Gaining momentum

From a minority obsession, the deployment of light turboprop strike reconnaissance aircraft to aid the conflict in Afghanistan has achieved the status of an idea whose time has come.

The latest writing on the wall came with a Pentagon briefing reported on 23 July, when Michael Vickers, the acknowledged guru on special operations and low intensity conflict told a small group of defence reporters that upcoming Quadrennial Defence Review (QRD) would be looking at creating "irregular warfare air units" to beef up the US counterinsurgency capability.

The US Navy is SEALs are, of course, already ahead of the game. They are testing leased an EMB-314 Super Tucano aircraft in the desert ranges in California, under a year-long project codenamed "Imminent Fury", picked up recently by Strategy Page.

But now we learn from Flight Global that the US Air Force has issued a "request for information" (RFI) to identify sources that can supply 100 new aircraft to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance.

This is from Air Combat Command, issued on 27 July, calling for aircraft deliveries to start in 2012 and the first operational squadron to activate a year later.

The requirements call for a two-seat turboprop capable of flying up to 30,000ft and equipped with zero-altitude/zero-airspeed ejection seats, full motion video camera, data link, infrared suppressor, radar warning receiver and armoured cockpit. Weapons must include a gun, two 500-lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets and rail-launched munitions.

The known for competitors for the requirement include the Air Tractor AT-802U, Embraer Super Tucano, Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II and Pilatus PC-9.

The thinking is based on a summary study that concludes that, "As far as can be determined without actual operational testing, the use of light aircraft is suitable, feasible and acceptable", reinforced by a study last year that concluded that a light attack aircraft could save the USAF billions.

This study, conducted by Col Gary Crowder, commander of the Middle East-based Combined Air and Space Operations Centre, complains that there has not been a "substantial ... intellectual investment" into air-ground integration in the 21st Century.

Crowder argues that a platform like the AT-6 could dramatically reduce the number of fighter jets deployed, provide a light observation utility, save thousands of flying hours on the fighter fleet and extend the life of fighter and attack platforms while saving money.

"At the end of five years, you not only have a suitable force that is ... capable of doing counterinsurgency, stability support and peacekeeping operations, you've also saved thousands of flying hours on your F-16s," he says.


But strike/reconnaissance aircraft are not the only options being considered. A week earlier the USAF issued an RFI for as many as 60 light mobility aircraft (LiMA) to airlift up to six passengers or small loads of cargo from austere or unimproved surfaces.

This goes back to our thinking on the utility of such aircraft as the Pilatus Porter. But the concept of using light STOL transport aircraft goes much further back, to the use by British forces in the 1950s and 60s of the Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer (pictured above) the Single Pioneer and even the Beaver.

In fact the idea of fixed-wing re-supply aircraft for mobile formations was exploited during the Second World War, using single-engined Waco biplanes to support the LRDG.

Nor indeed is the idea foreign to the US. During Vietnam, extensive use was made of the DHC-4 Caribou (and other air forces – pictured RMAF, right). The type was operated by the US Army until 1966 when the aircraft were traded to the USAF, under the Johnson-McConnell agreement, in exchange for an end to restrictions on Army helicopter operations.

Therein, actually lie much of the current doctrinal difficulties where, in the UK also, there is an unofficial agreement with the RAF restricting the use of fixed wing aircraft in the Army.

While the issues are being thrashed out in the United States, if there is a debate in the UK about restoring light, fixed wing aviation to the battlefield, it is being carried out in private, with little indication that the Service Chiefs are taking it seriously.

One of the problems, it seems, is that fixed wing aircraft are not seen as a 100 percent answer, providing only supplemental capacity to helicopters on the one hand and fast jets on the other.

As the argument has matured in the US, however, the economic benefits have come to the fore and, as Crowder observes, even if light aircraft take some of the load off existing assets, the overall savings could run into billions.

Certainly, in UK terms, where the media (and political) focus has been on increasing helicopter capacity, much of the capability could be achieved by light, fixed wing assets, at considerably less cost. Where Apaches are currently used to escort Chinooks, for instance (in which role they struggle to keep up with the faster transport helicopters) aircraft such as the Tucano could do the job better.

Equally, STOL transport aircraft could deliver to FOBs – even parachuting supplies in – and support mobile formations, delivering supplies, transferring personnel and even evacuating casualties - as well as radio relay and reconnaissance. They have a possible additional role as a light gunship.

It is a measure of the paucity of the UK scene, therefore, that such ideas are not being openly discussed, or that the Armed Forces themselves are not initiating a debate as a cost-effective way of relieving some of the pressure on air assets in Afghanistan. The debate needs to move on from capacity to capability.

Nevertheless, the rediscovery of light aviation is gaining momentum and, one supposes, three or four years hence, the British media will suddenly wake up to the idea, unless there happens to be a journalist out there who can actually kick-start our military into action. We live in hope.

COMMENT THREAD

An uncomfortable truth

One feels very deeply sorry for Mrs Diane Bell, mother of Corporal Ivano Violino, killed when the Volvo FL-12 truck he was driving hit a mine. As she stood outside the Coroner's court in Tunbridge Wells, where today an inquest was held into her son's death (reported here and here), she struck out at "ministers", demanding that they do some "soul-searching" over whether enough was being done to protect British troops.

During the inquest, Mrs Bell had heard that the 44-vehicle convoy, moving equipment to a base nearly 12 miles north-east of Gereshk, had been promised air cover during its passage, but the helicopter designated had been re-tasked and had not appeared.

Focusing on that omission, she made the impassioned plea for more air cover for convoys, heedless of the view of the Coroner, Christopher Sutton-Mattocks. He was satisfied, he said, that it would not have made any difference whether air cover had been provided, as it would not have been able to detect the explosives that Cpl Violino's truck had driven over.

The convoy was in fact regarded as low-risk and an attack was not expected. Furthermore, the vehicles were not driving along a tarmac road but across desert. Some of the heavier vehicles were becoming stuck in the soft sand so, at the time of the strike, Violino's was driving his 10-20 yards to the right to avoid deep ruts made.

The chances are, therefore, that this could have been a legacy mine, rather than a deliberate ambush. Certainly, the Coroner declined to rule the death "unlawful killing" and instead elected to record that "Cpl Violino was killed in action on Her Majesty's Service".

As to whether this death could have been prevented, we explored this issue back in September 2007 when it happened. Then, oddly enough on the back of comments made by Lord Malloch Brown on the need for helicopters, we concluded that the convoy supplies could have been better and more economically delivered by helicopter.

