Army chief says talks with Taliban should start soon

BBC News online 27 June 2010

The head of the British army believes politicians and military chiefs should talk to members of the Taliban sooner rather than later.


Gen Sir David Richards said that in every counter-insurgency campaign, there was "always a point which you start to negotiate with each other".

Nineteen British personnel have died this month, with 10 deaths in the past nine days.

David Cameron has said he wants UK troops out within five years.

Not giving up

Negotiation with moderate elements of the Taliban is likely to form an important part of future coalition strategy.

General Stanley McChrystal, fired last week as commander of multi-national forces, said there needed to be more engagement with those whose main motivation was financial, rather than ideological.

And at the London Conference on Afghanistan in January, plans were announced for an international fund to help integrate the Taliban back into civilian life.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend, Gen Richards said it was his personal belief that talking to the Taliban should happen "pretty soon".

"If you look at any counter-insurgency campaign throughout history there's always a point at which you start to negotiate with each other, probably through proxies in the first instance, and I don't know when that will happen," he said.

"From my own, and this is a purely private view, I think there's no reason why we shouldn't be looking at that sort of thing pretty soon.
'Maximum pressure'

"But at the same time you've got to continue the work we're doing on the military, governance and development perspectives to make sure they don't think we're giving up. It's a concurrent process and they're both equally important"

But Sir Richard Dannatt, a former head of the Army, told the BBC's Andrew Marr that the military must put "maximum pressure" on the Taliban to clear them out of Afghanistan.

Referring to the PM's comments about troop withdrawal, Sir Richard said it was important the Taliban were not able to "sit out" the time until international forces left their country.

He said counter-insurgency operations "always take time" and it was important the military effort was properly resourced and given political support.

To read this on the BBC website click here

General Sir Richard Dannatt - interviewed by BBC News

Jane Hill, BBC News presenter interviewed General Sir Richard Dannatt today

Here is a extract from the interview:

JH: Indeed, and I appreciate that this is for soldiers no matter where they’re serving, but you will appreciate that the focus so much this week, in particular, is on Afghanistan because of the grim milestone that was reached at the weekend, because we all look ahead to the elections later in the week. What is your feeling as to whether the public understands sufficiently well why, as a nation, our men and women are still in Afghanistan?

GSRD: Well we’ve got to be… get this message out as clearly as possible: we are in Afghanistan in a mission that’s difficult and dangerous; we must succeed and we will succeed. And I’d say three things about it: first of all, it’s an operation… it’s a war that’s being fought amongst the people, the people of Afghanistan – they are the scenery, the backdrop, if you like.

But secondly, it’s about the people, it’s about the people of Afghanistan. We need to persuade them that there is a better life than being under the influence of the Taliban. We need to persuade them to get out there and vote later on in the week to support their elected government, and persuade them that their future is more properly with their elected government, and not under the influence of the Taliban.

But thirdly, it’s for the people. It’s not just for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we could talk about that, but it’s also for the people of this country as well. I mean, there are those out there who would challenge our way of life; they’re challenging it in Afghanistan, they’re challenging it in Pakistan, and the links back here are very clear. So our security is very much wrapped up in the success that we have, or don’t have, but we are going to succeed in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, albeit it’s more difficult there. So this is amongst the people, it’s about the people, but it’s for the people, and it’s particularly about the people for the people of this country.

JH: I wonder whether there are many members of the armed forces who would like to see that message spoken about a little more, perhaps, by politicians, because you must get the sense that people read the newspaper headlines every morning and think why on earth are more and more and more largely British young men dying out there, and perhaps don’t understand everything that you have just articulated?

GSRD: Well, I don’t know, but if you think I’ve explained it clearly, then please roll this bit of film as widely as you can. I know that our ministers understand it exactly the same way and are endeavouring to put the same sort of message out. But we try and explain things clearly to our soldiers. They understand why they’re in Afghanistan. They know it’s a difficult and dangerous job, and I’m full of admiration for what they do. We’ve got to get it right. We will get it right. It’s going to take a bit of time.

We will go on doing, as the military, what we need to do until the Afghan capability is good enough to take over from us. That will take a few years. I don’t want to put a figure on that, but certainly two to four years, three to five years of this kind of level of commitment by the military. And then the development side of it, getting Afghanistan as a country that can sustain itself, that will take longer. People have talked in terms of longer figures, and that is sensible and appropriate to do that; 20, 30, 40 years – who knows how long it will take.

Places like Cambodia that previously have relied on drugs, it took that kind of length of time. But our operations are very clear: we have to clear areas of the Taliban, we have to hold them with sufficient troops, and then we have to allow a building process to go on so the people can see a better life. And when they see a better life, that’s when they’ll support Governor Mangal in Helmand, when they’ll support their elected president, whoever they elect this week, and then that’s the business about winning the hearts and minds. That’s why we say it’s about the people. Our soldiers know that, and I would really be grateful if the people of our country also understand it, because this mission isn’t just for the Afghans, it’s for the British people too. We will succeed and we must succeed – it’s really important.

JH: General Sir Richard Dannatt, thanks very much for your time this morning. Thank you.

GSRD: Thank you.

AUDIO: UK Army chief's 'shopping list'- BBC

The head of the British Army has said he will present the government with what he describes as a shopping list of essentials for British forces serving in Afghanistan.

The chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, was speaking to the BBC on a final visit to troops in Afghanistan before he stands down next month.

Sir Richard said more technical support was needed in order to "be able to see what the Taliban are doing".

Military spending not fit for purpose, says army head

The head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, on Friday delivered his starkest warning yet to the government about pressures on his soldiers, describing the defence budget as "unbalanced" and "heavily skewed" in favour of hi-tech, expensive platforms irrelevant to present conflicts such as Afghanistan.

In a clear reference to such projects as plans to deploy expensive US jets on two new large aircraft carriers and buy new Eurofighters for the RAF, he said: "We have an absolute obligation to understand their needs and to provide [British troops] with the tools and training to do their jobs, and not squander our increasingly scarce resources on those things that are not relevant to today's and tomorrow's absolute requirements."

Noting that just 10% of the existing defence equipment programme was being spent on the army, he continued: "History will not judge our decision-making kindly if we duck the difficult decision and just muddle through. We are at the cross-roads."

Dannatt said the armed forces were likely to be engaged in "intervention and stabilisation operations". "We are in an era of persistent conflict. Iraq and Afghanistan are not aberrations, they are signposts to the future. We risk becoming irrelevant if we do not adapt right across the board."

In a speech to the Chatham House thinktank, Dannatt called for a major rethink of Britain's military capabilities – much of which was still the legacy of the cold war. The threat of an attack on Britain by a hostile state had diminished; the danger now was of an "age of upheaval" characterised by a "kaleidoscope of conflict" involving terrorism, insurgency, and piracy.

He said the fight against al-Qaida-inspired extremism was "probably the struggle of our generation – perhaps our thirty years war" and that many of Britain's existing capabilities were of "questionable relevance".

The British were criticised by some in the US for failing to support the Iraqis more effectively when they took control of Basra from the militias after British forces had withdrawn from the city.

"Credibility with the United States is earned by being an ally that can be relied on to state clearly what it will do and then do it effectively.

"Credibility is also linked to the vital currency of reputation and in this respect there is a recognition that our national and military reputation and credibility, unfairly or not, have been called into question at several levels in the eyes of our most important ally as a result of some aspects of the Iraq campaign."