Kajaki Dam-The Logistics and Security Nightmare in Afghanistan

Last year, two thousand British troops took part in a mission to deliver 220 tons of equipment to the Kajaki dam in Afghanistan. It took two thousand troops because NATO could not secure 30 miles of road from the Taliban. Now it seems the turbine will not be used because NATO can still not secure the same 30 miles of road.

Do the math. Afghanistan is landlocked. It is a logistical nightmare. Putin has generously allowed US forces to fly across Russia to get there. Why not help the Americans to go broke and ultimately be humiliated in Afghanistan?

Watch the video and read the article. Would you throw in 30,000 more troops and tens of billions of freshly printed dollars to accomplish exactly what?

_____________________________________________





Taliban stalls key hydroelectric turbine project in Afghanistan
Convoy diverted British troops from front but generator may never be used

Jon Boone in Kabul
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 December 2009 22.18 GMT

An enormous hydroelectric turbine dragged at huge cost by British troops through Taliban heartlands last year may never be installed because Nato has been unable to secure a 30-mile stretch of road leading to an isolated dam in northern Helmand.

The daring mission to deliver 220 tonnes of equipment to the Kajaki dam in Afghanistan in September 2008 was hailed as one of the biggest success stories of the British Army's three-year deployment in Helmand.

Two thousand British troops took part in the five-day convoy through enemy territory, which was launched because the main road leading to the dam was too vulnerable to Taliban attacks.

Senior British officers privately say the enormous diversion of scarce military resources for the operation allowed the Taliban to make major gains in other critical areas of the province, including Nad Ali, which subsequently saw some of the most intense fighting between British forces and insurgents.

Within a couple of months of the Kajaki operation, areas close to the British base in Lashkar Gah had deteriorated so badly that troops had to be resupplied by air drop.

The dam continues to be besieged by Taliban fighters and, 15 months after the mission by the UK troops, the turbine's components remain unassembled because huge amounts of cement that are required to install the equipment cannot be delivered safely.

Now the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the wing of the United States government which has so far pumped $47m (£29m) into the project, intended to electrify much of southern Afghanistan, says it is packing the turbine parts away and looking for other energy projects to invest in across Afghanistan.

"Our message is that until we have a secure road we cannot continue with the installation of turbine two," said John Smith-Sreen, head of energy and water projects for USAID in Kabul.

"When the turbine was moved in by British and American forces it was a huge effort and it was done in a point of time. But we can't move in the large quantity of cement and aggregate that we need in a point of time, we need a sustained effort," he said.

The road would need to be secured for about half a year.

While the cement required could probably be transported in around half that time, civilian contractors would need to see the road had been secured for about three months to attract them to the project, Smith-Sreen said.

He added that CMIC, a Chinese company contracted to install the turbine, "left due to security concerns overnight" when it was clear that the road would not be secured. The agency has not been able to find another subcontractor prepared to do the work.

USAID says about 30 miles of road is affected, but at a time when General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, is pursuing a strategy of concentrating effort on protecting large towns and cities from Taliban influence, securing a stretch of road in a sparsely populated area of northern Helmand is unlikely to be a priority.

A spokesman for Task Force Helmand said there are no plans to change the current security operations at Kajaki, where British soldiers are responsible for an ongoing effort to provide a security "bubble" around the plant.

While insurgents have been unable to get close to the dam and its turbine hall, heavy fighting around the perimeter of the area of British control is an almost daily occurrence.

Smith-Sreen said USAID was currently "deciding what to do" with the turbine, but that the process of mothballing it had already begun in the run up to the contract expiring in April.

"Unless we are told otherwise we are going to continue the process of inventorying the parts and storing them away securely," he said. He said the agency had other areas where it was considering investing resources, including smaller electricity projects across country.

The problem of Kajaki highlights an dilemma for Nato forces trying to use development to win hearts and minds in an area where construction work is impossible or hugely expensive.

