Afghanistan-Where the Lunatics are Taking Over the Asylum

[snappyturtle]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/

Lest we forget Afghanistan--Mick Smith, whistleblower of the Downing Street Memos has an interesting article about the ongoings today in Afghanistan on the London Times online site. He's always an interesting read.

[snappyturtle]

1. OK--I'm writing to myself....probably not a good sign but this

article is by Mick Smith!!!! Where is everybody? I feel indebted to him for bringing out the notorious Downing Street Memos.

[Briar]

2. Some of the content...

"...Those of you who have followed the debate over the American approach to winning hearts and minds, or to be more precise not winning hearts and minds, will be aware that the US prosecution of the war on terror has killed a lot of terrorists but created a whole lot more. In Afghanistan for example, a series of indiscriminate attacks by US aircraft - often in situations where British and Dutch pilots have declined to attack because of the risk of collateral damage - has done nothing to endear the coalition to the Afghan people.

"More recently, amid the obvious failure of what might be called the Fallujah approach to counter-insurgency, there have been a number of US generals who have praised the British response while admitting the failings in their own tactics. A new US Army counter-insurgency manual has been published, making clear the need to win over the local population. But if the Parachute Regiment’s journal Pegasus is anything to go by, those within the US military who believe this remain in a distinct minority.

"The latest edition of Pegasus reveals that British paratroopers were forced into taking part in an overly aggressive operation against the Taliban which caused serious damage to the British mission before it had even begun. They arrived in Helmand in June 2006 to provide security for a reconstruction programme that would leave the local people happy with the coalition presence and with their own government, thereby sidelining the Taliban.

"But they found the then US commander planning a large-scale offensive operation against the Taliban in Helmand province. Brig Ed Butler, the British commander in Helmand, opposed Operation Mountain Thrust taking place in what he foolishly thought was the area under his control, saying that he had his own plan and going in hard at the start of the mission, thereby leaving the local population unhappy with the presence of his troops, was not part of that plan...."

In view of the fact that Mick Smith evidently doesn't think that leaving things to the military to clear up matters in the way it does best (killing lots of people brutally), I'm a bit baffled by his final comment:

"The sensible move would be for Nato troops to refuse to be drawn back in, to send in Afghan troops backed up by allied air support, clear the Taliban out of the town..."

It's the air support, as often as not, that does the most harm where it comes to collateral damage, which I thought he was criticising.

[snappyturtle]

3. I see your point however ,I think Mick Smith

was advocating Afghan forces FIRST and THEN allied air support, IF necessary but to give Afghans the first shot. Mick Smith is and has been very upset with the number of fatalities in this war. You can go back on his site and read more of his opinions. Generally, I think he's very rational.

edit: repairing wording!

[Briar]

4. Chuckle. I am always having to do that!

No word left unmangled, I fear.

But air support is exactly the problem - US and UK reliance on overwhelming air power (about to be unleashed on Iran maybe) is hated precisely because it is careless of civilian life (never mind the spin). Smith seems to be suggesting that it's okay for these murderous strikes when the troops on the ground liable to be targeted for resentment and revenge are Afghan not British.

[snappyturtle]

5. I'll have to go back

and re-read the article to see if I think that's his "spin". I hope not because as I said he's no war monger......not for any loss of life.