January 30, 2008 - No. 12 -
Supplement Manley Report: In the Background• Pre-Emptive
Nuclear Strike a Key Option, NATO Told - Ian Traynor, The
Guardian Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option, NATO ToldThe west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists. Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the U.S., Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April. "The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." The authors -- General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK -- paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope. The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are: - Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism. To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of U.S., European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are: - A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies
to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national
vetoes. In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the U.S. defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato's future is on the line in Helmand province. "Nato's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan," said Van den Breemen. "Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure," according to the blueprint. Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country's performance in Afghanistan. "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato." Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior U.S. state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call." "This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges." Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence." Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate. Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was "puzzled." "Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud." Another senior EU official said Nato needed to "rethink its nuclear posture because the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under enormous pressure." Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. "Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don't know how to deal with this." Nato needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option," he said. The AuthorsJohn Shalikashvili The U.S.'s top soldier under Bill Clinton and former Nato commander in Europe, Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw of Georgian parents and emigrated to the U.S. at the height of Stalinism in 1952. He became the first immigrant to the U.S. to rise to become a four-star general. He commanded Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war, then became Saceur, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, before Clinton appointed him chairman of the joint chiefs in 1993, a position he held until his retirement in 1997. Klaus Naumann Viewed as one of Germany's and Nato's top military strategists in the 90s, Naumann served as his country's armed forces commander from 1991 to 1996 when he became chairman of Nato's military committee. On his watch, Germany overcame its post-WWII taboo about combat operations, with the Luftwaffe taking to the skies for the first time since 1945 in the Nato air campaign against Serbia. Lord Inge Field Marshal Peter Inge is one of Britain's top officers, serving as chief of the general staff in 1992-94, then chief of the defence staff in 1994-97. He also served on the Butler inquiry into Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and British intelligence. Henk van den Breemen An accomplished organist who has played at Westminster Abbey, Van den Breemen is the former Dutch chief of staff. Jacques Lanxade A French admiral and former navy chief who was also chief of the French defence staff.
NATO Hears 'Noise before Defeat'When the blame-game begins in an indeterminate war, it is time to sit up and take note. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' interview with the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday rings alarm bells. There has been no effort to claim he was misquoted. In fact, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell confirmed the chief was "not backing off his fundamental criticism that NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] needs to do a better job in training for counter-insurgency." Morrell made a little concession, though, that Gates meant no offence to any particular NATO country. NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer responded he had the "greatest respect" for NATO forces fighting in southern Afghanistan. He advised Washington, "Combating insurgency is a complex thing, and not always easy." At The Hague, the American ambassador was summoned and asked to "clarify." Dutch Defense Minister Van Middlekoop publicly regretted, "This is not the Robert Gates we have come to know." Other European politicians expressed surprise, indignation. In NATO history there have been few such laundering of dirty linen in public view. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Taliban head Mullah Omar have achieved something that Soviet leaders Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev couldn't. Washington Mocks NATOGates' criticism was pinpointed -- NATO was a lemon. He said: "I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counter-insurgency operations ... Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counter-insurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap [NATO's Cold War battle lines in Germany]." Gates was giving vent to pent-up frustrations. Finally, Afghanistan is threatening to be a blemish on his successfully nurtured record in public service. On December 11, at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Afghanistan, Gates admitted somberly, "If I had to sum up the current situation in Afghanistan, I would say there is reason for optimism, but tempered by caution." Gates warned the NATO mission "has exposed real limitations in the way the alliance is, or organized, operated and equipped. I believe the problem arises in a large part due to the way various allies view the very nature of the alliance in the 21st century, where in a post-Cold War environment, we have to be ready to operate in distant locations against insurgencies and terrorist networks." He solicited help from U.S. Congressmen for "pressuring" the NATO capitals "to do the difficult work of persuading their own citizens [in Europe] of the need to step up to this challenge." Gates again spoke forcefully at the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Edinburgh, Scotland, on December 14. But "no one at the table stood up and said: 'I agree with that,'" he later lamented. This week, the Pentagon underscored its displeasure by making a deployment of 3,200 Marine Corps to southern Afghanistan, bringing the U.S. presence to about 30,000 troops. The NATO force in Afghanistan numbers about 40,000, of which 14,000 are Americans. The Washington Post described the U.S. move as one to "fill a void created in part by NATO's inability to fight the insurgency adequately, a job the allies never signed up to do." The majority of the marines will be directly engaged in fighting in the south alongside British, Australian, Dutch and Canadian troops, who have taken record casualties during the past year. Of course, shadowboxing is to be expected in the run-up to the NATO summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, in April, where Afghanistan will be a key agenda item. But that cannot explain away the unusual public discord. The reluctance on the part of major NATO powers to commit more troops to Afghanistan arises as much out of profound disagreement with Washington over the objectives of the war and the fashion in which the U.S. spearheads the war as in deference to growing anti-war sentiment in Europe. A General Hits OutGates' criticism draws heavily from a recent study authored by the U.S. general who commanded the forces in Afghanistan from October 2003 until May 2005, Lieutenant General David W Barno, in the prestigious journal Military Review. Barno is an influential voice in the U.S. defense community. He chose to begin his paper devoted to the counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, citing lines by ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu, "Strategy without tactics is the slowest road to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Barno claimed the U.S. counter-insurgency strategy during his period produced "positive and dramatic" results. He gave the "center of gravity" in his strategy to the Afghan people and not the "enemy." He kept in view the Afghan people's "immense enmity to foreign forces" and deduced that eschewing the "Soviet attempt at omnipresence" in Afghanistan, only through a "light footprint approach" instead, could the war be successfully fought. Barno wrote that Afghan people's tolerance for a foreign presence was "a bag of capital [that was] finite and had to be spent slowly and frugally" and, therefore, under his charge U.S. forces took great care to avoid Afghan casualties, detainee abuse, or transgressions in observance of respect to tribal leaders or causing offence to traditional Afghan culture. Second, Barno outlined that he and the then-U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, bonded as a team and they had a "unity of purpose" in ensuring perfect interagency and international-level coordination. According to Barno, the slide began in mid-2005 after he and Khalilzad were reassigned. Washington then decided to publicly announce that NATO was assuming responsibility for the war and that the U.S. was making a token withdrawal of 2,500 troops. "Unsurprisingly, this was widely viewed in the region as the first signal that the United States was 'moving for the exits,' thus reinforcing long-held doubts about the prospects of sustained American commitment. In my judgement, these public moves have served more than any other U.S. actions since 2001 [the fall of the Taliban] to alter the calculus of both our friends and our adversaries across the region -- and not in our favor." Barno implied NATO messed up the top-notch command structure he created. The result is, "With the advent of NATO military leadership, there is today no single comprehensive strategy to guide the U.S., NATO, or international effort." Consequently, he says, the unity of purpose -- both interagency and international -- has suffered and unity of command is fragmented, and tactics have "seemingly reverted to earlier practices such as the aggressive use of airpower." Barno makes some chilling conclusions. First, he says the "bag of capital" representing the tolerance of Afghan people for foreign forces is diminishing. Second, NATO narrowly focuses on the "20% military dimension" of the war, while ignoring the 80% comprising non-military components. Third, the "center of gravity" of the war is no longer the Afghan people but the "enemy." Fourth, President Hamid Karzai's government is ineffectual "under growing pressure from powerful interests within his administration." Fifth, corruption, crime, poverty and a burgeoning narcotics trade have eroded public confidence in Karzai. Finally, "NATO, the designated heir to an originally popular international effort, is threatened by the prospects of mounting disaffection among the Afghan people." What Can Be Achieved?Somewhere along the line, mud-slinging had to happen. Yet, almost everything Barno wrote could be true. Barno drew a handsome self-portrait. He whitewashes a controversial phase of the war. NATO inherited a dysfunctional war. By end-2006, it was no longer a winnable war. When the alliance's defense ministers gathered in the Dutch seaside resort of Noordwijk last November to commemorate the first anniversary of NATO in Afghanistan, the crisis atmosphere was palpable. There were no offers of major reinforcements by the member countries. The Dutch indicated they were close to withdrawing their 1,600-strong contingent from Uruzgan province in southern Afghanistan the coming autumn. The likely knock-on effect of the Dutch decision on countries such as Canada worried everyone present at the meeting. Germany, France, Italy and Spain insisted they were constrained by their national caveats guiding deployment of troops on non-combat roles. The result has been a sort of "Balkanization" of Afghanistan, as Daan Everts, outgoing civilian representative of the NATO secretary general in Kabul, admitted to al-Jazeera in a recent interview. "You have a little 'German Afghanistan' in the north, an 'Italian Afghanistan' in the west, 'Dutch Afghanistan' in Uruzgan and a 'Canadian Afghanistan' in Kandahar and so on. Geographically we [NATO] have been fractured, but also sectorally with equal ineffectiveness -- like giving the justice sector totally to the Italians, counter-narcotics to the British, the police to Germans, anti-terrorism to the Americans." Everts was unusually frank for a high-ranking NATO official. He said Afghan reconstruction has been a "bonanza for consultants, serious consultants, half-baked consultants, marginal consultants and mailbox consultants"; there has been an outflow of resources from Afghanistan of up to 40% of aid given to the country. "So there is this aid industry that descends on a poor nation and runs away with part of the loot." He called for a government in Kabul that is "more serious about problems" such as corruption, drug-trafficking and law-enforcement. In such a mess, Lord (Paddy) Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon is due to arrive in Kabul shortly as the United Nations' super envoy. Is a British colonial-style governor the right answer? Lord Ashdown -- former Royal Marine commando and special forces officer, Liberal Democrat leader, member of Parliament, the European Union's high representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 2002-2006 -- is a forceful personality, and was hugely successful in restoring order to the Balkan country torn apart by violence and ethnic cleansing. But Afghanistan is notoriously untamed in history. Ashdown has sought to combine Everts' former responsibilities with those of Tom Koenigs, the low-profile German diplomat who served as the UN's special representative in Afghanistan. He hopes to be the main point of contact between Karzai's government and the international forces, the European Union policing mission and the UN contingent, apart from coordinating Afghan reconstruction efforts. That is much too much for anyone to take on. But Ashdown is gifted. Even then, the chances are the blame-game is going to accelerate. The Afghans are unlikely to accept a British viceroy - even if he wears a blue beret. Karzai's government resents being bypassed. While in theory a "unity of purpose" and a formal link between the Afghan government and among NATO and the EU and the UN is desirable, there are problems. Some UN member countries do not want a direct relationship with NATO (or vice versa). NATO will chaff at subordination to the UN. There is no such thing as a unified EU voice. Least of all, Washington simply doesn't know how to be self-effacing. Reconciliation with the TalibanBut then, Ashdown's real mission lies elsewhere, in addressing the core issue: What do we do with the Taliban? No doubt, the Taliban's exclusion from the Bonn conference seven years ago proved to be a horrible mistake. That was also how the Afghan and Pakistan problem came to be joined at the hips. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf made a valid point in his interview with the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel this week when he said al-Qaeda isn't the real problem that faces Pakistan. "I don't deny the fact that al-Qaeda is operating here [Pakistan]. They are carrying out terrorism in the tribal areas; they are the masterminds behind these suicide bombings. While all of this is true, one thing is for sure: the fanatics can never take over Pakistan. This is not possible. They are militarily not so strong they can defeat our army, with its 500,000 soldiers, nor politically -- and they do not stand a chance of winning the elections. They are much too weak for that," Musharraf said. The heart of the matter is Pashtun alienation. The Taliban represent Pashtun aspirations. As long as Pashtuns are denied their historical role in Kabul, Afghanistan cannot be stabilized and Pakistan will remain in turmoil. Musharraf said, "There should be a change of strategy right away. You [NATO] should make political