Why Britain needs to stay in Afghanistan

Gerald

This article ignores the lesson of history. McNulty was on the radio this morning chanting the mantra that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. He'd read a book on his holidays about post 9/11 failures. What he might have reflected on -if he's capable of reflection -is that Afghanistan chews up invaders and spits them out -from the massacred British in the 19th century to the humiliated Soviets in the 20th. Stop wasting British lives and money on a doomed enterprise.

obangobang

Utterly unconvincing, I'm afraid.

1. So if we keep them out of Afghanistan, do we then move onto Pakistan, Somalia and Chechnya?

2. Too late mate. Every day that passes with yet more British and allied casualties, hands the radicals all the publicity they want. They don't care about winning. All they care about is keeping the war going to inflict more casualties and radicalise more kids.

3. Preserve NATO for what, exactly? If NATO is as Joyce describes it, what's the point?

And as for improving the lot of ordinary Afghans, well that's gone well, hasn't it? Maybe the jihadists think they can improve the lot of ordinary Brits by coming here and bombing us into acceptance of radical Islam. Is there a difference?

I'm sorry, but I see no prospect of successfully creating any kind of democracy in a country that shares none of our democratic values. And in the meantime, how many more allied soldiers and innocent civilians have to die?

Austin Barry

So:

1. Safe Haven - Pakistan next then?

2. Retreat encourages Jihad:

No, the tenets of Jihad encourage Jihadists.

3. To preserve NATO and maintain US security interests in Europe:

The US will take care of the latter and the heavy lifting for NATO always falls to the Anglosphere, so why preserve it in its current form?

4. Keep us in Britain safe against a new breed of terrorists - They already breed here, we will never be safe.

No,Afghanistan is just another Vietnam without, as yet, the casualty rate.

BRAZEN

The conclusion of the war will be by political means as in N Ireland.

This is already being intimated as diologue with Taliband leaders has started.

With respect to the N Ireland solution: You infer we should have had a full invation and a complete military insertion into N Ireland. The IRA were afterall hell bent on gaining a united Ireland by horiffic terrorist actions. This was not done because this was our land and people. So what justification do we have for this method in Afghanistan?

Recent terroist actions and plots were from within by British born Muslims brought to violence by a distorted viewpoint. Training camps will be set up elswhere if Afghanistan is denied.

The war on terror is political/religious. So will the solution be.

Our brave, loyal troops will continue to die unless this route is taken.

A good meathod of ensuring a swift political solution would be to insist all ministers do a tour on the front line. The solution would be found tomorrow!

Owen Morgan

Gerald, why don't you actually read about the British campaigns in Afghanistan in the nineteenth century, before pontificating about them from a position of total ignorance?

Chris lancashire

Britain should not stay in Afghanistan.
1. Al Quaeda already has new safe havens in Pakistan, Somalia and probably elsewhere.
2.They are getting propaganda coups every time a coffin appears on TV, let's give them one more by getting out.
3.Europe may very well have to look after itself, let's start learning now.

4. Yes, I'd like to improve the lot of ordinary Afghanis just as I would for Zimbabweans, Somalis, Sudanese and lots, lots more; but it is beyond our reach; so lets stop trying.

I suspect you would have a very different perspective if a member of your family faced serving in that god forsaken dump.

I agree with Gerald, stop wasting British lives on a failure.

cuffleyburgers

Weak analysis.

Your reason 2 is the only real reason.

And as for :"a democratic, gradually liberalising state in Afghanistan" - well, it ain't going to happen.

The US knows perfectly well already that its European "allies" are a waste of space, lacking the military means and the political will to do anything; EU-centred decision making will worsen that.

The only one halfway decent is the UK which has unfortunately acquired the status of a poodle at much the same time as having abandoned its men to their ill-equipped fate to the extent that we have to borrow both ammunition and helicopters. Handy as a diplomatic prop (but not for much longer) but militarily, compromised.

this situation is not going to improve until we have a government prepared to face the fact that we have to reason like a nation state on military and diplomatic issues.

Has Cameron the balls for that? or more pertinently, will he have the money?

Afghanistan - the one thing we cannot do there is lose. Unfortunately what a realistic and achievable victory might look like has not been made clear.

Not-losing is not a plan.

That's what brown has been trying on the domestic front since his accession, and we all know the results of that.

