Dec 01 2009
Afganistan
I asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the House how much of Helmand the British army currently controls, and how much more of the province he wants our army to fight to win and then to control. He gave me no answer.
Both the PM and the President are changing strategies. We are moving from war fighting and providing security control for Afghanistan to allow the civil powers to operate, to providing training and back up for Afghan forces to create and maintain the peace. The PM wants a conference in January to demonstrate the new strategy and to hint at troop withdrawals later in the year. He knows the British public are war weary and want to know when the troops start to come home. The President probably wants the troops to be coming home around the time of the next Presidential election, so he can run a surge for longer.
The Prime Minister in his remarks still referred to the old strategy of winning and controlling territory, hence my question. His reluctance to answer was probably based on his realisation that they are trying to change that approach, and maybe some lack of clear understanding on his part of just how much of the province we can say we now control well.
My view is we should not be expending more lives in war fighting. If we are serious about training and substituting Afghan forces for our own we should limit current military actions and wait until the reinforced positions with Afghan troops are ready to take on the older strategy of win and hold. Of course all the time our troops are there they need to be able to return fire, protect themselves and if necessary undertake pre-emptive operations. What I think we need to change is the idea that we can win and hold all the territory in such a vast country, and the idea that it would be smart for us to garrisson the place.
18 Responses to “Afganistan”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Is the situation in Afghanistan still as bad as you make it seem? If I read your article correctly you are basically saying that the country is in a state of civil war (and that’s the best case scenario, the worst is that the reactionaries/Taliban simply win by walk over)? Our great hope is training Afghan troops so that they can win and hold ground against their fellow countrymen? I have no doubt that the situation is as dire as this and I have only slightly less doubt that allied trained Afghan forces will have less stomach for ‘winning and holding’ ground against their compatriots than our troops currently have. Especially when their families live in areas which will need to be ‘controlled and won’.
I read a few analyses during the last presidential ‘election’ and it does seem like democracy has failed to have any sort of an impact on the majority of the country. I read one disturbing piece where a major drug baron was bartered out of jail (via a presidential pardon) by his family to ensure votes for President Karzhai. I got the distinct impression that the only thing that has changed is that instead of a committee of x warlords deciding how to run the country things are now decided by a committee of x warlords promising to deliver a bloc of votes deciding how to run the country.
A bleak picture after 8 years and billions of pounds spent. One only needs to look across the border at Pakistan to see how successful our policy up to the present has been. Although saying that I honestly can’t think of any realistic alternative to what you propose.
The fastest moving thing in this whole debacle has been our ever shifting strategy, we’eve had (from memory):
~ Nation building, we weren’t going to fire a shot
~ Fighting the Taliban
~ Negotiating with the Taliban
~ Denying the Taliban ground
~ Building the Afgham national army and police (dropped when they turned their guns on our guys)
~ Fighting the drug trade (dropped when we realised some would-be allies are poopy farmers)
~ Supporting democracy*
~ Fighting ‘corruption’ (I have no idea either) and most laughably of all
~ Allowing girls to be educated!
I weep for the brave men who have dies in this leaderless farce. Can anyone tell me that when we leave, Afghanistan will be different?
*A bottle of the Grand Cru of your choice if anyone can explain the legitimate difference between the corrupt election of Karzai and the corrupt election of Ahmadinejad next door.
Mick Anderson Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“*A bottle of the Grand Cru of your choice if anyone can explain the legitimate difference between the corrupt election of Karzai and the corrupt election of Ahmadinejad next door.”
Answer: Politics. Assuming I can delete the word “legitimate”.
james harries Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Indeed. How many strategic goals can we afford?
I must admit that when we first went in I supported the war. I wanted us to win.
Now we’ve given up on winning. We’re going to train a foreign army to make security for us. This army has recruits that desert after two days in theatre, who bring their tribal feuds to the barracks, who are often illiterate (and so untrainable).
