Leading article: Troops out. Unless...
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
It is no panicky reaction to sad news from the battlefield to say that the coalition's mission in Afghanistan is in deep trouble. It has no clear end point towards which to work – certainly none that is realistically achievable – and has been allowed to drift since the Taliban regime was deposed eight years ago.
That original intervention was morally and legally justified. The United States was entitled to demand that al-Qa'ida be brought to justice, and was entitled to the support of the United Nations when the Taliban refused to surrender Osama bin Laden. After the fall of Kabul, the war aims became more ambitious – for laudable reasons, which this newspaper supported at the time. The US-led coalition hoped to rebuild the civic and physical infrastructure of the country, with a military presence to maintain order, handing over in the medium term (that is, about now) to Afghan forces under the control of a democratic government.
Unfortunately, at the critical time when our forces could have created space for development, the coalition was distracted by the disastrous adventure in Iraq. And, because British casualties were amazingly low – only eight of our soldiers were killed before 2006 – Afghanistan slipped right down the list of concerns. It was not until British forces stepped up to the responsibilities shunned by other Nato partners and took over from the US in Helmand province three years ago that hard questions began to be asked.
For a while, it was possible to suppress the doubts. Afghanistan is a poor, tribal society from which foreigners have always retreated hurt. It was possible to suppose that history might be different this time. The US and UK are generally regarded favourably by Afghans. An opinion poll carried out in May found that 84 per cent thought "foreign assistance" was important in providing education, healthcare, roads, sewers and water supplies. But foreign forces are bound to become unpopular over time, and it should be evident by now that the Taliban cannot be militarily defeated – and certainly not by foreign forces. The Taliban may be disliked but they can draw on nationalist sentiment, which can only increase.
That same poll also found that 68 per cent wanted their government to "hold talks and reconcile with the Taliban".
It was possible, too, to think that something might be done about poppy farming. British officials spoke brightly of "diversification" into other crops, and Tony Blair briefly considered the more radical option, which this newspaper supported, of legalising opium production to produce medical opiates. But, as Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP who briefly advised Gordon Brown, writes today, the poppy harvest in Helmand has almost doubled on our watch.
Mr Mercer proposes, however, one of the weaker arguments for the continuing coalition presence, that "too many lives have now been lost ... for this campaign to be abandoned". The Prime Minister made a slightly better attempt in his letter to select committee chairmen yesterday, but Raymond Whitaker's analysis exposes the flaws in the Government's case. At the level of the squaddie, the justification now falls back mainly on "helping the Afghan people" – and British soldiers are doing good work. But eight years on, they are still doing it.
The British people and their armed forces deserve better than this. Military action abroad cannot be sustained without solid support at home. We have severe doubts about whether our goals can ever be clear and whether they can be achieved by conventional warfare.
They certainly cannot be achieved if our troops fight with both hands tied behind their backs. If our troops are to stay in Afghanistan, they must have the equipment they need. But even if they had enough heavy-armoured vehicles and helicopters, the Taliban would find ways to attack them.
And commanders should have the numbers they need – as we report today, retired generals are aghast at plans to pull out 1,500 soldiers. But even if they had the forces they want, what they need above all is a believable cause for which to fight. The threat from al-Qa'ida is too tenuous to continue to justify this operation. It may be that the terrorists would be better fought by intelligence and special forces than by trying to turn Afghanistan into a stable democracy.
The time has come for Mr Brown to persuade us of the case all over again. If he cannot do so with far greater clarity and conviction, he must bring our troops home.
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 troops in Afghanistan makes attacks on British civilians more likely in some ways, just as having the July 7th bombings would probably never have happened if it hadn't been for the Iraq war.
So the only solid justification for keeping troops in Afghanistan would be if they were defeating the Taliban in ways that killed less civilians than the return of the Taliban would, ended Taliban practices such as torture and the oppression of women and helping create a real democracy.
So far the US and NATO campaign in Afghanistan have failed to achieve any of that. The war is killing far more civilians (mostly in air strikes, parallelled by missile strikes in Pakistan) than the Taliban were with their brutal version of Sharia law . The Northern Alliance/United Front warlords have also shown that they will torture and massacre just as much as the Taliban did.
