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.

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.

What Happened in Kabul?

Posted on 18. Jan, 2010 by admin in War on Terror

What does it mean when militants (we won’t credit the Taliban entirely, as there is plenty of militancy to go around) launched a major attack in the center of Kabul?

A suicide bomb exploded outside the Central Bank. Another explosion left the luxury Serena Hotel on fire, and gunfights erupted at a five-story shopping mall 50 yards from the presidential palace.

Karzai was swearing in members of his cabinet at the time, which – as security consultant and author Bob Shepherd explains – was not insignificant.

The Tyranny of Political Correctness

Posted on 13. Jan, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

The extremist group Islam4UK has finally been banned under anti-terrorism laws. While I’m elated that it is now a criminal offence to belong to the organization that seeks to turn Britain into an Islamic state and introduce Sharia law, the question must be asked: why didn’t the government act sooner?

The catalyst for the ban was Islam4UK’s proposed march through Wootton Bassett, the Wiltshire town where Brits of all backgrounds gather to pay tribute to fallen British soldiers. The planned demonstration was widely condemned by many sectors of British society and spawned greater public awareness of Islam4UK. It was reported for example, that the group’s founder, Anjem Choudary receives £25,000 a year in benefits from British taxpayers – money which he claims ‘belongs to Allah’.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that media attention effectively embarrassed the government into acting.  The Home Secretary claimed that Islam4UK had avoided being banned earlier because it keeps changing its name (the group sprang up after its parent organization, al-Muhajiroun, was outlawed). But in my view, this excuse doesn’t hold water. The authorities are well aware of what Anjem Choudary and his fellow radicals get up to. Islam4UK should have been banned the second it posted a webpage.  We’re lucky it was a publicity stunt and not a terrorist incident that focused attention on the group.

Why did the government hold back? Was it fearful of being branded racist and anti-Islamic? We do after all live in an era where the tyranny of political correctness has silenced reasonable voices and protected those who would destroy the values which make this country great. It’s high time it ended.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with government policy and hating all that is British. If Anjem Choudary and his followers want to live in an Islamic state, they should apply for residency in one. If they hold a second passport for an Islamic state, they should surrender their British passport and go. Finally, to dissuade foreign radicals from coming to this country to siphon benefits while they spread their message of hate, I propose the following: any foreign adult who wishes to receive a British passport should be made to surrender all others. A UK passport should be a privilege; not a convenience.

Before the PC police have a go at me, let me say that I am proud to live in multi-cultural Britain. The fact that so many people from different backgrounds have learned to live together peacefully here is testament to this country’s strength. Tolerance is undoubtedly one of our greatest values; hence why the government should act swiftly when radicals try to abuse it. If people are going to enjoy the benefits this society has to offer, including the right to free speech and assembly, they should be made to uphold British laws and values – not be excused while they attempt to overthrow them.

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

Don’t Let Radicals Hijack the Debate

Posted on 08. Jan, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

A controversial Islamic group, Islam4UK, reportedly said it would abandon its abhorrent plan to demonstrate in Wootton Bassett if Prime Minister Gordon Brown or his ministers agree to debate the war on Afghanistan with them. How disgraceful it has come to this. The need for our political leaders to thoughtfully and fearlessly debate UK policy on Afghanistan has been apparent for some time, but it’s taken a shameless publicity stunt by a group which seeks to subvert the very values which make this country great to focus attention on the issue.

First, some background: Islam4UK is affiliated with the banned Islamic extremist organisation, Al Muhajiroun. Its objectives include turning Britain into a Muslim state and introducing Sharia law. The group recently announced it would stage an anti-war march in Wootton Bassett; an English town that has won the respect and gratitude of the nation by honouring fallen British soldiers repatriated through their streets. The people of Wootton Bassett do not do what they do for political reasons. They and those who join them only wish to pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives to serve this country. The Wiltshire town has become hallowed ground for Brits of all races and creeds. Islam4UK’s plan to parade through it with empty coffins symbolizing Muslims killed in Afghanistan was condemned by many – including moderate Muslims.

Stormy Afghanistan

If it were up to me, Islam4UK would be outlawed and all its non-British born members deported to their countries of origin. It should not be given a platform, let alone share one with the Prime Minister. There is a real risk however that the group’s attempt to hold the government to ransom could end up stifling a long overdue debate by tarring everyone against the war with the same brush.

As this blog has often demonstrated you can be against the war yet still support our troops and honour our fallen heroes. To prevent the likes of Islam4UK from hijacking the debate, British politicians must discuss our Afghan policies boldly, candidly and without concern for poll ratings.

Remaining in Afghanistan has not been a light decision for government but politically speaking, it’s easier to maintain the status quo than to admit the war can’t be won and withdraw. Such a policy would invite severe criticism, not only from domestic opponents but from the United States as well. Perhaps it explains why the three major British political parties’ Afghan policies all seem to be cut from the same cloth. It would take a political leader with foresight, integrity and nerves of steel to bring our troops home from Afghanistan sooner rather than later. I hope one emerges in time for the general election.

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

Person of the Noughties

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

Many names will be considered for the title ‘Person of the Decade’; politicians, entrepreneurs, scientists, sports figures, bankers, terrorist (I use the singular because Osama bin Laden is really the only one worth considering). While influence will likely be the deciding factor for most publications, I’m going to break from the pack and list survival as my primary criteria (after all, I do blog about security in hostile environments). And by that yardstick, there’s one name in my opinion which stands head and shoulders above the crowd: President Hamid Karzai.