How long will we have to train them for? At a minimum a generation, I’d guess.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
I saw a simply staggering youtube video about some American soldiers literally tearing their hair out trying to train the local recruits. Being late on parade was endemic, as was ’smoking’ if you see what I mean and it made me wonder how a group of ill-disciplined recruits with no sense of national identity, who were paid $2 a day, who were often high and prone to clear off at the first sign of trouble could ever be what we aparently want them to be. I wouldn’t bet them against a motivated guerilla force.
Were I Karzai I would have a fuelled jet on permanant stand-by along with Swiss passport and private account if he doesn’t want to go the way of a predecessor, Mohammad Najibullah
I feel that this war has never been adequately justified by the government, and as a result public support for the war, if not our troops is fading fast. Many people have little understanding of the brutal and repressive nature of the Taliban, and have not been reminded, of the way woman and girls were treated by these extremists.
Very few recall the destruction of the statue of Buddha in Bamiyan Province, a singly
Wicked act, that has robbed the world of an historic treasure and the Buddhists of one of their most revered sites. However I do not wish to see any further British blood spilt and as a result I agree with you that we should be concentrating on training the Afghan army, rather than engaging the Taliban.
“and maybe some lack of clear understanding on his part of just how much of the province we can say we now control well.”
A man only capable of underhand politicising of all he surveys and not a iota of ability to the job he has wormed his way into. (personal abuse of PM followed-ed).
Where’s the H, colonel? (AfgHanistan).
Here is a real threat to the UK from AfPak that I have identified before:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6672806/Hidden-threat-from-al-Qaeda-sleeper-cells.html
I’m pleased to see that Chris Grayling seems to have understood it, although he has yet to work out or at least announce specific policy to handle it – he may wish to consider some of my previous suggestions. The PM seems blind to the threat entirely, considering that fighting warlords and Taliban, or teaching them how to fight us and equipping them to do so, is appropriate instead. Brown’s “Find Wally!” call to the Pakistanis over bin Laden was a cry of desperation, angled as much at the US allies (to whom the real job would probably fall if he is still alive) as at Pakistan itself.
What is beginning to be a concern is the steady beat of drums for the next war, such as these comments from Ivan Lewis, MP:
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/nothing_off_the_table_for_dealing_with_iran_says_minister.html
It is so reminiscent of the kind of drip feed we had in the run-up to deposing Saddam, now being replayed at the Chilcot enquiry. Perhaps we need to remind the Chinese that a Hanistan (a serendipitous discovery arising from the spelling mistake!) would do them no favours and that they are increasingly dependent on Arabian Gulf oil, and to tap into the Russian sensitivities on these risks (Miliband prefers to concentrate on haranguing them instead): we need to be building an international coalition, and finding a voice that uses an appropriate note when dealing with Iran itself. The kidnap of sailors that has hit the headlines shows that they understand the weakness of our current position. Afghanistan does not make a good forward base for the threat of potential future action against Iran. Indeed, the risk becomes that Iran becomes a conduit for arms and money to fight us – something that they have largely avoided when they feared stirring a hornets’ nest.
President Obama has frustrated NATO allies by delaying policy decisions regarding future strategy and troop numbers in Afghanistan. I think he has been waiting for the international community to contribute more to reduce the burden on the US economy and defence forces.
Japan has now promised an aid package of $5 billion. Gordon Brown has committed more UK troops and has demanded that the government in Kabul meets clear benchmarks. The new German defense minister, Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, has made a morale boosting trip to German forces in Afghanistan and promised more German troops. After the Russians experience of failure in taming Afghanistan, they are just watching in sheer dis-belief. The Chinese have their eye on Afghanistan’s copper reserves in Aynak.
It seems that we are looking at how to end this war without it looking like a humiliating defeat.
Does anybody honestly think that an Afghan army of eventually circa 134k will be effective. Why on earth waste more young lives and money, we do not have, on this adventure. Silly question but how/who will be footing the bill for this enlarged army?
