I visited 1st Royal Gurkha Rifles in March just before they left for Helmand. The local photographer was there taking the officers mess photo on the lawn, the sun shone obligingly, and they sat and stood with a great deal of laughter as exuberant young people do, when they come together wearing their medals and best uniforms to sit in hilarious formality before the camera . But probably at the back of their minds was the darker thought that not everyone in that photo would return and now, as it turns out – they wont.
As a friend of the regiment and a former British Gurkha, I am cast down by the death of James Bowman , Neal Turkington and Arjun Pun. And this black mood is not dispelled by the vacuous statements of sundry officials including the Prime Minister that this was a “despicable” act by Talib Hussain , the renegade ANA soldier who murdered them at night in the patrol base.
When General Slim (also 6th Gurkha Rifles) drew the over-extended Japanese Army onto the Imphal plain thereby emasculating their logistic capability and turning the tide of the entire campaign, no one in Tokyo said it was a despicable trick. The British and the Japanese were fighting for their lives, tough tactics and despicable trickery were the norm.
The Taliban are fighting for their lives, and for some time have been completely aware that the effective build up of the ANA is one significant key to the coalition’ s success and their failure. They are also completely aware that the trust that runs between the mentored ANA battalions and their mentoring coalition cadres is both the critical and the most vulnerable point of that build up. Sowing distrust between the mentor and the mentored must be their top priority. Above all contriving the murder of a mentor by a soldier of the host Afghan battalion drives a wedge between the two parties that is hard to overcome.
Crying despicable fails to emphasise that the mentor-mentored relationship is a critical point in the operational concept for both sides. Using words like “despicable” makes it seem like a surprising and egregious act, whereas in truth it is an obvious thing to do. Instead of crying despicable, generals and politicians need a more robust narrative or explanation for what is happening. Rather than exuding baffled surprise, they should be saying firmly : look, the key to success is the establishment of an effective Afghan security force so we must expect that the Taliban will desperately try to sabotage this effort. And they will try to do this by attacking the trust between our mentoring cadres and the Afghan forces with whom they are embedded. That is a critical point of our campaign plan and they are bound to go for it again and again. This means that because of the Taliban desperation, the task is both crucially important and very dangerous and from time to time there are terrible costs involved.
In addition, it would help enormously if our political leaders were able to show, in a completely lucid fashion, how this sacrifice translates directly to achieving a safer and more harmoniously integrated UK population.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
In addition, it would help enormously if our political leaders were able to show, in a completely lucid fashion, how this sacrifice translates directly to achieving a safer and more harmoniously integrated UK population.
CYNICISM ENGAGED.
And as soon as they get the word from Washington on what line to take, they will.
To your points made in your final 2 paragraphs this from Michael Yon’s blog just now:
Just got a message from a British soldier. He is a veteran from heavy Afghanistan fighting. I’ve trained with his unit outside Afghanistan but now they are back in combat. A British officer once gave me a copy of this soldier’s citation for his courage under fire. The citation was impressive by an…y standard.
His email was, in part, in reference to three British soldiers just murdered by an Afghan soldier. He is from the Gurkha unit that invited me to embed again.
The soldier writes:
“Saddens me greatly that the murder of 3 of my brothers in arms may over shadow all the good work and progress that is being made. I know you have many reservations about the campaign but it is winnable and that narrative needs to be shouted about but is in danger of being drowned out. For every rogue ANA there are thousands of brave warriors who share risks who share risks day in and day out.”
This soldier, again in the thick of combat, writes the truth.
The ‘narrative’ needs to step back a bit and look at the overall problem. Such as the fact that an ANA of 400,000 men such as McChrystal proposed is financially completely unsustainable for Afghanistan itself. Moves to re-empower village militias recently suggest both recognition of this fact, AND rampant schizophrenia in Western policy. The reality is neither the ANA, ANP or village militias will keep the peace so long as there is no peace to keep, i.e. a simultaneous local and region-wide political settlement in which the Taliban take part, and one furthermore based on a REALISTIC assessment on Western public’s real level of interest in the region whenever our troops aren’t actually dying there (i.e. zero interest really). A strategy of ‘forward defence’ via LONG-TERM expeditionary warfare is now a proven conceptual failure, as haemorrhaging public support demonstrates. In and out or not at all.
Apologies for use of caps.
I take your point on explaining the narrative, but could a political leader get up there and explain in detached tone why this act was expected and a sound military tactic? Is there not a time for emotionally chrarged words, especially when the families of three soldiers watch?
I would love for every leader to be able to explain calmly why whatever is happening really isn’t ‘that big a deal’ in the greater scheme of things – but these leaders have other priorities gnawing at them, and sometimes the most useful and expedient method is emotional language.
LR