The assault this week on Mehran Naval Air Base in Karachi that left at least a dozen soldiers dead and destroyed anti-submarine/ marine surveillance aircraft is the strongest evidence to date that Pakistan is losing the battle against home-grown militants.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani described this latest attack by the Pakistani Taliban as a “cowardly act of terror”. While I certainly don’t condone the militants’ actions, as someone with 23 years military experience, I can say without reservation that last night’s raid was hardly cowardly. Unlike previous attacks, the Pakistani Taliban did not detonate a vehicle borne explosive device or take a few pot shots and run away. They staged a direct ground assault on a secure military installation. An operation of that nature takes supreme confidence, good organization and a healthy dose of fearlessness.

This is an extremely alarming development, especially given that Pakistan’s military installations have been on high alert since the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad earlier this month. Because, if the country’s security forces can’t stop insurgents from penetrating a well-fortified military base, why should anyone believe they can defend the nation’s nuclear assets against terrorists? It is more important than ever now that we examine the goals and motives of Pakistan’s insurgent groups and how the pursuit and/or realization of those goals would impact western interests in the region.

Islamabad is currently battling two significant home grown insurgent groups, both of which are trying to overthrow the state; the Pakistani Taliban and Baluch rebels in Baluchistan province (Pakistan’s largest and most resource rich). Though born in different eras and political climates, both insurgencies are, at their heart, ethnic rebellions against a central government and army dominated by ethnic Punjabis and Sindhis.

In my capacity as a security advisor in the region, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with many ethnic Pashtun from Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal belt; the breeding, recruiting and training ground for the Pakistani Taliban. The overwhelming majority of Pashtun I’ve encountered have felt hard done by the Durand line; the 1893 British drawn border which currently separates Pakistan from Afghanistan. The Durand line divided the Pashtun tribes between the two countries and it has long been a Pashtun dream to see it abolished and their homeland reunited as a nation in its own right—Pashtunistan. The Baluch rebels also desire to create their own nation by ending what they see as the illegal occupation of native Baluch lands by Pakistan and neighbouring Iran.

How could Pashtun and Baluch nationalist agendas impact western interests in the region and beyond? The answer pivots greatly on geo-political loyalties. There are currently two superpowers vying for hegemonic influence over Pakistan; China and the United States. While Washington’s relationship with Islamabad has been steadily declining, Beijing’s has been on the up, thanks to military cooperation and China’s development of an energy corridor through Pakistan. At present, China is Islamabad’s closest ally. Indeed some of the hostages taken during last night’s siege on Mehran Naval Air Base were Chinese “maintenance” workers (at least, that’s how Pakistan’s Interior Minister described them).

The jewel in the crown of China’s energy conduit through Pakistan is the deep water port in Gwadar, Baluchistan (which some analysts believe may double as a Chinese naval base). The development of this port has done little to benefit ethnic Baluch in the province and has even dispossessed many of their ancestral lands. Baluch rebels have plenty of reasons not to like Beijing. So should they get their longed-for homeland, it is entirely possible they’ll turn West toward their future, not East.

You only need to look at an atlas to see the potential benefits of a western-friendly Baluchistan. It would cement western hegemony in the oil-rich Arabian Gulf by moving Gwadar firmly into western-friendly hands, and help physically contain Iran (which has arms and energy deals with Beijing).

The potential benefits of Pashtun nationalism to the West are more difficult to gauge. On the downside, an independent Pashtunistan could become a haven for al-Qaeda foreign fighters and its formation would undoubtedly escalate the decades-long civil war in Afghanistan (the southern and eastern Afghan provinces are ethnically Pashtun). Furthermore, there’s a possibility that an independent Pashtunistan would fall into Beijing’s orbit given that China has already made significant economic inroads into Pashtun parts of Afghanistan.

Even so, many Pakistani and Afghan Pashtun warlords hunger for an independent homeland and western support of Pashtun nationalist ambitions could very well set the stage for a peace settlement with the Afghan Taliban; a necessary pre-condition for the full withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan; a development the United States, Britain and other coalition forces would welcome with open arms.

