“If I’m Kidnapped, I’m Gone”

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

Any journalist who goes to Afghanistan knows he (or she) is only as good as his fixer. This would be the person who acts as interpreter, reporter and producer, setting up interviews and accompanying Western journalists around the country, often into dangerous circumstances.

Christian Parenti’s fixer was one of the best. Ajmal Naqshbandi was only 24 when he was killed in a botched prisoner exchange, a murder that is significant not just from a humanistic perspective but as it reflects the current state of Afghanistan as well.

Parenti, who produced and is featured in the documentary “Fixer: The Taking of Ajmal Naqshbandi,” explains how the film was made, and why.

“Fixer” is currently playing at the Mayles Cinemas in New York City.

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 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

Afghanistan and Yemen Take Center Stage: What about Northern Ireland?

Posted on 29. Jan, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

This week the British government hosted two major international conferences; one focusing on Yemen, the other Afghanistan. That both nations have problems worth discussing goes without saying. But why did these talks take place in London?

One would assume that the British public or at the very least, British industry had something to gain from such hospitality. A lucrative mining contract to exploit Afghanistan’s copper deposits perhaps? No wait – China already grabbed that deal. A reduction in the immediate threat to our shores? Given that the UK terror threat was raised from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’ ahead of the summits, the answer to that would have to be a resounding no. It seems to me that the only people who saw an advantage in inviting the world to London this week were Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other political elites who insist on maintaining the pretence that Britain is a superpower.

Time To Focus Closer to Home

Being a superpower requires deep pockets and a large, well-equipped military. Britain is poised to drop out of the top ten world economies and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are being gutted to pay for the war in Afghanistan. In short, we don’t have the financial or military muscle to remain a superpower, yet we still insist on behaving like one by playing the role of world policeman every time the US snaps its fingers.

Britain has sacrificed vast amounts of blood and treasure and dedicated a great deal of political capital to Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it appears as if we’re gearing up to do the same in Yemen. Enough is enough. We cannot continue to squander our resources abroad when we have problems at home which require urgent attention; problems which pose a far greater threat to our security than an aspiring underpants bomber with a boarding pass to Detroit. I’m talking about Northern Ireland.

It is inexcusable in my view that Gordon Brown left critical talks in Northern Ireland to fly back to London for an Afghan conference. The stakes in Northern Ireland couldn’t be higher right now. Achieving a deal on the devolution of policing and justice powers to Belfast is vital to the peace process. Northern Ireland should have been number one on Brown’s agenda.

Northern Ireland can no longer take a backseat to Afghanistan. When I think of the billions of pounds we’ve sunk into projects in Afghanistan, such as building schools in Helmund (schools which the Taliban will likely take over if they haven’t already), I can’t help but feel that the money would have been better spent in Northern Ireland. More secular schools in Northern Ireland that bring children of all faiths together under one roof would have a lasting impact on peace.

Of course, many will invoke the tired argument that if we ignore Afghanistan and Yemen, Britain will be more vulnerable to Islamic terrorists. Don’t be so narrow-minded. Not all extremists are Muslims and if the Northern Ireland peace process falls apart the dark days of ‘the troubles’ could very well return. As for those who fear that the loss of superpower status will make Britain irrelevant on the world stage I would say look no further than Switzerland. After all, the most influential conference did not take place in London this week – it was in Davos.

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

Sri Lanka’s Wild Election

Posted on 27. Jan, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

“This is a coup—of the strangest sort.”

That’s what a key source on the ground in Colombo tells us this morning after the wild election in Sri Lanka, the first since the defeat of the Tamil Tigers, and one in which the Tamils were expected to be the decisive vote.

Reports to us say that the final result was delayed and announced outside the standard procedure. What does that mean? Well, for one, that the challenger, Sarath Fonseka, was surrounded by Army troops as the result was announced, as were media outlets.

In the jungles of Sri Lanka...

And as Sri Lankans voted, the election commissioner was rumored to be under house arrest, and the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration declared that Fonseka was “ineligible” to be president as his name was not on the electoral roll, thereby making it impossible for him to cast a vote.

(The election commissioner disagreed, but the foreign minister countered with “the courts have the ultimate authority.”)

Sri Lanka Telecome, the country’s primary internet service provider, blocked all news websites within the country since early morning January 26^th, the day Sri Lankans went to the polls. A reporter with the top news website, Lankaenews, worried about the safety of Lankaenews political analyst Prageeth Eknaligoda, who has been missing since January 24^th, after expressing preference for Fonseka.

