Postcard from Afghanistan

Postcard from Afgahnistan.
Dear Mr Cameron wish you were here.
Regards A. Soldier.

Is Cheryl Cole now a target for Al Qaeda or does Anjem Choudhary just fancy her?

Cheryl Cole in Afghanistan which seems to have roused (or aroused)
Anjem Choudhary et al

If you excuse the flippant nature of the title this is in fact a serious issue of course.  The sexually frustrated demagogues over at Islam4uk have indeed issued a thinly veiled threat to Cheryl over her recent trip to British forces in Afghanistan. This is of course little more than a cheap inflammatory publicity shot by Choudhary and his ilk. It also employs the usual double speak favoured by violent Islamists, i.e. Don't make a direct threat but imply something could or should happen to an individual or organisation that displeases them.  There is every chance a rogue Muslim may harm Cheryl of course, look at the case of the MP Stephen Timms.  Timms was stabbed by a woman visiting his surgery, his assailant was a radical muslim influenced by  Jihadist websites.  The individual later sentenced for attempted murder refused to recoqnise the court as it represented an un-Islamic authority (although like most she milked the benefits system).  

So where does this leave our Cheryl?  Well she is not subject to the same threat as Salman Rushdie or Jyllands Postern.  As it is for now unlikely that AQ will actually form a plot to attack her and her activities have not aggravated Muslims to the same extent as the aforementioned other two.  Rather it is a simple intent to intimidate and discourage others from visiting the troops.  Is this significant?  Yes it can be as other less robust characters could easily decide 'well look I'd love to show my support for the troops but I don't fancy needing bodyguards for the rest of my life'. 

As to Choudhary, well his motives are as usual to garner attention for his bunch of welfare dependent ideologues.  But it's also likely that he has other baser instincts to satisfy, particularly when you bear in mind what Jihadists are permitted (under Islam) to do to female captives.  That is it is acceptable under Islamic law for a Jihadist to engage in rape against the women he captures.  However looking at Cheryl I really don't fancy his chances somehow so dream on Andy! It would be funny if you weren't being serious.  

So AQ have their sights on the gorgeous Cheryl?  They won't stand a chance!

No reporting from Afghanistan during the election.

Expect to see less of this during the election.
Even though reporting during the 1945 election
was never suspended.

Reporters are facing a 'gag' on reporting from Afghanistan in the run up to the election. Is anyone surprised? I guess not but at least Gordy managed to get his own piece of electioneering from Afghanistan done last week. That is of course before the ban will come into effect. A further example of powerful, corrupt government suiting it's own ends. Never mind the troops, I wonder if the next of kin of any casualties that occur during the period of this gag will have to wait for news. I mean will the MOD wait until after the election and then tell the families their loved ones have died, days or weeks later. It would certainly be expedient for this government to do so and in keeping with the spirit of this unnecessary restriction on press freedom.

In the words of Colonel Douglas Young Chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation:



“It didn’t happen in 1945 - there was no question of limiting reporting at that time simply because an election was happening and I don’t see why there should be any questions of that now. Are we to stop operations during this period? Obviously not, and if operations are in process they should be reported upon in the normal way.

“It is ridiculous to expect the forces to be hiding away just because there’s a general election.”

PM appears to say 'We have enough helicopters in Afghanistan'- Why then Gordy are more being sent?

Whilst the debate rages on, he soldiers on...







One thing I regret about this blog is that I have not blogged enough about defence and the overseas operations being carried out supposedly to that end. However I cannot ignore the current morass in Afghanistan. Read the Telegraph article if only for the comments below it. What annoys me though is the continued double speak by our ruling politicians. Examples include saying 'we could send more helicopters'. Anyone get that I don't? Could or should? I mean we could send a P&O cross channel ferry for that matter. However we do need them. I don't believe that Afghanistan is a lost cause, however a lack of aerial mobility will render our troops very vulnerable. I can be convinced that defeating or at least containing the Taleban insurgency is best for the region. If only to prop up up the governments in Kabul and Islamabad. Besides if the Taleban emerge victorious a huge price will be paid for all. That said I wish both the UK and US governments had realised that much sooner. I'll conclude by copying the superb comment by 'JL' in the Telegraph:





'15 July: General Dannatt - we need more helicopters.


16 July: Brown - no you don't.


17 July: Jock Stirrup - we need more helicopters.


19 July: John Hutton - they need more helicopters.


20 July: Mandelson - no they don't.


21 July: Malloch-Brown - they need more helicopters.


22 July: Brown - no they don't.


22 July: Malloch-Brown - they have enough.


23 July: Rammell - we may send more helicopters......Meanwhile yet another soldier dies in Helmand.This has gone beyond farce. If we have to fight this war then fund and equip it properly. Otherwise get out.'





