Britain’s Iraq Inquiry: What’s the Point?

Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

Hearings in Britain’s latest Iraq war inquiry were suspended this week and won’t resume until after the general election expected this May. Despite efforts to remain separate from party politics, the Chilcot Inquiry has generated much for the political gristmill. Among the most notable are claims by defense chiefs and ministers that Prime Minister Gordon Brown starved the armed forces of funds while he was Chancellor and blocked vital equipment orders – charges the Prime Minister has refuted.

British Paras in Basra 2003

With all the headlines, you’d think that the Chilcot inquiry was actually living up to its mandate and identifying lessons to be learned from the Iraq conflict. But the controversy surrounding equipment shortages is, sadly, nothing new. Anyone who has served in the British military can tell you that its chiefs have a long history of sending troops into battle without the proper kit. During the first Gulf War, my mates and I we were forced to improvise claymore defensive mines out of ice cream containers and dockyard confetti. We went on the ground with stripped down short wheelbase Land Rovers with gun mounts crudely welded on the back. We had to buy blankets and coats from locals to keep warm in what was arguably the coldest Iraqi winter in living memory.

That’s not to say that past mistakes in any way excuse the equipment shortages and budget tightening that compromised the safety of British troops serving in Iraq from 2003 and continue to jeopardize the lives of our brave soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. I find it outrageous for example, that Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup who was the deputy chief in charge of equipment for Iraq, had the nerve to go before the Chilcot Inquiry and complain that he didn’t have enough time to resource everything needed for the invasion. In my view, if Sir Jock really wanted to support the troops, he could have made a stand back then and resigned in protest to draw attention to the issue. The same goes for retired MoD boss Sir Kevin Tebbit who told the inquiry that Gordon Brown “guillotined” the defense budget back in 2003. Why didn’t Tebbit resign at the time?

Of course, all the after-the-fact naming and shaming begs the question, is the inquiry really worth resuming once the election is over? If it was about holding political and military leaders accountable for their decisions regarding Iraq, I would definitely see the merit in continuing hearings. But that’s not what the Chilcot Inquiry is about. In fact, it’s so limited, witnesses aren’t even testifying under oath.

Personally, I’d like to see an Iraq inquiry with teeth – a judicial inquiry with the power to punish those who misled the public and failed in their duty of care to the troops. An inquiry that delved into the role oil played in the decision to go to war would also be welcome. Barring that, I really don’t see the point in funding another round of hearings that won’t tell us anything we don’t already know and will fail to hold anyone to account. The money could be put to better use – such as reactively funding a military hospital for wounded troops or proactively buying equipment for the troops.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

Insurgents Target Media in Nepal

Posted on 09. Mar, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

The Maoists have joined the peace process (and the government) after a decade-long insurgency, but a growing number of armed groups have sprung up to take their place. The most recent target: the media.

Arun Singhaniya, owner of two main news outlets in the southern province of Janakpur, was shot three times at point blank range on March 1 while walking home from celebrations for the Holi festival. So far, 10 people have been arrested on suspicion of involvement in his murder, but the police have yet to file a claim.

Not all fun in the sun in the Terai

According to Nepal’s Home Ministry, there are more than one hundred armed groups in the Terai region, which includes Janakpur, on the Indian border. Human rights records show that there were 240 killings last year in the Terai, 89 of which remain unsolved.

Industrialists and entrepreneurs have started putting serious pressure on the government to improve the security situation. In a recent meeting, a group of businessmen warned Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal that the country’s main industries would fail if the violence continues.

In response, the prime minister promised to beef up security – especially in the Terai.

However, the Terai is a vast, rural area of jungles and plain, and the prime minister has had security issues in his own capital.

Barely a month ago, another prominent media figure, Nepali cable TV magnate Jamim Shah, was gunned down in broad daylight in a rich and “safe” neighborhood in Kathmandu, allegedly by Indian gangsters.

Indian newspapers have regularly accused Shah’s TV channels and newspapers of propagating anti-Indian sentiment. Shah was shot dead on February 7—which, according to the Nepali astrological calendar, is supposed to be among the luckiest days of the year for marriage ceremonies.

