Thread: Afghan fighting - the latest reports.

From The Sunday Times
July 12, 2009
Sergeant's brave bid to halt Taliban ambush

(SAC Andrew Morris)
Sergeant Andrew McNulty
Michael Smith
An army sergeant freewheeled his Land Rover down a hill into a Taliban firefight in order to protect an ambushed supply convoy after his vehicle broke down.

Sergeant Andrew “Mac� McNulty was towed to the top of the ridge in Helmand, southern Afghanistan, and rolled down the other side to take on the enemy.

However, when the heavily armed Land Rover came to rest it was facing the wrong way to fire its machinegun, forcing McNulty and two of his colleagues to get out and shove the vehicle into position with their bare hands while coming under fire.

The soldiers were guarding a 100-vehicle supply column on its way from Sangin to Camp Bastion, the British Army base, when the ambush took place.
n
Their Land Rover, fitted with a mounted machinegun and an automatic grenade-firing weapon, was struggling up a sandy desert slope when it broke down.

“The gearbox actually conked out on us so we had no way of getting the vehicle into gear,� said McNulty. “It was pretty knackered.�
More on the link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6689752.ece

Attack kills 12 Taliban in southern Afghanistan


By NOOR KHAN, Associated Press Writer – 32 mins ago
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – International troops and Afghan police killed 12 Taliban insurgents in a gunbattle in southern Afghanistan, police said Sunday.
The joint force attacked a compound north of the capital of Uruzgan province where the militants were hiding Saturday evening, sparking the fighting, police spokesman Mohammad Musa said. He said no Afghan police or international troops were killed.
In eastern Kunar province, meanwhile, one civilian was killed and five wounded when shelling from a gunbattle between insurgents and Afghan and international forces hit a house.
More on the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090712/...as_afghanistan

Factbox - Security developments in Afghanistan, 12 Jul 2009

Source: Reuters - AlertNet
Date: 12 Jul 2009

July 12 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Afghanistan at 0700 GMT on Sunday.

* denotes new or updated items.

* LOGAR - A roadside bomb killed four Afghan police and wounded one in the Charkh district of Logar province, south of Kabul, on Saturday, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said.

* URUZGAN - Afghan and foreign troops killed 12 Taliban insurgents in southern Uruzgan province overnight in an offensive that included air support, a provincial official said.

NURISTAN - Afghan security forces regained control of a district headquarters in eastern Nuristan province overnight, the provincial governor said. Taliban fighters had taken over the building after several days of fighting last week. Foreign troops were also involved in the operation, the governor said, but there were no details about casualties.

* HELMAND - A roadside bomb killed a police commander and one of his bodyguards in southern Helmand province on Saturday, a provincial spokesman said.

GHAZNI - The governor of southeastern Ghazni province survived a roadside bomb attack against his convoy on Saturday, a provincial official said. Two of his bodyguards were wounded.

BAGHLAN - Afghan police killed four Taliban fighters in a clash in northern Baghlan province on Saturday, an official said.

(Compiled by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Paul Tait)

For more humanitarian news and analysis, please visit www.alertnet.org

PM Plans Troop Surge To Afghanistan
Sunday, July 12, 2009

Thousands more troops could be sent to Afghanistan within months under an emergency review of the UK mission being carried out by the Ministry of Defence.

The news of a possible troop surge comes after eight British soldiers were killed within 24 hours, leading to fresh calls from senior military and political figures for urgent reinforcements - and an end to Treasury constraints on spending on the Afghan war.

Fifteen British soldiers have died during the first 11 days of July, with the total of 184 deaths surpassing the 179 killed in Iraq. Two of the soldiers who died on Thursday have been named as Daniel Hume, 22, from 4th Bn, The Rifles, and John Brackpool of the Prince of Wales's Company, 1st Bn Welsh Guards, who would have celebrated his 28th birthday yesterday.


