NATO considers Afghanistan ‘drawdown’
On the day the bodies of three British servicemen killed in Afghanistan are returned to the UK, NATO considers its options for an accelerated troop withdrawal from the country.
Corporal Michael Pike, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland was killed on 3 June; Lance Corporal Martin Gill, 42 Commando Royal Marines, and Rifleman Martin Lamb, 1st Battalion The Rifles, were killed on 5 June. 371 British forces personnel have died serving in Afghanistan since October 2001.
Ahead of a US decision on the troop “drawdown” in Afghanistan due to begin next month, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen told defence ministers in Brussels he believed the American decision would be “based on the actual security situation on the ground”.
He said he felt confident “no decision will be taken that will have a negative impact on the security”.
July could see the United States begin to withdraw as many as 30,000 troops – the same number as was sent in to Afghanistan following President Obama’s announcement on troop numbers in December 2009.
Osama bin Laden’s death makes it more difficult for those in the US defence establishment to argue against withdrawal. Brigadier Ben Barry, IISS
In the UK, latest reports suggest Britain’s 9,000-strong contingent will be cut by more than the 450 troops announced by David Cameron in May, and that any accelerated US withdrawal will be matched on this side of the Atlantic.
Barack Obama’s hand in regard to a withdrawal of troops was strengthened by two factors: the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last month, and the need to rein in military spending as the US budget deficit swells.
Brigadier Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies told Channel 4 News bin Laden’s death “will make it more difficult for those in the US defence establishment to argue against it”. But he predicted any imminent withdrawal would involve administrative troops before combat troops.
“The advisability of reducing combat and training forces, as opposed to logistic and support troops, before 2014 will become much easier to assess at the end of this year’s fighting season, when we will have a much better idea of the ability of the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) to achieve sustained security leadership,” Brig Barry said.
‘We have to make progress’
In June 2010, one month after becoming Prime Minister, David Cameron announced: “This is the year when we have to make progress – progress for the sake of the Afghan people, but progress also on behalf of people back at home who want this to work.”
Less than a year later, in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death, Mr Cameron suggested the world had become a safer place, saying: “The news that Osama bin Laden is dead will bring great relief to people across the world.” He added that it was a “massive step forward” in the fight against terrorism.
This is the year when we have to make progress in Afghanistan. David Cameron, June 2010
The need to combat the terrorist threat has underpinned the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence website explains that: “Britain’s own security is at risk if we again allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists.”
It concludes: “Failure would deal a serious blow to the credibility of the UK, NATO and the international system, would hand victory to violent extremism with all that would entail, and would damage regional stability.”
10 years in Afghanistan
The British and American presence in Afghanistan was triggered by the attacks on the US mainland on 11 September 2001.
When a Nato force went into Afghanistan in October 2001, the UK contingent was larger than any other, barring the US. At the time there was little domestic opposition in either the United Kingdom or the United States.
The total number in Afghanistan in November 2001, including US and allied troops, was small by today’s levels – a paltry 1,300.
Our aim is to shut down the terrorist network. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in 2001
In 2001 Tony Blair explained that the invasion was necessary to eliminate the “terrorist threat” and the heroin supply (Afghanistan supplies 90 per cent of the world’s heroin). “Our aim is to shut down the terrorist network,” he said. Al-Qaida’s leader, Osama bin Laden, was thought to have his base somewhere in Afghanistan.
In 2004 Tony Blair refined the argument for a UK presence in Afghanistan, suggesting a terrorist link between Afghanistan and Iraq (both the US and the UK were by 2004 deeply involved in the Iraq war). Meanwhile, coalition military casualties in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005 remained at a consistent, low level.
The then British defence secretary, John Reid, appeared in 2006 to evolve the argument for a coalition troop presence in Afghanistan by saying that it was there “to create… a framework of society for Afghanistan institutions”.
By 2009 Britain’s justification for having what was by now a sizeable force in the country – over 9,000 appeared to have come full circle, with Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth explaining that we were there “as a result of our assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britain”.