Robert Fisk: Why these deaths hit home as hard as the Somme
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More than 200 soldiers dead in Afghanistan, and now Gordon Brown advises us that "the best way to honour their memory is to see the course through". I don't know which particular "course" Gordon has in mind – protecting democracy, training the Afghan army, defeating the Taliban, talking to the Taliban, or just fighting them so they don't turn up on British shores – but this is straight out of the George W Bush tear bucket.
Not so long ago, I seem to remember, Bush was telling us that we would be betraying the American dead in Iraq if we gave up the fight. We owed it to the dead to go on killing more Iraqis. And now we owe it to the dead to go on killing more Afghans. Who, of course, will go on killing us. Is there no end to this madness?
If we are now going to send our soldiers to be killed because the soldiers we sent before have been killed, then we should get out of Afghanistan today. As a matter of fact, I believe that's what we should do. None of our military – or any other Western soldiers – have any business occupying a square metre of the Muslim world. But there you have it.
We've lost more than 200 soldiers but to honour them, we've got to lose some more. The Brits – wise folk, though sometimes a bit slow on the uptake – worked all this out a long time ago. Hence the lines of mourners at Wootton Bassett (no government ministers, of course) every time a flag-draped coffin comes home.
Yet I do wonder whether our concern about this war doesn't just come from the weirdness of the military campaign, but from the funerals themselves.
Until the First World War, our soldiers – unless they were rich or famous – were not even memorialised but simply dumped in mass graves. At Malplaquet and at Waterloo, there were no gravestones. In the First World War, soldiers wrote the names of the fallen on wooden crosses and the bodies were later transferred to the Great War Lutyens cemeteries of the Western Front, where they lie to this day. At Ypres, the local fire brigade still play the Last Post every evening. And our soldiers were buried at Gallipoli, in Palestine and even in Mesopotamia (where other wars, alas, have scythed down their headstones).
So, too, in the Second World War. Our soldiers still lie in rows in Normandy, in Germany, in the Far East. No flag-draped coffins arrived back in Britain. Just a telegram through the door of their families. Did this save us from questioning the wars in which they were dying? Most Brits thought the second great 20th-century conflict worth fighting. Not so – after the Somme – the first.
And let's just remind ourselves of the casualty figures. We've lost just over 200 soldiers – admittedly most of them in the past 14 months – in a war that has lasted for eight years. In the Second World War, which lasted for almost six years, Britain lost 650 men on D-Day, 6 June 1944, alone. The Canadians lost only 335, but the Americans lost 1,465. In just one day. And let's go back to the Great War. On the first day of the Somme – 1 July 1916 – we lost almost 19,500 dead. That's almost a hundred times our Afghan dead in 24 hours.
At the 1917 battles of Arras and Messines, the Brits lost 37,500. But they didn't come home. They stayed on the battlefield. Of course, we cannot keep our soldiers in Afghan graves – indeed, when the Victorians did just that, the Afghans dug them up and mutilated their bodies – but the steady drip-drip of corpses home from foreign fields is something that British prime ministers have never had to deal with before.
Needless to say, few of those who gather at Brize Norton spare a lot of time remembering the Afghan and the Iraqi civilian dead. How many months would it take for their hundreds of thousands of bodies to be driven in solemn cortege through British towns? Their fate is, after all, no less "deeply tragic" – the Ministry of Defence's words for our latest casualties – as the loss of British soldiers.
I guess we've grown used to TV-war, the kind where we live and they – the other, alien people with brown eyes and a strange religion – die. And they must not be allowed to reach the shores of England. Which is why, occasionally and few in number, we die too. Or so Gordon would have us believe.
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
What Vietnam War taught American was quite simple: abolishing compulsory military service.
People in general, can only understand the pain when it harms them directly!
Therefore it is business as usual.
Mind you, the future of warfare is becoming more electronic – well, who on the side of engager would give a toss then?!
that's why I think you are sick, Fisk. Islam is vile and in a sense occupying us in the West. If you tink we should leave places be because they are Muslim you are in effect supporting repression.
If you think invading Afghanistan will stop any 'occupation' of the west you're deluded, you'd be better off using the military within our own borders
From the start, I've always thought we had no business in Afghanistan. It's not our country and they are not threatening to invade us. The bombers of 7/7 were homegrown so terrorist argument is flawed too.
