A Civil War – Not an Insurgency
Posted on 24. Jun, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
It’s a grim milestone that with good leadership could have been avoided. This week a Royal Marine wounded in Helmund Province became the 300th British soldier to die as a result of operations in Afghanistan. The tragic death has caused many Brits to pause and reflect, not only on the sacrifices made by our brave men and woman in uniform but on the broader issue of what our country can realistically achieve in Afghanistan.
Anticipating the flood of public doubt surrounding Britain’s continued involvement, the new coalition government responded to this terrible landmark by once again linking Afghanistan to national security. ‘We are paying a high price for keeping our country safe,’ said Prime Minister David Cameron. ‘We are there because the Afghans are not yet ready to keep their own country safe and to keep terrorists and terrorist training camps out of their country.’ This, as regular readers of my posts will know, is a bogus argument in my view. If anything, Britain’s military presence in Afghanistan has compromised national security by fanning the flames of home grown terrorism. As for making the world a safer place; I’ve said since 2001 that Britain and its allies would do better to tackle al-Qaeda at its source by hitting select targets in Pakistan (al-Qaeda’s primary breeding ground) and Saudi Arabia (al-Qaeda’s financial centre). Going after terrorists one by one in Afghanistan is tantamount to swatting mosquitoes to eradicate malaria.
Can he be won over?
Those who support ‘staying the course’ in Afghanistan believe the coalition can eventually succeed in its mission to bring security and stability to the country. This misperception is not surprising given that for years now, the public has been told that Britain and its allies are waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Indeed I have been sucked into calling the conflict an insurgency. I apologize for doing so and I’d like to be perfectly clear now: Britain is not fighting counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. We have taken sides in a festering 30-year civil war. This distinction is crucial for understanding the limits of what can be achieved there. A foreign force can win a counter-insurgency by getting the people in its area of operations on side. By contrast, British and US forces operating in Pashtoon dominated Southern and Eastern Afghanistan have no chance of winning over the local population because the coalition has allied itself with the former commanders of the Northern Alliance – the mortal enemies of the Pashtoon.
Having worked for six years as a security advisor in Afghanistan, I’ve had contact with locals ranging from humble villagers to cunning warlords. When pressed, they have all come to the same dire conclusion. It doesn’t’ matter when the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan, the end result will be the same; brutal, all-out civil war. Bear in mind too that it’s not just the coalition that have taken sides in the Afghan conflict. India, Pakistan and China all have a presence in the country whether through proxies or exploiting the country’s vast mineral wealth. Russia and Iran are also working behind-the-scenes to secure their interests. That’s five regional powers – all with nuclear weapons or close to it, vying to assert their will in Afghanistan. No matter how you look at it, Afghanistan is a quagmire that defies military solutions.
It’s entirely possible to support our troops in Afghanistan and be against the war. Britain’s armed forces deserve to be honoured for their service and sacrifice. The fact that they were able to hold out in Helmand for years despite being woefully undermanned and ill-equipped is testament to their skill and prowess. They could fight on in Afghanistan indefinitely if that’s what this country asks of them. But make no mistake: achieving Afghan stability is a mission no foreign army, no matter how professional, can accomplish.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Who’s Running Nepal?
Posted on 16. Jun, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
It’s two weeks now since Nepal’s political leaders swore that they’d have some kind of consensus to run the country after they missed the May 28th deadline to finish the new constitution. They promised Nepalis that they’d have one done in another year. Meanwhile, they would come up with a plan.
But the plan they came up with includes two tricky parts: first, the integration and rehabilitation of Maoists militants; second, the immediate resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Sources say there was an understanding between the parties that if Maoists agreed to start integration process, then the prime minister would resign within five days. And that is the problem.
Please give us a government!
Maoists are saying that the prime minister should resign first, while the ruling parties are saying that Maoists should integrate first.
So who is running the country in the meantime? The current government, but even its ministers are not sure for how much longer. Despite considerable confusion among officials, they are managing necessary works, like the budget.
Meanwhile, meetings continue. Inter-party and tri-party and multi-party meetings happen every day, but without much progress.
Citizens remain unimpressed. “Leaders spend more time in bargaining who should be the next prime minister rather than how to make a new constitution on time,” grumbled Nepal Yatayat as he rode a city bus in Kathmandu.
