Simon Shercliff

First Secretary Foreign Security and Policy Washington

FCO Logo
Wednesday 18 November, 2009

Politics is a continuation of war by other means...

This seems to be a neat way - by paraphrasing Clausewitz - of describing how David Miliband characterises the complexity of the Counter insurgency strategy that we are pursuing in Afghanistan. In his speech yesterday to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, he added more flesh to the bones of our political strategy which he had first set out in public in July of this year, also to a NATO audience. The key messages are simple: 

  • "In the UK we support the prosecution of a serious counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan. We do not see that as an alternative to counter-terrorism, but as the best means to achieve it"
  • "we all agree that there can be no purely military solution; so let's take that mantra seriously"... recognise that we will succeed in Afghanistan only when our military resources and development assistance are aligned behind a clear political strategy"
  • "The goals of a political strategy are clear: to unite a critical mass of the key players behind shared goals - AQ kept out, the different tribal groups {that make up the rich heritage of Afghanistan] kept onside, and the neighbours prepared to play a constructive role in Afghanistan's future"
  • "I stress that a political strategy is not separate from a military strategy, or vice-versa. Each must be part of a single whole". 
  • And finally, the framework of the political strategy: "To be successful the political strategy must address three audiences. First, the Afghan people and their loyalty: to reassure and mobilise citizens to resist the Taliban, military effort to improve security must be allied to civilian effort to improve governance especially at the local level. Second, the insurgents and their determination to fight: military pressure to beat back the insurgency must be combined with support to flip sides rather than fight or run away. Third, Afghanistan’s neighbours: a new relationship must be forged between Afghanistan and its neighbours, based on the understanding that Afghanistan’s future is not as a client of any, but as a secure country in its own right." 

 

Please do click through and read the whole speech - the detail contained therein is our most comprehensive policy statement on where we need to go next in Afghanistan.

Posted at 09:32 18 November 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[0]

  • Share this with:
Tuesday 28 July, 2009

The political elements of our Afghanistan Strategy

While many column inches have been devoted in recent weeks to the actions of the British military in Helmand (including by me last week), yesterday at NATO, our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, outlined the key political elements of our Afghanistan strategy. After stating clearly that our objective in 2001 - the need to deny Al Qaeda a base from which to launch attacks on the world - still holds true in 2009, the basic thrust of his speech was that we can support the Afghan government in dismantling the insurgency which still threatens to provide that base by using the dual approach of military power and political engagement.

It has long been accepted wisdom that military force alone can not achieve lasting success in a counter-insurgency campaign. The role of military operations, such as those currently being conducted by British troops in Helmand, alongside their US and Afghan counterparts, is to deny insurgents the space to operate. Clearing and holding territory allows the Afghan government to extend its reach, delivering basic governance, justice and development. But whether military gains are translated into strategic success will ultimately depend on whether the insurgency is also undermined by politics.

David Miliband said that the future of Afghanistan must be shaped by three political strategies:

  • a strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reconciliation and reintegration, leading to an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan that draws in conservative Pashtun nationalists (providing, of course, they renounce violence and agree to abide by the Afghan political system).
  • a strategy for reassuring the wider Afghan population that they have a secure future under the legitimate Afghan government - which will depend on credible, clean government at provincial and district level, working with the grain of tribal Afghan society - and that the international community will stand by them as long as our support is needed (which will be long after the last combat troops have left)
  • a strategy for ensuring that Afghanistan's neighbours (including Iran and Pakistan) accept that Afghanistan's future is to be a secure country in its own right, in which each of its neighbours have a responsible and open stake - a friend to all and a client to none, in other words

 

He finished by setting out the priorities for the next six months, as seen by the British government: the Afghan presidential elections on 20 August must be credible and inclusive. The winning candidate must not only present a clear manifesto, but move quickly to implement it. The biggest shift in 'burden-sharing' must be towards the Afghan state assuming greater responsibility. In Pakistan, the international community must forge a new, sustained and long-term partnership focused in backing civilian institutions and democratic government. 

In other words, politics can and must succeed in Afghanistan.

Posted at 08:55 28 July 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[0]

  • Share this with:
Friday 24 July, 2009

The importance of Panther's Claw

Much has been said and written about the significant increase in fighting that British troops are currently undergoing in Helmand. We all mourn the losses we have suffered, and applaud the unstinting professionalism and bravery of the units involved. Back home in the UK a loud and fractious political debate has erupted over the provision of equipment to the troops, including the numbers of helicopters. But there has been much less of a focus on what is actually going on, and why.

Put simply, these classic military shaping and clearing operations are happening to allow around 80,000 Afghans to exist free from the shadow of the Taliban as the country prepares to vote in the Presidential elections on 20 August. Why is this so important? Because the more Afghans who can participate in deciding the future of their country, and who genuinely buy-in to the process, the more chance Afghanistan has to gather strength as a country and to resist encroachment by AQ and other militant groups.

As usual when our two militaries deploy together, the British operations are being conducted in close coordination with US forces, who are working to exactly the same agenda elsewhere in Helmand (bigger area, but with a lower density of people than where the British forces are). Crucially, they are also being conducted in partnership with the Afghan Security Forces - they are the ones who need to be seen defending their government and protecting their people.

But given that we are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign within a political strategy, the operations are being conducted along with a comprehensive, civilian-led effort to stabilise and develop (hold and build) the parts of Helmand province which most need it.

We all agree that there is no purely military solution to Afghanistan. What is happening in Helmand right now is a concrete example of the strategy President Obama and Prime Minister Brown have set out. We all want the military operations to take the minimum amount of time and resources possible. But they are an essential part of our agreed approach, which will set the foundations for a long-term, civilian-led aid relationship with Afghanistan.

Posted at 17:27 24 July 2009 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[1]

  • Share this with: