Public opinion of the Afghanistan conflict

Gawain

This is an example of how inadequate opinion polls can be. I suspect that many people's views will be so nuanced that an opinion poll cannot really do them justice.

My view is that however we may have blundered into this we are in a fight, our troops need support, which will probably involve expenditure sacrifices at home and we need to redefine our aims there to targets that our troops can actually achieve.

My problem is that I regard our political leadership with complete contempt. Brown's heart isn't really in this. His statements on the subject have all the empathy of a recorded fire warning announcing "an incident has been reported in the building please stay at your desk". Would I volunteer to fight for a war that this man has control of ? No. More realistically, would I want my sons volunteering for a war he controls ? Most definately not.

Brown is reaping the bitter fruit of the seeds he sowed as Chancellor. He has spent 12 years eviscerating the armed forces. It resulted in failure in Iraq and may result in the same in Afghanistan. I suspect he will find that support for the war will be very equivocal.

Rhoda Klapp

Where is the evidence the Al Qaeda launch attacks from Afghanistan? In what way?

Don't we have literally hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis travelling to and from their home every year? Are they not free to do so if they have permission to be here?

Did not the 9/11 attack come from Saudi and the 7/7 from Yorkshire?

My impression is (and by all means correct me if I'm wrong) that Al Qaeda is not really like a fighting force, but more like an agency who provide funding for all sorts of disparate groups with a proposal for terrorist action. Sort of like a malevolent lottery fund? As such, it needs no bases, just a comms network and a way to move money (the hawala system).

Oh, and I repeat, the threat to the UK is not Islamist terrorism, but peaceful encroachment. The Islamists would do better to ditch terrorism in furtherance of their aims.

Angela

Nick Clegg only echoed what Liam Fox has been saying more quietly for a long time.
I think, maybe, possibly, perhaps, I support the military effort in Afghanistan. I certainly support our military.
But it does seem to be an almighty mess. A corrupt government, tribal loyalties/conflicts, a history of repulsing foreign conquests.
I think I have boiled it down to give the military what it needs, or pull out. The parsimonious Brown is never going to give the military what it needs, he'd rather expend billions on his client state and see our soldiers die, or be mutilated, and spin it as "patriotic duty". He is a wicked man.

TrevorsDen

I am not a fan of Liam Fox but I thought he was both measured and correct on TV this morning.

He pointed out that the govt had cut the helicopter budget some years ago (£1.5 billion). Brown and Labour cannot run away from that.

He also said the govt should have done more to get our NATO 'allies' to provide more helicopters. This is something David Milliband should remember before he shoots his mouth off. This failure is his failure.

So before we get the usual moans about Tory opposition tactics - Fox has nailed the govt on two key issues where the government have been derelict. Tory opposition doing its job in respect of a delicate, tragic issue.

TrevorsDen

"Where is the evidence the Al Qaeda launch attacks from Afghanistan? In what way?" ---

--- err, 9/11 ??

The place was full of Taliban supported terror camps.

In fact your point is a fair one, it is a point worth arguing, but there is a counter point.
In any case in the longer term if we have a stable democracy (or some sort) in the area then it will be to our benefit. the same applies to Pakistan. These things will not happen if we put our heads in the sand.

Ruairidh

Rhoda,

AQ launched its attacks from Afghanistan before 9/11 in the sense that they were planned from there, the terrorists were trained there and recieved their instructions from there. It is no longer safe for them so these activities are carried out in the Pak tribal area, especially Wazirisatan. But their control of these areas is less secure and they don't run the large scale camps like before. Were we to cut and run as you appear to want then the Taliban would take over large swathes of Afghanistan and AQ would return.

AQ is a bit more than you suggest, although not that much more. They are a sort of umbrella group that tries to marshal the energies of a large number of seperate national groups and inspired individuals. It does provide money but its not as simple as just sending some out by hawala. They need to do their due diligence. That means meeting and vetting. That means providing training. Without a secure base they need to spend 99% of their time just not getting caught. Under pressure in Waziristan they are a fraction as effect as they were in Afghanistan. Without Waziristan they would be even worse.

PayDirt

More than twenty years ago the Soviet Army pulled out of Afganistan after 10 years of fruitless killing. Why on earth does the British Army think they can do better? Absolultely stupid.

Flemingcrag

I give it 90 seconds in the Commons today before Gordon Brown debases the whole debate by politicising it.
You cannot express an opinion or a concern without this paranoid inadequate seizing on it as personal criticism and resorting to party dividing lines to score points.

