They are the scum of the earth. English soldiers are fellows who have enlisted for drink, that is the plain fact; they have all enlisted for drink.
—Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
Well, that may have once been the case, but it looks like they’re headed for a dry and dangerous place.
After NATO refused to participate in an plan to engage the alliance in counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan, Britain is preparing to step up to the plate.
Questions the Army must ask before going into Afghanistan
Small Army reconnaissance teams have already deployed to Helmand, Afghanistan’s most dangerous province in the south to study the situation before a major deployment of an estimated 2,000 British troops takes place there in the spring. Another 1,500-2,000 troops will be deployed elsewhere.
Although the British deployment is fraught with risks, it is deemed necessary to stem a growing Taliban insurgency now spreading to urban areas and to deal with a burgeoning drugs trade that is providing new funds and resources to al-Qa’eda and the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, before any deployment, it is essential that the British high command demand and receive certain binding assurances from Whitehall and the Afghan government.
Next spring, more than 1,000 British troops, backed by civilian engineers and other experts and diplomats, will form a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) under Nato command to speed up reconstruction efforts and combat the opium trade from a base in Lashkagarh, capital of Helmand.
Another 1,000 troops, backed by Apache helicopters, will deploy at a separate base in Helmand as a fighting force under the American-led coalition to combat the Taliban insurgency in the south. Another 500-800 troops will deploy at Kandahar to beef up the main command centre of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, while roughly the same number will deploy to Kabul as Britain takes over command of the Nato lead peacekeeping force in the capital.
The British deployment has now become much more serious and critical to stability in Afghanistan, after the US Defence Department announced that it would be withdrawing 4,000 troops from southern Afghanistan next spring. The 20,000-strong US force that does the bulk of the fighting against the Taliban is preparing more withdrawals later in the year and Washington is insisting that Nato take over more responsibility for fighting the Taliban – something few countries are prepared to do.
The American withdrawal has now forced London to seek a wider coalition with other Commonwealth countries to plug the gap left by the Americans, after European countries refused to join either the British-led PRT or the fighting force in Helmand.
Britain is the first country since the American deployment after the defeat of the Taliban to be both providing a PRT as well as a fighting force in the same region. Britain will also have the single largest PRT in the country. Almost all of the 22 PRTs scattered around the country are 100-150 strong and their effectiveness has been seriously questioned: each country sets its own rules.
No PRT is combating the drugs trade or doing large scale reconstruction work. Other caveats set by individual governments have been crippling. The Spanish PRT has not left its compound after six months in the country, while the German PRT allows only German troops to travel in its helicopters.
An ambitious Britain is trying to kill two birds with stone. Establish a PRT large enough to provide real security for aid agencies and the Afghan government to do long-term reconstruction projects and provide alternative crops to farmers to help eradicate opium, while also providing a fighting force to take on the Taliban and glean better intelligence about al-Qa’eda leadership.
Heading into the deployment, the Telegraph is properly asking for clear lines in what is expected of British troops. Tranparent rules of conduct and engagement are indeed reasonable ground to cover.
However British troops must have an unequivocal mandate for what they will do and not do. Downing Street is adamant that the Army help Kabul interdict drug convoys and traffickers, even if British troops do not actually get involved in eradication of the poppy crop on the ground.
The Army has been resisting, saying even interdiction could create enormous resentment among the Afghan population. A similar battle is being waged in Washington, where the US army has been resisting the State Department’s overtures to carry out interdiction. Helmand is the centre of the opium trade in Afghanistan. Helmand’s drug mafia exports farmers, poppy seed and expertise to warlords in other Afghan provinces.
It is also vital that Britain establish clear ground rules with President Hamid Karzai’s government. The British PRT is expected to work with the local governor, police chief, administration and militia forces in Helmand, but they are deeply corrupt and also involved in the drugs trade. Karzai has to be forcefully told to get rid of several leading Afghan figures in Helmand who are drugs-tainted.
A major role for the PRT would be to train local Afghan security forces and help build a local bureaucracy that could sustain reconstruction in the future. It would be an exercise in futility if British troops captured drugs traffickers and then handed them over to Afghan officials who were themselves drug traffickers.
British troops also have to be clear as to how far they can operate. Helmand is the gateway for Taliban and al-Qa’eda leaders travelling between Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, and is also the main exit point for the new line of communication with Iraq. Several Taliban commanders have trained with Iraqi insurgents and have brought their new skills home.
It is expected that the Brits will turn to the Commonwealth to assist where NATO feared to tread, and at least Australia is readying for the mission.
Aussie troops in line for Afghanistan
Britain is expected to hold talks with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other countries early next month about forming a force to replace the reducing United States presence early next year.
A commitment by Australia would put Australian troops amidst a volatile situation in Afghanistan as it seeks to stabilise the nation in the post-Taliban period.
“The debate is not whether, but to what extent these troops will get into counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics,” a British military source was quoted to say in The Guardian.
“We are not talking war fighting.
“But there is potential for armed conflict in some areas.
“The reality is that there are warlords, drug traffickers, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda wannabes and Taliban.
“It could take longer to crack than Iraq. It could take ten years.”
Australia was already involved in talks with Britain about committing some troops to southern Afghanistan, pending cabinet approval.
Are there any doubts that America’s strongest allies in the war against radical Islamist terror and, to be honest, just about any other threat, are the Brits and Aussies? Oh, don’t get me wrong, other countries are extremely deserving of consideration, especially Poland. It’s also long past due that we realize that Russia is facing the same foe, radical and expansionist Islamic scum, that we are currently squaring off against.
Oh yeah, maybe, just maybe, the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has run its course. If France can militarily bow out during the heart of the Cold War and the remaining bulk of its membership is happily willing to duck any serious danger in the one country the U.S. supposedly went into non-unilaterally post-9/11, does the alliance really serve any current purpose other than sustaining a rotating presence in Bosnia? Bosnia — talk about your previously-checked countries on the needing-an-exit-strategy list.
