Afghanistan operation 'is a long-term commitment'

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, acknowledged yesterday that Afghanistan was a "long-term commitment" for Britain. He said he had "never underestimated the degree of difficulty we face" in the country, a very different position from the one taken by his predecessor, John Reid, who declared when he sent UK forces into Helmand at the beginning of last year that the mission would last three years and might end "without a shot being fired in anger".

Now, two million rounds of ammunition and dozens of casualities later, no one in the British military and diplomatic circles believes that Afghanistan is going to be anything but a very long haul. The international community, with the UK playing a central role, we are told, can expect to be in the country from anything between 10 and 30 years.

Related articles

• Leading Article: Politicians must accept the reality on the ground
• Two South Korean women held hostage by Taliban are released
• Letters: Abortion rights
• Search the news archive for more stories

Mr Browne was speaking after the latest death of a member of the British forces, the second to be killed in two days. This brings the total number of British deaths to 70 since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. This most recent casualty, a soldier from the 1st Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, died after his base, north-east of Sangin, came under fire. Five others were injured.

Mr Browne insisted that British forces were fighting to ensure that Afghanistan has the "best future" possible. He continued: "We want to ensure that the country which has gone through three decades or more of dreadful violence, lost two million of its people, has the opportunity that its citizens deserve to have the best future they can have in an already challenging environment. And to ensure this ungoverned state, as it has become after 30 years of that sort of violence, and has become a training ground for terrorists, never again becomes a training ground."

One of the main aims of the deployment of British troops was to combat Afghanistan's heroin production, which is now responsible for 92 per cent of the world's total supply. Yet, even after six years of highly publicised eradication campaigns, the opium crop is now at a record level.

The Defence Secretary maintains that "successes" are being registered in other aspects of Afghan life. "We are beginning to make a difference, but it's not an easy thing to do," he said. "The fact of the matter is that it is a long-term commitment and our people are doing an exceptionally good job there, but it has to be complimented by the growth of governance from the Afghans ."

But according to General James Jones, the recently departed US Supreme Nato commander, "heroin is the crux of the problem. It is the killing fields of the country, funds the insurgency and the corruption."

As well as fighting a bloody conflict in Afghanistan, Britain is also losing troops in Iraq, the second front on the "war on terror". Four soldiers have been killed since last Monday as British forces prepare for the final withdrawal from what many in their ranks consider an inglorious war.

After the invasion of Afghanistan, Tony Blair declared: "This time we will not walk away" as the West had done following the war with the Russians. But that is what happened, with the focus moving to Iraq. Senior British military commanders point out, with bitterness, that Afghanistan would not be in such a parlous state if a fraction of the resources which were poured into Iraq was used there.

Meanwhile, there are serious differences between UK and US commanders in Afghanistan. British commanders have asked for American special forces to be removed from their area of operations because of the number of civilian casualties being inflicted. The killings, they say, have greatly damaged the "hearts and minds" operations.

A Senior UK Officer, quoted in the International Herald Tribute, said the Americans had caused "the lions' share" of the 300 civilian casualties this year. He said that in the district of Sangin, the scene of the latest British deaths, there was simply no need for US Special Forces.

Looming in the background is the spectre of General Pervez Musharraf's rule in Pakistan. Both the Americans and the British have accused the Pakistani regime of not doing enough to control the Talibanand other Islamist forces using the country as a base to launch attacks in Afghanistan.