overtures to win the Pashtuns over." This may also be the raison d'etre of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon's intriguing choice of a Briton as his new special representative. Conceivably, the inscrutable Ban has been told by Washington that Ashdown is just the right man to walk on an upcoming secretive bridge, which will intricately connect New York, Washington, London, Riyadh, Islamabad and Kabul. The point is, Britain grasps the Pashtun problem. Britain realizes that the induction of U.S. special forces into the Pakistani tribal areas, or the custodianship of Pakistan's nuclear stockpile, or an al-Qaeda takeover in Pakistan isn't quite the issue today. That is why Musharraf's four-day visit to London starting on January 25 assumes critical importance. British mediation in Pakistani politics may already be working. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif has begun calibrating his stance. Reconciliation between Musharraf and the Sharif brothers is in the cards. Shahbaz Sharif will be on call in London during Musharraf's stay there. If the reconciliation -- thanks to British (and Saudi) mediation -- leads to the formation of a national government in Pakistan, a leadership role for Nawaz Sharif may ensue and Pakistani politics may gain traction. Nawaz Sharif is the only politician today with the credentials and stature to mount the dangerous platform of Islamist nationalism and reach out to the Taliban and its followers inside Pakistan. The Sharif brothers could be invaluable allies for the Pakistani military -- and for NATO -- at this juncture. Barno sidesteps the ground realities. The U.S. strategy's real failure happened, in fact, in the 2003-2005 period when he was in charge of the war. Of course, the failure was not at the military level, but at the political and diplomatic level. That was a crucial phase when the window of opportunity was still open for a course correction over the Taliban's exclusion from the Afghan political process. The Taliban should have been invited to come in from the cold and join an intra-Afghan dialogue and reconciliation. The extreme emotions of 2001 had by then begun to ebb away. On the contrary, Khalilzad's diplomatic brief was that the U.S. presidential election of 2004 was the priority for the White House. The "war on terror" in Afghanistan was a milch cow in U.S. domestic politics. Presidential advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney shrewdly calculated that an enemy in the Hindu Kush was useful for the Republican Party campaign, while resonance of the booming guns in Afghanistan would be a good backdrop for election rhetoric against a decorated war veteran like John Kerry. And, showcasing of Karzai in Kabul's presidential palace helped display Afghanistan as a success story. A victorious Karzai indeed landed in the U.S. to a hero's welcome from George W Bush on election eve. Bush went on to win a second term, but the Afghan war was lost. The slide began by mid-2005 as the embittered Taliban began regrouping. As the year progressed, as Everts and many others pointed out, the Iraq war "sucked the oxygen away from Afghanistan." How could Gates possibly admit all that? He would rather NATO take the blame. But then, it is a sideshow in actuality. Britain is now called on to salvage the Afghan war. NATO at best will be a sleeping partner. The Hindu Kush is all set to be Lord Ashdown's theater. He represents the UN; the White House reposes confidence in him; he takes counseling and directions from London, which coordinates with Riyadh and Islamabad -- and then, gingerly, he sets out, searching for the Taliban. Incidentally, among his many attributes, Lord Ashdown is a gifted polyglot who speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese and other languages. Maybe he already speaks Pashto. * M.K. Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001). U.S. War on Terror Moves EastThe Pentagon's announcement here Tuesday that it is dispatching some 3,200 marines to Afghanistan underlines both Washington's mounting concern about the strength of the Taliban insurgency and the growing sense here that the central front in its nearly six-and-a-half-year-old "war on terror" has moved back to its South Asian roots. The deployment, which will take place over the next three months, will bring the total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record level of some 30,000 -- still significantly less than the 160,000 in Iraq but nonetheless an implicit admission that U.S. and NATO forces have not been able to subdue the largely Pashtun rebels. Indeed, on the eve of the Pentagon's announcement, a suicide bomber penetrated a luxury hotel in Kabul itself, setting off a blast that killed more than half a dozen people, including a U.S. citizen and a Norwegian reporter covering the visit of his country's foreign minister. The still-shaky security situation in Afghanistan, however, is not Washington's only concern in the region. Continuing political uncertainties in the wake of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination in neighbouring Pakistan, where a number of disparate Islamist and Pashtun militias have recently united under the leadership of a Pakistani Taliban commander closely allied with al Qaeda, have propelled that nuclear-armed nation to the top of Washington's national security agenda. Indeed, the assertion that "Pakistan is the world's most dangerous place" has become a new cliche of foreign policy discourse here in recent weeks. Last