Karzai’s PSC Bluff
Posted on 19. Aug, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
When Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants to show who’s in charge he doesn’t do it by halves. His decree this week ordering all foreign and domestic PSCs operating in the country to disband by December is his most audacious power grab since he stole the Presidency last year – provided of course he really means to see it through.
Domestically, the PSC disbandment makes tremendous sense for Karzai. It will shift the balance of power away from warlords raising and operating private militias under the auspices of commercial security. These PSCs cum private armies have made millions servicing commercial and western military contracts (money which inevitably trickles down to the Taliban in the form of road taxes and other extortion schemes that keep the country’s off-the-books economy running). Come 2014, when Afghan forces are expected to take charge of the nation’s security, the last thing Karzai wants is to have dozens of well-funded private armies plotting his overthrow. In the interim, the PSC crackdown will also give Karzai a PR boost with voters ahead of Parliamentary elections, but this is more of a fringe benefit than a driving motive. After all, when it comes to listening to the electorate, Karzai’s track record is less than stellar.
Afghan Private Security
On the international front, the decree has reminded Karzai’s western allies that he can hold them to ransom whenever he chooses. Under the order, foreign security contractors will lose their residency permits and be confined to working inside foreign government and NGO compounds. Exterior security – which includes vehicle moves normally coordinated by close protection teams – will be handed over to the Afghan National Police. Pity the diplomats and aid workers. I certainly couldn’t sleep in a compound wondering whether the ANP standing watch outside my wall are Taliban infiltrators or undisciplined hacks who will turn tail and run the moment they’re attacked.
I imagine some foreign security companies in Afghanistan are flapping right now. I do hope they aren’t considering skirting the order by having their people on the ground work without weapons or armoured vehicles. That would be negligent and endanger both their employees and their clients.
The greater fallout of course is the impact the decree could have on NATO forces. There are not enough soldiers in Afghanistan to guard military supply convoys so the task (along with many other logistical roles) has been outsourced to PSCs. Under Karzai’s plan, these contracts would revert to the Afghan Interior Ministry. General Petreaus might want to consider appointing a special liaison in charge of ‘facilitating payments’ if he ever wants to see his kit again.
NATO shouldn’t let that happen nor should western governments entrust the security of their diplomats to the ANP. It could explain Karzai’s completely unrealistic deadline on the order (a convenient loophole to draw the transition out indefinitely). If it does turn out to be a bluff, NATO should still take heed. With a single pen stroke, Karzai has laid bare the vulnerabilities that result from outsourcing military tasks to the commercial sector. Sure, it may help governments in the short term by enabling them to hide the true financial and human costs of the war in Afghanistan. In the long-run however, outsourcing has the potential to cripple NATO’s entire military campaign.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel, a modern-day Afghan war adventure-thriller is out now. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Britain’s Hidden Heroes
Posted on 02. Aug, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
They don’t come home in flag-draped coffins. Crowds do not line the street in silent tribute to their sacrifice. They are the fallen heroes the government keeps in the shadows; private security contractors who’ve lost their lives servicing British interests in hostile environments. It’s high time they were honored.
Those familiar with my writings will know that this is a topic very close to my heart. For years, I’ve been shouting from the rafters for government to externally regulate private security (PSC) firms with operations abroad. Rather than demand greater transparency and accountability from an industry which has earned billions from military contracts, the government is content to let PSCs self-regulate. As a result, there is still no law requiring PSCs to report the deaths of employees overseas or divulge how many contractors are wounded or suffer mental trauma as a result of their work. It’s all swept under the rug.
The current ‘self-regulating’ model clearly benefits both government and PSC shareholders. The politicians can conceal the true cost of policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict areas while PSCs can maintain the illusion that the tremendous profits they earn from military and other government contracts are blood-free. It’s disgraceful. Moreover, it’s a recipe for further loss of life. Many PSCs conceal incidents not only from the public but from their own employees still operating on the ground. You get one chance in a hostile location. If the men and women working at the coal face can’t learn from past situations, the same fatal errors are destined to be repeated again and again.
To honor the fallen and save lives in future, I would like to see the government implement the following measures:
1.Require PSCs to report all British employee deaths abroad to the FCO.
