The Lib Dems threaten to go AWOL 

Paul

To an extent he is correct. We need more troops, but a far greater need is for better equipment (equipment full stop!).

The Labour government doesn't hide its contempt for our service personnel by the way it doesn't pay for them properly.

Rhoda Klapp

"t would be best if Nick Clegg stopped playing politics with warfare."

Translation: I've got the war I want, no politician should be trying to stop it.

Nick Clegg is part of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and it is his job to question both the conduct of the war and its justification. And he would be right to say the UK should commit to it or pull out. In between is no good. As casualties mount and no prgress is made, people are going to ask why we are there. The answer will need to be good, for it has gone without question for too long.

Why are we building Ferris wheels in unusable Women's parks in Afg while out guys don't have enough kit, and roads and bridges vital to our success go unbuilt?

Why are we giving fertilizer to Afghan farmers only to get it back in the form of IEDs killing our troops?

Why are we there? What is the prize for winning which is worth the price?

A.F

Sounding more desperate by the day.

Jeremy

I'm not saying that Nick Clegg is either right or wrong - the fact of the matter is that I don't know - but I'm glad that he has raised the matter. Why? Because it draws attention to the war and will make people ask the questions "What are we doing there?", "What are we achieving there?", "Are we justified in being there?" and "Should we pull out?"

It also (might) concentrate the attentions of the party leaders upon addressing and answering these questions and - I dare say - others like them...

So I'm giving a thumbs up to Cleggie...^^

Chris lancashire

Probably like many others, I strongly supported the Iraq invasion on what I was told by the government at the time. Now, of course, I look back and realise we were badly misled.

So with Afghanistan, can anyone please explain what the link is between fighting a stalemate in Helmand and keeping the streets of London safe? This is continually trotted out as the reason we are there but nobody has told us what this link, in practice, is.

I do genuinely want to know and if any Coffee Housers can explain I would be really grateful.

Austin Barry

Afghanistan is a deadly, pointless sideshow. If we really wanted to keep the UK and the West safe from terrorists we'd invade Pakistan, destroy its nuclear arsenal, close its Madrassas and occupy it for decades. Fighting terrorism in Afghanistan is a little like fighting knife-crime in Chipping Camden: it's the wrong place.

Michael Booth

Daniel,
"It would be best if Nick Clegg stopped playing politics with warfare."

Surely warfare is about politics? Geopolitics at least...

Colin

Maybe Nick Clegg should devote his energies in trying persuade our EU "allies" to step up and take some of the load.

Or would that be too much trouble, requiring real political skill to achieve?

Rod Jones

This is one of the more senseless wars our army has been asked to fight. According to 'Bob' Ainsworth, alarmingly the man in charge of Defence, we are there to 'help the Afghans' and 'help security at home' - an army officer also came out with this bizarre notion that if our young men don't die out in Afghanistan, they would die fighting the equivalent battle 'on the streets of England'. These vague aims pass for serious strategy. The threat to Britain already comes from within, as we have seen. A little more security might come from stringent border controls for those coming from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and the closing of all Muslim 'faith schools'.

Rhoda Klapp

Not much support here for the war. Is this another subject which we can entrust to the man in westminster? Not to worry our pretty little heads about geopolitics, we wouldn't understand anyway?

Mark

Who is this Nick Clegg fellow?

Ruairidh

To Chris lancashire,

You asked why fighting in Afghanistan helps the UK. To answer that question you need to look back to the Afghanistan of the late 1990’s. Afghanistan fell into a brutal civil war after the Soviet withdrawal. This war, split over a mixture of tribal and ethnic lines, was going nowhere when the Taliban emerged as force capable of winning. The major ethnic group in the south of Afghanistan is the Pashtun group. This ethnic group straddles the border into Pakistan. The Taliban started as a hard core Islamic movement in Pakistan and grew to include the whole of southern Afghanistan. As it fought its way north other tribes and groups became allied to it. By 2000 it had most of Afghanistan under its strict control. The remaining civil war opponents had by now banded together into the ‘Northern Alliance’. Over this time period the Taliban had also allied itself with Al Qaida and allowed them to set up several large military training bases in the country. The quid pro quo was that as Al Qaida drew in trainees from across the Islamic world a number of them were sent to the front line to fight the Northern Alliance. The stability this allowed Al Qaida in the late 90’s directly lead to 9/11. It is noteworthy that all the attacks *planned* since the fall of the Taliban have been of a smaller scale. (AQ has to a certain extent safe areas across the border in Pakistan but these are nowhere near as safe or as useful than Afghanistan was pre2001)

When the Taliban were defeated in 2001/2002 they fled back over the border and to a large extent remain there. Even if they were militarily defeated by the Pakistanis the ideological and ethnic foundations for a new movement would still be there. The fear is that were the west to withdraw from Afghanistan prematurely a new Taliban movement would take over the Pashtun areas and again threaten Afghanistan. Also this new movement would, like the Taliban before it and the remnants in Pakistan, provide a logistical and operational base for Al Qaida.

The strategy is to suppress the Taliban to a sufficient extent to allow breathing space so that the new Afghan state can strengthen to a point where it can take on the Taliban itself. This means strengthening the state directly (army, police) as well as building confidence and support for the institutions.

Why are we in Helmand specifically? Because along with Kandahar it is the seat of power of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In my opinion it remains a crucial theatre of war in the fight against AQ and has a positive and direct effect on the national security of the UK and the west in general.

Hysteria

Quote from the Dear Leader at G8

"We knew from the start that defeating the insurgency in Helmand would be a hard and dangerous job but it is vital."

Now I amy be wrong - but I distinctly remember the then Defence Sec (Reid) saying as the first troops arrived in Helmland words to the effect "we won't need to fire a shot" - there were some caveats but the clear impression they were trying to convey was that this was peace keeping/civil support type deployment.

OK - many of us didn't believe it then and we have (sadly) been proved correct with yet another two young men reported killed in action today .

But to the point about why we are there - and as posted the other day - if it is true that failed states provide the "safe haven" for the home grown terrorists to train, then at least part of our defence needs to extend well beyond our own borders.

We cannot conduct the defence of the country on the beaches - this is true in both conventional and assymetric warfare.

Hysteria

and what Ruairidh said...

strapworld

Hysteria, spot on. Another LIE by a Labour Cabinet Minister. Another LIE by Gordon Brown 'We will give everything for our troops' absolute rubbish.

As for Daniel Korski and Ruairidh, who are the only ones in favour of this war. I do not buy this nonsense about it making our streets safe from terrorism.

What would be safer would be an immigration policy that worked! A Government that STOPPED illegal immigration and threw out, immediately,any illegal found. Remove from them any legal right whatsoever!

A government that made damned sure our borders were secure and we had a police force (note, please, FORCE ) that ensured the safety of the people before they concentrated on speed traps!

An army strong enough to put the fear of god on any country fool enough to threaten us and a Government strong enough to deliver a swift response. A little like old Victorian Values I suppose.

What we have now is a major threat from the enemy within and politicians afraid of mentioning that fact!

I want our troops out of Afghanistan. I do not buy the nonsense that they are protecting us in this Country.

IF that is the case why are the Germans, Italians, French, Dutch, Belgiums etc etc not fighting alongside us in Helmand Province???

Surely, they in a greater danger?

Marbury

Daniel says that "facing up to tough choices" is what politics is about.

But he also seems to believe, oddly, that warfare should be kept separate from politics.

Which might explain why he doesn't think we have a choice, tough or otherwise, to make in Afghanistan. His argument is that we must just go on fighting as we are already, because...we already are.

All he offers in support are inappropriate analogies of childlike simplicity:

"But just because you can't send all the troops that you want, does not mean you send none. Where would such a strategy have left Britain during World War II? Or even during the Falklands War?"

How the author of this presumes to accuse anyone of lacking "depth" I'm not sure.

Rhoda Klapp

Ruairidh, Hysteria, if this is serious enough that we need to fight an enemy thousands of miles way in a land-locked country, as you say, should we not be prepared to act against that enemy here in the UK? We didn't let UK-resident germans run free in WW2. Who is the war against? Pashtuns? Devout Muslims? Afghan patriots who resent foreign interference?

