Leading article: The case for withdrawal from Afghanistan is not yet made
A plausible alternative strategy to protect our interests is needed
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Yesterday was a black day for the British Army and the Western mission in Afghanistan.
The appalling slaughter of five soldiers in Helmand – killed in their base by a rogue member of the Afghan security services – is likely to undermine public support for the mission here in Britain. But how should it influence policy-makers? A single attack must, of course, be seen in its wider context. Yet that wider context is looking increasingly bleak. This atrocity comes in the wake of Hamid Karzai's disputed presidential election victory and a growing feeling that his regime is corrupt and illegitimate.
The attack also strikes at the very heart of the Western strategy in Afghanistan, which is to build up the domestic police and military and allow Afghans to take over responsibility for their own security. The West's objectives for Afghanistan are looking increasingly unrealistic, and evidence is mounting that the foreign military presence in the country is doing more harm than good.
So has the time come to withdraw? This newspaper supported the Western intervention to topple the Taliban in 2001 after the regime refused to expel the leaders of al-Qa'ida who had masterminded the 11 September terror attacks. And we have backed Western efforts in the years since to help rebuild the shattered Afghan state. Yet circumstances have plainly changed in recent years. And the case for withdrawal has grown considerably stronger.
However, the case is not yet overwhelming; not least because no convincing alternative strategy for protecting Western security interests in the region has been put forward. We need to consider the consequences of letting the Afghan government face the growing Taliban insurgency without Western military assistance. There is a significant risk that the Taliban would return to power. And such an ideologically driven regime might well decide to host al-Qa'ida once again.
Some appear to believe that such a threat would be manageable. Kim Howells, the chairman of the Commons intelligence and security committee, argued this week that British resources should be channelled to strengthening our domestic border controls and building up our intelligence networks. And the US Vice-President, Jo Biden, has reportedly proposed a stripped-down Western counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan, based on remote drone attacks on terrorist operations in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Domestic intelligence is, of course, vital. But the notion that Britain can manage its security threat entirely from within its own borders is unconvincing.
As for stepping up drone attacks, these weapons are already causing heavy civilian casualties and provoking popular anger in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Such strikes might succeed in eliminating terrorist targets, but the problem is that, in the long term, they merely feed the problem of Western resentment.
Then there is Pakistan. In the event of a Western withdrawal from the region, the Pakistan military might well decide to rekindle its old alliance with the Taliban across the border and make peace with its own domestic jihadists. That would be disastrous for Britain's security interests.
Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was not a "war of choice". And the Pashtun tribal areas are still at the centre of global terror networks. Those advocating Western military withdrawal from Afghanistan need to do more than simply urge a rush for the exit. They need to provide a realistic replacement strategy for protecting Britain's national security and promoting stability in this most dangerous of regions.
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
There are loonies who think that British soldiers advising Afhan police and army recruits will win the war in Afghanistans.
They also think that by being there at enormous cost somehow protects us.
They are as sick as the cretins who choose to wear uniforms and die or get limbs blown off for the ridiculous fantasy of imperial subjugation.
The problem is getting any of the braindead clowns to admit their folly.
Losing face is far worse than losing soldiers, it seems.
More gutless warmongering wank from the Indy.
>> Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was not a "war of choice" <<
It mostly certainly was - this is an outrageous lie from a journo too gutless and cowardly to put their name to this offensive and poorly-argued pile of bilge.
Time to own up - I hear the voice of Bruce Anderson behind this utter *shite*??
And once again this paper still carries the lie that started this illegal war but forgets that one journalist, Robert Fisk will quite openly point out that it was nothing to do with the Taleban and more to do with the Sauds and others.
This has number 10 compliance order stamped all over it...
Here are the 10 top ways to ensure you get the best airfare deal out there, without spending days haggling with travel agents:
1. Book Early
2. Be Open-Minded about Airports
3. Be Flexible with Dates.
4. Once you've been Flexible, be Consistent
5. Use a Flight Search Engine.
There is nothing worse than discovering that the chap next to you on the beach got here for a fraction of the ticket price that you paid.
