The Guardian, Tuesday 16 December 2008
Will the extra 10,000 US troops proposed for Helmand province be integrated under a unified Nato command and strictly adhere to tightened rules of engagement to limit further civilian casualties, or will they be added to the 8,000 US forces still operating independently in Afghanistan (Pentagon sending thousands more soldiers to bolster UK forces in Afghanistan, 11 December)?
Second, Kim Howells asks why "British families should send their sons and daughters ... to risk their lives fighting religious fanatics, tribal nationalists, corrupt warlords and heroin traffickers in one of the most godforsaken terrains on the face of the earth", and argues that the only hope of peace rests in other Nato countries being more willing to fight (Ex-minister slates UK policy on Afghanistan, 11 December). So, to clarify, creating the stable conditions for development requires the defeat (killing, capture or surrender) of all the religious fanatics, tribal nationalists, corrupt warlords and heroin traffickers in Afghanistan. Has anyone in Isaf worked out what proportion of the Afghan people this entails subjugating and the number of troops required to pacify this failing state?
Dr Ian Davis
Director, Nato Watch