Leading Articles

9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Leading article: Why we must leave Afghanistan

One by one over the past eight years, the arguments for the continued presence of Nato troops in Afghanistan have fallen away. The last one, which held us back until now from calling for withdrawal, was the need to police the Afghan election in August. That election process is now over: last week the president's main opponent pulled out, and Hamid Karzai was formally re-elected. That is not a happy outcome. For British soldiers to be deployed in support of a president whose position is bolstered by ballot-rigging tips the balance of our view from reluctant backing for the mission in Afghanistan to regretful opposition.

The Independent on Sunday is proud of Britain's armed forces, and has led the way in demanding that the Government honour – on behalf of the British people – its side of the military covenant, to provide troops with the equipment that they need and the support that they and their families deserve. On this Remembrance Sunday, we reassert our belief that our forces are entitled, above all, to clear and believable war aims.

This newspaper was never keen on the Afghan intervention, although we did distinguish it sharply from the Iraq war, which we opposed strongly throughout. When Tony Blair said, before the bombs began to fall, "We must bring Bin Laden and other al-Qa'ida leaders to justice" and "ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism", we pointed out that the terrorist threat to Britain from al-Qa'ida training camps was tenuous.

Once the conflict began, we asked: "What is this war for?" Although we never received a satisfactory answer, we welcomed the fall of the Taliban and reluctantly accepted Mr Blair's argument, made with his trademark persuasiveness, that the best protection against their return was to help rebuild the country. Thus the mission crept from bringing mass murderers to book to fostering democracy, female emancipation and winning the battle against drugs. Those are worthy aims, but eight years on we have made limited progress. In the meantime, British forces, which had borne few casualties until then, were deployed in 2006 to Helmand province.

It is not so much the casualty rate, however, but the lack of progress that should demand a re-examination of our policy. Gordon Brown's speech last week did not deliver the review needed. It contained the glaring contradiction between the claim that our troops are needed in Afghanistan "to keep the British people safe" and the warning that, if Mr Karzai's government fails to clean up its act, it will have "forfeited its right to international support". If you believe that our mission in Afghanistan makes British streets safer, then its continuation should not depend on Mr Karzai. If, on the other hand, you believe, as Kim Howells, the former Foreign Office minister, said last week, that any remote or long-term effect on British streets is outweighed by the propaganda gain to jihadist ideology of our "occupying" a Muslim country, then Mr Karzai's shortcomings give us another reason to get out.

There are, of course, still good reasons to stay, although they are secondary. The Afghan people do not want foreign troops to leave until security is better. But the longer we are there the more our forces provide target practice for jihadists and grievances for nationalists to turn to jihadism, as Patrick Cockburn argues so forcefully today.

A second reason for staying is that our withdrawal could undermine Barack Obama, whose leadership is needed in the world. But we have left Iraq while the US stayed. In any case, as we report today, the US is keen to move British forces away from being a political target.

Ultimately, we should make a British decision in the British interest. And that decision should be to wind down combat operations over a period – say, by Remembrance Sunday next year – and to restrict the mission to training the Afghan army and police force. Special forces operations should continue, especially on the Pakistan border, to disrupt any attempt by al-Qa'ida to return. But beyond that it is time to act on the observation of David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, that there can be no military solution in Afghanistan.

It is time, on this solemn day on which we remember the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for our freedom and security, for a change in policy. It is time to say that this war is ill conceived, unwinnable and counterproductive. It is time to start planning a phased withdrawal of British troops.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

U Turn
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:38 am (UTC)
Has the Independent on Sunday nothing to do with the Independent?
Two days ago this was the story.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-case-for-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-is-not-yet-made-1814807.html

Am I missing something here?
Forgive my ignorance, please.
Re: U Turn
[info]find_empire wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:58 am (UTC)
Nope, you're spot on. The Indy has blown the retreat bugle. It was shocked out of its lemming-like suicidal trance following Crash Gordon on his great suicide leap not by anything that happened in the UK or to UK troops in the stans but by the Kenyan messiah's latest fall from grace:



Major Hasan's Fort Hood shoot-up might have also had some salutary effect on the Indy's failing judgement by shining a light on the utter insanity of the Yank military and empire, which have been for some years the Indy's beacon.

Leaving Afghanistan
[info]kweliyangu wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 03:15 am (UTC)
"It is time, on this solemn day on which we remember the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for our freedom and security, for a change in policy."