-Rajneesh Bhandari
The Bigger Threat From Pakistan
Posted on 06. May, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
New York City caught a break this week after a car bomb failed to detonate in Times Square. The alleged attacker, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born American citizen, reportedly claimed he learned his terror craft at a training camp in North Waziristan, an insurgent stronghold in Pakistan’s tribal belt. America, Britain and Europe have understandably grown fearful of tribal belt insurgents exporting violent jihad to western shores and this latest incident has garnered considerable media attention, not to mention, a deluge of official reaction from some powerful players. Scary as Shahzad may be though, obsessing about a disgruntled, young militant with poor bomb-making skills strikes me as misplaced considering what’s really at stake in Pakistan.
Pakistani militants have made a much bigger mark on their home turf than they have abroad. Though Pakistan has long been accused of being soft on militants due to Afghan Taliban taking refuge within its borders, in recent years Islamabad has been contending with a growing wave of violence unleashed by the TTP, an umbrella group for the Pakistani Taliban. To the consternation of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, the TTP isn’t concerned with driving western forces out of Afghanistan. Its goal is to topple Pakistan’s central government, abolish democracy (which it views as un-Islamic) and establish a Caliphate; in short, to shake Pakistan to its very foundations.
Could always be worse: At least he didn't have WMDs
Islamabad has responded to this challenge by launching several military offensives in the tribal belt where TTP is based. The fighting has been brutal and Pakistan’s military has taken heavy causalities. If it extends its campaign into North Waziristan (and there will undoubtedly be pressure from the West to do so after Times Square) the military’s resources will be stretched further still. Moreover, the fallout from these incursions is not confined to the tribal areas. The specter of Muslims killing Muslims has done much to enflame Pakistan’s considerable ethnic divisions. Throw in a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan, Pakistan’s largest and most resource rich province and what you have is a recipe for massive instability and civil unrest in a nuclear power. That is scary.
The Times Square bomber has been charged with terrorism and ‘attempting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction.’ Call me old fashioned, but I still think of WMD in terms of NBC -nuclear, biological and chemical; not FPG- fireworks, petrol and gas. Sadly though, my version of WMD did not receive as much coverage this week even though a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is underway at the United Nations in New York.
Pakistan and its neighbor/arch nuclear rival India are not participating in the UN conference because neither country has signed the NPT. But they are there in spirit due to nuclear energy agreements; one between the US and India, another between China and Pakistan. Think of it as the post-Cold War version of mutually assured destruction: MAD by proxy, only more frightening because both India and Pakistan are dealing with considerable domestic unrest.
By enhancing Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear capabilities, China and the US are not only making a mockery of the NPT; if Iran realizes its nuclear ambitions, the stage will be set for a terrifying set of nuclear dominos. External agitation could be the trigger that sets them in motion but so too could internal strife. Diminishing – or better yet, dismantling those dominos is one of the most pressing security issues in the world today – one that deserves above-the-fold, front-page headlines.
Granted, Faisal Shahzad makes more interesting copy than a bunch of talking heads at the UN. But the escapades of an inept terrorist who left a trail of clues before deploying his failed fireworks display won’t seem nearly as significant if all hell breaks loose in South Asia.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Nepal’s Indefinite Strike
Posted on 05. May, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
The unexpected is now happening in Nepal. Trying to meet a deadline to write a new constitution, the government is locked in confrontation. The Maoists, the largest political party in the country, are staging an indefinite strike. In Kathmandu, schools, businesses and transportation have all been shut down. The Maoists are demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and his coalition government. But the government is refusing to step down – for the moment.
The Maoists have called this strike the third Janaandolan, or ‘The Final Movement.’ Four years after the successful ‘April Movement’ – when the Maosists helped oust Nepal’s royal family from power – tens of thousands of Maoist supporters have gathered in Kathmandu again. Many supporters are from outside the city, and they are taking shelter wherever they can find it – in schools, colleges, hotels, restaurants and other places in the capital. Many locals are even providing the Maoists shelter: some to show support for the party, others out of fear.
Here come the Maoists...
The government has said the army may be mobilized if the protests turn violent, and it has offered protection to banks to get them up and running and keep the country moving. But so far the banks have remained closed, fearing violence. And the Maoists, in turn, have threatened to get violent if the army is mobilized. Caught in the middle is the common Nepali citizen, who is growing more and more afraid.
