The offensive began under cover of darkness
| Afghanistan conflict an 'information war' |
| By Jonathan Marcus
BBC News diplomatic correspondent | 
It's called shaping the battlefield. It's not the traditional air onslaught or artillery barrage designed to weaken an intended enemy before the offensive goes in.  Nato is keen to portray an image of co-operation and camaraderie | Instead it's now about shaping the information battlefield, because in Afghanistan - and in modern warfare in general - information has become the new front line. At the very heart of Nato and the Pentagon, the disciples of the new art of "strategic communications" know that perceptions matter. Nato's top commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, made this point explicitly in a recent interview. "This is all a war of perceptions. This is not a physical war in terms of how many people you kill or how much ground you capture, how many bridges you blow up. This is all in the minds of the participants." Any information you send out carries with it a variety of messages. 'Telegraphed' Take the current operation in Helmand. It has been broadcast widely in advance. It even has a not-so-catchy title: Operation Moshtarak, which in Dari translates as "together".  Gen McChrystal has called the Afghan conflict a "war of perceptions" | So there you have it, already three messages, if not more. The operation's title is in a local language and it stresses the idea of partnership - doubly signifying that this is a joint operation between Nato and Afghan government forces doing the job "together". The advance warning too sends a crucial signal - it is part of a deliberate and explicit strategy to encourage civilians to take precautions; to calm and inform tribal leaders; and perhaps to encourage some Taliban fighters to make themselves scarce. "This operation has certainly been telegraphed in advance far more than previous operations," one Nato insider said, "but the alliance has been doing this kind of thing for some time. "The message is clear. We are determined to take the area, but in such a way as to minimise violence", the official said. "But if we have to fight for it, we will win." 'Psy-ops' That sounds just a bit more like the traditional kind of message you would expect at such a time, but the reality is that on the information battlefield, just as in operations on the ground, things have changed dramatically. What began as inducement or encouragement for troops to lay down their arms, or basic instructions to civilians not to get in the way of military operations - think leaflets dropped by aircraft in World War II - has blossomed into almost a social science of cause and effect. Psychological operations or "psy-ops" of the 1950s have morphed into information warfare. There have been uneasy debates about where the boundary line between this and the traditional press officer's role should be, because, let's face it, the media is an involuntary actor in this drama too. However the new discipline of strategic communications seeks to go beyond information operations, press briefings and leaflet drops. It is, in the words of one alliance official, "an over-arching concept that seeks to put information at the very centre of policy planning." When you are fighting wars within communities in an effort to secure popular support for one side or another - the traditional struggle for hearts and minds - you can see how central the concerns of the new strategic information warriors have become. In some ways, this is at the very core of modern counter-insurgency strategy. 'No hiding' However there are limitations, not least those related to the ubiquity of the modern mass media. As Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute in London, said: "Strategic communications can only ever give out one message. They've tried in the past to put out split messages and it doesn't work." So much of what people hear in Helmand province, they also hear in Britain and in other troop-contributing countries. "There's a positive side to this," says Mr Clarke, "It's a consistent message, but the danger is that if things on the ground get messy, there will be no hiding from it." The information frontline is in effect everywhere. This growing centrality of information and the need to shape perceptions inevitably prompts critics to suggest that this is all not so new after all - isn't it just one huge propaganda exercise writ large? Not surprisingly, one of the new Nato information warriors disagrees. "In strategic communications, the messages you are sending must fit the facts on the ground," he says. "The discipline is about bringing perceptions and reality together to achieve an effect." 'Untidy end' Many critics may remain unconvinced seeing the whole thing as a giant spin-machine intended to accentuate the positive and present one particular carefully-controlled narrative of events.  Advance warning has been sent to Taliban leaders and militants | Because that, in a sense, is what is at stake - it is a battle for the narrative. Whose interpretation of what is happening is going to prevail? This new focus raises uncomfortable questions for anyone involved in the information business. Perceptions matter in another way too. There is unlikely to be a tidy end to the Afghan conflict. Nobody really can define what "victory" or "defeat" in the traditional sense might mean. So if it is to be an untidy conclusion then what people think about it - how they judge the outcome - really does matter. It used to be said that: "Britain won its wars on the playing fields of Eton." But now a new kind of warfare means that the information battle has to be fought on multiple fronts by multiple actors. From the fields of Helmand to the small towns of Kansas; from the tribal areas of Pakistan to British cities where voters are girding themselves for a coming election, the news from the Afghan battle-front will shape perceptions - and these perceptions will inevitably shape future policy |
-led forces say they are making good progress hours after launching the biggest offensive in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.
There were clashes as more than 15,000 US, UK and Afghan troops swept into the Helmand districts of Marjah and Nad Ali in a bid to secure government control.
The Afghan regional commander said 20 militants had been killed. Two Nato soldiers are confirmed to have died.
A Taliban commander reportedly said his men were retreating to spare civilians.
