• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

5,000 Brits to Afganistan

Bill Smy

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
From the Independent

Up to 5,000 British troops sought for Afghanistan drugs crackdown
By Nick Meo in Kabul
05 December 2004


British military commanders are discussing proposals to move as many as 5,000 troops into one of Afghanistan's most lawless drug regions when Britain assumes control of Nato peacekeeping in the country the year after next.

Planning is already under way for British forces to replace American troops in the two southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand in 2006. The region is the heartland of Afghanistan's Pashtuns, many of whom still support the Taliban, and US forces seeking to root out the movement routinely suffer casualties.

Helmand, the main poppy-growing region of Afghanistan, is expected to be at the centre of an aggressive new strategy to cut down on drug production in the country. A UN report last month showed the area under cultivation in the country has increased by two-thirds this year, despite widely criticised, British-led eradication efforts.

A massive new Afghan-directed effort to wipe out poppy fields is expected next spring, coupled with a move to deal withopium dealers in which arrests of big operators are promised. Fearing that Afghanistan could turn into a narco-state, Western leaders have also decided it is time to involve Western military force, as urged by the UN.

Intelligence and logistical support will be provided to Afghan eradication teams destroying the plants before they can be harvested, with British and US forces on standby in case of attacks. Last year eradication teams were often targeted by armed farmers in relatively peaceful provinces such as Wardak.

Helmand is regarded as one of Afghanistan's most dangerous areas for foreigners, and is almost off-limits for aid agencies. Despite its desperate poverty, it is dotted with marble mansions built by drugs barons, and shiny new tractors imported from Dubai with drugs money are for sale in the bazaars.

An increasing number of British soldiers are involved in training drugs-eradication teams and providing armed backup, but the British contribution will grow dramatically in 2006.

The Parachute Regiment is among units under consideration to supply British troops when Nato forces replace Americans in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), garrisons that work on peacekeeping programmes as well as patrolling for security. Under the Helmand plans, British PRTs would still rely on US air power.

An Army source said: "Eradication will be done by Afghans ... [but] a British rapid-reaction force would be needed if things go wrong - if eradication teams are attacked, for example.

"Nobody thinks this would be easy. But drugs are such a big problem that dramatic action has to be taken."
 
Bill Smy said:
From the Independent

Up to 5,000 British troops sought for Afghanistan drugs crackdown
By Nick Meo in Kabul
05 December 2004


British military commanders are discussing proposals to move as many as 5,000 troops into one of Afghanistan's most lawless drug regions when Britain assumes control of Nato peacekeeping in the country the year after next.

Planning is already under way for British forces to replace American troops in the two southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand in 2006. The region is the heartland of Afghanistan's Pashtuns, many of whom still support the Taliban, and US forces seeking to root out the movement routinely suffer casualties.

There is a strong possibility (not confirmed) that an option for our Afgh mission might be to move out of Kabul (good riddance IMHO) and take up residence in the K'har area under OPCON of the UK force. This would be a much more challenging region than Kabul and would IMHO let us show our stuff much better than in Kabul which s rapidly becoming a victim of its own success.

Helmand, the main poppy-growing region of Afghanistan, is expected to be at the centre of an aggressive new strategy to cut down on drug production in the country. A UN report last month showed the area under cultivation in the country has increased by two-thirds this year, despite widely criticised, British-led eradication efforts.

A massive new Afghan-directed effort to wipe out poppy fields is expected next spring, coupled with a move to deal withopium dealers in which arrests of big operators are promised. Fearing that Afghanistan could turn into a narco-state, Western leaders have also decided it is time to involve Western military force, as urged by the UN.

[color=Yellow]This whole eradication thing is very complex and if done stupidly could set back much of the good progress achieved thus far. The involvement in drugs is widespread (illegal drug sales currently provide over 50% of the country's GDP), and the associated corruption is pervasive. Going at this like a blind bulldozer will probably cause more problems than it will solve. While a lot of Western politicians are very hot to trot about eradication, military commanders on the ground (especially US commanders) have some strong concerns about the methods and possible impact. The British effort at present is carried out by a very select small force that targets very specifically. While they have had some huge successes, that does not mean we can just go out willy-nilly and burn everything.It is unlikely that much will be undertaken this spring since the real concern for all parties is the success of the Parliamentary elections.

Intelligence and logistical support will be provided to Afghan eradication teams destroying the plants before they can be harvested, with British and US forces on standby in case of attacks. Last year eradication teams were often targeted by armed farmers in relatively peaceful provinces such as Wardak.

This is a bit of an exaggeration, although it has happened.

Helmand is regarded as one of Afghanistan's most dangerous areas for foreigners, and is almost off-limits for aid agencies. Despite its desperate poverty, it is dotted with marble mansions built by drugs barons, and shiny new tractors imported from Dubai with drugs money are for sale in the bazaars.

[i]This ill-distribution of wealth, or wealth from questionable sources, is widespread across Afghanistan, Western Asia and the Third World in general (Oh, yeah.. and tell me we don't have it in Canada...)