David

Have a heart Korski. You do have one? This morning dozens of Afghanis, many children, were shredded, burnt to death or maimed for life by an American airstrike called in by Germans in Kundus. Even with spun reporting already ordinary Germans will be physically sick and outraged at what is being done by their army. With a general election campaign underway the public pressure to get out of Afghanistan will be huge. This will leave the Yanks and Brits in the coalition of the willing. The invasion, occupation of Afghanistan(and now Pakistan) and genociding of its people will then be revealed most clearly, stripped of any pretence of democracy delivering and reconstruction. Anyone supporting what is going on is not human.

Mitch

Our soldiers are being killed to avoid bad propoganda and maintain credibility?

Is that really good enough?

drakes drum

I find the analysis by Mr Korski so stupid.

IF being in Afghanistan will stops terrorism on the streets of Britain. Why not Italy, France and Germany? they are not alongside the Canadians, Americans and ourselves taking on these terrorists!

Why have successive governments ignored the warnings about muslim fundimentalism and carried on allowing thousands upon thousands of immigrants into our country and throughout the EU?

No that argument is rather stupid and reminds me of similar statements made during the Vietnam War. Which were proved false.

We cannot win in Afghanistan. We could not a hundred years ago and the mighty Russian Army could not after ten years of ever rising casualities.

Safe behind his desk, Mr Korski is willing to consign fine British men and women to their deaths.

IF he and those of his ilk feel so strongly, I look forward to them joining the armed services and volunteering for service in that god forsaken country.

I am afraid I have the same view of Mr Korski as I do of the incompetent Secretary of State for Defence..that shop steward chappie.

Ruairidh

There is another point around the regional impact of a Taliban victory. Islamic insurgencies would start or strengthen in every country neighbouring Afghanistan. The jihadists victory in the first Chechen war was not followed by a quiet period of nation building. There first act was to support and launch a similar jihadists movement in Dagestan. If the Taliban gained complete control of Afghanistan they would destabilise Uzbekistan and the other central Asian states and most dangerous of all Pakistan. Iran and China would probably also face an upturn in terrorism but wouldn’t face the same existential threat that Pakistan would.

Gerald: You’re forgetting all the victories in Afghanistan too. The first Afghan war was a defeat but the second was a success. Remember that Afghanistan was a protectorate of the British Empire for a long time after that victory. Other empires have controlled this land through the ages. The idea that Afghanistan is some kind of graveyard for superpowers is a tad overplayed.

Obangobag:
On point 1:
Chechnya – no we don’t. The Russians have this covered in their own brutal way.
Somalia – no, not at the moment. The Ethiopians (with CIA support) have this covered. Were the Ethiopians to withdraw and AQ to set up camps then yes. We (a collective NATO we) have and would act.
Pakistan – no. The Pakistanis (with CIA support) have this covered. As a functioning nation state (just) where our presence would likely be counterproductive we’re best of leaving them to it.

Point 2: You’re wrong. They care deeply about winning. Our presence there is a severe embarrassment to them. It demonstrates there impotence. Pulling out would demonstrate their strength. Yes it’s a logic that is almost childish but it is the way they view conflicts. Jihadists still refer to them in beating the US in Somalia.

Point 3: Yes – I’ll give you that. NATO currently serves little purpose with so many passengers.

JC

"Al Qaeda still believes it needs safe-havens in places like Afghanistan." - or Yemen, or Somaila, or Sudan, or or or... We are not addressing the central issue, that is where are these attacks coming from. Oldham seems more likely than AGN. And who from these communities is going to attack us ? Surely that is the group of people we have to decide whether they should remain within Europe and if they do chose to return then AGN would be a happier spot for them than here.

Simon

The suggestion that ten British soldiers lost their lives for just 150 Afghan votes (Daily Mail Headline News 27.08.09) is grossly unfair and an insult to the families of those brave men and the British soldiers still out there. They died trying to bring democracy to a country previously ruled by tyranny.

They died fighting for the human rights of its citizens, especially of the women and young girls, many of whom are physically and sexually abused daily by there own husbands in practices supported by the Taliban and their Islamic fundamentalist sympathisers.

The bravery of those British soldiers has stopped Afghan society returning to the Dark Ages and the continued barbaric treatment of its citizens.

Afghanistan needs a strong government, free of corruption and free of men who think is acceptable to treat women and young girls as second- class citizens or, far worse, as slaves to men in their own families or community.

Allied forces are fighting to try to produce an Afghanistan free from the brutality of the Taliban and their uncompromising sharia law and to stop the country being used as a training ground for international terrorism. These are causes worth fighting for and, yes, dying for. We should be proud of the Allied forces and the sacrifices they are making

mitch

If the rest of the world believed that rubbish they would be helping instead of just providing a token force and we would win in a month.

