Commentators

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 11° London Hi 11°C / Lo 10°C

Jerome Starkey: The deadly task of fighting against an invisible enemy

Analysis

Destroyed vehicles at the scene of a suicide attack in Lashkar Gah last week

AP

Destroyed vehicles at the scene of a suicide attack in Lashkar Gah last week

The grim toll of soldiers coming home from Afghanistan in coffins is testimony to the brutal contest being waged in the poppy fields of Helmand. For three years, British troops have been massively undermanned, underequipped and overstretched as they have tried to convince a deeply cynical population that they are safe from the Taliban.

Most of the province was beyond the reach of British forces. When the troops did come, they rarely stayed. Far from feeling safe, the people watched as the Taliban grew stronger. But the arrival of 8,000 US Marines in Barack Obama's surge is threatening to change the balance – and the Taliban are fighting back.

Helmand is their heartland, its opium is their war chest, and they are desperate to stay in control. When I was in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, last month many people struggled to understand why Britain and Nato, with all its might, were unable to defeat these ragtag insurgents. I met a shopkeeper selling drinks just 100 metres from the British headquarters. Afghan police had found two improvised explosive devices buried in a culvert in front of his shop.

"When the international troops first came here, they cleaned up all over Afghanistan within a month," said Khan Mohammed. "Now I discover that there's a mine exploding in front of my shop."

Like many people, he had bought into the wild conspiracy theories which flourish in Lashkar Gah's bazaars. "The British must be supporting the Taliban," he said.

But the Taliban know different. More than 3,000 British troops are involved in an operation to clear the roads between Lashkar Gah and Gereshk, Helmand's second largest town. It's an operation that Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, who led Taskforce Helmand last summer, hoped to complete, but never did. Without the extra Americans it would have been impossible to succeed because too many of Britain's fighting troops were pinned down in combat outposts dotted along the central section of the river, which runs the length of the valley. The extra US Marines are evidence of hard lessons learnt in Iraq. Senior commanders insist it will "tip the balance". But counter-insurgency experts have already issued a warning that they may not be enough to rout the Taliban completely.

John Nagl, who was recently appointed to the Pentagon's defence policy board, said: "We do not have enough troops to hold what we have cleared in Helmand. The additional American troops are a help, but they are insufficient."

The Taliban have also learnt lessons. Homemade bombs have become their weapon of choice. Where they used to try to overrun British platoon houses, or out-gun them in a firefight, today they watch and wait.

They look at how the soldiers patrol and they watch how they fight. The irrigation ditches that line most of the roads have become a favourite place for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) because the Taliban know that soldiers instinctively dive there for cover when the fighting starts.

Places like Garmsir, where the Marines are deployed, and Babaji, where the British are involved in Operation Panther's Claw, have become so-called "strongholds". The Taliban have been all but free to manufacture IEDs, process poppies into heroin, and terrorise local people.

Students living in the districts have fled to Lashkar Gah. I met three who said the Taliban had closed their schools, the fighting had destroyed their homes, and all three had lost innocent relatives in crossfire.

For the British soldiers on the ground, it's an impossibly frustrating and dangerous mission. They are fighting an enemy they rarely see and trying to win over a population who have suffered terribly since the foreign troops arrived.

The British and the Americans are following an old Nato doctrine of clear, hold and build, but the extra troops means this is the first time they have been able to fulfil it. Both forces have promised to stay in the areas they clear until the Afghan security forces are ready to take over. If it works, it should at least mean that British troops won't have to die clearing these areas a second time.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

And he doesn't know why we are there
[info]giuseppesaponi wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 06:48 am (UTC)
The "expert" Mr Starkey tells us "When I was in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, last month many people struggled to understand why Britain and Nato, with all its might, were unable to defeat these ragtag insurgents." You don't have to be an "expert" to know the answer - because it is their land and they won't give up till the invaders are defeated or to paraphrase Chairman Mao "it aint over till the guerrillas have won".
Re: And he doesn't know why we are there
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
Starkey may not be an 'expert', but he's much more informed than you. Shut up & stay out of the discussion if you have nothing constructive to say except to recycle what someone else said about a completely uncomparable war half a century ago.
What time will it be?
[info]timspooner wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 07:14 am (UTC)
I can't help but wonder when the British Public will get sick of the sight of coffins coming back and say Enough is Enough?
spin or typo?
[info]prayle wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 07:31 am (UTC)
" they have tried to convince a deeply cynical population that they are safe from the Taliban"

the opposite is true! the government have tried to convince a deeply cynical population that they are UNsafe from the Taliban - maybe you made a typo.
(no subject) - [info]rickraider - Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 07:41 am (UTC)
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)

Have you thought this through?

