Dominic Lawson: The only options are to double up in Afghanistan or leave
At a risk of sounding callous, the number of casualties is actually small for a war
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
On the first Friday of 2002 – 4 January, to be exact – the Foreign Minister of the new US-backed Afghan government, Dr Abdullah Abdullah, announced that the world's most famous one-eyed Mullah, the Taliban leader Mohammed Omar, was "under siege and surrounded". Dr Abdullah's boss, Hamid Karzai, confidently added that Mullah Omar would be "delivered to the US" to stand trial – presumably on the basis that he had given hospitality and security to Osama bin Laden and the other al-Qa'ida leaders behind the assault on the World Trade Centre.
As it turned out, Mullah Omar had not been completely surrounded. He managed to flee Helmand on a motorbike, and found refuge somewhere in Pakistan. Where he is now, neither the Afghan government – nor probably the Pakistan government – know. All they do know is that Mullah Omar is still the leader of the Taliban, and still commanding its operations against the American troops – and ours – in Afghanistan.
If, eight years ago at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom, anyone had predicted such an outcome, he would have been ridiculed – just as it might have seemed incredible when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, that 10 years later they would leave in despair, having lost 14,000 soldiers in combat, with many more terribly injured.
We make predictions about Afghanistan at our peril, therefore; and anyone who says with certainty what will happen in that benighted region if the international force withdraws – or if we stay – should be treated with about as much respect as we would accord a fairground Tarot reader. To use the language of the former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the best we have are "known unknowns".
So when Lord Ashdown writes, as he did last week, that "withdrawal would mean the certain fall of Pakistan", we should not regard this as anything but a reasonably educated guess – and certainly worthy of no more credibility than the prediction that if US forces abandoned Vietnam, the whole of South-east Asia would fall to Communism like a pack of dominos.
Although strategists like to divide the world up into zones of influence, the truth is that most conflicts are intensely local in origin. It is especially true of Afghanistan, which is not really a nation at all, but a mess of competing tribal rivalries. This is presumably what the senior US official in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, meant when he declared "I fail to see the value in continuing US casualties and expenditure of resources in what is really a 35-year civil war" – and quit.
If we are to pull out our forces, however, it should not be for the wrong reasons. While arguing for staying, Lord Ashdown was writing in the immediate aftermath of the killing of five British soldiers by an Afghan police officer they were training. He portentously declared that this incident had "fractured a central plank of the only strategy we have". Many other commentators took a similar line, seeing this incident as an example of the uncontrollable treachery of the Afghans we have been training to enforce law and order.
Yet, according to an investigative report by the Sunday Times' Christina Lamb – who has been covering Pakistan and Afghanistan for the best part of 20 years – this incident was no plot against the Brits. It turns out that the killer was a young officer, called Gulbuddin, who had been serially sexually abused by a much more senior officer (these things happen in Afghanistan); he swore revenge against his abuser, and targeted him with a machine gun while the senior officer was in the company of a number of British soldiers.
According to an eyewitness report: "The five British soldiers were killed simply because they were present and considered to be the officer's protectors." So if we are going to have a debate about pulling our forces out of Afghanistan, let it not be because of some entirely random act of sexual revenge by a deranged young man.
It is true that those deaths brought the tally of British soldiers killed in active operations in Afghanistan to over 200; and for every one of those we need to multiply by the number of close family members bereaved to get a sense of the scale of personal grief caused. At the risk of sounding callous, however, the fact is that the number of fatalities is remarkably small for a war – and it is a war – that has lasted for eight years.
The same would be true for the Americans, who have, over the same period, lost just over 600 soldiers, with about 4,400 wounded. Moreover, this is not like Vietnam, where thousands of conscripts lost their lives; the US forces in Afghanistan, like ours, are career soldiers, volunteers all.
However, the continuation of such casualties is tolerable, both to the armed forces and to the nation as a whole, only if they are borne in a campaign which has a definable purpose and an end in sight – preferably the end which was defined at the outset. In this country Gordon Brown has been abject in defining its purpose. He gives the impression that it is purely to safeguard Britons from al-Qa'ida threats which would otherwise be launched from Afghanistan. If that is the basis of our argument, we should have invaded Pakistan and put troops on the streets of Bradford.
When General McChrystal asked President Obama for an extra 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, he did not do so just to limit al-Qa'ida attacks on New York City – it is because he is attempting to defeat the Taliban. Like most military men he is not a counter-terrorism expert – he is trying to win battles against a rival force. What the US army is engaged in is counter-insurgency, not counter-terrorism, although admittedly the distinction between the two can get blurred.
