I'll tell you why we are in Afghanistan. I could show you the crater in downtown Manhattan, the place they call Ground Zero. They still haven't built over it, eight years on, and it remains like a great open wound on the American psyche, a reminder of the hideous terrorist attack that was launched from the Afghan lair of Osama bin Laden.
We have 9,000 troops in Afghanistan because the Americans have 70,000 troops there, and because America is our closest ally. We enlisted with America in the cause of driving out the Taliban extremists who were harbouring bin Laden. And whatever the Independent on Sunday may demand, we will remain in Afghanistan, shoulder to shoulder with America, for as long as the mission endures. For us to pull out now – immediately, unilaterally – would not only be to let down Britain's most vital geo-strategic alliance, it would be this country's biggest military humiliation since Suez.
We are there with the Americans not just because it is our function to be their loyal lieutenant, the fidus Achates of Washington. We are there with the Americans in Afghanistan because the Americans are right to be there. We are there because our forces are doing their level best to improve the lives of the people of that poverty-stricken country. We are there to try our hardest to teach them the value of democracy and of educating women. We are there to do what we can to wean them off the opium crop.
Of course, no one could pretend that things are going well. Yes, it is difficult to promote women's liberation and democracy and drains and habeas corpus when you have a constant risk of attack by a resurgent Taliban. How can our troops hope to deal with the opium crop when the very brother-in-law of President Karzai turns out to be one of the biggest drugs gangsters of the lot? Of course, it is depressing that British soldiers fought and died to ensure that Afghans in Helmand could vote – and yet one in three of the ballots turns out to have been fraudulent. The position is grim.
But what is the alternative? The answer is that the alternative is even grimmer. I have an Afghan sister-in-law, and she remembers the chaos and the carnage when the Russians finally pulled out in 1989. She doesn't want the Taliban to take over the entire country, as they did before. She doesn't want Afghanistan to become a giant version of the Taliban mini-state of Waziristan. Are we really going to follow the advice of the Independent on Sunday, haul up the white flag, bring our troops home, and consign Afghanistan to a bunch of thugs and religious maniacs?
Never mind the damage that would do to American interests, or the interests of the people of Afghanistan. Surrender is not in British interests, either. It is true that most British terror suspects are linked to Pakistan rather than Afghanistan. But if we surrender Afghanistan to the jihadis and the extremists, then what hope for Pakistan? It is already hard enough to keep track of t
By Boris Johnson Published: 6:15AM GMT 09 Nov 2009
Comments 63 | Comment on this article
I'll tell you why we are in Afghanistan. I could show you the crater in downtown Manhattan, the place they call Ground Zero. They still haven't built over it, eight years on, and it remains like a great open wound on the American psyche, a reminder of the hideous terrorist attack that was launched from the Afghan lair of Osama bin Laden.
We have 9,000 troops in Afghanistan because the Americans have 70,000 troops there, and because America is our closest ally. We enlisted with America in the cause of driving out the Taliban extremists who were harbouring bin Laden. And whatever the Independent on Sunday may demand, we will remain in Afghanistan, shoulder to shoulder with America, for as long as the mission endures. For us to pull out now – immediately, unilaterally – would not only be to let down Britain's most vital geo-strategic alliance, it would be this country's biggest military humiliation since Suez.
We are there with the Americans not just because it is our function to be their loyal lieutenant, the fidus Achates of Washington. We are there with the Americans in Afghanistan because the Americans are right to be there. We are there because our forces are doing their level best to improve the lives of the people of that poverty-stricken country. We are there to try our hardest to teach them the value of democracy and of educating women. We are there to do what we can to wean them off the opium crop.
Of course, no one could pretend that things are going well. Yes, it is difficult to promote women's liberation and democracy and drains and habeas corpus when you have a constant risk of attack by a resurgent Taliban. How can our troops hope to deal with the opium crop when the very brother-in-law of President Karzai turns out to be one of the biggest drugs gangsters of the lot? Of course, it is depressing that British soldiers fought and died to ensure that Afghans in Helmand could vote – and yet one in three of the ballots turns out to have been fraudulent. The position is grim.
