Britain Asks Allies for More Troops in Afghanistan

[American Patriot]

Britain Asks Allies for More Troops in Afghanistan

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ALAN COWELL
Published: November 13, 2009

PARIS — As the Obama administration debates whether to commit more American troops to Afghanistan, Germany on Friday announced a modest increase in its contingent and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said he was pressing European and other allies to deploy 5,000 more soldiers.

Confronting deepening discontent in his own country about Britain’s role and mounting casualties in Afghanistan, Mr. Brown told an interviewer on BBC radio that he was pressing allies to share the load in the war. With 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, Britain is the second largest contributor to the 43-nation alliance after the United States, which has 68,000 troops.

“I have taken the responsibility of asking others in Europe and outside Europe if they will back this strategy of partnering the Afghan forces, mentoring the Afghan forces,” Mr. Brown said. He was speaking toward the end of a week during which he had taken a series of political blows over Afghanistan, including a public accusation by the mother of a slain soldier of failing to provide equipment to protect British soldiers from the resurgent Taliban.

Britain has lost 232 soldiers in Afghanistan since the eight-year war started, 95 of them this year, according to icasualties.org, a Web site that tracks military losses. The American death toll since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001 is put at 918, including 288 this year.

Referring to allied countries which he did not identify by name, Mr. Brown said: “I am asking them to help, I think we could probably get another 5,000 forces into Afghanistan” from NATO and other countries “and Britain will be part of that.” Mr. Brown has already given a conditional pledge to send 500 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

It was not immediately known where he would be seeking the additional commitments.

In Afghanistan on Friday, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the German defense minister, said his country would send 120 more combat troops in January to reinforce a 450-strong rapid-reaction unit.

With more than 4,300 troops in Afghanistan, Germany is the third-biggest contributor to the alliance. Most of its troops are stationed in the once relatively peaceful northern province of Kunduz, where Taliban attacks have increased in recent months. The death toll among German troops stands at 36.

But even as NATO officials press for more troops, countries like the Netherlands and Canada have begun discussing plans to pull out.

President Obama is pondering whether to increase American troops levels in Afghanistan by up to 40,000 soldiers at a time of growing international disaffection with the regime of President Hamid Karzai, accused by its critics of fostering corruption and clinging to power through electoral fraud. The accusations have deepened the reluctance of European citizens to support the war.

Mr. Brown met in London on Thursday with the NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who was quoted by The Associated Press as saying other allied nations have privately pledged more help. But he stopped short of saying that NATO countries would commit more soldiers.

Judy Dempsey and Stefan Pauly contributed reporting from Berlin.

[vector7]

Bought with gold?

From The Times
November 16, 2009
Army tells its soldiers to 'bribe' the Taleban


Taleban fighters at an undisclosed location in Afghanistan: British forces are being told to buy off potential recruits with 'bags of gold'

Michael Evans, Defence Editor

• 138 Comments

Recommend? (19)

British forces should buy off potential Taleban recruits with “bags of gold”, according to a new army field manual published yesterday.

Army commanders should also talk to insurgent leaders with “blood on their hands” in order to hasten the end of the conflict in Afghanistan.

The edicts, which are contained in rewritten counter-insurgency guidelines, will be taught to all new army officers. They mark a strategic rethink after three years in which British and Nato forces have failed to defeat the Taleban. The manual is also a recognition that the Army’s previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date.

The new instructions came on the day that Gordon Brown went farther than before in setting out Britain’s exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stated explicitly last night that he wanted troops to begin handing over districts to Afghan authorities during next year — a general election year in Britain.

Related Links

• Miliband: Afghanistan not a fight to the death

• Volunteer soldier killed while waiting for armour

• Brown starts clock ticking on Afghan exit

Multimedia

• Pictures: casualty evacuation

Addressing the issue of paying off the locals, the new manual states that army commanders should give away enough money to dissuade them from joining the enemy. The Taleban is known to pay about $10 (£5.95) a day to recruit local fighters.

Major-General Paul Newton said: “The best weapons to counter insurgents don’t shoot. In other words, use bags of gold in the short term to change the security dynamics. But you don’t just chuck gold at them, this has to be done wisely.”

British commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq have complained that their access to money on the battlefield — cash rather than literal gold — compares poorly with their US counterparts.

Adam Holloway, a former army officer and the Tory MP for Gravesham in Kent, said that the idea was a matter of “shutting the door after the horse has bolted”. He added: “I know that a number of generals thought in 2006 that, rather than send a British brigade to Helmand, they should buy off people in the tribal areas. Now it’s too late.”

Mr Brown told the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at Guildhall in the City last night that a summit of Nato allies would be held in London in January, which could set a timetable for the transfer of security control to the Afghans starting in 2010. Military sources said that the first areas to be involved would probably be in the north and west of Afghanistan — not in Helmand in the south, where British troops are based.

The counter-insurgency field manual also highlights the importance of talking to the enemy. “There’s no point in talking to people who don’t have blood on their hands,” General Newton said, launching the document in London.

Britain’s early experience of handing out cash in Afghanistan proved abortive. About £16 million in cash was given to farmers to stop them growing poppy crops for the heroin trade, which helps to fund the Taleban. The money is believed to have had little impact on the opium yields.

The manual says that money can be the answer, if it is prudently distributed. “Properly spent within a context of longer-term planning, money offers a cost-effective means for pulling community support away from the insurgents and provides the military with a much-needed economy of force

measure,” it says. “Unemployed and under-employed military-aged males typically provide the richest vein from which insurgents recruit ‘foot soldiers’. Short-term, labour-intensive projects are therefore the best way to disrupt such recruiting.”

