Tim Collins: Afghanistan remains a worthy cause
If we shrink from the fight, subversion and chaos will come to the streets of Europe
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
With 184 men dead as a result of our involvement in the campaign in Afghanistan, many will now be asking: is it worth the effort? The bland riposte is always: "If we don't win the fight there we will have to fight it here." Unlike most spin that flows like a mighty river from the Government, this bit is actually true.
Critics will also point out that we have been engaged in this fight for eight years, and they invoke memories of failed British campaigns of the 19th century and the Soviet failure in the 1980s. One must deal with the facts here, however.
Technically we have been at war for eight years, but in reality this needs to be seen as a series of much shorter but connected campaigns. The first period was overwhelmingly successful. It looked terminal for the insurgents. But any doctor will tell you that if you have an infection – and an insurgency is an infection – you have to finish the course of medication, even if the symptoms disappear. If you do not, the infection will come back, more virulent and now impervious to the medication used previously.
In 2003, the coalition, on the point of annihilating the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, stopped, withdrew massive numbers of forces and support, and threw the lot at Iraq. That was never meant to be a long war. But it was. And as it dragged on, the infection of Taliban and al-Qa'ida stabilised and then once more flourished. This led to the second era where a woefully underfunded coalition tried desperately to pretend all was well even as the Taliban marched back from exile.
The third period began on 31 July 2006 when Nato became involved, taking over operations in the south of Afghanistan. In reality it was the usual suspects – the UK, the US and Canada – taking on the mission, with effective contingents from Holland and Denmark too. The rest of Nato did not stray too far from the relative safety of Kabul and Bagram.
In the war zone, commanders were pressured by government to avoid risking criticism from the media by casualties. This meant a remote, faceless war. Bombing by aircraft, artillery and drones was the order of the day at the least sign of what could be enemy. But it went down badly with the civilian population, and for that reason alone was a losing strategy.
We are now in the fourth period, marked by the election of President Obama and the appointment of General Stan McChrystal. It is what one US general described as the "decisive summer". This is a well-resourced, deliberate campaign with clear aims and objectives.
But it comes at a price. This is a fight to the death with the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. It will be an incremental fight to clear and hold. The Taliban, with its fascist ways, must be driven from the towns and villages, and a permanent presence of coalition-backed Afghan National Police (ANP) and Afghan National Army (ANA) established.
That means no more remote bombing. It is all about protecting, not destroying, the civilian population. To do this we need to get in close. We need to be prepared to take casualties in order to protect civilians. And I mean protect civilians here in the UK as well as in Helmand province, because if we shrink from this fight, the subversion and chaos of Afghanistan will come to the streets of every city in Europe. It will not confine itself to Islamic fundamentalism either; it will result in a tsunami of organised crime too.
We know from experience from Northern Ireland, and now Iraq, that military solutions are ineffective in dealing with a largely a civil problem. It is better understood by what I characterise as a "spectrum of subversion".
Violence is at the centre of the spectrum, the visible light. To the right is politics. To the left, and crucial to the extremely expensive business of violence and politics, is crime. It funds and underpins the rest of the spectrum. It supports and corrupts the political end of the spectrum simultaneously by funding campaigns and corrupting officials. To succeed there is a need to defeat the insurgency across the spectrum. That means tackling the crime that is the oxygen of subversion, taking control to drive the struggle into the political part of the spectrum by encouraging dialogue, rewarding political progress and making violence increasingly counterproductive.
General McChrystal knows this. He well understands the extent to which the poppy harvest funds the violence. He is intellectually beyond the "just burn the stuff" logic that gave no thought to what the farmers would replace it with. He is acutely aware of the nature of Afghan politics. He understands the need to win over the population, and that means not killing them.
The bit of the war we see is the casualties among our soldiers as they liberate Helmand. What we do not see is the efforts to build a bureaucracy and a society, to sustain the gains that have been bought at such a price.
And this leads us to the crucial point. For once we are winning. We are winning the fight and the argument. The UK commander on the ground, Brigadier Tim Radford, has made this clear. Any successful counter-insurgency is not about body counts but about building a secure environment for normality to spread.
"Defeat the ideology and not the insurgent" has been our tactic since Malaya. By the institutions, education and bureaucracy that follow on after our troops, we are making the Taliban irrelevant in the Afghan society. This is a lasting victory.