2. Require PSCs to maintain a public data base listing the names, locations and incident details of all employees killed or wounded on overseas operations since 1 January 2002 including British nationals, local nationals and third country nationals.
3.Require PSCs to provide continuing care and financial support to employees who have been wounded or suffered mental trauma as a result of their service in hostile environments.
4. Formally acknowledge the sacrifice of all private security contractors who’ve died servicing British military contracts and other commercial contracts that support our national interests by honouring them on Remembrance Day.
None of this will come about unless the greater public demands it. Ordinary citizens are usually shocked when I tell them that there are Brits still dying on the roads of Iraq even though the military ended combat operations in the country last year. I explain to them that these heroes weren’t soldiers but security contractors working in support of British and US government policy.
It would help tremendously if the media would give a more balanced and fair view of security contractors. Journalists love to report on heartless ‘mercenaries’ shooting civilians willy-nilly. Just like the military, The Circuit does have a tiny minority of cowboys. But the overwhelming majority of private security contractors are, like soldiers, honest people trying to do an honest job securing the interest of Britain and its allies abroad. In fact, many security contractors used to serve in the military.
There are MPs, former cabinet ministers and retired military brass sitting on the boards of PSCs. That’s one powerful gang with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Maybe I’m an old dreamer, but I’m convinced that if the British public shouts loud enough, the government and industry will be forced to change their ways. Like most movements, this one needs to start at the grassroots. I’d like to see the families and friends of the fallen come together and demand the government acknowledge the sacrifices of their loved one. I’d like to see contractors currently serving in hostile environments demand greater support and transparency from their employers.
Otherwise nothing will change, more contractors will die and the dead will remain in the shadows.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com
It’s Great Britain, Prime Minister – Not Grovelling Britain
Posted on 23. Jul, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
It was meant to put Britain’s relationship with the United States back on an even keel. Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron’s first official trip to Washington this week managed to make Great Britain look more like Grovelling Britain.
The Prime Minister’s inner suck-up reared its head early on when he allowed four US Senators to hijack the agenda. Ahead of the trip, the Senators had pressed for a meeting to discuss their call for an investigation into the release of the Lockerbie bomber; a request Mr. Cameron’s office initially rebuffed by offering to have Britain’s ambassador to the US meet with them instead. Within hours of landing however, Mr. Cameron flip-flopped and agreed to sit down with the gang.
The point here is not whether the issue was worth discussing but rather who was worthy of raising it with our Prime Minister. I bet Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t have rearranged her schedule to kowtow a bunch of lower ranking American statesmen riding a wave of British bashing ahead of a mid-term election.
The chummy joint press conference between the Prime Minister and President Obama tried to gloss over any disparities between the two leaders. But the pretence of equality was soon dashed by none other than the Prime Minister himself when he gave his view of US-British relations to an American television presenter. ‘We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler. We are the junior partner now.’ The United States didn’t enter the war until 1941. But Mr. Cameron did more than embarrass the history departments of Eton and Oxford. He belittled what was arguably Britain’s finest hour and betrayed the public trust by demeaning the nation before a foreign audience.
The Barack and Dave Show
I’m not arguing that Britain can match the US in economic size or military strength. As I’ve said before, we’re not a superpower. But that doesn’t mean our Prime Minister should tell America we’re inferior to them. Given the sacrifice of British blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Cameron’s words are all the more offensive. If we’re so ‘junior’ let another, more ‘senior’ country stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Yanks and we’ll bring our troops home.
I had hoped that when the new coalition took power, Britain’s government would grow a backbone and start putting our national interest ahead of America’s. Sadly though, David Cameron has shown that when it comes to playing lapdog, he’s no different than his labour predecessors.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
The Free and The Forgotten
Posted on 15. Jul, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
After a horrendous ordeal, British security manager Bill Shaw is on his way home. Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the terrible injustice suffered by the G4S manager. Back in April, Mr. Shaw was sentenced to two years in prison and fined $25,000 for allegedly bribing Afghan officials to release two impounded G4S vehicles. Earlier this month, an Afghan appeals court finally threw out the charges against Mr. Shaw, citing insufficient evidence.