What previous experience of any power invading Afghanistan would you use as an example? What are the criteria to declare a win? Setting up other tribes over the Pashtuns? When did that ever work? Why this particular failed country? Can't Al Q train elsewhere?

Don't our terrorists train in Wales and come from Yorkshire? Didn't the 9/11 plotters come from Saudi?

Just put me down as not convinced.

Chris lancashire

Ruairidh - That is much appreciated and certainly a very full explanation; I'm still not certain that if the Taleban took power it really is going to affect UK streets directly or indirectly. But thanks for an excellent precis.

Chris

Thanks, Ruaridh, and strapworld, please try not to be so silly. 'La la la, not listening' is not an appropriate response.

Rhoda Klapp

If we keep losing people at the rate of the last ten days, Cleggy is going to look ahead of the game. Serious questions will be asked, and I don't think the public will be satisfied by the answers, unless somebody can make the link from Afg to the UK, the Al Q thing just won't wash. As for saving the failed country out of the goodness of our hearts, it would be good if the population of Afg seemed to be grateful....

Andy

The shameful thing is that if you send the military out to do a job, you should give them the tools to have a chance of success. Gordon Brown kept a tight hold on the military purse strings as Chancellor and he's no more supportive as PM.

Hysteria

To the posters not convinced by Ruairidh and me - I agree with some of your points - I am certainly NOT suggesting that fighting it out in the heat and dust of AfPak is going eliminate all threats - the issue of immigration control, border management etc all play a part - as does solid police work, Special Branch, SIS etc etc.

We need a (more)integrated approach - and to this extent I can see a strategic interest in SOME foreign aid for example.

But in the absence of many of the effective alternatives (Police, immigaration etc) then a simple "troops out" message will almost certainly lead to an increased threat here - assuming that Afghanistan reverts to the status quo ante.

With BO in the White House I have little confidence the US will stay the course , and ditto those countries who are fighting in Afghanistan.

The other issue of course is that the more you rely in home defence (surveillance, intelligence etc) and the less on defence in depth, the more our civil liberties are threatened, and this is what we are supposed to be defending in the first place.!!!!

Fred

I wonder if Bush or Blair asked themselves after 9/11, "why 19 Islamists hurled themselves at the symbols of western hegemony"? Of course in this horrific piece of performance art the Islamists shocked the world and made the world aware of their ideology and aims. But they could not hope to defeat the west on their own ground - could they? But they could if the west was fool enough to be drawn onto THEIR ground. The architects had seen off the Soviets after a long and drawn out occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets were not defeated in a military sense - they lost only 15,000 men; they simply withdrew having had enough.
Blair made a fine grandstanding speech at the Labour conference post 9/11 promising to rebuild Afghanistan. But it was empty: the west was never going to throw enough at the mission and so in time will withdraw bleeding corporally, politcally and economically, just as the Soviets did before. These people knew that.
Unless the admirably stated intentions of Blair post 9/11 are substantially backed by political, economic and military means across the west then this campaign is not worth the life of single British soldier.
Nick Clegg is right to question the mission. If the mission is correct then it needs a plan to deliver it.
One final thought: we invaded and occupied a country that did not attack us, and yet surrendered to and set up in government a terrorist organisation in our own country. A terrorist organisation whose methods are now being deployed in Afghanistan. The IRA may have started as a local group but it was/is active in a global network of terrorism, munitions and narcotics.

Rhoda Klapp

OK, now serious questions are being asked, and Labour and Tories have got the wrong answers.
Corelli Barnett in today's mail is worth reading. Who has the guts to call time on this ill-fated mess? Not Gordon, he has no bottle at all, ever. Easier for him to let our troops go on getting killed without a proper aim or proper resources than to tell Obama we're off out of it, please don't use NATO to trick us into out-of-area ops again. Of course the Tories will not have a policy of 'if we win we'll quit', so the PBI can stay there taking casualties for ever if necessary, rather than any politician getting embarassed.

Time to get a grip. Once again I ask the Spectator to get a proper debate going. Fat chance.

Dan

Fred several well made points there. Afghanistan has been in a state of Civil war since the coup overthrowing the King in 1973. Central Authority has always been weak and a true central state has been a rare occurrence.

