Fight them there or fight them here?

Former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells poses the question in the Guardian in a piece made grimly relevant by Wednesday’s shooting dead of  five British soldiers by an Afghan policeman.

Howells says troops should be brought back from Afghanistan and that the billions of pounds saved should be used to beef up homeland security in Britain – drawing the front line against al Qaeda around the UK rather than thousands of miles away in Helmand province.

He accepts that such an approach would result in “more intrusive surveillance in certain communities,” a tacit acknowledgment that Britain’s Muslims would be subject to greater scrutiny by police and intelligence services.

His “Fortress Britain” theory takes into account indications that a growing number of experts feel the war against the Al Qaeda’s supporters the Taliban in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

It also makes the point that not all Al Qaeda training camps are in Afghanistan anyway.

Howells is Gordon Brown’s intelligence and security watchdog and his theory goes counter to the prevailing wisdom in Washington and London, both of which are preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Do you agree with him?

- Col. Richard Kemp is a former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and the author of Attack State Red, an account of British military operations in Afghanistan published by Penguin. The opinions expressed are his own. -

Disillusionment with the inability of the Kabul administration to govern fairly or to significantly reduce violence played a role in the reportedly low turnout at the polls in Helmand.

It is critical that this changes if we are to avoid another Vietnam. The South Vietnamese Army, well trained and equipped, lost heart once the U.S. withdrew, collapsing at the first push, partly because their corrupt and ineffective administration was not worth fighting for.

That an election was held at all in Afghanistan’s most violent province is an achievement. But despite a major operation to drive out the Taliban, the insurgents deterred large numbers of voters. This illustrates just how steep a mountain NATO has to climb. But it does not mean we cannot prevail against them in Helmand.

As President Obama says: "This isn’t a war of choice; it’s a war of necessity." Home grown British terrorists have only demonstrated an ability to kill our people when they have attended serious training and had face-to-face direction from war-hardened jihadists.

The Al Qaida leadership and their camps were driven into Pakistan in 2001. U.S. pursuit across the border using unmanned aerial vehicle strikes has been remarkably effective, resulting directly in the recent reduction of the UK terrorist threat level.

Al Qaida is not just a “global franchise” but also a solid organization that needs places to meet, to plan and to train terrorists. It cannot all be done on the internet.  Substantially unable to function now in Pakistan, the leadership is actively seeking a new base – perhaps in Yemen, Somalia or North Africa. In any of these they would be much more exposed. Their real desire is to return to Afghanistan. NATO forces are preventing that.

But we cannot do it forever. Success equals reducing the insurgency to a level that can be managed by a viable Afghan government backed by a capable security force which can prevent the country becoming a base for attacks on the West including Britain.

How long will this take? The answer to that is how long do we have?  The next U.S. election is at the end of 2012 and the patience of the British electorate will have no greater longevity.

Even as I have defined it, we will not achieve success fully in that time-frame. But we must be very clearly succeeding in a way that we are not now. And certainly in the British forces, we cannot continue with anything like the current rate of casualties over that period.

To counter the Taliban’s present devastatingly effective tactics of mines, roadside bombs and booby traps we need better surveillance and better intelligence, achieved in part through greater active support from the local people. We need to control the night as well as the day. While we build the Afghan army, this can only be done with more of our own troops. A lot more.

Casting aside inter-service rivalries, every sinew of strength of the British armed forces must now go into Afghanistan.  Even that will not be enough.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown must take close personal direction of this war through a war cabinet that will drive every relevant government department to achieve real progress in the short time we have left. And crucially to communicate our war aims to the British people with far greater effect.

Government ministers have said that Britain supports greater efforts to talk to hardline insurgents fighting in Afghanistan.

International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said that those who turn away from violence should be offered a chance to become part of the political process, while Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that “conservative Pashtuns” should be brought in and separated from “the hardline Taliban, who must be pursued relentlessly.”

“The reintegration of former Taliban requires offering bigger incentives to switch sides and stay out of trouble, alongside tougher action against those who refuse,” wrote Miliband in the Financial Times.

Alexander made his comments while visiting the Afghan province of Helmand, where most of the British troops are fighting. The total number of UK fatalities since operations in Afghanistan began in 2001 has now risen to 191.

He told BBC radio: “It is a difficult message for politicians — to talk about the issues of reconciliation and reintegration when British troops are fighting the Taliban. It is necessary to put military pressure on the Taliban while at the same time holding out the prospect that there can be a political process… whereby those who are wiling to renounce violence can find a different path.”

What do you think? Should entering into dialogue with the Taliban be part of our strategy in Afghanistan, or would it be wrong to give their leaders a place at the negotiating table?

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth came under criticism on Monday over a shortage of military equipment in Afghanistan, where 15 British soldiers have been killed in the past two weeks.

The deaths highlight the shortage of helicopters, especially Chinooks, which can carry large numbers of troops and equipment over long distances, say the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

The parties argue that the troops are in difficult circumstances and too vulnerable on the ground.

More helicopters and vehicles will be sent to the war zone next year, Ainsworth said. For now, helicopter flying hours have been increased.

Should the government spend more on equipment for British troops in Afghanistan now, or should they wait until next year?

The death toll among British troops in Afghanistan is rising fast.  The soldier who died on Tuesday was the seventh to die in the last week and the 176th since the war began.

Last Wednesday, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe became the highest ranking British soldier to die in the conflict in Afghanistan when he was killed in Helmand. British commanders are quoted as saying things are going to get worse before they get better.