- Rajneesh Bhandari

What Special Relationship?

Posted on 04. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized, War on Terror

The sense of betrayal throughout Britain is palpable. With the dispute over oil drilling rights in the South Atlantic heating up, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed Argentina a major diplomatic victory this week by encouraging Britain to discuss the future of The Falkland Islands. Britain has long maintained that there should be no negotiations on The Falklands unless the islands’ three thousand inhabitants ask for them – which they haven’t. The islanders wish to remain British.

I for one could not be more outraged by Washington’s indulgence of Argentina’s sabre rattling. For me, the 1982 Falklands War feels like it happened only yesterday. I’m proud to have been part of the task force sent there. I still mourn mates resting at the bottom of the South Atlantic who lost their lives in The Falklands. Today, at the age of 55, I’m well up for putting on a military uniform and going back to fight for my country if that’s what it comes to. I’m sure there are thousands of Brits who feel the same way.

Of course, back in the 1980s, Britain’s armed forces were in a position to react to a crisis thousands of miles away. Today, it’s a different story. Having expended vast amounts of blood and treasure fighting America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we are poorly positioned to mount a task force to defend British interests. With plans to gut the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to pay for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, our ability to react to challenges to our sovereignty will be compromised further still.

Having stood ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America the very least the US could have done for Britain is remain neutral on The Falklands. By moving off the sidelines and against British interests, the US has laid bare just how one-sided the ‘special relationship’ is between our two countries. For years, the British government has done whatever the Yanks have asked and we’ve paid a high price for our loyalty. Not only have our brave soldiers been killed and wounded and our financial resources depleted; our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has fueled a wave of homegrown terrorism that will likely plague Britain for decades to come.

I don’t blame the Obama administration for doing what it feels is necessary to protect US interests in South America. The United States is being pragmatic. Britain should heed the example. It’s time the British goverment reassessed the special relationship and stopped acting as if our armed forces exist solely to promote American foreign policy. Because as the latest row over The Falklands has shown, when it comes to defending our sovereign territory, Britain may have to do it alone.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

A Blast in the Proxy War

Posted on 26. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

Two longtime Afghanistan hands, Elizabeth Rubin and Bob Shepherd, have told us repeatedly about the struggle between Pakistan and India playing out on the field of Afghanistan. And, by all accounts, the three suicide bombings today in Kabul targeted Indian nationals.

Two of the explosions occurred at guesthouses for Indians working in Afghanistan, and a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that the goal had been to strike at the “enemies of Afghanistan from among the foreign Indians.”

So what does this mean as the US steps up its involvement?

Well, for one thing, as Bob Shepherd tells us today, “It would appear as several steps back from the exit strategy if McChrystal has to put troops back into securing Kabul again.

No Love for India

“It makes the flag raising on the dot on the landscape of Marjah look very insignificant when NATO have nothing to do with securing the capital.”

The Pakistani government, as we know, has been working with the US to track down—and successfully so—Taliban members. Additionally, only yesterday, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India met, for the first time since the Mumbai bombing. “The attack looks to have more to do with [that] meeting, given the amount of Indian deaths in the attacks and Indian managed establishments that were hit,” Shepherd points out.

The Taliban—and others—have a vested interest in keeping up tensions. For one thing, more trouble between Pakistan and India means less heat on them. Seven out of 15 members of Mullah Omar’s branch of the Taliban have been captured by Pakistan in the past few weeks.

- Michele Mitchell

The Rules of Engagement vs. Hearts & Minds

Posted on 25. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

This week, General Stanley McChrystal apologized to the Afghan people and personally to President Karzai after at least 27 civilians were killed by a NATO airstrike in the southern Province of Uruzgan. To his credit, General McChrystal has taken concrete steps to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Since becoming commander of coalition forces, he has tightened the rules of engagement to restrict the use of artillery attacks and airstrikes. These measures were definitely needed. But I would like to see General McChrystal go even further.

