Category Archives: Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Britain, NATO, United States

Return to Afghanistan? Britain may help Trump beat Taliban

AFGHANISTAN

afghanistan-2014-600

President Donald Trump has declared that thousands of US soldiers will be deployed again to Afghanistan in reducing the threat of terrorism to the West. He has called on his NATO allies to provide resources and funding.

BRITISH warplanes and drones could be sent back to Afghanistan after Donald Trump announced a major policy U-turn and declared he is expanding the US military there.

A new strategy to defeat the Taliban and Islamic State could also see British personnel being sent back to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan – in a significant expansion of the UK’s current training operation.

US Secretary of Defence, General Jim Mattis, called his UK counterpart, Sir Michael Fallon, to discuss the plans prior to the speech given by the President earlier this week vowing to ‘kill terrorists’.

Mr Trump said that he would beef up the US military presence and others must do the same, adding that a withdrawal would create a vacuum for jihadis. The most senior American commander for the Middle East said the first deployment of new US forces would arrive in Afghanistan ‘pretty quickly’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.’

It marks an abrupt turnaround from his election campaign, in which he regularly demanded an end to the 16-year conflict.

But since then, Taliban insurgents have recaptured swathes of the country, IS militants have waged terror, and US generals have publicly admitted the war is failing. The Taliban in Afghanistan responded by saying Mr Trump’s plans would make the country a ‘graveyard for the American empire’.

It is understood that during Sir Michael’s discussion with defence secretary General Mattis, the prospect of the UK sending ‘specific capabilities’ such as fighter jets and drones was raised. One option could be re-deploying air assets from Iraq where IS is on the back foot after being pounded by RAF warplanes.

Defence chiefs may also send RAF troops back to southern Afghanistan if they are asked to do so. They would be stationed in Kandahar, previously NATO’s regional HQ, and would form part of a plan to build an Afghan air force training academy.

A senior RAF officer said: ‘Kandahar will be one of the training locations. We are doing an awful lot of work in Kandahar right now to make sure the facilities are right … If the demand signal is to send people to Kandahar we will.’

A further 85 UK troops will be sent to the country in the coming weeks after requests by NATO. The Ministry of Defence commented by saying it is ruling out further increases.

The Defence Secretary welcomed President Trump’s pledge. Sir Michael said he had agreed with General Mattis that ‘we have to stay the course in Afghanistan to help build its fragile democracy and reduce the terrorist threat to the West. It’s in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer.’

Mr Trump made repeated calls ahead of his election for US troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, where they have been involved in military operations since 2001. But in an address at Fort Myer near Washington DC, he said he had decided to go against his ‘original instinct’.

US policy would now focus not on nation-building but on ‘killing terrorists’, he said, adding: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own – we are confident they will.’

General Joseph Votel, top US commander for the Middle East, estimated the first new deployments would arrive in a few weeks or even days.

COMMENT

AFTER the horror of 9/11, there were clear and persuasive arguments for sending British forces to Afghanistan to join our American allies in attacking Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.

But more than 15 years on – and three years after we withdrew our combat troops, leaving only some 500 behind to train the local military – shouldn’t we be thinking very carefully before answering Donald Trump’s call to rejoin the war?

During his election campaign, the President pledged to withdraw the 8,400 American soldiers who have remained in Afghanistan since combat operations officially ended in 2014.

But now, under pressure from his generals, he has changed his mind. And though he won’t specify numbers, he is widely expected to send some 4,000 extra troops – and says he expects his NATO allies to beef up their commitment too.

The President declared: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.’

These are laudable objectives. But at the height of its deployment in 2010-11, the US had 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan (with similar aims). If they failed to beat the terrorists and the Taliban, why should Mr Trump believe the smaller force he envisages will enjoy more success?

In the course of a conflict that has already lasted more than twice as long as the Second World War, 456 British personnel have been killed, with thousands more wounded – many on battlefields now back under Taliban control.

Indeed, though it will grieve many to say so, it is very far from clear how much their heroic sacrifice achieved. Is there any reason to believe putting more troops in danger will accomplish anything beyond making more families torn by the futility of returning to fight in Afghanistan?

Standard
Afghanistan, Islamic State, Terrorism, United States

US mother of all bombs (moab) kills 36 Isis fighters

AFGHANISTAN

The GBU-43/B, also known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast. America first tested the GBU-43, which is a GPS-guided weapon, in March 2003. It is regarded as particularly effective against clusters of targets on or just underneath the ground. Other types of bombs can be more effective against deeper, hardened tunnels.

As many as 36 suspected Islamic State militants were killed in Afghanistan when the United States dropped “the mother of all bombs,” its largest non-nuclear device ever unleashed in combat.

