Thread: We are at war, but where is the leadership?

Those who criticise our Afghanistan policy for lacking a credible plan and being lost in empty rhetoric are right. We are fixated on what allies and partners call "Helmandshire". Unlike our American allies, we lack a cross-government strategy and plan, the commitment, resources and Whitehall willingness to change sufficiently to deliver success.

What would success be? We have to stabilise the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan – bring the Pashtu into the fold, give them a stake in their nations' politics, wean them away from extreme Islam, deny sanctuary to terrorists and give the Afghans a state that can deliver what they want. Without Pashtu support, extremism in the region will decline.

We are a nation at war – and should be behaving like one. Judging by the Commons debate last week, or the Prime Minister's abject performance in front of the select committee, or the Tories' lame contribution, Afghanistan is as an inconvenient sideshow. Of the political class, only the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has raised the debate beyond equipment. The current argument about helicopters is a symptom of this wider failure of government.

The military is an enabling, not a leading, element for reconstruction and reconciliation. These goals demand the attention of several departments, unified leadership and a properly implemented plan. Some sort of "command group" is needed, headed by a powerful senior minister to whom the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for International Development report. He should have a non-partisan deputy in the region with similar powers. Continuity beyond the election is vital, so all three party leaders should sign up to such an appointment.

Any serviceman, if allowed to speak freely, would say that the military resources allocated to Helmand are hopelessly inadequate. As for the (decisive) development effort, the resourcing is risible. The development effort should start as soon as the military enter a location. It should be visible, enduring and of immediate benefit to the local people. If not, insurgency supplants government.

Napoleon believed that in war the moral to the physical is as 3:1; we would say the development resource to the military resource should follow the same ratio. Where the NGO community doesn't go, the Government must.

Whitehall must wake up and place itself on a war footing. The Ministry of Defence, as well as the Foreign Office and Department for International Development, need to look at their shortcomings (too numerous to list here) and act accordingly. But the changes should go further. Many senior officers and civil servants in the MoD have failed to support and deliver a winning strategy. They need to focus on the current battle and deliver blunt and objective advice to their political masters. Politicians should be fully engaged in what is going on in Afghanistan, and not be afraid to meddle where appropriate. What is being done – militarily, diplomatically or developmentally – is being done for a political end.

We are at war. We have responsibility for part of an Afghan province that could lose the war if lost, but will not win it in isolation. We are subordinate to a coalition effort, and we have damaged our national credibility by writing cheques we could not cash – a direct consequence of the Blair mantra of punching above our weight. We need to repair this urgently.

Finally, there is an immediate responsibility to renew the faith in the plan that the soldiers need to put their lives on the line, and that the country needs to carry on supporting this effort. To come up short of what we are calling for risks irrevocably damaging this faith. We need to get a grip.

Major Will Pike (Rtd) served with 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment in Helmand in 2006, and is the author of From the Front Line Major Patrick Little (Rtd) was posted to Afghanistan in 2004, and left the Army last year after 16 years' service

in full

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...p-1752208.html

Aj - thanks for putting up the post. Completely agree with the thrust of this. Very much a "wake up and smell the coffee" contribution. Must read his book if this is anything to go by.

I thought Pashtu was the language. Like Urdu. Wonder what the rest of his research was like. Unless it's that Para-Spelling interface again.

Will Pike? Is that Hugh Pike's son?

Originally Posted by RAF_Liney

Will Pike? Is that Hugh Pike's son?

yes

To put the country on a war footing is something quite specific and is what it sounds like - very extreme. I doubt the author understands the effect that would have upon the economy and the UK overall.

Originally Posted by Pararegtom

Originally Posted by RAF_Liney

Will Pike? Is that Hugh Pike's son?

yes

There's also a mountain somewhere in the UK named after his great-great-granddda Scafell.

MsG

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

To put the country on a war footing is something quite specific and is what it sounds like - very extreme. I doubt the author understands the effect that would have upon the economy and the UK overall.

Mr C

While I agree (partly) with what you say they do have a point. Especially at the start of the quote:

Unlike our American allies, we lack a cross-government strategy and plan, the commitment, resources and Whitehall willingness to change sufficiently to deliver success.

We have a Whitehall determined to fight this war as cheaply as possible. That is not cheaply in soldiers lives but in cash terms. Whitehall does not have the commitment, the focus of winning the war; their eye is not on the front line but the budget line. Just my opinion folks.

Edit for Sunday fingers.

I thought al lour leaders are going on Holiday

Originally Posted by Auld-Yin

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

To put the country on a war footing is something quite specific and is what it sounds like - very extreme. I doubt the author understands the effect that would have upon the economy and the UK overall.

Mr C

While I agree (partly) with what you say they do have a point. Especially at the start of the quote:

Unlike our American allies, we lack a cross-government strategy and plan, the commitment, resources and Whitehall willingness to change sufficiently to deliver success.

We have a Whitehall determined to fight this war as cheaply as possible. That is not cheaply in soldiers lives but in cash terms. Whitehall does not have the commitment, the focus of winning the war; their eye is not on the front line but the budget line. Just my opinion folks.

I think that puts it rather well,actually,if I may say so.

Edit for Sunday fingers.

I feat the 2 Majors, despite being good men, have missed the point and placed the cart before the horse.

They claim that we are "at war" and lacking political leadership in the endeavor.

War is a state entered into, and defined by, the political class. Their policies, strategies and actions demonstrate quite clearly that the UK is not "at war" despite the heavy fighting in Helmand. The UK is conducting a foreign policy "mission" in Afghanistan that requires great sacrifices from the military.

I agree that the government without doubt must get serious about this, and that Afghanistan is viewed as an inconvenient side show. The problem is, it's not a popular war, therefore the government will fear backlash from voters if they commit themselves fully to it, so currently, and from the start, they're there enough to suck up to the yanks, but not committed enough to start the bleeding heart protesters off. The thought that any labour party member believes that the war is to help the afghan people and make Britian safer from terrorism, or that they're even doing all they can to support the troops has honestly never occured to me.

Answer = We aint got any!! -- Nobody to lead with a "fist of iron" anymore (sob) --- Political correctness has seen to that!! Now i know why they called "The good old days" just that. --- Political correctness = Pussyfication of society!!

Originally Posted by whitecity

I feat the 2 Majors, despite being good men, have missed the point and placed the cart before the horse.

They claim that we are "at war" and lacking political leadership in the endeavor.

War is a state entered into, and defined by, the political class. Their policies, strategies and actions demonstrate quite clearly that the UK is not "at war" despite the heavy fighting in Helmand. The UK is conducting a foreign policy "mission" in Afghanistan that requires great sacrifices from the military.

I too had wondered what it was we were doing, so good of you to clear it up. Is that also what the Taliban think they're facing - "a foreign policy "mission"" ? Perhaps that's why they're so cross, because we don't have the balls to call it as it is.

Flippancy aside - do we see this as serious an issue and conflict as the US does ? If you look at the proportion of budgetary supplementals relative to the core defence budget in the US by comparison with ours, you would have to conclude not. By this definition you conclude that they are very much nearer confronting this as if it is a war, and we are not - which is why they are doing better at it than we are. Just a thought.....

If Terry is prepared to live in a cave for six years and live off goat meat and barley too, then I'd say he has a somewhat more committed attitude than the UK - at large before I get accused of undermining the boys and girls.

We are "fighting" a war as a nation by the lowest affordable effort we can get away with IMHO. We are merely participating and not dictating tempo. The economy is not on a war footing and neither is society. I cannot see that as a platform for victory.