by Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter
Gordon Brown has given a significant speech this afternoon following his own visit to Afghanistan last week and, of course, the resignation of Parliamentary Private Secretary, Eric Joyce MP, last night.
It re-makes the case for continued British involvement in Afghanistan and unapologetically restates the logic of intervention in terms of protecting the UK from further terrorist attacks.
The speech concluded:
"These are aims that are clear and justified – and also realistic and achievable. It remains my judgement that a safer Britain requires a safer Afghanistan and in Afghanistan last week, I was further convinced that, despite the challenges we face, a nation emerging from three decades of violence can be healed and strengthened; and that our country and the whole world can be safer; because together we have the values, the strategy and the resolve to complete our vital task."
He gave a few hints on the conclusions of reviews by General McChrystal (whom he met in Afghanistan and McChrsyal's review has been seen by NATO leaders) and Ambassador Eikenberry:
"As the reviews of General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry will make clear: to reach the point where international forces can return home, we must place a greater emphasis on building up the Afghan army and police; on unity of effort across international and Afghan authorities; and on focusing our resources - both military and civilian - in the areas where they matter most; and thus on securing the population."
This debate will not go away- its complexity makes firm conclusions difficult to draw. However, what is clear is that the Prime Minister is determined to set the terms of the discussion in the coming months.
The full text of the speech is available here.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Is that what Labour is about?
Controlling the ground in Afghanistan might go some way to minimising the first component but being seen by some as an infidel invader in a muslim land might equally be thought to increase the second component.
At the moment the Taliban seem to be gaining some expertise in the manufacture of crude but deadly explosive devices and that is something they can pass on to would be terrorists if they wish. These people are not idiots; if they want to train terrorists for a campaign in the UK I am sure they can do it in smaller establishments in the Tribal areas rather than the extensive camps they once had in Afghanistan, even if those camps were more appealing to the youthful but murderous zeal of those who attended them.
My guess is that the army and police in Afghanistan will be completely useless for the task we wish them to execute for at least a couple of decades. Bt example look at the Pakistani forces; they are still subject to having some diminishing tribal loyalties overriding national duty half a century after their formation.
Meanwhile our brave and committed troops are being asked to patrol countryside where yesterday's friend is today's foe, the richer for having planted a mine during the night.
UK terrorists were born and lived in the UK. ID cards wouldn't have stopped them.
If the army isn't equipped to hold increasing amounts of ground when it leaves bases to prevent the Taliban returning overnight to start the whole stupid process of leave fort, be exposed to a bomb, return to fort (all by foot of course as Brown's helicopters are as invisible as his courage and beliefs, the whole military strategy is doomed.
It's just easier for slimy weasel Lord ('LORD'!) Foulkes to try a smear a brave man and try to rubbish his expenses (yes £3 bottles of wine from Aldi's for official entertaining!) because he spoke up for his men, who are dying for Blair and Bush. You go to Afganhistan Foulkes and do a patrol. You'll really see life.
So, to formulate a view on this issue we basically have to trust the government and Gordon Brown. Many military figures say it is an unwinnable war and the equipment available to the troops is insufficent.
Here's the problem, I don't trust Gordon Brown because of countless deceptions he has perpetrated over the years. It's unfortunate because when Gordon Brown speaks about Afghanistan I should be reassured and positive about our troops efforts, but instead I think about what Gordon Brown has to gain from what he's saying. To me at least he has no credibility on any topic which undermines our efforts in the region. I don't trust that we can win in Afghanistan or that the country will emerge as a secure and stable nation.
All this without really knowing anything about the war.
I'm also rather bored about this line that we have to 'support our troops'. Why? They have simply chosen a job which has inbuilt dangers. I don't 'support' them because I don't think they should be there , and I think there is little justification for most of them in any case. Far too much money spent interfering in wars which are really not our concern. You could make a case for intervention anywhere in our globalised world, but that doesn't justify it. So I can't see why I should support their actions when I think they are mistaken. Loyalty is not in itself a virtue. What are they being 'loyal' to?
More broadly, it has become clear by now that Afghanistan, a largely tribal, rural society, is not about to embrace Western democracy, and the replacements for the taliban appear to be localised tribal warlords who are no more 'liberal' than the taliban, but have offered some support for the west.
Luckily we do have a voluntary army, they are much more professional and are much more likely to adhere to the Geneva Convention etc. The alternative is conscription and you can bet your bottom Dollar that this Labour government would have conscripted people if necessary. So at least be thankful that you can sit in the comfort of your chair giving your opinion, whilst others are volunteering to be the ones in the firing line.
OTH, I think I might just have come across a solution to the NEETs problem.
The Head of the Army isn't playing politics, he's doing his job for gods sake and he (or anyone else in the forces) doesn't get to decide which wars to fight, I think you'll find that thats the politicians job, in this case of course Labour politicians!
I'm very glad you bored with supporting men and women who are getting killed and maimed carrying out your governments wishes, just how how narrow minded and bigoted can you be?
If the whole of the Labour movement thought like you then you could kiss good bye to ever being in power again.
And the point is that the head of the Army is calling for more resources because he does support participation in those wars. You are not seriously suggesting that the interventionist approach is rejected by the Armed Forces, because there is n o evidence for it. They remain thoroughly Atlanticist.