The question remains, will there be political settlement at the 11th hour? If not, then the country could be headed for a really dreadful situation. There is a bleak hope that the leaders will reach a consensus and the peace will be saved. But in the meantime, forget about writing a new constitution on time.
-Rajneesh Bhandari
China in Liberia
Posted on 26. Apr, 2010 by admin in Economy, Uncategorized, War on Terror
China’s rise on the world stage has been felt everywhere, but perhaps nowhere more than Africa. Sweden’s Magnus Jörgel spoke to us about China’s presence in the West African country of Liberia, where he works as a senior adviser to the defense department. Liberia has traditionally been America’s stomping ground, but in recent years the Chinese have entered in a big way.
The Dragon Goes Green
Posted on 13. Apr, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Environment, Uncategorized
You’d think the United States, with its history of innovation and acting on opportunties, would be the global leader in green energy production. Well, think again.
Check out who’s leading the race for solar, wind and biofuel power in the latest episode of A Minute of Your Time.
http://www.vimeo.com/10905948
Chinese Railroad, Redux
Posted on 09. Apr, 2010 by admin in Economy, Energy Security, Environment
The Chinese have raced past the U.S. in development of green technology—in case you doubted that, take a look at the preliminary agreement struck this week between China and California to build bullet trains.
China wants to become the chief licensor of these high-speed trains, which travel 215 miles an hour and which operate on environmentally friendly technology. Other countries are also vying to sell such technology to California, such as Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and Italy. But China also offered to help finance its construction.
We take a look at how China has overcome the U.S. in green energy and technology in Monday’s “Minute of Your Time.” But this brings up a few questions raised over a year ago by former congressman Charlie Stenholm, namely: if China has become the banker for the United States’ deficit, what happens when the bankers come to collect?
Stenholm talks about this here. We discuss an earlier railroad project in China here.
“I Don’t Bet Against China”
Posted on 07. Apr, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized
Global warming is a problem that affects everyone, but one country seems to be pulling ahead of the rest: China. According to a recent report from the Pew Charitable Trusts, China spent $35 billion last year on renewable energy, compared to $19 billion from the US.
Robert Wilder – manager of the WilderHill stock indices, which tracks clean energy stocks – tells us what China’s doing to pull ahead in the green energy race.
http://www.vimeo.com/10752140
China: Making a Killing in Afghanistan
Posted on 25. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized
It looks like China is poised to cash in again on Afghanistan, despite having never fired a shot in anger there. This week, Beijing got a step closer to developing natural gas fields in northwest Afghanistan after signing three agreements with Kabul covering economic cooperation, training and trade. If you’ll recall, China won a major deal in 2007 to develop the Aynak copper mine outside Kabul – one of the world’s largest. Work on the $3 billion project has reportedly gone slower than expected due to deteriorating security, leading some observers to conclude that Beijing may be reluctant to significantly increase investment in Afghanistan. But if this week’s agreements are anything to go by, China will continue to do very well for itself in Afghanistan without having sacrificed a thing.
It’s outrageous to think that Britain, the United States and other countries have squandered vast amounts of blood and treasure trying to secure Afghanistan only to help Beijing secure its future natural resources needs. Beijing has much to gain from a peaceful Afghanistan including stemming the threat from militant Muslim separatists within its own borders. But it doesn’t have to commit military resources to stabilizing the country – not when it can sit back and watch the NATO-led coalition do all the hard work.
All for China?
Beijing also seems reluctant to expend political capital to help bring about a diplomatic solution to the Afghan quagmire. China has huge influence with Pakistan – its biggest Muslim ally. Not only does it sell arms to Islamabad; it has invested billions in developing energy routes through Pakistan including highways and a port in Gwadar in Baluchistan province. China could strong arm Pakistan whenever it likes – but it hasn’t and odds are it won’t because it doesn’t have to.
So what should the Coalition do? Should it continue to watch its troops die and pour billions of dollars into Afghanistan only to leave the spoils to China? I personally would like to see Britain wise up. Too many British soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan already. Our defense budget is under siege and our future security is being compromised to pay for the campaign in Afghanistan. It is madness to make Britain weaker only to make China stronger. It’s time to show a little more self-interest and bring our troops home. As China is proving, the only way to win in Afghanistan is to be selfish.
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.