PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan close to anarchy, warns general



Firetxmi
07-23-2006, 12:19 AM
Afghanistan close to anarchy, warns general
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday July 21, 2006
The Guardian

The most senior British military commander in Afghanistan today described the situation in the country as "close to anarchy" with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.

The stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of Nato's international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that western forces there were short of equipment and were "running out of time" if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people.

The assumption within Nato countries had been that the environment in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2002 would be benign, Gen Richards said. "That is clearly not the case," he said today. He referred to disputes between tribes crossing the border with Pakistan, and divisions between religious and secular factions cynically manipulated by "anarcho-warlords".

Corrupt local officials were fuelling the problem and Nato's provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan were sending out conflicting signals, Gen Richards told a conference at the Royal United Services Institute in London. "The situation is close to anarchy," he said, referring in particular to what he called "the lack of unity between different agencies".

He described "poorly regulated private security companies" as unethical and "all too ready to discharge firearms". Nato forces in Afghanistan were short of equipment, notably aircraft, but also of medical evacuation systems and life-saving equipment.

Officials said later that France and Turkey had sent troops to Kabul but without any helicopters to support them.

Gen Richards will also take command of the 4,500-strong British brigade in Helmand province at the heart of the hostile, poppy-growing south of the country when it comes under Nato's overall authority. He said today that Nato "could not afford not to succeed" in its attempt to bring long-term stability to Afghanistan and build up the country's national army and security forces. He described the mission as a watershed for Nato, taking on "land combat operations for the first time in its history".

The picture Gen Richards painted today contrasted markedly with optimistic comments by ministers when they agreed earlier this month to send reinforcements to southern Afghanistan at the request of British commanders there. Many of those will be engineers with the task of appealing to Afghan "hearts and minds" by repairing the infrastructure, including irrigation systems.

Gen Richards said today that was a priority. How to eradicate opium poppies - an issue repeatedly highlighted by ministers - was a problem that could only be tackled later.

General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British army, said recently: "To physically eradicate [opium poppies] before all the conditions are right seems to me to be counter-productive." The government admits that Helmand province is about to produce a bumper poppy crop and is now probably the biggest single source of heroin in the world. Ministers are concerned about criticism the government will face if planting over the next few months for next year's crop - in an area patrolled by British troops - is not significantly reduced.

Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister responsible for Afghanistan, told the Guardian that the immediate target had to be the biggest poppy cultivators and dealers who control the £1bn-plus Afghan drug trade.

The strategy should be: "Go for the fat cats, very wealthy farmers, the movers and shakers of the drug trade" and their laboratories, he said. Asked about the concern of British military commanders that by depriving farmers - and warlords - of a lucrative crop, poppy eradication would feed the insurgency, Mr Howells admitted: "It's a big problem for us."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1826303,00.html?=rss

budgie
07-23-2006, 04:42 AM
Don't be silly. Everything's fine in Afghanistan. Just like in Iraq. Just like it's going to be in Lebanon. Free people are free to make mistakes...

signatory
07-23-2006, 06:08 AM
He described "poorly regulated private security companies" as unethical and "all too ready to discharge firearms". Nato forces in Afghanistan were short of equipment, notably aircraft, but also of medical evacuation systems and life-saving equipment.

The Guardian quoting someone out of context.. how surprising. I found this interview with the commander slightly more interesting:


Interview: The Taliban's 'Last Chance'
NATO's top commander in Afghanistan is optimistic.


Newsweek International
July 31, 2006 issue - NATO has a war on its hands in Afghanistan. Beginning on July 31, it will take control of the U.S.-led Coalition in the increasingly violent south, where six British soldiers were killed last month. British Lt. Gen. David Richards, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, spoke with NEWSWEEK's Emily Flynn Vencat in London last week. Excerpts:


Fynn Vencat: Have the scope and ferocity of the Taliban resurgence caught you by surprise?

Richards: We knew from the outset that this was going to be a combat operation, and prepared accordingly. There are more Apache attack helicopters in the south today than there were under the U.S. Coalition. The Taliban recognize that 2006 is a crunch year. If they don't succeed this year, then their chance of success, with 36 nations joining forces with the government, [grows slim]. This year is their last chance.

Is it realistic that NATO forces will be able to provide enough security in the southern provinces to get real economic-development projects going?
First of all, I would say that there's been more happening than your question has intimated. Because the U.S. was successfully concentrating on the counter-Taliban operation in the east, the south was relatively ignored. There was effort there, but there were only about 150 people, say, in Helmand. You can only do so much with 150 people. With the British presence in Helmand at around 4,000 [at the end of this month] and with other nations contributing to that presence, that's bound to enable us to emphasize different things, such as reconstruction and development.

You say you want to provide security in the south so the Afghan government can establish its authority. But haven't the Afghan authorities failed to provide good governance or essential services to people in the areas they've controlled?

First of all, I don't recognize quite such the scathing picture that you created, but there's something to it. [After 30 years of fighting,] Afghanistan has lost two generations of middle-class talent. Instead of being critical of this, we should work hard at developing the capacity that is required to turn the country around. The Afghans know best how Afghanistan works. What we need to do is adopt the "keep it simple" approach, focusing on the essentials of the economy as it is today, rather than how we'd wish it to be in 25 years' time.

You recently commented that "we need to realize that we could fail here [in Afghan-istan]." Do you think there's been too much arrogance?

Arrogance is probably not the right word. But I think there was a risk, two years ago, that people thought it was a done deal. And what this year has shown is that we still need to put a lot of effort into Afghanistan. What we really need is a Marshall Plan [of a type] that the United States demonstrated so graphically in the post-WWII era. If we could do that, this country is definitely for turning. We will win, but with a lot more effort over a shorter time frame we would save money and win faster.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

Vinny_alphacharlie
07-23-2006, 04:30 PM
make life better for the afghans, that's the bottom line. In other words, give em plasma tv's, cars, highways, cable internet, night clubs, restaurants, shopping malls, and air conditioning and a heater for all afghans.

then taliban will lay down their arms and then their priorities will shift in maintaining a good job.

usmcprincipal
07-23-2006, 06:59 PM
"The situation is close to anarchy," he said, referring in particular to what he called "the lack of unity between different agencies"
________________________________________

It would seem the General is addressing specific issues relating to the lack of inter-agency accountability, rather than Afghanistan descending into anarchy.

A seemingly dense headline. Either a lack of analytical thinking or an attempt at agenda driven journalism.

Semper Fidelis