And I disagree fundamentally with calidore115 that "Islam is vile". It is practiced quite peacefully by millions round the globe and presumably provides the same sort of spiritual comfort that Christians would get from their religion.
As a nation, we need to learn to mind our own business a bit more and not strut the world thinking we're better than anyone else or what we think should be should happen. The British Empire is dead thank goodness, only our politicians don't seem to have heard the news.
There's been too much killing in Afghanistan already and we're not helping the situation. We're going to have to make peace eventually. We need an exit strategy and the sooner we leave this remote and foreign land the better.
Like King Cogidubnus grovelling to the Emperor Claudius - AD43 - we are now humble clients under Washington's table.
Do they respect us for it? Do they hell: we are regarded with a mixture of pity and contempt.
Only recently some Yank general made vile comments about British squaddies which, unbelivably, have got virtually no mention in the corporate media, anxious to support this murky war.
A blogger's reference to this important piece from the Toronto Star was deleted by the Guardian's moderators yesterday:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/arti
Chapter 1, Article 2, Item 4 contains the following words "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the THREAT OR USE OF FORCE against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." If you believe that the UK should uphold binding treaties and charters that it has signed you would consider these words seriously.
Item 3 has the words "All Members shall settle their international disputes by PEACEFUL MEANS in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
I take the view that the UK has not upheld the UN Charter, that its attacks upon Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal and that it has become a rogue. As it cannot stop itself it should be stopped by others. Other signatories to the Charter and the international community must discover the means to stop the UK starting and prosecuting wars. There is a strong need for civilised behavour on Earth. It is in all our interests. Let Peace Reign.
Fisk and so many of us, who have read a bit of history (we're mostly not experts) and lived long enough, have been raising this points for years. Just as for Iraq.
Unfortunately, most people have neither the time (in their view), nor the inclination to complain loudly enough. It's not easy to put your head above the parapet and have politicians and their supporters try to shoot it off. That's why their views are in the majority on every issue for so long.
When bad events happen, there's always a momentum in one direction. Then, as the loudmouths cool off, the thoughtful few learn the real truth and get an opportunity to be heard above the diminishing cacophony.
Incompetent administrations survive by resorting to one bogeyman or another - security, terrorism, etc. It's the same when people are kidnapped - the mantra is always "we never negotiate with terrorists". Well, other countries do, but Britain's gov'ts without exception follow their own path, which has never been properly tested or judged logical.
Ultimately, as with Vietnam, the events are judged and the assumptions debunked - and pulled down like statues of Saddam Hussein and the Berlin Wall - and exposed for what they really were.
The cost? Always high for the loyal, brave military personnel who are scattered about the "theatres" like chickenfeed.
AL CIA DA is a myth.....
Robin Cook revealed exactly what it was..."The Database"
Wake up
Go and watch Loose Change...and 911 truth.org.
Look into Building 7 and how it collapsed....
LIES
WATCH THIS!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkk
More than 200(204 and climbing) soldiers dead in Afghanistan, and now Gordon Brown advises us "the best way to honour their memory is to see the course through". LET the numbers mount then we will do something. I do not know which particular "course" I do not too. Therefore, we have common grounds. However, what do we do Bob? Gordon has in mind – protecting democracy, training the Afghan army, Like Iraq and then run for then to kill one another, mission uncompelled.. Defeating the Taliban, talking to the Taliban, now you take care of your babies, we are going too many looses. On the other hand, just fighting them so they do not turn up on British shores Portsmouth is too far from Kabul. – but this is straight out of the George W Bush tear bucket. It is, isn’t it? Pretty I like you Bob you found this out NOW.
Not so long ago, 2008, I seem to remember, Bush was telling us that we would be betraying the American dead in Iraq if we gave up the fight. Betraying Americans? I like that Bob I love that. We owed it to the dead to go on killing more Iraqis. We owed The UK had the part in this. We know. And now we owe it to the dead to go on killing more Afghans. Who, of course, will go on killing us? Is there no end to this madness? Mad it is lunatic. Hypocrisy it is frogs jumping form here to there.
So what do YOU suggest?