Admittedly, General McChrytal has a tough balancing act. Limiting the rules of engagement, especially in an insurgency, makes it harder for the troops on the ground to pursue the enemy. But the devastating impact of civilian causalities on the coalition’s objectives cannot be overstated. Afghanistan is unquestionably a media-led war and an incident like the one in Uruzgan can easily overshadow weeks of restrained operations by coalition forces. Every time a civilian is killed inadvertently by NATO forces it is a public relations victory for the Taliban and other militant groups.

Not Winning Hearts and Minds

For the better part of this conflict, coalition troops have been spread thin on the ground and artillery attacks and airstrikes have been used to compensate whenever they get into trouble. But the cost of using these blunt instruments is proving too dear, especially in a conflict where the enemy uses civilians as human shields (a time honoured terrorist tactic). I fought my first insurgency at the age of 17 and continued fighting them throughout my twenty-three year military career. I can’t imagine what would have happened if the British military had whacked a missile into a Belfast estate because an IRA member had fired on a patrol or was believed to be hiding in a house. Such tactics would have obliterated any chance of a peaceful resolution to ‘the troubles’.

Afghanistan is a messy conflict and the Taliban will always nestle among innocents. But NATO must hold itself to the highest possible standards by doing everything in its power to avoid civilian deaths. Airpower in Afghanistan should be restricted to mobility and surveillance purposes only. To compensate for the loss of airstrikes, NATO should concentrate its forces in specific areas to achieve its objectives. No more leaving the troops to battle against extraordinary odds because they’re spread out like butter.

Restricting the rules of engagement further could very well draw out the conflict even more. But unless it wins the battle for hearts and minds, NATO’s war in Afghanistan will never end.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

A Pivotal Week for Afghanistan?

Posted on 18. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

The past week has witnessed two actions billed as possible turning points for the war in Afghanistan: the launch of Operation Moshtarak in Helmund and the capture of Mullah Baradar, the top military commander of Mullah Omar’s Taliban. Could either event be a potential game changer?

The capture of Mullah Baradar is significant, especially if it leads to the arrest of Mullah Omar and/or more of his top tier commanders. But I doubt whether taking Mullah Baradar out of action will make a drastic difference at ground level in Afghanistan. After all, Mullah Omar’s Taliban is just one insurgent group fighting the coalition. Mullah Baradar’s arrest is unlikely to curtail the operations of the Haqqani network (which many consider the most capable militant group in Afghanistan at present) or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i-Islami.

War Weary in Helmund

The impact of Mullah Baradar’s capture on Operation Moshtarak, the joint NATO-Afghan offensive in Helmund, is more difficult to gauge. Having lost their top military commander, Mullah Omar’s Taliban must now scramble for a replacement whilst under fire. They are on the back foot. But with an estimated ratio of fifteen coalition troops to one insurgent, Moshtarak was never a battle the Taliban were going to win anyway.

The bigger question is whether Operation Moshtarak will, in the words of one US commander, mark ‘the beginning of the end of the insurgency’ in Afghanistan. NATO forces, as always, appear to be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities in very difficult circumstances. But the clear, hold and build strategy laid out by General Stanley McChrystal has a major weakness in my view. Keeping the locals on side has been a key feature of the so-called ‘new war model’ that has shaped Moshtarak; hence why civilians living in and around target areas were given ample warning to evacuate.

I first travelled to Helmund back in 2004 when I drove with a small team of journalists unilaterally from Kabul to Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital. I’ve visited the province several times since then through military embeds with the media and while accompanying other actors. My interactions with civilians in the province have admittedly been brief. But one, unmistakable message I have gleaned through the years is that the people of Helmund are tired of outside forces destroying their villages and interfering with their lives.

While I’m confident that the coalition will succeeded in driving the Taliban out of strongholds in Helmund, the plan to have ANA forces hold those areas will do nothing to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population. The people of Helmund are ethnic Pashtoon. The ANA by contrast is dominated by Tajiks. Don’t forget that back in 1992, a bitter civil war erupted between ethic Pashtoons and the Tajik-led Northern Alliance. Many Afghans still regard that period as the worst in living memory. A Tajik-led ANA force will not be well received in Helmund or any other part of southern Afghanistan. It will be seen as alien as NATO and possibly more hostile. General Stanley McChrystal’s ‘government in a box’ that is ‘ready to roll in’ after the offensive is also unlikely to impress the locals. You cannot impose a government on people and expect them to embrace it.