The Obama administration have at least got one adviser now who recognises that you can't kill Afghans' friends, family and neighbours and then expect them to support you. However his estimate of the time required for victory is 10 more years. Is there any war that lasted 18 years and was worth all the deaths involved on each side and among civilians?
The other justification for having troops in Afghanistan is to establish a government that won't allow Al Qa'ida to train in its territory. Again there are no signs that this is an aim that can be achieved by force.
There are no perfect answers but unless the Obama administration shows that it realises that no number of military offensives, airstrikes or missile strikes will result in the other side giving in or being defeated in Afghanistan or Pakistan then we should bring our troops home.
Most Afghans don't want the Taliban back - they don't want to be killed in large numbers by forces fighting the Taliban either though, or to be raped or murdered by warlords.
Successive governments have been obsessed with seeming to prove Britain is still a world power. It isn't. We have neither the resources nor the moral authority to be so. We need an exit strategy out of this military black hole.
Looking further ahead, as part of a necessary root and branch look at public spending, we need to review our whole defence strategy. We are an important European country, no more no less, and concentrating on matters closer to home makes much more sense. The British Empire died at Suez over 50 years ago. It's taken us too long to realise it.
Invading any country on the basis it has a few terrorsits we don't like is a pretty flimsy excuse for going to war against it and its population. Continuing the occupation on the basis of ill thought through 'excuses for going to war' is even less excuseable. Going to war against a country when there is absolutely no threat to national security , as the UK has done, is a criminal abuse of the power our democratic system gives our elected MP's and government. In short, there is no argument or restatement of the case to war against Afganistan that Mr Brown can put forward to change this persons opinion that we should get out now.
So if the PM states in the morning that objective in Afghanistan is get all the troops home by the winter and he gets it done, then you win and you can all be happy. Just like you won (lost) in Basra same same, first go to airport then fly home, glorious mission fit for heros, slap on the back and pretend you won, smiles all round.
It worked in Iraq why can't it work for Afghanistan.
BTW what is the oppisite to defeatist? Is it warmonger?
Does the same go for the Cenotaph?
Why ? Afghanistan is a very complex tribal society that pursues sectional interests, a sudden Western withdrawal would unite all. If you missed it, Matthew Parris wrote a really good illustration of the complexity yesterday, worth a read: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen
The likelihood is that we do need to get out over the next couple of years but by stages. We let the Presidential Elections run but negotiate with the War Lords because paying them large sums of money to act as power brokers would be far cheaper than keeping Nato and US Forces in the country and likely more effective. Tom King the former Defence Secretary in a Tory Government made the point that it was nonsense to talk about an open ended commitment because in the end, the longer a foreign army stays there, the more unpopular and more likely that they become the primary focus to unite all the Afghans against them.
We really do need to get this American Administration thinking somewhat clearer on this topic, you are never going to build Afghanistan into a modern democratic state - it is just not going to happen.
It is also wrong to say that we in the UK do not have a real interest there we do obviously because of the Opium which is a real curse for us on our streets but we may need to reconsider how we deal with that internally. Draconian sentences on conviction for dealing such as the death sentence and confiscation of all personal property regardless of proof of being the proceeds of crime, may be a better solution than destroying the Poppy crop.
However, the biggest single threat to UK security comes from Pakistan and resolving that problem is far more difficult without introducing measures that will drive British citizens of Pakistani origins into the type of extreme act such as 7/7. Just walking away from all this is not the simple option it appears to be, I'm afraid.
Those CIA guys are not very original with their names, surprised they didn't call him Derek Jackson.lol
A growth industry in these hard times shouldn't be knocked, maybe we could get the opium farmers to run our economy.
Have the British tought about getting the Afghan poulation strung out on smak like they did in China ( ahh those were the days), it could buy them more time before they pull out. Another thing I was wondering, if the Taliban don't take drugs, who does their quality control, they must "outsource" I supose. They sound just like us, exploit be ruthless and outsource. Every CEO has these qualities and probably has them on their CV.