Can we expect that this choice will soon be repeated on the coffins as they pass through Wootton Basset?
Such a display might really bring home the clear warning to this mainly Scottish administration.
Beware, when defending your Country in these illegal wars that, you are not in fact, sacrificing your loyalty and your soldiers' lives on the altar of the elitist class, who rule above "democracy".
Canada entered both wars alongside the UK and other 'Colonies' without any territorial or imperial aspirations and to describe her losses in this way to bolster the US standing in war is despicable.
Karen Wood - Canadian in the UK
The proportionately high casualties suffered by Canadian troops merely indicates the stupidity of becoming involved in other peoples wars. We had no business fighting WWI. This was a war about the ongoing squabble among the European ruling families and to send young Canadian boys to die under the leadership of the same ruling classes was stupid. Their sacrifice changed nothing, as did the senseless sacrifice of young French, German, English sons on the Western Front. In the end the only thing this war accomplished was to create the political environment which practically guaranteed WW2.
WW2 is another European conflict Canada should have stayed out of. Germany was doomed to defeat at the hands of Stalin's Russia with or without the British Empire or America's intervention. As for France, considering the spiteful vindictiveness the Versailles Armistice they merely reaped the harvest they had sown.
To repel a foreign invader is the only legitimate form of warfare, a situation that has not happened in Canada since 1812.
Did politicians learn any lessons from Iraq war? There is no doubt about British military capability but politicians should do their part at the same time. British politicians are utterly naive if they believe China, Pakistan, Russia and Iran want to see America and her allies victorious in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is their backyard without their honest cooperation will be no success.
On the contrary, the number of UK volunteers in WWI was massive. The war started in August and by end Sept there had been 500,000 volunteers. They were going to fight in a large scale war against German aggression to defend their home country and their very substantial and wealthy international territories. Remember, it was called a World War. In some towns, like Accrington, which formed an entire battalion itself, there wasn't a single family which didn't suffer a loss - these were volunteers. Some were called Pals' Battalions.
Obviously, as the soldier casualties mounted rapidly to a previously unmatched (unbelievable) level, there was a need for conscription to maintain their forces, but that was much later.
Further, most casualties were from the various military branches. In stark contrast, the biggest loss of life in WWII was from the civilian category.
There were also a lot volunteers in WWII, from all the countries in the Commonwealth and others which had been taken over by Germany - Polish, Czechs, etc, plus volunteers from many others - yes, including the US and Canada.
National Service ceased in 1960ish in the UK and the draft ceased in the USA in 1973. It's almost impossibly expensive for a large, industrialized (and democratic) country to maintain a "National Service" considering the length of training needed for the latest technology.
I don't understand the meaning of "idiot regimes locked in primeval struggles for dominance, as was the case in WW1". You're talking here of France, Germany, Britain and Russia, in the main. With the exception of the USA, they were the most civilized, and technologically-, educationally- and culturally-advanced countries in the world.
The massive development in trade, and that positive effect on their economies, caused great rivalry to maintain and improve their position - but hardly "primeval struggles", even allowing for poetic licence.
I understand your frustration - just disagree with how you express it. I find the Iraqi and Afghani "ïnvasions" indefensible.
Why cant the conflict be looked on in a different manner. If politicians say this it sounds purely of self interest - what better way to anger the terrorist faction than by taking war to their people to benefit ourselves? There is good that can come from it though - getting rid of oppressive regimes is no bad thing and the Taliban aren't particularly nice. Afghanistan can be a better place for it, but if the rhetoric is in this tone it works against the rather more humanitarian goal that is worth fighting for.
sadly this is difficult in practice and will require being there for the long haul. By justifying war in the wrong means (i.e. self interest) pressure on politicians to withdraw will grow, and the job will be half done which is as bad as not done at all. another Vietnam. Our soldiers don’t owe their fallen comrades, rather our government owes it to the people of Afghanistan to see through what they have started and not make a hash of it.