“The counter-insurgent should be careful not to be over-generous since this will distort local economic and social activity and may lead to unproductive dependency.”

The positive impact of military units going into battle with bags of cash at their disposal is underlined in the manual by the experience of a top British commander who served in Iraq. “The hoops that I had to jump through to get the very few UK pounds that were available were . . . amazing; the American divisional commanders were resourced and empowered in ways that we could only dream of,” he says.

“UK commanders on recent operations have not had quick access to the same levels of cash as . . . their US counterparts,” the manual says. “Where possible, mission command should apply to money as much as any other weapon or enabling system.”

It is more than eight years since the Army last published a counter-insurgency doctrine, when the main lessons contained in it arose from operations in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

General Newton, Assistant Chief of Defence Staff Development Concepts and Doctrine, said that new ideas were needed to cope with the media-savvy insurgents who are fighting in Afghanistan and that there was no place for arrogance on the part of the British military hierarchy, relying on their experience of past campaigns.

The Americans complained in Iraq that the British in Basra too often referred to the lessons of Northern Ireland in dictating how the insurgency should be handled.

A bomb disposal specialist from 33 Regiment Royal Engineers was killed by an explosion near Gereshk in central Helmand province on Sunday, the Ministryof Defence said yesterday. He was part of the Counter-IED (improvised explosive device) Task Force and the 97th member of the Armed Forces to die in Afghanistan this year.

[MTStringer]

US 'to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan'

Media reports say Barack Obama will announce reinforcements in prime time address next week.
Barack Obama: Reports say he will announce the deployment of thousands more US troops to Afghanistan. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP


Barack Obama is expected to send 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan when he unveils his long-awaited strategy for the Afghan conflict next Tuesday, US media reports said today.
The Politico website said the US president would make a prime time address to the American people to announce his plans for what he has described as "a war of necessity".
Just as significant as the number of troops, however, will be pointers to a US exit strategy – something that will be closely watched by the British government, which is under public pressure to withdraw 9,000 UK troops from Afghanistan.
The McClatchy news service reported that the White House plan contained "off-ramps" – points, starting as early as next June, at which Obama could decide to continue to increase troop numbers, halt deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting", depending on political and military progress.
The US currently has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, along with 42,000 from other countries, as the conflict there enters its ninth year.
Obama reportedly plans to announce the deployment over nine months, beginning in March, of three army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, as well as a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of US-led Nato forces in southern Afghanistan – a move to which the US has long been committed – while 4,000 US military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate expansion of the Afghan army and police.
The US president drew up his final plans following a high level strategy meeting yesterday, the ninth he has held on Afghanistan.
The US vice president, Joe Biden – who favours a smaller force to concentrate on tackling al-Qaida – the national security adviser, Jim Jones, the US ambassador to Afghanisan, Karl Eikenberry, who opposes sending more troops, and senior US military commanders took part in the talks.
Obama is expected to follow up his decision with meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats, who fear the US is heading for a Vietnam-like quagmire.
Officials told McClatchy that the commander of the US-led international force in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal – who asked for 40,000 more troops – could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to testify before Congress towards the end of next week.
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and Eikenberry are also expected to appear before congressional committees.
As part of its plan the Obama administration, which remains sceptical about the Afghan president Hamid Karzai, would "work around him" by engaging directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior US defence official told McClatchy.
The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency.
It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options – a "high-risk" approach calling for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000.
During a visit to China last week Obama said his goal in Afghanistan was to hand a clean slate to America's next president.
He said he did not want his successor to inherit the conflict because a "multi-year occupation" would not serve US interests.




://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/barack-obama-us-troops-afghanistan

If this is true. I must admit surprise at the numbers.

[vector7]

US Democrats seek war surtax

By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: November 24 2009 01:16 | Last updated: November 24 2009 01:16

Democrats in the US Congress are pushing for a tax increase to pay for the Afghan war, amid rising expectations that President Barack Obama will dispatch tens of thousands of extra troops to the conflict.

Several senior Democrats, including David Obey, head of the House appropriations committee, and Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, have backed legislation for a war surtax, arguing that the cost of the Afghan war could total $1,000bn (€670bn, £600bn) over the next decade. That would rival the price tag for healthcare reform.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Singh backs US mission in Afghanistan - Nov-24
Obama treads fine line with India and China - Nov-23
Opinion: Put space at the heart of US-India relations - Nov-22
Singh’s visit to ‘consolidate’ US-India ties - Nov-22
Moody’s cautions India on problem loans - Nov-23
Unclear who controls Pakistan army, says Singh - Nov-23

Amid signs he is nearing a decision, Mr Obama was due to meet his top national security advisers to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan on Monday.

Many diplomats and analysts expect the president to decide on 30,000 or more extra troops – almost as many as commanders have requested – while focusing on particular parts of Afghanistan, such as the province of Kandahar, and pulling back from less strategic areas. The White House said a decision would come after this week’s Thanksgiving break.

“If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it,” Mr Obey told ABC News. “There ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan.”

Carl Levin, head of the Senate armed services committee, said: “It’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can.” He added: “I don’t know that it has to be a war tax, but I think we’ve got to find revenues, particularly in the upper brackets – folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000.”

Congressional aides acknowledge many obstacles to any initiative to raise taxes. But they say the drive reflects the growing expectation Mr Obama will ramp up the war effort and deep concern about the rising cost of the war.

“There are serious costs attached to this endeavour and up to now there has not been serious debate about it,” said one aide, citing the possible $1,000bn price tag.

The Obama administration says its military commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended – a point the president himself has emphasised. Norman Ornstein, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the administration was also likely to highlight areas in Afghanistan where it was pulling back.

