Karzai’s PSC Bluff
Posted on 19. Aug, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
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.
Running Away From Death Valley
Posted on 15. Apr, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
I applaud General Stanley McChrystal’s decision this week to withdraw US Forces from the Korengal Valley in the notorious Kunar-Nuristan corridor of Afghanistan. Even with roughly 150,000 troops soon at his disposal, it’s a brave call to abandon what was touted as an operationally important area—especially when the Taliban will undoubtedly claim the move as a victory. The pullback is being billed as part of a larger ‘repositioning’ of US and NATO forces to more populated areas of Afghanistan. Still, repositioning or not, some places cannot be dominated.
Eastern Afghanistan's Unforgiving Terrain
I speak from experience when I say that the Kunar-Nuristan corridor falls into that category. Back in 2007, I had occasion to travel to the region on a military embed with a small TV news crew. The embed took us from FOB Kala Gush in western Nuristan across to FOB Naray in Kunar and finally onto FOB Keating in eastern Nuristan. I have never in my entire life been to a military location as vulnerable as Camp Keating. Based at a junction of the Kunar River in a deep valley overlooked by sharp mountain peaks, the place was an insurgent’s Valhalla.
Militants could nest in a tree line or behind a boulder for days; studying the soldiers’ routines, working out the best time to strike. The poor troops stationed at Camp Keating were patrolling with eyes on stalks. FOB Keating’s mission at the time was provincial reconstruction and security sector reform; difficult tasks in any insurgent rich environment, let alone one with unforgiving terrain, ancient ethnic rivalries, lumber-smuggling syndicates and rampant xenophobia. I was never so happy to leave a base – and never so angry. I couldn’t believe any commander in their right mind would send great, young warriors to operate in such a location, especially when you consider that Soviet forces were hammered in Kunar-Nuristan during their ill-fated occupation. It was sheer lunacy. McChrystal’s predecessors were clearly not history buffs.
Camp Keating was abandoned late last year following the infamous ‘Battle of Kamdesh’ in which a large force of insurgents assaulted the outpost, killing 8 soldiers and wounding more than 20. The Yanks didn’t have an easy time in the Korengal Valley either. Known as Death Valley, it has claimed the lives of 42 American soldiers and wounded hundreds of others since 2005.
Concentrating troops in areas where they have a hope of dominating the ground is definitely a sounder strategy. Still, I think it’s too little too late. It certainly puts neighbouring Pakistan’s challenges into perspective as well. For years the West has criticized Pakistan for not doing enough to go after extremists on its side of the Durand Line—the historic border with Afghanistan. Now that Pakistan has launched multiple operations against insurgent strongholds in its border regions, it has every right to slate the West for not pulling its weight in Afghanistan.
So the Pakistanis have a legitimate grievance and the US will be accused of running away from Kunar-Nuristan. But at least McChrystal has taken his forces out of an impossible situation. Critics be damned.
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 War Zone – Not an Amusement Park
Posted on 01. Apr, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
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.
The Rules of Engagement vs. Hearts & Minds
Posted on 25. Feb, 2010 by admin in Bob Shepherd
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 Bob Shepherd
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 Around the Planet, Bob Shepherd
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 Bob Shepherd
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 Around the Planet, Bob Shepherd
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 Bob Shepherd
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 Bob Shepherd
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.