I could not agree more.











More men and helicopters 'could be sent to Afghanistan'- The Telegraph

Hundreds more troops could soon be sent to Afghanistan, a defence minister hinted yesterday.
Downing Street has already said that the 700 extra troops sent to Helmand temporarily for the operation to protect the integrity of next month’s elections will stay, probably to help to train Afghan troops. However, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, hinted that the current total of 9,150 could be increased further as military chiefs call for up to 2,500 more soldiers on the ground.



Earlier Gordon Brown accepted the case for more helicopters in the region. In a change of tone, he acknowledged that more were required for the “general” Afghan mission and said that they were being ordered. He denied that a lack of helicopters was costing British lives after Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office Minister, appeared to back criticism that the British force was not properly equipped. Lord Malloch-Brown told The Daily Telegraph: “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters.” Under pressure from No 10, he later issued a clarification: “There are without doubt sufficient resources in place for current operations.”

The issue dominated the Prime Minister’s monthly press conference at which Mr Brown insisted: “For the operation we are doing at the moment we have the helicopters we need.” He also described as completely wrong any assertion that the recent loss of lives had been caused by an absence of helicopters. “More helicopters in general, yes,” he said. “That is why we are putting them into Afghanistan.” More Merlins would be there by the end of the year, more Chinooks next year, and numbers had increased by 60 per cent over two years, he said.



The remarks put the Prime Minister more in line with the approach taken by present and former British commanders, who have been calling for more help to tackle the Taleban.
Earlier, on a visit to Salisbury Plain where he met troops preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, Mr Rammell confirmed that a review of troop numbers there would take place after the Afghan elections. Asked if he would meet the desire of military chiefs who have asked for an additional 2,000 to 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, the minister said: “This is a Government that does listen to the advice that it gets from the service chiefs. That is why we increased the numbers from 5,500 to 9,000.” He added that the figure was kept under review.



General Sir Richard Dannatt, who will be replaced in August by General Sir David Richards as head of the Army, said last week that he wanted more “boots on the ground”, regardless of whether they were British, US or Afghan. Additional British troops are ready to head out to the front line if called upon. Brigadier James Cowan, commander of 11 Light Brigade, the next brigade to deploy to Afghanistan in the autumn, said: “It is up to ministers to decide. I will make do with what I am given. I am a practical man.”



Elsewhere, the Government’s insistence that it has provided enough equipment was questioned by the former commander of British troops in Helmand, who said that the military effort in Afghanistan was “insufficiently resourced” to counter a widespread insurgency. Brigadier Ed Butler, a retired officer, told The World at One on Radio 4: “What is [Mr Brown] defining as the mission at hand? He may be referring to Operation Panther’s Claw but I think the wider campaign in Afghanistan, and this has been the case from the early days, has been insufficiently resourced to undertake a proper counter-insurgency.”

Back soon with my own ideas for defence in the 21st Century.

Is NATO fit for role?

In fact as the US 'Surge' NATO will be rolled
back.




Interesting article from the American Spectator. In short I believe that NATO is facing a crisis, one that has much to do with the European allies (with notable exceptions) lacking conviction. I hope to blog much more about Defence issues in the future and about the UK military. Here is the full text of the article below, I agree with the thrust of it although the comments concerning the Germans border on the puerile. Please comment below, interesting isn't it how after all the European political elites gushed over Obama they can't lift a finger to help him in Afghanistan?



























What's NATO for Again?













By Doug Bandow on 5.4.09 @ 6:06AM













NATO has been with us 60 years. The organization staged the usual self-congratulatory anniversary ceremony last month, with President Barack Obama in attendance. Exactly what the organization is supposed to do these days isn't clear, however. A herd of heads of state and government celebrated the alliance's birthday without bothering to explain its purpose.
The original goal of NATO, articulated by Lord Hastings Ismay, the alliance's first Secretary General, was to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. The first objective was firmly achieved two decades ago when the Berlin Wall fell, the Eastern European satellites spun out of Moscow's orbit, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Russia's oil-based rise has changed nothing: Moscow might be able to impose its will on neighboring Georgia, which was part of Imperial Russia as well as the USSR. But there will be no Red Army romp to the Atlantic. With ten times Russia's GDP and nearly four times Russia's population, Europe is more than capable of defending itself.







Meeting the second goal arose naturally out of the rubble of World War II. A few neo-Nazis might still meet furtively to discuss the coming of the Fourth Reich, but most Germans have run far from their past. Today the Bundeswehr is primarily a recruiting mechanism for social service agencies; indeed, when drafted two-thirds of young men choose alternative civilian work. The once feared German warriors are a memory.