You have people holding British passports, dressed in uniforms, well armed, flown over to a foreign land, to take part in an illegal invasion, killing Muslims daily - these are the British soldiers.

Your title could be rewritten "Sick British soldiers are killing Islamic boys".
(no subject) - [info]rickraider - Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
So where should we invade next then?
I assume you have a list.
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:18 am (UTC)
Excellent! At last someone capable of intelligent & rational comment.
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:43 am (UTC)
rickraider:

Excellent! At last someone capable of intelligent & rational comment.
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]rickraider wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 01:39 pm (UTC)
Thanks
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:22 am (UTC)

First, it is not UK's job to control and restructure failed states it its image.

Most Muslims in the world look on the Taliban's version of Islam with disgust. But, rightly, the vast majority are unwill to support an illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Taliban made the mistake of allowing al-quaeda to live with them. But now, al-quade has disappeared. We are left fighting the wrong enemy.

But then, no one (Muslim or not) is going to support illegal invasions and the installment of puppet leaders like Karzai.

The sad part is the the British soldiers have signed up to protect the UK.

But they are being sacrificed as pawns as part of Bush's/Blair's ambitions. Republicans have been kicked out, Labour is on its way out.

Either way, there is no way to win this war. As its an illegal war - its not a great disappointment to most of the world. Just the loss of inncoent life of both sides is.
(no subject) - [info]rickraider - Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 01:38 pm (UTC)
Re: Sick Islamist Brits are killing our boys
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 02:15 pm (UTC)

We will have to see who wins in Afghanistan. It wont be the West...
UK's Vietnam
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 09:07 am (UTC)

This war cannot be won.
Need plan B.
What makes our Government think we can wage war without casualties
[info]allenn007 wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC)
It shows the sheer arrogance of the British Government that they think they can send people to war and somehow get out unscathed, without loss to our own soldiers.
If you send people to war then lives will be lost, period. Are they in some sort of dreamland in that they only expect the 'enemy' to die in conflict and that our soldiers are somehow immune? The other side can fight as well, we should not be surprised by that.
Re: What makes our Government think we can wage war without casualties
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)

Afghanistan is where superpowers go to get humbled - in any century.
Double Think
[info]ratcatcher911 wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
I do get tired of this "our boys" rubbish.
"our boys" are well-fed, well-trained and armed to the teeth. They're taking part in a cynical invasion of someone else's country and, unsurprisingly, the natives are getting angry and fighting back. I'd be doing exactly the same.
It has nothing to do with Islamic extremism and everything to do with Western infuence in a chaotic yet militarily important region.
"Our boys" aren't protecting us from Jack Shit. What they are doing is waging war against people without the hardware to fight back on equal terms.
Now that's what I call bravery.
Re: Double Think
[info]rickraider wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
I do get tired of nonsense posters like you who have no appreciation of what is happening. Cast your mind back to when the Taliban controlled the country do you really believe this was a better place. This was a failed state that was training terrorists to go round the world killing and maiming at will. If the natives as you put it, are fighting back is it your opinion that it is all the Afghan people involved LOL.

What cracker did you come out of we have 3,500 troops in a country with over 32,000,000 people LOL

No our troops are fighting the Taliban who let Afghanistan become the world capital for terrorist training camps some of which were visited by those truly evil British muslims who murdered 52 people on 7/7. So yes OUR BOYS are doing a brilliant job not only for Britain but for all other countries that value democracy. Let's face it you would not be able to write your rubbish if the Taliban were controlling the media.
(no subject) - [info]damnthestupid - Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
Re: Double Think
[info]newscritter wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 12:25 pm (UTC)
Not rubbish. Read about Operation Cyclone and you will realize that the Taliban was established by the US to lure the Soviet Union into, as Brezezenski says, "an Afghan trap." The Taliban are the natural hangover from this operation. Incidentally, insulting other people is not a good way of getting your point across.
Re: Double Think
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC)
You've lost me.