I cannot begin to imagine the hell that Bill Shaw has been through. By all accounts he is a manager of impeccable integrity who believed he had paid a legitimate fine to a member of the NDS, Afghanistan’s intelligence agency. In fact, it was his attempt to obtain a receipt for the payment that resulted in his arrest and incarceration. Sadly, Mr. Shaw learned the hard way what happens to honest men in Afghanistan. He spent four months in Kabul’s notorious Pul-i-Charki prison alongside murderers, Taliban and hardcore jihadists who put a $10,000 bounty on his head.
Free thanks to his family.
Bill Shaw is not the first westerner to get caught in a web of Afghan dirty dealing nor will he be the last. Extortion, blackmail and kidnapping are endemic in the country and western security contractors, journalists and aid workers are considered rich targets. And it’s not just shady officials, crooked police officers and hooded kidnapper who pose a threat. Sometimes westerners are scammed by the ‘trusted’ local Afghan employee working alongside them (The same court that acquitted Bill Shaw found his Afghan colleague, Maiwand Limar, guilty of conspiring to defraud him).
I’m not surprised by what the Afghans did to Bill Shaw. I am however deeply, deeply disturbed that his employer and the British government allowed him to endure such a nightmare. ArmorGroup, the G4S subsidiary which employs Bill Shaw has been operating in Afghanistan since 2002. The company provides close protection and site-security for commercial, non-government and government clients including Britain’s FCO. ArmorGroup has hit some serious bumps along the way, including having a British manager shot dead during a cash-in-transit move back in 2007. In short, the firm is intimately familiar with the pitfalls of doing business in the country. The Afghans don’t play by the same rules as the west. The NDS does not have proper accounting systems to track ‘fine’ payments which mysteriously vanish into thin air. The senior managers above Bill Shaw should have understood the Pandora ’s Box he was opening when he went back to the NDS for a receipt. In my view, had they taken over the scenario earlier, events may very well have not spiralled out of control. After what Bill Shaw’s been through, ArmorGroup should make sure he never has to work another day of his life.
ArmorGroup let Bill Shaw down in my opinion. But their failure is nothing compared to the FCO which never should have allowed him to spend a single night in jail. The FCO is well aware of the flaws in Afghanistan’s judicial system because British tax payers partially fund it. The Afghan legal system does not serve the law imposed on it by the West. Like all institutions in the country, it is a pawn of powerful interests. I firmly believe the Afghan courts convicted Bill Shaw in order to curb western criticism of the country’s endemic corruption.
Why did the FCO stand by and let Bill Shaw get railroaded? I’d very much like an official answer to that question. My gut feeling is that the FCO was so focused on the greater political picture they didn’t think he was worth fighting for—that is until his family launched a high profile petition and social-networking campaign to draw attention to his plight. Shaw’s wife and daughter fought tooth and nail to make the British government stand up and listen. They even marched petitions up to Downing Street.
Bill Shaw’s family deserve every credit for his release. But not every British citizen jailed in Afghanistan has a vocal support network back home. As I write this, Anthony Malone, an ex-British soldier who went to Afghanistan in 2002 to set up a security and logistics business languishes in Pul-i-Chakri prison. Malone has already served more than two years in jail for ‘non-payment of debt’ which is NOT a criminal offence in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, Malone recently told a reporter from the Daily Mail he’s been ‘abandoned’ by the British Embassy. Why the hell hasn’t the FCO demanded his freedom?
Cowering behind excuses of ‘diplomacy’ just won’t cut it; especially when the British government encourages British businesses to come to Afghanistan. As the experiences of Bill Shaw and Anthony Malone demonstrate, no matter how much blood and treasure Britain squanders, Afghans will never embrace the institutions imposed on them by the West. It’s time for the British government to acknowledge the limitations of what it can achieve in Afghanistan before another innocent Brit like Bill Shaw is thrown to the wolves.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Leaving Sangin
Posted on 08. Jul, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
The announcement that British forces will hand over control of Sangin to American troops has stirred some very powerful emotions. Despite military and Government insistence that the move is a logical redeployment, the decision has nevertheless provoked charges that the British military failed in Sangin and is running away.