Operation Moshtarak - which means "together" in the local Dari language - is being led by 4,000 US Marines, supported by 4,000 British troops, with Canadians, Danes and Estonians.
'Heavily booby-trapped'
The BBC's Frank Gardner, with Nato forces at Kandahar airbase, says the test of the operation's success will not be on the battlefield.
 | AT THE SCENE Ian Pannell
BBC News, Nad Ali It's been a very successful day for British forces. They were able to move into several key villages and establish a foothold. Broadly speaking, they met little resistance. There was sporadic gunfire. One RPG was fired over the location where we are based. It's fair to say that the Taliban decided to move out of the district. Many civilians have also left, and the challenge in the coming days and weeks is to persuade them to come back, to establish meaningful security and then allow meaningful governance to take place. What will make a difference is if there is meaningful security established and if the local people feel confident enough to place their faith in local security forces. This is an operation that has only just begun and it will take weeks and months before we know how successful it has been. Operation Moshtarak: Diary |
It all depends on whether the coalition can hold the ground and bring lasting security and good governance to the population of central Helmand.
A spokesman for Nato's Isaf force has confirmed to the BBC that two soldiers have been killed in Operation Moshtarak.
One died in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack and another from small-arms fire. No further information has been released on the location.
Three US soldiers were also killed by an IED, Nato said, although it is not clear whether they were part of Operation Moshtarak.
Mohammad Zazai, commander of Afghan troops in the operation, said: "So far, we have killed 20 armed opposition fighters. Eleven others have been detained." The casualties and captures were in separate incidents.
Troops have been advancing carefully, picking their way through poppy fields, trying not to set off Taliban bombs.
A canal bridge into Marjah was so rigged with explosives that US Marines had to erect temporary crossings to reach the town, reports the Associated Press.
Helmand Governor Gulab Mangal told a news conference the Taliban had "heavily booby-trapped the area".
Marjah resident Abdul Wahaab told AFP by telephone as he and his family left the town: "We were sleeping when all of a sudden we heard this horrible noise - it was helicopters bringing in soldiers.
"As we were crossing the village we saw US and Afghan soldiers on the junctions. There were lots of them."
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who approved Operation Moshtarak, warned troops to avoid civilian casualties, and called on Taliban fighters to lay down their weapons.
Nato says Marjah is home to the biggest community under insurgent control in the south.
'On the hop'
It was estimated there were between 400 and 1,000 militants based there before Operation Moshtarak was launched.
| MARJAH: 'TALIBAN STRONGHOLD' Town and district about 40km (25 miles) south-west of Lashkar Gah Lies in Helmand's 'Green Zone' - an irrigated area of lush vegetation and farmland Last remaining major Taliban stronghold in southern Helmand Area considered a centre for assembling roadside bombs Key supply centre for opium poppies - lucrative revenue source for Taliban Estimates of Taliban numbers range up to 1,000 Population of Marjah town put at 80,000 while the whole of Marjah district is thought to have 125,000 Who are the Taliban? Conflict reaches critical juncture Details on Operation Moshtarak |
Marjah has also long been regarded as a linchpin of the lucrative network for smuggling opium - the raw ingredient used to make heroin - harvested from Helmand's poppy fields.
Nato Commander Maj Gen Nick Carter told the BBC the offensive had been "so far extremely successful".
"Indeed it would appear that we've caught the insurgents on the hop - he appears to be completely dislocated," he said.
Later at a Ministry of Defence briefing in London, Maj Gen Gordon Messenger said the UK force of more than 1,000 troops had secured their "key objectives" at the start of Operation Moshtarak.
The offensive began with waves of helicopters ferrying US Marines into Marjah in the early hours of Saturday.
British troops then flew into Nad Ali district, to the north, followed by tanks and combat units.
HAVE YOUR SAY We have little choice. We pull out, Pakistan falls. This is the era of the new domino theory.
David Cheshire, Dorset, UK
Send us your comments Jets and helicopters fired missiles at Taliban positions.
The BBC's Ian Pannell in Nad Ali says the vast majority of villagers seem to have left the area to avoid getting caught in crossfire between the Taliban and Nato troops.
Mullah Mohammed - a Taliban commander in Marjah - told ABC News that his men were pulling back to spare any civilian casualties.
"We found civilians in massive danger so we decided to go backward just to save villagers' lives," he said. His claim cannot be verified.
Nato had distributed leaflets in the Marjah area warning of the planned offensive in a bid to limit civilian casualties.
It is the first major offensive since US President Barack Obama ordered a "surge" of 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan in December.
More than 1,900 Afghan police will provide support after the initial military operations end, and a large team of Afghan administrators has been assembled.
The operation is part of an effort to secure a 320-km (200-mile) horseshoe-shaped string of towns that runs along the Helmand River, through Kandahar and on to the Pakistani border.
The area holds 85% of the population of Kandahar and Helmand.
Bottom trawling bulldozes through reef habitats that are thousands of years old 