That our freedoms should depend on a perceived threat from some tribes that have only reached our consciousness via a war of our own making speaks mountains about our own stupidity and less about theirs. When we quit playing god and leave peoples to their devices, we might actually find that they might leave us to ours. Should we quit playing an unrelenting god, others may actually abandon playing their equally unrelenting anti-god. The sadness is that we are doing America's bidding, not our own. If those tribes had the wherewithal to come raining down on us in the comfort of our homes and then lay claim to the same ludicrous propositions about THEIR freedoms...what can one possibly say...
Re: Leaving Afghanistan
[info]londonrebel wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 03:13 pm (UTC)
largely correct.....but then the Taleban shouldn't have hosted AQ in Afghanistan in the first place. That was a major blunder on their part and if they continue to cooperate with AQ, it could happen all over again. But if they prevent AQ from returning to Afghanistan, then it's a deal I would say.
Not bothered
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 04:19 am (UTC)
"It is not so much the casualty rate, however, but the lack of progress that should demand a re-examination of our policy."

How far up your own arse do you have to be to say that?

It's not so much the dead people that put me off war, but the lack of a policy that can define a win/draw.
Just like on a game conlose.

Am I reading this wrong?
Sorry if I am.
Re: Not bothered
[info]the_hatstand wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 04:21 pm (UTC)
It's the difference between "We lost some good men, but there was significant progress so their lives were not wasted" and "We lost some good men and nothing was gained, so their lives were wasted. Let's make sure we don't waste any more." Which then hopefully begs the questions, "Is there no progress because our use of force is insufficient, or because it's actually counterproductive? Maybe this isn't a situation we can resolve by waging war at all?"
[info]prevessinman wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:39 am (UTC)
I can only echo the many sensible posts on the imperative need to leave. If there was ever a self-fulfilling prophecy, the wes's presence in Afghanistan is it.
"The Afghan people do not want foreign troops to leave until security is better."
[info]find_empire wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:44 am (UTC)
Did you ask these guys?

Afghans say 20 died in NATO airstrike


Afghan officials said the NATO airstrike hit a coalition base in the area or hit near it. The district's mayor, Abdul Shukor, put the death toll at 20 -- six Afghan soldiers, two policemen and 12 civilians. Shukor described the bombing site as a military checkpoint near a warehouse.


Hey, why so glum? All you have to do it PRIVATIZE the occupation. The troops come home, the ragheads still get wasted, everybody's happy. Come on nulab, you can do it, there's one last big outrage and betrayal of your principles that you still have time to commit before you get the boot and the other pack of scumbags take over. Why can't BRITISH "private contractors" match the Yanks' success in turning the war over to private enterprise?

The Lisbon Treaty
[info]standupifyou wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 07:51 am (UTC)
I'd have been more inclined to have been in favour of it if the proposed "joint European foreigh policy" meant either that the other 26 countries actually took up their share of the burden or prefereably that we all stayed at home.
In a year
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:00 am (UTC)
So your headline should really say "Why we must leave Afghanistan (in about a year)". Or maybe you really mean sometime in the future, which would put you with everybody else because nobody has ever said we should stay forever. Forthright, or what?
[info]grautr wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:02 am (UTC)
We wont be leaving until we have extracted the fossil fuels from central Asia through Afganistan to the Indian ocean.
This newspaper is a liar
[info]charlesdanwood wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)

The Independent gave all the same reasons for staying in Afghanistan as did the British and American administrations.
What is clear is that the readership of The Independent is better informed and more honest than the editorial team.
Sorry, not impressed
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:35 pm (UTC)
Should we, will we leave Afghanistan ? The answer of course is Yes but not in the immediate future and certainly not within the year. President Obama is obviously struggling with this one on many levels and frankly the withdrawal plan will be initiated by the US not so much because of military but rather with "political and prestige" reasons uppermost.

The half hearted support of France and Germany in particular to a NATO operation, has been disastrous for both NATO as an organisation and potentially the degree of American engagement with Europe generally, one must never forget that the US is also a "Pacific facing Power" and that is where the action is likely to be in future.

The idea of winding down the British presence to a much smaller commitment in terms of numbers is a total non starter unless there is a substantial US presence left on the ground, our troops would just become hostages. Besides which, without the Iraq Deployment which the US still has, no British PM will be scaling our commitment down until the US does.

The UK's main threat comes from Pakistan and the AfPak border, a precipitate withdrawal would need to be accompanied by restricting travel between the UK and Pakistan by direct or, indirect means and especially so called "students" from the Indian Sub Continent. Even then, we would still need to deal with our home grown would be jihadists.