While there are certainly plenty of geo-political scenarios to ponder, the fate of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal eclipses all other considerations. After last night’s attack, anyone who doesn’t believe that the country is heading for a Yugoslavia-style, ethnic civil war is burying their head in the sand. The global community can no longer take Islamabad’s word for it that Pakistan’s nukes are one hundred percent secured, especially the tactical nuclear weapons that were test-fired last month. Not only is it in the West’s interest to do everything possible to force Pakistan to open its nuclear facilities to outside inspection, it is in China’s interests as well. Because though Washington and Beijing may have competing agendas in Pakistan, if the country’s nukes fall into rogue hands, East and West could end up paying a terrible price.

—Bob Shepherd

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US forces will no doubt bring closure to many throughout the world who’ve lost loved ones to al-Qaeda’s terror campaign. But far from signaling the end of the battle for supremacy in South Asia, bin Laden’s demise only marks the end of the beginning.

The United States reportedly launched the attack on bin Laden’s luxury Pakistani hideaway without informing the Pakistani authorities. The failure to gain prior consent lays bare the lack of trust which has characterized relations between Islamabad and Washington since the beginning of the War on Terror.

Speculation has been rife for years that Pakistan has been playing a double game with the West – posing as a cooperative ally in the war in neighboring Afghanistan while secretly aiding the Afghan Taliban which gave bin Laden sanctuary. Classified US documents posted online by Wikileaks repeatedly accuse the ISI, Pakistan’s most powerful intelligence agency, of supporting the Afghan Taliban.

Not surprisingly, Islamabad has vigorously denied all charges that it has or continues to help the Afghan Taliban, often citing its own fight against the Pakistani Taliban; a bogus comparison in my view given that the Pakistani Taliban is committed to the destruction of the government in Islamabad as opposed to the ouster of the US-led coalition from Afghanistan. Moreover, the location, scale and opulence of the compound where bin Laden met his end would seem to suggest that there are at the very least powerful elements in Pakistan’s establishment sympathetic if not supportive of al-Qaeda’s war against the West. The secured, luxury villa worth a reported $1 million was built five years ago in Abbottabad, an affluent garrison town firmly under the control of Pakistan’s military elite and home to its main military academy.

The fact that bin Laden was hunted down and killed just a stone’s throw from Pakistan’s version of West Point puts Islamabad between a rock and hard place. It is doubtful the civilian-led Pakistani government has the power to clean house and ruthlessly weed out Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters in the military and security services without inviting a coup. And if they throw their hands up and claim that they had no idea bin Laden was living comfortably right under their noses, it will completely undermine claims that Islamabad can prevent terrorists from doing as they like in the country– including exploiting Pakistan’s most precious military asset; its nuclear arsenal.

For years, Islamabad has refused to allow outside observers to check the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, stating it will never allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear facilities. Whether Islamabad pleads ignorance on sheltering bin Laden or starts purging its military and security services of al-Qaeda sympathizers, it will be very difficult now for Pakistan to resist US offers to help secure its nuclear assets (especially if the US secures the backing of the United Nations for such a plan).

If the US can get its foot in Pakistan’s proverbial nuclear door, it will be the ultimate game changer. Contrary to popular belief, the US and Britain are not Pakistan’s most treasured allies. It’s China (not only have I blogged frequently about this strategic relationship over the past year; it serves as the backdrop for my forthcoming novel, The Good Jihadist). China has huge influence with Islamabad; selling Pakistan arms and investing billions in developing natural resources and energy routes through the country including highways and a strategically important port in Gwadar, Baluchistan.

The Sino-Pakistani nexus is not just commercially beneficial to both parties. By serving as a direct energy conduit between oil rich Gulf nations and Western China, Pakistan is vital to Beijing’s future security. In turn, Beijing offers Islamabad a powerful buffer against its most bitter enemy, India (whose nuclear ambitions are currently being supported by the US).

