Tonight:
5°c
When British troops went into Afghanistan in 2006 it was seen by many as the “good” war, in contrast to Iraq. I was not so sure. It was not just that we did not appear to know how to achieve victory. We did not even know how we would recognise a victory.
What would winning look like? Underpinning Afghan democracy? Stabilising the Karzai regime? Providing education and healthcare to the Afghan population, both male and female? Delivering law and order? Eradicating corruption? Creating a working economy? Crushing the drug trade?Protecting Pakistan from instability? Or simply defeating the Taliban and creating a stable state?
The truth is on the day of its second “democratic” election, after yeans of pain and more than 200 British deaths, we are no closer to any of these objectives. Throughout that period, our resources have been inadequate, our strategy has been flawed, and many young lives have been spent to little or no effect.
From the point of view of the Afghan, the perception of the Allied forces has gone from the liberators of 2002, to an army of occupation in 2009. Although comparisons with Vietnam are trite and generally wrong, there is one grim similarity. We are seen by the population as propping up a corrupt and largely useless government, one that cannot even deliver basic security and justice to its own people — let alone the more ambitious aspects of government such as education and healthcare. The only beneficiaries of the past several years appear to be the 20 or so corrupt families who have become multimillionaires under Karzai — families that are all associated with him or his warlords.
Corruption is so rife that in the southern provinces the ordinary population are as likely to go to the Taliban for justice as to the government. In Kabul, if your cousin is kidnapped, the last people you go to are the police.
We have only ourselves to blame. The current tension over how long the war will last — from 40 years according to one general, to five from another, to some optimistic lesser time from the Secretary of State, demonstrate how schizophrenic our policy-makers are. This schizophrenia afflicts every aspect of our strategy, be it political, economic, social, judicial or diplomatic.
Take our policy on the poppy trade. Before we went into Afghanistan, Tony Blair accepted responsibility from the G6 for eradicating the Afghan opium trade. We did so little that the American government was publicly fulminating about our incompetence. Then when our forces went into Helmand, the epicentre of opium production, we decided that poppy eradication was contrary to our “hearts and minds” policy.
After a couple more years it dawned on the Government that the poppy was the primary funder of Taliban operations, so we had better eradicate it after all. Then it arose that it was illegal for ISAF (Nato) troops to police “civilian” drugs operations. We had the farce of British police counter-narcotics officers sent to Helmand who were not allowed to leave the base in Lash Kar Gar. Today there is still no co-ordinated eradication and replacement policy.
We will eventually get it right but we have wasted six years and many lives because of our shallow initial understanding of the problem. Similar indecision has affected our military strategy, with the infamous “Platoon House strategy” forced on us by the Karzai government, making Taliban targets of our brave young soldiers and crippling our ability to control the ground.
The question remains, what now? What is necessary is a level of effort and commitment as intense as that which turned around the Iraq conflict, but on a broader and more complex front, and sustained over a longer period.
Afghanistan is a bigger and more difficult country than Iraq. It has complex tribal, linguistic and political divisions. It is grindingly poor. It has no tradition of strong central government. Indeed, it has a 30-year tradition of civil war. Its most problematic areas have a massive economic dependency on the poppy.
But it also has a more direct impact on British and wider Western interests. While there is no direct link between the Taliban and terrorism on the streets of Britain, it could collapse back into a chaotic state that provided a bolt-hole for terrorists. It is undoubtedly the greatest source of heroin on UK streets. Finally, it also has potentially devastating effects on Pakistan — a nuclear power and major keystone in the region's stability.
So even if we put to one side the sacrifices of our brave young soldiers, and the suffering of the ordinary Afghans, this war deserves more resources, more political effort and imagination, and a clearer focus than we are giving it.
We need a military surge which involves a massive increase in force, to both decapitate the Taliban and deny them control of the countryside. We need a security policy that allows ordinary Afghans to get their goods to market without paying levies to the Taliban, common bandits and corrupt policemen, levies that make it pointless growing any cash crop other than poppy.
We need to have a blitz on corruption at the national and provincial level, and an imaginative use of the tribal system to deliver justice at the local level. We need to start implementing our aid policy seriously, rather than the dilettantish dabbling we are currently undertaking. It should focus hard on the economic infrastructure, roads and irrigation, since poverty is the big enemy.
Most of all we need a massive increase in the size of the Afghan National Army. The American counter-insurgency field manual implies that Afghanistan should have about 600,000 indigenous soldiers, about the size of the security forces in Iraq. That number is probably a minimum. It is much greater than the current plans.