Not surprisingly, doubts are being raised about the price being paid in Afghanistan, about the nature of the mission itself and whether security can ever be made effective enough to rebuild the country after 30 years of war.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth concedes there is gloom about the rising death toll but rejects comparisons with the Vietnam war that lasted over 15 years and says there is a “real sense of momentum” in Afghanistan.

Do you believe Britain should stay in Afghanistan?

A poll for the BBC has indicated that the vast majority of the public want British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan within the next year.

Since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, 124 British soldiers have been killed, with two Royal Marines becoming the latest casualties when their convoy was hit by an explosion on Wednesday.

Defence Secretary John Hutton says it is more important than ever that the 8,000 British troops remain in the country to fight the resurgent Taliban, saying it is vital to British security and interests.

On a trip to London with President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s foreign minister has said more international forces were needed while U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to send in more U.S. troops.

Do you think British troops should stay in Afghanistan? Send us your comments.

Gordon Brown’s brief visit to Afghanistan brought sympathy for his political plight from President Hamid Karzai but his attempts to evoke the Olympic spirit with British troops drew a decidedly cool response from the ranks.

For the travelling pack of reporters, he only had one stock answer bu that didn’t stop them from hounding him with the same question.

Thousands of miles from home, at a press conference in the Afghan capital, Brown was repeatedly probed by reporters about his leadership, or lack of it as his enemies might say.

“We are getting on with the job,” Brown said, when asked about rumoured plots against him.

“It’s a good relationship,” he answered, when quizzed on the supposed aspirations of Foreign Secretary David Miliband. “We get on with the job.”

The journalists even had Afghan President Hamid Karzai discussing the topic.

“Cabinet ministers plotting is nothing new. We have it in Afghanistan too,” he said, smiling.

Brown will be hoping announcements he will make in September of economic measures to give Britons more money in their pockets will ease some of the doubts about his role as party leader.

In the meantime: “I am getting on with the job and that is what people would expect me to do,” he said.

He was in more expansive mood with the troops.

Wearing a dark suit and a purple tie, minus the jacket, told them they were “truly heroes”.

Stood against a backdrop of armoured tanks and trucks, he likened them to Britain’s medal-winning Olympic team in Beijing — only the soldiers made the country proud “every day of the week, every week of the year,” he said.

But the gathering of 300 or so men and women who listened to Brown at the British army headquarters in Camp Bastion, Helmand province, did not respond in kind.

They stood in silence amid the heat and dust. There were no cheers or applause after he wrapped up his patriotic address.

Some, largely those of higher rank, said the high-profile visit did make a difference to troop morale.

Captain Phil Hobbs said: “It shows support. It’s getting leadership involved at every level.”

But the more junior soldiers did not seem overly impressed and had little to say about their drop-in guest.

One said he had preferred the recent entertainment laid on at Bastion of comedy, dancing and a live band. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Brown is no match for a knees-up, especially after a few months in a tent in the desert.

Should women be allowed to fight on the frontline? Is it time for complete equality in the armed forces? Is society ready for the idea of female soldiers routinely fighting and dying in combat?

The death of Sergeant Sarah Bryant, the first female British soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, has reignited the long-running debate over women’s role in modern warfare.

The existing rules that exclude women from situations where the primary duty is “to close with and kill the enemy” are irrelevant in Afghanistan and Iraq where there is no single front line, according to some commentators.

Instead, British forces are engaged in a “360-degree war” where all soldiers, male or female, could be in the line of fire at any time, Catherine Philp wrote in the Times.

“In times gone by, rules like these kept women far behind the men,” she writes. “In the heat of the Iraq insurgency, however, all that began to change. In reality, the rules are already stretched to breaking point.”

The old arguments that women are not physically capable to fight or might disrupt “unit cohesiveness” no longer hold water, she added.

The Ministry of Defence says there are now about 18,000 women in the armed forces, just under 10 percent of the total. The Sex Discrimination Act (1975) allows the armed forces to exclude women from some posts.

That’s the right approach, according to one contributor to an online military forum.

“I’ve yet to see a woman who could withstand the mental and physical pressure of infantry work,” he wrote.

Not so, said Jo Salter, the RAF’s first female fighter pilot. She said society’s attitudes have changed over the years and the sex of a soldier is no longer the issue it once was.

“It’s always so sad when there’s any death at all. Gender isn’t the issue,” she told the Daily Telegraph.

That view was echoed by the parents of Flight Lieutenant Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, who died in Iraq in 2006.

“Sarah did not distinguish between herself and the boys she served with,” her father Terry told the Daily Mirror. His wife Sue added: “There were four others with her and their families’ grief is equal.”

A quick look at the front pages after Bryant’s death suggests newspaper editors may not see it that way.

Pictures of Sgt Bryant in her wedding dress were splashed across several front pages under headlines such as “Our Afghan Heroine”. Most ran long stories on inside pages about her life and career in the army. The deaths of male soldiers typically receive far less coverage. There were few details of the three male colleagues killed with her.

Whether the media coverage of Bryant’s death reflects the wider views of society is hard to tell.

The last word goes to an unnamed military source who told the Herald newspaper: “Every man - and woman - is born equal under the 7.62mm gun law”.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said the conflict in Afghanistan was the “noble cause of the 21st century” as he paid tribute to the 100 British soldiers who died serving in the country.

He said there was not one British serviceman or woman who questioned the rightness of the military operation despite lacklustre public support at home.

British forces were making progress against the Taliban, “transforming its heartland from an area of lawless oppression and terrorism to a place of democracy and development”, he explained.

Progress was being made in education, medical care and road building, amid “some of the most challenging” circumstances.

During a century which is seeing war in Iraq, as well as the continued troubles in Darfur and the civil strife in Somalia, do you agree with Browne’s statement?

Send us your comments.