Preparing for a lengthy presence in Afghanistan

Martin Alexander

Peter..You do talk nonsense at times...It looks like we have another NuLab stooge here in the General....40 years my backside...If he thinks UN support will continue for 40 years he is talking nonsense.

Rhoda Klapp

In every long-drawn-out bloody disastrous war in recent times, there's always some damn fool who thinks we could win it, if we only had a little more this or that. The trick is to sort out the ones who are right from those who merely wish to delay the embarrassment of withdrawal.

A lot more debate is required before we 'commit' to forty years. The tone of the blogs here seems, to your suspicious coffeehouser, to assume there is some vital reason for us to be there. I'd like that not to be a given, I think the onus is on the war's supporters to prove that, and to revisit it with every new development.

The first question I'd ask is: Are we at war with militant Islam or not?

Michael

I believe it is a hollow venture.
In the end the Afghanis will beat us in every way - militarily, politically and socially. We are not trusted, and why should we be? Their memories are much longer than ours, and I mean in the scale of centuries.
I don't believe the Taliban are interested in any other country other than their own, and in the end we will withdraw realising that our intervention was futile.
In the beginning, had we waited, Osama bin Laden would have been handed over to a third party, but we couldn't wait. We only play the short game. The Afghanis play the long game. Their deaths only spur them on to make more muhajideen. They don't want our democracy.
And I don't believe we British public will tolerate 40 years of continuing conflict and nation building. There is not a good partner for success in the Afghani administration and those that seem to be co-operating at the moment see us as a good source of money and resources, but we won't find any gratitude coming from that quarter. It will all end in tears.

David Ossitt

The war in Afghanistan we are told; is against the Taliban.

Would it not be more honest to call it what it is; a proxy war against a section of Islam.

To pretend otherwise allows our politicians and the disgustingly multicultural leftwing biased BBC, to continue promoting the lie that to all intents and purpose Islam is a peace loving creed with no wish to alter or change our laws or way of life.

If we want to win in Afghanistan; we must first bring the war home, and stop dead the creeping appeasement of all things Muslim.

Austin Barry

I may have not have been listening, but has anyone given one good, convincing, cogent reason why the benighted Dystorian dump that is Afghanistan is worth the shredded flesh of even one squaddie? No, thought not.

Moraymint

We neither want, nor can afford to be in Afghanistan for 40 years. Regrettably, the General is deluded if he thinks the British economy could sustain a 40 year war in some distant territory. I doubt whether the British people would put up with it for that long either.

The sooner we rethink our military and political strategies for dealing with Islamic Fundamentalism, the better. Feeding British soldiers into the Taliban mincer for 40 years just ain't going to work.

Sorry General, but you're living in a previous era (of British Empire).

R King

One wonders what the hell we are doing there. In Iraq Blair blatantly lied by saying that Sadam Hussein had WMD and when proved wrong the reasons changed to rid the country of Sadam.
In Afganistn we originally went in as a support role to the Americans. This now has proved to be a complete lie and we are deeply entrenched in a war. The latest reason being to control terrorism.

Does David Richards think that our presence is the panacea for world peace? Can he give us just one example. Aden? The Suez Canal? Korea? Northern Ireland? and don't even try and tell us Iraq!!

If this is a political posting and the general has become a Labour spokesperson this a very dangerous strategy and god help the troops that are out there.

Who are you going to serve General the troops or appease your Labour masters?

Matt Mclaughlin

tHESE AMERICAN OCCUPATIONS ARE SO PAINFUL. ITS AS IF THE AMERICANS WANT democracy through
pity, pity due to thier boys getting bad news urban warfare
instaed of real wars where people move upfield.

Frank P

Rhoda Klapp

"The first question I'd ask is: Are we at war with militant Islam or not?"

Not a simple question. You must define your terms.
"We?"
"War?"
"militant?"
"Islam?"

My stab at defining those terms:

1) "We" no longer know who "we" are. There is little consensus about anything in Britain any more and no longer any political, national, nor cultural cohesion in "The West". Western Civilisation, as it evolved in the first half of the Twentieth Century despite (or because of) two world wars is now kaput. Our own country is a basket case, it's real power ceded to European bureaucracy and it's culture diluted by mass immigration, much of it inimical to its Judeo-Christian heritage and its Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy. So the first premise of your Q goes up the pictures.