This is important for several reasons. It is the only way we will be able to take and hold the countryside. It will put real power into a coherent Afghan State. And it will answer the question in every Afghan mind, namely what happens when the Westerners leave? At the moment the answer is the return of the Taliban. That would not be so with a proper Afghan Army, and as a result the ordinary Afghan would, for the first time, have good reason to support us. This may cost money but it is money the West should be willing to subsidise.
Whoever wins the presidential election, they must understand some things have to happen and progress must now be made. There is a price on the commitment of our troops. The British public are impatient for success and will not tolerate indefinitely our soldiers' involvement in an open-ended conflict.
If we carry through this strategy, we will have a decent chance of creating a stable Afghan state, and of bringing this operation to a conclusion with honour and dignity. If we do not do it then our strategic indecision will throw away all the tactical victories that our brave young soldiers buy with their lives. That would be both a political and a moral failure, indeed it would be a disgrace. If we believe this war was worth starting, we should believe it is worth winning.
Reader views (15)
How will you know when you have won?
- David In Devon, Devon, 26/08/2009 15:36
Report abuse
Almost, but still missing by a mile.
"I was not so sure. It was not just that we did not appear to know how to achieve victory. We did not even know how we would recognise a victory.
What would winning look like?"
This question is irrelevant when the real concern is why should we attack AFGHANISTAN in the first place? Winning another unnecessary war is still a terrible mistake to make.
- Not Quite, Connecticut USA, 26/08/2009 14:29
Report abuse
We are not learning from history. Not too long ago, Russia was stuck in the same area called Afghanistan. It cost the Russian its entire empire. As soon as they left Afghanistan, the Russia Communist government has collapsed and threw up all the country that swallowed in previous years. I must say no other Dynasty, Empire or Superpower has invaded and control Afghanistan except for Alexander the great.
- Bob, Texas, USA, 26/08/2009 12:45
Report abuse
Whats to stop all the Taliban joining the Afghan National Army, then staging a military coup?
Couple of relevant film quotes
"never get involved in a land war in Asia" - Vizzini
"a strange game, the only winning move is not to play" - W.O.P.R.
- Paul, uk, 26/08/2009 10:07
Report abuse
In relation to the poppy trade Mr Davis is apparently unaware that in the year 2000 the Taliban prohibited poppy production. There has been a several fold increase since the occupation of the country.
- Richard Hall, enfield uk, 26/08/2009 08:02
Report abuse
Roy,Northampton,I agree with you.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
It does however,have a use apart from trying to gain a presence in central Asia to grab the oil.
The conflict serves to divert many of our fine young people away from our own country,as the government continues to turn it into a globalised,low wage,police state.
- Jimfred, London Uk, 24/08/2009 12:59
Report abuse
It is right that Afghanistan needs far lager indiginous security forces, but a 'national' army would not be trusted in the remoter provinces any more than foreign forces. Pashtun controlled police will not be tolerated in Hazara or Uzbek areas. The regions must police themselves coordinated by an authority at the centre that is not allowed to benefit from corruption. A UN mandate ? A High Commissioner ? I don't know but a criminal central government will go the same way as the South Vietnam regime. The people will simply turn to the Taleban for justice.
- Peter Haldane, London, 20/08/2009 16:31
Report abuse
The gent above who suggests 9/11 wasn't born out of Afghanistan needs to think again. That was the base for Al Qaeda and where Bin Laden was based with his admitedly international terrorists from Libya, Saudi etc. This was the heart of the problem. America did the right thing addressing it and it did seem that Taliban had to be got rid of to achieve that. Which meant invasion. Can't blame them for that. Just maybe though, they should have left again right away. But the likely outcome would have been the immediate return of the Taliban and al qaeda- nothing achieved. We've simply got to out-last the Taliban and equip the the Afghan army. The alternative is to accept al qaeda sitting there and plotting our destruction with terrorism; so we must accept our soldiers dying instead of our civilians. That's what the army is there for- and I for one am eternally grateful.
- Dan, London, 20/08/2009 16:13
Report abuse
HELLMAND 2009
The air is thick with dust and flame, who started this? Who is to blame?
Shells and rockets rake the field yet neither side is like to yield
There’s no retreat, no going back, just blindly forward in attack
Men are wounded. Men lose limbs. And those who die we praise with hymns
Or stand to hear the lesson read, yet nothings changed, THESE MEN ARE DEAD
We strive to bring their bodies back in boxes draped in union jack
They’ve paid the price and given all but their pay is stopped from when they fall
These fathers’ lovers’ brothers sons have fallen to each other’s guns
Do politicians really care, they might if they were fighting there
They praise all those who serve our nation yet try to cut their compensation
It’s never those whom nations lead get stuck in hell to die or bleed
They just cajole our sons and brothers to go to war and murder others
Both sides’ young men fall for the trick. Greed, religion, politic
That foreign Johnny turban clad is really just an Afghan lad
Who with religious hatred filled joined the fray was quickly killed
Likewise the lad in kaki gear is just a lad from over here.
