Public war grief impairs our judgement on Afghanistan 

Athanasius

I agree with the statement presented in the title. What I do not understand is why it is necessary to refer to war-grief as 'public religion'. I'm not at all convinced that such grief has a religious or even ritual aura, and indeed it cheapens it to suggest that it does.

Roderick Blyth

I am not sure I really agree that there is any real risk that the rituals surrounding the repatriation of British soldiers killed in the latest Afghan War is likely to ssep into this debate. To be brutally frank, there seems to me more sentimentality than religiosity in the media presentation of this issue - a 'dianification' of the kind that is not entirely surprising given the culture that pervades the media generally.

What struck me most about Matthew Parris' article was his concentration on the idea that those who support the war, do so because they see it as some kind of mission to install liberal democracy in a country in which there is no soil in which it could possibly take root. I can't say that I know anyone of the slightest intelligence who takes this view, and I wonder whether, even in the U.S., it is much more than propoganda thought likely to help in raising support amomg the self-deluding and self-righteous masses. I had myself understood that the war was being fought because it was believed that Afghanistan was a seed bed of international terrorism, and further, that ignoring that fact was likely to lead to a shift of terrorist activities to the home territories of the nations currently emgaged in attempting to root it out in Afghanistan. The evidence for this is impossible for the average reader of a newspaper to assess, because it is not in the interests of intelligence services to publish the kind of information which would allow the public to make up it's mind, (although that information is likely (now) to be available to Mr.Obama and his team). Hence the attempt to find some other justification for the war however specious. However, sceptical instincts do suggest that if a major escalation in terrorist activity followed a withdrawal from Afghanistan, the connection between those phenomena would very quickly be made by those whose bread and butter it is to criticise government action on the international stage, whatever that action happens to be. Listeners to the TODAY programme will remember the almost insane delight with which the appearance of an imminent collapse in Iraq was greeted by commentators before the so-called 'surge', and the embarrassed silence that followed it's apparent success. Nobody said that it took some courage on the part of Mr.Bush to authorise it. Furthermore, Mr.Parris is wrong if he is suggesting that calls for reinforcement and supplies are simply part of the psychology of command, or an attempt to pass the parcel of responsibility from the military to the politicians. Examples can be found of the one, and he duly quotes them, but there are also examples where timely reinforcement has had a positive outcome. One hears less about them, because, as the outcome of 'the surge' indicates, failure always attracts more attention than success. At the moment it does seem clear that British forces are over-stretched and under-resourced as a result of the fact that the governments tax priorities have, rightly or wrongly, always been with domestic social programmes. The military, and the conditions in which it lives and operates, have, hithertoo, seemed a matter of comparatively little electoral importance. My brother, an-ex soldier, who spent some time clearing mines after the Russian War, always says that fighting in Afghanistan is what football is in the UK - that is, partb of the national culture, and since I respect him, and his judgment, and I respect the lives of those like him, I am hardly a natural advocate of the war. But I do think that history is likely to demonstrate that the currents in international events that took us there, and there continued relevance, served to do more to justify it than most media commentators currently allow. Oh, and as far as faith is concerned, I am wholly against ant religious justification for war: it csn be countenanced as an unpleasant necessity, but except in cultures like Afghanistan, it's heroic sanctification is repulsive.

Hugh

Why do you insist on seeing religious issues where they're barely present? The BNP suggest Jesus would vote fascist or the Pope endorses Harry Potter and there's not a peep from the "Faith based" blog, but Charles Moore refuses to pay the BBC license fee or media report on the war dead and its a big religious question.

Lions Roar

Whether we support the War in Afghanistan or not, the grief and a moment of silence is a mark of respect for the fallen.

If our troops return, the fight will follow and whilst those who do not agree for the obvious reason, peace is not on offer and like the invasion of Poland in WW2, the enemy was swiftly at our door and is at present at home also, lest us not forget, peace comes at a price and it is high.

Kennybhoy

Just so I understand you and Parris...

How withdrawal "looks" is more important than what it actually is...?

Forget about how it will look to America. How do you two clowns think it will look to our enemies?

And what the @!#! does how we honour our war dead have to do with anything?

I linked to this disgustingly supercilious piece of crap masquerading as commentary directly from Peter Hoskins' post on the passing of Harry Patch!

Shameful!

May God forgive you....

Ian C

Unilateral British withdrawal would drive a stake through the heart of NATO. While that organisation is very uncertain about its purpose, combined with the failure of the majority of its European members to do anything significant for Afghanistan, would be tantamount to issuing an open invitation to all anti-western nations and terrorists to get together.

Nothing would be more damaging to world security except the USA deciding to do the same.

Even Chamberlain would not be so stupid.

The answer is re-doubling the numbers and resolve and going about the legitimate objectives properly and with a political agenda to back it up, rather than with the half-heart with which it was returned to in 2006. That way it will only take a short time on maximum effort rather than the prolonged and dangerous current strategy of merey wanting to be seen to do something in support of the USA.

Someone needs to get a grip.

Kennybhoy

"Someone needs to get a grip."

Well said sir!