True: Operation Cyclone (which I know about and agree with you when you say the Taliban are the hangover of this operation)

Rubbish: 'this war has nothing to Islamic extremism'

Rubbish: the Afghan people want the Taliban

Re: Double Think
[info]ratcatcher911 wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)
I often wonder why people like you adopt this position. You seem perfectly intelligent and sensible.
Maybe the answer lies in my own story.
Not long ago, I was a flag waving reactionary who had no truck with "bleeding-heart liberals" and the like until I looked a little closer at what's going on and listened to the people who are actually in these places.
I realised that the people we have been brought up to trust (the media, the government, the armed forces etc.) are not just capable of lying, they have adopted it as their default policy. To come to terms with that, to accept that you were born in one of the most ruthless, greedy and duplicitous nations in the world is really hard to do, but brave people do it and, I think, are wiser for it.
The cowards just keep on waving their flags and huff and puff about "democracy" whilst the very institution gets taken apart in front of their eyes.
It's easier to sing Rule Britannia and to call the rest of us simpletons.
It's braver to face up to the truth.
Re: Double Think
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC)
There's nothing brave about facing up to a 'truth' which has been proposed to based on half-truths, misnomers, distortions, the mass media, incompete information, and some downright lies.

It's not about singing Rule Britannia; it's about taking a position based on reality. The type of reality that is clearer after more than 25 (long) visits to the region starting back in the 70s, throughout the 80s (when the Russians were there) and more than armchair knowledge of the cultural, religious & political powers at play in the region.

ps being a simpleton is not terminal; we are priviledged in the fact that we have access to information to enlighten us. It's just those that who are comfortable in their ignorance and not willing to consider that they might not, actually, know everything about everything.
Those simpletons are a burden on the planet.
Re: Double Think
[info]newscritter wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 08:13 pm (UTC)
The comment "this war has nothing to do with Islamic extremism" is, I agree, mistaken. BUT, to the extent that the US and UK helped to incubate and nourish this extremism (in an attempt to overthrow the PDPA and establish a viable threat to the Soviet Union), one can easily see that the overall provenance of it, is more difficult to ascertain. Secondly, I agree that the Afghan people are not thrilled about the Taliban. But let's not simplify things. The Taliban were the religious wing of the Northern Alliance; the warlords now supported by the UK and US were the secular wing bent on rape, violence and pillage. That the Afghan people "prefer" the Taliban over western bankrolled warlords, is actually quite true. For one thing, where the Taliban destroyed all of the known opium fields in Afghanistan, the US and UK backed warlords replanted them. Finally, if you know about Operation Cyclone, you will realize that the Taliban is "our" creation. We set them up, we funded them, we provided them with a strategic goal. It was the west that created them. Indeed, under OC, Islamic colleges were set up in Brooklyn New York (even I can't get my head around that!) and the most radical elements of Islam were chaperoned into one group in one country. They were literally rounded up with the help of Pakistan's ISI. If only people realized that it was the west that created the monster. It is we who unleashed the Taliban and the warlords on the people of Afghanistan. Also, let us not forget that the West wants to install an oil pipeline in the same country - contracts have already been signed by Univol, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP. (And, hey presto, the local Afghan government is only going to receive 8 % percent of all revenue - how fair and noble!) I fear British troops and the indigenous Afghani people are being sacrificed for the interests of the oil juntas. The troops are sold the ideal that they are bringing freedom to the people (though, contrary to such expectations, the warlord faction of the Northern Alliance is being daily funded by the UK and US). And the people of Afghanistan are being sold the ideal that there is life "after the Taliban." None of this would have started in the first place if the US and UK did not move to overthrow the PDPA government and if Carter did not give the go ahead to Brezezinski's diabolical OC. It is vital that we see the broader picture.
Re: Double Think
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 02:18 pm (UTC)

Exactly - correct.
Leadership and clarity?
[info]brystanners67 wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
I have the impression, probably incorrect, that there is a separation in leadership between the British and the Americans, and the other contributing forces. Why can't there be an overall commander who manages the whole strategy and can speak for it?
As the Americans are contributing so much to this, should we not commit to their leadership?
Or do we? Does anybody know?
Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:41 am (UTC)
It's true that it can be confusing to understand what's going on!