Just last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Pakistan’s prime minister was attempting to cut the US out of Afghanistan’s future by reportedly urging Afghan President Hamid Karzai to forget about a long-term US military presence in his country and instead embrace Pakistan and China as allies. The article went on to quote unnamed US officials, saying that ‘the idea of China taking a leading role in Afghanistan was fanciful at best.’

Anyone who has been following China’s commercial progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan knows full well that Beijing is in a prime position to be the hegemonic power in the region. But by finally killing bin Laden, the United States has shown it is not about to abandon South Asia to forces beyond its control.

—Bob Shepherd

Beneath western praise for the Egyptian people’s stunning victory over autocratic rule runs a deep concern about how these events will impact America’s and Britain’s most treasured ally in the region; Israel. From Washington to Whitehall, pro-Israeli pundits have already begun sowing seeds of anxiety, warning that Egypt could tear up its peace treaty with Israel and/ or go the way of Iran and embrace clerical rule.

It’s time for a little perspective.

It is far from certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will be voted into power (indeed, it’s a wide-open question whether the military government will even allow elections). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Muslim Brotherhood is swept into office by popular vote. It is unlikely that they will follow in Iran’s footsteps because the Brotherhood is not compromised primarily of clerics but professional men who embrace a profitable business climate as much as the Koran.

The yearning among Egyptians religious and secular for a more prosperous future is likely to ensure the peace treaty with Israel will continue to be honoured. Egypt has nothing to gain from invading Israel—the Sinai was returned after all. Moreover, the first whiff of aggression toward Israel would invite at best crippling economic sanctions and at worst, bombs. And don’t forget who’s been supplying Egypt’s armed forces. Most of their hardware and software is American. If it chooses, Washington can shut down the Egyptian military machine with a flip of the proverbial switch.

Of course, none of what I’ve written so far is terribly insightful. Even casual observers of Middle East affairs are familiar with these facts. So why all the scare mongering about clerics and broken treaties? The answer is simple. Israel does face a serious threat from Egypt’s revolution, but not the one the hawks in Tel Aviv would have us believe.

For six decades, Israel’s powerful propaganda machine has portrayed Arabs as violent, irrational and therefore incapable of summoning the civility and restraint a functioning liberal democracy requires. As the last line of defence against these lesser evolved societies, Israel demanded blanket support for any actions taken in the name of security. The events in Egypt this week have blown this myth wide open. The revolution launched by the young protestors in Tahrir Square was largely peaceful. If the military transition does midwife free and fair elections, Tel Aviv will lose its claim to being the only nation in the region that shares western liberal values — especially if Egypt elects a secular minded leader. Not only would Cairo emerge as the civil and moral equal of Tel Aviv, it would have the political clout to pursue what has eluded the greatest powers on earth for decades; a credible Middle East Peace solution.

This is the real threat to Israel. Hosni Mubarak supported Israel’s apartheid policies toward the Palestinians out of deference to his American pay masters and fear of Hamas emboldening Egyptian Muslim groups. A democratically elected Egyptian government would not have such constraints. Indeed it is far more likely to reflect the will of its people. I would not be surprised if a civil government in Cairo were to fully restore the flow of goods and services over the Rafah border crossing thereby ending Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

Israel would no doubt raise the alarm and ask America to support maintaining the blockade. In the past, that would happen without question. But Egypt’s revolution is altering the rules of the game. It would be unwise of Washington to alienate a democratic Egypt in order to defend an Israeli policy that is illegal under international law. And if other Arab nations follow in Egypt’s footsteps, the US will face even greater pressure to end its blind endorsement of Israel’s colonialist policies. Imagine if Oman embraces democracy. The Straits of Hormuz are of far greater strategic importance to America than any slice of real estate in Israel.

The US and Britain need to break with the past and prove they are capable of being fair brokers in the Middle East. Failure to do so will risk ceding influence to a new hegemonic power. Remember, China already controls the port at Gwadar, Pakistan on the Arabian Sea—an asset it gained through diplomacy and economic incentives. Washington and Whitehall should put real pressure on Israel to pull back settlements that encroach on Palestinian lands (a suspension of credit lines should do the trick), appoint a credible envoy the Arabs can trust (Tony Blair’s appointment was tantamount to making Osama bin Laden mayor of New York City, in my view) and insist that Israel free jailed Palestinian political figures capable of uniting the West Bank and Gaza. Marwan Barghouti, Palestine’s Nelson Mandela, comes to mind.