The problem is not a lack of individual bravery. As of March, 34 German soldiers and policemen had been killed in Afghanistan. But Berlin insists on deploying military units to the north, where they aren't needed. And they no longer are combat-worthy. Reinhold Robbe, the parliamentary commissioner for the military, observed: "Plainly put, the soldiers are too fat, exercise too little, and take little care of their diet." London's Daily Mail headlined one story: "German soldiers are 'too fat to fight' Taliban because they drink so much (while our boys go dry)." Europe can breathe a sigh of relief -- no one need worry about German soldiers singing Deutschland Uber Alles and goose-stepping down their own, let alone someone else's, streets.







Which leaves keeping America in, but to what end? The U.S. isn't needed to protect Europe from the Russians or Germans. Instead, Washington provides prosperous and populous allies, whose collective economy and population are larger than that of the United States, with a defense insurance policy at American expense. If the Balkans get messy, Washington sends in real military forces. If something should go terribly wrong with Russia, we know who the Europeans would expect to save the day. Hint: It wouldn't be the overweight and well-lubricated Bundeswehr.







Other members of NATO want the U.S. to believe that it gets something out of the alliance. But it's hard to see what. Albania and Croatia joined the organization this year. They added geopolitical liabilities rather than military assets to NATO. Proposals to bring in Georgia and Ukraine, which are involved in complex geopolitical disputes with Russia, risk another confrontation with nuclear-armed Moscow, this one in the latter's rather than America's backyard, and over conflicts in which America has no stake.







The U.S. isn't even getting much out of its allies for its number one geopolitical objective of the present, Afghanistan. The British, Danes, French, and Australians have fought. So have the Canadians and Dutch, who, unfortunately, will be going home over the next year or two.
But most of the nearly two score countries (NATO members plus other states) have followed the German model -- modest detachments deployed in regions and under conditions, called "caveats," designed to ensure that they are never shot at. Indeed, American commanders say that ISAF stands for "I Saw America Fight" rather than "International Security Assistance Force."







Consider the record of the Czech contingent. The Herald Sun (Australia) reported that "When asked by the Britons to attack Afghan rebels, the commander of a special operations unit (SOG) said 'we're not going to, it's dangerous,' then ordered his men to get in trucks and return to the base." At another point the SOG commander rejected a British request for aid by noting that his 35-member unit was on vacation. This is "help" that Washington doesn't need.







The Obama administration is having no more luck in enlisting additional European assistance than did its predecessor. So far the response to the president's plea, writes William Pfaff, is "65 men with two F-16s promised by Belgium; 12 trainers and a small troop contingent (probably from the gendarmerie) for the election in Afghanistan next month, with a larger French contribution to the new, combined European Gendarmerie Force that has already dispatched 300 to 400 men and women, all to improve Afghanistan's own national police, so far without conspicuous success." The Europeans also are promising a "civilian surge."







It comes as no surprise that the Europeans see little cause for fighting in Afghanistan, but NATO invoked Article 5 in 2001 with great fanfare for the first time as a show of support for the U.S. If the alliance is not needed to defend Europe and won't aid America elsewhere, then, really, what is its purpose?







Some alliance members recognize that NATO is failing its Afghanistan test. Warned British Defense Secretary John Hutton: "Success in Afghanistan is fast emerging as the test of NATO's relevance in this new post-cold war age." If the alliance can't act there, then "NATO will risk being irrelevant, a talking shop where process is everything," he adds.













In fact, that's all NATO has become. It's time to give NATO, at least an American-dominated NATO, a decent burial. The U.S. should pull out, leaving the Europeans to construct whatever continental security architecture seems best. If they want to sort out the Balkans, guard the Caucasus, or engage in some other far-flung mission, they should be free to do so. Without American forces.







At the same time, Washington could work out agreements with any European nations with real militaries that see the value of continued security cooperation. That likely would include Britain and France. And maybe Germany, if its soldiers would lay off the sausages and beer.

Johnson Beharry VC with Shocking Indictment of Mental Health Care for Veterans

The 29 year old Grenadian was awarded Britain's highest award the VC.

From the BBC. Seeing as our government is keen to commit troops to military operations it is entirely reasonable to expect that our society takes care of them upon their return. Furthermore those suffering from the after effects of the conflict should receive the best help and treatment. However according to Beharry the support available from agencies such as the NHS is poor. Certainly more needs to be done, is it too much to ask that say the standard of care available is better than or equal to the effort our welfare state goes to support people such as Abu Qatada. This is a serious issue as witnessed with the issues affecting veterans of the Falklands conflict of 1982. Full text of BBC article below:

Veteran mental care 'a disgrace'

L/Cpl Beharry also spoke about his own mental health Britain's highest-decorated serving soldier has criticised the government for failing to help ex-servicemen and women suffering mental health problems. Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, said it was "disgraceful" that some veterans struggled to get treatment.

He told the BBC the Army provided "first-class" treatment but ex-soldiers were forced to wait on the NHS. The MoD said a "huge amount of work" was being done on mental illness.
L/Cpl Beharry, who was given the VC for twice leading comrades to safety during attacks in Iraq, called on the government to give more help to his comrades suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, depression and mental breakdowns. The 29-year-old told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he has to live with constant pain, nightmares, mood swings and unexplained rages, five years after receiving a serious head wound. Going forward, the demand on our services is going to be ever-increasing Robert Marsh, Combat Stress Yet he had to wait three hours in hospital to see an NHS doctor about his trauma.
"A lot of soldiers get discharged from the Army and have to be on the NHS for treatment.
"Having experienced it as a serving soldier, what it's like being on the NHS, I feel it's ridiculous because these ex-servicemen and women would not get that treatment they really need. What's going to happen to them?"
Mental symptoms can take a long time to surface and they are harder to deal with in civilian life, he said.

"[In the Army], we have places to go and get the help at the moment but my worry is that ex-servicemen and women, if something like that happens to them and they have to wait two to four hours on the NHS."
Earlier, in an interview with the Independent, he said it was "disgraceful" that those who had served their country in Iraq and Afghanistan were forced to wait for NHS treatment and charities had been forced to step in where ministers had failed.
"You spend six months on the battlefield and you have to defend yourself every day and then you come back to normal life and go to Tesco and someone runs into your trolley.
"You have to stop and think - it is only a trolley, you are not on the battlefield."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, said: "Ex-servicemen and women are cared for by the NHS.
"They should have a priority. Government policy is that they have priority within the NHS and I should hope that the NHS managers remind themselves of that."
As well as NHS responsibility, there was vital work being done by charities and the voluntary sector, he said.
'Not complacent'
Defence Minister Kevan Jones said: "We recognise mental illnesses as serious and disabling conditions but also ones that can be treated.
"Our dedicated psychiatric teams based in theatre provide the very best diagnosis and treatment of psychological illnesses both during and after deployments."
He insisted the government was "not complacent" and had awarded a new contract to the NHS for the provision of in-patient mental health services.
"In addition we have recently introduced mental health pilots across the UK; commissioned research into mental health conditions; and expanded our medical assessment programme at St Thomas' Hospital to include assessment of veterans with operational service from 1982," he added.
Figures published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in November showed nearly 4,000 new cases of mental health disorder were diagnosed among armed services personnel in 2007.
We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox
They also showed personnel sent to Afghanistan or Iraq were more likely to suffer post traumatic stress disorder.
Robert Marsh of Combat Stress, a mental health charity for ex-servicemen, said the number of cases was bound to increase in the next few years.
"I think to be fair we work in partnership with the MoD as much as we can. Last year they gave us round about £4m in respect of war pensioners that we are treating.
"But I think that going forward, the demand on our services is going to be ever-increasing and there is going to be a funding challenge and perhaps we need to question where we are getting our money from."
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said there was "a bow wave of mental health problems building up".
"We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime," he said, "And that in areas such as mental health we need to find ways of picking up problems which may take years to manifest themselves."
Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "The government is slowly waking up to the problem, but this testimony shows how far they have to go before we get close to dealing with this very serious issue."

NATO General suggests member states could get supplies from Iran! Doh!

John Craddock, his eye on the wider picture
or his head stuck up his Khyber Pass?


Okay now before people condemn this idea as being entirely devoid of common sense and the mutterings of a blimp like retard lets evaluate. Firstly the guy saying it is General John Craddock, a senior NATO general and thus hopefully at least no fool at all. Secondly there may be some merit in engaging Iran diplomatically over the resurgent Taleban insurgency. After all it is most likely that Tehran does not wish to see the Taleban back in Kabul. However that is about it, the Iranian theocracy will most certainly not want to see a NATO victory or democracy taking root now on two countries that border it (the other being Iraq).





Other problems are the fact that credible reports have been made that Iran is actually supplying Taleban elements with munitions. That is definitely a problem just as it proved and to an extent still does in Iraq. Most importantly this would hand Iran in effect full power to influence the outcome of NATO operations, operations to which they will almost certainly be opposed to. In other words NATO would go from being currently severely hampered to actually defeated in Afghanistan when the mullahs call off the supplies. Perhaps I'm missing something and the Iranians actually do want to help and not just swallow a load of dollars whilst being duplicitous (like Pakistan). Personally with my limited knowledge I would favour a supply route through the Caucasus, although again that would be with a political price. Anyway here is the article from AP.