2) "War" is declared when one country's military is pitted against another country's military and continues until one side is defeated and wiped out or surrenders and sues for peace. That is not what is happening. After covert factions of Islamic jihad committed a series of atrocities against Western interests around the world, culminating in the brazen attack on the very heart of American commerce and government, factions of the West, in a very uncoordinated and unbalanced 'alliance' then mounted an offensive against the ephemeral forces of AQ and simultaneously took on Saddam Hussein who had been cocking a snoot a the UN for twelve years or so after being let off the hook following the Gulf War rout (because Western liberal society got squeamish about the carnage on the Road to Basra, when Stormin' Norman should have been told to take Baghdad and top Saddam there and then for his war crimes).

More squeamishness from Western liberals second time around during Shock & Awe led to more piss-poor craven politics and ludicrous military strategy/tactics . Despite that Saddam is kaput - no bad thing - long overdue!

What is happening now is not war but a half-assed attempt at 'nation building' by enforcement against shadowy insurgency with little support for 'allied' troops from electorates that have been poisoned by the promulgation of leftist-liberal propaganda of their own MSM. Bang goes your second premise.

3) "Militant" is undoubtedly a justified adjective in the context of your question. You can also add multifaceted, murderous an yes, even moderate to the adjectival list vis-a-vis Islam, because whatever the methodology of the factions, the aim is the same: restoration of the Caliphate by all means necessary. Trouble is the enemy is not a country; it is a religio-political-economic movement. To declare war on such an enemy is not possible, not least because a sizeable proportion of 'the enemy' are our own citizenry and from countries we consider to be useful trading allies.

4) "Islam" well - yerrss! It's a religion, ennit? And much, much, more. But we can't wage war against a religion, can we? Snot aloud!

"We"'re damned if we do and "we"'re damned if we don't.

But as we can't define "we" or "war" in this context, 'we' and 'they' are doomed to idiotic conflict ad infinitum, or until we yield to the Mullahs. "Which do you prefer?" is my question. It's one or t'other, ennit? I think you know the answer and it is already well under way.

jon Livesey

Look, I know I am thick, but when someone tells me that the war in Afghanistan is winnable in forty years, I ask myself what they mean, exactly.

In the first place, what are our vital interests in Afghanistan? Until recently, we had not been anywhere near the place for over half a century. From where, exactly did these vital interests come? They are certainly not anything that you could call immediate interests. We can prove this quite simply b y looking at how the UK approached Resolution 1267. We agreed that a combination of a) asset freezes, b) travel bans and c) an arms embargo, would be good enough. We did not say that these three measures would work miracles, but we said they would be enough. We did not say that if 1267 failed, we would fear Taliban tanks in the North End Road.

Then 9/11 happened, and we discovered that our vital interests in Washington - remember
Washington? The allied capital that funded the IRA? That Washington? - dictated that we had vital interests in Basra and Afghanistan. Funny, I never knew that.

OK, so what exactly does that turn out to mean? Well, the Americans will be delighted to inform you that the UK was 'defeated' in Basra, and also that it does not matter. So I guess our vital interests in Basra weren't so vital after all. They sure as Hell weren't vital to the US, who as see our presence more as an excuse to patronize and belittle the UK than anything else. But we don't care. Why not?

And Afghanistan? What is that *for*? Will we win? Will we be defeated? Will we even be able to tell the difference? When the Americans write the history of the campaign, will we even rate an entry in the index? Check any American history of the First Gulf War if you want to know what I mean.

We seem to be in the process of being completely and utterly delusional with ourselves. We chunter on about our vital interests without ever identifying what they are, and we talk about the war being winnable next year, in a decade, or in forty years without ever stopping to say what the war is, what the war is for, how we will know when it ends, and least of all what we get out of it.

Our excuse is that we are in some mushy sense supporting the Afghan Government, which is saying that we are backing the most venal and corrupt Government on the face of the Earth. And we are taking casualties to do what? To keep Afghan drugs off UK streets which are up to our knees in drugs from all over the World?

Why don't we ask some really hard questions here, eh? The VietNam War was kept going for several years past defeat simply because too many people in the CIA were financially involved in dealing the drugs produce by the US' enemies.

And here we are in an endless war in Afghanistan. Of course no-one in the MoD has a financial interest in keeping this endless and pointless war going. You believe that, right? Go on. Stand in front of a mirror and say to yourself: "I believe that no-one in the British Government is spending British lives in order to make money from Afghan drugs."

Go on. I dare you.

Edward McLaughlin

Rhoda Klapp et al

The biggest fool of all in our recent war history, was Churchill. He had to be stupid to think he could resist such an overwhelming force. Far better for him to come to some arrangement with Nazism. Perhaps?

Our current war in Afghanistan is with a foe every bit as lethal. Their intent and design, even more of a threat to the way of life we enjoy. But they're different and new.

The buffoons can't see this of course: eg "I don't believe the Taliban are interested in any other country other than their own" Really Michael?

But when I hear people like Austin Barry, along with other serious commenters, displaying a failure to grasp the enormity of what is taking place on our behalf; that is worrisome.

We need to take on board what Richards says: that this is a new type of war, it's not clear cut, the lines are diffused. The enemy know this well and we need to catch up in our thinking. The Army thankfully, have done so; the media show signs of coming round to it; the public still cling to the naive belief that this war is something we've seen before, that it is marginal and that we are given an option.

David Ossitt alludes to the need to 'bring the war home'. Perhaps, but this should be 'as well as' rather than 'instead of'.

David Ossitt

Edward McLaughlin

I meant; 'as well as'.

Rhoda Klapp

Edward McL, some analogy with Churchill. Are the forces of the Taliban arryed across the channel? No, they are Pashtuns who live in Afghanistan and want various things there (there is really no Taliban common position, they are composed of religious enthusiasts, vendetta-keeping tribesmen, durglords, warlords and just plain patriots). Indeed, as I think of it, they are in the 'Very well, alone' 1940 position, we represent the Germans in this one.

I say again, are we at war with militant Islam or not. Despite Frank P's cogent analysis, the question needs to be answered. It's a question of commitment. Does our nation (that's the 'we' I meant) have a vital interest in opposing what is supposed to be a threat to...what exactly? Are we just talking about terrorists attacks? Are we talking about Islamist nation states? Or Islam itself, as Frank states?

Just because we sleep-walked into this thing does not mean we have to continue sleep-walking. If there's a case, let's examine it. It seems that in some quarters, not least the editorial offices of the Spectator, debate on this one is not required, it's a given.

JONNY

The 40 Years War in Afghanistan is, and will continue to be, principally promoted by those with no possible prospect of having their own precious pink skins, or that of their equally precious sons or grandsons, barbecued by a Taliban roadside bomb.

Pete Hoskin

Rhoda Klapp: I don't quite see where you're coming from with this "debate" point. Of course, we at the Speccie think there should be a debate about something as crucial as the conflict in Afghanistan. We've never said otherwise.

But you've got to remember that this is a blog where the authors express their personal views. It would be disingenuous if we did otherwise. And most of us - broadly speaking - support the British involvement in Afghanistan, as we believe that a failure to act over there could have massive security implications for the AfPak region, which could spill over onto British shores. We have made this point numerous times, so you should be clear where we're coming from.

So what's the alternative? Should we set out the "other side of the debate" in every post that we make? And, if so, do we just do that in the case of Afghanistan? Or should we set out why, say - contra Coffee House - some people think Brown is a good Prime Minister? in other words: at what point does expressing our own views become tantamount to not wanting a debate?

I'm genuinely interested in your views on this, and to see if we can accomodate the "debate" you want. We tend to view the comments section as the natural realm for debate, but would you prefer that we had some original posts which make the opposite case against Afghanistan? And - if so - would you like a few more pro-Brown posts too? ;-)

Craig

That Gen Richards should say this before taking up residency in his office at MoD, he would look to be starting as he means to go on - and carrying on Richard Dannatts legacy.

Good work, sir.