First, let’s separate the military brass from the brave soldiers doing the hard graft on the ground. The British produce the finest soldiers in the world. I have no doubt our forces could hang on in Sangin indefinitely, as the Paras proved in 2006 during the opening phase of Britain’s woefully undermanned and infamously underequipped deployment to Helmand. Sadly, the number of boots on the ground was never increased sufficiently to allow British forces to dominate their area of operations; hence why they have managed to ‘hang on’ rather than turn the situation around.
They'll Take the Aid...
If anyone has failed in Sangin it is Britain’s military and political leaders. They never should have sent our forces to Helmand in the first place, let alone in such unrealistic numbers. As mentioned in previous posts, NATO troops aren’t fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan; they’ve taken sides in a long term civil war. The Brits never had a hope in hell of ‘winning hearts and minds’ in Sangin because the local Pashtoon population believe NATO forces and the Afghan National Army for that matter, are allied with the former warlords of the Northern Alliance – the historic enemies of the Pashtoon. Furthermore, British troops in Sangin were also unwittingly thrust into the centre of more localized rivalries between tribes and drugs lords; a scenario which has unfortunately played out in many other areas of Afghanistan as well.
In the last few months, the British media has started analyzing the Afghan quagmire with an increasingly wary eye. The late awakening is understandable, given that for years the FCO has been feeding journalists a steady diet of ‘good news’ stories about ‘flourishing markets’, health clinics, and school openings in Sangin. The Pashtoon aren’t going to turn down a health clinic, even one provided by the allies of their mortal enemies. They’ll grab the aid money with one hand…but hold a dagger in the other.
The Americans will deploy to Sangin in greater numbers than the British. They’ll likely be better equipped and supported as well. I doubt however that these advantages will make their mission more successful. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: more troops equals more causalities in Afghanistan. That’s the tragic reality of entering a conflict on one side of a civil war.
I’m over-the-moon that British forces are withdrawing from Sangin and redeploying to an area more conducive to their current force strength. There is absolutely no shame in that. It’s a sensible move. Of course, it would be an even better move if British forces were withdrawn from Afghanistan all together.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
A Civil War – Not an Insurgency
Posted on 24. Jun, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
It’s a grim milestone that with good leadership could have been avoided. This week a Royal Marine wounded in Helmund Province became the 300th British soldier to die as a result of operations in Afghanistan. The tragic death has caused many Brits to pause and reflect, not only on the sacrifices made by our brave men and woman in uniform but on the broader issue of what our country can realistically achieve in Afghanistan.
Anticipating the flood of public doubt surrounding Britain’s continued involvement, the new coalition government responded to this terrible landmark by once again linking Afghanistan to national security. ‘We are paying a high price for keeping our country safe,’ said Prime Minister David Cameron. ‘We are there because the Afghans are not yet ready to keep their own country safe and to keep terrorists and terrorist training camps out of their country.’ This, as regular readers of my posts will know, is a bogus argument in my view. If anything, Britain’s military presence in Afghanistan has compromised national security by fanning the flames of home grown terrorism. As for making the world a safer place; I’ve said since 2001 that Britain and its allies would do better to tackle al-Qaeda at its source by hitting select targets in Pakistan (al-Qaeda’s primary breeding ground) and Saudi Arabia (al-Qaeda’s financial centre). Going after terrorists one by one in Afghanistan is tantamount to swatting mosquitoes to eradicate malaria.
Can he be won over?
Those who support ‘staying the course’ in Afghanistan believe the coalition can eventually succeed in its mission to bring security and stability to the country. This misperception is not surprising given that for years now, the public has been told that Britain and its allies are waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Indeed I have been sucked into calling the conflict an insurgency. I apologize for doing so and I’d like to be perfectly clear now: Britain is not fighting counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. We have taken sides in a festering 30-year civil war. This distinction is crucial for understanding the limits of what can be achieved there. A foreign force can win a counter-insurgency by getting the people in its area of operations on side. By contrast, British and US forces operating in Pashtoon dominated Southern and Eastern Afghanistan have no chance of winning over the local population because the coalition has allied itself with the former commanders of the Northern Alliance – the mortal enemies of the Pashtoon.
