UK: In Afghanistan to topple Al-Qaeda

We're In Afghanistan To Topple Al-Qaeda, Says Armed Forces Minister

By Michael Evans, Richard Beeston and Catherine Philp
London Times
August 4, 2009

British troops are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from using it as a base to plot terror strikes against Britain, a defence minister said yesterday.

Responding to criticism that the Government had failed to explain its strategy in the Afghan campaign, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, said British troops were battling against an insurgency that, if it were to succeed, “would provide free rein to the terrorist capacity that inspired, planned and provided support for attacks like those of 9/11, of 7/7, and many more besides”.

Mr Rammell insisted that although al-Qaeda?s main base was now in Pakistan, the presence of British and American troops and forces from 40 other countries in Afghanistan was essential to prevent terrorists surging back into the country. He said that the terrorist threat to Britain would be “significantly greater” if the Taleban were allowed to regain control of Afghanistan, bringing al-Qaeda with it.

“We don?t want to be in Afghanistan for ever, that?s why our strategy is to provide greater security by building up the Afghan National Army, which is currently 90,000 and is rising to 140,000,” he said. Mr Rammell was the latest government minister to try to explain to the public why Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan.

His views were echoed by Nato?s new chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, who called on European countries to match the US commitment and prevent Afghanistan from becoming “a Grand Central Station of international terrorism”.

Mr Rasmussen said that Nato?s survival could depend on more European troops to dispel the perception that Afghanistan was a US operation. “If the Americans are to continue to regard Nato as relevant, so Europe has to do its part,” he said. General Stanley McChrystal, Nato?s top commander in Afghanistan, is preparing to demand thousands more US troops to train and support a vast parallel surge of Afghan troops, placing him on a collision course with President Obama.

General McChrystal, who will submit a review to the White House and Nato headquarters next week, was appointed by Mr Obama in the belief that he would not demand more troops. His demands, though, are backed by Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who said that without a doubling of Afghan troops, from 150,000 to 300,000, the conflict could be lost.

Middle Eastern counter-terrorist sources said that while Nato was focusing its military effort on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda had been allowed to rebuild itself after the deal signed by Pakistan in 2006 with elders in the tribal regions, which lifted the threat of attack against al-Qaeda. One source told The Times that “2007 was the best year for al-Qaeda since 2001, because many hundreds of foreign volunteers came to fight for them”.

Only the campaign by the Americans, using unmanned Predator spy drones armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs, had succeeded in making inroads into the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. In 2008 and so far this year, 20 commanders had been killed, the sources said.

Mr Rammell said that the Government?s strategy embraced Afghanistan and Pakistan. “For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be secure, Pakistan needs to be secure,” he said, speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Of the people arrested in connection with terrorist offences in Europe over the past few years, a significant proportion have been trying to engage in insurgencies in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Some people, he said, believed that the West “brought this on ourselves, that if we hadn?t gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, all would have been well”. He said that George W. Bush, the former US President, could not be blamed for al-Qaeda?s atrocities. “This strand of thinking ignores the reality that the planning of 9/11 took place while Bill Clinton was in the White House and the prospects for peace in the Middle East were closer than they had been for a generation,” he said.

It is understood that a Conservative administration would consider appointing a Minister for Afghanistan who would attend Cabinet meetings when Afghanistan is being discussed and complement the Defence and Foreign Secretaries.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the Government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain?s objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required.”