Britain at home and the war in Afghanistan?

[Kevin23]

I was reading a weekly column on Foreign Policy Magazine in joint collaboration with Small Wars Journal. About the war in Afghanistan and it's effects on polls on the UK homefront and British politics. From it as I'm sure many of you have read is that discontent over how the British Government and it's handling of it's part of the conflict in Afghanistan is growing stronger then ever before as the article stated. As casualties mount I'm strongly curious as to if the British commitment in Afghanistan will remain open ended? Or will the government under the very unpopular Gordon Brown and Labour Party opt to establish a timeline for a withdrawal date like Canada has kind of done or other countries have actually done? This should be especially interesting given that Britain is going to be having Parliamentary elections next year and how all three major parties will approach this increasingly loud debate.

Any opinions?

For one I could see Labour try to attach a date some considerable time from now to wind down the British commitment in Afghanistan. I also find it hard to see how the Conservatives will deal with this issue.

[davidbfpo]

Kevin23,

I posted some earlier comments on SWJ Blog:

The current public and political debate over the UK's role in Afghanistan reflects the longstanding opposition to the policy, not the soldiers. Yes, the losses have been the catalyst. So has the USMC operation just to the south of the UK campaigning - with apparently fewer casualties.

The UK role in Helmand has appalling explained by the government before now. What are we doing, is it worth it and what national interests are involved.

A few weeks ago the Whitehall-Westminster coalition were all gloomy about the potential impact on the cherished 'special relationship' and sometimes that is still mentioned in press articles. That is not the argument the public will accept now; for a variety of local reasons the 'relationship' is no longer highly regarded and is under strain.

Even this morning on BBC Radio 4 two politicians were asked why. One of them, Patrick Mercer, Tory ex-soldier, mentioned the importance of Pakistan to UK national security and the impact of a retreat from Helmand. Explaining the role of Pakistan in UK national security is not made loud enough here.

The press and politicians have focussed on the lack of helicopters, that is one of many equipment issues. Yes, it is a scandal that so few are in theatre for so many who need them.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by Kevin23

(taken from) 1. As casualties mount I'm strongly curious as to if the British commitment in Afghanistan will remain open ended? 2. Or will the government under the very unpopular Gordon Brown and Labour Party opt to establish a timeline for a withdrawal date like Canada has kind of done or other countries have actually done? 3.This should be especially interesting given that Britain is going to be having Parliamentary elections next year and how all three major parties will approach this increasingly loud debate.

1. Currently the UK commitment is open ended, although not well explained or understood outside government. IMHO our commitment is not as strong as the USA, largely due to the public imagery of 9/11 and the quest to eliminate AQ as a threat (leaving aside many issues, like Saudi Arabia). I cannot see the UK being there in the long term, due to Afghan history (as I have posted on other threads before).

2. No, in my opinion this Labour government will not establish a timeline for withdrawal. The UK role in Iraq was far more unpopular at home, amongst the Labour Party and with Muslim voters in key marginal parliamentary seats. No timeline appeared, I think it would have been an astute domestic political move, but damaging to UK national interest - notably with the USA.

3. It is too early to see any impact on the forthcoming parliamentary elections. Note the UK media are in the annual "silly season" when stories get unusual attention when parliament goes on holiday (in fact on 21/7 for three months) and holidays for others. None of the main parties are against this overseas role, although the Lib-Dem leader has broken the collective vow of silence to challenge policy.

Originally Posted by Kevin23

Any opinions? For one I could see Labour try to attach a date some considerable time from now to wind down the British commitment in Afghanistan. I also find it hard to see how the Conservatives will deal with this issue.

A future date to exit sounds nice, but is unlikely for political and national interest reasons. There is such institutional loyalty to the 'special relationship' with the USA, reflected in many of the editorial or comment articles now and recently before the body count climbed - similar to "we must not disappoint our ally, so must stay firm". Try the RUSI website: http://www.rusi.org/ or any mainstream newspaper like the Daily Telegraph or The Times.

It is our shaky financial position that is far more likely to decide. Can any UK party cut welfare spending for example and transfer the funds to defence? There are cheaper options, but the Ministry of Defence appears to avoid those - view this for far more detail and comment: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/

I hope this helps.

davidbfpo

[kingo1rtr]

At the strategic level the support is there and senior military figures have appeared to achieve a concensus amongst poilitical leaders (note - not necessarily their followers) that this may be a long campaign. I think Rory Stewart's view will gain traction.

Recent casualties are tragic and regrettable and cause the public, quite understandably, to doubt the need for our involvement. The public debate is very useful as it is forcing a discussion that will generate greater clarity on the narrative of why we are there and equally importantly, will underline the need for cross government departmental support.

The key outcome I suspect will be to set some context for the upcoming strategic defence review; by that I mean that the SDR will be forced to take account of the need for success on current operations (accepting now that the timeframe for involvement in Afghanistan is long enough to butt into the SDR timeline). That in turn should allow for a much more focussed debate in SDR on the things the Army feel it needs now and in the short term, putting pressure on things like carriers and joint strike fighters.