Even General Stanley McChrystal, the commander in the field and the chief proponent of a troops increase, favours withdrawing from areas with little strategic importance to concentrate on defending population centres. The debate has focused on which areas are of greatest strategic concern, with questions raised over US and UK efforts in Helmand.

Mr Ornstein said he expected Mr Obama to call for between 30,000 and 40,000 troops, including trainers sent by allies, and that congressional efforts to raise taxes would not prosper. “They [the Democrats] are already very ready to have a surcharge to pay for the healthcare plan, so if you add on another one it becomes burdensome, difficult and politically more explosive,” he said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Congressman calls for 'war tax' ahead of Obama's decision on extra troops for Afghanistan


By David Gardner
Last updated at 3:28 PM on 24th November 2009

• Comments (31)
• Add to My Stories

Barack Obama will wipe out his efforts to save the US economy if he sends more troops to Afghanistan, a senior Democrat warned last night.

David Obey, chairman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee said Americans could be forced to pay a 'war tax' if the conflict escalates .

He spoke out after another four U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan and Nato urged allies to commit extra forces to help combat the resurgent Taliban.


Barack Obama has been urged to commit extra troops to Afghanistan

President Obama will hold another meeting with advisers tonight over Pentagon requests for up to 40,000 reinforcements.

But Mr Obey said he feared the President would bankrupt his domestic agenda if he ups the ante in Afghanistan. 'There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,' he told ABC News.

More...

• HARRY PHIBBS: Brown MUST face Iraq war inquiry - because he agreed to finance it
• MoD spent £149m upgrading 900 tanks - but they can't be used in Afghanistan
• Iraq war inquiry 'won't quiz Gordon Brown': A travesty if PM escapes probe, critics claim

'If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it,' he added.

The powerful House Appropriations Committee controls the purse strings in Congress and the chairman's remarks reflect the growing unease among senior Democrats over the war.

'On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement,' said Mr Obey. 'But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy.'


David Obey's war tax proposal would involve high-earners paying 5 per cent of their incomes

He said he favours a 'war surtax' in which high-earners pay 5 per cent of their incomes and the lower paid hand over smaller percentages. White House budget director Peter Orszag has suggested it would cost the U.S. £24billion a year to send the 40,000 additional troops.

With the U.S. national debt at £7.2trillion and rising, Mr Obey is not alone among those who fear Afghanistan could divert resources from projects at home.

But the White House fears that such a move would only antagonise a public already weary of the eight-year conflict.

The latest casualties bring the US death toll in Afghanistan this month to 15, with 58 fatalities in October.

In Brussels yesterday, Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in intense negotiations to get more troops and equipment for the newly-established Nato training mission in Afghanistan.

Several allies have promised reinforcements, but most have shied away from firm commitments until Mr Obama shows his hand on extra troops.

[vector7]

Obama Faces Liberal Rebellion Over Afghanistan Troop Surge

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:53 PM



As opposition grows among his own base of liberal Democrats, President Barack Obama is bracing for a tough sell of his apparent decision to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war in Afghanistan.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the 8-year-old conflict, according to the Associated Press. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.

Obama held the 10th and final meeting of his Afghanistan strategy review since mid-September on Monday night. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president left the war council meeting without announcing a decision to the group or to aides, but that no more meetings are planned, the AP reported.

"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," Gibbs said not long after the two-hour meeting broke up.

But opposition is growing within the liberal ranks of the Democratic Party, which is already angry over the president’s reluctance to fully embrace a public option on healthcare reform. Democratic allies of the president, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, have become more outspoken on the war in other forums as well. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, reiterated his opposition to escalating U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, and said Monday that if President Obama does approve an increase in troop levels, the war should financed by a surtax on the rich.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy. He proposed a similar tax to pay for ongoing military operations in Iraq in 2007, only to have the idea dismissed out of hand by Pelosi, who had just become Speaker of the House.

Obey’s demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Levin, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

"I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC News. "I am no military strategist, but I don't believe we have the tools to accomplish our mission in Afghanistan because you have to have functioning, effective government and there isn't one in Afghanistan. There isn't one in Pakistan either."

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, are beginning to organize more strongly against Afghanistan, according to Roll Call. Some are demanding an immediate troop withdrawal, while others press for a scaled-back troop increase tied to timelines and resources for economic development.

“The Progressive Caucus does not have a stand on it at this moment,”

Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., told Roll Call. “We will. We’ll have our set of principles and expectations, but health care sucked the energy out of everything. ... We know we’ve been quiet.”

The 83-member caucus has also been split over whether to wait for Obama to lay out his strategy before weighing in versus proactively staking out a position on the war in advance of Obama’s decision, an approach advocated by Woolsey, Roll Call reported last week.

“Unfortunately, we have been quiet,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., also a CPC co-chairman. But he suggested that behind the silence has been an evolving position toward Afghanistan, which in recent months has been dominated by news of government corruption, misspent U.S. dollars and rising U.S. casualties.

“I think the whole dynamic of the argument [for troop increases] has changed,” Grijalva said. News of more violence and corruption has had a significant effect on “people who said they were willing to tolerate more troops ... two months ago if they were tied to an exit strategy.”

The majority of the caucus is opposed to any troop increases and is prepared to deliver a blow to Obama if he requests more war funding from Congress.

“It does look like, because we have our president in the White House, we’re giving him a little bit more room. But that wasn’t intended,” Woolsey said. “We’re going to disagree if he wants to put a whole bunch more troops in there.”

CPC members have largely rallied behind three bills filed by fellow liberals: Rep. Jim McGovern’s, D-Mass., proposal to create withdrawal timelines and measurements for success; Rep. Barbara Lee’s, D-Calif., proposal to prohibit funds for troop surges; and Honda and Grijalva’s proposal to invest 80 percent of funds in infrastructure and economic development and 20 percent in security.

