# British troops in secret truce with Taliban



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2006)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2383232,00.html



> British troops in secret truce with the Taliban
> Michael Smith
> 
> BRITISH troops battling the Taliban are to withdraw from one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan after agreeing a secret deal with the local people.
> ...



Some commentators are questioning whether this is just the traditional winter pause but then there is this......



> "... there are clear signs of the commitment of the people of Musa Qala to the deal, with one Talib who stood out against it reportedly lynched by angry locals."



Democracy in action indeed.

The rest of the article is pretty good as well.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2006)

Or else its the UK's new policy of casualty avoidance ?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Or else its the UK's new policy of casualty avoidance ?



Unfortunately that's probably closer to the mark.

The Army wants another battalion or two for a reaction force.  They aren't getting the one that Tony apparently promised them. NATO isn't ponying up. Tony won't let them shift the Iraq commitment into Afghanistan.......And to top it all off they got lumbered with a policy of too many FOBs, too widely dispersed and too undermanned.   Time to punt?

On the other hand maybe the locals really do want to see the Taliban out of town.  If they really do see the Taliban as foreigners as much as the Brits then there might be something to this.

I am guessing that the locals in these areas see foreigners in the same terms that Campbells saw MacDonalds as foreigners. Anybody not from their valley is a foreigner. There was a tale in one paper just recently of a tribal leader wondering why it had taken these Russians so long to come back - he hadn't received his baksheesh for a while.  Apparently the word hadn't got round to him that the Russians left 20 years ago.   Mass communication is not a forte over there.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (3 Oct 2006)

Can anyone confirm this, or is it just another load of bull?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2383232,00.html

* British troops in secret truce with Taliban

BRITISH troops battling the Taliban are to withdraw from one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan after agreeing a secret deal with the local people.

Over the past two months British soldiers have come under sustained attack defending a remote mud-walled government outpost in the town of Musa Qala in southern Afghanistan. Eight have been killed there.

It has now been agreed the troops will quietly pull out of Musa Qala in return for the Taliban doing the same. The compound is one of four district government offices in the Helmand province that are being guarded by British troops.

Although soldiers on the ground may welcome the agreement, it is likely to raise new questions about troop deployment. Last month Sir Richard Dannatt, the new head of the British Army, warned that soldiers in Afghanistan were fighting at the limit of their capacity and could only “just” cope with the demands.

When British troops were first sent to Afghanistan it was hoped they would help kick-start the country’s reconstruction. But under pressure from President Hamid Karzai they were forced to defend Afghan government “district centres” at Musa Qala, Sangin, Nowzad and Kajaki.

The move — opposed by Lieutenant-General David Richards, the Nato commander in Afghanistan — turned the four remote British bases into what Richards called “magnets” for the Taliban. All 16 of the British soldiers killed in action in southern Afghanistan have died at Musa Qala, Sangin or Nowzad.

The soldiers risk sniper fire and full-scale assaults from experienced Taliban fighters who can then blend into the local population after each attack.

The peace deal in Musa Qala was first mooted by representatives of the town’s 2,000-strong population. About 400 people living in the immediate area of the district centre compound have been forced to evacuate their homes, most of which have been destroyed in the fighting.

Brigadier Ed Butler, the commander of the British taskforce, flew into Musa Qala 18 days ago, guarded only by his military police close-protection team, to attend a shura, or council of town elders, to negotiate a withdrawal.

Butler was taken in a convoy to the shura in the desert southeast of Musa Qala where the carefully formulated proposals were made. The British commander said that he was prepared to back a “cessation of fighting” if they could guarantee that the Taliban would also leave.

The deal — and the avoidance of the word ceasefire — allows both sides to disengage without losing face, an important aspect in the Afghan psyche. Polls suggest that 70% of the population are waiting to see whether Nato or the Taliban emerge as the dominant force before they decide which to back.

Fighting in Afghanistan traditionally takes place in the summer and there are concerns that the Taliban could simply use the “cessation of fighting” to regroup and attack again next year. But there are clear signs of the commitment of the people of Musa Qala to the deal, with one Talib who stood out against it reportedly lynched by angry locals.

“There is always a risk,” one officer said. “But if it works, it will provide a good template for the rest of Helmand. The people of Sangin are already saying they want a similar deal.”

There is frustration among many British troops that they have been unable to help on reconstruction projects because they have been involved in intense fighting. An e-mail from one officer published this weekend said: “We are not having an effect on the average Afghan.

“At the moment we are no better than the Taliban in their eyes, as all they can see is us moving into an area, blowing things up and leaving, which is very sad.”

The Ministry of Defence announced this weekend that 10 British soldiers had been seriously injured in fighting in the last few days of August, bringing the total number of troops seriously injured in the country this year to 23.

A total of 29 British servicemen have lost their lives in southern Afghanistan in the past two months, including 14 who died when their Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft crashed on September 2.

A new poll published last week revealed a lack of public confidence over the deployment of troops in Afghanistan. According to the BBC poll, 53% of people opposed the use of British troops in the region.  *


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

well.... at 1st read I'd be inclined to call "buffalo chips" but, if the local population are able to stand up to the Taliban - direct both NATO & Talib to withdraw, then there are some good chances that this is true.  Note that if the Talib come back and settle up with the local elders at a later date... they'll truly be, paying with their heads.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Oct 2006)

Maybe these two articles are related. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51206.0.html

Its probably true. The Brits followed the same strategy in Basra until it blew up in their faces earlier this year.
Now Basra is almost a no go zone for the Brits. When you allow the bad guys to gain strength it makes it that much harder to dislodge them. In the same respect the US hands off policy towards Sadr is costing us every day. In the long run we should have taken him out and maybe some soldiers would be alive today had we done that. Its not too late. But the cost wil be alot higher.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (3 Oct 2006)

Wow, that was odd.  Right before I posted this I searched for " British troops in secret truce with Taliban" just in case someone else already posted it...and it came up with nothing.