this also raises the point of war in general, and if it is ever right. i don’t know the answer to that, but sometimes to achieve great things that change the world a task has to be taken that is difficult and unpleasant. And i cant stand by the fact that those who can should stand by and do nothing. in the west we enjoy a privileged position, we enjoy freedom that others strive for and a higher quality of living. not that we should force this on others, but should recognise that it changes others. in this changing world surely it is someone’s duty to uphold these standards for the world wide, and try to make things better - which brings me back to the Taliban. there is realistically no other way to oust them, but if we are going to do it - do it for the right reasons and don’t lie about it, and do it properly.
rant over.
nb - islam clearly isnt vile. however it does seem that many problems today are caused by factions of it. mainly interacting with the west and its far reaching ideals. it seems that is where the problems lie. to get over this both sides need to give, but posed with this problem islam often seems to react very badly - so wide are the differences. Personally i find it hard to justify some oppression that islam causes when it is a religion, and that religions are not based on fact - more myth and legend. i would have a huge problem with my life being dictated by something which no one can prove. but not to stand too high and mighty - christiaity, and many others have a long history of this. it is sad when politics and power corrupt religions and take away all their inherant good.
Sant Claus came down my chimeny last year too.
The war is a lie.,
Go research 911 truth man.
Will blow your mind.
The evidence is overwhelming..
In closing, before you quote the Archbishop perhaps you should have checked his website. it says that he said 'as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law'. Nothing at all about interest or Islamic banking practices.
The Archbishop is reffering to financial practises in that statement, he is talking about "Halal mortgages" where the system of interest accured on a mortgage is in line with Islamic law. What part of Sharia did you think he was talking about?
Why do you have question marks after mt user name?
The most treasonous act in history.
Go and watch Aaron Russo on You Tube talk about it.
Here is link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkk
"couldn't tax half the population" - I like it.
How nicely it 'fits' blatcherist governments' modus operandi - and my own experience of being invited by a certain national 'security' service to "make money", and not bother about the social conscience thing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d
'On the first day of the Somme – 1 July 1916 – we lost almost 19,500 dead. That's almost a hundred times our Afghan dead in 24 hours.'
So exactly how do these deaths hit home as hard as the Somme? Is Fisk mad?
As for the campaign being designed to put a stable gov in place, is that stable or puppet gov designed to do what it is told. Profits, obsene profits are all this is about, as boeing, lockeed, northrop grunman etc etc will testify
No Americans in any numbers crossed the Atlantic to fight Hitler before he declared war on the US. A handful of would be fighter pilots, that's all, attracted by the glamour of flying Spitfires. There were certainly no American Jews at that time interested in doing anything to put the Nazis and the death camps out of business.
They vote in Afghanistan today and the whole country has spent the last months talking Afghan politics as tens of candidates offer every choice from Islamic sharia to plural democracy. We see the same in Iraq where politics is alive and real for everyone, they will vote in January. And in both places the incumbent could be voted OUT, a first for Arabs bar Gaza and Lebanon.
No, the way to dishonour our dead is to deny what they have fought for and won. Its not the apple pie demanded by those like Robert as an excuse to do nothing, its simply the right to vote their govt out, the rest is up to them. And yes, they will like us make mistakes. I say that is no reason not to set them free as making mistakes is how you learn and how societies evolve. A historian like Robert should surely understand that? Keep people enslaved and they and their societies degenerate. Inaction is NOT an option and half fighting wars like we (I mean our NATO "allies") isn't much better.
Bad people do bad things for only one reason, because they think they can get away with it.
Weakness and simpering western cant encourages this belief and thus is the direct cause of the oppression.
Europe is the worlds major factory for the production of selfish racist simpering cant - as readers can see from Roberts scribblings on the eve of Afghans second electoral triumph over the Taliban that the vast majority of Afghans fear and hate
Where is this "responsibility" to the thousands of children that die every day from easily preventable diseases and malnutrition? Where is this "responsibility" to the people of Honduras, whose president was recently deposed? Where is this responsibility to any of the other nations that the U.S. could help and chooses not to? Surely it couldn't be because they have self-interest within their agenda?
This "responsibility" that you cry about is your ridiculous brown-nosing to the American empire, your constant justifications of brutaliy and fear in the name of the glorious armies of Uncle Sam.
Bad people do indeed do bad things because they think that they can get away with it, and your support for them is all the more pathetic because it's so obvious. Still, I suppose that your Goebbelesque big lie may convince someone...