Minnie Ovens

"But a failure to see the job through could have serious security rammifications closer to home."

I'm really sick of both politicians and journalists rolling out this tired mantra.
If this is the case then tell us, clearly, why.
I think many people are also becoming angry at the smooth talkers stating that "it will take a bit of time, cost money but we have to do it"
Again why are we putting so much time and effort into this? Why are we losing lives when it has become apparant that fighting this war is about the twentieth priority on New Labour's "to do" list?
It's about time all this intellectual mumbo jumbo we are hearing is replaced by realism.
If we lose, which seems more than likely if more body bags go back to the US and the US people get very restless, then what effect will it have here that is not already in evidence?
It seems we are already positioning ourselves to lose the home front battle, if our Government, Police and courts have any say, something which the ethnic population is not allowed.

Minnie Ovens

"massive security implications for the AfPak region, which could spill over onto British shores."

The problem with this argument, Mr Hoskins, is that it has happened already.
It would seem that the Government will trail along behind the US in Afghanistan while allowing a wide degree of room for the worst parts of the Muslim faith to fester and grow in our Homeland.
Some strategy.

Yarnesfromhorsham

Frankly, after allowing thousands of muslims into the UK to attend bogus colleges of higher education whats the point of fighting them in Afganistan - protect the UK bordersfirst and foremost - democracy in,and an Afghan army that can be relied upon - do leave it out - pigs and flying come to mind.

Rhoda Klapp

Peter, yes, a post from soembody questioning the war would be appropriate if only to bring out the defenders. The line of the posts so far has seemed, to me at least, to take as a given the official reasons for being 'at war'.
Coffee House comments to these posts have been, again to me at least, mostly not in agreement. Not exactly against the war, more in the way of requiring justification, and (this is drifting into stating my own position) defining who the enemy actually is and how best to prosecute the war. I'd personally say that if it isn't immediately obvious and easily explained (and it clearly is not to most of us here) somebody need to make the case for the war. The best way to stimulate that is for the sceptical stance on the war to be presented as a post. Then those who have been silent so far will be able to say why they support the status quo.

Edward McLaughlin

Jonny

This war involves people of many skin tones, and the bombs which 'barbecued' and tore apart civilian bodies on 7/7, were non-discriminating as regards skin colour. All that mattered to the bombers, is that Westerners should die. They did, made possible due to the network of training facilities safely plying their trade, guess where?

Rhoda

Again, this is not a war which observes borders so to think in terms of invaders 'across the channel', even ironically, ignores the new imperative.

Taliban are as likely to be Brummies as Pashtun, and we are fighting them, alongside Afghans of all tribes; so to portray us as plundering invaders, subjugating the natives of Afghanistan is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous because that is precisely how our enemy would like to position us.

Your main question of who and what precisely we are fighting, is one which I too think should be clarified. But as Frank P recognises, our own land is the scene of another front which due to 'sensitivities' has been left unattended for so long that we now find ourselves in an extremely unenviable position.

mac

Pete,

The line that a prolonged and costly military campaign (and a parallel civil reconstruction effort) in Afghanistan is required to stave off worse horrors at home, and that we have to be prepared to do so for 40 years provokes a slew of questions, just as Rhoda says.

Exactly who are we (really) fighting, and just which agencies stand to benefit most from the (to me incredible) idea that we face 40 years more of this? Will none of the major political party grasp the obvious nettles on the home front? Is there really an expectation that a Blairesque style "accommodation" with Sinn Fein/IRA can be reached here? Are our masters that deluded? I'm sure these angles are discussed in the Speccie office. What do you conclude?

Pete Hoskin

Rhoda: In which case, I'll see what I can do.

Anthony

Mr Hoskin,

OK, I'll bite. I was mulling over whether to post this in James Forsyth's post on troop number requests for Afghanistan or here. But seeing as you've taken the time to have a bit of a knock-about, I'll do it here. I'm not trying to be clever-clever, I'm genuinely interested in any answers you may come up with.

