Cameron meant what he said on Afghanistan
Fraser Nelson 1:25pm
Although David Cameron said later that he didn’t mean it, there was no mistaking the sincerity when he told Adam Boulton that “We cannot be there for another five years having effectively been there for nine years already”. In my News of the World column today, I say that it’s pretty clear his Afghan strategy is to secure the earliest dignified exit. But I also say that this does not necessarily bode ill for defence more widely. I gather that George Osborne, fresh from the success of his Budget last week, is working on a plan that will freeze defence budget in cash terms (an 11% real terms cut over five years) thereby saving the military from the 25% average cut for non-ring fenced departments. In return, Liam Fox would be asked to offer up asset sales, probably in year three of four (as asset prices are expected to be on an upwards trajectory). This is the best available option for defence, and if Osborne does indeed give a “no cash cuts” policy on the MoD than the Conservative Party and the military will owe him a thank-you. It keeps Britain in the game, globally.
The settlement will nonetheless be very tough, and Liam Fox will have the devil’s own job with the Strategic Defence Review due in the autumn. The Army think he’s too pro-Navy, the RAF think that – as a former Army doctor – Fox is against them. So Fox will be mass producing gossipy enemies within the defence establishment as he wields the scalpel.
Update: In saying that he wanted troops out for the next election, Cameron made a rare slip. It’s particularly unfortunate given the timing of the Afghan mission. Violence is increasing, and the military are on the cusp of two major offensives: the Americans are planning to take Kandahar and the British are planning a major operation in Sangin in the south. Both have been delayed, principally because the Americans are having trouble with their offensive in Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand (the now-famous Rolling Stone article had hints of this. Given that UK troops will soon come under American command, this explains the tardiness of our Sangin operation – it was due for May, and given that our Valetine’s Day offensive went pretty well there’s no reason I’ve heard of why there should be a holdup from the British end).
As this is primarily a war of nerves, the Taliban will look at this delay – together with the Stanley McChrystal fiasco, Cameron’s comments – and conclude that Obama and Cameron may not be entirely wedded to the military adventure of their defeated predecessors. Crucially, the Taliban will want to know if the West’s resolve is weakening.
The correct answer to ‘how long will Britain be in Afghanistan’ is simple: ‘as long as it takes’. Cameron, I suspect, will be kicking himself that he did not offer this answer.
I met his old Eton schoolmate, Mark Carleton-Smith, when he was commanding British forces in Afghanistan two years ago and he put it memorably. “This is a task which one measures in decades. Strategic patience is vital.” In his book Colossus, Niall Ferguson wrote that the America may have superior military, but its weakness is its short attention span. Exploiting this weakness is the Taliban’s entire strategy. They seek to erode support for the war in domestic audiences, via a high number of casualties (which serve little strategic purpose). They cannot beat the Western armies, but hope that Western politicians will run out of this “strategic patience” and then withdraw to suit a political timetable.
The Taliban saying – “you have the watches, but we have the time” – is the key to understanding their aim in Afghanistan. For all his exotic background, Obama is a strikingly parochial President who seems to regard Afghanistan only through the perspective of his re-election. That’s why he spoke about a 2011 withdrawal date. Such language encourages the enemy, and makes them think they will win a waiting game.
One final factor: the steady draining of political support in Britain. I chaired a ‘Question Time’ panel for new Tory MPs a fortnight ago, hosted by the CPS. One of the questions was why we’re in Afghanistan. These Tories, by no means to the left of the party, agreed that it is very hard to answer. The Afghanistan bill is on top of the normal military budget, and I suspect it’s one that Cameron and Osborne would like to reduce quite quickly. You won’t hear either of them talk with much passion about how Afghanistan is of great strategic importance to Britain – Cameron likes to focus on the aid, training etc that we can give Karzai’s government. Problem is, that government is now ranked the second most corrupt in the world – real power rests with warlords and drugs barons. It could well be that the Afghanistan campaign will simply serve to transfer power form thugs with beards to clean-shaven thugs. Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, has rightly said that it will not be a “Central Asian Valhalla”. But to leave it as a Central Asian Somalia is not much of a result either. There is, alas, much reason to be disheartened about what Britain can realistically achieve in Afghanistan. But with our troops about to start a major offensive, now is not the time to go wobbly.
Previous
Vic Warren
June 27th, 2010 1:46pm Report this commentWell thought-out piece as usual from Fraser.
What's the general view on whether the RAF will be amalgamated into the Army? I sincerely hope not; you can picture the headlines now, 'Tories succeed where the Luftwaffe failed, destroying the RAF'
John Richardson
June 27th, 2010 2:07pm Report this commentRight.
Godit.
There's no mistaking his sincerity this time.
After Lisbon he WILL not let things rest there.
Yet he WILL NOT bang on about Europe.
He WILL make the painful necessary cuts.
Yet he WILL NOT hesitate to be the 'greenest ever' Government. Thereby wasting billions upon billions each year.
He WILL stand up for the family.
He WILL NOT stop the State creating 'units' that are a twisted mockery of real families. He WILL NOT reverse the financial penalties faced by parents who want to live together.
He WILL NOT sacrifice those MPs stupid enough to support him and create a liberal 'partocracy' type administration, impervious to votes & elections.
He WILL allow the State Broadcaster to campaign for PR. He won't campaign against it.
