The Tories’ support for the war in Afghanistan owes nothing to neo-conservatism
David Blackburn 2:00pm
In his column in the Mail, Peter Oborne writes that Cameron’s stance on Afghanistan represents the same mistake made by IDS in his unstinting support for the Iraq war. Oborne fears that neo-conservatism has gripped the Tory leadership.
‘The ‘Neocons’, despite being discredited by the Iraq war, have furtively regained their position at the heart of the Tory party.
Almost without exception, Cameron’s senior team are passionate Atlanticists who seem committed to the policy of ‘reinforcement of failure’ in Afghanistan.
Both the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and the Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox are ‘Neocons’. As are Cameron’s two most trusted Shadow Cabinet colleagues, Michael Gove and George Osborne.’
By their own admission, the Shadow Cabinet’s Neocon element “stays silent on foreign policy”. Cameron himself is emphatically not a Neocon: “You cannot drop democracy from 10,000ft” is his favoured catchphrase. Tory support for the Afghan war is based on the assumption that it is stabilising the benighted region, forcing jihadism to become nomadic and improving global security. Their policy is not inspired by an ideological commitment to export democracy and Atlanticism at the end of a bayonet.
Therefore, Oborne is correct that ‘on matters of overall strategy, there is not a cigarette paper between Cameron, Brown and Obama’. Nato's strategy is unfocussed, confused and counter-productive - jihadists around the world to flock to Afghanistan with murderous and chaotic intent, and not even the warlords can contain them. It is conceivable that perpetuating a failing and very costly strategy might cost Cameron in the long run; he should consider alternatives.
Previous
Noa Zrk
October 24th, 2009 2:56pm Report this comment"It is conceivable that perpetuating a failing and very costly strategy might cost Cameron in the long run; he should consider alternatives".
Yes he should, and a pro-war cabinet that contains manifest wimps like Haigh, Gove and Byrne, fighting to the last drop of other mens blood, will cost a possible Conservative government dear.
Pure party considerations put aside, as they should be by government. We should exit from this bloody and pointless little war as soon as possible. Let the US fight it if it wants. UK interests in this area are best served by our traditionally successful foreign policies of maintaining a balance of power and dividing to conquer. Let India, Pakistan and Iran chew on this indigestible pebble. Our own interests nearer to and at home will be capable of being better addressed when we are divested of this bloody irrelevence.
Simon too
October 24th, 2009 3:43pm Report this commentAt present British troops are fighting and taking casualties in Afghanistan. The Conservative party is in opposition. There is nothing much it can say, for the moment, which will have a beneficial strategic effect on that conflict, but it could do harm.
The irrecoverable problem with this conflict for the existing administration is that its aims are inextricable confused. The next administration will have to sort out the aims of the conflict; having done so it will have to consider whether the conflict can be prosecuted to a succesful conclusion at an acceptable cost. Then the answer may be to bail out promptly, but unitl then it would be irresponsible and dangerous to oppose the conflict.
Nothing in those observations should stop the Conservatives now giving the current administration a good kicking for its vicious incompetence.
Chris
October 24th, 2009 4:10pm Report this commentWell, Noa, if you think leaving the Afghanistan problem to three states, two already, and one soon to be nuclear-armed, with long histories of religious(Hindu-Muslim, Shia-Sunni) and political (Kashmir) antipathies, you are even more ignorant and complacent than I had surmised from your comments elsewhere. Afghanistan is not a pointless conflict (if it were, there would be no need for you to propose your silly alternative solution); nor, by historical standards, is it especially bloody. (And yes, of course, every soldier's death on our side, and every accidental civiliand death, is a tragedy; but every terrorist death on their side is a victory.)
Noa Zrk
October 24th, 2009 4:51pm Report this commentChris:
And the benefits to the UK from its subsidiary involvement in Afghanistan are what, precisely? You conveniently forgot to articulate these? Add the singular lack of success of Russia, its Northern neighbour, from directly involving itself in that country and its obvious why its a no-go area for any country with a modicum of sense.
Your willingness to fight in this pointless war the last drop of someone elses blood is duly noted.
Frank P
October 24th, 2009 5:19pm Report this commentChris
Yours is a very good post; a bullshit blaster and good for the troops who are bustin' their balls confronting the real enemy - Islamism - rather than wishing to appease it and commit us to dhimmitude within a generation. Oborne is a prick; a prick who was sacked as political editor of this magazine and good riddance. Even if he says something I want to hear, I always suspect that it is a subterfuge for his many sub-agendas.
Dennis Churchill
October 24th, 2009 5:46pm Report this commentOur political and media classes do not seem to have caught up with a change in most Britons‘attitudes to foreign policy: they are not interested.
They are not interested in “our” influence in Europe, the Middle East or Afghanistan because they are not convinced that the policies promoted by “their” Ministers are in the interests of Britain.
Without an Empire to protect and no continental enemies that threaten us it is not surprising we no longer see the advantages in becoming involved.
What benefits have there been to Britain (not Iraq, Israel the US or anywhere else) in our involvement in Iraq?
The French option is attractive to most of the population, particularly as we are now poorer than Italy.
The terrorists that threaten us live among us. Our safety would be improved more by deporting them and not allowing more in than sending our armed forces into Afghanistan
JONNY
October 24th, 2009 8:02pm Report this commentThere's an element of post-Imperialist posturing to Cameron that bodes badly for all of us.
TrevorsDen
October 24th, 2009 8:53pm Report this commentits inconcevable that the Tory party in opposition is being given a true picture of the security situation and on the activities in Afghanistan. it will have to look at the situation in its own eyes assuming it gains office.
Oborne is talking his usual rubbish.
IF the Tories gain power and IF they perceive that fighting in Afghanistan its the right thing to do (I think it is) and IF NATO is still committed then we can ONLY carry on if we put the resourced=s of the defence budget towards the real war we are fighting now not some war or security issue down the road.
This will mean a delay on worrying about Trident and a block on big fancy aircraft carriers and their hugely expensive planes and also exotic aircraft for the RAF.
It will possibly mean some creative thinking about procurement and rearming our forces.
The nation needs our government's commitment to be fully behind the forces in theatre (and this is not just the army) - it is the only honest honourable thing to do and the service chiefs need to realise it.
Dr Iago
October 24th, 2009 9:25pm Report this commentChris,
You make a fair point, but what is missing from the proposals of those that want to stay in Afghanistan is a comprehensible end goal and exist strategy. Training the Afghan army and providing a stable government simply won’t cut it without is a stable economy, growth and prosperity. The only way this will happen is if we abandon the reprehensible war on drugs and allow the Afghans to cultivate and sell their most profitable resource.
Back to top