Achieving our strategic goals in Afghanistan will takes decades but is necessary for our security

Stephen

If we are in Afghanistan because of security, why aren't we in Pakistan and Somalia as well? What's the point?

Jim

You really don't understand that we are bankrupt do you?
We will soon be a third world country, if we are still there at Christmas I will send you a bottle of champagne.

Steve.W

Now I understand, the UK has a financial crisis, so first the car scrapping scheme then fight a war over several decades in Afghanistan, this seems to be the logic here as the Falklands war (mentioned in the Washington Post) was such a success?

The UK has failed to confront Islamic fundamentalism in our cities so why bother abroad?

Frank S

typo in your title: 'Achieving' only has 2 'i's

Jeremy

"Coffee Housers often ask what the British national interest is in Afghanistan. To my mind it is clear: preventing the re-emergence of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan..."

Even if - and it is a big "if" - we reach the point where there is no al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, what is there to prevent an "al-Qaeda sanctuary" from emerging in another Muslim nation? Or even in Britain itself, for that matter? What you are fighting is not something that is rooted in one particular nation or geographic location; rather it is a way of thinking and believing that can emerge in any nation in which there is a Muslim population.

"...and preventing things that could further destabilize Pakistan."

That's a bit woolly, isn't it? I mean Pakistan appears to be doing a pretty good job of destabilising itself at the moment, and also of being destabilised from without. And that is the case regardless of the fact that we are currently present in Afghanistan.

How about the following for a policy instead:

British forces home from Afghanistan and American military bases out of Britain. That might make for a good beginning, or prelude, to the recovery our own national independence. Oh, and whilst we're about it we can rescind the Extradition Act 2003 as well...

I think that doing those things would be more directly relevant to our "national interest" than throwing away young British lives, at the behest of the Americans, in an utterly futile war in Afghanistan.

C Powell

Not much point fighting in Afghanistan to, as you put it, prevent further destabilizaton of Pakistan when we're doing nothing to prevent young men from here travelling to Pakistan to learn about terror then returning to put their lessons into practice. Let's sort that problem out first.

This government's obsession with Afghanistan hides the fact that it is their immigration policies and the multicultural claptrap which goes with it which has put us at risk of terrorist activity here. If I were the mother of a young soldier I'd be mightily hacked off to think of him fighting for his country abroad while his government does nothing about people such as those in Luton shouting disgusting abuse at returning soldiers.

RobC

Unless Pakistan and ethnic Afghans including the warlords see it in their interest to fight a patriotic war against foreign Al Qaeda agitation the war will never end.Does any politician of whatever ilk seriously believe the guff that you have just written? and do you seriously think that the electorate wants one more drop of english blood spilt on behalf of the penny pinching, sick joke in Downing Street? Do me a favour!
If Politicians want to spend decades fighting the taleban I say let em and not only that we will all have a whip round and fully equip them which is a damn sight more than they have done for our boys.

Short the UK

I'm glad to see the public waking up to this farce. I think anyone who knows basic history realises deep down that sending in our troops was a stupid move. We should have just hit them with a counter-insurgency battle plan: drones, cruise missiles and a small operational base for special forces. Let the politics of the country emerge in its own way. Rather than a top down Western way. Dog eat dog. We have certainly created plenty of blowback in Pakistan and the streets of London.

Rory Stewart is the only geezer in the MSM who is actually talking sense.

It will keep shareholders in Defence stocks happy.

Rhoda Klapp

I'm not a pacifist, but I can't understand the point of this one.

I have a feeling that if I were some Pashtun teenager, and a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners came and tried to interfere with my age-old ways of doing things, fronting for an inept and brutal government composed of the northern tribes, whom I despise, fighting like cowards from aircraft and tanks, well, I might just take up arms to defend my way of life. Not so I can support Al Q, not to bring down Pakistan, but because invaders must be resisted.

The statement of our strategic interest here is facile. Our terrorist threat is right here. Doctors, care workers, students and all. British by nationality.

David Ossitt

"That message needs to be got across to the public"

I do not think that the public will agree with the reasons no mater what they are or how well they are argued and explained.

The vast majority of the people in the UK are all fed up to the back teeth with all the pretentious talk of the democratising of and the bringing peace to Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan do not have a history of democracy probably because democracy is directly at odds with their own primitive culture and medieval religion.

Nor do they have a strong desire for peace; it is not in their nature, when local leaders are spoken of, they are usually referred to as tribal elders or war lords.

Neither do they appear to want to join the western world in the 21st century; I suspect that this reason also has much to do with their religion.

We in Europe and the west see the world through the eyes of our own beliefs, laws and common shared history, all shaped by the Judeo-Christian faiths.

The religion of Afghanistan has nothing in common with those of the Judeo-Christian faiths; and, to pretend otherwise is at the very least foolish at worst madness.

oldrightie

The comments above strongly mirror my own attitude to this crazy war and are also the main thrust of comments on my own blog.
Why do so few "experts" cite the failure of The USSR to achieve similar goals there? Certainly few lessons being learnt at the moment.

steve

Most Islam related terrorist attacks/activity in the UK has originated from the resident Pakistani Muslim community.

