Disquiet in US over heavy bombing

Public criticism of American tactics and strategy in Afghanistan is growing in the US.

The authoritative New York Times has weighed in with an editorial which says: "With the war against Afghanistan now a month old, the US military has been forced to adjust its strategy."

The article by Michael Gordon in the usually hawkish paper says American commanders had expected the combination of bombing and commando operations to have broken the Taliban by now.

Mass defections had been expected. Instead the Taliban appear more tenacious than ever, and the commando attacks in particular are seen to have been failures.

Washington has now been forced to listen more to its allies, particularly the European Nato partners, which previously it had ignored.

Mr Gordon writes: "With public opinion in major European countries drifting away from support of the daily bombing of an already impoverished, ravaged country, and no tangible victory to show for a month of bombardment, the US has been obliged to embrace European offers of military support to demonstrate that the campaign against terrorism is a broad one."

One of the main criticisms from European allies, including some British military officers, is the continuing lack of good intelligence, not least on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. European partners and regional allies are also worried about the reluctance of the Pentagon to divulge their plans, even to partners such as Pakistan and Britain who they wish later to involve directly in their operations.

So far the Royal Marines and special forces units aboard HMS Fearless and HMS Illustrious have been given no specific missions or tasks, and until recently had no rules of engagement agreed with the US. European Nato partners, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, and Spain have offered nearly 15,000 personnel, including highly-trained specialists, as well as aircraft and ships.

These offers were "initially shunned" by the Pentagon according to the New York Times editorial. The Americans have been reluctant to confide in their European allies because of their experiences in the Kosovo campaign - where they believe lists of bombing targets were deliberately leaked to the Serbs by a French staff officer.

The US commander in charge of the Afghanistan operations, General Tommy Franks, refused to admit yesterday that the operation had stalled. But he would not divulge any concrete alternative planning either.

Asked if he was prepared to commit US and European ground troops, he said: "We want to keep all the options open. We want to continue planning, so that we can continue to do what I described initially, which is to provide our national command authority, provide the secretary, provide the president of the United States, with credible military options irrespective of what we hope, or may wish may happen."

Criticism has even come from would-be allies in the Afghan community. The family of the Pashtun chieftain Hamid Karzai, who is trying to organise anti-Taliban opposition around Kandahar, say that the open endorsement of him by the US has hampered his operations and put his life at risk.

The Pentagon said it had to rescue Karzai from the Taliban by helicopter, and even this statement has proved damaging according to his supporters. "If Karzai is backed by America, it will be very difficult for him to win over the people," said Nawab Mohammad Aslam Raisani, a chief from the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.