As for Cpl Violino's truck – a loader-tipper – this was engineering equipment being delivered to a Forward Operating Base. It too could have been delivered by helicopter. At 10 tons unladen weight, it could easily have been carried by an Mi-26 and we even published a photograph demonstrating that this could be done (top left). It was not until February the following year, however, that a Mi-26 was leased by the MoD, too late for Cpl Violino.

Therein, however, lies a conundrum. Only last week, that same Mi-26 was shot down by the Taleban, killing six on board and a young girl on the ground, with a man injured. Moving the FL-12 by air would have been safer for Cpl Violino, but it would, effectively, have transferred the risk to the helicopter crew – and those under its path.

In turn, fully to protect the helicopter on its approaches to British bases, where it is at its most vulnerable, would need foot patrols out in the approach area transferring the risk to the soldiers, making them highly vulnerable to ambush, either from direct fire or IED.

Arguably, an escort of Apache gunships might have sufficed, but then there is the opportunity cost: how many soldiers would die, how would the overall mission be compromised by the allocation of this precious asset to escort duty, when it might be better employed on air support?

Collecting together these various strands, arguably, Cpl Violino's life could have been saved, had helicopter lift been available. Given that lift capacity is currently a major controversy, one might have thought that an astute journalist might have picked this up. This could even have been raised in the inquest, but it was not.

But the price of his safety could have been at the expense of the helicopter crew who transported his vehicle, as indeed it was the safety of those troops who did not have to make the land convoy into Sangin base to deliver supplies least week.

We would like to think that the Mi-26 which crashed last week could have been better protected, and need not have been shot down, or that the lives saved through convoys avoided were more than were lost. We can never know. Whether seven dead and one injured was a fair trade is also something we can never know, but it does point up an essential truth – war is a dangerous business and people get killed.

But there is another, more uncomfortable truth. To ensure one man's safety may, directly or indirectly, put others at greater risk. There is no such thing, they say, as a free lunch.

COMMENT THREAD

That's journalism!

As another British soldier is reported killed in Afghanistan, two investigative sleuths from The Daily Mail, Tim Shipman and Matthew Hickley, breathlessly tell us that the announcement came "as Lt Col Richardson revealed that American, Dutch and even Australian helicopters are being used to launch British combat operations in Afghanistan." UK forces have used coalition aircraft to "seize areas of ground" from the Taliban, said the Colonel.

The Daily Telegraph goes one further as star reporter Rosa Prince scribes these immortal words:

The Daily Telegraph understands that American Chinooks were used for a combat mission as part of the Panther's Claw operation within the last month. Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, spokesman for Task Force Helmand confirmed that UK forces were forced to rely on foreign helicopters.

These fearless hacks can however, shelve their dreams for nominations for the next Pulitzer prize for investigative reporting. The MoD Website for 23 June – nearly a month ago – blandly informs us that:

More than 350 soldiers from The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (3 SCOTS), have launched an airborne assault into one of the last Taliban strongholds.

Twelve Chinook helicopters, supported by 13 other aircraft including Apache and Black Hawk helicopter gunships, a Spectre gunship, Harrier jets and unmanned drones, dropped the British soldiers into Babaji, north of Lashkar Gah, just before midnight on Friday 19 June 2009.

Not only did we rely on helicopters (with the MoD thoughtfully providing a pic – see above), we were "forced" to rely on a USAF Spectre gunship, Harriers (USMC – ours have gone home) and probably US Predator UAVs. Since 90 percent – or thereabouts – close air support is provided by US assets, we are routinely "forced" to rely on F-15s, F-16s, B-1 Lancers, A-10s ...

And then, of course, on the ground, we are "forced" to rely on Danish Leopard II tanks, on their APCs, on Estonian APCs and even the Ex-MoD Mamba mine protected vehicles which we sold off for a song.

But Hey! This is a coalition effort. We are not alone ... and have not been for some time. But then, here's another "scoop". During WWII, the US stripped out the armour from its one and only armoured division and sent the Shermans to the 8th Army. To win the battle of el Alamein, we were "forced" to rely on foreign tanks.

Shock! Hold the front page!

COMMENT THREAD

Brown envelopes galore

When it was raised in Parliament yesterday by the redoubtable Ann Winterton - the ONLY MP who raised the embarrassing report of a British-chartered helicopter ferrying military supplies to a British base getting shot down by the Taliban, Miliband and Ainsworth did NOT want to talk about it. The full exchange is here.

Of course, there is every reason why they should not want to be up front. Not only was the prime contractor Skylink subcontracting the work to dodgy Moldovan gun-runners – in breach of the contract requirements – the Moldovans were subcontracting the operating of the aircraft to an equally dodgy Ukrainian outfit, which explains why six of their number were killed.

Moreover, as more details come in, it is now very clear that this was a deliberate Taleban ambush, mounted directly under the noses of the British, aimed at bringing down a Chinook – one of the main strategic aims of the Taleban. The unfortunate Mi-26 happened to wander along, in company with an Mi-8 MTV. Both took fire and the Mi-26 bought it. Bad luck on the Ukrainian crew and bad luck for the Taleban. They wanted an RAF Chinook, and will keep trying until they get one.

As for Skylink, this is an aviation company that has no aircraft. It specialises in supplying aircraft in war zones for the UN and other tranzies like the EU, for NGOs and any shady outfit that happens to be passing with a dodgy cargo it wants moved in a hurry. It buys contracts top dollar, with brown envelopes passing freely. It is so corrupt that even the UN blew it out, until it bought its way back into favour by greasing the right palms.

The company then subs out the work down the chain to dodgy Moldavans, Ukrainians and the rest, mostly operating clapped-out ex-Soviet hardware with safety certificates that owe more to photoshop than they do any certifying authority, their aircraft banned from any and all Western airspace. These outfits work as a group, sharing and swapping assets when they get outed, forming and reforming companies, appearing and disappearing, and cropping up with new names and the same aircraft just as frequently.

These are the people that are working for the MoD, the contract carefully laundered through Nato to give plausible deniability, thus avoiding a Tory and media uproar when it was learned that the MoD was hiring dodgy ex-Soviet choppers to make up for capacity shortfalls.

The trouble was that the original arrangement was that the aircraft should serve the transport hub between Kandahar and Bastion. They were not permitted to fly into FOBs – that is military airspace, from which they were to be excluded.

However, once there, the mission creep set in and, with the desperate shortage of lift, the brief was extended to the aircraft uplifting into the FOBs like Sangin. The Ukrainians, desperate for cash, were squared off with generous bonuses and thus agreed to fly into hot war zones, where even RAF Chinooks will only fly with Apache escorts.