It does worry me – it should worry all of us – that the British Government is committing our troops to a joint operation with the Americans, if the objectives being pursued are not the same: that is only a recipe for confusion. For this is an international operation, led by the Americans, but supported – in blood and treasure – by many other nations apart from ours.
The debate in this country about whether or not "we" should withdraw is conducted as if this was an autonomous British military exercise in Afghanistan, as it was in the 19th century. This is a ludicrously anachronistic and parochial way of looking at it. It is a UN-mandated international mission, although obviously the US has the dominant role.
President Obama has now dallied and fretted for almost three months without giving a response to General McChrystal's plea for an extra 40,000 men. The reason for his hesitation is obvious: none of his civilian advisers wants to make that commitment. Obama, however, is commander-in-chief, and will probably find a compromise number of extra troops, fewer than the military believes it requires, but not so small as to appear to be letting the soldiers down. It will be the worst of all outcomes, since it will satisfy no one, and risk greater casualties without giving the force required for even the hope of a conclusive military victory.
I am no military man, but I suspect there are only two rational approaches at this stage: either a massive additional force from the Americans, bigger even than McChrystal has called for – or rapid withdrawal, with all the loss of face that that would entail. A halfway house would be political cowardice; and a poor reward for the immense courage of our soldiers.
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
Having grown up in the Vietnam era, the conscription issue aside, this conflict has a number of disturbing parallels. I personally don't rate US troops in this kind of war and 40000 more of them in Afghanistan doesn't inspire confidence.
And of course let's not forget, the disasterous Iraq adventure diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan at a crucial moment when an exit strategy was in sight and initial objectives attained. Blame that on Bush's gung-ho advisers and Tony Blair's obsession with being a US poodle.
This mission is a mess with no credible aims and disaster staring us in the face. The fate of the conflict is obviously in US hands. Whatever we decide they hold the whip hand. There's an obvious lesson here for the future. Think twice before committing our troops to foreign wars.
PS: as for Mr Morgan's "once orderly society" above - I hope he one day will have a chance to live in such order and look forward to hearing how he likes it.
1) W. wanted to go his Daddy one better
2) Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted a limited war to hone the military and the party's re-election chances
3) Most civilised people were appalled at madman Saddam's antics and frightened by what he might do
Now most civilised people are appalled at the mess we made of Iraq - some so much so that they would like to run away and abandon the innocent Iraqis (yes, most are) to the civil war that we allowed to start.
- To secure Iraqi oil movement towards the West.
- To convert the petro-Euro dealing in Iraq with petro-dollar dealing.
- To have a US selected puppet gov in Iraq which looks towards the West for its cues.
- To have US forces close proximity to Israel.
- To have US forces along the borders of Iran.
Why else would the USA have the largest US embassy with holding staff of 5000 employees built in Iraq after occupation, even larger than any US embassy in UK or France or Germany.
Saddam Hussein without warning changed the oil bourse from dollars to Euros and that included the oil being traded on the black market to America, Israel and elsewhere.
It was sound economic sense as the Euro at that time had a real 17% more tangible value than the dollar.
When the Americans invaded, you will notice of course that the first actions were not to get the country up and running but to secure the oil fields, pumping stations, pipelines, Paul Bremer's very first action was to change illegally the oil bourse back to dollars "in the name" of the Iraqi people, it is also very interesting that still the Americans refuse to give the Iraqi's back their money which is to the tune of many billions "put in safekeeping".
And yes it was a once orderly society, it was a well functioning country, people had services, medical care, schools, the nation worked despite cruel sanctions, Iraq was not some banana republic in Africa where the dictator lived in palatial comfort and everyone else starved in their corrugated iron houses, it was a highly despotic and barbaric regime but Hussein made sure the electricity stayed on and people had clean water and hospitals, something which the Americans failed utterly to provide.
Perhaps in your mind, these disasters are nothing compared to the wonders of 'democracy'. In the UK we have a government run by a corrupt elite of out-of-touch idiots who work on behalf of the US, the banks and big capitalism. Our PM is UNELECTED. Our MPs are frauds and do not represent us in any way. Our economy is in tatters. The pound has collapsed by 30%. The UK is Ł200 billion in debt - we are bankrupt! We have cctv spying on us, secret inquests, police thugs immune from prosecution, 2.5 million on the dole..... Democracy??! WAKE UP TO REALITY!
The Problem with the 'Good War' is the Point Man. He is unable to rally the Country meaningfully. He knows it and President Obama knows it. And to entrust your Good War to such a Point Man carries risks of Political Hari Kari.
Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
Things are going well; strategic occupation is secure, the population is being reduced, pipeline possibilities are improving, armament and construction industries are doing well, opium supply has been increased.
Mission accomplished.
A well considered post, however it may take tripling up or quadrupling up. Let's get this straight, we didn't chose this war, previously the Afghans were ignored. Even the rise of the Talibs didn't attract much attention. Attention was focused by embassy bombings and the wake up call, 9/11, which was a direct challenge, a call to arms for Muslims to undertake Jihad. It would have had less effect had the response been directed solely and effectively at the seat of the problem, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel and Wahhabi support for closed minded schooling. The attack on Iraq was a disgrace, pure opportunism on the part of George Bush, who like Bin Ladin, pursued conflict as a surrogate for unresolved conflict with their fathers. Oil played a part and still does.
The conflict has an implied racism within it, from "shock & awe" in which Donald Rumsfield somehow imagined "the natives" could be scared into submission by loud explosions to the idea that putting a severely limited number of troops into countries bigger than France could achieve anything. Afghanistan is poor but it's culture is not primitive.
Of course both sides are deluded, the West can't be defeated and more than the East be subdued. This conflict will rumble on for over a generation until the population decides once and for all, who to go with. This is a battle for hearts and minds. Globally the West is still in the ascendant, so do we isolate regions that ideologically cannot live with our world, (impossible) or do we interfere with them (dangerous) or do we crush them (impossible). There is no solution but time, but it is important that we do the right thing with resolve, resources, force and compassion
Canada having had troops in country since 2001 has made clear it is going in 2011, Netherlands which increased significantly it's troops in Afghanistan as it withdrew from Iraq, is going in 2010. Some of Obama's increase is simply to replace those two.
It has never been clear why we volunteered in 2006 to take responsibility for Helmand and some still worry the real reason was a plan to hide the then proposed withdrawal from Iraq at the time, which was subsequently cancelled or delayed as the situation in Basra worsened and Bush ordered the Surge.
There are two separate debates, what should the US and "the West" do, and how much should the UK contribute to that. the assumption that the first decision should be made in Washington and and then by default we should send the maximum support we can, is not helpful.
Those who try to make Afghanistan a parallel to Vietnam are totally deluded, it wasn't that for the Russians either although people bandied the phrase around at the time. In terms of casualties in 10 years the Russians lost 14,000 men KIA over 10 years, the US lost over 50,000 in Vietnam over 8 but anyway the significance of Vietnam for the USA was intimately tied into "social issues" at home, it was very complex and a unique period of American social history.
The key problem with Afghanistan is that as stated, it is a tribal society rather than a nation but also, a totally corrupt one too. Nigeria is a corrupt society because of oil, Afghanistan because of Opium so the question of whether the campaign is "winnable" can best be answered as a big NO but then again that is only if you judge a "Win" by signing an Armistice Document in a railway carriage or on the deck of a battleship, sometimes victories are very different in their nature.
When the Americans went into Vietnam, the "Domino Theory" was all the rage, if Communism wasn't confronted, every country one by one right down to Australia would fall to the "Red Peril". Although the US didn't score a conventional military victory, even after their withdrawal from Vietnam, no further countries "fell", history often judges things differently. Did the Chinese finally start talking seriously over the handover of Hong Kong because they were shocked by the Falklands campaign and whilst not afraid of the UK, worried about the mess if the British attempted something similar ? One cannot say but cause and effect can often express themselves in unexpected ways.
The only positive result that the UK and the USA can get out of the Afghan Campaign is to squeeze the Taliban against the Pakistani forces fighting in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. We have in Pakistan a Civilian Administration, sadly an all too rare event since 1947, we need to encourage that. At the same time because of the Pakistani Taliban, they have woken up to their own peril and stopped thinking of it as someone else's problem. But of course the key is that they have Nukes and they must not fall into the wrong hands, that would be a catastrophe for the whole region as well as the West.
If Pakistan is stabilised or as far as it can be, we pull out of Afghanistan. How cynical you may say and in a way it is but then again, if Pakistan went "native" and posed a threat that India took seriously and responded to, the nuclear fall out would poison Afghanistan too. The trouble is, if that was the real reason, no Western Leader could announce that as a war aim could they ?
