| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| General David Richards: Afghan campaign was woeful | |
| 2012-01-28 | |
| Britain's most senior military officer has said the military move into southern Afghanistan was "amateurish" and "verging on the complacent" and accused ministers of failing to learn lessons from Iraq. Gen Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, is also highly critical of Nato's command structure in Afghanistan, describing it in a new book as "disorganised and unhelpful".
Most Labour ministers supported the view of John Reid, the defence secretary at the time, that "we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years' time without firing one shot because our mission is to protect the reconstruction". Intelligence assessments conducted in southern Afghanistan concluded that they would receive a hostile reception. "It was the equivalent of moving another gang into the East End of London," one officer reported to London. "They [the Taliban] weren't going to like it." A detailed account of the military and political infighting during the deployment is in a new book by Sandy Gall, the ITN presenter who also runs a charity to provide Afghan victims of roadside bombs with artificial limbs. In Gall's book, War Against the Taliban, Sir David says that the British military establishment was ill-prepared for the deployment of forces, despite its leading role in the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein three years previously. He criticises the Ministry of Defence for not providing "sufficient troops to dominate the physical and human terrain" and the failure of the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development to provide adequate resources for reconstruction. He also describes attempts by London and Washington to get the Taliban to engage in political reconciliation as "woeful". Sir David also criticises the military establishment for being ill-prepared and with a "rather amateurish approach to high-level military operations verging on the complacent." He also tempers his remarks by arguing that the war in Afghanistan can still be won and expresses his "clear faith" that "the British Armed Forces are now handsomely proving that they have the ability to reform and adapt". | |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 #2 For some reason this always happens when clear/practical strategical goals are absent I sometimes think the strategic goal should have been to raze the country from one end to the other and leave it at that. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-01-28 10:16 |
| #3 Most Labour ministers supported the view of John Reid, the defence secretary at the time, that "we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years' time without firing one shot because our mission is to protect the reconstruction". When you're up to your ass in alligators its hard to remember that your mission was to drain the swamp. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-01-28 09:43 |
| #2 For some reason this always happens when clear/practical strategical goals are absent---could there be a connection? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-01-28 08:18 |
| #1 Looks like a good assessment. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-28 07:07 |