The heavy strike and bombardment came as U.S. President Donald Trump dispatches his first high-level delegation to Kabul, amid uncertainty about his plans for the nearly 9,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan.

The deaths have not been independently verified, but an Afghan ministry spokesman said no civilians were harmed in the massive blast that targeted a network of caves and tunnels.

“No civilian has been hurt and only the base, which Daesh used to launch attacks in other parts of the province, was destroyed,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

He was using an Arabic term that refers to the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), which has established a small stronghold in eastern Afghanistan and launched deadly attacks on the capital, Kabul.

The 21,600-pound (9,797-kg) GBU-43 bomb, which has 11 tons of explosives, was dropped from a MC-130 aircraft in the Achin district of the eastern province of Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan.

The device, also known as the “mother of all bombs,” is a GPS-guided munition that had never before been used in combat since its first test in 2003, when it produced a mushroom cloud visible from 20 miles (32 km) away.

Former Afghan president Hamid Karzai condemned the use of the weapon on Afghan soil.

“This is not the war on terror, but the inhuman and most brutal misuse of our country as testing ground for new and dangerous weapons,” he said on social media network Twitter.

MOAB2jpg

GBU-43 bomb detonates during a test at Elgin Air Force Base, Florida, U.S., November 21, 2003.

At a village about 3 miles (5 km) from the remote, mountainous area where the bomb was dropped, homes and shops appeared unaffected by the blast.

Residents said they saw militants climbing up and down the mountain every day, making occasional visits to the village.

Resident Raz Mohammad said: “They were Arabs, Pakistanis, Chinese and local insurgents coming to buy from shops in the bazaar.”

Following the strike, the village was swarming with Afghan and international troops, as helicopters and other aircraft flew overhead.

The mission was part of a joint operation between Afghan and international troops, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s office said in a statement.

“Afghan and foreign troops closely coordinated this operation and were extra cautious to avoid any civilian casualties,” it said.

American officials said the bomb had been positioned for possible use in Afghanistan for “some time” since the administration of former president Barack Obama.

The United States has steadily intensified its air campaign against ISIS and Taliban militants in Afghanistan, with the Air Force deploying nearly 500 weapons in the first three months of 2017, up from 300 in the corresponding 2016 period.

Achin

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Iraq, Politics, Society, Terrorism

A dangerous world means Britain cannot retreat

afghan

Greater economic development and democratic consolidation are key to stability.

Intro: The world is, and always has been, a dangerous place. We should not hide from those dangers

The British Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, recently spoke candidly about the condition of Afghanistan and the possible continuing consequences for Britain. Sir Michael deserves credit for raising the issue so openly. The country remains a base for international terrorists who mean us harm, he said. He also suggested that the ‘collapse’ of the fragile state could send millions of young Afghan men west in a new phase of European migration that would inevitably affect the UK.

Such a premonition paints a grim picture, but all the more so because it comes more than 15 years after British troops were sent to Helmand Province in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks of 2001 on the US.

The military mission, at first, was to render ineffective an international terrorist group that meant us harm; yet, today, al-Qaeda under various Arabic guises and splinter groups remain operably active. Later, the British mission shifted to one of nation-building and the reinforcement of Afghanistan’s fragile and desperate government. It was done so to avoid precisely the sort of collapse that Sir Michael now refers too.

To some, the lack of significant progress in Afghanistan will be proof that Western military interventions in poor and unstable countries are doomed to fail. Iraq, and more recently Libya, the nexus of why Europe is facing unmitigated levels of migration, might equally be cited as additional evidence for that case. What is clear is that all three interventions have been flawed, suffering from a lack of political leadership and, in some cases, extremely poor military planning.

To those who believe Britain has no inalienable right to remake the world, Theresa May’s professed scepticism about wars of liberal intervention will be a welcome shift in approach when it comes to foreign policy. Yet, healthy doubt about military adventurism does not necessarily mean a British retreat from the world.

The defence secretary’s words and rhetoric are a stark reminder, whether we like it or not, that the consequences of previous Western interventions continue to this day.

They must be dealt with, not ignored. We should indeed go on working to support a democratic government in Afghanistan, including the aiding of its security forces if needed.

In Iraq, where government forces are pushing back Islamic militants in Mosul, has shown that with continued Western backing, local military units can take responsibility for securing their country.

Britain’s role in Afghanistan must continue, and may have to expand by putting boots back on the ground there. If that means spending more on defence, for the security and stability of the West, so be it. The world is, and always has been, a dangerous place. We should not hide from those dangers.

Standard