So in sum, definite disquiet amongst the public, but service chiefs giving clear signals on sustaining a campaign in Afghanistan. Clear evidence that lessons learned from some of the concerns over how we managed the perception of the UK drawdown in Iraq, within both public and political domains, here and in US, have been taken on board.

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by kingo1rtr

I think Rory Stewart's view will gain traction.

(Taken from another thread re Rory Stewart's views) A lengthy commentary on the Afghan situation and whether it is really that vital a battleground; the author Rory Stewart has been a soldier, diplomat and academic and has travelled extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq. Living in Kabul in 2005: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...annot-win.html A slightly longer edition: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html

Worth reading through for its many pertinent comments and seems to fit here, even if killing is not the focus.

davidbfpo

[kingo1rtr]

- its a very useful link. I think that Rory Stewart's views are beginning to resonate in the upper echelons of the military chain. No doubt the military do find some of his views uncomfortable, but I think his warning on both the potential length of the campaign, problems in Kabul and the need to get more non-military activity going are accurate. Both NI and Iraq point to that need - both were much longer in duration than originally thought. Ergo, whatever timeline we have in mind for the current chapter in the Great Game, add 5 years.....

I posted my last onto the Foreign Policy page at Haddicks article. Hopefully it will provide useful, balanced, counterview.

[kingo1rtr]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...p-1752208.html

Well worth a read. Most of the points land on target.

[Ken White]

government to adopt...

Both authors have been there and speak truth. Thanks for linking it.

[davidbfpo]

Those who criticise our Afghanistan policy for lacking a credible plan and being lost in empty rhetoric are right. We are fixated on what allies and partners call "Helmandshire". Unlike our American allies, we lack a cross-government strategy and plan, the commitment, resources and Whitehall willingness to change sufficiently to deliver success.


What would success be? We have to stabilise the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan – bring the Pashtu into the fold, give them a stake in their nations' politics, wean them away from extreme Islam, deny sanctuary to terrorists and give the Afghans a state that can deliver what they want. Without Pashtu support, extremism in the region will decline. These are substantial aims, but failure, which would increase extremism – with inevitable and violent consequences within the region and internationally – is not an option.

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...p-1752208.html

Good article that assumes public unity in the UK on why we fight there and secondly what we aim to do is shared by the local population - as distinct from the state(s).

davidbfpo

[kingo1rtr]

Another good article. Well thought out and accurate on a number of levels. Its encouraging that the debate in the media is moving gently towards a more sophisticated level that just pure equipment shortfalls. Lets hope the politician follow on as the whore to her pimp!


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...t-1753030.html

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by kingo1rtr

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...t-1753030.html

Interesting article, but

We urgently need a defence review, and not in order to produce further economies. Although there is scope for re-deployments, there is no scope for reducing the defence budget – unless we want to imperil our ability to conduct high-intensity warfare. We have to think through the relationship between resources and commitments. That will not happen under this brain-dead Government. Perhaps the Tories should ask General Dannatt to undertake the task, once he retires.

That's only part of the answer. Patrick Little's RUSI article makes the point that actually we have quite a few "brain dead" senior officers. Nothing wrong with the courage and skill of the boys on the ground, but a lot that is wrong with the British Army is the British Army, and not political machinations that fund and task it. - and I have spent a good deal of time in Officers Messes, talking to serving officers and corresponding with them.

[davidbfpo]

From a well-known reporter, Robert Fisk; short article and I will show two paragraphs: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1751587.html

I said that we should not be in Afghanistan, that we Westerners now have 22 times as many military personnel in the Muslim world than the Crusaders had in the 12th century .... Send them our doctors and our teachers and our agronomists – but not our soldiers. They should be brought home....And to my astonishment, the burghers and their families, students and their mums and dads – hitherto silent in expectation of a soft homily – began to clap, a great wash of sound that spread through the chapels and aisles of Scott's cathedral.

In just one month – May of 1941 – Liverpudlians lost 1,453 men, women and children to Luftwaffe raids. In my cruel calculations, this means that our 185 dead in Afghanistan in eight years – from all over Britain – represent a mere seventh of what Liverpool alone suffered in one month of the Second World War.

A different viewpoint I readily admit, worth reading in full.

davidbfpo

[slapout9]

Interview on CNN Fareed Zakaria (sunday) between Killcullen & Bacevich(spell)

Highlights from Killcullen:
1- Iraq was a mistake never should have gone there, there was no threat!
2-Pakistan is the Center of Gravity not Astan!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...n.worth.it.cnn

[Red Rat]

• The politicians have not clearly articulated why Afghanistan is so important.
  
• The public can discern that here is a palpable disconnect between importance and resourcing: If it is so important for us to be there why have we not resourced it accordingly?
  
• The campaign is perceived as floundering with no clear plan or defined endstate.

