it so wise to let President Musharaff go?

Hysteria

@ Pat

Helicopters give you much greater speed of movement - you can cover more gound with less boots.

Moving troops by road exposes them to roadside bombs (IEDs) and the associated ambush. IEDs are, despite some technological advantages, very difficult to detect and deal with. They slow down movement as troops on the ground have to proceed with extreme caution.

Helicopters are not a "cure all" - but they are an essential adjunct to modern warfare - conventional or assymetric