Afghanistan: Questions of life and death

IN April 2006, as British troops were deployed to Afghanistan’s Helmand province, the then Defence Secretary John Reid famously suggested that they would leave “without firing a shot”.

His confident assertion that UK soldiers were in Helmand merely to “patrol the reconstruction”

proved so wide of the mark that his words continue to haunt the Government.

The Taliban has proved more numerous, determined and better equipped than military planners expected. Britain’s role is no peacekeeping mission – our soldiers are in the middle of a hard-fought bloody war with no mercy shown on either side.

Taliban militia think nothing of launching attacks on British positions clutching children to their bodies. UK soldiers are loathe to open fire on kids, but say they sometimes have no alternative.

Deadly explosives, night vision goggles and millions of rounds of ammunition have poured across the Pakistani border, paid for by the heroin trade, for the Taliban fighters.

Meanwhile, severely over-stretched British troops must juggle their precious resources as politicians back home call on other Nato allies to do more. No wonder the numbers of soldiers killed in Afghanistan has now exceeded those who died in Iraq.

Map showing territory held by Allied Forces and Taliban. Click on map to enlarge

So, what has gone wrong? Are the UK’s soldiers really under-resourced? Should other countries assume more of the risks? And how long will our soldiers be asked to fight?

WHAT are British soldiers doing in Afghanistan?Initially, the Government said our soldiers were needed to oversee reconstruction after the US-led invasion and ensure Helmand could not be used as a host for al Qaida training camps. Additional obligations were added almost from the moment British troops arrived – UK forces were tasked with targeting opium traffickers and spread Afghan governance in the province.

HAS it worked?

Not really. Al Qaida has upped sticks and moved its camps to Pakistan. Reconstruction efforts have been thwarted by the need to use British soldiers to fight the Taliban and repair the damage caused by US bombing.

Although the yield from last year’s poppy harvest was lower than previous, that had more to do with the bad weather than anti-narcotics efforts. It is probably too early to say if the operation to drive them out of Helmand and allow peaceful elections is going to be successful.

WHAT are we doing there?

The official MoD line is that the efforts of our soldiers in Afghanistan is thwarting efforts to launch terror attacks over here.

ARE our troops under-resourced?

The Tories have accused the Government of putting lives needlessly at risk because the Army doesn’t have enough helicopters.

Although the armed forces have about 500 helicopters, only about 30 are on operations in Afghanistan. The Government, and, it has to be said, senior Army commanders say they have access to enough equipment and the helicopter issue isn’t a problem.

Not everyone agrees. Major General Julian Thompson, now a visiting professor at King’s College, says: “We need to keep troops off the roads and transport them by air. There is no vehicle built in the world that can withstand explosions. Even tanks are vulnerable.”

However, moving troops in the air leaves them exposed to attack from surface-to-air missiles and, in some cases, the air cavalry idea has led to its own problems. In one incident, paras flown in to rescue French special forces were dropped into the area by Chinook helicopters, but when they arrived most of the French soldiers were dead.

THE Prime Minister says helicopter numbers have increased by 60 per cent in two years. The Tories say that isn’t enough.

Who is right?

They both are. More equipment has been taken to Helmand. Extra Merlin helicopters and Ridgeback armoured cars are on the way. But the helicopters are serving twice as many troops, so the actual capacity isn’t any better. Defence officials say there are plans to spend £2.5bn upgrading more than 200 helicopters and £3.5bn acquiring about 120 new ones over the next ten years.

DO we have enough soldiers to win the conflict?

Nato sent 60,000 troops to Bosnia and an 80,000-strong force to Afghanistan. Sounds impressive, but Afghanistan is seven times the size of Bosnia and the terrain is harder.

The Russians deployed 500,000 soldiers to Afghanistan in 1980 – and still couldn’t bring the country to heel. Britain and the US hope efforts can be bolstered by a professional Afghan army. About 90,000 have been trained, but analysts say another 60,000 are urgently needed.

WHO else is working with Britain and the US?

Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the UAE.

WHY are the Taliban so hard to beat?

The Taliban could not win a conventional war against British troops. Instead, the are fighting a classic guerilla war. They consist mainly of fighters organised along tribal lines led by a senior commander. They have a “home” advantage, are mobile and well suited to the terrain. Their weapons (mainly old Russian AK 47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades) are simple and unlikely to give trouble in a harsh climate.

HOW long will we be there?

Politicians talk about a phased withdrawal as soon as the Afghan army is up to strength. But Army commanders are planning for a much longer conflict. The main British base has been designed for a mission of up to 20 years. Whatever happens, it seems as though the Army will be fighting the war for many years to come.