As far as I know (assuming there hasn't been any change recently);

There are 2 'operations' in Afghanistan:

(1) Operation Enduring Freedom: which was launched in 2001 and is aimed at targeting the extremists and also to train the Afghan security forces.

(2) NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): also established in 2001, it focuses not on the terrorists but rather the civilian population, in that the ISAF aims to stablise the country so that reconstruction can take place and that infrastructure can be established for the civilan population.

And, to answer your question, US Army General Stanley McChrystal commands both organizations; he's the top dog.

Interestingly, he came from Iraq where he led the Joint Special Operations Command for the past 5 years; many experts believe his approach & strategy led to the decrease in violence in Iraq (and that the decrease was not only the result of the 'surge' of troops in that country).

Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]johnjackson wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
No Einstein, the decrease in violence against the U.S. troops was because the Yanks paid the Sunnis not to attack them. The Shia are in charge in Iraq now and the Yanks lost. Get over it.
Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]damnthestupid wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
Hahaha - yes, actually you have a good point - many were allegedly paid off to stop fighting the yanks.

I was only reflecting that some believe he was also influential - I never said it was either the absolute truth or that it was the only factor in the reduction of violence.

I think it's you with the Einstein complex if you think that the decrease in violence was only because of the (good) point you mention.
Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 04:56 pm (UTC)
As it happens, apart from the paid programmes that so many have walked away from, what led to the downturn in violence was a very hush hush three way deal between Iran, Sadr and the US, the US convinced Iran and Sadr that they would be going soon and for that Sadr called a halt to all activity from that point.
Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]johnjackson wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 05:52 pm (UTC)
Not you ancient.
Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]brystanners67 wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 03:31 pm (UTC)
Much appreciate your comments and information. I am left wondering why there has been so much leaked disappointment from the Americans in the British strategy/performance, if indeed the top dog is commanding an integrated force.
Re: Leadership and clarity?
[info]floppsiefrog wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
I should imagine the coalition of the willing operates under NATO's umbrella to preserve the illusion of being independent, rather than being correctly perceived as a rag tag collection of puppets supporting America's ambition of full spectrum world dominance. The military objective appears to be to seek and eliminate all those with the temerity to oppose subjugation. Funny. I've always thought it better to motivate people with a unifying idea and financial incentives rather than the fear of death.
What The Mainstream Media Won't Say, I Will
[info]newscritter wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:54 am (UTC)
I detest the way the designation "Taliban" is suddenly a catchall term. For one thing the Taliban, set up by the US and funded by MI6, CIA and ISI (under Carter's Operation Cyclone), are divided along two lines: those that are religious "fundamentalists" and those that are lawless criminals with no ideology to speak of. The latter has been ruling Afghanistan for some time now, raping local women, destroying civilian infrastructure, and taking bribes from a US administration hungry to get some sort of foothold on the country. Many local Afghanis even prefer the former group to the latter, given that opium exports under the "religious" branch of the Taliban were utterly wiped out. US and UK funding of the warlords, however, continues to exacerbate the situation on the ground for a great majority of the troops - who, sadly, are acting as a cosmetic force for other more insidious black opps (the western dream, "the" dream of Unicol, BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil, is that an oil pipeline will run through Afghanistan, providing energy supplies to the west). The people of the UK should rise up against there government and ensure that this illegal occupation comes to an end.
The deadly task of fighting against an invisible enemy
[info]septimusgrunge wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
How do Blair and Hoon sleep at night!!
Re: The deadly task of fighting against an invisible enemy
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC)
They don't, they party on all night, hence all the paranoia and bad decision making. :D
The real enemies are very visible !
[info]frank_reader wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 03:18 pm (UTC)
They are the bLiars.
Trial them and send them behind bars.

Columnist Comments

rupert_cornwell

Rupert Cornwell: From now on this is Obama's war

Watching him make the most important speech of his term was depressing.

david_lister

David Lister: Why Strictly's upset a professional dancer

Let's see some proof there is audience movement from these events to a wider interest in the art form.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Is this what they mean by NHS care?

How complicated can it be for a breast-care nurse to master the procedures of a clinic?


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion