Harriet the hawk -- and Cameron the wuss?

clem the gem

Oh Mel, Harman? A Marxist? Even an ex-Guardian Leftie like yourself should know better than that! Unless you now subscribe to the view that Marxism is "what Labour Governments do"?
Surely it is not unwise to point out as HMs Loyal Opposition that Cameron i8s making a mistake of Blair-like proportions? And that someone else will pay for it in blood?

William Boyd

DT had a on-line story today that General Sir David Richards in comments on R4 had suggested that Britain could not defeat the Taliban and that the time for negotiation had arrived (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7857889/Britain-will-not-defeat-Taliban-and-should-open-talks-says-head-of-Army.html) but I don't see his comments, if indeed he was reported accurately, picked up by the rest of the press.

We aren't flourishing militarily in Helmand because the locals prefer the Taliban to Karzai. The problem there is political and not military.

With even our military now conceding that this is so it's time we faced up to the reality that we've done all we can achieve militarily before committing our boys to yet more pointless sacrifice and expose our armed forces to inevitable failure.

I admire David Cameron enormously for his principled position on Afghanistan.

I spent Saturday at a tiny little fishing village called Moelfre in Anglesey. It has a war memorial and as I often do I counted the number of names commemorating those fallen in the 1914-1918 war. Even that tiny little community lost eighteen of its souls to that struggle. Kate Roberts of nearby Rhosgadfan across the straits has described in her memoirs how local families received telegrams from the War Office telling them of their loss in a language (i.e. English and not Welsh)they did not understand. Later that day I went to shop at Waitrose's in Menai Bridge. They do a token system for contributing to local charities and you can choose from three and see how much has already been contributed. Of the three on offer by far the most had been contributed to an Afghanistan army victims fund.

This is the reality of war for ordinary families, the loss of loved ones, and no government that loses sight of that as readily as the armchair pundits of the press do can long survive.

Kennybhoy

Absolutely splendid analysis. All bar the last two paragraphs that is. Harperson's posturing is entirely political. And while you and I and many hereaboots might wish that it were so, there is at the present time absolutely no electoral gain to be had "by shifting to the (ahem, whisper it very quietly) right." "The defence of western values" means absolutely nothing to populations yet mired in complacency and denial.

alan stoddart

Cameron is the ultimate product of the Left's great project to turn us from proud Britons, aware of our history and what we have achieved in the world into an apologetic, irresolute people without the will to defend our own values, ashamed of our own existence ....especially if you are white and native British.

Cameron has already backtracked on Europe, immigration and Afghanistan...what does he really stand for?

A man of little principle, a man not prepared to take a difficult decision.

A man who seeks consensus, unwilling to really upset any vested interests.

Not exactly in Thatcher's mould:

'To me, consensus seems to be: the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that need to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?
I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.'

Huw Thornton

"As we all know, however, it is the left that is anti-war."

Do we, Melanie? This is not the first time that the "right" has been in favour of peace at any price.

Lee Jakeman

Is this the first time that Harriet Harm-Men has said something sensible?

I can't remember the last time ...

Baron Pippin II

Melanie, you reckon then staying in Afghanistan for ‘as long as it takes’ we would not be ‘fighting this war half-heartedly, with defeatism and appeasement written into our every gesture?’ Hmmm.

we have no chance whatever to win in a sense that we could defeat the Taliban. What they represent is akin to an ideology, a way of governance; it’s a creed that will never be defeated on a battlefield. The whole might of the American forces could do bugger all with the lawyers fingers on the trigger. The only way out of the hole is to talk to the likes of Ahmed in Kandahar (Karzai’s wealthy brother), few others and make a deal. You run your country the way you want except for one thing. Allow the al-Qaeda back in, and you as good as dead.

and another thing: we’ve forgotten the one key tenet of what soldiers are suppose to accomplish. It’s to destroy the enemy either through kill or capture, not do peacekeeping and school building. Our forces can neither kill nor capture, the guys we’re after live there, no uniforms, planting poppies during the day, doing abit of IED moonlighting at night, allowing us to built few infrastructure projects, schools and waiting. They have time, we don’t, money’s short, the electorates won’t stand for it. The sooner we’re out of there, the better.

Derek Pasquill

Prosecuting a pointless and unwinnable war is quite plainly pointless.

Or even frivolous - a frivolous expenditure of this nation's wealth and future.

solemnman

The west is in no position to transform yet another basket case .Even if the cost of nation building were sustainable(which it isn't)-making Afghanistan into an economically viable democratic society has as much chance of succeeding as transforming an asylum for the deranged into a model of sanity.When war is being waged against us we should do what it takes to destroy that enimies will to wage it.The consequences should be left for the enemy to deal with.

Dee Ranged

I fear that Pakistan/Afghanistan promblem may ultimately be less pressing.

What will overshadow them is the coming conflagration between Iran and Isreal and the rest of the world.

Mr. Mabutoh Afunfa

How are you going to defeat people who like killing? You can't those guys like killing it 's time to come back and defend your own country.