I think it's fair to say - feel free to correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting things - that this post and the post by Mr Forsyth I've mentioned represent a few recurring themes that crop up repeatedly here at the "Coffee House". First of all is the notion that we need to stiffen our spines and get ready for a lengthy and ongoing campaign for very high stakes. Second is the notion that the commander in the field should be "given what he needs to do the job" - ie. if there's a request for more troops, it should be granted. Third is the general excellence of David Kilcullen.

I'm interested to know how you square the first two with the fact, reported in the WSJ, that Col. Kilcullen is of the view - fairly uncontroversial within defence circles - that a) our current COIN effort is on the clock and that we've got about two years maximum to get things right, at which point a draw-down will be more or less inevitable and b) it is reasonable for the US government to adopt a stance of limited liability, including with regard to troop numbers.

On the issue of General Richards' interview, I admire the general enormously. However, I'm worried that it may well do more harm than good. In reality, of course, when the general talks about a decades-long commitment, it's heavily hedged and clearly does not imply a 30-40 year long COIN campaign. But this has too often been lost in the coverage and I think this sort of thing is more likely to erode support by setting up for the public a scenario that seems to them both bizarre and unlikely than it is to buck up support by steeling them for a sustained engagement.

John One

All the Military leadership are holding a telescope to their blind eye. If Pakistan is still riven by violent Islamism 40 years hence, still offering refuge to terrorists and fanatics, then the vast quantities [by 2050] of blood and treasure poured into state-building in Afghanistan will have been completely wasted.

Simon Stephenson

Pete Hoskin : 11.41am

I can't speak for the others, but what I would like to see more of is an admission that the pro-Afghanistan position relies on the belief that the West holds the moral high-ground. Why, objectively, should we believe this? Surely, to the majority of the world's population, the fact that we consider we have a right to consume an inordinate proportion of the world's production is not actually a morally acceptable position.

So, what's the rational position to hold? That we're hated because some outside our sphere are being unreasonable, or because we're being unreasonable in expecting them meekly to accept our determination of how things are going to be?

Victor NW Kent

Let us stop and try to understand the implications of a 40 year stay in Afghanistan.

This last month we have had losses at a staggering rate of increase. If losses were to continue at even a half of that rate you would be talking about an eventual butcher's bill of about 8,000 troop deaths.

I do suppose those would be ameliorated a bit when, in 5 or 6 years time, the MOD manages to get the armoured trucks in from Basra and the helicopters also over there, with trained crews and maintenance. But, I would not bet on that happening even in 40 years.

Are we really prepared for that? 8,000 deaths?

We might achieve something of worth if we sealed our borders against both illegal immigration and also bogus student immigration. Then the Afghanis could do whatever they liked with their medieval feudal, superstition riddled excuse for a country.

Anthony

"This last month we have had losses at a staggering rate of increase."

If the current loss rate persists, we're stuffed. I don't know anyone who thinks it's sustainable. However, it's worth noting that there's reason to believe it's more of a spike than a trend, given that we've been undertaking a major military offensive and the "tempo" of operations is way up and involves pushing into what amounts to enemy controlled territory. If not, game over.

Ian C

Coming late to this discussion but what Edward McLaughlin
August 9th, 2009 8:43am says is right.

The problem was that noone said at the beginning that it would take 30 years (my estimate tat the time) to sort Afghanistan.

To believe that we should just lob the occasional bomb at Al-Qaeda, holed up there causing havoc with the world was what Bill Clinton though he could do when he needed a distraction. Look where that got us.

If we leave it alone there will ultimately be no safe country, in the west at least from which to hold such head-in-the-sand and short sighted views as the majority expressed above.

Sure it's a problem - which is why it should be tackled head on, now, and not some two-bit half-hearted, ill-equipped way, as done so far.

Rhoda Klapp

Ian C, perhaps then you can answer the question. Are we at war with Militanlt Islam or not? This isn't rhetorical, it's serious. Are we at war? No, not unless you are a combatant, or have a family member out there. The country isn't commited in any way. Who is the enemy? Where else are we fighting them? How will we know whether we have won?

You don't have to have the answers to all of these questions to support the campaign in Afghanistan, but perhaps we could take your 'Sure it's a problem' and get your definition of what the problem is?

Letemdangle

A victory not worthwhile is no victory at all.