The Secular, modernist wing in Afghanistan was winning in the 1970's with increased investment in Education and Schooling and advances for education of women specifically. Various tribal chieftains fought back against this idea of allowing their girls to go to school, amongst various other reforms.

As the government was leftist and next to the Soviet Union we funded them to annoy the Soviets, this was back in 1978-9 with those leading right wingers of Carter and Callaghan leading the Anglo-American alliance. As the war got worse the Soviets increased support and so did we, once committed to support the Soviets invaded/surged support to reach 125,000 men and staged a coup to get a more compliant Afghan front man. We increased support of Islamic fundamentalist backwards tribesmen with training and arms, meanwhile we facilitated the provision of Saudi extremist propaganda as a price for them funding large parts of the arms supply's.

After 9 years the Soviets decided it was not worth the effort and withdrew, within 9 months the Berlin wall had fallen and Eastern Europe was free and within less than 3 years the Soviet union no longer existed. As far as the Islamic extremists were concerned God was on their side and they had destroyed a super-power.

Meanwhile back in Afghanistan civil war raged on with shifting factions between people who had originally opposed or backed the Soviets and the most extremists of the Islamists had morphed into the Taliban, by 2001 Mujahadeen leader Ahmed Massod was being supplied by India and Russia to fight a Pakistan supplied Taliban. Masood was murdered on 10/Sept/01 but his Northern alliance became the core of the new Governement as US forces provided air support in 2001 to take Kabul.

We went in to Afghanistan in 2001, to overthrow the Taliban and get AQ and OBL. Well Taliban were overthrown before the end of the year and we failed to catch the bulk of AQ as they withdrew to Pakistan but the famous camps were all captured, much intelligence gathered in documents and laptops left behind and the infrastructure destroyed.

Blair made a speech at that point talking about the whole world investing in Afghanistan to make it a paradise on earth. He and Bush then used most resources in Iraq and were never going to invest enough in Afghanistan to meet their original lofty goals.

From 2002-mid 2007, there were relativity small numbers of forces outside Kabul, gradually Western powers who had not gone into Iraq took responsibility for so called “Provincial Reconstruction teams” in various areas outside Kabul and went initially to the safer areas outside Kabul which were the non-Pashtun regions to the North of Kabul.

Late 2005 early 2006, NATO made a decision to go into the South, UK and John Reid VOLUNTEERED to take responsibility for Helmand province, (at the time for 3 years, and at the time Reid’s infamous quote that “we may not fire a shot”). Part of the reason for UK volunteering at the time was an aim to get out of Iraq quicker on the basis that we are now more committed to Afghanistan.

The problem was the politicians neither had the guts to get out of Iraq, and by volunteering to take responsibility for one of the most difficult provinces in Afghanistan they did not have sufficient forces to provide security in Basra and the surrounding area.

In Iraq we should not have ever been there but, if we were we should have provided sufficient forces to provide security for the area we were responsible for or reduce the size of that area. Due to the ego of Politicians and Generals we had British troops and Iraqi civilians dead as we would neither commit or get out, and what was originally intended as the excuse for getting out turns out to be just as big problem.

For those who want to talk about Heroin trade or terrorist training camps etc the obvious question is: WHY do nothing from 2002 till 2006. UK had some forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to mid 2006 before they took responsibility for Helmand and took approx 5 fatal casualties in those 4 years 8 months.

From then on casualties climbed dramatically with 25 in the 2nd 6 months of 2006, approx 50 in 2007 and 2008 , and a further 50 in the first half of this year.

Over the 3 years we have increased forces from an initial 3,000 to over 9,000, but what is not mentioned is the force in Helmand has also been reinforced by another 2,000 from Denmark and Estonia and a further 10,000 from the US. So we originally thought we could provide some security with 3,000 troops and are failing with 21,000 less than half of whom are British.

We are there because we are there. If the US rotates the Texas National Guard to replace the California National Guard, it is seen as good planning if the Europeans rotate the Poles to replace the UK it would be seen as a defeat for the the ego of the politicians of the UK.

Why should UK commit to a western force helping the Afghan government is one debate.

Why should the UK commit more forces than France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined, in 1 single province in Afghanistan. that I really do not understand?