CIA is undermining British war effort, say military chiefs

British intelligence officers and military commanders have accused the US of undermining British policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, after the firing of a key British ally in the Afghan province of Helmand. British sources have blamed pressure from the CIA for President Hamid Karzai's decision to dismiss Mohammed Daud as governer of Helmand, the southern province where Britain deployed some 4,000 troops this year. Daud was appointed in mid-year to replace a man the British accused of involvement in opium trafficking, but Karzai summoned him to Kabul and fired him on Dec. 7, along with his deputy. "The Americans knew Daud was a main British ally," one official said, "yet they deliberately undermined him and told Karzai to sack him." The official said British Defense Secretary Des Browne was "tearing his hair out." Meanwhile, a confidential assessment of the situation in Iraq has reported "serious tensions" in the US-British coalition. US commanders in the country are believed to oppose the British strategy for handing over Maysan and Basra provinces to Iraqi control as part of an exit strategy. The disagreements have come into the open after the summary firing of Daud, Britain's protégé. Although rival delegations from Helmand were in Kabul last week, one calling for his removal and the other demanding that he stay, a diplomatic source said Karzai had listened to advice from "other powerful Western players." Daud, who had survived several Taliban assassination attempts, was seen as a key player in Britain's anti-drug campaign in Helmand. He was also the architect of a deal under which British forces moved out of the town of Musa Qala, where they had been involved in fierce combat with Taliban fighters. But the US publicly criticized truces in Musa Qala and other Helmand towns, saying they effectively gave in to the Taliban. A British diplomatic source said: "We backed Mohammed Daud because he was an honest man and a progressive man, so obviously this is very disappointing. However, it is also true that he was under tremendous pressure and his position was getting weakened. Where does this leave our policy? Well, we shall have to wait and see." The British commander of the NATO force in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General David Richards, has also come in for US criticism as "too political." The US supreme commander of NATO, General Jim Jones, has let it be known, according to sources, that Richards "would have been sacked if he had been an American officer." Richards, for his part, has been frustrated that his call for extra NATO troops to form a strategic fighting reserve has been largely unheeded.