A page has turned in the grim tale of Britain's military involvement in Afghanistan. For months, members of the political class have been whispering about the human cost of the war effort – 229 dead so far – and the ever receding chance of defeating the Taliban. But no top politician dared to call for a deadline for British troops to pull out.All that changed on Wednesday when Kim Howells, a senior member of the ruling Labour Party, said it was time to begin a phased withdrawal. The proclaimed goal of the deployment, to prevent al Qa'eda terrorist activities in Britain, would be better served by a Fortress Britain approach involving “more intrusive surveillance of certain communities” – a clear reference to British Muslims.
Mr Howells's decision to break ranks was all the more striking in that he chairs the prime minister's Intelligence and Security Committee, was an advocate of the deployment to Afghanistan and had previously served as a Foreign Office minister in charge of that region. No sooner had his words been published than it emerged that five British soldiers had been shot by a member of an Afghan police team they were mentoring. The renegade policeman opened fire on his commander, then trained his gun on the British soldiers who were drinking tea after a joint patrol. The attacker then fled to join the Taliban.
British soldiers who have worked with the Afghan police stepped forward to express surprise that such incidents were not more frequent. By their account, the police are poorly trained, incompetent, often drug-addicted, and interested only in bribes, which they are forced to pass on to their commanders, who buy their positions for tens of thousands of dollars. If the interface between the Afghan people and their government is so thoroughly broken, it is hardly surprising that disillusion is high with Hamid Karzai, the president newly re-elected in a deeply flawed poll.
document.write('');
These gloomy assessments are now filling the political vacuum left by Barack Obama as the US president debates what strategy to follow in Afghanistan. For more than two months he has been considering a demand from Gen Stanley McChrystal, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more US troops. His political enemies accuse him of dithering. One thing is clear: Mr Obama has proved he is not, and does not want to be, a war president. He is looking for a strategy he can believe in, rather than rushing in more troops – the mistake of Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War. To all appearances, the world's only superpower does not have the stomach for a fight to the death with the Taliban. So why should America's partners stay in the ring?
The fiasco of the Afghan election, and Mr Obama's search for some kind of Afghan legitimacy, has brought to light the true dimensions of the western failure. Billions of dollars of aid were promised to Afghanistan, to be funnelled through UN agencies and non-governmental organisation.All these are staffed by people of goodwill, but their efforts have served only to disempower the Afghans, according to Claire Lockhart, an expert on fixing failed states. Qualified Afghans left their jobs to work as drivers or interpreters for the rich foreigners, while well connected families skimmed off millions from the aid budget. The imported principle of one-man, one-vote has clashed with local traditions of consultation and justice which, while not perfect
Opinion
Iranian demonstrators challenge Obama
Read the newspaper as it was printed
Send us your stories and pictures
document.write(''); At last, Britain is forced to face its Afghan demons
Alan Philps
Last Updated: November 06. 2009 12:46AM UAE / November 5. 2009 8:46PM GMT
A page has turned in the grim tale of Britain's military involvement in Afghanistan. For months, members of the political class have been whispering about the human cost of the war effort – 229 dead so far – and the ever receding chance of defeating the Taliban. But no top politician dared to call for a deadline for British troops to pull out.All that changed on Wednesday when Kim Howells, a senior member of the ruling Labour Party, said it was time to begin a phased withdrawal. The proclaimed goal of the deployment, to prevent al Qa'eda terrorist activities in Britain, would be better served by a Fortress Britain approach involving “more intrusive surveillance of certain communities” – a clear reference to British Muslims.
Mr Howells's decision to break ranks was all the more striking in that he chairs the prime minister's Intelligence and Security Committee, was an advocate of the deployment to Afghanistan and had previously served as a Foreign Office minister in charge of that region. No sooner had his words been published than it emerged that five British soldiers had been shot by a member of an Afghan police team they were mentoring. The renegade policeman opened fire on his commander, then trained his gun on the British soldiers who were drinking tea after a joint patrol. The attacker then fled to join the Taliban.
British soldiers who have worked with the Afghan police stepped forward to express surprise that such incidents were not more frequent. By their account, the police are poorly trained, incompetent, often drug-addicted, and interested only in bribes, which they are forced to pass on to their commanders, who buy their positions for tens of thousands of dollars. If the interface between the Afghan people and their government is so thoroughly broken, it is hardly surprising that disillusion is high with Hamid Karzai, the president newly re-elected in a deeply flawed poll.
document.write('');
These gloomy assessments are now filling the political vacuum left by Barack Obama as the US president debates what strategy to follow in Afghanistan. For more than two months he has been considering a demand from Gen Stanley McChrystal, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more US troops. His political enemies accuse him of dithering. One thing is clear: Mr Obama has proved he is not, and does not want to be, a war president. He is looking for a strategy he can believe in, rather than rushing in more troops – the mistake of Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War. To all appearances, the world's only superpower does not have the stomach for a fight to the death with the Taliban. So why should America's partners stay in the ring?
The fiasco of the Afghan election, and Mr Obama's search for some kind of Afghan legitimacy, has brought to light the true dimensions of the western failure. Billions of dollars of aid were promised to Afghanistan, to be funnelled through UN agencies and non-governmental organisation.All these are staffed by people of goodwill, but their efforts have served only to disempower the Afghans, according to Claire Lockhart, an expert on fixing failed states. Qualified Afghans left their jobs to work as drivers or interpreters for the rich foreigners, while well connected families skimmed off millions from the aid budget. The imported principle of one-man, one-vote has clashed with local traditions of consultation and justice which, while not perfect from a western point of view, were at least understood by the people.
As Britain tries to cope with a rising death toll in Afghanistan and silence on the line from Washington, the general election scheduled for next year is concentrating minds. The Labour Party does not want to go into an election with an open-ended commitment. Gen Sir David Richards, the new head of the British army, has predicted five more years of combat operations, and then 30-40 years of military assistance. No political party believes the electorate will stand for that.
What Gordon Brown, the prime minister, decides will depend to a large extent on what comes out of Washington. An instant unilateral British pull-out is unthinkable: it would destroy whatever is left of Britain's military credibility with the US. But the issue raised by Mr Howells will not now go away. The Conservatives – tipped to win next year – are unlikely to resist the temptation to demand clarity and an exit timetable from the government.
But what about the so-called terrorist threat? British politicians noted with surprise the statement by Gen James Jones, Mr Obama's national security adviser, that al Qa'eda had fewer than 100 operatives in Afghanistan, “with no base and no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies”.If this is correct, then there is no need to shed blood there to prop up a discredited president. British terrorist plots are either home-grown – a minority – or have their origins in Pakistan. That opens up a whole new area of debate, including working more closely with the Pakistani security services and, as Mr Howells has suggested, stepped-up surveillance on the streets and reinforced border controls. The British are already the most spied upon people in Europe.
Ultimately there is one date that looms large in the minds of Britain's politicians: 2012, when London plays host to the Olympic Games. For Britain to be still fighting a shooting war against the Taliban on the borders of Pakistan in three years' time is a nightmare that the domestic security services cannot bear. One way or another, the troops will have to be home by then.aphilps@thenational.ae
Send to friend Print var addthis_pub="noahkhan"; var addthis_brand = "The National"; var addthis_logo = "http://www.thenational.ae/images/the_national_logo.gif"; var addthis_logo_color = "3261A5"; Bookmark & Share function storeCaret(textEl) { if (textEl.createTextRange) textEl.caretPos = document.selection.createRange().duplicate(); } if ((document.all) && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Opera')== -1)) { IE = true; } else { IE = false; } function doSubmitMessage(aFormId,aUrl){ aForumForm = aFormId; aCreateUrl = aUrl+"&omniture=0"; aForumMessageUrl = ''; aAjaxDiv = document.getElementById("cpost"); processForum(aAjaxDiv); }
Have your say
Please log in to post a comment try { if (document.getElementById("_userEmail").innerHTML = '') { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled=true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } } catch(e) { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled = true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } Other Opinion stories The constant dilemmas in foreign policy Let the Iran-serving Houthis be warned At last, Britain is forced to face its Afghan demons The imperatives – and limits – of goals in Yemen Lebanon's lesson: the government is no place for sects Casino rules can't be capitalism's document.write(''); Top stories Fears over education's gender gap Property debtors get fresh chance Abbas no longer 'desires' presidency Nakheel offer casts doubt on project UAE is 'Wild West' for music industry Al Houthis say Saudi air force hit villages Tendulkar heroics go in vain Your View Now that there are more openings at international schools have you reconsidered where your children are enrolled? What was the highlight of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix for you so far?Did you walk the Yas Marina Circuit? Tell us what it was like.What do you enjoy most about living in the UAE?Should schools be downgraded for the quality of their Arabic teaching? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed The decision Students offered half-price fees to transfer A beautiful mind visits UAE One dead after raid on Saudi border Extradition considered in fraud case Saudi air force bombs Yemen rebels First batch of swine flu vaccine arrives UN evacuates Afghan staff Yankees win World Series Burj Dubai delayed to match Ruler's anniversary Jungle lair of the Maoist rebels Abu Dhabi to invest $1 trillion on projects Before the fall More job cuts feared Wedding the modern and traditional Masdar to resubmit on four carbon schemes Capital to spend $1tn on major projects Students offered half-price fees to transfer Saad chief accused of Ponzi scheme Longest jail term in corruption inquiry var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home UAE World Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions FAQ Site map
© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company PJSC.
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.w
A page has turned in the grim tale of Britain's military involvement in Afghanistan. For months, members of the political class have been whispering about the human cost of the war effort – 229 dead so far – and the ever receding chance of defeating the Taliban. But no top politician dared to call for a deadline for British troops to pull out.All that changed on Wednesday when Kim Howells, a senior member of the ruling Labour Party, said it was time to begin a phased withdrawal. The proclaimed goal of the deployment, to prevent al Qa'eda terrorist activities in Britain, would be better served by a Fortress Britain approach involving “more intrusive surveillance of certain communities” – a clear reference to British Muslims.
Mr Howells's decision to break ranks was all the more striking in that he chairs the prime minister's Intelligence and Security Committee, was an advocate of the deployment to Afghanistan and had previously served as a Foreign Office minister in charge of that region. No sooner had his words been published than it emerged that five British soldiers had been shot by a member of an Afghan police team they were mentoring. The renegade policeman opened fire on his commander, then trained his gun on the British soldiers who were drinking tea after a joint patrol. The attacker then fled to join the Taliban.
British soldiers who have worked with the Afghan police stepped forward to express surprise that such incidents were not more frequent. By their account, the police are poorly trained, incompetent, often drug-addicted, and interested only in bribes, which they are forced to pass on to their commanders, who buy their positions for tens of thousands of dollars. If the interface between the Afghan people and their government is so thoroughly broken, it is hardly surprising that disillusion is high with Hamid Karzai, the president newly re-elected in a deeply flawed poll.
These gloomy assessments are now filling the political vacuum left by Barack Obama as the US president debates what strategy to follow in Afghanistan. For more than two months he has been considering a demand from Gen Stanley McChrystal, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more US troops. His political enemies accuse him of dithering. One thing is clear: Mr Obama has proved he is not, and does not want to be, a war president. He is looking for a strategy he can believe in, rather than rushing in more troops – the mistake of Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War. To all appearances, the world's only superpower does not have the stomach for a fight to the death with the Taliban. So why should America's partners stay in the ring?
The fiasco of the Afghan election, and Mr Obama's search for some kind of Afghan legitimacy, has brought to light the true dimensions of the western failure. Billions of dollars of aid were promised to Afghanistan, to be funnelled through UN agencies and non-governmental organisation.All these are staffed by people of goodwill, but their efforts have served only to disempower the Afghans, according to Claire Lockhart, an expert on fixing failed states. Qualified Afghans left their jobs to work as drivers or interpreters for the rich foreigners, while well connected families skimmed off millions from the aid budget. The imported principle of one-man, one-vote has clashed with local traditions of consultation and justice which, while not perfect from a western point of view, were at least understood by the people.
As Britain tries to cope with a rising death toll in Afghanistan and silence on the line from Washington, the general election scheduled for next year is concentrating minds. The Labour Party does not want to go into an election with an open-ended commitment. Gen Sir David Richards, the new head of the British army, has predicted five more years of combat operations, and then 30-40 years of military assistance. No political party believes the electorate will stand for that.
What Gordon Brown, the prime minister, decides will depend to a large extent on what comes out of Washington. An instant unilateral British pull-out is unthinkable: it would destroy whatever is left of Britain's military credibility with the US. But the issue raised by Mr Howells will not now go away. The Conservatives – tipped to win next year – are unlikely to resist the temptation to demand clarity and an exit timetable from the government.
But what about the so-called terrorist threat? British politicians noted with surprise the statement by Gen James Jones, Mr Obama's national security adviser, that al Qa'eda had fewer than 100 operatives in Afghanistan, “with no base and no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies”.If this is correct, then there is no need to shed blood there to prop up a discredited president. British terrorist plots are either home-grown – a minority – or have their origins in Pakistan. That opens up a whole new area of debate, including working more closely with the Pakistani security services and, as Mr Howells has suggested, stepped-up surveillance on the streets and reinforced border controls. The British are already the most spied upon people in Europe.
Ultimately there is one date that looms large in the minds of Britain's politicians: 2012, when London plays host to the Olympic Games. For Britain to be still fighting a shooting war against the Taliban on the borders of Pakistan in three years' time is a nightmare that the domestic security services cannot bear. One way or another, the troops will have to be home by then.aphilps@thenational.ae
Have your say
Top stories Fears over education's gender gap Property debtors get fresh chance Abbas no longer 'desires' presidency Nakheel offer casts doubt on project UAE is 'Wild West' for music industry Al Houthis say Saudi air force hit villages Tendulkar heroics go in vain Your View Now that there are more openings at international schools have you reconsidered where your children are enrolled? What was the highlight of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix for you so far?Did you walk the Yas Marina Circuit? Tell us what it was like.What do you enjoy most about living in the UAE?Should schools be downgraded for the quality of their Arabic teaching? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed The decision Students offered half-price fees to transfer A beautiful mind visits UAE One dead after raid on Saudi border Extradition considered in fraud case Saudi air force bombs Yemen rebels First batch of swine flu vaccine arrives UN evacuates Afghan staff Yankees win World Series Burj Dubai delayed to match Ruler's anniversary Jungle lair of the Maoist rebels Abu Dhabi to invest $1 trillion on projects Before the fall More job cuts feared Wedding the modern and traditional Masdar to resubmit on four carbon schemes Capital to spend $1tn on major projects Students offered half-price fees to transfer Saad chief accused of Ponzi scheme Longest jail term in corruption inquiry var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home UAE World Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions FAQ Site map
© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company PJSC.
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4452332-2"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); //-1?'https:':'http:') +unescape('//me.effectivemeasure.net/em.js%22%3E%3C/script%3E')); //]]> var doLoad = true; if (doLoad) { updatePollMini(); } s.Account="saxotechthenational" s.cookieDomainPeriods="2" s.pageName="Opinion,At last Britain is forced to face its Afghan demons:20091106:711059932" s.server="S260608AT1VW923" s.channel="Opinion" /* Traffic Variables */ s.prop1="Story" /* E-commerce Variables */ s.events="event3" s.products="Poll;Which alternative do you prefer to plastic bags?/Which alternative do you prefer to plastic bags?" /* Hierarchy Variables */ s.hier1="Opinion,At last Britain is forced to face its Afghan demons:20091106:711059932" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/ var s_code=s.t(); if(s_code)document.write(s_code)
Read Full Article »