Militarily the Taliban cannot sustain this rate of attrition. It is losing scores to our every one. Its bank is going bust and terrorist volunteers to go into this mincer are increasingly hard to find. Let's keep faith with our deployed troops. Let's support the judgement and experience of Brigadier Radford and his men. They are on the ground and we are not. If we lose, it will be because we have defeated ourselves by a lack of nerve, and if that happens the sacrifice will be in vain. Keep the faith.
Colonel Tim Collins served in Iraq and elsewhere and is now chief executive of New Century Consulting
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
Get British troops out of this yankee-doodle insanity NOW.
If the fat yank neonazis want to fight a racist Crusade against Islam, they can do it without Britain's help.
This war is about securing a pipeline corridor for US oil companies so that they can control and dominate the sales and marketing of Central Asian Oil . The crusade against islamicists is just a foil. The real strategic war is for control and domination of both the Mid Eastern Oil resources and the Central Asian oil basins; to prevent them from falling into Russian or Chinese hands;and perhaps to also to surround Iran and check any further spread of its influence. Their future prosperity will be at the expense of our current way of life, which is based on cheap oil and gas - Oil and Gas have peaked and new sources of supply need to be secured. The role of these troops is to protect US interests in securing the pipeline corridor through to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean sea lanes. Please lets not insult our intelligence and pretend it is about freedom or about protecting the homeland from disorganized islamicists. Call it as it is - a war to secure cheap oil - and the British Public will lend its support on the basis of self interests and these lads will not have died for nothing. A death a day is a small price to pay for securing oil and gas resources for the future. Perhaps if we had kept our North Sea oil and not let the US Oil giants take it all, we would not have seen any need to go to the other side of the world to secure another oil basin !
The ironic thing is that most of the weapons being used against the British will probably be supplied by the Americans.
Don't believe the hype.
You're perfectly correct about that old friendship between the US and the 'Taliban' (who were called 'Freedom Fighters' back then).
But the 'Taliban' of the 1980s was immensely different to what we have now; they have now been seriously hijacked by foreigh, fanantically religious (similar to the Neo-cons in extremisim) elements.
The point of this war is not a war against Islam (especially as the Taliban have disregarded the Koran's teachings in many facets and many muslims will agree with me that they are not muslims, but criminals & drug lords who are exploiting & inciting other muslims - muslims who are already sensitive over REAL anti-muslim activity such as in Palestine). The point of this war is to stop extremism; just like Neo-conservatism must be stopped. Any extremism is bad.
If the Western coalition is successful, then it is probably true that an oil pipeline through Afghanistan would benefit the West. But I think that this would be a happy side-effect as far as the West is concerned, not its hidden war aim. After all, as a result of the economic downturn there are lots of oil reserves which are not being explored or tapped; e.g. those off Shetland.
You do realise that the 'Taliban' are terrorising the local population, killing them? I agree that NATO must REALLY do something about minimising the civilian casualties, but imo withdrawal is not going to achieve security for the Afghans.
So, according to you, what are the 'political objectives' and why are they non-achievable? As far as I know, the political objectives are to stabilise Afghanistan, stamp out the extremism, rebuild the country's institutions: what's so wrong with that?
You speak of our 'morality' being completely wrong: why? Even if you are one of the sceptics (who believes we are fighting there for oil & energy concerns), isn't the 'side-effect' of ridding Afghans of the brutal, demented criminals that call themselves 'Taliban', morally correct?
Don't get me wrong - I am certainly not pro-war: I just don't see what other option we now have in Afghanistan.
I do disagree on the suggestion that we totally get rid of the use of drones. "up close" fighting also kills civillians. If there is a good liklihood of a drone taking out a major leader of the taliban, why not use it?
Consider if it were your son or daughter that was the squaddie being asked to go in instead. Knowing that their actions would also mean civillian deaths would you say "risk the lot just to say we don't use drones?" It's a bit like saying "I abhor Atomic weapons," without looking at the huge numbers killed with
"conventional" weapons--in the Congo, etc.--you can't just apply a label to one set of weapons without looking at what the real fallout is of the alternative. Conventional "manned" strikes are hardly guarantors that only bad guys die. In Hollywood, perhaps, but rarely in real life. Especially with guerilla leaders who live with famillies.
Afghanistan was never the source of terror it was America's knee jerk reaction to 9/11 which Bliar joined in.
Pakistan is the centre of world terrorism - that is where military and political effort should be concentrated.