An increasing number of British soldiers are involved in training drugs-eradication teams and providing armed backup, but the British contribution will grow dramatically in 2006.

"Increasing" in very relative terms.

The Parachute Regiment is among units under consideration to supply British troops when Nato forces replace Americans in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), garrisons that work on peacekeeping programmes as well as patrolling for security. Under the Helmand plans, British PRTs would still rely on US air power.

Well, maybe they would. UK currently has a Harrier squadron that has been deployed in Kandahar since Sept, which flies support for both OEF and ISAF.

An Army source said: "Eradication will be done by Afghans ... [but] a British rapid-reaction force would be needed if things go wrong - if eradication teams are attacked, for example.

"Nobody thinks this would be easy. But drugs are such a big problem that dramatic action has to be taken."

Yes but as noted above, in an intelligent and measured manner that will not throw out the baby with the bathwater, despite the grandstanding of various political types concerned about their domestic drug situations. Cheers.
 
And I would say that the West should sort out its own home first, and deal with the demand for opium and its byproducts.   We have created the market.  

If the west wishes to target the drug warlords in Afghanistan at the large scale organized refining and exporting level, fine.   I think it would be a bad idea to target the ground level production and irritate the farmer who is trying to make a living.  

 
Jay Hunter said:
Cut it off from where it starts.  


Really? 

Might be an easy tactical solution and might make everyone feel better about themselves.  And might allow us to ignore our complicity in creating the problem as the ones who created the demand.

By taking the battle to the growers we would be making a huge operational level mistake, creating a whole other sub-class of insurgents looking to oppose our mission. 

Unless we want to start summarily executing producers and any one involved in the process that is.  That worked for the Taliban, but likely wouldn't work for us as we would not have religious belief on our side while conducting summary executions.

Targetting the grower could eventually lead to a strategic failure in Afghanistan by setting the conditions for the return of a Taliban-like government that would give another al-Qaida-like organization free reign to train terrorists and insurgents for another 10 year period.

I don't think we would want to lose the tactical freedom of manoeuvre we have previously enjoyed as evidenced in this Lou Penney photo from APOLLO.
 
Devil has hit the target with this one. An uncontrolled, poorly-thought out "slash and burn" that harms the small farmer and local economy without offering a reasonable incentive or alternative income will create far more problems than it will solve. People who aer beginning to identify with the govt and with Western forces could very easily turn against both. A slow, measured process is best. And, while we're at it, what aer we doing about the demand in our own countries? Cheers.
 
What I have never been able to understand is why governments don't just buy up the entire stock of opium for medicinal purposes.  Price the underworld right out of the market and supply a proven source of raw materials for making pain-killers.  Isn't there an international shortage of medical supplies including pain-killers? 

Also I was just reading that in Scotland a hit of ecstasy is now cheaper and more effective than a bottle of wine.  Given that both products are competing for the same euphoria/oblivion market as the opiates doesn't that suggest a downward pressure on pricing making the value of the crops consistently lower? Coupled with an increasing supply as everybody in Afghanistan gets back into the game.

How much does an Afghani farmer make for growing poppies?
 
Devil39, I noticed on the pic that the weapons are not alternating and pointing in the same direction.   Is this the new trend? Just an observation.

Regards.
 
Cliff said:
Devil39, I noticed on the pic that the weapons are not alternating and pointing in the same direction.  Is this the new trend? Just an observation.

Regards.

Cliff,
what an appropriate name...picking flysh1t out of pepper are we? Notice the second weapon pointing to your right is a C9?

Kirkhill,
When the average hectare of heroin in Afghan gets about $4500 US and a hectare of wheat earns about $340 US, which would you rather grow...not to mention defend, and fight to the death for?
 
Good point Armymedic.  I'll need to let my in-laws out in Borden, Sk know.  They might want to consider switching themselves.

Cheers.
 
Borden, eh...Mine are on the east side, near Esterhazy...maybe poppies will grow there. Make more on opium then either wheat or beef right now.

After all, those three items are all equally counterban in the US right now... ::)
 
Cliff said:
Devil39, I noticed on the pic that the weapons are not alternating and pointing in the same direction.   Is this the new trend? Just an observation.

Regards.

I've never insisted troops alter weapon carriage to cover arcs.   I'd rather the troops took a fraction of a second longer to react and actually hit their targets.
 
I've never insisted troops alter weapon carriage to cover arcs.  I'd rather the troops took a fraction of a second longer to react and actually hit their targets.

Thank god others have recognized that.  I always wondered if some of the NCO's who barked this out actually thought about what they were ordering their soldiers to do.  "HEY YOU, shoot off hand so that we know you're looking in the right direction."
 
Good on you guys for picking this up. I always thought that this was an example of an idiotic concept that nobody had ever really sat down and questioned. Unless we have the time to train all our soldiers to be ambidextrous shooters, it doesn't confer any advantage. Cheers.
 
Mind if I jump on the bandwagon for this one Gents? I'm in agreement. Identify, aim and shoot. I'm GARBAGE shooting weakside.
 
Back
Top