Having worked for six years as a security advisor in Afghanistan, I’ve had contact with locals ranging from humble villagers to cunning warlords. When pressed, they have all come to the same dire conclusion. It doesn’t’ matter when the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan, the end result will be the same; brutal, all-out civil war. Bear in mind too that it’s not just the coalition that have taken sides in the Afghan conflict. India, Pakistan and China all have a presence in the country whether through proxies or exploiting the country’s vast mineral wealth. Russia and Iran are also working behind-the-scenes to secure their interests. That’s five regional powers – all with nuclear weapons or close to it, vying to assert their will in Afghanistan. No matter how you look at it, Afghanistan is a quagmire that defies military solutions.
It’s entirely possible to support our troops in Afghanistan and be against the war. Britain’s armed forces deserve to be honoured for their service and sacrifice. The fact that they were able to hold out in Helmand for years despite being woefully undermanned and ill-equipped is testament to their skill and prowess. They could fight on in Afghanistan indefinitely if that’s what this country asks of them. But make no mistake: achieving Afghan stability is a mission no foreign army, no matter how professional, can accomplish.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Not Fit to Lead
Posted on 10. Jun, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
After four years, the British media have finally got it. This week, the Times published a two month investigation into who was responsible for the disastrous decision to deploy British forces to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in insufficient numbers back in 2006. The answer was in the headline: The Officer’s Mess.
Of course, today it is obvious to a blind man that the Helmand mission was poorly planned and woefully undermanned. Nearly three hundred brave British soldiers have lost their lives in Southern Afghanistan and many have sustained horrific, life-altering wounds. But as far back as 2004 and certainly by 2005, it was clear to anyone who visited the province that it would never be pacified by a token occupying force.
In spring 2004, I escorted a media client to Helmand. We didn’t fly. We drove from Kabul to Lashkar Gah. Traveling unilaterally outside the security bubble of a military embed was a real eye opener. We found a poppy field growing outside the Governor’s mansion and Taliban frolicking on a nearby riverbank. It was no mystery who had the run of the place. In my conversations with locals, the disdain for foreign forces in Afghanistan was palpable. They warned that Helmand would put up fierce resistance if the coalition stepped up its campaign. I knew then that Helmand would be no walk-over.
Talib in Helmand, 2004
The outrageous thing is I wasn’t alone in my thinking. The Times investigation detailed how senior military chiefs and civil servants ignored multiple warnings that Britain was grossly underestimating the challenges it would face in Helmand. As one ‘senior serving officer who asked not to be named’ told The Times, ‘We who had bothered to put a bit of work in and had done the estimate realized that we needed much more than we were being given.’
The Times suggests that some military chiefs were putting politics ahead of sound military planning. I can’t say I’m surprised. Back in 2005 and early 2006, the prevailing mood was that all was going swimmingly in Afghanistan; a view I challenged frequently in conversations with military based there. Helmand was a particularly volatile subject. My argument that it was a mistake for British troops to deploy to the province was usually greeted with a mixture of denial, caution and/or veiled anger. Team players, it seemed, didn’t express such opinions.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating now: generals who drop their pants for politicians don’t win military campaigns. The senior brass who signed off on the Helmand mission and those who remained silent after it was abundantly clear mistakes had been made should be held accountable. It is inconceivable to me that former Army Heads General Sir Mike Jackson and General Sir Richard Dannatt retired to lucrative consulting careers with chests full of medals and strings of letters after their names. I for one would like to see them stripped of their titles and medals which is generous considering that two hundred years ago, their tenures may well have ended with blindfolds and shots fired at dawn.
It’s too late for retired military brass to make amends as far as I’m concerned. But senior serving officers can still stand up and be counted — and that doesn’t include giving anonymous quotes to the press. If a senior officer believes that the soldiers he commands are being sacrificed to poor planning, he can and should resign on the spot. During the Falklands campaign, my squadron commander resigned in protest over a scenario that would have killed his men needlessly. The scenario was corrected and the squadron lived to fight another day. In 23 years of military service, it was the only instance I can recall in which a Rupert put his men before his career. He didn’t get an official title for his troubles, but his men awarded him one: HERO.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
The IDF: A Third Class Military
Posted on 03. Jun, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
Remember when the Israeli Defense Force was regarded as one of the finest militaries in the world? That myth was finally laid to rest this week by the disastrous assault on the flotilla ferrying aid to the Gaza strip. The raid by Israeli commandos in international waters which left at least nine peace activists dead was just the latest IDF operation condemned for its ‘disproportionate use of force.’