A missing journalist is a serious issue – and if the election result stands, Rajapaksa may pay in the court of the global market. Last year, EU countries were already considering canceling the GPS Plus agreement, a $1.5 billion trade concession, over Sri Lanka’s concern for human rights abuses. According to our sources in the European Commission, in the wake of this election there is a good chance the EU will suspend the agreement. A decision is planned for mid-February.

Currently, Fonseka is in a hotel at posh Cinnamon Lakeside, surrounded by the Army, and his personal guard has been arrested (the Army stated the guard was made up of military deserters). At his press conference, Fonseka said he did not accept the result of the elections, that the government was trying to assassinate him.

Attack on Kabul: An Ominous Sign

Posted on 20. Jan, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

Coalition commanders were full of praise for Afghanistan’s security forces after Taliban gunmen and suicide bombers assaulted buildings in the heart of Kabul Monday. General Stanley McChrystal, the head of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, said the Afghan national forces should be ‘commended’ for dealing ‘effectively’ with the attack. US Brigadier General Anne Macdonald claimed the Afghan forces responded ‘very well’ while an ISAF spokesperson gushed that they had ‘rapidly’ seized the initiative.

ANP Checkpoint Outside Kabul

Don’t be blinded by the spin. Effective security is not about responding to an attack; it’s about being proactive and preventing one from happening in the first place. The Taliban have been hitting Kabul with shocking regularity in recent months. But Monday’s assault had an added dimension of brazenness. Striking within yards of the Presidential Palace while President Karzai was swearing in members of his new cabinet, the Taliban demonstrated that they can penetrate the security cordon around Kabul and – if they choose – take the fight right to the seat of government power. This does not bode well for NATO’s eventual exit from Afghanistan; a strategy which hinges on training the Afghan National Army and Police to take control of the nation’s security. If the ANA and ANP cannot stop militants from targeting the President’s doorstep, how are they going to protect the whole country?

I’ve written posts detailing how the drive to accelerate the training of Afghanistan’s security forces has led to poor vetting of recruits (see Afghan Security Forces: The Weak Link in NATO’s exit strategy Parts I & II). Monday’s street battles, I believe, vividly illustrate the fallout of this policy. It is very easy for insurgents – be they Taliban or other militants – to hit targets in Afghanistan, including well guarded ones.  The insurgents have sleepers on the streets, inside the ANA and ANP, within the government and, I have no doubt, inside the lower levels of the Afghan intelligence services. The enemies within aid and abet attacks and sometimes carry them out directly. Corruption is also having a devastating impact on Afghanistan’s security.  It is not at all unheard of for poorly paid, ideologically neutral ANP to turn a blind eye to militant activities for a fee.

Some media reports have suggested that Monday’s coordinated attack was sophisticated.  It wasn’t.  There’s nothing terribly advanced about arming a group of men with explosives, grenades and small arms and having them assault a few locations at roughly the same time. What happened Monday was however deeply symbolic. The Taliban have sent a clear message that they can strike anywhere, anytime they like.  It will take a lot more than praise for Afghanistan’s security forces to effectively counter that.

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

When Security and Profits Don’t Mix

Posted on 10. Dec, 2009 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

It looks like ArmorGroup North America will be down one lucrative contract next year. The US State Department is reportedly severing its relationship with the private security firm following an investigation into allegations of lewd, drunken behaviour and sexual misconduct by ArmorGroup contractors protecting the US Embassy in Kabul.

I have long argued against outsourcing military jobs – such as guarding embassies – to private security firms. The reason is simple. The military exits to protect and serve the national interest whereas PSCs operate for one reason and one reason only; to turn a profit.

Taking Aim at PSC Reform

The media has had a field day with the ArmorGroup North America story. But the sensationalist headlines decrying ‘mercenaries’ out of control often ignore the underlying cause of such abuses. Having worked as a private security advisor in hostile environments since 2002, I can say confidently that the majority of contractors on the ground are competent and strive to do their jobs professionally. Scandals are not simply the product of individuals gone awry; they are the result of poor management structures, corporate cultures which place profits above the security of clients and employees, and above all, lack of external oversight.

One area which clearly illustrates how PSCs and the military operate to different standards is alcohol consumption. The British military bans alcohol in all operational environments and strictly enforces its dry policies. Some PSC’s by contrast have no rules against drinking or turn a blind eye to contractors who flaunt those that do exist. No one working in a warzone should consume alcohol – period. Tasks in hostile environments usually entail long hours and can only be done properly if contractors lead what is essentially a monastic life. Down time should be spent honing skills through training, keeping fit and resting up for the next shift – not getting pissed. I’ve seen contractors misplace their weapons (leaving them in the toilet or on top of vehicles) because they were hung over or in some cases – still drunk. It’s beyond unacceptable.

