baldysblog.co.uk

Although I don’t always comment and likely sometimes comment too much to stuff on the web but, an article by Dominic Lawson on Afghanistan in the Independent and the reader’s comments that followed, did make me stop and think for awhile about the predicament we are in currently. /www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-only-options-are-to-double-up-in-afghanistan-or-leave-1817739.html

Combined with Remembrance Sunday, the nasty little Sun inspired row on Brown’s handwriting and 6 British Soldiers bodies being repatriated today, the concentration of most people is on the “particular and specific” which is understandable. However and without wishing to be an “Armchair General”, we must also have an awareness of the broader picture too in deciding policy and as citizens, supporting that policy.

This is not Vietnam

Those who try to make Afghanistan a parallel to Vietnam are totally deluded, it wasn’t that for the Russians either although people bandied the phrase around at the time. In terms of casualties in 10 years the Russians lost 14,000 men KIA over 10 years, the US lost over 50,000 in Vietnam over 8 but anyway the significance of Vietnam for the USA was intimately tied into “social issues” at home, it was a very complex and a unique period of American social history.

The key problem with Afghanistan is that as stated, it is a tribal society rather than a nation but also, a totally corrupt one too. Nigeria is a corrupt society because of oil, Afghanistan because of Opium so the question of whether the campaign is “winnable” can best be answered as a big NO but then again that is only if you judge a “Win” by signing an Armistice Document in a railway carriage or on the deck of a battleship, sometimes victories are very different in their nature.

History Judges, not Journalists

When the Americans went into Vietnam, the “Domino Theory” was all the rage, if Communism wasn’t confronted, every country one by one right down to Australia would fall to the “Red Peril”. Although the US didn’t score a conventional military victory, even after their withdrawal from Vietnam, no further countries “fell”, history often judges things differently. Did the Chinese finally start talking seriously over the handover of Hong Kong because they were shocked by the Falklands campaign and whilst not afraid of the UK, worried about the mess if the British attempted something similar ? One cannot say but cause and effect can often express themselves in unexpected ways.

The only positive result that the UK and the USA can get out of the Afghan Campaign is to squeeze the Taliban against the Pakistani forces fighting in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. We have in Pakistan a Civilian Administration, sadly an all too rare event since 1947, we need to encourage that. At the same time because of the Pakistani Taliban, they have woken up to their own peril and stopped thinking of it as someone else’s problem. But of course the key is that they have Nukes and they must not fall into the wrong hands, that would be a catastrophe for the whole region as well as the West.

If Pakistan is stabilised or as far as it can be, we pull out of Afghanistan. How cynical you may say and in a way it is but then again, if Pakistan went “native” and posed a threat that India took seriously and responded to, the nuclear fall out would poison Afghanistan too. The trouble is, if that was the real reason, no Western Leader could announce that as a war aim could they ?

The Question of Face

An interesting point was raised by one reader quite forcefully in reaction to something Dominic Lawson wrote: “I am no military man, but I suspect there are only two rational approaches at this stage: either a massive additional force from the Americans, bigger even than McChrystal has called for – or rapid withdrawal, with all the loss of face that that would entail. A halfway house would be political cowardice; and a poor reward for the immense courage of our soldiers.”

Perhaps unfairly, he pick upon; “… with all the loss of face that that would entail…” and then went on to insult all and claim that the embarrassment of politicians was no excuse for further loss of life which on the surface, seems a fair comment but in reality, isn’t.

My Reply

Whilst I might agree with you that apart from our Special Forces who were involved in 2001, we shouldn’t be there in the way we are today and, neither should the Americans, their original deployment to hunt down Osama was a big mistake however, we are and the past for the moment can wait, we must deal with where we are and formulating an acceptable exit strategy.

Whilst “Loss of Face” would be fully understood by the Chinese, in this Country it likely isn’t and as you seem to write, treated as something that amounts to no more than the trivial embarrassment of Tony Blair, John Reid and Gordon Brown. If that is all it amounted to, I would agree with you entirely unfortunately it is rather more important than that and “Prestige” does matter and especially going forward from where we are today.

Firstly this is a NATO deployment which has been considerably undermined by the tardy support of the main European members. Secondly but most importantly because the whole of the West (like it or not), is dependent on them, it is a US led operation. That we will all withdraw sooner rather than later is a certainty but, it will need to be managed, among other things, to keep US Prestige intact, I would like to say NATO Prestige too but fear it has been sadly undermined already.

America Post Vietnam

If you doubt its importance (Prestige – Face), look up the post Vietnam War period and particularly 10 years afterwards. When Nixon came to power, there was wholesale social unrest over Vietnam and the Draft, his election ticket was based upon pulling US troops out of Vietnam which he did. Although not a successful domestic President, in terms of Foreign policy, the West has yet to see a better one. It was he who first opened up China to the World but after his disgrace over Watergate, the following period saw a USA that had lost its self confidence and therefore a willingness to deploy its strength when it was required.

You can argue the impacts of this through the abortive raid to free American Embassy Staff in Iran under Carter, to Bill Clinton lobbing a few missiles at training camps in Afghanistan, to the order to stop the advance in the first Gulf War – possibly the worse decision ever made in war, through to and very likely, an over compensating George Bush being “over muscular” in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But beside this must be set the “things that didn’t happen” and particularly with regard to Israel and the Middle East.

There is nothing wrong with the UK being a “middling power” and as such, our “Prestige” will vary from time to time but is significantly enhanced or supported by a close alliance with the US and a leading role in NATO, (unfortunately, the EU counts for little). It is therefore in our interests to support the “Prestige” of both and yes in doing so, more lives will be lost but the political aspects do matter in the medium to longer term in reducing future casualties.