Means versus objectives, government style

There has been an on-going debate about inadequate resources for our troops in Afghanistan, and usually conducted in terms of risk to the troops from road-side bombs.

The government is, however, not merely callous in deciding that the troops must achieve more with less, it is also confused in what it wants to achieve.

The stated objectives include to deny a large area in the country to the Taliban, at least until the elections are over, to re-build the country and to prepare the locals to resist insurgents after our departure.

The government wishes to capture and hold a significant area with a troop level that is not adequate. (It implicitly admitted this by sending out one hundred troops for the duration of the election, and then recalling them.)

What is needed is sufficient troops to take, and then to hold, areas at present occupied by the Taliban. Military leaders feel that his cannot be done with present troop levels and resources. Military leaders drew up plans involving fortified tower outposts to detect insurgent movements. These would have needed more troops and more helicopters to supply them. Ideally it would also require high flying "drone" aircraft to detect movement by day and night. These the US have, but not our troops.

The lack of helicopters is hampering operations not merely because we are losing troops who have to travel by land, or losing injured because there are insufficient helicopters, it is also limiting a "rapid response" ability to harry the Taliban whenever they re-appear.

So many times in Afghanistan we have taken land but not been able to hold it as we went on to take more. The sacrifice of lives and the waste of resources seems pointless when the Taliban wait until it is safe to return to land from which they have been driven.