There needs to be a 'friendly divorce' before things get messy.

What if the recent hotel bombing in Indonesia had killed Man United players? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/5937764/Indonesia-hotel-bombings-Manchester-United-football-team-was-target.html

Can we afford the following?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203724/Crackdown-80-000-immigrant-wives-free-pass-Britain.html

Martin Alexander

James, what a load of tosh. Do you seriously believe what you have just said? Really?
Martin

Andrew

If they suppress terorism in Afghanistan it will just appear some place else. Does an extremist change his extremist views, just because his teritory becomes occupied by a foreign force? On the contrary, it makes him more determined as ever.

You have really let your self down with this pro-war stance James. How could you betray your countries best interests by supporting this charade???!!!

john holland

We are told that our troops are in Afghanistan to protect our security, but surely all non muslim nations are under threat. Why not share the tesk with other countries, let them have a go and bear the cost of deaths and financing the war.

Verity

How about controlling, as in abolishing, Islamic fundamentalism in Britain and worry about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia et al later?

Anyone who wants to die for Allah could die by lethal injection administered by a British prison nurse.

Stephen S

What a brilliant, succinct and accurate volley of comments on this article. There has been, for too long, a media and political narrative that Afghanistan is quite clearly a campaign worth fighting, and therefore beyond criticism. War is a difficult thing to do well, and it has horrific consequences even then. Labour has never had the stomach for war, and doesn't understand it. This government has no business engaging in these sorts of antics, with people's lives at stake. And of all the campaigns to pick for your learning curve, history should teach us that Afghanistan is probably the bottom of the list.

Battle 2807

Lets send Gordon to Afghinastan, and he will bore them to death with his tractor stats.
Also, if he were on the front line, it might concentrate his mind (term used loosely) and he might find the money to pay for this whole shenanigans.

Edmund Jerk

A decade? And in that decade, I suppose there will be an invasion of Pakistan. Wouldn't it be more destabilizing to invade a country with nukes? This is insanity. Surely a more realistic objective would be to create a stable and secure area in a large part of Afghanistan - and then hand over the defence of that area to local, well trained and well armed forces?

Looking at the other posts, it seems that true conservatism on the issue of foreign policy is thriving - even if the foreign policy writers on this site are ignoring it in favour of radical, ideological madness.

TrevorsDen

Jeremy gives the game away for the anti Afghan war crowd.

If we are fighting a war we should be fighting to win it not simply fighting for political leverage. And we should be fighting it competently - at least with some obvious trend to improving in competence.

Here we have a government faced with pressure over losses and it has gone out of its way to fail in preventing NEEDLESS deaths. A shocking failure in tactics and leadership.

mac

" . . . Sheinwald . . . has said that Britain will be involved in Afghanistan 'for decades.' "

No we won't, and Sheinwald knows it. But it's what 'specially related' allies feel they have to say to amplify the Washington-obeisance of their obsequious prime ministers.

@C Powell: Exactly so.

Jeremy

"...our principal reasons for being there are to do with our security."

Given the fact that the path of thought and belief which leads to Islamic terrorism can emerge in any country which happens to contain a Muslim population within it, then I think the best way to deal with it is with a well funded and intelligent anti-terrorist strategy. At home. And on a nation-by-nation basis abroad, tailored to suit their individual requirements. I'm afraid that having the British Army march about in the middle of nowhere for decades on end has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.

davemann

We'd be better off fighting for democracy than against Al Qaeda. I believe if we weren't in Afghanistan the uprising in Iran wouldn't be happening. And democracy activists in China and central asia are encouraged by our efforts.

Jez

The words 'total f*** up' springs to mind.

Imagine you don't like someone at work.

You go out on a do. You have too much to drink. You (with a bit of dutch) go over and tell the bloke you hate, just how much you don't like him. It all goes wrong, others take his side, you can't talk you way out of it and the situation deteriorates.

Ok. You've gone from saying nothing to now finding yourself in a situation you can't get yourself out of.

Your initial (not very thought out) action has landed you in a right mess and the only way to get out of it is to somehow salvage the situation- if you can.

That's what Blair's initial NeoCon alliance, whatever the cost, has now landed us in when regarding the Afghan mission.

Straight in, treat it as a side show to Iraq and watch it go bang 8 years down the line.

Pakistan's where the Taliban are holed up and you've (liberal democracy peddlers)got rid of Musharaff.

It's a total mess- but to immediatly pull out would be a catastrophic strategic disaster for the whole region.

A lot of people need to go on trial for this- as an opinion.

Just hats off to the British Army for all their sacrifice.

James J

Our political class have to make it sound like a “giant development mission” because that is the only way it can be acceptable within their 1968 Student Activist mindset.
Until we again realise that military action requires a complete ruthlessness in achieving objectives then we should not engage in them.