Am I saying that we will and should stay there for a very long time, No I don't. Having read your various articles today, I'm not impressed because as far as the key factors and direct British Interests are concerned, nothing much has changed except the casualty list which however tragic and it is, is still modest in comparative terms. That our thoughts and prayers should be with the families and injured survivors of this campaign, is a given but here is another thought:

Despite our daft Prime Minister and whoever on "buggins turn" happens to be our Defence Minister, not explaining our policy and British Interests in this matter, in one day on 7/7 and within minutes of each other, 52 civilians died in London, more than half our military casualties so far this year. Preventing repeats is a Police and Intelligence operation, denying training facilities and safe havens, is purely military.

On leaving Afghanistan, I wrote this up on my own blog last February and no, you won't find it Gung Ho:

http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/02/26/leaving-afghanistan
Re: Sorry, not impressed
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:22 pm (UTC)
So how many Afghan civilians have NATO killed this year?
Is it a modest number?

Let's just take it(no matter how silly) that the Taliban are going to come here and kill civilians.
Does that justify the UK killing civilians in Afghanistan to stop this?

If so it means you think Afghans are not worth the same as people from the UK.
Would that be a purely military way of thinking?
Re: Sorry, not impressed
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:30 pm (UTC)
Apart from being as you well know, a totally "emotive" question or proposition to which you know the real answers or reasons already, I don't think that the death of any person whether Afghan, NATO forces or even Osama Bin Laden, is to be welcomed. "Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls..."

Western military machine and tactics meets a tribal society, sorry just what is going to happen ? So the solution is for NATO to field an expeditionary force of 500,000 men, no aircraft, just hand to hand combat. Just how likely is that ?

Neither I nor any military person I've ever met, condones so called "collateral damage" which is just a way of saying the munitions hit the wrong target, it is never acceptable. If this Government had got its finger out of its bottom and spent the money, the technology exists at very low cost (relatively), to minimise such incidents however, there are some things that cannot be calculated for.

Germans lose a couple of fuel trucks stolen by the Taliban who get one across the river and the other stuck in the mud. The Germans don't have troops on the ground "eye-balling" the situation so when the Taliban tell local villagers to help themselves to the fuel in the stuck truck, no one knows and...

Yes all these things are terrible and I don't like the phrase "fog of war" but it is the reality. You on the other hand talk rubbish. The bombing of Dresden in WWII was terrible but was it sufficient to abandon a war ? Was it worse than Belsen, Auschwitz and so on... Try engaging with the question posed, is an immediate pull out the answer ?

People dying, anybody dying is not good but right now, its happening and a "Yah Boo Sucks" childish argument really doesn't cut it.
Re: Sorry, not impressed
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 02:26 pm (UTC)
I said nothing about Dresden or Belsen and don't see the connection.
Trying to equate afghanistan to WWII is rubbish.

I was asking you a direct question.
Do you think it is better to kill people in Afghanistan on the off chance it might stop someone here getting killed.

I'm not judging you, I am asking you a question, because I value your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.

You have failed to answere the qusetion, but managed to call me stupid in the process, nice one.

If you accept civilians are going to be killed you need a justification and I tought your justification was to stop them comming here by fighting there. It is what you implied..

"52 civilians died in London, more than half our military casualties so far this year. Preventing repeats is a Police and Intelligence operation, denying training facilities and safe havens, is purely military."

You did say that didn't you?
Re: Sorry, not impressed
[info]stayahead wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:33 pm (UTC)

Why all this? Simple: Afghans' lives matter but never matter as much as that of the British. The ratio must be at least be 1:10. The lives of 52 British is obviously any day more important than that of 500 Afghans. We see it everyday in the way the casualty of the Afghans are reported compared to that of the western troops. To say that the lives of Afghans is exactly the same as that of British is simply hypocritical. Just recently, a British and Afghan were kidnapped. The British guy is saved, the Afghan is shot and even his body left behind! Who said all lives are equal? Western lives (civilian or military) is more important than that of Asian and/or Africans, probably in that order.
waiting 4 u
[info]lsi_92 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 02:55 pm (UTC)
Wow, this is apparently news, that a newspaper wants the UK out of Afghanistan, what can I say but welcome!

It was a bit of a no-brainer for me, it violates the Prime Directive, no further thought needed...

That was back in 2001.. I've been busy since then. Those guys, they've been busy fighting. Go figure...
Why we must leave Afghanistan
[info]midwinter1947 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 03:59 pm (UTC)
Of course at some point we must leave. The questions are: when do the troops come home?; and, in the mean time, what are they trying to achieve? I have never been pro-war (this or any other) but a more unstable Afghanistan would lead to a more unstable Pakistan - it's already bad enough. The consequences of this could be truly apocalyptic. Religious states are (almost by definition) unreasonable to their neighbours and their leaders are often irrational risk takers because they 'have God on their side'. Imagine a jihaddist Pakistan with nuclear weapons. How might the relationship with India play out? The aim, therefore, must surely be: to stabilise Afghanistan and the Pakistan border.