The Ultimate Survivor?

When you consider the minefields – figurative and literal – the Afghan President has negotiated since 2001, the fact that he’s alive and still in power is nothing short of miraculous. The odds were certainly stacked against him when he was named caretaker President following the fall of the Taliban. Surrounded by warring tribes and a cabinet filled with Northern Alliance commanders who’d rather see him eliminated, Karzai’s job was arguably the most dangerous on earth. From the beginning, The Taliban, al-Qaeda and members of his own government derided him as an ‘American puppet’. The world’s press, noting Karzai’s lack of influence outside the Afghan capital, called him ‘The Mayor of Kabul. By 2006, many questioned whether he would see out his first official term as President. Yet somehow Karzai managed to survive multiple assassination attempts, benign neglect by his western backers (in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld infamously declared Afghanistan ‘mostly secure’) and a Taliban resurgence. Not only did he complete his first term in office; in the true fashion of an aspiring dictator, he stole a second and made a mockery of the democratic values his once ardent western supporters believed he would perpetuate.

In the first half of the decade, few would have believed that Karzai would end up playing by the rules of his neighbourhood. Eloquent, educated and stylish in his trademark striped silk coat and astrakhan hat, the West was so completely enamoured of him even fashion designers lauded Karzai as ‘the chicest man on the planet’. Beneath the charming, studied exterior though lurked a shrewd politician.  Karzai knows that survival in Afghanistan means courting those who hold real power. When the West held the upper hand, he was a champion of women’s rights.  When domestic conservative elements regained ground, Karzai played to them (this year, he reportedly signed a law legalizing rape within marriage – a ploy many believe was intended to win support from conservative Muslims ahead of the election).

Since 2004, in my capacity as a security advisor to the media, I’ve been present at five one-on-one interviews with Karzai.  Over the years, I’ve watched him grow more confident and outspoken toward western strategies in his country which he believes are counterproductive and western demands which he views as unrealistic. Make no mistake; Karzai is no one’s puppet. He is a deft, cunning and clever warrior in a nation where men have defined themselves through conflict for three decades. He has witnessed more brutality and bloodshed than all the heads of western states put together.

Some will no doubt argue that Karzai is still controlled by the West; that he is being kept in power to service the grand vision of a pipeline that will run through Afghanistan, thus ensuring western energy security. I don’t think so. But if you’re not convinced that Karzai is indeed his own man, consider this; as the decade draws to a close, a Republican is no longer in the White House and it looks like Labour is on its way out in Britain, yet President Hamid Karzai is still going strong.

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

UK Defence Cuts: Reality v Ruin

Posted on 17. Dec, 2009 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror

Never has Britain looked more like a fading power at a crossroads. To fund the purchase of new Chinooks and other vital equipment to fight the war in Afghanistan, the MoD will close an RAF base, scrap fighter jets, slash staff, delay training, withdraw navy vessels from service and slow the roll out of new spy planes.

It goes without saying that as long as we have troops in Afghanistan, they deserve to be given the right tools and support to do their jobs effectively. But as many have rightly pointed out, properly resourcing the conflict is compromising our preparedness for future ones. The delusion that Britain can continue as a global military power has finally been laid bare. Like a cash-starved aristocrat selling the family silver to repair the roof on his crumbling pile, the British government can either slide toward ruin – or embrace reality, downsize its ambitions and be stronger for it.

Needed Yesterday

Judging from these latest defence cuts, the government in my view has yet to face facts. The UK is poised to drop out of the world’s top ten economies by 2015 yet British forces are the second largest in Afghanistan after the US and were the second largest in Iraq. To finance these commitments, the government has decimated centuries of military tradition. Great Scottish, Welsh and County regiments have gone to the wall forever under the banner of cost-saving ‘amalgamation’. Whatever supposed efficiencies these measures produced, they failed to free up enough cash to adequately equip our overseas military campaigns. The British army was accused of running away from Basra and our troops in Helmund have been unable to dominate the ground for lack of manpower and resources.

As I’ve said before, the fact that our forces have sustained themselves in Helmund for so long with insufficient numbers, equipment and without competent backing from their leaders at the top is testament to their incredible professionalism. Still, it boggles the mind that British soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan to survive by the skin of their teeth. When did our military chiefs become such underachievers?

The Chinooks which frankly, our troops needed yesterday, won’t be ready until 2012 at the earliest. Instead of chasing the error, the British government should acknowledge its policy mistakes, bring the troops home from Afghanistan and give serious thought to what role our military should adopt in order to guarantee our future security. In my view, that means prioritizing the defence of our own shores over fighting US-led wars thousands of miles away. We should be maintaining the Royal Navy and the RAF—not gutting them. We need to adequately fund our intelligence agencies to flush out threats from within our borders, where the vast majority of UK terrorist incidents over the past forty years have been hatched and executed.

Some would argue that our membership in NATO should guarantee our safety if attacked by a foreign air or sea power. Given the caveats on troop deployments and other disagreements which have characterized NATO’s performance in Afghanistan, I for one wouldn’t count on the alliance riding to our rescue. There’s no substitute for self-reliance.

Does a more inward looking military strategy risk making Britain less relevant on the world stage? Probably. But with global economic power shifting eastward, it’s inevitable that nations which do not share our political and social values will be calling more of the shots. The question is; if those shots are aimed at British shores, will our military be strong enough to defend them 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.

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