I entirely agree with susanlevi posted at 12.15, now THAT is closer too the real mark.
They do not!! Where did you get that from?!!
However, I completely agree (you are one of the few posters that has mentioned it), that Pakistan is HUGE in the game of terrorism; they send hundreds of volunteers to Afghanistan every week to blow themselves up or fight against NATO and to terrorise the Afghans; shut down these terrorists coming to Afghanistan (I know, I know - it's very difficult, porous border and all that), and you'll begin to see a drying up within the 'Taliban' ranks.
Your Q:"...why on earth should we care about their medieval little sand castle?"
I think it comes down to the fact of whether we want to help the innocents caught up in all this crap or not.
And then, we should take our politicians to task for creating all this conflict, for creating the enemy our lads are now fighting, for all the pro-yank policies they adopt without thought or care for the UK.
You and I are the 'innocents' here in Britain with a non elected Prime Minister with an ever failing government of daily resigning ministers carrying out extremely unpopular policies which we can do nothing about until June 2010 - they could say the same about US.
It's an interdependent world. If you think we can just ignore what's going on, only a few thousand miles away, you obviously haven't understood the gravity of the situation.
It was Wellington who said that there is nothing stupid as a gallant officer and I'm afraid Collins' article exemplifies this. We are in danger here because idiot and craven governments have allowed Islamic colonisation, with their extraordinary rates of multiplication. What matters is Halifax not Helmand. It is pure folly to fight so far forward, so unprofitably. It must have escaped Collins notice that poppy production has soared since the traitor Blair sent the Army into Helmand
"The Taliban, with its fascist ways, must be driven from the towns and villages, and a permanent presence of coalition-backed Afghan National Police (ANP) and Afghan National Army (ANA) established."
Local forces have often proved themselves worthless in this kind of situation the world over. The Afghan narco-state, if it can be called a state at all, is no basis on which to build
"By the institutions, education and bureaucracy that follow on after our troops, we are making the Taliban irrelevant in the Afghan society."
You are on another planet, there will be no such follow up -we cannot create security and the Afghan state is rotten to the core; in any case the Taliban are an integral part of Afghan society - which is deeply conservative tribal Islamic of course
You say it is "not about body counts" but apparently it is "Militarily the Taliban cannot sustain this rate of attrition".
"Its bank is going bust and terrorist volunteers to go into this mincer are increasingly hard to find. "
We in the west are fine ones to talk of bust banks. Everything we know of the Taliban tells us that they have an inexhaustible supply of jihadis(notably from the tribal areas of Pakistan, and Birmingham) waiting to fight the infidel invader, and their fanatical, fatalistic courage has never been in doubt for a moment. I wouldn't call them terrorists for they are fighting fotr their own country, depressing though their primitive outlook is.
We also know that the Talibs have improved their tactics, that they choose when to engage and when to break off. We have no answer to their explosive devices, the largest of which can destroy a tank
"If we lose, it will be because we have defeated ourselves by a lack of nerve, and if that happens the sacrifice will be in vain."
The same arguments were deployed by Haig during the Somme, and Harris during the Battle of Berlin. The sacrifices are completely in vain, it does not help the living or the dead to compound the folly
Your starter for ten, as they say on University Challenge, colonel:
How many bombings did we get from the IRA? How many from all these Moslem terrorists the country is supposed to be crawling with? Slight difference, eh?
What happened at Easter when Brown tried to scare us about the "imminent" threat? A load arrested, not charged, not releaed. That will have had precisely the opposite effect to the one intended.
What supporters of this war don't - won't - get is that the main threat to this country is UK foreign policy, the 'client state of the US' foreign policy as started by Blair.
BTW, colonel, we've been to Afghanistan three times before, and the league table reads:
P3 W0 D0 L3 F0 A3 Pnts 0
And a further BTW, colonel, the Russians got kicked out and they did NOT skimp on troops.
And why did they get kicked out: because the West supported the Taliban.
Just like we supported that criminal Saddam Hussein when he went to war with Iran.
Does our foreign policy ever worry you, Colonel?
What we have here is Vietnam Mark II, colonel.
Hey, Collins, I hear there is still a pocket of Romanians holding out somewhere in Belfast, so get yourself over there and drive them out before they "infest" are quaint towns and cities!
