BBC Monday, 19 November, 2001, 06:38 GMT

UK troops' Afghan mission delayed

The troops could play a short-term role as in Macedonia

The deployment to Afghanistan of thousands of British soldiers has been delayed after "discouraging" reports from troops on the ground, the BBC has learned.

About 4,000 troops from units including the Parachute Regiment in Colchester and the Royal Marines in Arbroath had been on 48-hour standby since last week to fly to Afghanistan.

The troops had expected to fly out on Monday, but British defence officials have acknowledged more discussions with the Northern Alliance are needed before soldiers are sent in.

Military sources told the BBC the deployment had been delayed after "discouraging" reports from the 100 or so advance troops who have been working in Afghanistan since Thursday.

The troops on the ground, believed to be members of the Special Boat Service, have been securing Bagram airbase, about 10 miles north of Kabul, for potential future humanitarian and international diplomatic missions.

On Sunday a British delegation including Ministry of Defence personnel and Stephen Evans, the new UK representative in Afghanistan, left for Kabul for talks with the Northern Alliance on various issues, including the presence of British troops in the country.

At the weekend a row broke out after some members of the Northern Alliance - which now controls the capital Kabul - said the soldiers had been sent in without consultation and must leave.

Alliance 'in agreement'

But Foreign Office Minister Ben Bradshaw said they were welcomed by the Northern Alliance members "who mattered".

And on Sunday Northern Alliance Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah told a press conference the row had been resolved.

"The presence of British troops in Bagram at this stage is based on an agreement between us and the British government, and the aim of deploying them there is to provide security for humanitarian aid," he said.

"We are in the picture and in full agreement."

Andrew Gilligan, defence correspondent for BBC Radio 4's Today programme, said he believed thousands of British soldiers would still be sent out fairly soon.

"I think basically the Northern Alliance probably will be persuadable - after all, they owe their position very largely to western bombing power," he said.

"They probably do realise that they need western support and they need western help. They certainly don't want western enmity.

"I think what they'll be doing is trying to work out exact parameters for the deployment of these troops, what they will and won't be doing."

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2001

Answers

www.dailytelegraph.com/leaders

Keep the mission in mind

THE deployment of British troops in Afghanistan can be justified only if their mission is clearly defined and the duration of their presence strictly limited. The Government's abrupt decision last night to delay the deployment is therefore correct, even if it was taken under pressure from elements of the Northern Alliance. We must never lose sight of the fundamental reason why Britain and America became involved, which was the essentially defensive task of eliminating the threat posed by al-Qa'eda and its Taliban hosts. We came and we saw in order to conquer terrorism. That remains the aim.

Humanitarian motives always played a vital, but subsidiary, role. Western forces could undoubtedly help in the distribution of aid, but only by agreement with the victors. The wider question of Afghanistan's future political complexion - including such controversial and intricate issues as the status of women or religious minorities - lies beyond the capacity even of the Americans to resolve. We can no more impose democracy and human rights on the mujahideen than the Soviet Union could impose communism. The West may encourage the Afghans to embrace a more tolerant system by all manner of means - but not at the point of a bayonet.

Where does this leave the British troops that are already on the ground? The special forces who are still in hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the surviving terrorists must and will carry on until al-Qa'eda has been eradicated, at least from Afghan soil. No Northern Alliance warlord has objected to this search-and-destroy mission, nor is any likely to. Once it is accomplished, these forces will swiftly withdraw.

The more sensitive issue revolves around the humanitarian mission, for which purpose the Special Boat Squadron, together with American units, have secured the airport at Bagram, near Kabul. Last week, the Ministry of Defence was still intending to reinforce this vanguard. By yesterday, the Northern Alliance was signalling that no more than the present force of some 100 men would be welcome, and the MoD halted reinforcements. The situation at Bagram has thus become unsatisfactory, and potentially perilous, from the Western point of view. There are not enough Royal Marines on the ground to defend the airport, or even themselves, much less to provide any serious logistical support for the aid agencies. If we are to prevent a refugee catastrophe this winter, a considerably larger short-term military presence will be necessary.

Diplomacy may well be able to soothe the fears of those Afghan warlords who harbour the unjustified but understandable suspicion that Britain and its allies wish to establish a permanent bridgehead in their newly liberated country. In the longer run, Muslim troops - from Turkey, for example - might be more congenial to the Afghans than British or American. But our forces will not be made more welcome by their war-like hosts if ministers give the impression their mission is not merely to save people from famine, disease and exposure, but to reconstruct Afghan society on New Labour lines.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2001