Israel will probably resist any significant changes in US Middle East policy. Perhaps that’s the biggest threat of all posed by Egypt’s revolution. Old-style hawkishness can no longer guarantee Israel’s security and indeed, could run counter to it. In the new Middle East, a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is the best way to ensure the Jewish state survives.

—Bob Shepherd

Film@11 Note: We are very happy to have Bob Shepherd’s opinion back with us, now that he has finished his latest book. A former SAS soldier, Shepherd spent many years in private security throughout the Middle East and Asia.

I’ve never made breakfast for myself in Libya (the litmus test for claiming ‘expert’ status on a nation). Indeed, I’ve never visited the country nor interacted with its various tribal groups; hence why I would never be so arrogant as to believe I could manipulate the outcome of a military intervention in Libya to my advantage. If only Downing Street would admit the same.

Even before the first Western missiles rained down on Gaddafi’s military infrastructure, my gut reaction to the no-fly zone operation was that it will compromise British national security. Though my heart goes out to the innocent Libyans who’ve been persecuted and oppressed by Gaddafi’s regime, I am not prepared to endorse airstrikes that could very well invite revenge attacks on British interests and open Libya to exploitation by anti-British, anti-western elements.

The most important question to ask about the no-fly zone is: who exactly is it benefiting? Britain’s coalition government and most of our media keep referring to the anti-Gaddafi rebels as ‘pro-democracy forces’; an image promoted by the Benghazi-based Libyan Interim Transitional National Council. This 31-member rebel group which claims it will guide the country toward free elections has cleverly appointed Mahmoud Jibril, an American educated professor, as its special envoy.

With a western-friendly interlocutor making the rounds, decision makers in the US, Britain and France have grown more confident that there is a democracy-loving, freedom fighting government-in-waiting to take the helm once Gaddafi is gone. But not all members of the opposition are as palatable as Jibril. The Telegraph reported that Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to an Italian newspaper that not only had he recruited around 25 al-Qaeda fighters from eastern Libya to fight coalition forces in Iraq but that some of those jihadists are now fighting on the frontlines of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion. This corroborates what we already knew from the so-called Sinjar records: al-Qaeda documents seized by US forces in Iraq which establish conclusively that the epicentre of the Libyan revolt is an al-Qaeda breeding nest.

As a general rule, Islamic fundamentalists reject the western liberal democratic model on the grounds that it gives non-Muslims a voice in government. Perhaps Mr. al-Hasidi has grown more tolerant and is genuinely prepared to embrace universal suffrage. Perhaps not. All I know is that if a post-Gaddafi power struggle ensues, my money won’t be on the political science professor with fond memories of his American university days. It’ll be on the hard-boiled Islamic jihadist.

When I see the amount of attention Washington and Whitehall are lavishing on Jibril and the ITNC, I can’t help but be reminded of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress member who fed the US a boatload of false intelligence on Iraq in order to spur an invasion. A savvy PR opportunist, Chalabi styled himself as the man who could deliver Iraq to a peaceful, democratic, western-leaning future once the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was ousted. It turned out Chalabi had zero influence in post-Saddam Iraq and the country swiftly disintegrated into a sectarian civil war. In the end, not only did the US-led coalition not get the Iraq it had hoped for; its sacrifice of blood and treasure backfired in the worst possible way by enabling Iran to become a major power broker in Iraq’s internal affairs.

Is the West once again placing its trust in a charlatan who can’t deliver? I really hope not. But common sense tells me our political leaders are in no position to judge. Look no further than the botched British secret mission to make contact with Libyan rebels that resulted in the arrest of an MI6 officer and his Special Forces escort team (all of whom were fortunately released unharmed). Sure, you can fob it off as a misunderstanding. But the episode says volumes about Britain’s lack of understanding when it comes to Libya’s internal affairs.