The MoD was happy, being able to release Chinooks and Apaches for operations, Skylink was happy with the extra hours and the bonuses, and the Ukrainians at the sharp end needed the money anyway. And hey! They are expendable.

As long as the contract was piggy-backed off Nato, and thus totally deniable, no one had to be told and everyone kept schtum ... including the Tories. And now, no one wants to talk about it. Says Ainsworth: "I do not want to trespass on to operational details." You bet he doesn't.

As for the Tories, having decided to make "helicopters" their cause celebre, the last thing they want to know is that the Taleban are parking outside the gates of British bases, waiting for an opportunity to down a Chinook. Rather shoots the Fox - to coin a phrase - about more helicopters saving lives.

So goes the conspiracy of silence. The British media ... forget it. E-mails from special advisors? MPs' expenses? Dead safe ... nay problem. If you look too deep here, you don't live.

COMMENT THREAD

Parity and more ...

Originally posted at 19:30 hrs Friday. Updated and reposted.


Sooner than we feared, another British soldier was reported killed in Afghanistan, bringing the number to three on the day and the total to 179.

Then, early in the afternoon, we began to get very strong rumours of many more in what was said to be a "major incident". By early evening, five more were said to have been killed, three seriously injured and three more less badly injured.

Early, unconfirmed reports said soldiers had sought cover from direct fire in a compound which was booby-trapped with an IED. Later reports suggested that troops had been ambushed after they had dismounted from their vehicle to investigate an explosion, and were hit by another IED and took casualties. More were killed and injured when the medevac Chinook arrived to pick up the original casualties. The tactics were said to be "sophisticated".

A different report, in The Daily Mail tells a different version, suggesting that after the first hit, "amid the chaos and appalling scenes, the Taleban is said to have opened fire with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades on the injured soldiers and those going to their aid."

Apache attack helicopters are then said to have been called in to strike at Taleban positions and provide cover as a rescue operation was launched with helicopters ferrying the wounded back to the field hospital at the main British base at Camp Bastion throughout the night.

The men, from the 2nd Bn, The Rifles, were reported to have been in the Sangin area - near Musa Qala. This is not part of the current Operation Panchai Palang (Panther's Claw), which is being carried out north of Lashkar Gah.

The official total for casualties since 2001 now rises to 184, exceeding the number 179, which was the death toll in Iraq. Predictably, The Guardian - commenting on the level when it reached 179 - said that the death was likely to intensify the debate about whether the Afghanistan operation is worthwhile.

The 179th reported killed was a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, said to have died in an explosion during an operation near Nad-e-Ali. He was from the same regiment as Trooper Joshua Hammond, who was killed last week in a Viking.

The AP report at that time was headed, "The Climbing toll raises British doubts on Afghanistan" and cited Conservative MP Adam Holloway, a defence committee member. He said, "The casualties should fix peoples' minds on the fact that we've let the soldiers down ... The death toll means we should do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all."

He added that Britain had never had the troop strength needed to hold ground there and had failed to provide the promised security or reconstruction, leading many Afghans to believe the Taleban militants will outlast Western forces. "We're in a mess," he said.

Guthrie, according to Channel 4 News blames Gordon Brown who, as chancellor when Britain went into Helmand, had given "as little money to defence" as the Treasury could get away with.

And, in The Daily Mail, Doug Beattie, retired recently after 27 years in the Army, said: "Whether it's the 179th or the 200th, the soldier will not think twice about that number. They're just numbers - but every number and every name has a story behind it."

He added: "No soldier serving in Afghanistan will say, 'that's 179', they will say, 'that's my friend, that's my roommate, that's my commanding officer'. Very soon we are going to hit the 200 mark. The likelihood is before we leave Afghanistan we are going to hit the 500 mark - maybe even the 1,000 mark. But they are all false landmarks."

"For the politicians and for the Ministry of Defence," he then said, "public perception of the loss is crucial. For the soldiers on the ground, it won't matter."

However, despite the growing list of British fatalities, troops are continuing to push the enemy back on operation Panthers Claw. This is seen as a "crucial" operation for the security of Helmand.

The fighting had been "exceptionally arduous" with the threat from the Taliban roadside bombs "enormous", Lt-Col Simon Banton tells The Daily Telegraph.

Gordon Brown, who was attending the G8 summit in L'Aquila in Italy, admitted that the troops faced "a very hard summer". He said that there was no question of Britain pulling out until the international community had finished its mission.

COMMENT THREAD

Yet another triumph

The report that British soldiers have launched a major airborne assault on a Taleban stronghold in southern Afghanistan should, on the face of it, be good news.

The operation, codenamed Panther's Claw, involved more than 350 troops from the Black Watch who were dropped into Babaji, north of Lashkar Gah, just after midnight local time on Friday. Twelve Chinook helicopters were deployed, backed by a formidable array of airpower, including Apaches, a Spectre gunship, Harriers and UAVs.

The aim is to secure a number of canal and river crossings in the area to establish a permanent ISAF presence in what was previously a Taleban stronghold. Royal Engineers are now constructing checkpoints on the main routes in and out of the area, to be occupied by the Afghan National Police, established to hinder movement by insurgents.

The MoD is describing the operation as "one of the largest air operations in modern times" but whether it is the "Triumph for Brits" that the Daily Mirror is claiming remains to be seen.

Lt-Col Nick Richardson, spokesman for Task Force Helmand, is less extravagant, declaring simply that the operation has been achieved due to the arrival of extra US, which has provided ISAF with a massive increase in capability "which we believe will significantly change the balance in the province."

Nevertheless, such optimism were have heard before and a jaundiced eye therefore turns to an editorial in the New York Times headed "Afghanistan's Failing Forces". That piece certainly provides an antidote to the hyperbole of The Mirror, starting off with the bald statement, "The news from Afghanistan is grim."

Rehearsing recent events, it reminds us that, in the first week of June, there were more than 400 attacks in Afghanistan, a level not seen since late 2001. It applauds Obama's decision to send more troops and then observes that there can be no lasting security until Afghanistan has a functioning army and national police.

This happy situation, the paper notes, is very far from coming, setting out a catalogue of failure which is stark and damning. Washington, it says, has already spent 7½ years and more than $15 billion on failed training programs.

There have never been enough trainers, Afghan soldiers have not been paid a living wage, making it easy for Taliban and drug lords to outbid them for the country's unemployed young men, and there has been no proper control of weapons supplied to the Afghan forces. Tens of thousands have disappeared, sold to the highest bidders and, in some cases, used against American soldiers.

Perhaps most fundamentally, American war planners never seemed to understand that a more effective Afghan Army and a more honest and competent police force could help persuade civilians that the war against the Taleban was more their own fight and not just an American war being fought on their territory.

After all these years, therefore, so little progress has been made that the national police force needs to be rebuilt almost from scratch, a task hampered by unremitting corruption in Kabul's central government, reflected at local level where the police are equally part of the problem.

Leaving the paper to conclude with a statement of the obvious, that building an effective Afghan Army and police is critical to the war effort, with the injunction that there is no more time to waste, we move on to a report by AP which asserts that, in these recession-hit times, the Taleban and al-Qaida are bucking the trend.

Through a combination of extortion, crime and drugs, plus an inflow of money from new recruits, increasingly large donations from sympathisers and Islamic charities, as well as a cut of profits from honey dealers in Yemen and Pakistan, the insurgents' finances are considerably healthier than those of the coalition nations.

A significant proportion of the cash inflow comes from taxation of the opium trade, estimated to yield upwards of $300 million annually, enabling the Taleban to pay foot soldiers $100 and commanders $350 a month, far more than their security force equivalents in either Afghanistan of neighbouring Pakistan. On the other hand, they are paying bargain-basement prices for their IEDs which typically cost less than $100 each to make.

Clearly, the major task here is to deal with the drugs trade – which perhaps accounts for 90 percent of Taleban income. For a workable strategy, Allison Brown in Small Wars Journal is a good a source as any. But she offers no more than we set out last year, principles enunciated by so many scholars, and experts yet ignored by those who purport to be restoring this benighted country.

So, instead of progress, we get the Black Watch descending from the skies in phalanxes of Chinooks and thundering over the terrain, while the Mirror applauds another "triumph". Maybe it is, but not for common sense.

COMMENT THREAD

If we can't hack it …

What was once solely a British area of responsibility is no longer. In March 2006 British troops deployed to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, with a view to imposing stability and bringing reconstruction.

Not only have they failed, the situation has become so tenuous that, increasingly, US troops are taking over, fighting for towns and territories that we have failed to capture or have lost.

Starting in December 2007, the US provided the bulk of the troops and most of the air assets to re-take Musa Qala. In April 2008, US Marines then re-took the town of Garmsir and now, having been effectively abandoned by the British in 2007, this month US Marines re-took the district town of Now Zad.

However, it says something of the paucity of information coming out of Afghanistan that the recent history of this small town is shrouded in obscurity, if not mystery.

Situated some 45 miles north of Gereshk and just under 40 miles due west of Kajaki, it was first occupied by British soldiers in June 2006, in response to a call for help from the governor of Now Zad. B Company, 3 Para, were flown out to the town. On arrival they found it calm but went ahead and helped shore up defences.

This had not been the first activity in the area. On 4 June, A Coy, 3 Para went on a mission codenamed Operation Mutay to a secure a suspected Taleban compound, close to Now Zad. They were supported by Patrols Coy, 3 Para, a platoon of Gurkhas and local police.

On their way to secure their objectives, the Gurkhas' Wimik convoy became involved in a heavy contact. Patrols Coy, also aboard WMIK Land Rovers, also had a heavy contact. Army Air Corps Apache gunships provided close air support.

A Coy were airlifted close to the target compounds by 2 RAF Chinooks, which came under heavy fire. A protracted fire fight ensued as A Coy fought their way into the compounds and then repelled counterattacks by determined Taliban forces. In addition to air support from AAC Apaches, US A-10s were also called in. Having secured and searched the compound, A Coy withdrew, fighting running battles with the Taleban, until they were eventually airlifted away.

The Paras in Now Zad were relieved by platoon from D Company of 2 Gurkha Rifles and then a Company from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. From June to November 2006, in what was the longest defence of a static trench position in British Army history, the soldiers were holed up in the police compound in the centre of the town and, on occasion, came perilously close to being overrun.

In the course of just one month, July, the Gurkhas repulsed over two dozen attempts to overrun the compound, firing more than 30,000 rifle rounds and 17,000 machine-gun rounds. They killed an estimated 100 of their attackers, without losing a single man on their own side.

The Fusiliers then took over on 30 July, spending 107 days under attack before being relieved by 42 Commando Royal Marines in November 2006. The Marines then had as their mission "to provide stability for the local people during a period of ever decreasing security," something – through no fault of theirs – they singularly failed to do.

One of their number, Marine Richard Watson, was killed on 12 December 2006 as elements from his detachment were patrolling to the north of Now Zad. They came under attack from Taliban forces and Watson was hit by small arms fire and fatally wounded. The Commandos were replaced the spring of 2007 by 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment. They also lost a soldier, Pte Chris Gray, killed during a close-quarters firefight.

By July 2007, however – and possibly before - Now Zad seems to have been abandoned by the British, its population having deserted the town. It had, alongside Musa Qala, become occupied by the Taleban. We next hear of it again in December 2007, when US troops were engaged in a firefight in the outskirts during the operation to recover Musa Qala.

Then, on 15 June 2008, US Marines assigned to Foxtrot Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment mounted an attack on Taleban strongholds in Now Zad and, by the end of July seemed to have established a foothold.

Nothing much more was heard until September 2008 when the town was briefly mentioned after Royal Marines and US Marines of Foxtrot Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment were photographed sweeping the streets for improvised explosive devices.

By February 2009, however, the town was defined as a USMC area of operations and off-limits to journalists. Free-lance journalist David Tate was told by the Marines, "That's not the story we want to push."

Tate described the town as having been abandoned for three years, with the villagers living displaced to nearby village. The town's infrastructure was crumbling and it was a virtual "free fire" zone in the sense that the only people left in it were Taleban.

And so we come to 3 April this year, when we were told (yesterday) that a Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force conducted a major combat operation against insurgent forces in Now Zad.

Marines of Company L, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (Reinforced), the ground combat element, "struck well-known enemy locations identified within and near the insurgent-infested Now Zad District centre." "Now Zad's District center is kind of a unique place in Afghanistan because there is no local civilian population," said 1st Lt Mike H. Buonocore, the executive officer of Company L.

The Marines targeted positively identified enemy positions from which insurgent attacks had originated over the past several months. Other locations were identified with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets.