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

You're right James. We need to fight and win.

Florence of Arabia

James J - Agreed. It's all or nothing. And we are not "developing" Pakistan or Afghanistan. That isn't the mission. Besting militant Islam is the mission. And frankly, a little more attention to this mission should be devoted to our own country.

Florence of Arabia

Jeremy - Well said!

Good point as well, James.

This sounds petty, but the next time they have an earthquake in Pakistan, any volunteers from Britain should be paid for by donations (I'm sure they would come pouring in from the Pakistani community - which is a completely separate community from that of the host nation of Britain -) not strong-armed out of the British taxpayer.

We should also not send our British-trained rescue dogs who not only risk their lives going into collapsed buildings to save people, but have to undergo 6 months quarantine on return to Blighty, to their distress in being separated from their pack and their handlers, but at the expense of the British taxpayer.

The people they save may be tomorrow's murderers of British people on British soil.

All this should be voluntary.

Perhaps Saudi Arabia could send in some rocky terrain experts and some rescue cats.

Florence of Arabia

James J - D'accord.

Ruthlessness. That's how you win. Labour want Britain to lose ...

To what end, I wonder?

Mandelbum and Tony Blair running what used to be Britain?

Why?

Neither has any deep - or shallow - convictions. Deep down, they're very shallow.

What is the programme that these people are driven to implement? The wreckage of 2,000 years of civilisation, certainly - the education establishment now has 7-year olds in school in nappies who never learned to use the loo.

Why?

Obviously, there's a plan behind this destruction of 2,500 years of human progress ... but what is it? What on earth are they expecting to do? ... if successful, which they won't be because there are individuals on this little blog alone who are far more insightful and quick witted than the one-minded Lord Rhumba of Rio, Gordon Brown and his peculiar wife, all of whom appear to be behind the barricades at the moment.

mitch

There is an easy way to settle this,spend the money we waste fighting on purchasing the opium they grow and sell the morphine produced around the world at a profit.
this would in a stroke break the warlords grip on the population and make us respected and earn a huge profit.

John F in Aberdeen

Before clearing out the Taliban and Islamist extremists if Afganistan, it would be more useful to clear out the home grown Taliban first and stop the rest plus their 80,000 wives living on the Social from coming here in the first place.
Its only a short distance from the army barracks in Catterick to Leeds, Bradford, Birmingham etc so why send our troops to Afganistan to fight The Taliban, many of them so called "British Born" Pakistanis when they can go a short distance and take them out.

So before supporting the actions in Afganistan and the security implications of our troops fighting there, clearing out the "British Born" Taliban back to Pakistan dead or alive and stopping the rest from coming into the UK would be a more senseible proposition.

Putin

Coffee Housers often ask what the British national interest is in Afghanistan. To my mind it is clear: preventing the re-emergence of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan and preventing things that could further destabilize Pakistan. I think—and say in the Washington 'Post today—that Afghanistan is turning into a test of whether Britain is still prepared to pay the price of being a frontline nation'
This seems to me no more than arehash of the domino theory used to justify american involvement in Vietnam. al Queada,like the Vietcong will play a long game but we may not.

Learn lessons from history.

JOhn H

Fighting a war "preventing things that could further destabilize Pakistan" is rather like a "plant" in snooker - hitting one ball to pot another. However, in snooker at least you know when you've been successful. This is vague stuff and sadly will fail dismally. If you want to stabilise Pakistan, why not help do something about the education system!!

Derek

I think oldrightie (7:41pm) and others of his view might find it enlightening not merely to ask "Why do so few "experts" cite the failure of The USSR to achieve similar goals there?" but the more pertinent question "Why do so few "experts" cite the reasons for the USSR seeking to achieve similar goals there?". They might then go to the second part of the course in "Geopolitics 101" and ask "Who might seek to achieve similar goals if we and our allies were not engaged to do so?" and its corollary "What would be the consequences of their success for our national interest?".

J. Rambo

We salute the gallant freedom-fighting people of Afghanistan.

What changed?

Chris lancashire

Out of 25 comments (so far) on this piece I reckon only 1.5 show the slightest support for the war in Afghanistan - truly remarkable on a centre-right website. Not a big sample, but perhaps shows how little popular support there is.

I have absolutely no doubt that very similar war-supporting pieces could be found 60 and 50 years ago in favour of Korea and Vietnam respectively. For Islam just substitute Communism.

Deja vu

August 1st 2009... US military commanders in Saigon today confirmed that a further seventy American soldiers have been killed over the last few days in heavy fighting with units of North Vietnamese Army north of Saigon.

This now brings the total US casualty figures to 175,687 killed since regular US forces were first deployed to South Vietnam in forty-five years ago.

Alf Tupper

Putin

"Learn lessons from history."

We have. This time we mustn't let the leftist media and the cabbages who fall for their guff, get in the way of what needs to be done.