This will result in plenty of tribal shouts and jeers from either side of the house as Gordon drones on about how much his Government has spent on defence, missing the whole point; Was it spent on what was needed?

If you are still playing catch-up on getting the right equipment and number of soldiers into the theatre of war 8 years after it started you must conclude that the Government's realisation of the task in hand has not advanced one iota since John Reid sent in Troops with these words ringing in their ears: We may well accomplish our mission in Helmland without a shot being fired in anger.

Angela

Posting comments here is difficult enough, even if I launch IE to do it. Right now the post says "7 comments" but only two are visible.

No doubt this one will remain invisible, too.

C Powell

The Government is open to serious criticism on 2 fronts: -

1. It has no - or at the very least - has failed to articulate any clear military strategy for our troops and has failed to provide the army with the resources it needs. So our men are dying needlessly because of that failure to resource them properly. This is a gross dereliction of duty and to my mind by far the most serious of the charges against Brown. People losing their pensions because of his actions is bad enough but people losing their lives is on another scale.

2. The Government is failing to protect us at home from the terrorist threat. Indeed, many of its own policies have made that terrorist threat worse by e.g. giving succour to Islamist groups. Why, for instance, are we still allowing so-called "students" from Pakistan to come to this country, even when we have clear evidence that many of the colleges they attend are bogus and of the security threat from Pakistan? (There are plenty of other examples.)

So the Government is failing in its primary duty: to defend us from external and internal enemies.

As to whether we should remain in Afghanistan, I simply don't know. But what I do know is while we have troops there they should be properly resourced and if the Government is unwilling or unable to do so, our boys should be brought home ASAP.

Austin Barry

Brown's contempt for the Forces is epitomised in the appointment of the preposterous Bob Ainsworth as Secretary of State for Defence. Ainsworth cannot help that he resembles a failed spiv or bookie's runner from an early Ealing Comedy, but his utterances are banal and fugitive in the extreme - just a creeping barrage of political expediency. Our squaddies deserve something better than this limp-tached nonentity.

Rhoda Klapp

OK, I understand the Al Q theory. I don't buy it though, not totally. I see nothing in Al Q's modus operandi that says they have to be in Afghanistan. I see nothing that says the 9/11 crew got or needed terrorist camp training. They used box cutters to cut aircrew throats, and got flight training in the US. They came from Saudi, which incidentally is where a lot of the funding comes from too. That there were training camps in Afg is beyond dispute. Where are they now? Pakistan? Somalia? Hezbo and Hamas seem to manage plenty of training with small arms and tactics, IEDs and RPGs.
So I'll call that not proven.

What is beyond doubt is that pulling out (I find 'cut and run' to be emotional language) would be a very hard thing to do, politically. In short, it would make Gordon look bad(!). In my opinion, that is the main reason we are still there. The Taliban government was removed years ago. So is what is happening now actually sacrificing the lives of our troops to avoid embarrasment? I think so.

I do appreciate that to stop a fundamentalist Islamic government in Afg might be an altruistic thing to do, but nobody dare say that Islam is so bad that we need to do that anywhere else. How many non-functional countries are there which one might save in this way. Where would we stop?

Currently we are not fighting Al Qaeda. We are fighting a motley collection of tribesmen, Islamists, warlords, criminals and yes, patriots which we label the Taliban. If we win there is no prize. And yet we are not committed to the fight. It has not been of sufficient importance to do it properly. Even the Army don't want to 'waste' their funds on the kind of kit needed to win (it's not a lack of money, it's reluctance to spend it on this mission).

Another of Rhoda's maxims for you. The only requirement for success is to stop doing stupid things. Right now we are doing a stupid thing in Afg. To fight a war without commitment. We should stop.

logdon

“Rhoda Klapp
July 13th, 2009 9:57am

Oh, and I repeat, the threat to the UK is not Islamist terrorism, but peaceful encroachment. The Islamists would do better to ditch terrorism in furtherance of their aims.”

Spot on, Rhoda. Obviously two factions are at play.

One, the people who hate us enough to assemble bombs to kill as many infidels as possible. These people do not fit the gov narrative of impoverished downtrodden economic lepers as we plainly saw on 7/7 and the doctor plot. They, rather are people who, although financially secure, feel that this is not enough. As muslims they are taught from birth of the innate superiority of Islam yet find themselves working for the despised kuffar. This is manifestly so intolerable they are driven to kill.

Two, the fifth column or hidden army of disaffected muslims who whilst just about tolerating the ignominy of living in the belly of the beast will not integrate, will not marry or tolerate other marriages with the kuffar yet realise which side their bread is buttered on.

