The unspeakable truth is that we lost in Iraq. We must not lose in Afghanistan too

5 December 2009

James Forsyth reviews the week in politics

If Cameron is the next prime minister, one of his first tasks will be to make sure that he is not left hanging by Obama as Brown has been; a US U-turn on Afghanistan could well come early in Cameron’s first term, owing to the American electoral cycle. It would be embarrassing, and hugely damaging for the special relationship, if Cameron were to set about reorganising government the better to support the Afghan mission only to find that Obama was calling time on it. A potential problem for Cameron is that his team lacks anyone with a personal relationship with the key players in the Obama administration. But in one respect Cameron is fortunate that Obama is in the White House. Obama’s cautious approach to the world means that the splits between Cameron and his more hawkish colleagues are unlikely to be brought into the open.

One thing we can be sure of is that Afghanistan is the last big nation-building project America and its allies will take on for some time. Counter-insurgency is one of the most expensive forms of warfare and with governments nursing their overdrafts there is little appetite for it, especially in Obama’s Democratic party, which would far rather spend the money on universal healthcare. If there is to be action against the new terrorist sanctuaries in Yemen and Somalia, expect it to come in the form of bombs.

Brown tried to assert himself this week by announcing his troop increase before Obama’s. But realistically Britain has to work in Afghanistan as part of the American strategy. The main strategic decisions that British prime ministers make are about whether or not to go along with the actions of the White House, so the foreign policy of a Cameron government will be largely determined by the foreign policy of the Obama administration. Following Obama’s speech on Tuesday night, Cameron will be able to tell the troops when he visits that withdrawal will start in 2011 at the latest.

Even before one considers the defence cuts that are coming, a period of retrenchment in British foreign policy seems certain regardless of who wins the next election. The challenge for the incoming government is to work out why a national security establishment that prided itself on the subtlety of its thinking and its expertise in counter-insurgency has proved so inadequate to the challenges of the post-9/11 world.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: James Forsyth | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

revolution

December 7th, 2009 12:36pm Report this comment

British terrorists launch attacks on London fron Yorkshire?
This is the truth being ignored by British politicians.
The British army are fighting so called Muslim terrorists in their home countries while hundreds of thousands of people from these countries are allowed to enter the UK as immigrants?
The enemy are already in the UK in large numbers thanks to the open door immigration policy.
There is no evidece of Taliban or Afghan attacks on Western countries.
The 9/11 attackers were Saudi plus one Egyptian who trained to fly the airplanes in USA ask McCain if they trained in
Arizona?
The British army were deafeated in Iraq as were the Americans in Vietnam because of the cowardice of politicians who had never held a gun?
There were no war crimes in Iraq that can be investigated by the corrupt and discredited white mans court called the ICC and unless some judge with balls orders the arrest of the signed up member Tony Blair the UN will remain a bad joke in the third world.

Austin Barry

December 8th, 2009 5:36pm Report this comment

Odd isn't it. Our regular army is fighting the Taliban who represent no apparent threat to the UK, while the seeds of a thuggish Home Guard, the EDL, take on the the domestic Islamist threat.

Ike Jakson

December 20th, 2009 8:24am Report this comment

May I briefly disagree with the writer on Iraq before stating my view on Afghanistan?

Regardless of whether WMD was found in Iraq or not, the “Allied Forces” all believed them to be there when they supported the war and made it a just war to start with. That war, whatever it turned out to be later, was won when they pulled Saddam out of his hole and handed him over to his own people to hang him. The World seems to want to forget that they [his own people] did the hanging because they applauded the Allied Forces at the time.

It was probably a good time to leave Iraq at that point but it did not happen for whatever reason.

Afghanistan is a different story altogether. America and her Allies will lose in Afghan because nobody can win a terrorist war with conventional weapons in Afghan. If the intention is to capture Bin Laden it remains a stupid idiotic war even if they do capture the old rogue, and I don’t think they will capture him.

The World should all withdraw their armed forces from Afghanistan and leave that godforsaken country and the entire region to their own devices. Nothing that is there is worth the life of one single soldier.

Minnie Ovens

January 26th, 2010 7:37pm Report this comment

Pecisely why, Mr Forsyth, do you think it is necessary to attempt to win an unwinnable war in Afghanistan (the reasons have been stated again and again, clearly and precisely, in the message areas in The Spectator and are routinely ignored by The Spectator's so called experts) when we cannot be bothered to fight the war on the real home front?

Post comment