History shows that the decision to follow the Americans in there by Bliar was monumentally stupid. I for one and of course many others have been begging in these sort of columns to get out of that drug-ridden hellhole for years. I am very sorry to say ..we "told yer. so" and the chickens are coming home to roost. Oh! so very very predictable. My deepest condolences to the families of the dead soldiers sent there by our moronic politicians to an un-winnable war. Lions lead by donkeys - in this case the donkeys are the politicians (all parties) and Mr. Tim Collins who presumably has family who lead our armies to our famous 'victory' in 1914-18. Ugh....
But the curious thing is that far from publishing this sort of clap-trap, the Dacre covers itself in glory just for once.
Correlli Barnett's dissection of the lies and spin behind this war is superb reading:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic
I note the little twerp Miliband spinning like a top this morning...exactly what the Mail article means.
And what are we in fact doing? Playing around with the edges to be 'seen to do something'.
Our politicians (including soldier-politicians) are disengenuous and frankly at times dishonest, not least about the manning and equipment levels required.
We cannot do anything about that part of the world without a huge and very long-term invasion by the combined forces of the EU, who of course know a silly situation when they see one and are keeping the lowest of profiles. I don't blame them, they have seen Blair at work before.
The next government will have to deal with our Afghan involvement, if public opinion and rapidly mounting losses don't force the issue before.
have been saved if the Generals had refused to fight. As it is we are governed by a Parliament of war criminals that we have no control over ! Go to: democraticbritain.org.uk
Even recent history when the Taliban were 'defeated' in 2003, they regrouped and in about three years were back. Do politicians have some sort of memory problem? This will be the cycle.
As for an objective to this war, there isn't one. When Miliband was asked on Today 'how will we know when we have won'. He had no answer, because there is no objective.
'All we care about now is each other and making sure that our mates get out alive.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art
Too bloody right. It is a shame that the senior officers do not display the common sense of this young soldier. Are they blockheads or merely careerists?
Today's disturbing piece in the New York Times might confirm that the bigger war is being lost:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/w
Correct on the question of resourcing though. If politicians must flex their egos abroad they should at least adequately equip the young people at the business end in order that their lives are not so cheaply thrown away.
If you knew anything about wars, or were honest at least, you would be recommending an exit startegy.
Do you reckon that 16,000 UK and US troops is enough to clear and hold Helmand?
I tought you migh know seen as it says on you website...
"Assessments and appraisals of security-related weaknesses are translated into actionable plans which both mitigate risk and protect against threats"
Or is 16,000 just enough to stop you loosing contracts in the comming years.
For 8 years the taliban have survived the rate of attrition, a whole generation is growing up to become part of that attrition, so you are talking nonsense.
I hope you give better advice to your paying clients, unless that's what they want to hear of course.
Shameful, shameful spin from politicians (bought and paid for.)
So if the troops come home, will the Taliban with the beards, turbans, balloon pants, and AK-47s next show up on the Champs-Elysees? Absurd ...
The soldiers signed up to protect the UK. But instead they are being used as pawns in a political game lead by Bush and his mates.
By signing up with the army, the soldiers forefeit their option to choose between right and wrong and rely on the politicians to act with wisdom and justice in dealing with the world. But justice and wisdom is not at the top of the priority list, sadly.
"Technically we have been at war for eight years, but in reality this needs to be seen as a series of much shorter but connected campaigns."
I'm not a soldier but isn't a war; essentially, a series of campaigns?
Then we move on to: "the Taliban, with their facist ways.."
Ah! No longer fundamentalists, or fanatics, are they?
There is no free lunch. We know this and all know this but we cannot face these as the one who is on the top seat covers up the lot.
Pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs. The hen and the pig. The pig told the hen, ?You are very lucky. You have to stretch your f**** ass to lay the egg. Me. I have to do Hara-kiri to feed the humans and they the ungrateful ones call me Swine. I am sad. They get cows folding and buckle the legs fall. The name is Cow diseases but me. The man very bad. They can have fish wrapped in the paper. I have to fry in the oven or hot oil to be looked down at the pork. I am pink with the curly tail. But they. the human very grateful as they feed me well so they can make a ? then they take a small dot like blood from my blood and show in the TV. This is the swine flue take care even if I am roasted. Very sad .
Let us talk of the spending these days all advocate. Brown says spend, spend to save. I disagree with spending and saving as I think spending is for pleasure, the economic term, my choice. The saving is forced by the government. Is this democracy? I wonder. How will we agree the stock with cash flow?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla