Since I posted on Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago, we have lost more British lives there than the number of people who were interested enough to comment on this blog. God knows how many Afghans we have killed in the interim.

And yet this is a simple issue. Who can answer any of the following questions in the affirmitive?

Do we have a strategic interest in the region?

No. The fact that OBL once lived in a cave there or that they grow poppies is not a strategic interest.

Do we have a clear objective that we are trying to achieve?

No. Propping up a corrupt government? Ensuring education for girls?

If we have an objective, is it possible to know when it will be achieved?

No. We don’t have one, but even if we did the dynamics in Afghanistan would be the same when we leave as when we arrived.

If we agree on how we will know that we have achieved our objective, can we do it?

No. Even with a strategic interest, a clearly defined objective and an exit strategy, history tells us that, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the British Raj and the Soviet Union have all failed to achieve their military objectives in Afghanistan. Could the US win in Vietnam?

So while LC bloggers are content to spend hours debating a left wing critique of Harry Potter they seem content that the Government continues to send 18 year old working class kids to be slaughtered in a war with no purpose.

Sad really.

Hi Neil,

Interesting piece as ever.

Conor Foley’s got an excellent article on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/13/afghanistan-quick-fix-western-kabul

It concludes, “it would be wrong to think that the only two possible policy options are between military withdrawal and more of the same. We could try being smart for a change.”

The only solution to Afghanistan’s many social and political problems is an internal Afghan solution. There is no possibility of the UK and US governments honestly and in good faith assisting that nation in reaching such a solution. We should not be there; we are merely killing Afghans and killing our own young soldier.

#1 A lack of comments doesn’t mean people don’t read it. It could mean less people thought they could add to the discussion, perhaps because they agree with the article, perhaps because they’re not knowledgeable enough and perhaps because they accept that pointscoring or banter is less appropriate than normal. (In my case, my silence in this thread is a bt of all three.)

Part of the problem is that the Pushtun , like the Kurds are a people without a country.
Pakistan is largely run by the Sindhi commercial elite and the Punjabi army officer/civil servant elite . The Pushtuns are generally low down the pecking order. Though Afghanistan is 40% Pushtun they provided the king. Consequently, part of the drive of the Taliban is probably an attempt to regain power and prestige for the Pushtun. The present Pushtun Taliban are influenced by Whaabi/Dobandi theology which has marginalised the Sufi and folk traditions of Islam. As a consequence , a socially conservative warrior people have become even more conservative and contemptuous of the bright lights and decadence of Kabul.
If we are going to rebuild Afghanistan I suggest we reduce the mission to
1. Providing security from the Taliban , until the Afghan army is ready.
2. A quick and relatively corrupt free judicial system.
3. Improving agriculture in order to provid alternative to growing poppies. stop supplying fertliser used in bombs.
4. Providing basic water and sewage system .
5. Basic medical care.
6. Basic education .
7. Supporting smal businesses.

Provide an alternative source of income to the opium industry.

Do we have a strategic interest in the region?

Yes we do. The expansion of the Taliban and/or war between India and Pakistan will come to bite us later.
Besides, we fucked up the country we now have to set it right.

Do we have a clear objective that we are trying to achieve?

Well, the strategy is being changed from the Bush era… but its definitely being developed. This is what the surge is about. I’m actually pissed the bloody Europeans are being such wusses and not contributing forces like the Americans are.

If we have an objective, is it possible to know when it will be achieved?

Once the Afghani govt achieves stabillity and can deal with the Taliban themselves and have control over the country and Pakistan stops funding the Taliban.

If we agree on how we will know that we have achieved our objective, can we do it?

By staying there.

So while LC bloggers are content to spend hours debating a left wing critique of Harry Potter they seem content that the Government continues to send 18 year old working class kids to be slaughtered in a war with no purpose.

Irrelevant comment. We publish a range of comment – I don’t dictate what people discuss and what they don’t.

Sunny. Soon or later the USA and Britain will have to confront Pakistan’s ISI funding and support of the Taliban and various Kasmiri groups. After the murder of Abdul Haq by the Taliban there appears to be no strong Pushtun anti- Taliban groups. A strong anti Taliban, Pushtun group would probably help the situation.

Sunny wrote: “Once the Afghani govt achieves stabillity and can deal with the Taliban themselves and have control over the country and Pakistan stops funding the Taliban.”

I would say that I find it very hard to believe that the first three of those four objectives can possibly be achieved while British and American troops are engaged in combat operations in the country.

I like a lot of what you write, Sunny but on issues like this I think you are firmly in that deluded camp of mainstream liberals who think we and America can actually send our military forces off to engage in complex conflicts, the intricacies of which we hardly understand (“us good, baddies all Taliban!”), and bring “stability”.

“If we are going to rebuild Afghanistan I suggest we reduce the mission to
1. Providing security from the Taliban , until the Afghan army is ready.”

The problem I have with this is that it’s rather like providing security for Vietnam from the Viet Minh – i.e. it is based on providing security for a state from a significant constituency of its own people. The Taliban are not from Mars.