Operation Moshtarak will definitely change the game in Helmund, but to whose long-term advantage?

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com. To listen to an interview with Bob, please click here.

Taliban Shakeup

Posted on 17. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

Eight years after the September 11th attacks, Afghanistan remains mired in violence and war. (Check out this 2008 episode of Common Sense to see what we mean.) Last summer, with the country plunging further into chaos, President Obama decided to raise troop levels by 30,000, hoping to pull back out in a couple years

Whether this new strategy will succeed, only time will tell. But in the past week there seems to have been some payoff. The Taliban’s deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured in Karachi, with the help of Pakistani intelligence. The capture came right as coalition forces were staging an attack in the Taliban stronghold of Helmand.

A few months back we checked in with our regular columnist Bob Shepherd, ex-SAS officer and author of the best-selling The Circuit, to get his thoughts on Obama’s troop increase. Now Shepherd weighs in on where the Taliban stands after the latest blows.

A Dangerous Decade for Journalists

Posted on 12. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

The latest World Press Freedom Review from the International Press Institute contained some sobering figures: 735 journalists died between 2000 and 2009 in conflicts – 110 last year alone. Not surprisingly, the country which proved most hazardous last decade was Iraq where 170 journalists lost their lives.

Journalists working in their own countries were most at risk. But the IPI did hone in on a disturbing trend; namely ‘the deliberate targeting’ of journalists in conflict areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan. Having advised journalists in hostile environments since 2002, I have gained the utmost respect for them. To venture into war zones unarmed and unable to defend against attack takes incredible courage and commitment. Yet too often journalists fail to fully appreciate the hazards they face in conflict areas. I believe more can be done to improve their security.

I’m not going to list all the dos and don’ts of operating in a hostile environment (that is best suited to a full professional training course – something which in my view every journalist should undertake before going to a conflict area). But over the years, I’ve seen even so-called ‘seasoned’ war correspondents ignore some key security basics. Topping the list: awareness. The first rule of operating in a hostile environment is to be aware of your surroundings. This applies as much to walking around the streets as it does to traveling from point A to point B. I can’t tell you how many journalists I’ve seen try to nod off or bury their heads in a Blackberry during a vehicle move. All eyes need to be open and aware to potential hazards when transiting through a conflict zone. The last thing you want is to wake up in the middle of an incident not knowing where you are or what the situation is. Seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

In the Line of Fire

Planning is also an area I’ve seen wanting. Rather than dive head first into a story, journalists in hostile environments need to step back and consider whether it is even possible to access the areas they need to visit. If it is, they must then weigh the safest way to get there – walking, driving or flying. Once in situ, they need to be cognizant of how much time they spend on the ground or whether it is even safe to venture outside their transport. Many of these questions can be answered with the help of local fixers who usually have a very good feel for the environment in which they are operating. But a fixer’s knowledge is of no use when it falls on deaf ears. If a local staffer thinks something is too dangerous, listen to them.

Those charged with commissioning and assigning news stories can also do more to improve security for journalists in conflict zones. In my view, news organization should not commission stories from inexperienced freelancers offering from hostile environments. It sets a bad precedent. As for staff correspondents and support crews, news managers need to ensure that the individuals they assign to hostile environments have the right training, skills, mentality and physical fitness for the job. I’d also like to see management show a greater willingness to make the final decision on whether to pursue a potentially hazardous assignment rather than leave it to the journalists on the ground. It’s not unheard of for journalists to push their luck because they feel it’s expected of them.

Finally, I think experienced journalists have a responsibility to deglamourize war reporting to the next generation. I don’t think it’s clever when journalists (especially famous ones) boast about the risks they take or how they’ve been wounded and/or kidnapped. With any luck, journalists coming up the ranks will ignore the tales of derring-do, look at the casualty figures of the last decade – and proceed with caution.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

Remembering Charlie

Posted on 11. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

I met Charlie Wilson right after 9/11. I was supposed to go to Peshawar to hook up with Abdul Haq, a former mujahedeen who I had interviewed in Rome during the loya jirga planning meeting in the crazed week that followed the attacks, and one of my friends in Washington suggested I meet with Wilson first, just to double-check Haq.