EDIT: Even as I search now I get "Your search query didn't return any matches."    Not a big deal though..


----------



## chanman (3 Oct 2006)

Can it still be called secret when we're all talking about it already?  :-\


----------



## harry8422 (3 Oct 2006)

i don't know all the facts on this issue but i highly doubt the British military would even think about forming a truce with anyone of those taliban sob's


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Oct 2006)

I tend to trust the British Army to (generally) make the proper tactical decisions on the ground; all that has been written in the open press about this "truce" should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Speculating, I wonder if this isn't a deliberate effort to split the resistance in the area.  As Kirkhill points out, there's a report stating that the village elders had killed a Taliban official for insisting on breaking the "truce".  If the Brits can stick to it, they may well be able to convince the locals of the Taliban's true motives. 

Blowing the s**t out of things isn't always the solution - let's give the tactical commanders the benefit of the doubt unless something definitive is promulgated by a more reliable source.


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Oct 2006)

An interesting post, by dglad, in a parallel thread
Army.ca Forums > The Newsroom > International Situation & World News > Topic: A New Look At The Afghan-Pakistan Problem adds some perspective to this situation.

To summarise, dglad, notes 
_my emphasis, added_


> This past weekend, I attended a talk by Nelofer Pazira, an Afghan-Canadian who was the star of "Khandahar" .... she did make some interesting points:
> 
> 
> among the many competing interests in south-central Asia is a nationalistic desire among the Pashtun people to form a greater Pashtunistan, independent from both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Somewhat reminiscent of the Kurds in Iraq, no?
> ...


*

This is an interesting hypothesis, one we have read before, because of the 'first hand' nature of it, and its proximity, I have used it.

One wonders several things. First as we have seen on counter insurgency operations, there appears to be several phases. For this purprose they could be identified as...

The defeat of any 'regular' enemy. In this case the Afghan Taliban Govt. 
Second, if not defeating the enemy force, which morphs into a guerrilla force, then at least breaking it's back, ultimately, most likely by removing its sustainment base.
Finally the hard core of montagnards becomes criminal or quits; it is hoped that by this time international forces serve as an insurance policy while domestic resources challenge the (by now criminalized) insurgents who are left. 
Of course in a perfect world (for the sake of academic argument) one would see clear milestones, perhaps even that the whole theatre, if not parts of it, would transition from one phase to another. 

In reality, of course, it is much different. The opposition is never all zealots, as it is it is never all criminal, the hearts and minds of the mainly farmers  hang in the balance. In fact I would imagine a measurable fraction of the whole can move through either one of these three groups depending on fortune.

I am just wondering, to what degree are we seeing in the British AOR, the transitions of folks from the zealots & criminals,  to a more neutral or absent role, while the mainly farmers  are starting to tip, if not at least toward 'us' then at least more away from the former two.

Anyway, a bit long winded, but taken in consideration that several senior Commanders in the area have stated that the 'next six months will tell' and that the total victory will not be 'militarily won', what are we seeing in this area? 

a tactical withdrawal, 
the beginning of the end (to wit, defeat of the zealots who will transition to criminals or quit) or 
the end of the beginning (to wit, the farmers, voting with their feet (and their lynching ropes) for some sort of normalcy)?

My sense is not that the Brits have been drubbed, but that they realize its time to step back and let the people figure out what to do, having fought the zealots and the criminals to a standstill (and taking full advantage of the winter 'lull'). If so, how many times will we see this scenario in the near future (there's the real kicker eh??)

Thanks to dglad for the source material.*


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2006)

Ultimately, isn't success or failure in Afghanistan and Iraq (and for that matter Pakistan) measured on the ability of the locals to keep their "zealots and criminals" under control so that they don't bother the rest of us?  

The rise of Democracy may be nice.  It may even be beneficial, necessary in fact, to maintain stability.  But priority one is to have the locals establish a degree of internal discipline.

If that means that the locals tell both parties to butt out so that they can start receiving aid, are willing to enforce order and keep their own people in line to make that possible, then I think that advances are being made.

The winter season results in a traditional pause.  That presents a window of opportunity that NATO can exploit to bolster the local's view of NATO, to encourage the growth of local authority and control, as well as, hopefully, give the troops an opportunity to rest and recuperate to an extent before a potential renewal of activities by the opposition next summer.

Of course if NATO can maintain a high operational tempo at the same time as the opposition is waiting out the winter then so much the better.


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Of course if NATO can maintain a high operational tempo at the same time as the opposition is waiting out the winter then so much the better.



Of course if the ISI can maintain a high operational tempo at the same time as the opposition is waiting out the winter then so much the better....


----------



## geo (4 Oct 2006)

One thing about what Kirkhill has said......
The rise of "Democracy".... what is democracy?
who'se democracy based on who'se dafynition?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

> Taliban threat to renew attacks
> By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
> (Filed: 05/10/2006)
> 
> ...



Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wafghan105.xml

More to follow.......


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

BUT THEY DIDN'T.......................




> Paras almost retreated under Taliban assault
> By Tom Coghlan
> (Filed: 02/10/2006)
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/02/wtroops02.xml

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


----------