Courageous, patriotic, smart he volunteers to play his part
He leaves behind his child and wife and goes abroad to lose his life
The Commons reads his name aloud saying that we should be proud
Should we be proud when we’re to blame
NO WE SHOULD HANG OUR HEADS IN SHAME
- Roy, northampton UK, 20/08/2009 15:32
Report abuse
Totally agree with Paul F, what do we owe Afganistan that we should stay and make it a nice place to live, it's been a medieval society for centuries. There are countless countries across the world that could do with development, education, law, etc but we don't have altruistic reasons for going to them.
- Robert Thornton, Malaga, Spain, 20/08/2009 14:20
Report abuse
We're not there to 'nation-build', or 'install democracy', 'liberate' women etc.,etc. We're there for pure energy geo-politics. The TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) pipeline. OIL!
Afghanistan will be a transit country to get Central Asian energy to western markets and for the Americans to use as a giant military base to dominate this energy rich region, surround Iran and try to strategically push Russia and China out of their own back yards and screw them out of the action.
All the rest (building the odd road, training a few police cadets etc), are nothing but P.R. exercises and Potemkin villages to try to hide the Elephant in the room.
The world is running out of energy and rich countries are finding excuses (I.E. the GLOBAL war on terror), to get control of what’s left. It never made sense that the U.S .would spend over $3 trillion according to Steiglitz, just to punish the 9/11 attackers and their sponsors for an attack that cost less than $200K.
Connect the dots (the bases with the pipeline route). NATO soldiers have become the energy dependent West's oil Commandos.
- Marc Lowe, Geneva, Switzerland, 20/08/2009 13:24
Report abuse
On and off Britain has been killing people in Afghanistan for around three hundred years. Sad at the beginning of the 21st century just more of the same. Thanks to George and Tony.
I presume with our Defence department and Generals promoting mission crepe. To encourage increases in budgets. We should not be too surprised to see more people being killed in Pakistan as well with a possible invasion or is Iran next on your agenda of countries to invade and destroy.
Don't you just love the way the US takes occasional holidays from there to kill people in places like Somalia and South America.
Do I look forward to the next fifty years of us killing people no.
- Michael, London UK, 20/08/2009 13:07
Report abuse
I have a great respect for Mr Davis, but I think he is like the rest of the pundits, talking about Afganistan like it is a winnable war, He is right, what constitutes a win, getting out now is the sane thing to do, why waste more of our squadies and squander billions on a lost cause, that I think, is the win. He mentions Iraq has being a turn around, not according to the reports coming out of that sorry country, Do we realy beleive that the insurgency in Afganistan can be beaten or that the Sunnie party in Iraq will kow tow to a country being run by the opposition, A pipe dream in the making. My contribution may seem defeatist but I see no worthwhile gain by sacrificing more of our armed forces. As for the talk about making our streets safer by being in Afganistan well that is a load of cobblers. 9/11 wasn't born there, and no terrorism was visited upon the UK, from that area before we decided to join the Americans in their crusade against the Muslim world. This government has a lot to answer for by it's insistance on following the mad men in America, Who is next,? Iran, a country that was invaded by Iraq at the behest of the US and possibly the UK. If one want's to go after bogey men, they could do no better than to start with Saudi Arabia where most of the terrorists come from including those who carried out 9/11. BRING OUR LADS HOME NOW!
- Dumbo, merseyside uk, 20/08/2009 12:47
Report abuse
My brother who was a sergent in the artillary in 1937.He was stationed in PESHAWAR on the north west frontier.
He was fighting the taliban then.So isnt it about time
we gave up.we will never Win this one.
Alas,My brother has since Past away.
- James Curtis, lower stondon.henlow. england, 20/08/2009 12:31
Report abuse
Good article, but still doesn't answer why we should be responsible for nation building in Afghanistan. We went in to bomb the Taleban out of their nest, and having done so we should have withdrawn ready to do so again when necessary. If we continue to confuse military objectives (dislodging the Taleban and blunting Al Quaeda) with political ones (being moral policemen and nation builders)we will continue to put our troops lives at risk to no good end. All war stinks, wars for no clear purpose stink most.
- Paul Freeman, London, England, 20/08/2009 12:20
Report abuse