month, Defence Secretary Robert Gates highlighted that concern, noting that "al Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people," he asserted, just a week before Bhutto's assassination. Her killing, as well as indications that Pakistan's deeply unpopular president and former army chief, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was manoeuvring to first delay and then to manipulate elections now scheduled for next month, renewed a growing policy debate over what conditions, if any, Washington should attach to its nearly 1.5 billion dollars in mainly military aid to Pakistan this year. Indeed, the Pentagon's quiet announcement late on Dec. 31, just four days after Bhutto's assassination, that it had approved the transfer by defence giant Lockheed Martin of 18 F-16 warplanes to Pakistan fueled criticism that the administration's priorities were badly skewed. "The decision to go ahead with a half-billion sale of advanced fighter aircraft to Pakistan shows how dangerously misguided President Bush's policy is: How can the White House even think of green-lighting such a sale at such an incredibly sensitive time," said the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. "It sends exactly the wrong message to the Pakistani generals, and to the Pakistani people. This is the time we should be putting the pressure on the government and military to fully investigate the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and to hold free and fair elections -- not let them off the hook," he said. And while Biden and others argued that military aid should be conditioned on political reform, other critics have focused on recent reports that most of the 11 billion dollars the U.S. has provided Pakistan over the past five years has been used to buy conventional weapons systems more appropriate for war against India than the increasingly powerful Pakistani Taliban based in the Pashtun-dominated Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). "The F-16s really can't be used for counter-insurgency in FATA," according to Steve Coll, author of the prize-winning history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and al Qaeda from 1979 to 9/11, Ghost Wars and president of the New America Foundation (NAF). "The F-16s are a symbol of what has been wrong with U.S. aid to Pakistan." Increasingly worried about the advances made by the Pakistani Taliban under Baitullah Mehsud -- whom Musharraf blamed for Bhutto's assassination -- and the ineffectiveness of the Pakistani military in fighting it, top U.S. officials have been discussing plans to authorise the CIA and Special Operations Forces (SOF) to mount cross-border operations from Afghanistan against key Taliban and al Qaeda targets. Such actions, however, would trigger a severe backlash against both the U.S., whose popularity in Pakistan, like Musharraf's, is at an all-time low, and any Pakistani leader who was seen as condoning the raids, according to regional specialists. Musharraf himself has publicly denounced the idea, although he has occasionally permitted missile strikes against specific targets by U.S. aircraft based in Afghanistan. "It would be political suicide for a Pakistani leader to permit (such operations)," said Peter Berger, the co-director with Coll of the NAF's Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency Initiative and a well-regarded expert on al Qaeda and the region. "(Popular) approval for (Osama) bin Laden goes up to 70 percent in FATA and the Northwest Frontier," he added noting that one recent survey showed that three out of four Pakistanis nationwide oppose U.S. intervention. The administration is also reportedly mulling plans to try to replicate what it considers a success in Pakistan -- supporting Pashtun clan militias that are willing to take on Mehsud and his Taliban, although scores of clan leaders who might have taken up arms were executed or replaced by various Taliban factions over the last several years. A related option -- which appears to be the operational strategy at the moment -- is to ensure that at least some U.S. military aid is tied to specific performance, step up counter-insurgency training for the army and the paramilitary Frontier Corps, and provide 750 million dollars in development aid to FATA over five years as part of a long-term effort to weaken the insurgency. But Christine Fair, a regional specialist at the Rand Corporation, has argued that such a plan is "four years too late" given the degree to which radical forces have taken control of the region. "I'm not sure who we would spend it on," she said at a recent briefing. U.S. officials are also hoping that next month's elections will produce a large moderate and secular majority in parliament, oust the radical coalition of Islamist parties that currently control regional governments in the Pashtun belt, the NWFP and Baluchistan, and help restore confidence in the central government which has been badly battered by Musharraf's efforts over the past year to remain in power. Meanwhile, Washington hopes that the additional troops next door will help both stabilise Afghanistan and shame its reluctant NATO allies into sending more troops to the same end. Of the 3,200 new troops, about 1,000 will be used for training the Afghan Army, and the rest will be deployed to southern Afghanistan to fight the Taliban alongside British, Australian, Dutch and Canadian troops, who have taken record casualties during the past year.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily |
