Rory Stewart MP on Afghanistan

[Fuchs]

He thinks too short. The political failure lies much, much deeper.
The ISAF mission would be a stupid idea even if ISAF could accomplish its mission in one or two years.

The whole idea makes no sense, the involvement in Afghanistan with more than a few hundred specialists (military and civilian) was never about defence or prevention.

The wall of illusions is much thicker than Stewart thinks - he apparently didn't manage to see through all of it.


@ No matter whether you can totally disconnect from a problem or not - activism that harms you more than inaction would is always stupid.

The Afghanistan mission lacks relevance for our defence because it's simply not as essential to AQ as the public was led to believe in 2002. AQ has proven for years that it can sustain itself without AFG, AFG played a marginal role for 9/11 and the network of AQ and AQ affiliates in ~60 countries worldwide plus the AQ nests in Pakistan show that AFG is dispensable for them.

We're stuck in a stupid civil war among factions who live partially in a multi-ethnic state and cannot agree on power sharing.
The relevance for our defence is nil, as is the relevance in regard to terrorism. Well, except that there's the possibility that waging war in an Islamic country might actually worsen our security situation directly (KIA, WIA) and indirectly (motivation, AQ propaganda).

[davidbfpo]

An article by Rory Stewart in the FT (behind a registration wall) that includes:

This gap between the language of policy makers and the reality is typical. It is time to be honest about Afghanistan: we face a desperate situation and an intolerable choice.....If the US, Britain and their allies leave Afghanistan, there will be chaos and perhaps civil war. The economy will falter and the Afghan government will probably be unable to command the loyalty or support of its people. The Taliban could significantly strengthen their position in the south and east, and attack other areas. Powerful men, gorged on foreign money, extravagantly armed and connected to the deepest veins of corruption and gangsterism, will flex their muscles. For all these reasons departure will feel – rightly – like a betrayal of Afghans and of the soldiers who have died.

But keeping foreign troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 will not secure the country’s future either.....We have reached the limit of our knowledge, power and legitimacy. Whatever the west feels obliged to do, it is not capable of bringing a political or military solution. That task will be for Afghans. The west should continue financial support, so the Kabul government does not collapse, as it did in 1991, and give enough military support – air power in nearby bases, for example – to prevent the Taliban mobilising tanks and aircraft, as they did in 1995. But this is support, not a solution.

Hat tip to Watandost, which has the first half:http://watandost.blogspot.co.uk/2012...an-crisis.html and the FT article:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb77f05e-0...#ixzz27N0FcpwM

[davidbfpo]

Amidst a number of authors reflecting on the experience is one by Rory Stewart, so as his views earnt 2k plus views awhile back, here is his 2013 edition:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...wrong?page=0,1

A taster, his parting remarks:

Only our fantasies, our fears, and our guilt prevented us from seeing the truth of the situation, and they prevent us now from acknowledging our failure, and our shame.

Ouch.

[carl]

David:

The pieces by Jones, Chayes, Saleh, Cowper-Coles, Kuehn & Van Lincschoten were as good or better pieces I think.

[davidbfpo]

Within a broad ranging article Rory reflects upon his life to date and his lack of power as a MP:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...wart-interview

On intervention:

In the end, the basic problem is very, very simple. Why don't these interventions work? Because we are foreigners. If things are going wrong in a country, it's not usually that we don't have enough foreigners. It's usually that we have too many.

Our entire conceptual framework was mad. All these theories – counterinsurgency warfare, state building – were actually complete abstract madness. They were like very weird religious systems, because they always break down into three principles, 10 functions, seven this or that. So they're reminiscent of Buddhists who say: 'These are the four paths', or of Christians who say: 'These are the seven deadly sins.' They're sort of theologies, essentially, made by people like Buddhist monks in the eighth century – people who have a fundamental faith, which is probably, in the end, itself completely delusional.

I wonder if Rory ever debates COIN plus with those who are apparently deluded. I'd pay to see that.

[Granite_State]

Good find David. Been meaning to read his books for a while now, since reading this quote from him in an interview on offering policy advice on Afghanistan:

“It’s like they’re coming in and saying to you, ‘I’m going to drive my car off a cliff. Should I or should I not wear a seatbelt?’ And you say, ‘I don’t think you should drive your car off the cliff.’ And they say, ‘No, no, that bit’s already been decided – the question is whether to wear a seatbelt.’ And you say, ‘Well, you might as well wear a seatbelt.’ And then they say, ‘We’ve consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart and he says ...’”