–Bob Shepherd

The death of kidnapped British aid worker Linda Norgrove during a rescue attempt by US Special Forces in Kunar has prompted much debate, especially after it was revealed that she may have been killed by a US grenade and not a Taliban suicide bomber as initially reported. Some are asking if the US military should have exercised more restraint or whether the operation was even necessary.

If the goal of such questions is to prevent more aid workers from dying in future, this line of inquiry is counter-productive at this stage. I sincerely doubt the British government would have green-lighted the military option had Ms. Norgrove’s life not been in extreme danger. Hostage rescue is extremely high risk and there is always a possibility that the person or persons you are attempting to free could be killed during an operation, especially in a dangerous location like Kunar (parts of which are so untameable that US forces withdrew from them earlier this year). Instead of pinning blame on the rescuing party, a more useful question is why are aid workers being encouraged to come to Afghanistan when they are such obvious targets?

Militants in Afghanistan make no distinction between foreign NGOs and NATO soldiers. It doesn’t matter that aid workers are operating in a humanitarian rather than a military capacity. As far as the Taliban are concerned, anyone working on behalf of the coalition is the enemy. The US and British governments know this to be the case, yet they still rely on NGOs to help implement the coalition’s counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

No place for Aid workers

The idea of using NGOs as “implementing partners” sounds good in theory; the military clears the area of insurgents and the aid workers follow up with development projects to win the support of locals. In practice though, this strategy falls down on two major counts. Firstly, the coalition isn’t fighting a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, it’s embroiled in a civil war. As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, having taken sides in that civil war, NATO hasn’t a prayer of winning the hearts and minds of Afghans on the other side of the divide no matter how many hydro-electric plants, girls’ schools, roads, canals and health clinics it builds.

The second and more devastating drawback of using implementing partners is that it destroys the firewall between military and non-military personnel working in Afghanistan; hence why the Taliban regard aid workers as an extension of coalition forces rather than a separate, neutral entity. The aid organization Ms. Norgrove was working for at the time of her abduction was Development Alternatives Inc, an NGO operating in Afghanistan on behalf of USAID. This association left her incredibly vulnerable. Indeed, DAI had already lost two foreign employees and a number of local workers when its offices in Northern Afghanistan were targeted by suicide bombers in July.

In the wake of that attack and the death of British aid worker Dr. Karen Woo in August, not to mention a rash of foreign journalist abductions, you’d think the FCO would advise against all travel to Afghanistan just as it has for Somalia (a country which security wise is on par with Afghanistan in my opinion). Yet incredibly, the FCO has banned travel in only certain regions of Afghanistan and has advised against all but ‘essential’ travel in others.

Politics should not dictate the FCO’s security recommendations but I suspect that is exactly what is happening here. So I’d like to offer a reality check. The security situation in Afghanistan has been steadily declining since 2004. In the past three years, it’s nosedived even in areas that were once considered relatively secure. I for one wouldn’t take a client outside Kabul at this time because the situation has grown so untenable that I cannot possibly provide them with proactive security. The best I can do is react to an attack. And as any security professional worth their salt will tell you, that’s just not good enough.

Politics aside, aid workers also need to keep in mind that they are soft-abduction targets in a country where kidnapping foreigners is a lucrative trade. It was reported that Linda Norgrove was the only long-term expatriate employee among 200 Afghans at her base location. How well were those local hires vetted? Who among them knew Ms. Norgrove would be traveling to Kunar that day, and who knew at the other end in Kunar? These questions may be politically inconvenient. They are undoubtedly politically incorrect. But they need to be asked.

Linda Norgrove died trying to make Afghanistan a better place. The loss of such a selfless and dedicated individual is beyond tragic. I hope something at long last is learned from it. The FCO and the US State Department should stop encouraging foreign NGOs to come to Afghanistan until the ground is genuinely secured. Until then, foreign aid workers be advised: you are a target.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.