When the dam was built by US engineers in the 1950s as part of the cold war gamesmanship with the Soviet Union two turbines were installed, but a third bay was constructed and left empty. The intention had been to put the turbine in that slot when it was delivered last year.

Smith-Sreen said USAID was satisfied with the work it has been able to do to rehabilitate the two existing turbines, which since October have been transmitting around 33 megawatts to the southern provinces – "more power than either Kandahar or Helmand has seen for 30 years".

However, the same fighting that has made the road leading to the dam insecure has also led to frequent blackouts for Kandahar city and Lashkar Gah, with the power transmission lines from the remote generating plant regularly cut.

"We've had to slice the line back together many times," he said.

Better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders.

Hat tip: Desert Rat

Writing in the Guardian, Kim Howells – who had ministerial responsibility for Afghanistan until 2008 – said: "It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders [and] gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain."

Kim Howells, a former minister, said the shooting dead of five British soldiers by a rogue Afghan policeman has dealt a blow to the heart of the UK's exit strategy.

Mr Howells, who now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, said the incident in the Nad-e'Ali district of Helmand province yesterday undermined the British and US strategy of building up the Afghan security forces.
"There are many people who have argued that there is only one way out of this for Britain and America and that is to train up the Afghan army and police force so that they can become responsible for their own security.

"This is a real blow because it strikes right at the heart of that policy."
Earlier, Dr Howells broke with Government policy by calling for the phased withdrawal of British troops, arguing that the money would be better spent on police and security measures to prevent al Qaeda terror attacks in the UK.
__________________________

British soldiers killed in attack by Afghan policeman
Ministry of Defence says five soldiers died after 'rogue' policeman opened fire in Helmand province

Mark Tran, Alexandra Topping and Jon Boone in Kabul
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 4 November 2009 09.43 GMT

Five British soldiers have been killed and several others injured in a gun attack by a "rogue" Afghan policeman in Helmand province, the Ministry of Defence said today.

The soldiers – three from the Grenadier Guards and two from the Royal Military police – were killed by gunshot wounds suffered in the attack, which happened in the Nad-e'Ali district yesterday.

British and Afghan officials said the men were killed at a police checkpoint when the policeman picked up his weapon and began firing.

They said the attacker's motives were unclear, adding that the incident was being investigated by Afghan authorities and the Royal Military police.

"The soldiers concerned were mentoring Afghan police," Lieutenant Colonel David Wakefield, an army spokesman, told Sky News.

"They were working inside and living inside an Afghan national police checkpoint.

"It would appear, and it is our initial understanding, that an individual Afghan policeman, possibly acting with another, started firing within the checkpoint before fleeing the scene."

Wakefield stressed that the attack had not come as a result of any breakdown or fight between British and Afghan forces.

The casualties were evacuated to hospital at Camp Bastion, with several flown there in Chinook helicopters and a US Black Hawk.

Two injured Afghan policemen were taken to hospital at Bost, in Lashkar Gah.

Peter Galbraith, a former deputy head of the UN mission in Afghanistan – who left his post over disagreements about the presidential elections – said "rushed" attempts to train extra Afghan officers for the now cancelled presidential election runoff meant such incidents could be expected.

"It is a terrible tragedy … but it is, I won't quite say inevitable, but it is not surprising," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said police usually received an eight-week training course, but it had been shortened to five weeks in order to have more police available for the elections, particularly in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, he added.

"The process of police training and recruiting has been very rushed," he added. "There isn't a lot of vetting of police before they are hired.

"It is not totally surprising that people were recruited who may have had Taliban sympathies or were infiltrated into the police by the Taliban, although I don't know yet whether, in this particular episode, that is exactly what happened."

The deaths make 2009 the bloodiest year for the British armed forces since the Falklands war, bringing the total so far to 93.

Until now, the worst period since the Falklands conflict had been 2007, when 89 members of the armed forces died on active service.

The death toll in Afghanistan since the conflict began in 2001 now stands at 229, and the increasing number of casualties has led to growing questioning of the eight-year war.

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, paid tribute to the soldiers, describing their deaths as a "terrible loss".

"My thoughts, condolences and sympathies go to their families, loved ones and colleagues. I know that the whole country, too, will mourn their loss," he said.

"They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I pay tribute to their courage, skill and determination. They will never be forgotten."

Brown said it was his "highest priority" to ensure troops had the best possible support and equipment and "the right strategy, backed by our international partners, and by a new Afghan government ready to play its part in confronting the challenges Afghanistan faces".

The defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, offered his condolences to the families of the soldiers and emphasised the need for the country to show "resolve" in supporting the Afghan conflict.

"It continues to be a difficult year in Afghanistan for our brave people who are operating within the most challenging area of the country," he said.

"We owe it to them to show the resolve that they exhibit every day in building security and stability in Afghanistan and protecting the UK from the threat of terrorism."

Earlier this week, the MoD announced that a senior army explosives expert had been killed while defusing a bomb in southern Afghanistan.

Staff Sergeant Olaf Sean George Schmid died as he tried to make safe an improvised explosive device in the Sangin region of Helmand on Saturday.

The 30-year-old had been about to end his tour of duty after five months in Afghanistan.

Abdullah Abdullah, President Hamid Karzai's closest challenger in the disputed Afghan presidential election, also offered his condolences to the relatives of the dead soldiers and stressed the need for international troops.

"Eight years down the road, we still need more troops in the absence of a credible and legitimate partner," Abdullah, a former foreign minister, said. "More soldiers and more resources are the only thing we can resort to."

The latest fatalities came as a major rift opened in the British government's support for the Afghan war, with the former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells calling for the phased withdrawal of UK troops from Helmand.

Howells, who is now Brown's intelligence and security watchdog, said the billions of pounds saved should be redirected to defending the UK from terrorist attacks by al-Qaida.

Writing in the Guardian, Howells – who had ministerial responsibility for Afghanistan until 2008 – said: "It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders [and] gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain."

Obama will not cede a strong defense to the Republicans

General George B. McClellan, fired by a previous President from Illinois.

Brits beware: Obama means business in Afghanistan
Posted By: Con Coughlin at May 12, 2009 telegraph

Con Coughlin opines about the firing of General David McKiernan as a warning to the Western Alliance. It is also a warning to the Republican party that Obama will not be seen as weak on defense. We live in interesting times.

_______________________________

The summary dismissal of General David McKiernan, the American commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, by American President Barack Obama will send shock waves throughout the entire Western alliance.

Gen McKiernan was removed from his post after Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, concluded that American forces based in the country "can and must do better".

Mr Obama's decision to dismiss Gen McKiernan is a bold move, and suggests that the new American president is determined to make a success of the military campaign in Afghanistan.

If Iraq was President George W. Bush's war, Afghanistan is Obama's war, and the U.S. president is clearly determined that this military campaign does not suffer the same setbacks as American forces experienced in Iraq.

By the time next year's mid-term elections are held Mr Obama wants to be in a position to demonstrate that tangible progress is being made.

The timing of Gen McKiernan's removal is also significant, for a number of reasons. Mr Obama has already given his approval to a mini-surge strategy aimed at finally destroying the threat posed by the Taliban to Afghanistan's slow and painful transition to democratic government.

It will also send a warning to Downing Street, which has just refused to approve a request by British commanders to send extra combat troops to bolster the British force in Helmand province. Gordon Brown's failure to provide British commanders with the forces they need to do the job properly in Helmand means that they will now have to rely on the Americans to help them out, which will not exactly help to improve the transatlantic alliance.

There's no point Downing Street making a song and dance about being Washington's closest ally in the global campaign against Islamist terrorism if it does not deliver on its commitments, which now appears to be the case in Afghanistan.