“I worry about the militarisation of humanitarian aid, about the feeble nature of the Karzai government”

It’s not so much the “feeble nature of the Karzai government” that bothers me – it’s the fact that it includes a number of people who are every bit as bad as the people we ousted. General Dostum is not a nice man in anybody’s book.

Wars are fought with bullets and bombs until you negotiate the peace.

What you also need in the war in Afghanistan is a third front – whereby you bring the Russians in.

I agree with Sunny that other European countries have left a bad taste in the mouth – they, too, need to send more troops. And a lot of them, the tribal Taleban will see there is no victory and will slide away – it is in that lull when Afghan troops are truly brought up to speed while the country is kept secure, yes by UK and US plus others.

Sunny. Soon or later the USA and Britain will have to confront Pakistan’s ISI funding and support of the Taliban and various Kasmiri groups

Well, this is already happening by virtue of the fact that Pakistan is now in a full-scale war with the Taliban. This is a BIG THING that many of you fail to appreciate.

I was travelling around Pakistan only in September last year and the mainstream Urdu language media narrative was that the Taliban are just fighting for their freedom and its all America’s fault. However, since the Taliban invasion of Swat and the subsequent fight between the two there has been a sea-change in opinion in Pakistan against the Taliban.

It has become much more politically palatable for the govt to stop that funding and say that the Taliban are anti-Pakistan. These are encouraging developments and to think it has no impact on our involvement in Afghanistan is to miss the bigger picture.

So the conditions have changed a lot since the beginning of the year. Comparing our involvement to the Soviet invasion is facile in my view.

frolix22: I would say that I find it very hard to believe that the first three of those four objectives can possibly be achieved while British and American troops are engaged in combat operations in the country.

I definitely think that the strategy under Bush was all over the place. It willl take a while to undo that level of stupidity. But I’ve linked to an article in the past about Obama’s changing strategy in Afghanistan and we’re yet to see that fully rolled out or even have an impact. This can be turned around in the long term, and frankly we need to turn around that region in the long term. It is in our best long-term interests and that of the Afghani people.

It will eventually happen through a more stable Afghani govt. That govt is not perfect, it is liable to corruption but its not like the Taliban are fantastic administrators. But having the Karzai govt is still way better than the Taliban – if only for regional security.

Thanks Don – and a good article Neil.

Anyone who thinks that there is a simple answer to the questions that you raise does not understand Afghanistan properly.

The ‘simple’ reason why Britain is in Afghanistan is because its closest ally – the US – suffered a devastating armed from an organisation based there. There are lots of other broader reasons – some of them good, some of them not so good and some of them completely awful – and British political commentators have often rested their cases on some of the worst ones.

I think the consequences of going now would be worse than staying, but I also think that a lot of the criticisms of current strategy are justified – and I am not completely sure that there is a better strategy on offer.

So, I think that being a bit conflicted is probably about the best position.

I rather enjoyed the Harry Potter thing, actually. Anyway…

donpaskini,

Cheers, and thanks for the Conor Foley piece, which actually manages to sound more upbeat than I am. What comes across most strongly is the need to distance humanitarian/NGO work from the military, and a need for long-term planning based on on-the-ground realities, which is something we haven’t really had to date. But as he rightly points out, even his prescription would be slow to yield visible security results & probably cause a loss of British lives which the press and public seems increasingly reluctant to allow.

Charlie,

Soon or later the USA and Britain will have to confront Pakistan’s ISI funding and support of the Taliban and various Kasmiri groups.

This is certainly important, and the force & urgency with which the Pakistanis pursue the likes of Lashkar-e-Taiba – which is just one of the Kashmir-based agitators you mention – isn’t just important to resolving Pakistan & Afghanistan’s internal security, but also to encouraging Pakistani rapproachment with India. As Sunny said, there seems to be some movement on that score, but I’m not going to presume from the actions in Swat that they’re suddenly going to start cleaning up Kashmir as well. Pity.

Beyond that, I think Sunny makes a valid point that we’re not yet able to judge whether the redoubling of America’s efforts and the accompanying change of strategy has paid any dividends. It seems like the war is still in something of a transition stage, and whilst I’ve seen plenty to pour cold water on the new Af-Pak thing, we probably won’t know whether those pessimisms were accurate until the end of the year.

Typical. I spend all that time writing about someone as if he’s not here, and then he shows up in the same thread. Must learn to type my comments quicker.

(Thanks Conor)

Conor,

So, I think that being a bit conflicted is probably about the best position.

Exactly. Although I broadly agree with you and Sunny that it is better staying there than pulling out, but a lot of the questions and doubts raised are certainly valid and should be considered.
I certainly have no time for the “it is 1938 and I am Churchill” brigade who tend to hang around at Harry’s Place and see any expression of doubt about the wisdom of remaining in Afghanistan as “appeasement”.

Stop saying ‘Afghani’. An Afghani is a unit of currency. The people and the state (such as it is) are ‘Afghan’.