Having witnessed the IDF in action in the West Bank and Gaza, I can’t say I’m surprised, though I confess there was a time when I bought into the IDF mythology. Back when I was a young soldier with the British military, the Israelis conducted the legendary counter-terror operation on Entebbe Airport in Uganda. The raid on Entebbe left me and many others with the impression that the IDF was a first-class military. I admired them greatly until 2002 — when I began advising media clients in the West Bank and Gaza.
Seeing the IDF operate at ground level was one of the biggest wake-up calls of my adult life. Over a period of fourteen months, I watched members of the IDF conduct themselves more like thugs than professional soldiers. The heavy handed tactics employed not only against Palestinian civilians but members of the media attempting to cover the conflict saddened and sickened me in equal measure. I personally was on the receiving end of a completely unwarranted and unprovoked assault by IDF bullies who shoved an assault rifle into my forehead even though I was unarmed. My crime? They didn’t like what my clients were reporting. The soldiers let me go with a few broken fingers.
What I saw in the West Bank and Gaza was not a first-class fighting force but something much scarier — a third-class military with first-class technology. Some will argue, and rightly so, that every military suffers from isolated incidents of unprofessional behaviour. But the IDF has demonstrated a clear pattern of resorting to disproportionate force when it encounters resistance. This cannot be explained away as a ‘few bad apples in the ranks.’ The rot is from the top on down.
You only have to look at the video clip the IDF released of the assault on the Mavi Marmara passenger ship as evidence of poor leadership. Mind you, this clip was released to defend the IDF, but there’s plenty there to condemn the planners of the operation such as the decision to fast rope onto the deck of the ship from a helicopter armed with paint guns and pistols. An assault of this nature hinges on three factors; speed, aggression and surprise. As soon as the soldiers hit the deck they were set upon by activists wielding metal pipes, knives and other improvised weapons that rendered the paint guns useless. Some of the soldiers reportedly had their pistols taken from them. The crucial elements of speed and surprise were lost. Once the soldiers were surrounded, they couldn’t scramble back up the rope into the heli. They had no choice but to stand and defend themselves.
Had the IDF forgone the fast-roping and instead boarded exclusively with small crafts at various entry points on the ship’s hull, the individual raiding teams would have had the option to withdraw rather than open fire. It beggars belief that no one has lost their job over the unnecessary bloodletting on the Mavi Marmara. The whole operation was deplorable. The IDF commanders who planned it should be court-martialled and Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak should resign.
If history is anything to go by, the IDF will conduct an investigation into what happened and then clear itself of any wrong-doing. Anyone who attempts to counter the finding will no doubt be branded anti-Semitic and/or dismissed. But the IDF can’t stick its head in the sand forever. They need commanders with the knowledge and skills to execute delicate operations successfully.
To be fair, the IDF were not the only ones at fault here. The leaders of the Free Gaza flotilla should have ensured that none of the activists on board the ships would resort to violence. Had they responded non-violently to the IDF assault, it is entirely possible that no lives would have been lost. If there is another attempt to breach the Gaza blockage, I do hope the peace activists keep it peaceful. Because as this week’s tragic events have shown, violent resistance will be met by overwhelming force.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
How to Save Billions Now
Posted on 27. May, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
This week Chancellor George Osborne unveiled £6.2 billion in public spending cuts; the first round in what is expected to be a deep and painful austerity program to rein in Britain’s £156 billion deficit. According to Osborne, the government is targeting ‘wasteful spending.’ If waste is truly in the crosshairs, I’d like to put forth a glaringly obvious proposal that will save Britain billions now and in the future. Withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
Sadly, arguing the case for withdrawal on the basis of British lives lost — both men and women in uniform and private security contractors working in Afghanistan — has thus far failed to convince the government to rethink its policy. Public pressure hasn’t hit critical mass. Perhaps too many voters feel the conflict has no impact on their day-to-day lives or they’ve been frightened by the government’s claims that Britain’s continued involvement in Afghanistan is necessary for safeguarding our national security. But where blood has failed to persuade, treasure may succeed, especially now that every man, woman and child in this country is living in the shadow of an £893.4 billion debt mountain.
