Diane Abbott: We should listen to our troops – not to David Miliband
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
When I visited the British Army in Helmand province, Afghanistan, we travelled on military transport and stayed at two Army bases. We slept in tents, ate with the soldiers and were meticulously briefed by their commanding officers. But we also got the chance to talk to ordinary soldiers and junior officers. This is perhaps why my impression of our operation in Afghanistan is a little different from that of the Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Like him, I was impressed by the grace and gallantry of our soldiers. As one of their commanding officers put it to me, they are "ordinary people doing extraordinary things". I just wish I did not have the nagging worry that their mission, as currently conceived, may be futile.
We control very little territory in Helmand Province and the drugs trade thrives, feeding general lawlessness and funding the Taliban itself. And even if we could enforce law and order tomorrow, there is no functioning Afghan government to which we could hand over.
Soldiers who had been on two or three tours of duty told me that, as time went on, the general Afghan population was becoming disaffected – rather than being won over – because we had failed to bring peace and security. One young major said we had made a mistake being bogged down in huge bases, that we should be more mobile and take the fight to the Taliban more. But he also argued there should be more emphasis on soldiers learning the language and getting among the general population.
Many soldiers told me it would take 10 to 15 years to sort out. But at a cost of £4.1bn a year for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, who believes that the British taxpayer has the patience?
Only resolving the underlying political issues in the region will do that. And these include not just Israel-Palestine, but Kashmir.
Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I have been saying for some time I don't understand our mission in Afghanistan. The political aims are muddled, and the Afghan regime we're supposed to be supporting seems weak, corrupt and ineffective. Sounds very much like the Vietnam conflict of my youth.
We're not going to stay 10-15 years which is what it might take. We need an exit strategy. Letting Vietnam go didn't turn out to be the disaster the war lobby in the US said it would be. In the struggle against communism it was always a sideshow.
Leaving Afghanistan will not change the realities on terror. The battle against the bombers is political. A move towards solving the Palestine question is key. If resources both political and material were concentrated on solving that dispute it would do far more good than allowing our troops to be targets for roaming bands on Afghan guerilla fighters.
It's time to find and exit strategy. Our foreign and defence policy has far more important priorities than this futile war.
What the hell has this to do with this piece by a very fine politician.
So Britain under the traitors Blair and Brown have invaded Afghanistan and order our troops to continue to slaughter innocent Afghans based on the lie that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We invaded the wrong country, after all Israel was responsible 9/11, just like it was responsible for the JFK assassination, the attack on the USS Liberty, Lockerbie and the London bombings.
Machiavelli - not Milliband - would steer a statesmanlike course that faced a reality where there is no advantage to the UK in long term deployment of forces in Afghanistan. David Milliband will be replaced long before an outcome favoured by the British people is achieved.
They should have a voice.
Milliband hardly raises his voice in anger let alone be prepared to lay down his life
On September 20, 2001, according to the Guardian, "the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer."
On March 29, 2006, on The Tony Snow Show, Vice President Dick Cheney stated: "We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.htm
If Afghanistan wants to avoid more death it needs to find a government that is capable of recompensing its population properly once they have signed the pipeline deal. But also able to gain the majority of the Afghani peoples approval for the project in the first place.
What Afghanistan needs is a government chosen by the people and able to sign a contract for oil and gas pipelines with their peoples interests at heart. Unocal and the Asian Development bank are both pushing foreign governments to force Afghanistan into submission and install a strong government, (like the Taliban, with whom the original pipeline deal was struck) so as to proceed with their precious pipeline. Thus cutting Iran and Russia out of the profits from oil and gas reserves in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Interestingly the pipelines are to go two ways, one to India through Pakistan and Afghanistan. The other through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Europe, another very red hot zone of controversy. Shame on you Mr Obama for such obvious financial and geopolitical goals at the expense of a poor and desolate people. The majority of the fighting done by Afghani farmers protecting their land, much like the days of the railway expansion in the west.
It's a futile mission, we control little territory, there's lawlessness, the drug trade thrives and finances Muslim fanatics, there's no functioning Afghan government, the local Muslims are disaffected. 8,000 British soldiers, with virtually no air support, other than that offered by the USAF and a handfull of helicopters not needed by Prince Charles etc, can't control a province the size of Europe and are therefore confined to citadels. Well there's an unprecedented surprise. No invaders of Afghanistan have ever confronted that situation!
She implys that teaching our soldiers to speak Pushtun, and sending them out to talk to the Muslim fanatics, may help, but it's still going to take decades to sort it out!!!!!!!!!! Can this really be a British member of parliament?
Is there any record of Abbott rising, angry and determined and confronting parliament with these astounding revelations? What has she done to bring Milliband down to earth? Has she stormed into Broon's fortess and insisted he faces reality?
Perhaps she thinks this tatty little missive in the Independent is worth a toss.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Control the ground. Support a functioning government (own and disputed territory). Local population not being won over. Bogged down in fixed bases. More mobility required. Take the fight to the enemy. Know the language and be among the population.
All these bring us back to two fundamental questions. Are we equipped and in sufficient numbers to do the job. Are the politicians effectively working in a fully supporting role.
Control the ground. Cut off the Taliban funding. Military action must be in support of a functioning government. Win the 'hearts and minds' battle. Do not become bogged down in fixed positions (the old Maginot Line syndrome). Mobility. Take the fight to the enemy (regain the initiative). Know the language and get among the people.
Have we the equipment, mobility and sufficient troops to do this ?
What's the result of the expensive junket? A poor little missive in the Independent, good credentials in Islington or Notting Hill, and of course NewLabourland, but despised everywhere else, including Hackney.
If this superficial article is really what she learned, what has she done about it? Come to that, what's she done about anything? Schools in Hackney rubbish? Crusade on this issue and drive some improvements through? Er, well, not exactly, more like send her kids to private and ignore the plebs kids. Local health services inadequate and underfunded, so attempt to drive some changes through Broon's thick head. Easier to go private.
Isn't it the paragon of New Labour's multicultural nepotism? The antithisis of application, endevour, achievement and just reward? A made fat cat, the complacent, superficial servant of the NewLabour patron.