Here find Top 10 Tips To Save Money On Airline Flight tickets
!
The 10 Dirtiest Foods You're Eating and Their Nutrition Facts
No.1. Chicken
No.2. Ground Beef
No.3. Ground Turkey
No.4.Oysters
No.5. Eggs
No.6. Cantaloupe
No.10. Scallions
And just what might 'our interests' be? A pipeline owned by BP? An international herione trade?
And as for this drivel: 'This newspaper supported the Western intervention to topple the Taliban in 2001 after the regime refused to expel the leaders of al-Qa'ida who had masterminded the 11 September terror attacks''...... well we all know it was the Bush administration that orchestrated the demolition job on WTO buildings, probably at the owner, Larry Silvertein's, request, and that it was Dick Cheney who masterminded much of it.
The media continues to play is for fools.
As long as the British Government suppresses Democracy globally then it must be questioned whether the interests of the British Government are in fact the interests of the British People.
Mr Alex Weir, Baghdad and Harare
Are the British Government's interests the same as the British people? .... NO
Why are the we there? ..... The World Banks told their puppets (The British Government) to be there.
Big profits in war you know.
1) You need to murder all the Taliban Alqaida, it means just about everybody in Afghanistan.
Two not to different type of people in Afghanistan:
a) Active Taliban and Alqaida
b) Passive but in the heart they support the both Alqaida and Taliban.So how can you win?
2) You need to stay in Afg -Pak permanently keep doing it what you doing now. Thats very expensive and a lot of soldiers will die.
3) You will get out as soon as more soldiers at ones will be killed like 5 soldiers murdered recently.
Every Muslim people knows that eventually you will be getting out but when? Western interest in that part of the world.
I wonder how Americans and British will feel if Muslims say we will be in the west as long as it takes to protect the Muslim interest there.
Probably does not sounds right,right ?
In modern times the only force that managed to bring some semblance of peace to Afghanistan was the Taliban. It seems likely that the only way we can ever get out of the place is to allow them to take power. Realistically we need to use our cash to assist the Taliban to develop if not a western friendly outlook then at least a western neutral outlook. Dropping bombs forever after via drones is not going to help here. Already even the US military acknowledges that 90 civilians are killed for every ‘high value’ target taken out. So we are creating far more Taliban or al-Qaida sympathizers every time we take one out in this fashion.
We have to forget any ideas of creating a modern democratic state, it ain’t going to happen. My Grandfather fought there in the dying years of the 1800s and my son could be fighting there today. How long does the west’s fantasy of controlling Afghanistan have to endure? Our politicians have the historical memory (and collective intellect) of a chicken. They have even forgotten to study the lessons the Soviets learned so recently.
Solution: leave Afganistan and for that matter Iraq (which was attacked for no other reason than OIL!) and leave matters to their own nationals. MYOB is something that realy should be observed and practiced!
Really?
That assumes all the people in that region just can't wait to attack people in the High Street. They want to do this because "we are free" or, they envy our lifestyle. What utter rubbish?
They simply want us to get out and leave them alone. Is that hard to comprehend. Others who waffle on about democracy, civilising the region etc. should ask one basic question. Who or what gives you that right?
Britain's national security and that of other countries was placed in danger simply because WE invaded Afghanistan in the first place for stupid reasons and then, compounded that mistake by invading Iraq.
Can't you people join the dots? I guarantee, no matter "how should it influence policy-makers", they'll continue to make an ongoing balls-up of it and ten years from now we will be far worse off.
We ain't ever going to win this war, no matter what strategy employed, no matter what manpower and resources deployed and all for one simple reason. You can't beat a dedicated resistance movement fighting for their homeland.
It's really that simple.
By tradition, the Editorial pieces of British newspapers are printed without attribution.
However, the content of this sordid article is so far from journalism, and so close to Government propaganda, that the authorship of the piece comes into question.
From start to finish, the article is a pack of lies. The Indy has not backed the Afghan war from the outset - there were dissenting voices among its journalists even at the start of the war. Even Johann Hari eventually saw the light. Rentoul, of course, has stonewalled, and lost all credibility as a result.
Has this piece been penned by an Independent staffer? Or is it the work of a Government Minister??
The readers of this newspaper have a right to know the authorship of this disgraceful garbage - and to demand their resignation.
I would like an explanation of this flawed judgement by the Indie
Fair comment, we should all read the history, before spouting off. You are privvy to stuff we don't know about, tell me, what is your expertise on this subject please , where are we being wrongly led ?
I totally respect the bravery shown by our soldiers AND those fighting them, but respecting bravery and grieving for loss in no way endorses the mindless mindless killings, and pretence that this is a 'just war'.
When we withdraw - and we will - yes ... it will be a defeat, and not the first defeat this country has ever suffered in Afghanistan. It will further underline the futility of what has happened and the carnage of wasted lives and crippled (literally) futures of so many - both in Afghanistan and in the UK.
In many ways the situation in Afghanistan mirrors that in Vietnam in the 1960s - they are propping up a corrupt regime under totally false pretences. The end result will be ignominious withdrawal and it will be another well-deserved defeat.
Well that is a stupid argument, because the case for staying has no convincing strategy neither, nor does it make us any more secure.
It is possible, Bruce wrote this, as he is stupid enough to say stuff like that.
Yes, Paul this site dooes claim to be adjudicated, just read the words under the Post a Comment headline
"Offensive or abusive comments will be removed....."
I just want to know why this doesn't happen. People like hippydroog seem to be able to submit really unpleasant and insulting messages and have them published .... how is this?
And the question is directed to the supposed monitors/adjudicators
When are they going to stand up?
These boards are free, as is the content. I no longer buy a newspaper except on Saturday and I wonder how long it will be before I am charged for content. I don't expect the Indie to pay someone to monitor these boards as I don't pay to use them.
The droog is a twat, and you are free to say so in reply to his obnoxious posts. He/she doesn't like men in uniform or homosexuals and obviously has some kind of problem - just think of these boards as therapy for the fuckwit.
Have you mused that perhaps the Afghan Resistance views foreign troops as The Enemy from Outside." And that 'outside' includes the colonial occupier who invented the Durand Line that split the Pashtun people.
Use of terms such as 'slaughter' appear reserved for casualties suffered by the occupation forces and never applied to the pervasive, multiple, daily salughters of the Afghan population.
So, the Independent argues 'the case has not been made as yet for withdrawal' - but will it make the same case if the Afghans inflict politically unacceptable losses on the UK occupation.
Readers of this paper are more informed than readers of many other UK media and know that the agenda is not to protect the UK from hoardes of invading Afghans but to buttress UK's colonial interests so that the US does not swipe the major share of this piratical enterprise.
When Pakistan is shattered and Pashtunistan is a reality, will it and the other fragments be manageable client distatorships of our Economic Crusaders?
Your statements about the Taliban and Al Qaeda are underwhelming. Neither is your assertion about the security interests of the UK if Pakistan makes peace on its own terms - what about Pakistan's security interests vs that of a foreign occupation that is building permanent military bases in the area? Isn't that the same wretched forumation for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its irredentist plans?
Isn't it a verifiable fact that 'where ever the US goes death, corruption and chaos follow"? I also contend that the US 'foreign legion' is NATO and that the UK and other members are merely legionaires who benefit from a small share of the loot of the US Empire's predations.
A thousand Brit deaths might be insignificant to the military and economic elites but just might stir the unwashed voters.
The big question is: how many more deaths before the stampede for the exits?
Or, what blowback whirlwind are you hoping to avoid before the 'case is made'?
Be well.
John Ish Ishmael
www.ishmael.ca
www.twitter.com/johnishishmael
http://chosenworld.livejournal.com/3
Next thing you'll be saying we are all equal and mad shit like that.
Sounds like you don't come from these parts!
You don't know how things work here, we kill you and you are suposed to be happy with it.
When will you people get it!
It's not easy being a right wing,war loving reader of the indie these days.
But to be serious, I have bought this paper everyday for many years now and I will not do so again.
John, thanks for your post.