The economic argument for pulling out of Afghanistan is compelling. An analysis by the Independent on Sunday estimated that by the middle of this year, the MoD will have spent £9 billion on Afghan operations; a figure that only accounts for logistical costs including wages, equipment and transport. When the Independent factored in ‘hidden costs’ such as support for injured troops, veterans and the families of soldiers killed in action, the figure climbed to £12 billion. And that’s just the bill so far. There are also long-term costs associated with the Afghan campaign, for example, the on-going care of wounded veterans and soldiers suffering from PTSD. Consider too that the MoD isn’t the only British presence in Afghanistan. The Foreign Office and British development agencies have poured tens of millions of pounds into the Afghan black hole.
Again, the naysayers will argue that Britain needs to stay the course in Afghanistan to protect our shores from terrorists. As I’ve argued before, Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan has stoked home grown terrorism and compromised our future defence capabilities by forcing the MoD to gut the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to free up cash for operations. It’s also a mistake to view national security exclusively through the lens of counter-terrorism. Economic strength is equally vital. Right now, Britain is staring down the barrel of a sovereign debt downgrade that would boot it out of the premier league of world economies. And while Britain continues to spend on Afghanistan, education budgets in this country are being slashed. The impact on our future competitiveness cannot be overstated. We need to give our children a running start; not rob them of a decent education and saddle them with a debt bomb.
Britain’s new Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, recently described Afghanistan as ‘a broken 13th century country.’ As much as I admire the Afghans for their toughness and cunning, I have to say I agree. Pouring good money after bad is not going to fix Afghanistan. But it will add to Britain’s already considerable economic woes.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Karzai Wins Again?
Posted on 13. May, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
Remember the not-so-distant past when the word ‘corruption’ peppered every official US comment on Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government? Yet the ‘C’ word has been conspicuously absent during Karzai’s feel good tour of Washington this week. President Obama claimed that the ‘perceived tensions’ were ‘simply overstated’ – this despite the fact that as recently as last month, Karzai reportedly told a group of Afghan lawmakers that he should quit the political process and join the Taliban. So why have recriminations and threats suddenly been replaced by smiles and handshakes?
It has nothing to do with cleaning up corruption, that’s for sure. By all accounts, it’s still business as usual in Kabul and Karzai’s brother, an alleged drugs lord, is still living large in Kandahar. In my view, the Afghan President is being given the red carpet treatment not because of the ‘C’ word but because of the ‘D’ word – deadline.
Still on top
President Obama hopes to begin withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan by July 2011. Abandoning Karzai so late in the game would undoubtedly push this deadline back, something which would not go down well with US voters at a time when Obama will be gearing up for re-election. (Unlike Britain, US campaigning starts more than a year before voters actually go to the polls).
Karzai knows this all too well and true to form, he is manipulating the situation to his advantage. As I’ve said in previous blogs, Karzai is an astute man who can run rings around his western counterparts. It boggles the mind how in a matter of weeks he’s refocused the Afghan debate away from corruption and toward issues which can only bolster him back home: limiting civilian causalities and reconciling with the Taliban.
Carrot or stick, Karzai will do what is best for Karzai. And like a hard done by political wife, Obama is so invested in the Afghan President he has no choice but to stand by his man. But does Britain have to stand by him as well? Don’t forget, that while Karzai is being showered with affection in Washington, an innocent and upstanding British commercial security manager, Bill Shaw, languishes in a notorious Kabul jail.
Unlike President Obama, the new British Prime Minister David Cameron has just come through an election and is therefore in an outstanding position to shake up foreign policy. I personally would like the new PM to withdraw British troops from Afghanistan immediately. I doubt that’s on the cards though, so I’ll settle for demanding Mr. Shaw’s immediate release.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.