Kabul, Afghanistan 7 Aug 2006

Kabul Podcast Audio report by Mark Laity, NATO's civilian spokesman in Afghanistan Multimedia Audio file (MP3/2892kb) Kabul podcast with Mark Laity, NATO's civilian spokesman in Afghanistan Background NATO in Afghanistan How do you sum up this kind of week? One day you’re witnessing the formality of an historic change of command ceremony, the next day you’re handling the news that ISAF soldiers have died in combat – and of course by the end of this week other soldiers had also died in action. No question then, a tough start – but let me say up front that it’s no cliché what you hear about ISAF’s resolve being unaffected. When the news breaks the individual sadness and regret among the soldiers is very genuine, but the time for reflection is later, and the immediate need is dealing with the consequences – this is their job and they’re doing it. However, let me wind back to last Monday and the change of command ceremony in Kandahar that saw the NATO-led ISAF take over command of Southern Afghanistan from US-led coalition forces. NATO/ISAF is now responsible for 87% of Afghanistan , but even more significantly we are now responsible for the most challenging and violent part of the country. As the ceremony unfolded it gave me time to reflect on how far NATO has come both literally and metaphorically, as memory took me back to another such ceremony in another time, another continent, and in many ways another age. That other time was December 1995, as the NATO-led Implementation Force, IFOR, took over responsibility for security in Bosnia, following the NATO air campaign that led to the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the vicious Bosnian civil war. Then I was still a journalist, and the weather in Sarajevo was as cold as the weather in Kandahar was hot. Other things were similar; the headquarters carrying the NATO flag in 1995 was the Allied Rapid Reaction Corp, the same headquarters that’s now in Afghanistan . Then as now NATO’s mission came against a backdrop of discussion about the alliance’s purpose, for following its success in helping win the Cold War some asked what NATO’s role now was. Bosnia answered that question as the NATO air campaign helped deliver a peace deal and the NATO-led IFOR and SFOR provided security in Bosnia for 10 years. Further proof of NATO’s continuing relevance to the post-Cold War world was provided by its successful role in Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . Then came 9/11, and the global security picture changed. Once again NATO’s role in this new world was questioned, and once again the alliance is providing an effective answer, not least by its expanding role in Afghanistan . This is the place where 9/11 was planned, and where the people and government now want and need us to help them overcome their legacy of conflict. The presence of so many tribal elders and government leaders at the Kandahar ceremony added both colour and meaning to a ceremony otherwise dominated by drab desert camouflage uniforms. It’s in this context that the real historic significance of last Monday lies, because by taking on the south NATO has also taken on for the first time a major land combat operation. It’s the land combat that distinguishes it from previous and current NATO operations. In Bosnia and Kosovo there were air campaigns, followed by ground operations, albeit large-scale, where there was little or no fighting. At the time those missions seemed risky, and they were certainly difficult, but the south offers an altogether bigger challenge – in military terms perhaps the toughest NATO has ever faced. How tough was illustrated just one day after the change of command when three British soldiers died in an ambush in Helmand . Two days later four Canadians died in a series of running clashes with insurgents west of Kandahar city, and now another ISAF soldier has been killed in Helmand . When you’re involved in the operation, but still distant from the action, it’s difficult to describe the feelings such events produce. For some in the headquarters the feeling is more personal – they knew the unit, and sometime they knew the individual. For most of ISAF they were inevitably strangers, but the impact, the sense of loss, is still there, still palpable, because whether you knew them or not they are in your team and soldiers are nothing if not team players. But as I said at the start teamwork also means people carry on with the mission, not unaffected, but certainly equally determined, if not more so. In the south that mission has led to the coalition and the Afghan security forces launching a series of offensives against the insurgents, pushing into areas where the Taleban had created shadow administrations or had significant influence. It’s an important point because the impression some can get is that it is the Taleban who have been on the offensive when the reverse is the case - it was the coalition that had taken the initiative and moved into areas of insurgent strength and put them on the back foot. And in the vast majority of engagements it is the insurgents who take heavy losses Now it is ISAF which is determined to keep the initiative against the Taleban. However this is not fighting for fighting’s sake. The mission is clear, to provide security to more and more of Afghanistan to allow development and good governance, so producing lasting stability. ISAF’s work is well underway in Kabul , North and West Afghanistan . Now we are building on the work of the coalition in the south, and no-one is under any illusions about the risks or the challenges, but we also have the equipment and the people to make a real difference. That’s our job.