Can we also stop talking about people being wusses, wimps, etc? There are two people in this thread who have risked their necks in Afghanistan and neither Conor or myself is coming out with the tough-guy talk. The Danish soldiers I saw in Helmand were really not wusses. We need to talk about what the hell we do in Afghanistan, and verbal machismo is not going to help a single soul.

[6] Sunny said ……… I’m actually pissed the bloody Europeans are being such wusses and not contributing forces like the Americans are.

The question I would ask myself if I came back from Afghanistan minus a leg (or worse) is – ‘was it worth it’?
I expect family members of those bereaved are asking themselves exactly the same question.

Another question to cross my mind is – who in the UK would give these psychological and physical injuries a second thought in a few years time – I mean, how many of us have even a rudimentary grasp of the politics, or history of the region?

Any prospective serviceman contemplating military action in Afghanistan should be strongly urged to watch “The Fallen” – just so they have a better idea of what they might be letting themselves in for.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7730331.stm

Would I go (assuming I had a choice) – absolutely NO WAY – and I’m sure, Sunny, you are sensible enough to have arrived at the same conclusion (i.e. wus positive)

I went, and I may go again. I saw some injuries up close, and they were horrifying. But why the hell should I have the right to send council-estate kids from South Wales or Liverpool to Afghanistan while I sit safely in London ‘supporting the war’? There are too many armchair heroes around.

Btw, A&E nurse, I saw people in your profession working in Afghanistan and they were immensely impressive- some were Regular soldiers, some were called-up TA, and they all did extraordinary things. I hope this doesn’t sound patronising, but I have immense respect for people like yourself.

Dan,

While, as I suggested above, I agree that people who advocate military action without properly considering the consequences and the likelihood of success are foolhardy in the extreme, I believe it is possible to make a rational case for continued military action in Afghanistan, as Sunny has done above. That will neccessarily involve council estate kids being sent out to Afghanistan while the rest of us sit comfortably at home, but it was presumably their choice to join the army and they knew that that it would involve being sent into some farily unpleasant situations not of their choosing. Of course there are arguments about when it is or isn’t appropriate to send our armed forces into action and the safety of our troops should be a consideration, but that basic fact still remains.

Andrew, yes, it’s entirely possible to make a rational case for it, and when I get the time I will write one out.

That said, several things anger me- and again, I’ll make the case at more length when I have time. One is the absolutely frivolous way in which, over the last six years, this country has sent soldiers to war, without adequate planning or equipment; in the case of Iraq, for causes which were deeply questionable or just plain wrong, and in the case of Afghanistan for a strategy which barely existed. The reason this keeps on happening is that too few people have a direct stake in what happens when this country fights a war. Those who suffer as a result are service personnel, their families, and those who live in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Another thing that infuriates me is the way in which some people- and Sunny is a regrettable example- both call for soldiers to go and fight overseas, and yet agree with the empty-headed Claude Carpentieri when he says that it is perfectly okay to call returned troops ‘baby killers’. Time to make a choice, Sunny: you’re in favour of sending soldiers to war or you’re in favour of insulting them when they get back.

[18] Thank you, Dan – l have a similar respect for military personnel but I very much disagree with Sunny when he uses terms like ‘wus’ – I find this all the more provocative considering he is a non-combatant (or provider of ancillary services) himself.

I’m sure more might be willing to serve but are deterred by the risks – I understand the number of fatalities amongst soldiers in Afghanistan has now out-stripped the war in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143808.stm

It is also my personal opinion that the British public are largely ignorant about the situation in Afghanistan (such as the prolonged Russian occupation, etc) not to mention the complex history of the region.
I have also heard that not all service men and women (injured in the fighting) received adequate medical services when they returned home?
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=162454.0;wap

Best of luck if you opt for another tour of duty.

Cheers, A&E. If you signed up for a tour using your skills with a TA field hospital, it wouldn’t really be risky- you’d be kept in the hospital at Camp Bastion- but those people had to work so hard when there were a lot of casualties coming in. It would be draining even for an experienced nurse, I think.

Having said that, all the doctors and nurses I know just raved about how good the set-up at the Bastion hospital was, in particular the co-operation between the Emergency department, anaesthetists and surgeons. I know one surgeon who said he was determined to get his NHS hospital adopting some of the same practices.

afghanistan is a strategic interest,an american geopolitical chess square.hamid karsai governs accordingly.american and british troops,other foreign miltary are protecting afghanistan for
a proposed gas/oil export pipeline.we should not forget this.karsai has signed and is negotiating
this pipeline with his neighbouring elites.turkmenistan,pakistan it is important to not allow a controlled agenda to determine debate.this pipeline is a real plan,always has been and is the primary reason for military presence as a garantee of pipeline control.if you accept this, you can justify military presence,protecting our future energy requirements.however as usual we have to swallow lame explanations of why we are there.its cruel,we are not there to help afghan girls to go to school if that were true,we could start preaching at the saudis first,geopolitics is morally bankrupt