I am also puzzled that with another 500 UK troops “on their way” total troop numbers will be in the region of +10k yet of those only about 3k are boots on the ground. Seems a very high ration of “support” to “fighting”
Keeping the terror from our streets is an argument that carries no weight – given the immigration policy or lack of since Labour came to power. Brown seems to be incapable of grasping that the terror is here already. Nope, somebody is still smoking some very strong ganga.
Vaughan Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I think you will find there has been an immigration policy of a quite deliberate open doors and encourage nature (see Andrew Neather’s not widely publicised admission). All for votes and to promote a multi-cultural society as part of the breaking down Britain plan.ZNL learned quite a lot from the US democrats and added some. The situation now provides a peverse benefit to the State in terms of terror laws which undermine democracy and our long established way of life.
Isn’t the problem with Afghanistan one that we do have to fight a war – and West European governments have no stomach for it – partly because it will upset minorities in their own countries. Surely, if we’re fighting a war, that means the right equipment and bombing them back even further from the stone-age than they already are? In this country the government seems to want a war-lite, at least a proper war would give journalists at the Independent something to write about.
Let us return, as the theologians say, to the Urzeit when Britain defeated Hitler and thrashed the Japs in Burma.
I recall a cruel cartoon of Mussolini haranguing the population from a German officer’s pocket. Another cartoon was of a ferocious looking Mussolini on a hobby horse being pulled along behind a German tank.
Today, we are in the position of Mussolini.
The Americans think we are ridiculous. Europeans cannot understand why we are actually fighting (Nie Wieder Krieg). Afghanistanis, as ever, use us for target practice.
And now, of course, Iran is busily preparing for all out nuclear Armageddon and we are defenceless. Remember Topsy who was driving her little boat when she, and the little chap in tears lost his i-pod? Or the brave Somali Pirates who arrested a couple of our pensioners?
Thank you Mr Blair for your posturing on the world stage.
You have made us look totally ridiculous.
Brown failed to answer your questions – nothing new there. Just how you all put up with the contemptuous way in which this dreadful man treats you is a mystery to me. By acquiescing, you have all allowed the efficacy of the House of Commons to be downgraded and incapable of holding the executive to proper account, which is what you are paid to do.
I looked at “they work for you” to see how “Brown the incompetent” answered your question. Once again a load of waffle. I recently wrote to the speaker to ask him if he would make Brown answer the questions. His reply was “I will try to do better” I don’t know if under parliamentary procedure you would be allowed to ask the speaker to prevail on recipients of questions to answer properly, if it is allowable, why not give it a go? I’m sure viewers of the parliament channel would be very grateful.
I think we should be thinking about how to respond should terrorists come closer to being in control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
This is the Vietnamisaion phase of the war where we find out just how keen the locals are to die for a corrupt elite hitherto propped up by foreign troops
Could I draw your attention to the Financial Times which published 2 articles on Afghanistan today? Reading David Loyn’s book on foreign intervention in Afghanistan would also be a good use of your time. He states that foreign powers repeatedly invade Afghanistan for their own reasons without giving proper consideration to the culture and politics of the region. This is a point reinforced by the Russian commanders interviewed in the FT.
We also have a remarkably simplistic view of an incomprehensible area. Afghanistan is more of a geographical expression than a country as we understand the term in the West. Loyn also mentions that the western notion of taliban ‘bad’, mujahiddin(Karzai) ‘good’ is a gross error which in part allowed the taliban to reappear following their apparent ‘defeat’ in 2001. Government forces are the ones who steal from their own people whilst our soldiers inflict ‘collateral damage’ on the local population as part of their own self preservation. In an area that values honour and vengeance, this is a toxic combination.
The other FT article quotes Senator Aitken who said of Vietnam that the United States should “declare victory and get out”.
What can we reasonably consider a victory that will allow us to get out of Afghanistan?