One of my favourite journalists, Fraser Nelson, has written a thought provoking article in the News of the World this morning.
FOR seven years now British troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and, for the first time, the war looks as if it may be lost.
It is being waged on two fronts. One is in Helmand, where our troops are proving every day they are the world’s finest.
But the other is in Westminster - where the future of the mission is decided. And here, resolve is running out. Operation Panther Claw, our big push against the Taliban, is now in its fourth week. And the casualties are rising fast.
His view is that the Taliban are betting the western politicians don't have the stomach for their casualties.
They know they can't defeat us but they hope to outlast us.
In his opinion he thinks the feebleness on the British political front goes far deeper than blaming Gordon Brown for refusing to fund what he saw as Tony Blair's war. Also, like other journalists today, he notes that privately David Cameron has stopped complaining that defence spending is too low.
Britain is slowly becoming the sort of country that has billions to give flak jackets to bankers, but not soldiers.
A thought provoking piece indeed and I trust our politicians read it carefully.
Posts
25 comments:
Check out Gerald Warner in the SOS too. Normally I head for GW straight away because I love disagreeing with him, but this week his opinion piece on why Afghanistan is a war that will never be won is very telling, coming as it does from the right of the political spectrum.
Thanks Observer, I'll do it right now since the rain has returned.
I did look at the SoS very briefly before bed but not GW.
I do not accept that David Cameron should be dragged into this mess. This is Labour's failure brought about by Blair and Brown's cosying up to America.
The spin army is out in force now the population is, as The Russian people did, waking up to the futility of the campaign. Going in fast was right, we should have left just as fast.
Additionally, since we are stony broke after 12 years of up the wall water boarding, how can we possibly give our troops the necessary kit?
Without adequate troops on the ground to hold ground that has been taken, it's like a game of whack-the-mole: the offensive operations will succeed at the time, but the ground will be retaken by the Taliban once the troops leave. Just as in Vietnam, where most of the US offensive operations were successful tactically, but not strategically - the ground was simply reoccupied once the troops left.
The choice is this - either do the job properly or do not do it at all.
If you don't think that OR then Mr Cameron ought to keep his opinions to himself rather than talking 'off the record'.
The war is not of his making right enough but all politicians must take responsibility for the lack of a strategy and planning.
Going in fast is fine if there is a plan. There was no plan. Oh, except John Reid's famous words "Not a shot will be fired."
Exactly Jess. Same thing happened in Basra. Rebuild a water plant; bombed within weeks. On and on it went, most of the work British troops did had to be redone over and over again. They never complained publically, just got on with it.
"Vietnam presumably taught us that the we could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war."
Jeane Kirkpatrick 1979
The notion of a 'helping hand' or a 'shoulder to the wall' just isn't plausible and has been shown to fail in countless occasions, in various areas around the world.
Only the people of afghanistan can make afghanistan better, they don't need our help in constructing infrastructure, they need us to stop destroying their livelihoods through our insatiable greed..
The truth is that it is the West's insatiable appetite for heroin that has kept Afghanistan poorr.
It is our insatiable demand for cheap food, cheap clothes and cheap fuel that keeps Afghanistan's children in poverty.
The sooner we wake up to our hypocrisy, the sooner we will no longer be seen as a target by jihadist groups and the sooner prosperity and democracy will be given a chance.
Our soldiers are 'plugging a hole", 'putting their shoulder to a wall" , the problem is that we are on the other side pushing it.
seems to me the British(Scots, welsh English ,whatever)People no longer have the will to fight any war anywhere any more.
I find the idea of rising high levels of Casualties being accepted by the Public.
And hence any political party as a electoral impossibility.
If we had to fight the Falklands war now with the prevailing zeitgeist towards 'WAR' we would lose and lose badly.
Oldrightie
If a big if Cameron was to become the English Prime minster he will be dragged into lots of mess.
up to his neck like all the other prime minsters.
I don't accept the high casualty numbers this week Niko and I think the public will less and less when the truth sinks in.
Subrosa
Its hard thing to say but it is true the Casualties are tiny a bee sting to what has occurred many times in many wars.
SR, it's true that only the LibDems voted, in the majority, against the war in the first instance. That was back in 2002 and so many things have changed since then. I don't think you can hold Cameron to account for the past. I think it's fair comment for him to speak out now and say that the UK's Armed Forces are under-resourced.
Troops win ground and advance, leaving a vacuum which isn't filled by the locals but by the Taliban, again. This whole debacle isn't even called 'a war' yet that's what it is and it's time the British govt got serious about it and committed resources and troops to finish the job. It's always the same with Labour: undervalue them but send them in and ask the impossible with sfa funding.
There aren't many troops out there - 7,000 or so British. Many of these will be "tail" rather than "teeth" (although it hasn't stopped these rear-area soldier-tradesmen (always a soldier first) fighting desperate defensive actions in Afghanistan).
The current operation is limited in terms of numbers, initially battalion or battle group level (300-odd troops) maybe more now that the initial assault is over. BBC reported that British troops had by 3 July "taken some key towns", but that their progress was impeded by insufficient resources".
15 troops out of 300 is a casualty rate of 5%. Not all those 15 were in action on this operation, but we don't have wounded figures and these will be kept under wraps - modern medical care has transformed survivability from the WW2 days when a solder had a 30% chance of surviving a wound. There will be many wounded from this operation.
10% casualties and more (including wounded) is the rule of thumb for morale to start suffering -although an army like the British (all volunteer) will sustain higher losses. Infantry in an initial assault could expect 50%casualties in years gone by.
So, the numbers don't appear enormous compared with previous years but the numbers fighting are few. Each loss is tragic enough anyway.
Niko, with modern technology and methods we should be losing fewer personnel. That's why we spend so much on equipment.
Jess, it was interesting to know the 10% figure still stands.
You're right of course about the injured and today injuries, which would have killed a person, will make many completely disabled for the rest of their lives.
The horrors of war.
The point I was making about Fraser's article GV is that D Cameron is now saying privately that he doesn't believe military funding is too low. Does that mean he won't increase funds?
I expect we'll have to wait and see.
Dear Subrosa
Well said, we are wasting our time in afghanistan.
This is war without end and the result isn't worth the price.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
I think as the months go on George and more people become more aware of Afghanistan and the history of the area, the public will stop supporting the Westminster government. Brown is possibly hoping that won't happen until the GE of course.
I agree.
wv: Gande.
Oh, it's random, I know...
I trust our politicians read it carefully
Not a chance. They only listen to each other. They lock themselves into a little game where only the points they think they score against each other matter.
They are revolting. And while they do this, brave men and women and brave families and friends suffer.
Oh Jim, I suppose we know that but we need to hope things will change. Without hope what else is there?
Mr. Mxyzptlk by and large the public are no more or less inclined to support war than they have ever been.
They do however require some logical reason for fighting a war.
The reasons given for this war are most unconvincing.
It will inevitably end with some kind of compromise negotiated if not directly with the Taliban then with people very like them.
The alternative is to increase troop numbers and accept increasingly higher casualty rates. That is neither necessary in defence of UK interests or security nor afordable - either in economic or human terms.
The end is inevitable, we can all see it and it is galling indeed to wonder just how many more people will lose their lives before we arrive there. What is the point?
I can't add much to that Indy except to say hopefully the withdrawal will be sooner rather than later.
Obama was talking on Sky yesterday about a change of stategy from fighting to more of a rebuilding/cohesive arrangement.
Post a Comment