Private Brackpool, a father-of-one, died from a gunshot wound following a battle near Lashkar Gah with insurgents who attacked a compound seized as part of Operation Panther's Claw, a major offensive against the Taliban. He was described by his platoon commander, Lieutenant Dave Harris, as a "genuine, compassionate and likeable man" who had given his life protecting his comrades. The parents of Rifleman Hume, killed in an explosion while on foot patrol near Nad-e-Ali in Helmand province, last night said that their son had "found his place in the world." "Daniel passed out of Catterick as top recruit and since joining the army he was the happiest we had known him," said Adrian and Wendy Hume. "He believed in what the British army was trying to achieve and was confident. He was proud to serve his country and was planning to move battalion when he returned, so that he could guarantee a speedy return to Afghanistan. We have lost a son and a best friend. His death has left a huge void in our lives. We are fiercely proud of him.
More on the link

http://www.modoracle.com/news/PM-Pla...tan_18413.html

Originally Posted by Skynet

PM Plans Troop Surge To Afghanistan
Sunday, July 12, 2009

Thousands more troops could be sent to Afghanistan within months under an emergency review of the UK mission being carried out by the Ministry of Defence.
More on the link

http://www.modoracle.com/news/PM-Pla...tan_18413.html

Alternatively:

Revealed: Brown's secret plan to cut Afghanistan force by 1,500

Military chiefs condemn 'disastrous' move after Britain suffers bloodiest week

Brian Brady and Jonathan Owen

Sunday, 12 July 2009

Ministers are secretly planning to cut the number of British troops in Afghanistan, at a time when defence chiefs are appealing for thousands more reinforcements to meet the deadly threat from the resurgent Taliban.

Hours after the death toll of UK forces in Afghanistan rose above the number killed in Iraq, The Independent on Sunday established that Gordon Brown wants to bring up to 1,500 service personnel home from the war-torn country after its elections next month, seemingly on grounds of cost.

Astonished former military chiefs condemned the "disastrous" move, which emerged at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks in the recent history of the British military.

MORE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...0-1742747.html

And Sir Richard is getting demob happy, too:

Labour clashes with army as Afghan death toll mounts

Senior Labour figures accused the head of the army last night of playing politics as he said that there were too few troops and helicopters in the Afghan war zone.

One minister expressed fury that General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, had attended a private dinner with Tory MPs and suggested an extra 2,000 troops were needed in Helmand province.

The general’s remarks put him at odds with the official government line, that the 9,000 British troops already in Afghanistan are sufficient to cope with the offensive.

A Labour minister said: “General Dannatt has crossed an important line. He is playing a high-risk game.�
=====

It emerged last night that the Treasury had told Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials that there would be no funds for extra helicopters because the Americans had now in effect taken over Helmand.

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, insisted yesterday that the troops would get anything they needed. “You can’t send troops to the front line and not be prepared to see it through in terms of the . . . resources that they need,� he said.

However, an MoD official working on urgent operational requirements for Afghanistan said the Treasury had made it clear that there was no extra money for vital equipment, including armoured vehicles.

IN FULL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6689952.ece

The Sunday Times is all over Neue Arbeit this w/e:

Ministers on the defensive as Afghanistan kit row grows

and te editorial (I've only found it in the hard copy version) is pretty unkind too.

At last the big papers are saying what I've been saying for 3 years at least - resource it properly, and be realistic about your objectives - or don't do it at all.

Four US soldiers killed in Afghanistan

By Sardar Ahmad – 2 hours ago

KABUL (AFP) — Four US soldiers operating under NATO were killed in improvised bomb explosions in Afghanistan, military officials said Sunday, as troops pressed a major assault against the Taliban in the south.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force said the troopers were killed "as a result of improvised explosive device strikes from insurgents" on Saturday.

A spokeswoman for the separate US-led force said the victims were US nationals.

Another soldier died of wounds received in combat in Afghanistan last month, ISAF added.

"Four ISAF service members killed after insurgent attacks in southern Afghanistan, one succumbs to wounds suffered last June," the alliance force said in a statement.

The casualties follow the deaths on Thursday and Friday of eight British soldiers also deployed under NATO ISAF -- the deadliest 24-hour period for the British forces in decades. Altogether, 15 British soldiers have died this month.

And according to the independent www.icasualties-org website, which tracks military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, around 192 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan this year, without counting the latest deaths.

MORE: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...da24rcx6X_8rqA

Minister: deaths show Taleban are hurting
Philip Webster, Political Editor

Government efforts to shore up public support for the operation in Afghanistan intensified today as the Defence Secretary insisted that progress was being made.

Bob Ainsworth followed the Prime Minister in saying that the strategy being followed to defeat the Taleban was the right one, despite the dangers involved.

In an interview with the BBC, Chancellor Alistair Darling said the Government would ensure that front-line troops were well-resourced - but is not thought his comments will see any additional funding diverted to the MoD beyond that already allocated.

He said: "You can't send troops into the front line and not be prepared to see it through in terms of the equipment, the resources that they need."

MORE: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6693570.ece

. . . . and there is this:

New peril for British troops in Afghanistan: Taliban have learned modern warfare

Imagination, greater firepower and strengthening of Taliban's ideological bond leaves coalition facing higher casualty rates



For many months, military planners in Afghanistan have been readying themselves – and trying to prepare domestic public opinion – for a bloody summer. In spring, a number of officers – from the then commander of coalition forces, David McKiernan, to commanders patrolling sullen villages – said significant casualties were inevitable in the traditional "fighting season" of July and August.

Nor were casualties likely to be due to greater numbers of troops coming into the country and venturing into new areas. "The Taliban are much, much more stood up. They are much tighter, much more professional, much more together," one intelligence officer in Kabul told the Guardian earlier this year.

A lot has been made of the Taliban's increasing use of "asymmetric tactics", such as booby traps, roadside bombs and suicide attacks. A few hours on an operation with US troops, supported by helicopters, jets and unmanned armed drones, makes it clear why: if the insurgents do not stay out of the way, they will be killed, as thousands have been.

But once coalition troops establish a presence, they become vulnerable. They need supplies, they need to patrol; they are perfect targets for the hit and run tactics of the Taliban. Those tactics have been particularly honed in ambushes.

Soldiers fighting the insurgents say they now show vastly improved ability to co-ordinate fire. So volleys of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) now rain down during engagements. The Taliban have also learned to focus fire on their opponents' heavy weapons or radios .

Pre-prepared fighting positions in karez irrigation ditches are now used, often as part of defensive posts with carefully calculated fields of fire designed to interlock and to trap any counterattack.Nato officers say the Taliban's command has also been improved to co-ordinate fighting with foot soldiers and to allow rapid engagement or disengagement. According to American soldiers who served in Iraq, Afghan fighters compared favourably to the disorganised militants they had faced before.

They say they are often more imaginative, too. In one engagement in Kunar province last year, insurgents got close enough to American positions to throw stones among them, hoping the US troops would mistake them for grenades, panic and expose themselves.

Yet the work done by the Taliban high command – based mainly in Pakistan – goes way beyond tactics. Through the winter, Nato intelligence officers say, the insurgents worked at stiffening internal discipline, weeding out those who were felt to be insufficiently attached, ideologically speaking, to the movement.

According to several Afghan members of parliament interviewed earlier this year, the shadow governors appointed by the Taliban in every province were reshuffled to break up emerging bureaucratic fiefdoms and re-energise the movement.

Junior frontline commanders, many of whom had become more autonomous in last year's fighting and challenged their leadership, were brought in line. Teams organising the bombs that have caused so many of the casualties were trained in new techniques. Spies and double agents were killed.