Short the UK

The whole project is a humongous cock-up. Cold hard logic proved that it was unwinnable. Messianic politicians used "our toys" to front and die for impossible goals.

Rory Stewart speaks more sense than you do Daniel. His strategy has a solid chance of working whilst yours condemns "our toys" die in a vainglorious project.

It is good to see the public wake up. If Liam Fox had any nous and spine he'd be ahead of the curve and setting a strict timetable for withdrawal.

Alex, Addis Ababa

2 and 3 are resons for staying, but not for being there. 1 is valid, but don't forget to stress R2P, the near-globally agreed decision that, wherever they operate, people who behave like AO et al simply aren't acceptable, whether they pose a direct risk to one's own country or not.

Daniel Korski

Thanks for a set of great comments. I still hold that we have no choice but to fight and have concerns about the points raised in the discussion.

1. Specifically, if we withdraw then what? Do you think the Taliban will just wither away? Or will they become bolder and stronger?. If we leave, do you think the Taliban will break their alliance with Al Qaeda or feel they owe Osama Bin Laden a debt of gratitude? Will the likelihood be more attacks or less? The problem is not to think through a withdrawal, but the consequences of one. None of you have offered a convincing post-withdrawal scenario.

2. I agree that current operations are helping the jihadist cause, but not as much as NATO’s withdrawal will.

3. NATO has many roles beyond the fight against terrorism. It functions as a day-to-day glue for Euro-Atlantic community and a platform for responding to a range of security challenges, many of which have yet to emerge. It would be foolish to jettison NATO altogether.

4. Yes, Jihadists are not only operating in Afghanistan, but also in other countries. But because you cannot intervene everywhere does not mean you give up on intervening where you can. Nor does every situation require the same policy prescription. But one thing is certain – failure in Afghanistan will embolden jihadist everywhere, but especially in Pakistan.

5. Like Owen Morgan, I think the history of the past wars outlined in some of the blogposts is as cod as it gets. So is the idea that the 2001 invasion was anything else than legal or the outrageous idea that the West is perpetuating a genocide. David, you may benefit from reading the Genocide Convention to understand the terminology.

6. Drakes Drum – please! I don’t know if you have ever visited Afghanistan, but I served there as well as in southern Iraq. I would be happy to return if asked. I sit behind a desk now, as I assume you did when you typed your blogpost, but have spent my career in the field.

johnny come lately

Simon. Voters had their fings hacked off. One voter , seen on the news, had his nose hacked off. The president's wife is not allowed to do anything without his permission. Women are third class citizens.

It is STILL in the dark ages, and we cannot stop that.

I believe we should just send Harriet Harman.

Zorba The Geek

Re your headline, when did the Americanism "needs to" oust the British "should"? The Speccie, with the constant employment of clumsy Americanisms, devalues its reputation for literacy.

It might help you to note that The American Spectator uses standard English.

Ian C

The 'little englander' nature of the majority of comments - that would have us unilaterally withdraw are typical of the, so called, 'pragmatic' right who would not do anything about the Balkans in the '90's.

It is spineless stupidity to believ that we can pull out, leave the Afghans to it and pretend it will not effect us and our fundamental interests thereafter.

The job is doable, it just needs doing properly - not possible under this disgraceful government. And while it is far from certain that a Tory gov't will be any better we should all be hoping that it can be done is the first step to backing those in the world who need our help and to do so is in the interests of the wider world - as we have done through most of the past century, with a few dishonourable exceptions.

Short the UK

Ian C,

I strongly recommend you read the writings of Rory Stewart on how to work Afghanistan.

I am no "little englander."

I phoned the FO during the Balkans and let rip my anger about our spineless attitude.

You pick your fights, have a coherent strategy, concrete goals and back it up.

"Our toys" are dying because Blair got us deeply involved in Afghanistan. Didn't have a coherent strategy, rock solid goals and crucially didn't back up "our boys"

Battle 2807

Slightly off topic (-again, sorry) but this afternoon I was surfing the news channels, trying to find SOME mention of the UKIP party conference; and on Sky news I say a clip of the 2 latest fatalities in Afchanistan. The clip was completely silent, except for a church bell in the background. The hearses, and the walker infront of the hearses, and the lowered flags, and then the ex-servicemen saluting. It reduced me to tears. It was so poignant.
This is what will extricate us from the mess of Afghanista - the people of Great Britain will say 'enough' to the dreadful loss of life.
Thank God.

drakes drum

6. Drakes Drum – please!
Mr Korski said to me:-
I don’t know if you have ever visited Afghanistan, but I served there as well as in southern Iraq.

