Kabul, October 04: The new head of the British army warned of the “terrifying prospect” of defeat for international forces in Afghan and supported calls for more troops, in an interview.
General David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph the risks to the West would be “enormous” if NATO failed to stabilise the violence-torn country.
He said defeat for the international coalition would have an “intoxicating effect” on Islamic militants everywhere.
“If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us — what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan?” he said.
“Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state, and that is a terrifying prospect.
“Even if only a few of those weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them.
“The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up.”
Richards said that sending reinforcements to Afghanistan would enable the NATO coalition to start winning the “psychological battle” while reducing casualty levels.
His comments comes as the coalition commander in Afghanistan, US General Stanley McChrystal, is requesting up to 40,000 additional troops.
The British general said he was making his comments because he feared the British public and the government had not “woken up” to the “enormous risks” if the war were lost.
“Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world,” he said.
“So why wouldn’t that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense.”
A British soldier was killed on patrol in Afghanistan on Friday, bringing the total number of British troops who have died since operations against Taliban extremists began in 2001 to 219.
Afghan war options: Beating Al Qaida key yardstick
President Barack Obama is considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan, from pulling back to staying put to sending thousands more troops to fight the insurgency.
A look at the options and their implications for achieving Obama’s stated goal of defeating al-Qaida.
GETTING OUT
A full, immediate withdrawal of American forces does not appear to be in the cards, not the least because U.S. allies in NATO share the view that abandoning Afghanistan now would hand a victory to Islamic extremist forces such as the Taliban that are aligned in some respects with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Some argue that because the al-Qaida figures who were run out of Afghanistan when U.S. troops invaded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are now encamped across the border in Pakistan, there is no point to a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. A related school of thought holds that the very presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan adds to the country’s instability and fuels its insurgency. Obama has taken a different view. Less than two months ago he said, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
SCALING BACK
A less drastic alternative to a full-scale retreat is a partial pullback. A reduced U.S. force would stay mainly to train and advise the Afghan national army and police. U.S. special operations forces would continue their hunt for most-wanted extremist leaders in Afghanistan. Pilotless drones such as the armed Predator would take out al-Qaida figures on the Pakistan side of the border. This would essentially end the counterinsurgency mission of U.S. and NATO forces. The reasoning is that the fight is not worth the cost in blood and treasure, and al-Qaida is a more urgent priority. This counterterror option would amount to a reversal of the strategy Obama endorsed in March. In the view of military analysts Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, who favor an expanded counterinsurgency campaign, a shift to only training and counterterror operations would be a big mistake. They argue that it would empower the Taliban and al-Qaida, endanger remaining U.S. troops and diplomats and allow Islamic extremists to portray the U.S. pullback as a defeat for the forces of moderation.
STAYING PUT
One of those advocating no short-term change in the size of the U.S. force in Afghanistan is Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. He argues for putting greater emphasis on training the Afghan security forces and accelerating their growth. In this approach, the counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban would continue on course. Additional U.S. troops would be required for the training mission, but not for combat. The flow of equipment for the police and army would be expanded. More effort would be focused on persuading lower-level Taliban fighters to lay down their arms. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is calling for accelerated training of Afghan forces. But in his view, more combat troops also are required to retake the initiative from the Taliban, which now control or contest large parts of the country. Earlier efforts to speed up Afghan training stalled in part because of a lack of NATO trainers.
RAMPING UP
This is the McChrystal plan, which he calls “a fundamentally new way of doing business.” In military parlance, it would be a classic counterinsurgency campaign that could last for years. It would mean sending more U.S. troops — perhaps as many as 40,000. The general says it would mean redefining the fight in ways that enable Afghans to regain control of their own country. McChrystal spelled out his reasoning in a report weeks ago to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who asked for a comprehensive assessment of the war effort when he removed McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, in May in sch of “fresh thinking, fresh eyes.” McChrystal says there is no guarantee his approach will work. Critics worry that this escalation would only lead to others, creating a quagmire. But McChrystal argues that if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or is unable to counter international terrorist cetworks — then Afghanistan could again become a baseAfor al-Qaida to launch an attack on the U.S.
–Agencies