The two major components involved in the operation were a ground force and an aerial assault. Enemy targets were destroyed by combined fires from rocket artillery, aircraft, mortars and ground troops. "The mission took some enemy forces out of the fight and showed them how much force we have with us and what we can use against them," said Cpl Andrew C Conte, a squad leader with the ground assault element. "It really cleared out some of the areas we were having troubles in."

The ground scheme employed Company L as the main effort by conducting a raid on a known enemy position. Other Marines held blocking positions to ensure insurgent reinforcements were denied freedom of movement and the opportunity to engage the Marine forces.

Navy F/A-18C Hornet fighter-attack aircraft, an Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber, Marine AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopters, the Army's tactical missile system and Btry. D, 2/14's high mobility artillery rocket system set conditions for the operation by employing precision munitions on key insurgent targets. "Once the bombs started dropping there wasn't too much movement," said Conte. "With all the ground forces out there and everything we had overhead, it was calm because we knew nothing was going to touch us."

"We were able to engage some enemy targets before they engaged us," said Cpl Taylor E. Vogel, a forward observer with the 81 mm mortar platoon. "We were able to drop mortars on [enemy] fire teams that were moving in on [Marine] units. We definitely achieved what we wanted to. We destroyed the big targets that have been occupied by enemy forces."

Leading up to the operation, the Marines had "proactively conducted combat operations" in Now Zad's District centre daily in order to shape the battlefield by moving insurgents into disposable positions. Marines took precautions by using leaflet drops and radio broadcasts in the area to warn the population in nearby villages of the danger, which helped reduce collateral damage.

"Throughout the winter in Afghanistan, you hear about the [insurgent] spring offensive," said Conte. "We caught them before they caught us in the spring offensive, and we set the tone of it with showing how much [firepower] we have and what we can use."

Insurgents attempted to counter the Marines' strike with IEDs, mortars, small-arms fire and two rockets, with no success. Instead, the Marines positively identified and pursued their targets. "The operation was a tremendous success on all levels," said Buonocore. "The confirmed battle damage assessment is pretty significant. There were no civilian casualties, and nothing was hit that wasn't a target."

The Americans are to be congratulated for this "tremendous success", but it does show up our inability to step up to the plate and solve the problems we undertook to deal with. However, this is a coalition operation, and there is no shame in accepting the help of the better equipped and more numerous US forces.

What is disturbing though is the silence of the British media and, indeed, of our own MoD. Full of praise for the welcome, if modest achievements of British troops, it is grudging to the point of churlish about acknowledging the achievements of our allies.

If we can't hack it on our own, the very least we can do is express our appreciation to the Americans who – even if they are acting in their own interests – are doing the fighting (and sometimes the dying) which would otherwise fall to our troops.

An alliance is an alliance – we are not alone. We should behave accordingly.

COMMENT THREAD

A misallocation of resources

We saw a piece over the weekend informing us that thousands of United States marines are to be deployed alongside British troops in southern Afghanistan within weeks after the "overstretched" British have fought to stalemate with the Taliban.

The fact is that US troops have been bearing the brunt of operations for some time in Helmand, which is now only nominally a British responsibility. But what has not been widely reported is the intensity of air effort deployed in support of British forces and generally, amounting to 60-70 combat sorties a day. Additionally, a significant number of surveillance and reconnaissance missions are being flown, comprising manned and unmanned aircraft.

We get some clues from the current reports (and here) as to the range of strikes, but what we do not get is any clear idea of how and under what circumstances airpower is actually used.

For that, though, we can turn to a remarkable book written by Capt Doug Beattie (with Philip Gomm) called An Ordinary Soldier, published in October last year. This is a detailed account of an attempt in September 2006 to retake the town of Garmsir after it had been over-run by the Taliban. Beattie was in charge of a detachment of six British soldiers, including himself, mentoring a group of Afghan National Police.

They, in concert with the Afghan National Army – also mentored by British soldiers – the total amounting to no more than about 200 men, were up against a ferocious enemy, seeking to do what it eventually took 2,400 US Marines to achieve some 18 months later.

But what comes over from the account is the extremely heavy reliance on airpower. On one day, the attack was supported by no less than nine aircraft, comprising F-18s, a B-1 bomber, Apache attack helicopters and Harriers. Without their intervention, it is quite possible that many coalition lives would have been lost and the gallant Capt Beattie would not have survived to write his excellent book.

What also comes over is how the absence of loiter capability in the support aircraft heavily affects the dynamics of the fighting. With the fast jets, their time over the targets is extremely limited and, because of the rules of engagement, they can only be called in once contact is made with the enemy.

Thus the tempo was set by the coalition forces advancing, making contact with the enemy, calling in air support and waiting for the aircraft to arrive. The pilots were then briefed on their targets by the JTAC (Joint Tactical Air Controller) and delivered their bombs (called "stores"). This was sometimes followed by strafing runs but the outcome was invariably that the enemy fire subsided. However, every time, the enemy regrouped and fighting resumed, whence more strikes were called in, and so on, with monotonous regularity. Thus did the battle proceed, day after day.

Contrasted with the small number of coalition forces actually committed to the battle, one is thus struck by the wholly disproportionate expenditure in manpower in supporting them. Apart from the pilot's time, for every hour flown, an F-18 needs nearly 17 hours routine maintenance. The Harrier is said to require nearly 60. Behind that is the infrastructure to keep the aircraft flying, right down to the cooks, clerks and bottle washers. In all, far more men (and women) were committed to supporting the ground forces than actually took part in the battle.

Furthermore, in terms of effect, the aircraft were most often being called in to target small packets of men – what might be called low-value targets – with sometimes 2,000lb bombs being delivered. Not only is this "overkill", causing massive collateral damage, the expense of the guided munitions is enormous.

On the other hand, in one episode – day five of the attack – Beattie resorted to using a 51mm mortar, in this case with devastating results, killing four men with one bomb. The effect was equal to or greater than some of the observed effects from the air strikes.

This was achieved with the lightest of the mortars in the British Army inventory. Heavier 81mm versions are also available. Able to fire 15 x 9lb bombs per minute with stunning accuracy, these are formidable weapons.

One cannot avoid speculating, therefore, whether the availability of one or more 81mm mortars – especially if they had been mounted on a mobile platform such as the FV432 APC – could have achieved exactly the same results as the airpower, but in a more timely and certainly more economic fashion, using considerably less manpower overall. Moreover, this technology is hardly new, with the Allies in WWII (and the Germans) using similar combinations - see picture.

However, with indirect fire, as in using mortars, targets are engaged which are out of direct line of sight – that being one of the advantages of the weapon. Thus, for accurate target designation and damage assessment, air spotting is highly advantageous.