The terrain in Afghanistan means you cannot have workable central governance. It also means the USA and its allies cannot win the war. Vietnam had its jungles, Afghanistan has its mountains. Its a no win situation for any army in the world.
And yes you are right, the tribal/feudal system also makes it impossible.
So, to save the face of the politicians who engineered the war in the first place young people are either killed or maimed?
There are VERY few politicians I would trust to feed my cat let alone kill my kids.
When will we realise that we are no longer one of the big-lads in the world?
Brown can't run THIS country let alone somebody elses.
But if we just run away we can take comfort in the fact that these deaths are not British deaths and then tuck our heads gently in the sand.
The Taliban don't attack the majority of the countries in the world, why are we the "lucky" ones?
What the hell are you talking about?
You dont really buy the Cheney/Rumsfield "politics of fear" crap do you?
Whilst "Loss of Face" would be fully understood by the Chinese, in this Country it likely isn't and as you seem to write, treated as something that amounts to no more than the trivial embarrassment of Tony Blair, John Reid and Gordon Brown. If that is all it amounted to, I would agree with you entirely unfortunately it is rather more important than that and "Prestige" does matter and especially going forward from where we are today.
Firstly this is a NATO deployment which has been considerably undermined by the tardy support of the main European members. Secondly but most importantly because the whole of the West (like it or not), is dependent on them, it is a US led operation. That we will all withdraw sooner rather than later is a certainty but, it will need to be managed, among other things, to keep US Prestige intact, I would like to say NATO Prestige too but fear it has been sadly undermined already.
If you doubt its importance (Prestige - Face), look up the post Vietnam War period and particularly 10 years afterwards. When Nixon came to power, there was wholesale social unrest over Vietnam and the Draft, his election ticket was based upon pulling US troops out of Vietnam which he did. Although not a successful domestic President, in terms of Foreign policy, the West has yet to see a better one. It was he who first opened up China to the World but after his disgrace over Watergate, the following period saw a USA that had lost its self confidence and therefore a willingness to deploy its strength when it was required.
You can argue the impacts of this through the abortive raid to free American Embassy Staff in Iran under Carter, to Bill Clinton lobbing a few missiles at training camps in Afghanistan, to the order to stop the advance in the first Gulf War - possibly the worse decision ever made in war, through to and very likely, an over compensating George Bush being "over muscular" in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But beside this must be set the "things that didn't happen" and particularly with regard to Israel and the Middle East.
There is nothing wrong with the UK being a "middling power" and as such, our "Prestige" will vary from time to time but is significantly enhanced or supported by a close alliance with the US and a leading role in NATO, (unfortunately, the EU counts for little). It is therefore in our interests to support the "Prestige" of both and yes in doing so, more lives will be lost but the political aspects do matter in the medium to longer term in reducing future casualties.
Although I watch very little TV, one of my Daughter-in-Laws persuaded me some weeks ago to watch the "X Factor" and whilst the early stages were amusing if only as "Freak TV" - people with no talent auditioning for a talent show, the latter stages are rather boring.
There are several singers left in the competition who clearly have quite a lot of talent and a pair of Twins who have none at all. Apparently, the public keep voting to keep these Twins in the competition or, it is a fix ? I really do not know the truth of the matter and have no further interest either, clearly it is not a show based upon the 'Best Talent'.
According to stuff on the web, the main man behind this (Simon Cowell), who said that he would leave the Country if these Twins won the contest, not only didn't vote them off when he could have but, is trying to 'sign them' as an act for his own label...
So Cowell looks after his own financial interests, as does the Sun Newspaper by supporting the Tories but in reality and in order to continue their circulation figures, the Sun is merely following along behind their readership rather than leading it. So too with political parties I suspect.
You're assuming it would have to benefit everyone in the US or UK or Europe - it didn't have to - it only had to benefit the big oil and arms companies - and if it cost the average taxpayer a fortune for no benefit and resulted in a lot of people dying, they didnt care too much.
The Washington Post reported on the 15th of September 2002 that "A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition...."It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them"
And the Bush administration was mostly made up of former oil execs - Condoleezza Rice (Chevron), George W. Bush (Harken Energy), Dick Cheney (Halliburton) - and like most US Presidential campaigns was funded heavily in its election campaigns by US oil and arms firms.
Now B.P is back with an oil contract in Iraq along with all the US oil majors, replacing the Russian , French and Chinese firms who held all the oil contracts under Saddam (after 1991 - because up till then the US and British governments and Saddam were thicker than thieves)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonp