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.

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.

Remember the not-so-distant past when the word ‘corruption’ peppered every official US comment on Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government? Yet the ‘C’ word has been conspicuously absent during Karzai’s feel good tour of Washington this week. President Obama claimed that the ‘perceived tensions’ were ‘simply overstated’ – this despite the fact that as recently as last month, Karzai reportedly told a group of Afghan lawmakers that he should quit the political process and join the Taliban. So why have recriminations and threats suddenly been replaced by smiles and handshakes?

It has nothing to do with cleaning up corruption, that’s for sure. By all accounts, it’s still business as usual in Kabul and Karzai’s brother, an alleged drugs lord, is still living large in Kandahar. In my view, the Afghan President is being given the red carpet treatment not because of the ‘C’ word but because of the ‘D’ word – deadline.

Still on top

President Obama hopes to begin withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan by July 2011. Abandoning Karzai so late in the game would undoubtedly push this deadline back, something which would not go down well with US voters at a time when Obama will be gearing up for re-election. (Unlike Britain, US campaigning starts more than a year before voters actually go to the polls).

Karzai knows this all too well and true to form, he is manipulating the situation to his advantage. As I’ve said in previous blogs, Karzai is an astute man who can run rings around his western counterparts. It boggles the mind how in a matter of weeks he’s refocused the Afghan debate away from corruption and toward issues which can only bolster him back home: limiting civilian causalities and reconciling with the Taliban.

Carrot or stick, Karzai will do what is best for Karzai. And like a hard done by political wife, Obama is so invested in the Afghan President he has no choice but to stand by his man. But does Britain have to stand by him as well? Don’t forget, that while Karzai is being showered with affection in Washington, an innocent and upstanding British commercial security manager, Bill Shaw, languishes in a notorious Kabul jail.

Unlike President Obama, the new British Prime Minister David Cameron has just come through an election and is therefore in an outstanding position to shake up foreign policy. I personally would like the new PM to withdraw British troops from Afghanistan immediately. I doubt that’s on the cards though, so I’ll settle for demanding Mr. Shaw’s immediate release.

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

Private security contractors working for Western PSCs in Kabul added another occupational hazard to their already considerable portfolio this week after Bill Shaw, a manager for Britain’s largest security firm was convicted of bribery by an Afghan court and sentenced to two years in prison. I have no doubt that Mr. Shaw was acting in good faith when he paid a $20,000 fine for the release of two improperly licensed vehicles owned by his employer, G4S; parent company of ArmorGroup. By all accounts, he is an upstanding manager who got caught in a political pissing match between Karzai’s government and the West over who is fuelling corruption in Afghanistan.

In light of the recent rows between Karzai and his western backers, the railroading of Mr. Shaw certainly smacks of the Afghan President getting a little of his own back. But harassment of foreign PSCs in Afghanistan is certainly nothing new. Since at least 2006, Afghan authorities have been stopping foreign contractors at police roadblocks, confiscating weapons, communications systems and vehicles, raiding security company compounds and arresting consultants on fabricated charges. Some have argued that such activities are needed to rein in rogue contractors. While a small minority of foreign security personnel in Afghanistan have behaved like cowboys, it’s my firm belief that the hounding of foreign PSCs has nothing to do with law enforcement and everything to do with lining the pockets of corrupt Afghans.

So-called ‘fines’ are just the tip of the iceberg. There are shed loads of cash to be made servicing commercial security contracts in Afghanistan and the country’s warlords and Generals who run their own local PSCs/militias have been trying to get rid of the foreign competition for years. As poor Bill Shaw discovered, that agenda has now converged with Karzai’s need to demonstrate that the international community is also to blame for corruption in his country.

Political Pawns?

The Times reported that Mr. Shaw cleared the fine with his head office in London before paying it and that immediately prior to his arrest; ‘someone’ suggested he ‘leave the country on a British military flight.’ Having managed commercial security teams in Afghanistan since 2004, I would have thought G4S’s managers in London would have insisted he leave the country the second he was called in for questioning. They were incredibly naïve in my view. There are no objective rules in Afghanistan. The Afghans make them up as they go along. After nine years, G4S and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which encourages British businesses to come to Afghanistan should know this. I hope both are playing hardball right now to secure Mr. Shaw’s release.

Of course, the real sting in the tail is that the judicial system that convicted Mr. Shaw is partially funded by the British tax payer. How can Britain continue to justify pouring money and troops into Afghanistan when men like Bill Shaw who are trying to facilitate business and development in the country are hung out to dry?

Finally, let’s not forget Maiwand Limar, the Afghan G4S employee who was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison alongside Bill Shaw. You can guarantee poor Mr. Limar won’t be enjoying any special treatment in Kabul’s notorious Pul-e-Charkhi prison. I hope G4S are working as hard to clear his name as they are Mr. Shaw’s and that both men’s families will be fully provided for while this political storm rages.

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

Millions of people have viewed the now infamous classified video leaked earlier this week by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.org. Collateral Murder shows an incident in Baghdad in 2007 in which two US Apache helicopters fired on a group of civilians, including two Reuters employees. The video is highly disturbing and has sparked a valid debate about the Rules of Engagement. It also serves as a cautionary tale for any journalist operating in a hostile environment. These are important topics that deserve serious discussion. Still, I fear that the way in which they were raised has handed jihadists a major propaganda victory.