Addressing this issue, coincidentally, I am also re-reading a book on the 1944 battle for Normandy and the contrast is striking. There, the air cover was continuous and reaction immediate, to the point where daytime movement in the German Army became impossible. When there were no strike aircraft immediately in the sky, there were always spotter aircraft aloft – usually Austers - ready to call in artillery or mortar strikes.

For continuous air cover, the current generation of fast jets is entirely unsuitable and we are back to the argument about the use of Tucanos (pictured above) or similar prop-jets, which can loiter for four hours or more over the battlefield. Able also to deliver their own ordnance, a very small number of these aircraft could provide a continuous overview of the battle, providing real-time intelligence, artillery spotting and air strikes.

And not only do they cost considerably less than the fast jets, the maintenance requirement is two man hours per hour flown. The case is powerfully argued here, with an estimate that replacing a high-end capability squadron of F-16s with cheaper turbo-props could save a half billion dollars per Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotation.

The experiences of Capt Beattie and his men, however, do not only suggest a more sanguine look at battlefield support. They also raise questions as to their basic equipment. His team of six men were fighting from two Wimiks and there is no question that their .50 cal machine guns and their GPMGs were powerful additions to the armoury. But there is also no question that their platforms – the unarmoured Land Rovers – were being used for exactly the role where previously armoured cars would have been used.

The tactical situation cried out either for such vehicles, or light tanks, which could have manoeuvred under fire when, instead, Beattie and his men were forced to take cover. After some incredibly near misses, it is only luck that they were not all killed.

Despite Beattie's heroism – he was later awarded the Military Cross – the action was only partially successful, the coalition forces maintaining a tenuous hold on the district centre and an eastern checkpoint, suffering daily attacks which continued well into 2007, before the town was fully secured by the USMC in 2008.

Arguably, had the intervention been more decisive earlier, preventing the Taliban building up its strength, the large number of troops which eventually had to be fielded would not have been necessary.

Thus, while we see the ritual complaints of "overstretch" in the current report, with the handmaiden complaint of "under-resourced", it is germane to ask whether indeed either complaint is valid. In purely financial terms, there is no shortage of resource being pumped into the fight against the Taleban, and the overall number of men and women deployed easily outmatch the enemy.

What we are seeing, therefore, may be more a question of a misallocation of resources – the concentration on high-tech equipment which is soaking up funds and manpower when more boots on the ground with better, but still basic equipment might achieve decisive results.

This makes the recent speech by Robert Gates all the more appropriate. But we are also reminded of a piece we wrote in March 2007 when we cited Ed E. Heinemann, designer of the B-26 Invader, the A-1 SkyRaider and the A-4 SkyHawk,

He declared: "The obstacles to any simplification may seem insurmountable, and the reasons for more complexity are many and powerful. But if we permit this Frankenstein of complexity to continue to work at its current plodding, insidious rate, it will slowly overwhelm us to impotency."

We were there, impotent, in September 2006. Currently – with 60-70 sorties a day being flown - nothing much seems to have changed.

COMMENT THREAD

Boys and their toys

"With a barrage of ear-shattering bangs, the British Army showed off the full array of firepower it has at its disposal during a Land Combat Power Display on Salisbury Plain last week."

That is the current offering from the MoD website, under the heading: "Army shows off its firepower", describing in near lyrical terms how:

With Guns N' Roses music coming from loud speakers in the grandstand, out came the Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Skidding around in the gravel with their drivers encased within their heavily armoured bodies so that no human presence was visible, the vehicles looked like Transformers from another planet as their gun turrets menacingly surveyed the audience and the undercarriages danced around in a mechanical ballet.

The demonstration culminated in a display, "to the music of 80s TV show Airwolf", as:

… an Apache attack helicopter descended in front of the grandstand before most of the audience jumped out their skins as a Tornado jet screeched across the skies from behind, dropping its explosive payload onto the hills and sending shock waves heavenwards.

Thus we are told, "the combined use of all this equipment during the final live ammunition 'attack' on enemy compounds was ferocious and frightening, as well as deafening!" And, of course, this "attack" was completely successful, as they always are against a compliant, hypothetical enemy in front of an invited audience in Salisbury Plain.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the Taleban has unveiled its new bomb detonator, which is cunningly defeating all known counter-measures. It is constructed of string and a wooden clothes peg. This has US Gen Thomas Metz admitting frustration at being forced to build "million-dollar solutions to $100 problems." That's just isn't smart business, he fumes.

Back on Fantasy Island, the MoD has invoked that great military authority, Trooper James Hawley, to talk up the Jackal (only 18 plus destroyed so far). Hawley was deployed to Helmand last year where he went out on reconnaissance patrols for up to three weeks at a time using Jackal vehicles. He tells us, courtesy of the MoD spin machine:

The Jackal is an awesome bit of kit. The speed and ground you can cover makes it ideal for reconnaissance. You can only have so much protection before you loose manoeuvrability but they do offer a lot of protection.

Doubtless, next year, the MoD will be able to get another obedient Trooper to enthuse about the wonderful Husky, again telling us that "you can only have so much protection".

That MoD kit so often comes with free body parts, however, is something they are less keen to tell us. Still, if you play Guns N' Roses music loud enough, no one will hear the screams.

COMMENT THREAD

This was not supposed to happen

The well-planned attack (by all accounts) by the Taleban on French troops, which started shortly after midday on Monday, seemingly breaks the trend in a campaign which supposedly has moved into an asymmetric phase.

What further marks this out is the ferocity of the attack which had nine soldiers dead within the first minutes of contact, another dying the following morning when his armoured vehicle overturned Tuesday as the forces were leaving the scene. A further 21 soldiers were injured in the engagement.

That the fighting also lasted so long, despite the intervention of US Air Force assets and the arrival of reinforcements, was another apparent departure from current Taleban tactics. In the main, Taleban fighters usually disengage on the arrival of air power and are now rarely seen to stand and fight.

One other unusual factor was the proximity to Kabul – just over 30 miles – in a region which, by and large, has been considered pacified and which has not seen major Taleban incursions in the current phase of the campaign.

Details are as yet sketchy but, according to the IHT, the troops were on a reconnaissance mission in the mountains of Surobi, a militant redoubt 30 miles east of the Afghan capital, Kabul, when they were ambushed. There is no clear indication as to whether they comprised a foot patrol or were mounted.

The French daily l'Express identifies the troops as from the élite 8th Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment and the 2nd Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment but the Christian Science Monitor also reports that they were from a battalion that took control of Kabul only two weeks ago.