Charles Nesbitt Wilson: June 1, 1933 – February 10, 2010

Wilson was already legendary—he was a longtime congressman when I worked as a communications director to a fellow Texas Democrat, and everyone seemed to have a “Good Time Charlie” story, always recounted fondly. One of my colleagues was invited by Wilson to go to Israel and Russia, and our boss wouldn’t let him. “You? Go with Charlie? To Russia? I’ll never see either of you again,” he said.

Most congressmen, if they had pets, had dogs. There were a lot of dogs, in fact, walking the halls of Congress. But not Wilson. He had two cats, enormous Himalayans, who lived in his office and who, on a regular basis, would walk into his committee room even during hearings. It was a bit startling for those testifying,

By the time I had lunch with him in 2001, Wilson was drinking mineral water and was lobbying for, among others, Pakistan. But he was loaded with sage advice about my upcoming trip, saying, “Haq is one of the few white hats over there,” and then, more sadly, “Haq has had a lot of people disappoint him.”

It was only much later that I realized Wilson was considering himself in those ranks. He took it very personally that the U.S. ignored Afghanistan after the war with the Soviets. He might have had a stinger hanging in his congressional office, but Wilson was no war enthusiast. He wanted to do the “right” thing, and he felt his responsibility.

- Michele Mitchell

The Stakes Rise in Pakistan

Posted on 04. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

The days of denying the presence of US military personnel in Pakistan came to an end after three US soldiers were killed in a bomb blast near a girls’ school in North West Frontier Province this week. The admission that US troops are in Pakistan training the country’s paramilitary Frontier Corps could not have come at a more delicate time. Not only could it further weaken Pakistan’s embattled central government; it could up the stakes considerably in the Great Game for supremacy in Central Asia.

Between insurgency, corruption charges and a bad economy the government in Islamabad was already facing severe domestic criticism. Following on the heels of increased US drone strikes in Pakistan, the revelation that US troops have been operating in the country with Islamabad’s consent will almost surely increase public resentment. Insurgents have already exploited the news for their own purposes. The TTP, Pakistan’s largest coalition of Taliban groups which claimed responsibility for the girls’ school blast alleged that the US personnel involved were not soldiers but employees of the scandal-prone private security firm Blackwater Worldwide. (The TTP employed the same propaganda tactic last year when it blamed an attack on a market in Peshawar on US private security contractors.)

No More Denying the US Military Presence

The impact of such allegations should not be underestimated. Chaos breeds conspiracy theories and right now, Pakistan is rife with them. One in particular which has gained momentum in recent months is the accusation that the US is not trying to stabilize Pakistan but to destabilize it along sectarian lines in order to influence Afghanistan, contain Iran, promote India as the regional superpower – and most crucially, control the flow of energy between the Middle East and China.

Conspiracy theories that float on the fringes of society are one thing. But the destabilization theory is seeping into the Pakistani mainstream. The crucial question now is – has it reached China?

Pakistan is key to securing China’s energy needs. China has invested billions in developing energy routes through Pakistan including highways and a strategic port in Gwadar in Baluchistan province that sits at the mouth of the Arabian Gulf. The last thing China wants is to see its plans dashed by a Yugoslavia style bust up of Pakistan.

How far would China go to protect its interests in Pakistan? An article posted last week on a Chinese government website may offer a clue. In it, Beijing signaled it was considering building military bases overseas asserting that it was its ‘right’ to do so. The article also stated the biggest threat to China is not pirates in the Gulf of Aden (where the Chinese Navy patrols) but countries which would block its trade routes.

Was China speaking specifically of Pakistan? I’ll leave that to the big shot analysts. But the lifting of the veil on US military personnel operating in Pakistan will have undoubtedly raised eyebrows in Beijing.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.