But even the proposal to spend 20 percent of funds on military operations, as compared with 90 percent now, is still hard to swallow for leading anti-war voices like Woolsey and Lee, Roll Call reported.

Lee said she will “absolutely” oppose any troop increases, regardless of whether there is an exit strategy, because “the more troops that go into Afghanistan, the more open-ended the war becomes.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who has opposed every war funding bill for Afghanistan, complained to Roll Call that House Democratic leaders have put progressives in “these untenable positions” by pairing votes on war funding with issues that they support, such as the hate-crimes bill.
“These are the kinds of games that are being played to try to win votes,” said Kucinich, citing another vote for war funds that was paired with extending unemployment insurance. “Members have been trapped into voting for funding. ... There’s only so many machinations you can demonstrate before the game is done.”

On this policy at least, liberals may find some common ground with moderates and conservatives. Some are beginning to speak out against an Afghan troop surge, if nothing else because they doubt Obama’s staying power in any war. A series of recent polls have shown the American public becoming increasingly disillusioned with the war in Afghanistan, where more than 800 US soldiers have lost their lives.

A new poll Tuesday found Americans deeply divided about deploying more US troops to Afghanistan, just days before President Barack Obama was to announce his decision on sending reinforcements, AFP reported.

The CNN survey, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, found 50 percent of Americans would favor sending tens of thousands more troops while 49 percent would oppose it.

Asked generally about their view about the war in Afghanistan, 45 percent said they are in favor, while 52 percent oppose it.

The poll sampled 1,014 adults, including 928 registered voters from November 13 and 15, and has a three percent margin of error.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

Obama’s Speech at West Point on Afghanistan: What He Dare Not Tell Us

Ron Larsen
LibertyCalling
November 30, 2009

During his address before the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, December 1, expect President Obama to ask the American people to support his sending an additional 34,000 U.S. troops to fight for freedom in Afganistan so that we do not have to fight radical, militiant Islamic terrorism in the American homeland in coming years. He will probably refer to the shootings at Camp Hood allegedly commited by an Islamic military officer and psychiarist with al-Queda connections earlier this month this month to convince us that al-Queda based terrorism constitutes a genuine threat to the safety of Americans, even those living in the homeland.

Obama will probably go on to say that the heroic Amercan military troops fighting for freedom in Afghanistan since shortly after 9/11, have significantly reduced the numbers of al-Queda and Taliban insurgents fighting there and add that, nevertheless, the still pose of significant threat to the security of the people of that nation and so must be eliminated. Furthermore, he will likely add that to honor the American who died fighting there, he intends to finish the job started by President Bush shortly after the 9/11, which is to rid Afghanistan of al-Queda and Taliban fighters and then train Afghanistan troops to defend their own homeland.

That’s sweet Obama rhetoric. Let the violins play. But how does all of it square with the assertions General James Jones, Obama’s national security advisor, made on October 4 concerning the current strength of Taliban and al-Queda forces in Afghanistan and their danger to American troops and that nation’s people? According to an article published that day in the Washington Times, General Jones said that Afghanistan is not imminent danger of falling to the Taliban. Furthermore, he estimated total al-queda presence in Afghanistan at 100, a drop in a bucket.

What Obama will not tell us is that additional troops are needed to guard the opium poppy fields because of record yields now achieved each year and expansion of growing area and that the opium industry there was designed by the United States over thirty years ago.

The opium trade is big business there and worldwide and revenues are comparable with energy industry levels. Professor writes in a 2006 article titled, Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?, published by GlobalResearch.ca, “…what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organized crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking. This relationship has been documented by several studies including the writings of Alfred McCoy.”

What Obama will also not tell us is that the growing presence of the U.S. is all consistent with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s master plan for America’s securing control of Central Asia and Caspian Sea gas and oil producing nations. Brzezinski, elistist master stategist and founder of the Trilateral Commission along with George Soros and David Rockefeller and well as former national security advisor to President Carter, see control of that corridor, which includes the old Silk Route, is the key to control of the world’s commerce.

His plan was laid out in masterful detail in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, which may be read free online at Scribd.

The presence of the U.S.military in Afghanistan is pivotal to execution of this plan. Whoever controls Afghanistan controls access to all of the major gas and oil pipelines in this region. It also serves from a logistical standpoint as the perfect staging area for U.S. miliary troop foreays into Pakistan and neighboring countries in Central Asia and into the oil and gas rich Caspian Sea Region.

According to historian and author Webster Tarpley, Brzezinski met Obama when he was a student at Columbia University, became his political mentor and was responsible for Obama’s winning the U.S. presidency. Brzezinski still serves as Obama’s unnamed strategist and advisor. During the 2008 presidential campaign season, Obama’s focus on what he believe was a vital need of the U.S. to switch its military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. This lends credibility to Tarpley’s contention that Brzezinski is guiding if no specifying Obama policy decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan and, if fact, all of Cenral Asia, South Caucusus and the Caspian Basin.

[Beetle]

I just watched Obozo's speach. I thought I heard his knees knockin' a few times.

[vector7]

They are making new recruits swear to obey the President upon introduction to the armed forces.

But for those more patriotic American soldiers the Left may be planning to put them at the front of the line who they determined are not going along with their "Hope and Change Revolution".

Removing 30,000 Oathkeepers and veteran patriotic soldiers to Afghanistan and telegraphing to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban our exit strategy after Obama repeatedly stated victory is not the goal there will mean that their "Change Revolution" will have 30,000 less 'counter-revolutionaries' to deal with when the barn doors close and the iron fist comes down over the next 6-24 months.

