AT A COST OF £20 BILLION to the UK and over 400 young lives lost; the war in Afghanistan is being discussed at a meeting in America between NATO leaders, including David Cameron, in order to thrash out the timing of the retreat from Kabul.
We were told before we went into Afghanistan, that it had been a graveyard for various foreign armies, and it now seems that for the second time in its history the British army is being chased out by a bunch of tribesmen using weapons barley advanced from those used by the British in the 19th century.
While the Taliban are armed with Kalashnikovs and propelled grenades circa 1960-2012 (many of which no doubt were left by the Soviet Army when they were chased out), we on the other hand, have the best technologically advanced weaponry the early part of the 21st century can provide at a cost of billions.
So what went wrong? Why are we leaving with our tail between our legs? The answer lies not in any lack of skill or courage on behalf of our servicemen and women. On the contrary, the UK forces are what it says on the bottle - the best in the world.
Given our superiority in men and weaponry, the Taliban should have been eliminated and could have been, had we shown our enemy the same degree of ruthlessness that was shown to us by them. Only then could we have won this war , and could have done it far more quickly than the time it has taken for us to finally retreat in disgrace.
I supported the war in Afghanistan from its beginning as a response to the 9/11 outrage. Al-Qaeda was the original target, as they were using Afghanistan to launch terrorist attacks against the West. The main purpose of the mission was, I believe, to hunt down and destroy al-Qaeda and their leader Osama bin-Laden, who was, after all, responsible for the murderous attack upon New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon ,where 3,000 people perished.
I believe George Bush sought al-Qaeda’s destruction and nothing more than that. Certainly, I do not believe for one moment that he envisaged occupying Afghanistan and trying to build a nation on democratic foundations. Nation building was never on George Bush’s or his advisors horizon when he sent his young men and women to Afghanistan.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ACTOR on the stage at the time who did seek such an ambition for Afghanistan; and he postulated a strategy known as ‘liberal interventionism’. Tony Blair, no doubt, came by his strategy after it proved successful in the Bosnian conflict between 5th April 1992 – 14th December 1995.
After a standing ovation by Congress following a speech he gave in the aftermath of the tragic events in New York, George Bush became more amenable toward Tony Blair and his strategy of liberal interventionism. After all, Blair had taken the country by storm, and no doubt George Bush was (as all politicians are) seduced by the Blair approach, just as the British people( including myself) were between 1997-2007.
The trouble with liberal interventionism is this. It ties the hands of the military who are, as a result, set rules as to how they engage the enemy. Liberal interventionism, is the military equivalent of social liberalism.
The West has the formidable weaponry to dispose of any nation outside of the bubble that seeks to destroy any part of it – including the Taliban. But, liberal interventionism precludes doing what is needed if it causes the politicians sweaty and sleepless nights in combat with their conscience.
If Churchill or Roosevelt had followed the precepts of Mr Blair, the bombings over Germany would never have happened, and we would be negotiating with the Germans over sending observers into the concentration camps; just as today we are, through the United Nation, seeking Iran’s approval for investigators to investigate their nuclear programme.
Churchill knew that war cannot be sanitised in the way that the war in Afghanistan was. It only leads to defeat no matter how much the politicians (in the case of Afghanistan) try to spin it out as a victory based upon the killing of Osama bin-Laden - as it will be, after we leave that wretched, corrupt, and medieval country.
IN AFGHANISTAN our soldiers had their hands tied, not only by the politicians, but also by the liberally educated officers out of Sandhurst. I remember reading…I think in the Daily Telegraph, of a young sniper, who through his scope picked out an unarmed Taliban planting an improvised explosive…he was, would you believe, obliged to consult a senior officer before he could take aim and kill those Taliban.
I also remember, as you may, an MoD recruitment advertisement on television that sought to recruit on the basis of such a procedure. The image shown was of a fighter jet targeting Taliban who were also planting an improvised explosive. But those planting the device were allowed to go on their way before the fighter jet blew up the device. The announcement that followed praised the action for not causing any death –except that is, to the soldiers that those who were allowed to flee the scene would seek to kill in the future.
We have been told that our soldiers were fully educated into the practice of hearts and minds. This kind of social work is better left to the inner city estates of our cities than being taught to fight and kill. We could have done what George Bush originally wanted in less time at less loss in both personnel and time.
If we get ourselves involved in such a war, then citizens will inevitably be the casualties and our people have to understand this from the very start. Blair’s form of nation building is doomed to failure because our enemy will always hold the upper hand when it comes to ruthlessness .
We cannot take on such people unless our leaders do, like Churchill did, whatever proves necessary to bring about victory. Our enemies in Afghanistan and wherever we fight in the future will see our limits as weakness. They understand from what they have witnessed with the West’s involvement in and retreat from Afghanistan, that we lack both the ruthlessness and the stamina to defeat a determined enemy.
OUR POLITICIANS LIVE BY the political menstrual cycle of five yearly elections, and will always fall foul of them when considering military action, strategy and conduct of a conflict.
It is not true that we could not have won the war in Afghanistan – we could have and should have. First of all we should have stuck to the original limitations of ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaida and, as a bonus, drive out the Taliban. After which we could have removed our ground forces and used air power including the drones that have been so successful in killing many Taliban commanders - but even the use of drones have caused a flurry of concern from human rights. It is little wonder that the West is in decline.
Any country or continent that cannot defend its interests or the safety of its citizens because the military have had their hands tied by politicians, then decline is the only road to go down.
No comments:
Post a Comment