No, the point is that the head of the Army is calling for more resources because HIS TROOPS DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES to do the job. A job that they were ORDERED to do by Labour.
And whilst both Labour and Conservative MPs did fully support the wars, they did so based on fabricated evidence concocted by LABOUR!
It's quite alarming that you will give unwavering support to a political party, but none for those that are infinitely more deserving. Who's the nasty party again?
HE HAS TO FIGHT THE WARS, THIS WAS LABOUR'S CHOICE NOT HIS.
What do you expect him to say?? If in his own opinion he did not think the wars were necessary do you expect him to say "don't give us equipment, don't give us helicopters, don't give us men" even though he must fight them as instructed by POLITICAL leaders.
His political opinion is not relevant. What he wants is that if we are at war we at least have the responsibility to our service personnel to execute it in a competent and resourced manner.
"the logic of intervention in terms of protecting the UK from further terrorist attacks"
To be perfectly honest, I am not convinced I have access to the information that would allow me to make that judgement. That leaves me very uncomfortable. The whole situation makes me very uncomfortable but I'm not prepared to say 'troops out now' without knowing the full picture.
If by remaining we do counteract a genuine terrorist threat and this new strategy of surge and hold, build Afghan civilian and military forces, and develop greater cooperation with civilian authorities has a genuine chance of success- and that is the assessment of Obama/Brown and NATO- then I just don't have a full enough picture to argue against that.
I'd like to be firmer and clearer but I guess like a lot of people on this one I find it difficult to be definitive. I do respect people like Jason Burke who explain the situation- the resounding picture is one of complexity and that has to be of grave concern.
I hope this makes sense, but I am beginning to see Afghanistan a little bit how the Northern Ireland situation was. We occupied N.I. for a long time providing security and trying to prevent terrorism, but in that time the number of attacks mainland UK suffered far outweighed the number of attacks we have had from middle-east terrorist organisations and arguably more ferocious. We couldn't prevent terrorism that was effectively on our own doorstep and that was without the environmental climate and transportation issues we face in Afghanistan amongst other things.
Another niggle is the unwinnable war argument that I keep being told by people with military experience. They claim that every time a village or town is cleared of Taliban and the locals are equipped with security equipment, the minute the Army has left the town the equipment is on sale at local bazaars and anyone found to be trying to provide security to the town/village is given harsh treatment when the Taliban inevitably return. If that is true, it would seem unwinnable in conventional terms.
Given that Israel does exist a two state solution would be ideal, but I can't see it working in practice. Its not helped by either the divided and incompetent Palestinian leaderships, nor continuing Israeli expansionism. But whilst this situation continues, then the current antagonism will continue as well.
Terror attacks from Al Qaeda and its ilk are aimed at ending foreign influence in Muslim countries and to create of a new Islamic caliphate.
But don't let that stop you from wheeling out the usual "It's the Jews Wot Done It" conspiracy theory.
Right now there is only one serving Labour MP who have served in the Armed Forces, and none serving in the government.
Labour do not understand Defence, they do not understand the Armed Forces and do not
understand the subtle blend of commitment/tradition/service/sacrifice/loyalty which is engendered in that environment.
You would obviously like to live in an undefended state so please go away and find one.
For those of us in the real world we need to ensure that we ONLY get involved in wars and battles on a right and truthful basis, not in adventures based on half-lies and spin, and only then when it is clear that Britain's interests are at risk by doing nothing.
The head of the army neither supports or opposes the current war in Iraq/Afghanistan - he just does what he is told. Don't you understand that?
In both Iraq and Afghanistan we all know that British troops are there on a pretext and falsehoods.
Brown peddles the ingenuous stuff about protecting Britain - if you think Brown is right then clearly young British men and women are being killed supposedly defending YOU from the alleged risk of terrorist attack.
Send us a postcard from your bunker in neutral Switzerland.
gives you the freedom to not only hold those views, but enunciate them in such an elegant way.
It is the people who stand on the wall, watching outwards because you don't see the value in it or frankly can't
be bothered that continues to maintain that freedom.
You do yourself a disservice by being so frivolous with your faux condemnation.
Enjoy your freedom, but dont ever forget that men and women lost their lives and continue to be prepared do so, for it.
Wars don't solve anything, and neither does a militaristic outlook - recent foreign policy has looked upon military intervention as a solution to perceived threats even though the threats are the result of other matters caused by flawed international agreements
Erm .. it was The Great Depression that created the political and economic conditions that enabled Hitler and the Nazi Party to gain power in 1933, some 15 years after the end of WW1.
By the way, Germany did not 'lose' WW1. It signed the Treaty of Versaille, a cease-fire. and was given the choice of accepting it or continuing the war.
Nor a jot about any other reason for any other war - the fact is and remains so that you have
materially benefited, and continue to do so, from the efforts and commitment of a group of individuals
that you so openly despise.
Consider yourself lucky that they are comitted to defending you, your freedoms and your rights
irrespective of your blatant disrespect and disregard.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
I support our troops and the war in Afghanistan, How ever I do not support the attempts by some ministers to smear the head of the army , This is disgusting and a insult to our brave and loyal troops .
ricki