Whether inexperience was a factor in their selection as a Taleban target can only be speculation, but this can hardly have been an issue in the second attack mounted by the Taleban on the Tuesday. This was a mass suicide attack on Camp Salerno, the American base that serves as the logistics hub for the war's eastern front. It began just after midnight, when a team of attackers dressed in military fatigues were spotted on the horizon.

Afghan and US forces confronted the attackers some 1,000 yards from the base entrance, while fighter aircraft attacked the insurgent. Once surrounded, three suicide bombers detonated themselves, and three more were shot to death. A seventh was also killed.

However, rare though these overt attacks have become, last month saw a similar incident, when an estimated 200 Taleban stormed a small American "combat outpost" in the Dara-I-Pech district of Kunar province.

Nine US soldiers were killed, plus 15 US soldiers and four Afghan soldiers were injured. It was also claimed that the Taleban had sustained "very heavy losses". The fighting had started at 4.30am and US forces deployed mortars, artillery, Apache helicopters and fast jets. But, as with Monday's Kabul incident, the Taleban attack persisted, the fighting – according to contemporary reports - lasting well into the day.

For the Americans, this was their largest single loss since the fighting in Afghanistan in 2001 and, for the French – who have only lost 13 troops in the Afghan deployment – it is their largest in theatre and the biggest loss in combat for the French army since clashes in Bouake, Ivory Coast in 2004.

The high number of casualties prompted French president Nicolas Sarkozy immediately to board a plane for Afghanistan. In a statement before departure, he declared that, "In its fight against terrorism, France has just been struck severely," adding, "My determination remains intact."

Well he might say that as France is sending 700 more troops to Afghanistan this month, announced in April, during the NATO summit in Bucharest. The deaths could heighten domestic opposition to that plan – and to the continued French deployment.

So far, French media reaction to the deaths has been mixed. An online news article from Le Monde brought comment by one reader that the attack by 100 Taliban could be "foreseen" and asked, "When will we have a debate in Parliament on this?" An editorial in the “outspoken and independent” Rue 89 suggested that the "meaning" of the Afghan war has been lost to many French, and called for negotiations with the Taliban in a war that seems "endlessly protracted."

Should this current Taleban activity be part of yet another shift in tactics, that siren call could easily spread. One needs little effort to imagine the furore had ten British troops been killed in similar circumstances, and the media would undoubtedly be to the fore in calling for a withdrawal.

Already, this year has seen the deaths of 178 coalition forces, including about 96 US troops, there are predictions that the overall toll will surpass the record 222 troop deaths in 2007. With the BBC reporting that the Taleban are growing "more brazen" – words used in a number of media reports – and The Guardian warning that this incident will, "almost certainly shake resolve within an already nerve-racked Nato alliance," it is easy to see which way the narrative is going.

Despite confident pronouncements from the British military about winning the shooting war, therefore, we may be entering a new phase of the campaign which has the opposition from the home front stoked up to the extent where continued engagement becomes untenable.

A weak, unpopular government is going to have a hard time convincing the British population that it should expect still more casualties.

COMMENT THREAD

Crossing the Rubicon

This Sunday saw Sean Rayment, defence correspondent of The Sunday Telegraph, do what he does best, reporting on the ground, the first of his two pieces bearing the entirely predictable headline: "Afghanistan: British troops face huge rise in Taleban bombs".

So widely has this been predicted and expected (see left - click to enlarge), though, that it could hardly qualify as news.

It is, however, useful to have the quotation from Major David Ashman, who commands the Joint Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group. This is the group which is responsible for defusing IEDs and unexploded bombs, and he conforms that IEDs were now "the main killers" of British troops. He says: "The reality is, the Taleban have switched tactics. They simply were losing too many people in conventional fighting. IEDs allow them to attack us from a distance and in relative safety."

Such is the scale of the change that, between April and last month, British troops encountered 150 IEDs, compared with 90 in the previous six months. The rate of attacks has risen fivefold, from 15 a month to 75.

Clearly, even with minimal equipment, British forces have developed considerable expertise in dealing with this threat, the casualty rate fortunately not reflecting the level of attacks.

But, while one would expect the Taleban to target coalition forces, they are also attacking economic targets – as indeed was the Indian Embassy in Kabul (pictured, right), which last week took a major hit from a suicide bomber, killing 41 people and injuring more than 140.

Even though the Indians do not even field any troops in the region, they are major players, having pledged US$750 million to Afghanistan's reconstruction since 2002. Today they are the fifth-largest bilateral donor in Afghanistan after the United States, Britain, Japan and Germany.

The amount of aid they have offered, and the effectiveness of the activity – which includes substantial private investment - makes them an important target. Their contribution to the stability and prosperity of the country runs entirely contrary to the objectives of the insurgents - and their sponsors.

What also comes over from recent events is the scale of "conventional" fighting, something of which emerged from the report of a friendly-fire incident, when nine Paras in close contact with the Taleban were wounded by a misdirected attack from an Army Air Corps Apache helicopter during a firefight.

Much further north, the US forces were also attacked, with nine killed in what is slated as "one of the deadliest against US forces in Afghanistan since the military campaign was launched in 2001."

Even before this, Captain's Journal blog was commenting on the "escalation". It cited the Washington Post in this context, which noted that:

Each year since 2002, the number of US and allied troops in Afghanistan has grown. And each year, during the "fighting season" of spring and summer, the number of attacks by the Taliban has also increased, prompting commanders to conclude that still more troops are needed.

Captain's Journal definitely buys into the idea that more troops are needed and, after the successful recovery of Musa Qala and Garmsir – with substantial assistance from US formations, it is hard to argue that there is a "critical mass" needed if territory is to be wrested from the Taleban and the coalition forces are to maintain a presence on the ground. That, it would appear, looks set to happen.

On the other hand, it is becoming clear from the scale of fighting that continues in the environs of Musa Qala that the are is far from pacified. Coalition forces face the nightmare of expending huge resources merely holding the ground – as Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup puts it – "for a few years".

In the growing asymmetric phase of this campaign, however, this positions coalition forces as "targets", exposed to the steady toll of attrition for which our modern democracies are ill-suited to resist. Soon enough, without any obvious signs of progress and no clear-cut victories, the pressure to scale down the military and then to withdraw will become very difficult to resist.

What is particularly depressing, therefore, is a long piece in the weekend Herald which recounts the, "Battle to break the grip of Taliban terror in Musa Qala," centred on the battle for "hearts and minds" which we cannot win and should not even attempt.