Nevertheless, I can agree with Kim Howells to the extent that we must fight terrorism in other ways. We have often heard about 'winning hearts and minds' but when are we going to see real action on this front. Why do religious zealots and their leaders get such an easy ride when their pronouncements should be examined ruthlessly and challenged? Unfortunately, it is not PC to challenge anyone's 'beliefs'.
Afghanistan
[info]exported wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 04:45 pm (UTC)
It really does not matter what might be the arguments for fighting in Afghanistan, whether political, economic, strategic - or even moral. The overriding factor is that in Afghanistan you can't win. Because of the geography, the demographics, the history, the poor communications, and the internal cultural differences, any attempt to defeat an Afghan uprising will fail; any attempt to impose an effective government will fail.

In 1956 the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was reported to have said to the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, "Of course we can take Cairo. What I want to know is what the bloody hell we are supposed to do after we have taken it". A soldier with good political common sense; we appear to lack such soldiers now - or, if they exist, the politicians lack the sense to listen to them.
Britain and Afghanistan
[info]neilpirie wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:51 pm (UTC)
I have never supported the invasion by British and Nato troops of Afghanistan.
History suggests very strongly that Briostish and Russian (USSR) invaders have not fared well.
I suggest that legalising Heroin and getting BAT to buy and sell it, would be of much more value than having out troops there.
PS My father survived Ypres
Yours
Neil Pirie
Afghanistan
[info]neilpirie wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:03 pm (UTC)
I never thought it was a good idea to 'go into Afghanistan'. My father was in the same conflict as Robert Fisk's. Too many politicians have not been in military conflict.
We should get out, but at the same time, legalise heroin and get BAT to buy and sell it. Cheaper and more effective eh?
Neil Pirie
leave now
[info]johnnywi wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 05:42 am (UTC)
Any reason for staying is long past. 31 million people can't be held acountable for what a few terrorists did 8 years ago. No Afgans were at 9/11. This is not the time to double down. It is time to recognize that this will be a never ending mess. Bring the troops home now. Enough have died and been injured in a poorly planned and badly led operation.
Obviously for the IoS leader writer, British public opinion counts for nothing
[info]sketchley wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:07 am (UTC)
The recent Channel 4/YouGov poll gives the figure as 73% of the British population who want the troops out of Afghanistan. This is never mentioned, even as a reason for withdrawal. Could someone from the IoS please therefore explain why, in a supposed democracy, what the people want is not even discused?
Re: Obviously for the IoS leader writer, British public opinion counts for nothing
[info]eccysto wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 07:29 pm (UTC)
As much as I disagree with the logic of going into Afghanistan in the first place, I do not think this is an appropriate time to withdrawal - an opinion shared by many informed people.

CNA Training
Re: Obviously for the IoS leader writer, British public opinion counts for nothing
[info]sketchley wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 02:55 pm (UTC)
Appopriate time? Informed people? What on earth are you babbling about?

In a democracy, the peoples will is sacrosanct. If you are trying to suggest that the majority of British are not informed and that their opinion doesn't matter, then perhaps you belong in a totalitarian state such as Nazi Germany, where decisions were made by 'informed' leaders on behalf of an ignorant populace. Or perhaps you are a follower of Leo Strauss like Bush and the neo-cons, You comment is elitist and anti-democratic.

Do you have any idea how sinister your posting is?
Square peg in a round hole
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 09:18 pm (UTC)
The terrain is unsuitable:
- for central governance
- for conventional wars
- for democracy
- linking up cities and towns to form an integrated society

Afganistan has:
- shia in the north, sunni in the south, divide and conquer has it advantages (at the beginning of the invasion) and disadvantages (when trying to drop the invasion)
- over 95% of the population are illetrate, good for war lords and clan leaders
- a feudal system means tribal and clan enjoy loyalty, unsuitable for democracy
- a president installed by the USA, but not recognised by all the Afghans

Why do the politicians in the USA/UK keep thinking they can make the Afghans comply?

Keep trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It's simply is not going to happen...

Columnist Comments

hamish_mcrae

Hamish McRae: A time for giving with a difference

With the recession, there is a shift from giving people things to giving them services

mark_steel

Mark Steel: Come rain or revo- lution, it's money they want

Haven't the 20th anniversary celebrations of the overthrow of communism been miserable?

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Science must never be political or emotional

Politicians and action groups select favourable data, ignoring inconvenient evidence


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion