Linda Norgrove rescue attempt: what went wrong?

The story of the death of the Scottish aid worker Linda Norgrove during a failed attempt to rescue her from Taliban kidnappers in Afghanistan's Kunar Province by US special forces is taking a highly unusual direction.

The way the story is now being presented by US and British officials, including the prime minister David Cameron, is highly indicative of the way America is conducting the war in Afghanistan, and its attitude to allies like Britain.

At first the story seemed relatively straightforward. Linda Norgrove, 36, an experienced aid director in a number of war-torn countries, was seized in September when she and her three Afghan assistants left Jalalabad by car for a remote part of Kunar Province where she was helping direct a number of projects for the US aid organisation DAI.

The three Afghans, including the driver were released. At the weekend the place where she was being held prisoner was located, and after consultation with the British foreign secretary William Hague and the prime minister, the US special forces decided to mount a rescue. Among the  team that landed by helicopter a short distance from the compound were Navy Seals, specialists trained in hostage rescue.

In the ensuing skirmish six of the suspected terrorists as well as Norgrove were killed. None of the rescue party was hurt.

At first it was put out that Linda Norgrove had died at the hand of her captors, most likely by one of them detonating a suicide bomber's vest packed with explosives.

Then a day later we get a different version of events suggesting that Linda Norgrove may actually have been killed by the rescue team throwing grenades into the compound where she was held.

This is where the story gets distinctly odd, not to say murky.

The new version of events was conveyed personally to the prime minister by the senior American commander in Afghanistan - David Petraeus himself. General Petraeus then went public to announce a full enquiry by none other than the chief of staff, or the number two, of the US special operations command, Major General Joseph Votel.

This suggests that General Petraeus suspects something went seriously wrong.

The whole abortive rescue, apparently, has been recorded on video by the helicopters on the mission and a drone flying overhead. Reports from Afghanistan suggest the tapes show clearly the American rescuers firing a volley of grenades before they move in to the compound.

So why did the Americans state so categorically that Norgrove had been killed by her captors, most likely by means of a suicide vest?

William Hague, the foreign secretary, said there had been no fewer than 12 meetings of the Cobra security committee to discuss the fate of the aid worker.

At the weekend it was feared she "was going to be passed up the terrorist chain which would increase further the already high risk that she would be killed". But does this mean her life was in immediate danger? Nonetheless the foreign secretary and prime minister said the American rescue attempt should go ahead.

Here we come to the second big puzzle - which the US/UK enquiry won't be able to resolve. Apparently at no time did the Americans ask British special forces in Afghanistan to assist on the grounds that Kunar is in an American area of operations and the British SF are busy round Helmand and Kandahar.

Nor did William Hague urge the UK SF command to get directly involved – and besides Cobra is a committee for domestic and not external security.

British and American special forces have good relations, often work together, and have a healthy mutual respect as well as rivalry. The British SAS and SBS are highly trained in hostage rescue, particularly in mapping the location of a hostage before going in and opening fire.

The fact that General Petraeus responded so powerfully and ordered such a major enquiry, is also significant. Petraeus is a known Anglophile and this suggests he must be worried that this could gravely affect Anglo-American relations, particularly at a time when the new UK government is talking about drastic defence cuts - and when he and fellow commanders are desperate not to lose the very active efforts of the Brits in Afghanistan.

For the new British prime minister and foreign secretary it was their first test in tackling a serious and immediate terrorist crisis. It is not an area in which either have had much interest or experience.

They need to show that in arriving at their decision to give the American special operations team the go-ahead, they both heeded and took the best advice available to them from the directorate of MI6, the director of special forces, and the British special forces command on the ground in Afghanistan. ·