Obviously this is a very simplified and reduced synopsis.

Of the two, the latter is far more dangerous and Mark Stein and Bruce Bawer, along with the indefatigable Melanie have identified this problem.

They are protected by skewed law and cunningly, just about remain within it’s bounds. Also by use of taqiya and dissembling they attempt to reverse the situation, portraying themselves as victims of an islamophobic white nation, quite ignoring the fact that they, themselves chose and still choose to live in that nation where the indigenous bulk are, white.

Then the others, so called majority? Where are the voices? Where is the ‘not in my name’?

Whenever my daily discourse meets up with muslims I am amazed that they put up with the ranting mullocracy. We chat. We smile at each other. We have the pleasant informal relationship which for me signifies quintessential Britishness.

If they are in businesses or shops I am always made aware of the politeness and care they take in performing their tasks so why do these people not realise that the actions of militants, either violent or passive, gradually undermines the relationship and that, eventually, the British public will declare, enough is enough?

Last night I watched for the umpteenth time, Alan Parker’s expose of the deaths of three civil rights workers, Mississippi Burning.

One phrase struck me. ‘We’ve got two cultures down here, the white culture and the coloured culture’.

That, in the 50’s segregated South was a denunciation of the separation and partition imposed by white supremacy, yet here we are in 21st century Britain and the same thing is going on. But this time pushed and enforced by what, if we are to show a perfectly frank balance, Islamic supremacy.

There will only be one ultimate end. Britain will not tolerate the ways of Shariah. A large percentage of Muslims declare it as a right.

This is Huntingdon’s clash of civilisations.

And it’s happening right here.

Ruairidh

Rhoda,

You asked where the training camps are now. Well there are none, not large scale ones anyway, as a direct result of the war in Afghanistan and other operations in places like Somalia (Ethiopia backed by some tactical US airpower) and Pakistan (Pakistan army backed by some tactical US airpower). It has been US policy to deny them safe havens in failed states from which to base themselves. It’s true that in both those alternative countries AQ may be running smaller scale training but it is not the same. Withdraw from Afghanistan and this policy is dead in the water.

As you’re unconvinced on the training camp theory I’ll try and expand a little. Only part of the purpose of a training camp is training. The other uses for the terrorist organisation are vetting (not everyone volunteering for jihad is up to it or genuine – some are spies) indoctrination (getting that espirt de corp and belief in the cause) as well as selecting your best men. The number of volunteers who passed through the AQ camps of Afghanistan was quite large whereas the number selected to carry out attacks in the west was small. Without these camps and precisely because of AQs weak position as an umbrella body they struggle to put together attacks in the west. Imagine you are UBL sitting in your cave and you get word of some volunteers from Bradford. How do you get them the training and materials without exposing your organisation to unnecessary risk? With a safe haven in a failed state its much simpler. Get them out and test their mettle in a benign environment – i.e. make this bomb – go murder some northern alliance etc. Without a safe haven getting to meet them is very risky as it could all be a trap and there is only so many bombs you could let off in Wales before the police notice you.

You also asked about where we stop if we take an altruistic line on this. Well as far as I can see there is only one other country out there with the same lack of government and fundamentalist people and that is Somalia and yes that is on the US’ radar. In other countries there is a government (some fairly nasty ones I grant you) that with a bit of encouragement will do our work for them with no need for involvement to extend beyond intelligence cooperation. Thanks to the fact that AQ made the strategically stupid but ideologically logic step of bombing every Muslim country they could (Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey…) every Muslim government now recognises the danger implicit in having AQ base themselves in their country and will not allow it.

It is important as well to realise that our presence in Afghanistan is also highly symbolic. The jihadists are still trading off their ‘victory’ over the USSR. In their minds they destroyed a super power single handed. Al Qaida considers its first strategic victory as the US withdrawal from Somalia back when Clinton was in charge. Their failure to make progress in Iraq and our continued presence in Afghanistan are a stain on this image of god given invincibility. Leaving Afghanistan because of Taliban pressure would be held up by them as a massive success for them and would reinvigorate them. It would tell them again how easy it is to take on the west and how weak our resolve is. I realise this is a thin argument on its own for staying but it is important nevertheless.

Rhoda Klapp

Ruairidh

Thanks, you make the case more eloquently than those whose policy it is. I can now see it has some merit. It's still my belief that not having Afg may be inconvenient for Al Q, but it is not a show-stopper. It is true that by giving them convenient local targets in the form of troops who are trying not to kill innocents we are attracting their volunteers to join that fight rather than bomb us. But some would say, indeed have said, that being on their land attracts more recruits.