Not least, there is the never-ending spectre of collateral damage, the latest episode being recorded last week when a US air strike killed 47 civilians, including 39 women and children, as they were travelling to a wedding in the village of Kacu in the eastern Nuristan province of Afghanistan.

Another piece of depressing news, garnered via a Parliamentary Question from Ann Winterton is that in the last two years, UK Royal Engineers have repaired, reconstructed or constructed only 25 miles of road in Helmand province, carried out by project managing locally employed contractors.

This really does reinforce our view that too little attention is being given to fighting the peace without which, in our estimation, we cannot win the campaign.

Thus, while more troops will undoubtedly be welcome, in many senses, they will be the wrong sort. Rather than more over-extended infantry formations, we need to see combat engineers, capable of holding their own against Taleban attacks, while able to focus on infrastructure projects such as the sadly neglected road-building programme.

Here, the scale of the problem is beginning to emerge. While the donor nations make pronouncements about the amount of work done, claiming that over 2,500 miles of road have been repaired or refurbished, the length of the road network in Afghanistan extends to just over 25,000 miles. The actual work completed therefore amounts to little more than ten percent.

Furthermore, owing to the poor standards of some construction, major disrepair is being suffered on some routes (for instance, the road from Sar-e Paul province and Shiberghan, the capital of Jawzjan province). This raises the prospect of roads deteriorating faster than they can be rebuilt or repaired, especially as the annual road maintenance budget is estimated as $116.7 million, much of which is unfunded.

Coincidentally, on our sister blog, we give two examples of the vital role of infrastructure works in developing countries, in Zambia and the Congo. What applies here must apply with just as much force to Afghanistan.

In emphasising this, we have, to an extent, crossed the Rubicon. Having devoted the time and energy to looking at the bigger picture, somehow the details of specific equipment – very much the standard fare of this blog – begin to look less important. In fact, rather than specific military kit, we tend to take the view that we need more bulldozers (armoured or otherwise) and road graders than we do tanks, Mastiffs and other weapons of war.

More than even that, though, it seems we need a change of attitude, the fundamentals of which we set out in our piece on Zambia, recognising that the battle will be fought and won not by military prowess but by delivering on the lasting peace and prosperity than can only come when a properly devised reconstruction programme is fully integrated with the military effort.

And, despite the best intentions of our troops in the field, this we see no signs of materialising.

Waddington 2008

The Vulcan winding up its engines prior to take off.


The Patrulla Aguila - Spanish Air Force Display Team – flying the CASA C-101EB Aviojet.


Hawker Hurricane Mk II from the Battle of Britain Memorial Team.


An ex-RAF De Haviland Vampire T-11 in one of the many static parks.


An Army Air Corps Apache strutting its stuff.


Just to upstage the Vulcan, the Yanks turned up with a B-52 - although it didn't fly


The BBM Lancaster doing its solo run - it later flew with the Vulcan.


An Army Air Corps Auster AOP9 - now sadly an historic exhibit.


Lynx Mk 3 and 8 from the Royal Navy "Black Cats" display team.


An RAF E3D Sentry AWACS - one for MM.


An ex-RAF WWII Harvard trainer - in post war colours.


CASA C-101EB Aviojet from the Patrulla Aguila.


A French Air Force Mirage 2000 "resting" after a barnstorming display.


The BBMF trio - Lancaster, Hurricane MkII and Spitfire MkXIX.


A Eurofighter touches down after its display, to close the show.

COMMENT THREAD

Another success

Scene of the abortive rescue attempt of a Royal Marine in January 2007 by troops carried on the outside of Apache attack helicopters, after a failed attack a Taliban fort in Jugroom, Gamsir province is now the centre of a massive operation by US Marines.

According to Reuters, in a dawn attack yesterday, the Marines stormed the provincial capital, which goes by the same name of Gamsir (sometimes spelt "Garmser"). A substantial force was deployed, estimated by The Times at about 2,400. The action started on Tuesday, with the troops securing routes into the town in the south of Helmand province, the world's biggest opium producing region and a hotbed of insurgent activity.

This is the US Marines' first large operation in Afghanistan since arriving to reinforce NATO troops last month although they were said by The Daily Telegraph to have been supported by British forces

The Guardian has it that the Marines landed before dawn yesterday, some trundling in on Humvee trucks and others arriving by helicopter. Within a few hours, insurgents armed with guns and rocket launchers poured out of a local madrasa, sparking fighting that lasted several hours.

The Taleban - who claimed to have hundreds of fighters in the area, entrenched in a series of pre-prepared defence - responded with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. They failed to inflict any casualties. The combat, says the paper, petered out by late morning after US helicopter gunships pounded suspected Taliban positions with rockets. Casualty figures were unknown.

The Guardian also says the operation was coordinated with the British military, which has a fortified base in the town and several outposts in surrounding areas. Scottish infantrymen, it tells us, provided covering fire as the Marines passed through their lines, while British commanders coordinated surveillance of Taliban movements.

According to US Marine spokeswoman Captain Kelly Frushour, the Marines are now in control of the town centre.

The news of this success, which has eluded British forces, comes a day after The Daily Telegraph published details of a downbeat confidential Foreign and Commonwealth Office paper, which listed “a catalogue of problems and weaknesses in Western attempts to stabilise the country.”

In a list of "critical areas to fill", the paper claimed that Nato still needed three infantry battalions, more helicopters, more aircraft and more training teams to help the Afghan army. Intriguingly, it also raises concerns about the situation after November, when the US Marines currently engaged in the Garmsir operation are to be withdrawn from the south.

That latter concern is presumably now less pressing. The presumption had been – without any evidence to support it – that the assault on Garmsir would have been held over until 16 Air Assault Brigade was fully in place, to give the publicity-hungry Paras a chance of the glory, of which they had been deprived by the capture of Musa Qala by 52 Infantry Brigade last December.

With the US Marines declining to wait, they now have the opportunity to pacify the region and, it is anticipated, to push the Taleban back to the Pakistan border in Helmand, assisting the control of Taleban infiltration at the border.

Nevertheless, this being a US success – albeit in the British sector – it has received considerably less coverage from the British media than the abortive attempt on the Jugroom fort in January 2007. It has been largely overshadowed by news of Prince William’s flying visit to Afghanistan, a visit that has been dismissed as a publicity stunt.

However, the action is another defeat for the Taleban, which is losing its grip over Helmand province and is now failing to prevail in any direct military confrontations with Nato forces. And now the hard work or reconstruction begins.

COMMENT THREAD