John Hutton MP: No we shouldn't pull out... the strategy is absolutely the right one
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The purpose of the Nato mission in Afghanistan is clear. It is to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for international terrorism that would endanger our national security and that of our friends and allies. Our long-term strategy is also clear; it is to give the emerging Afghan democracy the means to do this job for itself.
Afghan security forces are not yet strong enough to discharge this role. That is why Nato forces are seeking to deny freedom of manoeuvre and territory to the Taliban and their al-Qa'ida allies.
The strategy is absolutely the right one. It does not rely exclusively on military means. But it does require sufficient military resources to be effective. First, we need enough resources to help accelerate the training of local security forces. Second, we need enough troops now to hold and secure the ground, so that the Afghan Government and the UN Mission can deliver economic and social re-construction. Without security there can be no re-development. Without security we can never create the right conditions for eventual political reconciliation between those elements of the insurgency who might be willing to renounce violence and the Afghan Government.
Critically, our strategy does require a credible and capable partner in the shape of the Afghan government itself. This requires further work. The strategy also requires further military re-enforcement – this is clear from the McChrystal report.
There is no credible alternative strategy. Pulling out would not make the threat from terrorism go away – but magnify it. Our losses are grievous, but they would be even higher if we were to falter now.
John Hutton was Defence Secretary from October 2008 to June 2009
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
The fecking live there, so how can you deny them territory.
The right strategy
"First, we need enough resources to help accelerate the training of local security forces. Second, we need enough troops now to hold and secure the ground, so that the Afghan Government and the UN Mission can deliver economic and social re-construction."
So how many troops is that John?
Seen as you are in the know.
Which ground will you be holding?
How many will Gordon be sending?
How many do, you think, he should send?
You are lacking on details John, yet again.
We have quite sufficient politicians sending OTHER PEOPLE'S sons and daughters on a damn fool adventure, but I'll hold your coat while you're sorting 'em out yourself.
John Hutton couldn't give a shit about the lives lost. He's just another MP saying whatever he is supposed to say. The only 'strategy' is to perpetuate the violence.
In the late 1990s the Uzbek ambassador to the US met with then-Texas Governor George W. Bush to discuss a pipeline for the region, and out of that meeting came agreements that would see Texas-based Enron gain the rights to Uzbekistan's natural gas deposits, while oil company Unocal worked on developing the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
"The consultant who was organizing this for Unocal was a certain Mr. Karzai, who is now president of Afghanistan," Murray noted.
"There are designs of this pipeline, and if you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you'll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It's what it's about. It's about money, it's about oil, it's not about democracy."
The London Bombers never came from Afghanistan they were Local neither did the 9/11 Islamic murderers they came from Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims are caught in this grinder but it’s about time we got leaders who are not scared of saying the right thing and not be so politically correct. You know like Churchill after the Chamberlain appeasement like our leaders. He got up and said it like it was…we have to fight on the beaches speech.
Ayatollah Khomeini , a respected leader of Iran, said those who say Islam is a peaceful religion are Ignorant and have not read the Koran, there are hundreds of verses that enjoin Muslims to fight. The Muslims are waging war in 40 nations world wide, including, Egypt, Sudan, China, India, France, Nigeria, Holland, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Bali, Indonesia,. Algeria just to name but a few, Oh and nearly forgot Israel.
So do not talk to me about Islam being a peaceful religion there own leaders say it isn’t and those that say is is peaceful are Ignorant. Look at the evidence nearly every Mosque in the Middleast screams out hatred and as one ex Muslim Journalist who fled to the West says, now the Hatred has followed me here. She isn’t the only one who says it but there are many others who have converted. We know what some of these Imams have been doing the same here in Britain. So why doubt. In sensitive areas we have to have a different policy and exclude Muslims from these sensitive areas. The liberal way has failed. We want our country back from the EU.
Defending the strategy - the status quo - is the best he can do, and it's not good enough.
They have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and there still isn't a proper, democratically-elected government in place - the main opposition simply withdrew. Drug money runs the whole system, which is corrupt from top to bottom. They have the best administration that money can buy (sic). It stinks throughout the government, then add the "instant" police (a few weeks' training and you're Gene Hunt) and the ragbag army.
Brown and Ainsworth face the world's media and talk about training and mentoring those guys. How unlikely is that to be successful there when you get corruption in every police service in the world, including the most "democratic" ones?
The best equipped army in the world, plus British troops, with all their combined experience and training can't do the job - it's beyond their resources and the willingness of the population there. Yet Brown talks of training them up to a standard to cope themselves - the guy must be certifiable...he's barking mad!
Well, at least the military are "keeping the streets of Britain safer", you say? That's another reason why the PM ought to be locked up - he's incapable of saying anything that's sensible and logical.
Hutton wasn't up the job and has been replaced by someone even less able and competent.
The writing was on the wall before they started, but like the Americans with Iraq, Labour refused to see what any independent military thinker knew beforehand - the "invaders" could not succeed with the strategy they told the world about. They've painted themselves into a corner and only now is Brown trying to wriggle his way out of a window, which turns out to be barred.
With the way things are going, Obama may turn out to be a one-term president, but Brown's destined for the scrap heap, with no residual processing value.
Visible limitations on President Obama's power convey a feeling that the world is approaching end-game in the geopolitical chess match.
The U.S. military, flanked by its equivalents in the U.K. and Israel, demand: the President defers.
Britain should be ready for what will happen when the military may not get its way and should prepare its own exit strategy - not just from Afghanistan but from NATO.
The British economy is now dependent on U.S. militarism. When that falls into confusion the British economy will fall into confusion. Other European countries have not allowed themselves such abject dependency and even Canada can survive on the export of vast natural resources to Asia. But where is the thinking for a British alternative economic structure - one not dependent on militarism?
This hard thinking is more relevant than perpetuating myths about "fighting terrorists" and "making Afghanistan (and Pakistan? and Uzbekistan? and Turkmenistan?) safe for democracy".
And when did the British people - or the people of any other participating country in NATO - vote in a referendum for NATO'S expanded role beyond the North Atlantic? After all, they are paying for it.
Exit this murderous monster now.
Which country last got an away win in Afghanistan? The British? The Russians?
This is what comes of letting children and MPs get away without learning History.
Afghanistan is a bloody long way from England; so they plot in Afghanistan or Somalia or Saudi or anywhere else they like, plotting is not a function of or contingent on geography.
A stupid one at that.
perhaps you can lighten me on why plotters need somewhere to plot and why is Afghanistan such a suitable place to plot and better than any other place of which there must probably be thousands or more?
They might, seen as they have renounced the Afghan Government already, so when it's gone they might renounce violence too.