But what is the alternative? The answer is that the alternative is even grimmer. I have an Afghan sister-in-law, and she remembers the chaos and the carnage when the Russians finally pulled out in 1989. She doesn't want the Taliban to take over the entire country, as they did before. She doesn't want Afghanistan to become a giant version of the Taliban mini-state of Waziristan. Are we really going to follow the advice of the Independent on Sunday, haul up the white flag, bring our troops home, and consign Afghanistan to a bunch of thugs and religious maniacs?
Never mind the damage that would do to American interests, or the interests of the people of Afghanistan. Surrender is not in British interests, either. It is true that most British terror suspects are linked to Pakistan rather than Afghanistan. But if we surrender Afghanistan to the jihadis and the extremists, then what hope for Pakistan? It is already hard enough to keep track of those young men who leave Britain for sinister camps in the tribal regions of Pakistan. If Afghanistan falls to the Taliban, the whole region will become a playground for the would-be terrorists.
The problem with our mission to Afghanistan is not our Armed Forces. The trouble is a lack of political will, seeping from one side of the Atlantic to the other. In Washington, President Obama has now spent 10 weeks hearing various recommendations on General McChrystal's request for more troops. The President has many fine qualities but his gestation of this question is starting to make Gordon Brown look like a man of mamba-like decisiveness.
Meanwhile, the people of Britain have apparently taken fright at the number of fatalities, and a procession of superannuated generals has made it way to the airwaves or to the red benches of the House of Lords to denounce the Government and to accuse the politicians of "betraying our boys."
I have the highest regard for our top brass, but have to confess that I am getting slightly fed up with all this "I'm-a-simple-soldier" stuff from people who have been intimately involved with the Afghanistan strategy from the beginning. Yes, the position is dire. But it doesn't exactly communicate a sense of unity and resolve to the enemy when you have senior military figures seeming to question the mission itself.
The generals are right to say we can't be there forever, and we should certainly pull out if the mere presence of western troops is starting to cause more problems than it solves. If the International Security Assistance Force is nothing more than a recruiting-sergeant for the Taliban, then the game is obviously up. But we are not there yet. Whatever their misgivings, the retired generals seem to agree that we cannot pull out immediately. That being so, we need to work like blazes over the next three or four years to make the operation a success – or as close to a success as possible. That means Obama has to make his mind up pronto, preferably in favour of the 40,000 troops requested by McChrystal.
Naturally, we need to make sure that British troops have all the equipment they need, and it is obvious that they should long ago have been equipped with more helicopters. But we also need less sniping from the generals and, above all, we need the Prime Minister to give this country a clearer sense of what this operation is about – and why we should not back down.
I never thought I'd say this, but the abject failure of Gordon Brown to offer a clear and inspiring explanation of what we are doing in Afghanistan is not only a failure of leadership. It is just about the only time we have missed Tony Blair. It may be right to say the war is not "winnable" in the short term. But that is true of many noble struggles. It doesn't mean the war is not worth fighting. To pull out now, and abandon Afghanistan to its fate, would be the biggest betrayal of those who have given their lives so far.
Comments: 63
Your expressed view of our involvement in Afghanistan, Mr. Johnson, would be worthy of respect if, while Mayor of London, you joined one of the TA companies/battalions of a London/Home Counties Regiment. Once trained, you should then volunteer for duty in Aghanistan and serve there. Sooner or later, the nation will be required to call a halt to our participation in the conflict, probably 10 minutes after our American allies decide the losses are no longer worth their involvement. Meanwhile the sacrifices made by our forces will painfully increase for little or no improvement in security and quality of life for the average Afghani. But the corrupt Afghani government will continue to receive excellent protection.