Another area where some PSCs fall short of military standards is saying ‘no’ to clients. If a diplomat in a hostile environment wants to engage in unnecessary high risk activities, such as shopping on streets that are targeted by suicide bombers, a military Close Protection team (bodyguards) can take up the issue with their superiors back home who can then go across to the diplomat’s bosses and nip the scenario in the bud. No such chain of command exists in the private security world; hence why so many PSCs instruct their advisors on the ground to ‘give the client what they want’ rather than risk losing a contract. Reforms prompted by unacceptable incidents are another area where some PSCs fail to respond as effectively as the military. Due to negligent discharges and unlawful shootings by some contractors, there are now private, operational CP teams in hostile environments who are forbidden by their employers from carrying weapons with a chambered round. Could you imagine a general ordering his frontline troops to do that?

In The Circuit, I argued for three key reforms to clean up the private security industry: first, limit PSCs to servicing only commercial contracts; secondly, require PSCs to perform due diligence on all employees to ensure they have the skills and mindset to do their tasks effectively; and finally and most importantly, externally regulate the industry.

Limiting PSCs to commercial contracts would not bar ex-servicemen and women from working military jobs. What would change is the management. I would like to see the US State Department and DoD and the British FCO and MoD hold a database of ex-military and law enforcement individuals who could be hired for tasks such as guarding embassies and providing close protection for diplomatic staff. The military and foreign office security managers would then be directly in charge of their teams on the ground. Not only would this system graft military/government command structures onto tasks and enforce higher standards – it would also be more cost effective. Cutting out the often astronomical management fees of PSC middle-men would likely save a bundle.

Of all the reforms I’ve been urging, external regulation is the most important. At present, PSCs in Britain are self-regulated. It’s high time the British government did something about it. If PSCs were held to account by a system of external regulation, not only would it dramatically increase professionalism – it would throw light on an industry which currently operates in the shadows. I personally would love it if PSCs were forced to disclose all incidents involving employees in hostile environments dating back to 2001; from negligent discharges, to contacts with civilians, to the number of private contractors killed, wounded and kidnapped on the job. I’m sure the figures would be eye-popping, more so than any headline about ‘rogue mercenaries’.

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

Afghanistan: A Tale of Two Timelines

Posted on 03. Dec, 2009 by admin in War on Terror

It’s finally official: the US will send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The number may have topped the headlines, but it is only the latest chapter in what is shaping up to be A Tale of Two Timelines.

The public was expecting President Obama to give some idea of an exit strategy and he didn’t disappoint.  July 2011 is the date he set to start pulling US forces out of Afghanistan. By announcing a timeline, Obama may have pacified elements at home that have soured on the war, but he’s done so at the expense of confirming to all — including the Taliban — that there is an expiration date on the coalition’s commitment.

The Taliban have no timetable. They are in it for the long haul. Fighting for control of their homeland, the consequences of defeat are far greater for them than for any occupying force.  They could choose to go underground and come out when the coalition’s numbers have sufficiently dwindled (a natural course for many insurgencies), but that would mean giving up hard won momentum; something most fighting forces are loath to do.

I see the Taliban responding to this latest surge one of two ways; they can either hit the coalition full frontal while the new troops are finding their way on the ground or they can spread out to other areas of Afghanistan and concentrate on hitting softer targets. Hitting green soldiers before they find their feet would inevitably take the fight into key population centres, where Obama plans to focus the bulk of the surge.

Will it be a graveyard of Hummers next?

I have long been against sending more troops to Afghanistan and have repeatedly argued for the immediate withdrawal of US and NATO forces. Topping my list of reasons is my firm belief that deploying more troops will only result in more coalition deaths. Concentrating additional forces in population centres could very well entice the Taliban to step up their insurgency in these areas. If this happens, a sharp increase in civilian casualties is almost certain as well.

More civilian deaths will no doubt turn more Afghans against the coalition.  Some would argue it could have the opposite effect and turn more civilians against the Taliban.  Perhaps this is where timelines matter most.  You have to wonder, how many Afghans will factor in who will be around in five or ten year’s time and who won’t when deciding who to back.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and best-selling author of The Circuit. To read more of his blogs, please visit: www.bobshepherdauthor.com