While I admire WikiLeaks’ mission to expose government and corporate misconduct, I think it was totally irresponsible for the organization to release Collateral Murder on the internet where anyone can exploit it. You can bet that fair-minded truth seekers aren’t the only ones pressing play. Jihadists the world over are probably thinking of ways to harness the video as a recruiting tool – if they haven’t already. I sincerely doubt WikiLeaks had any intention of bolstering jihadism. But when material of this nature is released indiscriminately, collateral damage will result.

Fog of War?

One group of people I would like to see benefit from watching Collateral Murder is journalists who cover conflicts. There is a lot to be learned from this tragedy. WikiLeaks provided graphic inserts to highlight the two Reuters employees killed in the incident. Some journalists may be tempted to conclude that even without the graphics, the Reuters men were obviously media. That would be a grave mistake. I’ve watched this video a dozen times and I can easily see how the Apache crews mistook photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saeed Chmagh for combatants. First, you have to consider the context in which the Apaches were operating that morning. There was a full scale US military operation going on in the area. Any journalist operating there unilaterally was in danger. The fact that the Reuters men were in the company of at least two armed men wearing civilian clothing seriously increased their chances of being mistaken for combatants. Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were also carrying cameras which when viewed from a distance can look like weapons. At one point in the video, Noor-Eldeen is in the crosshairs of the Apache as he pokes his long lens around a corner of a building. One of the Apache crew members declares ‘he’s got an RPG.’ I’ve viewed this segment many, many times and from that angle the lens absolutely resembles an RPG launcher.

There is no denying that what happened to the Reuter’s men was disgraceful and the US military should do everything in its power to make sure the same mistakes aren’t repeated. But in my view, Reuters and other major media organizations should also be doing some soul searching. By 2007, every major media outlet with operations in Iraq understood the pitfalls of operating unilaterally. Had Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh received a full course of hostile environment training before they were sent on assignment in what was at the time the most dangerous city in the world?

No journalist should attempt to cover a conflict – even locals working in their own backyards—without first receiving hostile environment training and a full scenario briefing from their bureau covering all the potential ‘what ifs.’ The onus is on managers to make sure the people they send into warzones have the right skills, equipment and resources to minimize risks. The terrible events captured in the WikiLeaks video may not change the way the military operates but the media can certainly learn from it.

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

General Stanley McChrystal deserves a huge round of applause this week for shutting down fast food outlets on US bases in Afghanistan. According to a blog by McChrystal’s Command Sergeant Major, closing such non-essential amenities will free up storage and transport capacity for the 30,000 additional US troops and 7,000 ISAF soldiers deploying over the coming months. Some British newspapers have suggested that obesity among the rear echelon may also have factored into the decision.

Closing down the likes of Burger King, Pizza Hut and Dairy Queen may help with the battle of the bulge and most certainly will help accommodate the troop surge. Still, I suspect there is a deeper agenda at play here. In his blog, McChrystal’s CSM put the troops on notice. ‘This is a warzone – not an amusement park,’ he wrote. I couldn’t agree more. As a security advisor to media and other clients in Afghanistan, I’ve been going to Bagram Airbase and Kandahar Airfield since 2004. I have always found it unnerving to see what I regard as miniature Disneylands inside military bases, especially in hostile environments. When soldiers arrive in theatre they need to ‘tune in’ to their surroundings – not lose themselves in a bubble of home-style luxury. As soon as they step off the plane, they are on operations. Rest and recuperation should compliment this mindset, not destroy it. During my twenty-three years in the British military, R&R at a rear echelon base meant eating fresh rations from a large, well-stocked food hall, going to the gym, getting a decent shower and having good laundry facilities; comforts that refresh but don’t cause a soldier to ‘tune out’ completely. Do you think the Taliban tune-out during R&R – if indeed they ever take it?

No Fast Food Here Either

I’ve seen rear echelon troops in Bagram and Kandahar so relaxed that their weapons had no round in the spout. Some of them didn’t even have magazines. These are bad habits to get into. Any soldier can be sent to the sharp end at a moment’s notice and they need to be physically and mentally prepared.

General McChrystal’s actions this week are all the more admirable because he is not asking anything of his troops that he doesn’t expect of himself. McChrystal is known to be a workaholic whose daily routine includes running eight miles, sleeping just four hours and eating only one meal. This has earned him the nickname ‘warrior monk.’ Frankly, I think this is how all soldiers should behave whilst operational. The only way to succeed in a hostile environment is to live a monastic life. General McChrystal is leading from the front. Good on him. It’s a shame more mid-ranking NATO officers don’t follow his example.

Now that McChrystal has given US forces a reality check, I hope he’ll expand his crackdown on non-essential luxuries to all troops under his command. Banning alcohol and fast food on NATO bases throughout Afghanistan would be an excellent next step. I’d like to see all of McChrystal’s forces playing by the same rules. Then they can tune in together and really take on the Taliban.

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

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.

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 Ajmal Naqshband, who 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.