We shouldn't allow ego to make any decisions for us, just plain simple facts. Whilst i support Boris's comments i think we also have to consider the following: As Col. Bob Stewart said on the TV yesterday: there are 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan according to the American Security Services in the UK there are a suspected 2,000 al qaeda sympathisers who may well attack the UK according to MI5. I think we need to get things into perspective and understand that the threat is now here in the UK and we need to deal with it. Whilst it is important to see Afghanistan stable, it should be a Global solution, not just from the US & Britain all the time. I'd like to see other nations doing far more. On another note, as Martin Cakebread said from the UK National Defence Association on yesterday's BBC Politics Show, it is high time we had a permanent memorial in Central London for our men and women who have been fighting for 8 years. There is nothing at present, and by god do they deserve one! I just hope Boris supports this kind of thing, because i think it would be really fitting. I would also like to see David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg all support the idea.
Boris, thanks you for your support and wonderful speech at the Sir Keith Park statue unveiling. But you seem to have got it totally wrong this time......the Suez humiliation was forced upon us by our "Allies" the US...we were ripped off financially prior to WW2 by the US ie. having to sell down all our US assets at 30 cents in the dollar before they approved lend lease and we have never recovered. I have nothing against soldiers dying in useless and unwinable wars, that's what we have done since time immemorial in order to bolster politicians delusions (I'm a Vietnam Veteran) you sign up and take your chances. It was Roosevelt who said, when asked if the US would take Britains side against Hitler, "America's business is business". So if the US wants the UK in Afghanistan ......fork out, it's pay back time.
Boris Johnson-mayor of London-writes:-To abandon Afghanistan now would be a betrayal of the-Fallen! Yes, my dear Boris old boy,I will second that....... And fully agree with you in every word in these circumstances? Just to repeat my-self,this war was led by Taleban i.e-Al'Qaeda? Osma-Bin-Laden? It's sad to see the civilians-are hurt,and this is reason it's taking so long? Because,protecting civilians and knowing the insurgents-are-using innocents bystander? Of course,the pacifist will-twist the language for theyre-own media-hype, as always?????
If the prime minister is unable to say what victory actually is, it's time to leave. I don't remember America complaining about leaving Vietnam.
Loss of face? Pride before the fall? No "good deed" goes unpunished? It took the Americans over six months to agree on the size of the round-table at the peace negotiations with the Viet-Cong at some luxury hotel in Paris France in 1968 after the Viet Cong Tet offensive proved that colonialism aint what it used to be....like the French in 1954....and like the French in Algeria. Dr K promised aid....they never got a penny from America.
This article is proof that Public Schools and the special schools at Oxford and Cambridge are doing a damn fine job in their quest to extinguish rational thought. If you look at places to punish for the crater in Manhattan, then Saudi Arabia would be at the top. If you were African and looking for places to punish for military coups, you'd bomb Sandhurst. The betrayal of British soldiers was to send them there in the first place.Obarmcake can send 400,000 troops if he wants, they'll still not 'rule' the place. The terrain dictates local, very local and fragmented power.This is why the Roman,Russian and British Empires never subjugated the place. Doris still hasn't answered the obvious question,which is what is The West trying to achieve? All that is being achieved at the moment is the entrench,ment of primitive,cruel extremists.For every person,extremist or not, you kill in Afghanistan, you create ten Talaban. Rational thought is required.Doris can't do it.
Thanks Boris, the quality of blogs here reflects that of the article. The debate continues...
Much emotion in this debate but it needs more analysis. The war against the IRA was only won when it's funds from Irish/America dried up. This was due to their realisation of what it is like to be a target of terrorism. The Taliban & Al Queda are funded generously from Saudi-Arabia, which receives it's obscene amounts of cash from our dependence on their petrol. There are many things we can do about this in both short & long term but at the moment we are doing none of them.
The NGOs say they must be kept separate from soldiers. This is a false dichotomy. Without the Army, major capital projects cannot be achieved. What should happen is that we say we will enable a certain number of Afghans in the Army not the lot. We should enable certain water projects. If the Afghans want rid of us they have to cut the crap to let those things happen. If the Taliban want to be seen to be a credible part of the Afghan future let them do something to prove their fitness. Not just in blowing people up but creating, maintaining, and protecting civil structures, making things that work. After a Tsunami no one questions Armies coming in with Aid. Afghanistan has had a long slow natural disaster of drought and famine and a rapidly burgeoning population. Then when we have done x we can hand over to others to achieve other projects. What the insurgents are doing is insisting Afghans starve and that there will be in future a regional war.Because of the nukes we do care about a war in the region. Failed States will make terrorists not just host them.It comes from malnutrition and abuse. It comes from vast numbers of people being born into environments that cannot sustain them. Afghanistan can sustain very few and many are born. We care about this failed State one because of our Pakistani diaspora and because Pakistan has nukes.It is Afghanistan good fortune that all this is the case. Left to themselves 20% of children die before they are 5. The life expectancy male and female is 42. 1 million women are missing from the population because of neglect and abuse such as child marriage which makes it 3xs as likely that a girl will die in childbirth. The only way to "defeat" al Q in Afghanistan is to create something . At the moment the population will double every 15 years but they cannot be fed. The resulting "free enterprise" is a pain in the worlds rear not just ours. Iran for instance has the worst drugs problem in the world. Of course we should do it properly and that means whiny journos should stop whining and talking about opinion. Being at war cannot be about "popularity". Once the decision is taken everyone should put 100% into it. People should stop going on holiday to Pakistan and never to Somalia. Enabling certain projects and then leaving and saying this is what we will do would not be a betrayal of the Afghans or of our dead. Anyone atttacking us then looks like complete idiots who clearly hate the Afghan people. "muggeridge" although coming from societies where woman and child abuse has been routine, a lot if not all of the 9/11 lot trained in Afghanistan.
For once Boris I totally disagree with your point of view. Cast your mind back to the real reason Britain was "humiliated" in Suez. Something to do with the American administration interfering I believe. We didn't join the Bush crusade to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, it was to rid the world of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda! It failed, miserably, and has cost God knows how much in terms of lives and taxpayers money. Now we are embroiled in a Russian-style war that we simply CANNOT win. No-one has so far in history. Think about this Boris. If Afghanie troops were to invade Britain do you think they would win? British people would fight tooth and nail to defeat them. Pretty similar to the Taliban efforts against us and the rest of the countries involved I would say. I do not subscribe to the dictum that we are in Afghanistan to keep the streets of Britain safe from terrorist attack. That is a convenient excuse. Have you ever thought that if the British government weren't so fond of interfering in other countries affairs, (as the Americans are) that perhaps we wouldn't be a target in the first place? Also Boris, it is arrogant in the extreme to presume to change the way of life of another country. How do you know that the vast majority of the Afghan people want to live like we do? Your sister-in-law might but does she speak for ALL the Afghan people? Apart from ANYTHING else Boris, we simply can't afford it. No Boris, you are wrong and we should be formulating an exit strategy right now!
KARZAI is affectionately known as the MAYOR of KABUL by Afghans...the rest of the country is under the care custody and control of the TALIBAN...thats a fact our respected MAYOR of LONDON will not permit to be stated in his closed mind or set of opinions. And what about the oil/gas pipeline crossing from Central Asia....sssssssh...dont upset the applecart.
Are you sure we are there due to 9/11? or may be we are there to ensure the safe delivery of the new gas/oil line? (routed aside the new highway) along with a new tranche of 'crusader' style forts no less to protect it. 'We are there to do what we can to wean them off the opium crop' Check your figures Boris, they have never produced so much (92% world opium) almost feels like we are there to protect it don't you think. And lets not betray any more fallen by felling even more - I doubt the fallen would appreciate that.
Read Full Article »