THE US poured 4,000 marines into Afghanistan’s Helmand province yesterday in its biggest operation for five years to try to wrest the poppy-filled river valley permanently from the Taliban.
In helicopters, armoured vehicles and on foot, the marines fanned out to Afghan villages in two districts previously dominated by insurgents in a mission codenamed Operation Khanjar (Sword Strike).
Reports from the two districts, Nawa and Garmsir, said the offensive met only modest resistance. However, marine officers said they had expected the Taliban to slip away and deliver their response with roadside bombs and ambushes. One marine was killed and others injured.
Pakistan posted troops across the border from Helmand in an effort to block a Taliban retreat into Pakistan, a tactic that has hitherto allowed the insurgents to withstand successive Nato offensives. But Pakistani officials said they had not sent more soldiers to the border. They simply redeployed their existing garrison.
The operation represents a shift in Nato strategy, putting primary emphasis on protecting the local population and providing a sense of security, rather than on killing Taliban fighters. If successful, it is likely to be used as a model for other offensives across the south and east.
The marines are under orders to set up outposts in the villages and stay there to convince local people that the Taliban will not be allowed to return and that it will be safe to take part in next month’s presidential elections. The Taliban have threatened to kill anyone taking part in the elections, which Nato sees as essential in bolstering the credibility of the Kabul government.
Capt Bill Pelletier, a spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan, reflected the new hearts and minds approach when, after disclosing US casualties, he stressed there had not been civilian casualties or damage to property, and added there had been no artillery or other indirect fire “and no bombs have been dropped from aircraft”.
Anthony Cordesman, one of the best-known military strategists in the US, who is based at Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies, agreed that the US was shifting its strategy to a “shape, clear, hold and build” one that focused on lasting security and development of population centres rather than simply defeating insurgents in the field and remote areas.
Crucial to its success would be a bigger effort by the Afghan government, he said. There was disappointment among American forces that only 600 Afghan government troops were available to join the operation.
Mr Cordesman, who is in Afghanistan, said coalition forces could clearly win tactical battles. The question was whether coalition forces “can work with Afghan forces to actually hold population centres, provide security and economic opportunity and reverse the growth of Taliban and [Pakistan-based Siraj] Haqqani presence and influence”.
He added: “The battles in Helmand are only a first step in this process, which will take at least two years and require a far more honest and effective effort by the Afghan government to serve the Afghan people and win their support than has taken place to date.” The current US operation was preceded and complemented by a British airborne assault north of Lashkar Gah, just over a week ago codenamed Panther’s Claw, intended to wrest control of river crossings from the Taliban and expanding the area under British control, also with the aim of preparing the ground for elections.
“This is a very specific example of fighting for democracy,” said Michael Clarke, the director of the UK’s Royal United Services Institute. “This is all about taking and occupying ground so people can register for the August elections. That’s what is at stake here. That’s how it will be judged.”
The American troops have been told by their new commander, Lieut Gen Stanley McChrystal, that avoiding civilian casualties is a priority, and that if there is a risk of killing the local people in a fight with the Taliban, they should pull back and return another day.
“This could provide a blueprint for future operations around the south and east of Afghanistan,” said Christopher Langton, a military analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
“McChrystal has made himself quite clear. We won’t expect to see 500lb bombs dropped from high altitude. I think they have finally woken up to this. It was something that was losing them the war.”
Lieut Gen McChrystal was unexpectedly appointed commander in Afghanistan last month to replace Gen David McKiernan.
Lieut Gen McChrystal was overall commander of US special forces and a counter-intelligence specialist, whereas Gen McKiernan was a more traditional battlefield soldier.
Lieut Gen McChrystal fitted in better with the kind of new thinking Barack Obama wanted in Afghanistan. Mr Obama sees a military solution alone as doomed to failure and wants US forces to work in parallel with development of a civilian infrastructure. The protection of civilians to win hearts and minds was reinforced by the marine brigade commander, Brig Gen Lawrence Nicholson.
"Our focus is not the Taliban," he told his officers, according to the Washington Post. "Our focus must be on getting this government back up on its feet."
“We’re doing this very differently,” he said. “We’re going to be with the people. We’re not going to drive to work. We’re going to walk to work.”
Gilles Dorronsoro, in a new report this week for the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment, sees the focus on Helmand as a mistake. He argues that the US should concentrate instead on fighting them in the north and around Kabul where they are making alarming progress before taking them on in their strongholds in the south and east.
He said: “The Taliban have a strategy and a coherent organisation to implement it, and they have been successful so far. They have achieved most of their objectives in the south and east and are making inroads in the north. They are unlikely to change in the face of the US troop surge.”
– (Guardian service)