That, sir, does not mean you are right! But I apologise for my remark.

I am now an old man. But whilst I have never had a wish to go to Afghanistan I do have a son and I have met his colleagues, who are in the army and have served in both places. Strange that they do not shre your views.

This is a war we cannot win. We have just witnessed the most corrupt election which will ensure that the infighting will carry on and our people are in the middle.

I have had some experience in dealing with troublesome area's and the last thing any 'peace maker' should be is right in the middle between rival gangs!

We must get out now. But we cannot expect Cameron to support that!

Bexleyite

This is typical Korski.

The man should be writing for the Guardian. First we get his grandparents, now we get this. Total drivel.

There's no reason why we should be in Afghanistan, except neither Blair nor Brown had the guts to say no. Wilson said no to Johnson about Vietnam. The world didn't end. It won't do this time either, if we get out of there.

Plus we don't have the money to do it, which is why our troops out there are totally unsupported.

Luddite

Let's never forget the bombers of 7/7 didn't fly from Afghanistan but drove down from Leeds the threat from Islamic fascism is not to be found in the mountain and valley of Afghanistan but in the towns and cities of Britain all bacause of vile!!Labour's open door immigration policy and it's wicky appeasement of Islamic fascism at home.

George Laird

Dear All

Daniel Korski makes the case that Britain needs to stay in Afghanistan.

I think he is completely wrong.

His points and my analysis;

“To deny Al Qaeda a safe-haven from which to train and organise attacks on the West. Though terrorism can be organized in Oldham, Hamburg and Marseilles, Al Qaeda still believes it needs safe-havens in places like Afghanistan”.

Al Qaeda Terrorists don’t care where they train; they have no interest in holding territory, they are a terror network.

The fight in Afghanistan by Afghans is a jihad to expel US/UK invaders, if we go they will not becoming after us.

“To prevent a new generation of terrorists and insurgencies of getting the mother of all propaganda coups by having routed NATO. Victories in places like Helmand and Swat, even if not technically by Al Qaeda, resonate through jihadist websites and mindsets the world over, and could inspire a myriad of groups to further atrocity”.

The face saving argument, is he really suggesting that soldiers have to die to save a politician’s face in front of a camera? Is that a good enough reason for staying; I think not.

“To preserve NATO and maintain US security interests in Europe”.

That is nonsense, Afghanistan part of the EU?

“Having been belatedly dragged into the conflict in 2003, NATO’s credibility is on the line, as are US commitments to European security”.

The US has no commitments to European security except they want a missile defence system pointing at Russia, nothing to do with Terrorism.

“If Europe cannot help where the US needs it, why should the US care about European security concerns?”

That argument is incredibly weak, where was the US during the Falklands War? Did our “ally” fight by our side?

No!

“Sure, you can add auxiliary reasons such as wanting to improve the lot of ordinary Afghans, who are among the planet’s poorest. It is clearly in Britain’s interests – and a reflection of Britain’s values and compassion, to use a concept much in vogue these days – to help establish a democratic, gradually liberalising state in Afghanistan”.

Note how Daniel Korski simply blows away the lie that we are primary there to help the Afghans, this is used to justify our presence to the British public. He furthers goes on to state;

“But these additional reasons should not be confused as the main reason why British soldiers are fighting. They are fighting to keep us in Britain safe against a new breed of terrorists, who are at their deadliest when they are flush with victories, real or spun, against the West; and have operational links between placemen in the West and operatives in safe-haves elsewhere”.

This is completely fantasy, the “new” breed as he puts it are Afghans who join what they consider a holy war to expel the invaders.

Daniel Korski simply can’t get it through his head that Afghanistan will not become an ally of the west; his vision of a pre-Westphalian state that acts against existential threats like Al Qaeda is delusional.

For Afghanistan to move forward; the entire country has to be rebuilt, that means everything via a governorship imposed by the west which eventually can turn over power to educated Afghans, schooled in civil government and who are not corrupt.

Democracy isn’t working in Afghanistan because the concept is alien to the culture.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Ian C

Short

My point is almost made by your reply - it can be done and because it has been cocked-up so far does not mean we should not continue until we get it right. Viz. the surge in Iraq where the same arguments applied.

The implications of Stewart's advice are disatrous, if motivated by short term pragmatism.

And my own son will serve in Afghanistan.

anonymus

this is all nonsonse