"I might not know what this war's 'about'... but I know it must stop" begins Muriel Gray in her Sunday Herald column. I share in Muriel's somewhat illogical approach to the conflict in Afghanistan but in an apposite way. I don't really know what the war is about but I know it must continue.
My ignorance of why British soldiers are there (dying in alarming numbers) was brought home with a startling suddenness this week when I was asked by a bigger ignoramus than I what the War was about. I even paused to think before responding with a paltry 'we are fighting against Al-Qaeda'.
Those mysterious (perhaps even mythical?) Al-Qaeda figures may well be playing a supporting role but it is of course the Taleban who are the main baddies of this particular piece.
There are some dodgy reasons for being in Afghanistan that should be quickly discounted first of all:
'We must be there for a reason'. The mere presence of our soliders in Afghanistan seems to be enough for some people that we have a cause to fight. The Government has sent our soldiers to fight when the easier option would be to bring them home does not go 'quid pro quo' with a reason for being there.
'Intelligence dictates we must make a stand'. Even without the Iraq War and the lamentable MI6 intelligence that was provided to take us there, it's not enough to hide behind evidence that may or may not exist, away from public eyes, as a reason to send a country's soliders out to fight.
So, with that out of the way, why are we there? And why must we remain for the long haul?
Given I had the answer to the first question so wrong this week, I cannot bring myself to answer the second question without first using the words of a distinguished expert to back me up.
Indeed, on the same page of Muriel Gray's article we have fellow Sunday Herald columnist Trevor Royle who paraphrases former UK ambassaddor to the UN Sr Jeremy Greenstock:
"the British Army's task was similar to propping up a dodgy wall while a sturdy buttress was put in place. The only trouble was that the necessary support was nowhere to be seen - while the soldiers were fighting the Taliban too little was being done to improve the country's infrastructure and to make it self-supporting. Absence of buttress equals collapse of said wall."
Sums it up for me. It just depends on how much one wants that wall up I suppose.
We have it good in Britain, we really do. One of the reasons why the whole independence debate is one that I allow to glide past me is because whether Scotland is independent or part of the Union, it will still be a vastly preferable place to live in than the majority of countries out there.
The UN's Human Development Index backs up this general notion. We may complain when we finish 21st, alarmed at being behind Belgium and Greece, but if there are 195 countries in the world then that relatively high spot of being in the top pontoon of world's nations doesn't look too bad at all.
Afghanistan was unable to compile the information required to even make it into that table last year. No doubt the beheadings, the persecution of women and the deep poverty of the country's children got in the way of gathering the data but the year before that they finished 174th, behind Somalia and Zimbabwe incidentally.
And therein lies the clincher. Muriel Gray points out that if we are in Afghanistan then we should also be in Somalia and Zimbabwe which is a tacit admission that the Afghan campaign is worthy. The all-or-nothing approach where we have to root out the bad guys in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran and all the other less desirable countries out there in a simulataneous crusade is just not plausible.
If all prospective campaigns are justified then one is justified and Afghanistan is the most pressing concern so in we go and in we stay. We stay there till the job is done and we arm our 'boys' with something a lot stronger than the Army equivalent of super soakers and penny black sandshoes. We redouble our efforts in keeping that wall up.
If our schools are a little shabbier and our hospital waiting lists a little longer while we help out people whose lives are unimaginable compared to our own then I for one have no complaints.
Furthermore, we should not conflate money wasted on ID cards and Trident with money well spent on justified international conflicts. And the debate on the 50% tax rate takes on a whole new context if you think about it.
The only other crucial adjustment that needs making in this campaign other than a beefing up of military equipment is communication.
Gordon Brown should deliver an address to the nation. If the best most of us can muster is a vague understanding that we're out there fighting the Taleban (or is it Al-Qaeda?) then the Prime Minister should deliver a message direct to the public explaining why we are there and why we are staying. It's not enough to leave it up to the easily glossed over comment pieces on a Sunday morning.
Someone in Gordon's team must surely have watched The West Wing. A carbon copy of a clear and calm Jed Bartlett delivery is vital at this stage in operations with public support dwindling and body count building.
And, looking pragmatically, don't wartime leaders do better in the polls? There may be another reason for Gordon Brown to embark on this approach other than it being the right thing to do.
Most of us may not know why our Army is in Afghanistan but it does need to stay. Our Prime Minister just needs to remind us why.
13 comments:
"We stay there till the job is done"
What "job" is that?
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare.
When do we know that the "job" is done?
At what point do we leave Afghanistan, is no.120 ok, or does it need to be 119?
"Vietnam presumably taught us that the we could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war."
Jeane Kirkpatrick 1979
The notion of a 'helping hand' or a 'shoulder to the wall' just isn't plausible and has been shown to fail in countless occasions, in various areas around the world.
Only the people of afghanistan can make afghanistan better, they don't need our help in constructing infrastructure, they need us to stop destroying their livelihoods through our insatiable greed..
The truth is that it is the West's insatiable appetite for heroin that has kept Afghanistan poorr.
It is our insatiable demand for cheap food, cheap clothes and cheap fuel that keeps afghanisatn's children in poverty.
The sooner we wake up to our hypocrisy, the sooner we will no longer be seen as a target by jihadist groups and the sooner prosperity and democracy will be given a chance.
Our soldiers are 'plugging a hole", 'putting their shoulder to a wall" , the problem is that we are on the other side pushing it.
Surprised that you don't mention the energy elephant in the room. Notably the long postponed 850-km gas pipeline that will run through Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India...
The 75 cruise missiles that Clinton launched on Jalalabad and Khost nearly 12 years ago, at the height of the Lewinski blowjob scandal, are still having repercussions today. The squaddies who came home in body bags this week paid for the errors of Clinton, Bush, Blair and Brown, with their lives.
This is no simple 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' scenario. The West's involvement in Afghanistan created and exacerbated the dire situation the country is in today.
We have no 'job' to do. If we had focussed a fraction of the resources spent on killing people, on helping rebuild an infrastructure destroyed during the Soviet years, there would be no need for today's post.
I have a friend who has been running a major NGO in Afghanistan since the Soviets withdrew in 1989. His team have been working with Afghans for twenty years and are committed to long-term stabilization and recovery despite Washington and London's inept interference. The reality is that 99% of his team are Afghan nationals, who do a far better job of persuading their friends, family and neighbours to abandon the Taliban than an 18 year old from Fife carrying an M16.
Was using the word ''crusade'' in your post a freudian slip I wonder ?
Gerald Warner, not a man I usually agree with, has hit the nail on the head on this one as far as I am concerned.
''The population of Afghanistan has the right to live by its traditions and religious beliefs. If they are incompatible with democracy, that is the Afghan's affair. Whether or not Afghans educate women is absolutely none of our business. It is not for us to impose an alien culture upon another society. If we think otherwise, we are colonialists - formerly the dirtiest word in the lexicon of the British left.
Afghanistan has defeated every invader; the Soviet Union lost 469,685 men there in a decade. They have defeated us, too; we simply have not admitted it yet - or, rather, our politicians have not. We have no genuine strategic interest there, no moral right and no prospect of victory. The Afghans know we will go eventually, as all the others did, and are planning accordingly. Our soldiers are dying for nothing. We should get out - now.''
I could not agree more.
In relation to Al Quaeda, well, they are mobile. What do the supporters of the Afghan war want us to do next ? Invade Pakistan ? How far do they want to take this ? You do not defeat terrorism by conventional warfare. And when faced with a politically reactionary movement, which is what Islamism is, it is generally not a good idea to give them legitimate grievances to react against.
Obviously you have no military connections of any rank Jeff with whom you can discuss what's happening there.
I agree with Wardog and Monty.
The energy factor is the main reason our troops are there. All this business about rebuilding and democracy are a smokescreen. Like Iraq, any rebuilding will be quickly demolished and require rebuilding again - over and over and over.
We cannot impose western values on countries and how dare we try.
Meanwhile, Brown & Co churn out the spin that our fighting in Afghanistan is protecting the UK. I've never heard such lies from them (and I'm heard quite a few).
People who wish to harm the British are pouring in through our borders at a rate of knots - ask any border official. Our borders are not being policed.
The US police theirs nowadays but Brown doesn't deem our protection important.
No, this war is about energy. Read Gerald Warner in the SoS for a further view.
I'm happier with the word "crusade" than "job" given that the former is 'a vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense of a cause' whereas the latter just makes me sound like Dick Cheney!
Anyway, I reckon a crucial consideration is that the leaders of democratic Afghanistan want us to be there and they are backed by an election which saw a turnout of 75%.
If, after next month's elections, that changes and our presence is no longer appreciated then we should leave.
I don't know why the pipeline should make a difference. Such a scheme would presumably bring economic gains for Afghanistan and, yes, the wider world. This would be under jeopardy if the Taleban got back in. I think we are often too quick to read a conspiracy into our leaders' decisions.
And no reason why local NGOs can't convince people to stay away from Taleban while the local teenage soldiers enforce security. Both approaches compliment each other in my view. I share in the wish that soldiers were older and wiser but such is life.
And I read Gerald Warner's piece, brilliant as usual, but I just happen to disagree with it. Gerald seems to define the Army top brass' victory as every last enemy individual dead and a flag shoved in the ground somewhere. Not so.
Gerald's charge that Afghanistan's population "has the right to live by its traditions and religious beliefs" suggests we weren't invited to be there. I note again the election with a 75% turnout that returned a Government that invited us.
There's a way to persevere with this, in close communication with the Afghan president, to at least stymie the Taleban if not fully extinguish it and leave a long-overdue stable Afghanistan and then privately conclude - Crusade done.
"I note again the election with a 75% turnout that returned a Government that invited us."
Do you not question the veracity of that Afhan Government, it's propped up by Western Interest, ofcourse it's going to 'invite us'.
The Afghan Government are not in control of f large areas of afghanistan so what has it got to lose?
The Government has essentially collapsed, it has lost its meaning in the provinces.
