Return to Afghanistan: RAF may go back to help Trump beat Taliban
‘Obliterating Isis, crushing Al Qaeda’
BRITISH warplanes and drones could be sent back to Afghanistan after Donald Trump announced a major policy U-turn and declared he is expanding the US military mission there.
A new strategy to defeat the Taliban and Islamic State could also see RAF personnel sent back to Kandahar, southern Afghanistan – a significant expansion of the UK’s current training operation.
US Secretary of Defence, General Jim Mattis, called his UK counterpart, Sir Michael Fallon, to discuss the plans before the President gave a speech vowing to ‘kill terrorists’.
Mr Trump said on Monday that he would beef up the US military presence and others must do the same, adding that a withdrawal would create a vacuum for jihadis. The most senior American commander for the Middle East said the first deployments of new US forces would arrive in Afghanistan ‘pretty quickly’.
Mr Trump said: ‘The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.’
It marks an abrupt turnaround from his election campaign, in which he regularly demanded an end to the 16-year conflict.
But since then, Taliban insurgents have recaptured swathes of the country, IS militants have waged terror, and US generals have publicly admitted the war is failing. Yesterday, the Taliban said Mr Trump’s plans would make Afghanistan a ‘graveyard for the American empire’.
It is understood that during Sir Michael’s discussion with defence secretary General Mattis on Monday, the prospect of the UK sending ‘specific capabilities’ such as jets and drones was raised. One option could be re-deploying air assets from Iraq where IS is on the back foot after being pounded by RAF warplanes.
Defence chiefs may also send RAF troops back to southern Afghanistan if they are asked to do so. They would be stationed in Kandahar, previously Nato’s regional HQ, and would form part of a plan to build an Afghan air force training academy.
Air Commodore Stephen Lushington said: ‘Kandahar will be one of the training locations. We are doing an awful lot of work in Kandahar right now to make sure the facilities are right … If the demand signal is to send people to Kandahar we will.’
A further 85 UK troops will be sent to the country in the coming weeks after requests by Nato. The Ministry of Defence yesterday ruled out further increases.
The Defence Secretary welcomed President Trump’s pledge. Sir Michael said he had agreed with General Mattis that ‘we have to stay the course in Afghanistan to help build up its fragile democracy and reduce the terrorist threat to the West. It’s in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer.’
Mr Trump made repeated calls ahead of his election for US troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, where they have been involved in military operations since 2001. But in an address at Fort Myer near Washington DC, he said he had decided to go against his ‘original instinct’.
US policy would now focus not on nation-building but on ‘killing terrorists’, he said, adding: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating Isis, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taksupport ing over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our Nato allies and global partners to our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own – we are confident they will.’ General Joseph Votel, top US
commander for the middle east, estimated the first new deployments would arrive in a few weeks or even days.
AFTER the horror of 9/11, there were persuasive arguments for sending British forces to Afghanistan to join our American allies in attacking Al Qaeda’s terrorist training camps.
But almost 16 years on – and three years after we withdrew our combat troops, leaving only some 500 behind to train the local military – shouldn’t we think very carefully indeed before answering Donald Trump’s call to rejoin the war?
During his election campaign, the President pledged to withdraw the 8,400 American soldiers who have remained in Afghanistan since combat operations officially ended in 2014.
But now, under pressure from his generals, he has changed his mind. And though he won’t specify numbers, he is widely expected to send some 4,000 extra troops – and says he expects his Nato allies to beef up their commitment too.
With typical bluster, he declares: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating Isis, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks before they emerge.’
Yes, these are laudable objectives. But at the height of its deployment in 2010-11, the US had 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan, with similar aims. If they failed to beat the terrorists and the Taliban, why should Mr Trump believe the smaller force he envisages will enjoy more success?
In the course of a conflict that has already lasted more than twice as long as the Second World War, 456 British personnel and Ministry of Defence officials have been killed, with thousands more wounded – many on battlefields now back under Taliban control.
Indeed, though it grieves the Mail to say so, it is very far from clear how much their heroic sacrifice achieved. Is there any reason to believe putting more troops in danger will accomplish anything beyond making more widows and orphans?