The combination of all three is leading to considerable disquiet in the public ranks. Add to this an unwillingness on the part of the political class to engage with the issues. In my opinion very few UK politicians wish to commit themselves beyond the term of the parliament. Political thinking is currently dominated by short term thinking with decision making left until the last safe moment, possibly workable in major combat operations but the antithesis of COIN operations!

Scrutiny from political classes and the public is also beginning to focus much more on the senior echelons of the armed forces with the tarnish from Iraq leeching across to Afghanistan. 'Lions lead by donkeys' has been muttered. The usual Services internecine politics in advance of expected budget cuts does not help either.

With the insurgents in Afghanistan viewing operations as 'Influence operations with a kinetic element' I would expect increasing focus on causing casualties in the UK element.

On the Home Front I would hope to see clearer articulation of why we are there and greater clarity and focus at the operational level. The reccommendations in the Independent article are sound, but judging by the comments made by Lord Digby-Jones and others about the way the UK government (dis)functions both within and across government departments I somewhat doubt that improvements will be either quick or effective.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Red Rat

With the insurgents in Afghanistan viewing operations as 'Influence operations with a kinetic element' I would expect increasing focus on causing casualties in the UK element.

Ahhh! I like that. I like it a lot.
Kinetic effect/action consistently the most effective way of creating influence. When was it ever not, in any war? Not much has changed in 3,000 years!

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Highlights from Killcullen:
1- Iraq was a mistake never should have gone there, there was no threat!
2-Pakistan is the Center of Gravity not Astan!

True not a threat, not so easy a call on should have never gone. The problem is that the Bush Administration sold Iraq as threat for several reasons. They later acknowledged that was a mistake but have never announced the total rationale for going there. My contention is that reason was to shake up the ME, the source of the Islamist international terror business since the early1970s. If that is correct or even if it was a synergistic side effect, then Kilcullen (and Bacevich) are wrong and are homing in on the wrong rationale.

As for Pakistan, true -- but Pakistan did not host the guys that paid for the attack on US soil. Plus Pakistan was and is a far tougher nut to attack than was Afghanistan. Afghanistan was an announcement that attacks on US soil will not be tolerated and, as a Pakistani neighbor, a lever to influence Pakistan -- one that may or may not work. However, we sort of had to try...

Iraq was an announcement to the ME that attacks from there on US interests around the world, an issue since 1979, would no longer be tolerated. Had it been better executed by DoD and the Army, it would have made an effective and powerful message. In the event, the message got diluted a bit but it's still been made and will have an effect. The worst gig about attacking Iraq was the timing; later would've been better.

Too early to make sweeping pronouncements about either operation; it'll take another 20 years plus to even start getting a good handle on them.

[davidbfpo]

First an "outsider" ex-diplomat minister comments: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-politics.html (note next suggests a slight retraction) and then an ex-UK Army brigadier, who commanded in Helmand last year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...commander.html

The domestic "front" rumbles on.

davidbfpo

[Jedburgh]

The Economist weighs in with a briefing on the issue, 16 Jul 09:

British forces in Afghanistan: And the soldier home from the hill

.....The war in Afghanistan has, until recently, had an oddly low political profile in Britain. One reason is that it was long overshadowed by the conflict in Iraq. With the withdrawal of Britain’s last combat troops from Basra, that is no longer the case. The other reason is that, unlike the conflict in Iraq, the Afghan war has commanded broad political support. Whereas the Liberal Democrats, the country’s third party, opposed Britain’s participation in the invasion of Iraq, all the main parties have supported the country’s involvement in Afghanistan since the outset. At least, they have done so until now.

The cross-party consensus on Afghanistan is under more strain than ever before. Both the Tories and the Lib Dems still say they back the deployment, but they attack the government’s perceived lack of strategy and its parsimony towards the armed forces. Liam Fox, the Tory shadow defence secretary, has accused the government of “the ultimate dereliction of duty”. The Tories have concentrated their fire on the shortfall in the helicopters available to British forces—though the criticism is undermined by their reluctance to promise extra defence spending if they win the election due by next year. Nick Clegg, the leader of the Lib Dems, has been sharper: he talks about soldiers’ lives being “thrown away”, describing the mission in Afghanistan as “over-ambitious in aim and under-resourced in practice”.

Yet the most important divide may not be between political parties but between government ministers and military commanders.....

[davidbfpo]

A few weeks ago there was a discussion at The Frontline Club, London on Afghanistan, this is the video: http://www.terraplexic.org/visual-st...n-and-now.html (Frontline site currently offline). This is an astute challenge to why and our 'Special Relationship': http://www.terraplexic.org/review/20...h-america.html

The last paragraph:

The lessons of Afghanistan for the UK ought to be entirely chastening – a more modest assessment of our capabilities, a more realistic understanding of what a nation-building intervention can achieve, and a realisation that once you make a commitment, you may well be stuck there for much longer than your public is willing to tolerate.

davidbfpo

[tequila]

Rory Stewart is also becoming a Conservative politician:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rith-tory-seat