That very same Government's corruption is endemic, it hurts the poorest people disproportionately, pushes people away from the state and undermines the stated joint efforts to build peace, stability and progress for Afghanistan's peoples..
Catch 22
Heroin and oil are at the heart of it. and the West's demand for these is the fuel.
The British public would be up in arms if they knew that the district appointments in the south for which British soldiers are dying are there just to protect drug routes
President Karzai, is increasingly isolated by a cadre of corrupt officials.
Our 'rebuilding' consist of paying off war lords, we created it. We came in in 2001 with cases of cash and made certain people untouchables.
The dozens of drug-funded villas that have sprung up around foreign embassies in Kabul’s Sherpur district are a testament to the untouchable status of former warlords.
Corruption among police and local authorities is worst in southern Afghanistan - helmand, where drug profits are highest.
If we really want to give the people of Afghanistan route out of their plight, then pay the growers more than the going rate for poppies instead of destroying them.
Wardog,
You say the Government has "essentially collapsed", is that not more of a reason to stay than to leave?
We blame Labour for letting the BNP in and then urge them to leave Afghanistan which would let the Taleban in. No wonder Gordon Brown can't win!
Heroin may well be at the heart of it but I know that I would rather a democratic Government controlling that industry than the Taleban. It may well be corrupt but as long as a system is in place for the Afghani people to build on then we'll have done our bit.
I do accept the challenge that why should we interfere in Afghanistan if the US has shied away from interfering in Colombia for so long. Not sure how comparable the two are though...
Anyway, your painting how bleak the picture is for Afghanistan hardens my position on the matter, particularly when you seemingly offer no solution other than paying more for poppies.
I'm not painting anything Jeff, that's the reality on the ground. Any soldier coming back from Afghanistan will tell you that it's 50/50 whether the locals hate/love them.
I think your underestimating the effect the drug trade has on Afghanistan and your definition of 'democracy' is a bit hollow.
Because of the lack of security, there were very few election monitors - under 400. infact. About 10% of the Afghan voters actually reside as refugees in Iran which given the recent events You'll understand why I don't hold much faith in the monitoring there either.
The European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe sent observer missions, but neither issued a report on whether the election was fair or not.
We are not in Afghanistan to bring democracy, that is not why we invaded it.
What makes you think you can bring western democracy to a country that to all intensive purposes is in the stone age.?
Have you considered where all of the 'taleban' are coming from?
Is it really the Taleban we're fighting or is it actually the Muhajedeen Insurgency / Warlords?
In which case, we're fighting the centuries old culture of this nation to impress our western ideals upon them...... we've tried that before.
The Afghan's are proud people who have repelled the British Empire (The Gordon Highlanders no less)), the Soviets and now it would appear the international community led by the US.
if we really want to bring democracy to Afghanistan the way to do is to make farming crops profitable, wipe out the poppies by making them unprofitable .
PS Comparing the BNP to the Taleban, c'mon
I just don't see the link between farming being profitable and a strong, secure Afghanistan. With the Taleban in charge all profits will get creamed into their pockets. It's what happened before and it's what would happen again.
For your other points, I don't see how they are tethered to the original question of whether we should stay or leave.
And if we aren't in Afghanistan to make it a democracy, why are we there? I sense a conspiracy theory coming on...
PS You were "painting" a picture for me given, as I said before, I don't really know that much about the reality. It wasn't meant negatively.
The role set out by the UN (and taken up by NATO) isn't to explicitly introduce democracy.
The UN Security Council (UNSC) which authorised the establishment of a force to assist the Afghan government “in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment.”
Recently in the Times, Gordon Brown said about the British Armies achievements,
“They are having a marked impact on the Taliban in central Helmand, will improve security for the population in the run up to the elections, and will allow longer term work on governance and development to begin.”
Brown has also said that securing Afghanistan was essential to prevent the ‘return of al Qaida’.
This an anti-government insurgency
There are plenty of military voices that are saying that the insurgency here is different to that in Iraq, here it will never be tamed, only managed which will require a standing afghan army.
Can democracy ever really happen in such conditions whilst poppy fields continue to produce?
"We cannot impose western values on countries and how dare we try."
Well given the rights of women under the Taliban you would have thought you might show a bit more sympathy.
This is about more than oil.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was Pakistan under Benesir Bhutto, that created the Taliban. They were trained in the madrassas that were set up and then sent into Afganistan to take over. I think Pakistan was fed up having an unstable country bordering with them; it was an attempt to bring an end to the rule of the warlords in Afganistan and also give Pakistan leverage over the place. Unfortunately, they got a little out of hand. They did clean up the opium trade and brought peace, but at a terrible price to women. They also invited in Bin Laden. So the west moved in, but as you put it, Jeff, Afganistan is so fractured that there isn't really anyone with enough authority to lead; the advantage that the Taliban had is that they were outsiders and had a common purpose, whereas Afganistan is largely tribal. I don't know if this can change and if our troops being there are doing anything useful. I think that maybe we have to learn to do war in a different way, that doesn't involve smashing up the entire infrastructure of a country; could we not just go after the leaders and leave everyone else alone, or am I just being naive? I don't know.
Post a Comment