[vector7]

NATO Allies Offer 7,000 Extra Troops for Afghan War

Reuters



NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gives a press conference at the end of the meeting of foreign ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-Russia Council at NATO headquarters in Brussels on December 4, 2009. (Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images)

BRUSSELS—Twenty-five NATO allies promised on Friday to send around 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan, backing President Barack Obama's new war strategy and reinforcing efforts to defeat the Taliban.

The extra commitment fell short of the 10,000 troops Pentagon officials had originally hoped for and did not account for some 4,900 Dutch and Canadian troops already due to leave the field in 2010 and 2011.

After a day of meetings to sell Obama's new strategy, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was pleased with "significant contributions" of both combat troops and trainers, which Washington hopes will allow Afghan forces to begin taking over security responsibility by mid-2011.

"This is a crucial test for NATO which has been the greatest and most successful military alliance in history," Clinton told a news conference, thanking NATO members for their contribution.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said more countries could join the 25 promising to contribute new troops in the next few months.

Despite the headline figure of 7,000 extra forces announced by Rasmussen, a breakdown of the numbers provided by NATO sources showed pledges for only 5,500 troops, with 1,500 more to be confirmed later.

And of the 5,500, at least 1,500 are already in the country and will not now be withdrawn as planned, NATO sources said.

The Canadian and Dutch withdrawals, which will see some of the most battle-hardened forces leave, will also dent the non-U.S. contribution, U.S. officials conceded.

The move follows Obama's decision on Dec. 1 to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, an attempt to turn the tide in the eight-year war.

Rasmussen said the extra troops, which would raise the total number of foreign forces in Afghanistan to around 140,000, would help to tackle the insurgency, but would not be enough to defeat it alone. "There are no silver bullets, no magic solutions."

"It will still take more time, more commitment and more patience to reach our shared goal," he said.

More Trainers Needed

Rasmussen laid out what he called a new road map for NATO operations, involving more soldiers, more aid and more training for Afghan security forces, as well as efforts to reintegrate Taliban fighters who agree to lay down their arms.

But even with the extra manpower, the NATO alliance faces a struggle to coordinate its efforts and regain the upper hand against an insurgency that has expanded into previously stable regions of Afghanistan and built strongholds inside Pakistan.

France and Germany appear more willing to send trainers than combat troops but have said they will only take a decision on any further commitment after a conference on Afghanistan to be held in London on Jan. 28.

NATO still needs more than 200 extra police and military training teams to boost Afghan forces so they can eventually take over security and allow foreign forces to withdraw.

Clinton suggested the United States believed that least some of those trainers could also help fight on the ground.

"Training is not only about the beginning of military preparation," she said. "It also includes partnering those troops, mentoring those troops, and going into combat with those troops."

But she reassured allies that their commitment would not need to be open-ended.

"The need for additional forces is urgent, but their presence will not be indefinite," she said, noting Obama's timeline called for Afghans to begin taking over in July 2011.

"At that time, we will begin to transfer authority and responsibility to Afghan security forces, removing combat forces from Afghanistan over time with the assurance that Afghanistan's future, and ours, is secure," Clinton said.

U.S. officials have been scrambling to back away from suggestions that mid-2011 has been set as a firm date for the start of a troop withdrawal, even if some of the extra U.S. troops being sent could start to pull out by then.

Rasmussen said any withdrawal should not be seen as the international coalition abandoning the country.

"Transition doesn't mean exit," he said. "There should be no misunderstanding: we are not going to leave Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of terrorists and the extremists who host them. It will not happen."

[vector7]

Dec 8, 2009
Obama treads Soviet road out of Kabul
By M K Bhadrakumar

The new Afghan strategy announced by United States President Barack Obama last Tuesday is a game-changer in regional politics across a broad swathe of the international system. The reactions in capitals as far removed as Beijing, Tehran, New Delhi and Moscow amply bear this out.

Broadly speaking, just about everyone understands that the US surge of 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan is a passing necessity. It merely provides the gateway to an end-game strategy aimed at ensuring American power doesn't get bogged down in a pointless quagmire in the Hindu Kush.

Quintessentially, it is the first dazzling display of "smart power" that the Obama administration promised the world audience when it assumed office in January. No one expected that American military power or the US capacity to exercise power was going to be replenished in the conceivable future.

The general expectation of the world community was - including among quarters that called for the speedy vacation of the military occupation of Afghanistan - that Washington was not going to be able to easily wriggle its way out from the debilitating engagements in the Greater Middle East any time soon, and that this gave plentiful lead time for other actors to scale advantageous heights in the emerging world order.

Thus, Obama's December 1 speech on Afghanistan, delivered at the West Point military academy, holds huge implications for regional politics. The initial reactions of regional capitals are couched in friendly terms towards Obama's speech but they can barely disguise an underlying sense of anxiety that borders on confusion.

A solitary exception is Iran, which is appalled that Obama is contemplating the stabilization of Afghanistan without caring for Tehran's helping hand. The Obama strategy would have serious implications for the Iran nuclear issue as Washington will be in a better position now to steer the United Nations (UN) Security Council to adopt severe sanctions against Tehran over its uranium-enrichment program. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded out her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on the sidelines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on Friday.

There is a degree of concern palpable in Tehran. The venerable Shi'ite Source of Emulation, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, hit out at Russia and China publicly as rank opportunists. Tacitly referring to the two countries, Shirazi said, "They are not our friends; they are the friends of their own interests. Wherever their interests lie is where they will be."

Obama may already be sensing the early gains of his "smart policy". The US's chief negotiator on the Iran issue, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, is proceeding to Beijing for urgent consultations on Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, Tehran has opted for a "hard line", harping on about the US occupation of Afghanistan being the only issue on the table today.

Beijing, in comparison, came up with a nuanced reaction. It "took note" of Obama's speech and hoped that the strategy would pave the way for "an Afghanistan of peace, stability, development and progress" as well as promote "enduring peace and stability in the region". Significantly, in a gesture towards Pakistan, which came in for sharp criticism in Obama's speech, Beijing added that "China holds [that] the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the relevant countries [read AfPak] should be respected".

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman concluded with what might be construed as an indirect message to India as well that "China and the US maintain communication and consultation on South Asian issues, including the Afghanistan issue" and will continue the "dialogue and cooperation" - meaning that there cannot be any "stand-alone" Sino-American cooperation over Afghanistan, but on the contrary, China seeks to be a stakeholder in the South Asian region's security issues as a whole.

New Delhi, in comparison, deliberately chose to take to rhetoric and to interpret Obama's speech narrowly as a tirade against Pakistan's support of terrorism. It had nothing to say about Obama's end-game strategy as such, though New Delhi is averse to a swift US withdrawal from Afghanistan. India is a direct beneficiary of any effort by the US to pressure Islamabad to give up its support of militant Islamist groups operating in the region.

Equally, New Delhi is carefully insulating itself from allowing the India-Pakistan relationship to be dragged into the cauldron of Obama's regional agenda. Indeed, India has the requisite diplomatic agility to steer the Obama era in a constructive direction (from its point of view) by closely working with the US leadership on a range of issues (such as climate change). This way it can ensure that the overall momentum of the US-India strategic partnership is kept up and there is a steady deepening of the partnership.

Ironically, it is not only the innocents abroad but a large corpus of Americans at home, who are struggling to catch up with the seamless possibilities of Obama's new thinking about the exercise of US hard and soft power and the alchemy of its mix in varying circumstances.

The furious debate among American opinion-makers is testimony to the fact that there are times when a gifted leadership can outstrip "expert opinion" in sheer foresight.As president Mikhail Gorbachev said in a memorable speech at the Communist Party of the Soviet Union central committee plenary circa 1987, stereotyped minds are often like birds unable to muster the courage to spread wings and take to the skies even when the cage has been left open.

It is Moscow's reaction that ought to catch Obama's close attention as his administration navigates its way through the difficult period ahead. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement on Wednesday began with the curiously worded articulation that "Moscow, in general, regards positively the key points of the renewed US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan". It expressed a hope that Obama's strategy would contribute to the "speedy formation of Afghanistan as a self-sustaining, prosperous and independent state, free from drug crime and terrorism".

But then, Obama had just pointed out that he wasn't in the business of "nation-building" in Afghanistan. In fact, he stressed that the only nation-building project that he was really interested in was in regards to regenerating America.

The Russian statement said Moscow is "sympathetic" to the US surge in Afghanistan, but "firmly" believes in the Afghanization of the war and to that extent it was supportive of Obama's line on transferring "full power and responsibility for the situation" to President Hamid Karzai's government - by comprehensively assisting it in the economic and military spheres. Moscow is particularly interested in the priority shown by Obama on developing the agriculture sector of Afghan economy, which is directly related to the eradication of poppy cultivation.

In a key passage, the statement added:

We [Moscow] share the US's view regarding the close relationship between the factors fueling the instability in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan. Providing assistance to Islamabad in ensuring sustainable economic development and internal political stability should accelerate the achievement of normalcy in the region. Of particular importance is the urgent need to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan's areas bordering Afghanistan.

In short, Moscow reminded Obama of the imperative need for a long-term US commitment to the security and stability of the AfPak region and a strengthening of the Karzai government's capacity to wrest the initiative from the Taliban.

However, there is another caveat. Moscow also wants the US to eschew its lone-ranger approach. "The solution of all these tasks requires the broadest possible international cooperation under UN auspices. A positive role is also to be played by the states of the region, as well as organizations operating there, especially the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] and the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization]."

Moscow wants a role, but only within the above parameters, so it can "continue to contribute to stabilization efforts and the realization of the programs for socioeconomic development in Afghanistan on the basis of equal partnership with other members of the international community". (Emphasis added.)

Subsequently, Moscow has assured that it will continue to extend the facilities of the northern corridor for supplying NATO contingents in Afghanistan. In overall terms, Russia is yet to figure out the full American intentions, but it will be far from happy if US forces vacate Afghanistan anytime in the near future. There is uneasiness that Obama failed to mention anything about the role of regional powers.

How reliable is the Russian advice to Obama? It cannot be lost on Moscow that the developing situation bears close similarity to the 1986-1989 phase leading to the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

To be sure, setting aside pride and prejudice, Moscow would realize that Obama has good chance of still succeeding where the Kremlin failed for a variety of reasons. The Taliban doesn't enjoy the anywhere near the level of international support that the mujahideen had.

Two, unlike in 1992, the Afghan government is relatively stable and can draw on international support in terms of aid and political recognition. (Actually, the communist government in Kabul showed staying power despite the Kremlin pulling out troops.)

Three, the Soviets lacked any reach to the mujahideen sanctuaries inside Pakistan, whereas America's Predator drones possess precisely the capability to peer deep into Pakistani territory. The Obama administration has just revealed that it will not hesitate to deploy these aircraft over the Balochistan skies and take out the so-called Quetta shura (council) - the Taliban's ruling council based in Pakistan - should the need arise.

Pakistani leader General Zia ul-Haq got away with a lot of nonsense in the Soviet era but the present powers in Islamabad lack the leverage that the Cold War provided.

Of course, the regime of Afghan president Mohammad Najibullah (1986-1992) had far greater reach over the country than the Karzai government enjoys, but it should not be overlooked that coalition Najibullah had built drew deeply from his vast knowledge and experience as the ruthless intelligence chief of Afghanistan's communist regime.

In certain ways, US strategy is moving towards the Soviet approach during the end game in the 1980s. The Soviets, once they made up their minds to vacate Afghanistan (circa 1985, after the failure of the famous Panjshir offensive), quickly switched gear to create islands of stability where the normal business of life could carry on, with schools and primary health centers, the trammels of authority such as police apparatus and civil servants and so on. The Soviets achieved this by securing the cities and the main roads connecting them and establishing Kabul's grip over them.

Not many would recollect that soon after assuming power in the Kremlin, Gorbachev, too, ordered a surge in 1985. Unlike Obama's proposed 18 months, he gave the Red Army commanders just about a year to do whatever they wanted to "win" the war if they could, after which, he said, the occupation would be vacated.

Obama should punctuate the parallels with the Soviet experience at this point. Instead of dumping the head of government of the day as the Kremlin did a little after the Soviet troops pulled out in February 1989, Obama should have greater attention span, resilience, and more sincere commitment to regional stability.

Obama would do well to recall from the archives the memorable events that followed when Najibullah was unable to pay the salaries of the Uzbeki troops on whom he critically depended. Then, Rashid Dostum, with tacit encouragement from Moscow, defected to the camp of Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, and brought the entire edifice tumbling down. Najibullah defaulted by just two to three months and Dostum lost his temper and stormed out to the mujahideen camp. Simply put, Najibullah ran out of money to pay his retainers.

The fatal Soviet mistake should not be repeated. Karzai, too, has shown the skill needed to weave a spider-like web of a coalition, such as Najibullah's. In a way, he faces far less isolation today than his communist predecessor.

Like Najibullah, Karzai hails from a powerful Pashtun tribe. No matter what Taliban leader Mullah Omar says publicly, he should know well enough that Karzai has a base and a name among Kandahari Pashtuns and if he combines with powerful Ghilzai - the largest Pashtun tribe - like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the coalition could prove formidable. Power has a logic of its own in the Hindu Kush. Obama should encourage Karzai to exercise power rather marginalize him.

Yet there are disturbing signs that the Americans are not getting the picture. There is talk of side-stepping Karzai and routing the American aid directly to "local leaders". That would be a catastrophic mistake that would almost certainly ensure that Afghanistan descends into anarchy.

For one thing, Karzai will not tolerate such a public slight, and endless complications will arise in the equations between Washington and Kabul during the sensitive period ahead, which will prove exasperating and provide a wasteful distraction. Secondly, the US will be tacitly encouraging local leaders to ignore Kabul's writ. All sorts of fissiparous tendencies will surface.

Thirdly, Obama can be virtually certain that the so-called local leaders would take the Americans for a sweet, long ride. Never underestimate the Afghan ingenuity to inveigle foreigners in their scheme of things by creating an optical illusion that the latter call the shots.

It is a highly romantic notion that overnight "bearded Americans" could be moving about in the tangled mountains and deep cavernous ravines with roving bands of local Afghan militia. But the sojourn could prove lethal when you don't even know how to distinguish who is Taliban and who is not.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

'The US military is exhausted'

By Sarah Lazare


The US army is overstretched and exhausted, says peace campaigner Sarah Lazare [AFP]

The call for over 30,000 more troops to be sent to Afghanistan is a travesty for the people of that country who have already suffered eight brutal years of occupation.

It is also a harsh blow to the US soldiers facing imminent deployment.

As Barack Obama, the US president, gears up for a further escalation that will bring the total number of troops in Afghanistan to over 100,000, he faces a military force that has been exhausted and overextended by fighting two wars.

Many from within the ranks are openly declaring that they have had enough, allying with anti-war veterans and activists in calling for an end to the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some active duty soldiers publicly refusing to deploy.

This growing movement of military refusers is a voice of sanity in a country slipping deeper into unending war.

"They shifted me from one war to the next"

Eddie Falcon, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran

The architects of this war would be well-advised to listen to the concerns of the soldiers and veterans tasked with carrying out their war policies on the ground. Many of those being deployed have already faced multiple deployments to combat zones: the 101st Airborne Division, which will be deployed to Afghanistan in early 2010, faces its fifth combat tour since 2002.

"They are just going to start moving the soldiers who already served in Iraq to Afghanistan, just like they shifted me from one war to the next," said Eddie Falcon, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Soldiers are going to start coming back with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), missing limbs, problems with alcohol, and depression."
Many of these troops are still suffering the mental and physical fallout from previous deployments.

Rates of PTSD and traumatic brain injury among troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been disproportionately high, with a third of returning troops reporting mental problems and 18.5 per cent of all returning service members battling either PTSD or depression, according to a study by the Rand Corporation.

Marine suicides doubled between 2006 and 2007, and army suicides are at the highest rate since records were kept in 1980.

Resistance in the ranks
US army soldiers are refusing to serve at the highest rate since 1980, with an 80 per cent increase in desertions since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the Associated Press.

These troops refuse deployment for a variety of reasons: some because they ethically oppose the wars, some because they have had a negative experience with the military, and some because they cannot psychologically survive another deployment, having fallen victim to what has been termed "Broken Joe" syndrome.

Over 150 GIs have publicly refused service and spoken out against the wars, all risking prison and some serving long sentences, and an estimated 250 US war resisters are currently taking refuge in Canada.

This resistance includes two Fort Hood, Texas, soldiers, Victor Agosto and Travis Bishop, who publicly resisted deployment to Afghanistan this year, facing prison sentences as a result, with Bishop still currently detained.


The war in Afghanistan is losing support
in the US [AFP]

"There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan," wrote Agosto, upon refusing his service last May. "The occupation is immoral and unjust."

Within the US military, GI resisters and anti-war veterans have organised through broad networks of veteran and civilian alliances, as well as through IVAW, comprised of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

This organisation, which is over 1,700 strong, with members across the world, including active-duty members on military bases, is opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and openly supports GI resistance.

"Iraq Veterans Against the War calls on Obama to end the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq) by withdrawing troops immediately and unconditionally," wrote Jose Vasquez, the executive director of IVAW, in a December 2 open letter.

"It's not time for our brothers and sisters in arms to go to Afghanistan. It's time for them to come home."

No clear progress
GI coffee houses have sprung up at several military bases around the country. In the tradition of the GI coffee houses of the Vietnam war era, these cafes provide a space where active duty troops can speak freely and access resources about military refusal, PTSD, and veteran and GI movements against the war.

"Here at Fort Lewis, we've lost 20 soldiers from the most recent round of deployments," said Seth Menzel, an Iraq combat veteran and founding organiser of Coffee Strong, a GI coffee house at the sprawling Washington army base.

"We've seen resistance to deployment, mainly based on the fact that soldiers have been deployed so many times they don't have the patience to do it again."

As the occupation of Afghanistan passes its eighth year, with no clear progress, goals that remain elusive, and a high civilian death count, this war is coming to resemble the Iraq war that has been roundly condemned by world and US public opinion.

The never-ending nature of this conflict belies the real project of establishing US dominance in the Middle East and control of the region's resources, at the expense of the Afghan civilians and US soldiers being placed in harm's way.

The voices of refusal coming from within the US military send a powerful message that soldiers will not be fodder for an unjust and unnecessary war. By withdrawing their labour from a war that depends on their consent, these soldiers have the power to help bring this war to an end, as did their predecessors in the GI resistance movement against the Vietnam war.

And the longer the war in Afghanistan drags on - the more lives that are lost and destroyed - the more resistance we will see coming from within the ranks.

Sarah Lazare is an anti-militarist and GI resistance organiser with Dialogues Against Militarism and Courage to Resist. She is interested in connecting struggles for justice at home with global movements against war and empire.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect editorial policy.

[vector7]

US recognizes Taliban as Afghan political force

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:11:29 GMT
(That harbor terrorist, blog comment)

The US Secretary of Defense has recognized the Taliban as part of what he describes as the political fabric of Afghanistan.

Robert Gates said the Taliban should lay down their weapons to play a legitimate role in Afghan politics.
"The Taliban...are part of the political fabric of Afghanistan at this point," Wall Street Journal. quoted him as saying on Friday.

"The question is whether they are prepared to play a legitimate role in the political fabric of Afghanistan going forward, meaning participating in elections, meaning not assassinating local officials and killing families," he said at a roundtable with Pakistani and American journalists in Islamabad.

He made the remarks during his two-day visit to Pakistan.
Gates also expressed regret over Washington's strategic mistakes, such as abandoning Afghanistan and cutting off military ties with Pakistan back in the 1990s.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has mentioned in a recent interview with the BBC that he plans to introduce a foreign-funded scheme to win over what he called Taliban moderates.

"Those that we approach to return will be provided with the abilities to work, to find jobs, to have protection, to resettle in their own communities."

The Afghan president says the United States and Britain will show their support for his plan at a conference next week in London.

The US invaded Afghanistan following September 11, 2001 attacks to allegedly kill or capture bin Laden and destroy the militancy in the country.

A Press TV correspondent from Kabul says that this concession shows the Afghan government and its Western backers have conceded defeat against the militants.

Western media reports recount that American and British spies have organized secret meetings with senior Taliban commanders in Afghanistan over past years.

It has also been alleged that high-level American and British military officials have been involved in Taliban-led narcotics networks in the war-weary country.

Such contacts are said to be used in pursuing senior Taliban commanders to join the Afghan government and become a part of the political rank and file of the country.

The developments could mean US President Obama administration's is willing to accept the militants playing a potentially central role in Afghanistan's future.

JR/JG/DT

Posted by World Watch at 11:26 AM

[Ryan Ruck]

Dutch Refused To Help In Battle: Digger

AUSTRALIAN special forces were abandoned by Dutch allies during a firefight in Afghanistan, reports say.

October 22, 2010

News Limited papers reported that Dutch pilots refused to drop below their "safe" height of 5000m to rescue Australian SAS and US forces caught in an ambush in September 2008.

Former SAS sniper Rob Maylor, wounded during the battle, said the Australians had pleaded with the Dutch: "We're in an absolute doozy of a shitfight. We need your assistance as we're taking casualties."

But the Dutch helicopter pilots refused to offer covering fire for the Australian, US and Afghan troops in the ambush. A US soldier was killed and seven SAS soldiers and two sappers were wounded. Trooper Mark Donaldson was awarded the Victoria Cross for his role in the battle.

The role of the Dutch in the battle has been described by Maylor in his book SAS Sniper to be released next week. He writes that during the battle the Australians saw two Dutch Apache helicopters escorting a Chinook and radioed the pilots to fire their Hellfire laser-guided missiles and 30mm cannons on the Taliban.

But the Dutch pilots refused to drop below 5000m, despite the Apaches being capable of operating at low levels under heavy fire.

"They wouldn't open up on the Taliban for fear they might draw some fire themselves," Maylor said.

In the end the soldier on the ground responsible for guiding air support told the Dutch: "If you're not going to engage then you might as well f . . k off." And they did, Maylor writes.

He told News Limited yesterday his wounds from the battle were patched up by Trooper Donaldson, who was later awarded a VC for gallantry for rescuing a wounded interpreter that day.