So, if we leave we give then the victory. Evidently true. If we stay, we give them a little victory every time they kill or maim one of ours. If they've read Mao, every time our pressure on them begins to succeed, they'll melt away. They have all the time in the world, for most of them are not foreign fighters, they are the local population. They'll never accept Afghan Security Forces from the northern tribes as an occupying force.

All the above is by way of ranbling through the relevant points. The important thing is , what to do. I don't think the govt's plan is up to much. I would ask them whether the current situation is where they wanted to be. If not, what was the plan? How is it to be altered to get us to where we want to be? What resources are need to do the job? What's the real exit strategy?

Northerner

Just fifteen hours ago, in the post immediately before this one, Daniel Korski's first sentence is:

The support for Britain's involvement in Afghanistan is, for the first time, showing major signs of fraying.

What gives?

Hysteria

Ruairidh - great post !!

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

Rhuairidh.

You underestimate your own thinking: there is nothing 'thin' in recognising and articulating the importance of what is happening, when so many are falling for the media dripfeed.

Well said.

logdon

Rhoda Klapp
July 13th, 2009 1:37pm
Ruairidh
July 13th, 2009 3:19pm

Two great posts, equally valid in argument.

My initial reaction to Ruairidh's comment is stop them coming. If a passport of a returning British Pakistani contains an Afghan visit or is new (ie deliberately destroyed and replaced in Pakistan) they aren't allowed back. We make it law. They will be advised before departure of the condition placed on their outgoing visit. No excuses. No exceptions. In other words deny AQ or it’s likeminded organisations infiltration into Britain.

That argument is defeated by the symbolism of a western withdrawal. That we ran with tails between legs.

It's all about honour (although what honour is to be had by killing schoolgirls, or fighting and then hiding amongst civilians is a new one on me). We are perceived as being weak, an easy prey and it's another notch for the Islamists. The US retreats from Lebanon and Somalia are perfect examples.

Similarly Rhoda's argument, encompassing that never has an outside force conquered the individuality , spirit and nationality of Afghans is equally valid.

That Karzai is corrupt and the Taliban offer an antidote to this.

That when in power before 9/11 the Taliban created such a reign of terror, crime was an anomoly.

That, perhaps this is what Afghani’s want. Remember their values are basically fourteen centuries apart from ours.

Maybe the US withdrawal from cities and towns in Iraq is an example to heed.

Despite this being a US strategic goal it is being touted by Iraqi elements as defeat. The withdrawal was accompanied by jeering crowds of the Yanquee go home variety. There is talk that it will descend into chaos and it’s back to square one.

In other words even if we do achieve some sort of objective in Afghanistan what then? Who will police the democratisation and equality we brought about? Is this tribalistic nation capable or even willing to continue the role without the draconian edict of seventh century Islam? And so again it’s back to square one here also.

Meanwhile, and lets not beat about the bush, British lives are being expended over this desolate hellhole. If it all ends up more or less the same as when we entered they are lives wasted over political expediency and cant.

My heart genuinely bleeds when I read the tales of squaddies who in the grand tradition of Marlborough, Wellington, Wolfe and Nelson, the architects of British military greatness, throwing their lives away to the cynical indifference of a socialist government for which lies and spin are the modus operandi.

In the end the question is always, is it worth it?

Ruairidh

To logdon,

If only it was as straight forward as stopping them at the border. The Afghan border is long mountainous and porous. When volunteers went to the camps they entered Pakistan then be taken cross country and over the border by the support network with no entry stamp or visa required. In fact AQ would often take the passport and enter forged stamps for other countries. So that for example a returning volunteer could appear to have entered Pakistan from the UK then gone on to Thailand for six months before returning to Pakistan then back to the UK. In fact they’d spent the whole time in Afghanistan. That is why it is important to occasionally allow known terrorists to make the trip to Pakistan so that the Pakistani ISI can identify and break up these support networks. (This is why the current David Davis insinuations on ‘outsourcing’ torture are so dangerous.)

To Rhoda,

I was thinking about alternatives to Afghanistan / Pakistan from an AQ perspective and there really are none. AQ need a base in a country with a sympathetic population where the US and its proxies find it difficult to act. Sure there are plenty failed or weak states in Africa and the Middle East where the writ of government fails to travel far from the capital. Some of which even have Muslim populations who may decide not to take up the multi million rewards the US offer but in all of these alternative countries the US could act decisively and hard directly of through a regional proxy against any new AQ set up and AQ could not be confident that they could operate securely for long. In Af/Pak AQ have trusted networks and local (Taliban) allies. They are vulnerable to US backed Pak army attacks but they stand a better chance of defending themselves there than anywhere else in the world. That’s why I don’t see them moving out and why building a strong Afghan state is so important.

It is true that there are two major problems to all this and we need new approaches to solve them. Firstly the Afghan state is failing to grow and strengthen as it should. I don’t know why, perhaps we are being too concerned about being liberal and accommodating when we should be draconian or perhaps it is the other way around. Either way more pressure needs to be brought to bear to get the Afghans pulling their weight and get their soldiers into the fields patrolling. The second problem is the abject failure of Pakistan to get its Tribal areas under control. These are areas that have never suffered the rule of central government (not even in colonial times – it is a nonPC belief of mine that part of the problem here is that the British Empire stopped at the tribal areas. Afghanistan and the tribal areas never got beyond protectorate status. Had they joined India and had the tribal system subjugated to the Raj then we’d be dealing with a much more benign environment.) We need to help Pakistan get tough but they need to do it in a way that does not look like western imperialism.

I’d like to lay one canard to rest with the final paragraph of this long post. Afghanistan has been conquered by invading armies before, loads of times. This idea that it is some kind of graveyard to every army with imperial ambitions is nonsense. The Mongols ruled for three centauries. Alexander the great also had a successful invasion, he even founded Kandahar. Furthermore the British experience in Afghanistan was not universally bad. Yes the first Anglo Afghan war ended in defeat but the second war ended (after various uprisings) in complete victory in 1880 with us putting in a puppet as Emir and Afghanistan becoming a protectorate with the UK owning its foreign policy. This arrangement lasted till the end of WWI and ensured (despite efforts by Turkey and Germany to the contrary) that Afghanistan remained on the UK side throughout that war. In 1919 after another uprising Afghanistan regained its full independence after a brief war that the UK won. The upshot of all this rambling is that it is possible to win wars in Afghanistan. Furthermore this time we are not even trying to subjugate them to the empire but install a modern functioning independent state. Yes the Soviets were defeated and yes the first Anglo Afghan war was a defeat but there have been plenty of victories too.

logdon

Ruairidh, you are right. We in the west are seduced by the comfort of the concept of systems of governance, officialdom and rule of law which holds sway in our lands. We then project our ideas of justice, morals and policing onto other states, little realising that areas of the world, despite the remonstrance of their leaders are beyond those niceties we take for granted.

And is the Swat Valley, infiltrated as it has been, all that different to Afghanistan?

In that case I'd widen the restriction or at least implement extremely close observation to the comings and goings from Pakistan itself.

I've got a gut feeling that in the passage of time, especially if we endure more terrorist attacks, this is on the cards anyway.

If 90% of terrorist activity in Britain comes from that country is it only political correctness which stays our hand in exacting more stringent control?

It may sound draconian now but the world is polarising. Public opinion is hardening.

And, almost encouragingly, I see that AQ has decided to wade into the Han/Uighur dispute.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article6704812.ece

A second front which could spell disaster for them. No sqeamishness about rendition or waterboarding in Beijing, the Islamic tactic of using our conventions and human rights as a weapon is rendered nul and void.

And if China is dragged into the fray is Islam biting off more than it can chew? If AQ start killing Chinese nationals in the Mahgreb how will China react?

Then if, in a tit for tat, the hostility spreads to Sudan and other African/Islamic countries what then?

Or if the AfPak AQ decide to join their North African brothers in the Xinjiang region how will China deal with that?

Ruairidh

The Xingjiang Uighars are Muslim and like the Islamic movements from other countries around Afghanistan had their presence at the AQ training camps pre 2001. While some (like the Uzbeks) got completely into bed with AQ the Uighars never quite did. I think it was partly to do with there simply not being that many of them outside of China and AQ seeing no value in courting them. I’d also venture that AQ recognised the difficulty in using its brand of terrorism against China. Despite the Chechen cause being very prominent to Islamists through the 90’s AQ never really got involved. Why? I think for the same reasons. They realise that they are small in number and that high profile terrorist attacks are their only weapon. Through which they hope to inspire the masses to rise up into a general insurgency but that this doesn’t really work in your opponent is not a democracy and has complete control of the media. Also Chechnya and Xingjiang are essentially home territory to Russia and China and across the country the Muslims are a small minority. In short they are not likely to give up as easily as they would a foreign adventure. Also even after Abu Ghraib the prospect of being picked up by the Chinese or Russians is a lot scarier than the prospect of being arrested by the Americans and that must influence where you choose to do a spot of jihad.

The link you posted is interesting as it does appear to mean a higher profile for the Uighar cause. I don’t think we’ll be seeing attacks in China itself. Infiltrating non Chinese people to an area with large numbers of Han Chinese would be difficult and dangerous. Pulling off attacks in Xingjiang is unlikely to get the media attention AQ need. If they could pull something off in Beijing that would be different but I can’t see them managing it. China is not as cosmopolitan and welcoming as the west. A terrorist cell capable of operating there could operate anywhere and the US will always remain the primary target. The Chinese have a lot of investments around the world now though and they have a tendency to export large numbers of people to work on them. These represent a much easier target. Perhaps the prospect of a bus load of Chinese engineers being killed somewhere in Africa has suddenly become a lot more likely. Would that have any great effect on the world? Probably not that much. China will not ease up at home and may even become a more active player internationally. If there was an attack I’d expect a lot of pressure from China on the country concerned to crack down locally but not much else.

As for the Swat Valley, no it isn’t really that different to Afghanistan or the rest of the Pak tribal area. Its not by any means a safe haven though as the Pakistanis retain the will to control the area. The onus has to be on Pakistan getting it under control though and you can rest assured that US foreign policy is to put pressure on them to do just that. One interesting angle is that China is a traditional ally of Pakistan and they can provide support without the shadow of imperialism that blights the west. So were the Chinese to suffer at the hands of AQ then you could expect Chinese military advisors (and more) in Pakistan helping out and Chinese foreign policy mirroring the US in ensuring that they keep the pressure up on AQ and the Taliban.

Yarnefromhorsham

Notwithstanding the various reasons given over time by this Government for our troops to be Afghanistan we do seem to be wasting lives and money for objectives that are very unlikely to be realised.

We are often told by politicians that lessons will be learnt yet it seems that lessons from both the 19C and 20C have gone unheeded. Moreover the culture of Afghanistan appears historically unsuited for western styled democracy whether in a governments ability to opperate or the populations ability to understand "democracy"

Yes, lets without question, support out troops to the limit but lets get out. If the reason for this venture is to stop terrorism at its heart why on earth did the Government allow 15000 muslims into the country between 2003/07 to attend spoof high education establishments. Close the door on the borders rather than go on political ego trips.

Rhoda Klapp

Ruairidh, good stuff, I'm learning a lot.

Does anybody in the FCO or MoD look at what we did in 1880 for 'lessons learned', or is that kind of warfare not possible any more? I seem to recall, although this is from memory, that our best results were from swift punitive measures, and getting local support by pressure, by picking the best aide for us and working with them to quickly suppress the others. Then getting out. And of course there was always trouble in the tribal areas, whether it was counted as a war or not.

I ask only one question, is where we are now part of the plan, as designed?

Ruairidh

Sadly I don't think the tactics of 1880 are politically acceptable anymore. You're right that it has its basis in going in strong with a large force, dishing out fairly indiscriminate punitive measures, installing 'our man' and then getting out. If for whatever reason our man is killed or diposed then we repeat the process. I suppose there could be a lesson in there.

All this is fine except for the indiscriminate punitive measures! I think destroying infrastructure (forts, markets, houses etc) was a favourite. Modern 'hearts and minds' strategies tend to want to do the opposite.

I don't know the answer to your final question. I don't know enough about our master plan. I would guess though that the Afghan state (army & police as well as the political process) is behind where it ought to be.

Rhoda Klapp

Ruairidh

There's probably still some wisdom in those 19th century reports. I recall we had our worst disasters (Kabul, Maiwand) when we trusted Afghan leaders and were betrayed (according to our standards, not by Afghan mores, where loyalty is to the tribe, and outside deals last until they are no longer advantageous).

How viable is the plan to carry out (re?)construction before the security problem is resolved? How many extra resources are needed before it could work? I certainly do not believe that a few more helos or an extra 2000 men are enough to win. Nor will this be won by killing the enemy, they don't have a problem so long as they are hurting us, because they know we cannot manage the long haul, and they can. I'd like to see a much higher level of political and strategic debate to decide what we can achieve and how, from scratch, rather than the current sterile nonsense about defence funding, helicopters, vehicles and so on, all done, of course, with a party agenda. That is the real betrayal of our troops.