There was even discussion of reigning in drug dealers whose wealth and weaponry was beginning to beseen as a potential threat by some Taliban leaders.

The tactics of the coalition forces have been studied closely. One preoccupation is air power. As with the conflict with the Soviets, airpower is what insurgents fear most. Helicopters have not yet been attacked successfully in a systematic way.

The insurgents only have a few old Chinese-made missiles and rocket propelled grenades. The latter, fired into rotor blades, are effective only from very close range, and imply almost certain death for the attacker.

However, if the Taliban do find a means to target coalition aircraft, this will not simply change tactics but geopolitics – as it did for the Soviets. Within three years of the Afghan mujahideen receiving effective surface-to-air missiles, the Soviets had pulled out.

Jason Burke is the author of On the Road to Kandahar: Travels Through Conflict in the Islamic World

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ctics-analysis

. . . . AND THIS:

Leading article: Troops out. Unless...
Sunday, 12 July 2009

It is no panicky reaction to sad news from the battlefield to say that the coalition's mission in Afghanistan is in deep trouble. It has no clear end point towards which to work – certainly none that is realistically achievable – and has been allowed to drift since the Taliban regime was deposed eight years ago.

That original intervention was morally and legally justified. The United States was entitled to demand that al-Qa'ida be brought to justice, and was entitled to the support of the United Nations when the Taliban refused to surrender Osama bin Laden. After the fall of Kabul, the war aims became more ambitious – for laudable reasons, which this newspaper supported at the time. The US-led coalition hoped to rebuild the civic and physical infrastructure of the country, with a military presence to maintain order, handing over in the medium term (that is, about now) to Afghan forces under the control of a democratic government.
Related articles

* Revealed: Brown's secret plan to cut Afghanistan force by 1,500
* Heroes of Afghanistan: The men. The lives. The waste
* War in Afghanistan: So, just what are we fighting for?
* Patrick Mercer: Afghanistan needs more men, not fewer

Unfortunately, at the critical time when our forces could have created space for development, the coalition was distracted by the disastrous adventure in Iraq. And, because British casualties were amazingly low – only eight of our soldiers were killed before 2006 – Afghanistan slipped right down the list of concerns. It was not until British forces stepped up to the responsibilities shunned by other Nato partners and took over from the US in Helmand province three years ago that hard questions began to be asked.
====
The British people and their armed forces deserve better than this. Military action abroad cannot be sustained without solid support at home. We have severe doubts about whether our goals can ever be clear and whether they can be achieved by conventional warfare.

They certainly cannot be achieved if our troops fight with both hands tied behind their backs. If our troops are to stay in Afghanistan, they must have the equipment they need. But even if they had enough heavy-armoured vehicles and helicopters, the Taliban would find ways to attack them.

And commanders should have the numbers they need – as we report today, retired generals are aghast at plans to pull out 1,500 soldiers. But even if they had the forces they want, what they need above all is a believable cause for which to fight. The threat from al-Qa'ida is too tenuous to continue to justify this operation. It may be that the terrorists would be better fought by intelligence and special forces than by trying to turn Afghanistan into a stable democracy.

The time has come for Mr Brown to persuade us of the case all over again. If he cannot do so with far greater clarity and conviction, he must bring our troops home.

IN FULL: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1742532.html

The suggestion that the current troop levels are sufficient is clearly nonsense, otherwise the US would not have sent a Marine Expeditionary Brigade into the province. We put a division into Belfast at the height of the Troubles - security force levels in Helmand are well below historically-based recommended levels for COIN ops, and that deficit cannot be made up with either fast air or, dare I say it, heavier and heavier vehicles (much as greater protection is always welcome).

If the UK does another Basra and cuts and runs from Afghanistan, then any remants of 'special' being attached to the US/UK relationship will evaporate, probably for good. Given Labour's profligacy in other areas of the economy, it would be difficult, from the US point of view, to see why we couldn't stand up to the ockey to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

70 insurgents killed in military offensive in S Afghanistan
www.chinaview.cn 2009-07-12 20:25:32 Print
KABUL, July 12 (Xinhua) -- Some 70 Taliban insurgents have been killed since the military offensive launched in Helmand province, south of Afghanistan, Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said Sunday.

"Since the beginning of the operation on July 2, so far 70 rebels have been killed and several others sustained injuries," Azimi told a news conference here.

Involving nearly 5,000 Afghan and U.S. Marines, the offensive was dubbed "Khanjar" which means "Strike of Sword" with the objective to restore the government's control in Taliban-held territories and so far, Khanshin district has been regained.

Azimi added that cleanup operations are going on in parts of Khanshin, Garmsir and Nahri Saraj districts.

The militants largely rely on mines to slow down troops' onslaught, the spokesman said, adding that roadside bombings have claimed the lives of some security personnel.

It is said that the government does not exist in districts of Bagran, Dishu and Washir of Helmand province.

Taliban fighters who have vowed to defend their positions and disrupt the coming presidential polls set for August 20 have not made any com

Isolated US convoys in Afghanistan ambush targets

by Ben Sheppard – Sun Jul 12, 12:06 am ET
KOSHTAY, Afghanistan (AFP) – Stranded for three days on a single stretch of road in southern Afghanistan, the US Marines wondered why they had not been ambushed by the Taliban -- and then finally the attack came.
Rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and small-arms fire were directed at the convoy, which responded with shoulder-launched missiles, grenades and machinegun fire, an AFP reporter travelling with the Marines witnessed.
The strike at the troops late Friday came from a mud-walled compound 150 metres from the dirt road on which the US vehicles were stuck by IEDs (improvised explosive devices) planted both in front and behind them.
The 1st Combat Engineer Battalion were trying to open up the route into the south of Helmand province as part of President Barack Obama's new Afghan strategy, but they had been halted by a series of IED blasts since Wednesday.
IED damage to two vehicles left the convoy unable to advance and the Marines spent long days and nights either on guard or crammed into their armour-plated trucks, waiting for a Taliban ambush.
More on the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090712...restusfighting

Lord Ashdown: 'Afghanistan is a war we should be fighting and we have to win – but we are losing'

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 12 July 2009 21.24 BST
Article history
Britain and the US are losing the war in Afghanistan and will see the return of al-Qaida and the possible collapse of Pakistan unless they succeed, the former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, warned today.

In his gloomiest assessment of the war, Ashdown said Britain made a military error of "major proportions" in Helmand province after being persuaded by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, to adopt a "Beau Geste" strategy of protecting his supporters in forward forts.

In remarks likely to fuel the debate about the future of the war, Ashdown accused Britain and other European countries of setting "ludicrously ambitious targets" of attempting to turn Afghanistan into a fully democratic and progressive nation.

The former international representative to Bosnia, who nearly became the UN representative to Afghanistan last year, made his remarks in an outspoken interview with the Guardian after an increase in British casualties in Helmand.

Ashdown said the "jury was out" on whether the recent US reinforcements in the province would succeed. "This is a war we should be fighting, it is a war we have to win," he said. "But it is a war we are currently losing and the dynamic has been accelerating away from us. The consequences of not winning it are grave. If we lose southern Afghanistan, if we lose to the Taliban, then al-Qaida will be back." He went on say that the west could lose Pakistan if Afghanistan was lost.
More on the link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...anistan-policy

Afghanistan: memo from Lord Ashdown to Gordon Brown and Condoleezza Rice
Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader who was the international high representative to Bosnia between 2002-06, set out his thoughts on Afghanistan in a memo to Gordon Brown and Condoleezza Rice, the then US secretary of state. At the time (15 December 2007) Ashdown was in the running to be the UN representative in Afghanistan. The memo appears as appendix A in Ashdown's recent autobiography
More on the link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...own-brown-rice