Now he WILL say we should be out of Afghanistan one day. Instinctively using the five year election cycle as his guide.
Yet he WILL NOT undermine the mission by choosing some arbitrary time limit or date.
Right.
That's clear.
Thanks.
...and to think there are those who say the MSM/Corporate Media is dead in the water. Irrelevant, cowardly, unintelligent and dishonest.
Colin
June 27th, 2010 2:14pm Report this commentThe best option for defence is for the government to freeze the overseas development budget and transfer it to front line defence spending.
At the very least, we should introduce some basic rules with respect to overseas aid:
1. Space program = nothing
2. Nuclear weapons program = nothing
3. Space program + nuclear weapons program = They send us aid
The current overseas aid situation is absurd and immoral. I'd like to know in detail, why things are as they are.
I have just shelled out a fortune to bring a family member's, personal military kit up to standard, prior to deployment to helmand. That alone should shame every person in the land who calls themselves a politician.
Howie
June 27th, 2010 2:17pm Report this commentHas anyone considered the Taliban in all this "pulling out in 5 years" talk ??
If I was their Strategist I'd just hang slack for five years and a day, then as I watch the dust settling of foreign army’s retreating west – pause for a deep breath then stroll straight it again.
Nice of us to tell them what we are going to do eh?
Glenn Haldane
June 27th, 2010 2:26pm Report this commentHaving served in the regular RAF (as aircrew), the TA and the RMR, I have no doubt at all that the RAF should be wound up and its people and assets transferred to the other services. The service lost its strategic role with the first Polaris patrol and has survived since on simple inertia.
TrevorsDen
June 27th, 2010 5:57pm Report this commentMr Richardson you are simply inventing non sequiturs to suit your own prejudice.
Cameron was pointedly sayiong we would not be giving up on Afghanistan and we would (in effect) be there for decades. But we would not be in a major fighting role; that would be done by local Afghan Army.
5 years is not a bad timescale for training them. So the date is plausible. But no one should underestimate the task in training the Afghan army, it will take time to produce an effective unit.
Pulling out main fighting forces does not mean an end to our interest. We will always have in interest in those border areas - what we need is a defence review that recognises that fact. Now can someone tell me what use 15 billions worth of aircraft and naval jets will be in fulfilling those interests?
Tarka the Rotter
June 27th, 2010 7:08pm Report this commentYeah but hang on a minute... didn't he 'mean what he said' about a referedum on the EU? Wasn't that a cast iron pledge or whatever?
David Dee
June 27th, 2010 7:43pm Report this commentPlease be a bit easier on poor old David.
He has just got the hang of practicing 'humble' and now you expect him to be able to do 'sincerity' as well. That is going to take a few more weekends of rehearsals!!
wonderfulforhisage
June 27th, 2010 9:51pm Report this comment"Although David Cameron said later that he didn’t mean it, there was no mistaking the sincerity when he told Adam Boulton that".
Come on, be fair. It's damnably difficult to run the Country according to focus groups if the bastards keep changing their minds. It's almost enough to drive one to leadership from principle.
Lord grytpype-thynne
June 27th, 2010 10:20pm Report this commentMr Haldane, I think you are a fraud and in fact ex-army, to come out with that old chestnut!
Edward Sutherland
June 27th, 2010 10:41pm Report this comment"Liam Fox would be asked to offer up asset sales.." I've never understood why RAF Northolt was not sold off years ago as Heathrow's third runway; it's only six miles from Heathrow and could be connected by a fast rail link. I suspect it has got something to do with the convenience of Northolt for government ministers and the royal family.
William Boyd
June 28th, 2010 2:20am Report this comment"The correct answer to ‘how long will Britain be in Afghanistan’ is simple: ‘as long as it takes’." ...
If 'what it takes' means delivering a secure national government then it will take for ever. We all know that now and we should have known that before we committed to Karzai.
David Cameron is quite right to suggest the thing should be resolved within the lifetime of this present government.
Teepee
June 28th, 2010 10:01am Report this commentI'd have thought it was a no-brainer. If we were still in Afghanistan in 5 years time, that really would be an election issue. Especially as, by the look of it, we'd be there on our own...
Commentator
June 28th, 2010 10:24am Report this commentTrevorsDen, in your dreams. Without very major external military support, the Afghan Army doesn't stand a chance against the Taleban, now or in the future. Cameron wants to pull out and fast. Everyone knows that including the Taleban. Can we please drop the spin about a "dignified" exit? Like England's from the World Cup you mean?
Andre
June 28th, 2010 10:53am Report this commentCan I mention the conundrum of Af-Pak once again. If we leave and the Taliban take over then it follows Pakistan will be next in line. Islamic radicals take over Pak and bingo Al-Q has a nuclear bomb. The reason we are in Af-Pak is to stop terrorists acquiring and detonating a nuclear bomb in London, Birmingham, Manchester etc.
alexsandr
June 28th, 2010 12:31pm Report this commentI am told there is a worldwide morphine shortage. Morphine is made from Opium. So why dont GB & US buy up the opium in Afghanistan thus ending the illegal infrastructure?
John Richardson
June 28th, 2010 7:01pm Report this comment'alexsandr'
Careful where your thinking might lead.
Or more accurately; has already led.
Details if you want them.
Back to top