Dave M

I'm afraid I simply can't swallow any notion of Harriet Harman ever getting anything right. This lady is typical of the entire New Labour mentality that brought this country to its knees economically and politically. Her main philosophy in politics is, of course, all wrapped up in the imaginary delusion we're all either sexists or racists. I can only shudder at the damage this politician could do to the armed forces if she had the opportunity.
Having said all that, I wonder how come the politicians got it so wrong after 9/11. The billions of dollars spent on the Iraq War and Afghanistan could have been channeled towards simple, straightforward, logical, effective border security. That simple. It's interesting virtually all of the training for 9/11 took place within the U.S. and not in Iraq. The simulated flight stuff was rehearsed in America by fanatics who were allowed easy entrance into the country. The situation still goes on.
One question that needs to be asked is what happens once troops pull out of Afghanistan? Maybe finally we'll find out the war is being fought and lost within our own borders while we've been sleeping overseas.
Personally from 9/11 onwards I'd have invested a few billion dollars on border security, flight security and also an end to the flawed multicultural ideology. Till that happens I don't think these wars will prevent further attacks because the root cause of the problem is in western ideology - that we can all live together as a huge mixed race, happy family and religion is neither here nor there. Simply not true.

Graeme

How about Liam Fox for Prime Minister in place of Cameron? Or. put it another way, how about a real conservative instead of a faux conservative.

Augustus

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said recently: "We clearly understand that in July 2011 we begin to draw down our forces. The pace which we draw down and how many we draw down is going to be conditions-based." Gates also asked for time and patience to demonstrate the Obama's new strategy is working, lamenting that Americans are too quick to write off the war when the new revamped strategy had only just begun. But the question arises as to whether the execution of that strategy isn't based on precepts that don't reflect the Afghan reality. Central to the strategy is that the US hand over responsibilty for Afghanistan's security to an Afghan government and a national army. And that handover
is supposed to start next summer. But is either the strategy, or the deadline, realistic? Not only is it a Herculean task to pacify the Afghans, the geographical location coupled with the autonomous nature of the inhabitants has made it historically impossible to get a
transparent central government up and running. So the argument that setting deadlines will force President Karzai to modernize and centralize government is not what experience proves to be the case. Not because of Karzai's intentions particularly (whatever they may be), but because the societal structure there has been based, and ruled,
on a personal relationship basis for centuries. Those age-old habits can't be changed in a matter of months. And if America starts dictating too much to Afghan politicians there is always the danger that even the non-Taliban
will become enemies.

It is extremely important that the extremist jihadi Islamists don't regain new momentum, which they certainly will if they can claim not only to have won against the Soviet Union, but also against the US and its allies. A too hasty retreat would inevitably weaken neigbouring countries with important Muslim minorities. India would see it as a sign that the US has abandoned a policy of stability in the Middle East and South Asia. And in Pakistan it would blow new wind into the sails of the radicals. The only long term answer is to try to develop over time a military strategy into a long-term diplomatic strategy which could include Afghanistan in a regional economic development plan. Once such a plan is underway military
operations could be drawn down to suit the circumstances. The more the growth, the less may be the need for the bullet. But above all, we should do right, not only by the Afghan peasants who have suffered for so long, but also by the brave coalition
peacekeepers who have sacrificed
their lives for a worthwhile cause and help chart a course which can so easily be ruined by
the impatience of short-sighted leaders.

Pamela Monks

When Cameron decides to cut and run from Afghanistan, as he inevitably will as he hasn't the stomach for a protracted war, do you think he will quote Winston Churchill.

"This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning"

What worries me is that I don't believe that David Cameron would have the faintest idea what I was referring to. He'll learn, as we all will in time. This war won't end in Afghanistan, which is just one minor front. We'd better be in this for the long haul, and willing to do whatever it takes to achieve victory, as we are fighting this war for our very survival and it's one we cannot afford to lose.

Kennybhoy

clem the gem,

Harperson is most certainly a Cultural Marxist. And I strongly suspect that ,if push came to shove, she would turn into a full fledged socioeconomic specimen too!

You wrote:

"Surely it is not unwise to point out as HMs Loyal Opposition that Cameron i8s making a mistake of Blair-like proportions? And that someone else will pay for it in blood?"

So you support Miss Phillips' belief that we should stay the course in Afghanistan?

Brad Taylor

There's nothing 'Right-wing' or conservative about this war. It's just foolish.

Richard

Kennybhoy,

What exactly do you mean by 'a Cultural Marxist'?

I can think of various Marxist concepts that, like Freudian ideas, have in vague form entered our general cultural background - class struggle, the three basic social classes, base and superstructure, ideology, surplus value, alienation, alienated labour, the revolutionary part played by the bourgeoisie, and the Marxist notion of political objectivity, to name a few.
Do you mean you can see the influence of such concepts in Harriet Harman's political outlook? I can't see much evidence.

Dave M

"Do you mean you can see the influence of such concepts in Harriet Harman's political outlook? I can't see much evidence."

Or put another way, what would Lenin, Trotsky or even Stalin have made of Harriet Harman? The mind boggles to think how history would have unfolded had Harriet Harman+ New Labour stood between Hitler and his troops in WW2. First of all, I dare say the allies would have to reorganise their defences so the emphasis is on equality. That means, instead of flying spitfires or engaging in combat, conscripts would be drafted onto courses to be enlightened about sexism, discrimination and racism. Prayer mats would be handed out to troops three times a day as a means of "promoting awareness of diversity". Terms such as "the enemy" would be banned due to the need to eliminate unfair stereotyping - And so on...
It's comical to think of it but I agree New Labour had little in common with Marxists or Socialist revolutionaries. As others pointed out they were basically careerist politicians with a naieve social, educational background that led them to assume they knew better than the rest of us. Most of them enjoyed a free university education under Maggie Thatcher and The Tories but then denied the same advantages to those who made the mistake of voting them into office. In some ways, the fact ordinary working people genuinely believed New Labour represented the working man is similar to the situation in Tsarist Russia. Before the Bolshevik revolution the peasants really believed the Tsar was on their side.