Tories teeter on Afghanistan

The all-party consensus on Afghanistan is about to collapse.

 A chance chat this evening with a top Tory spokesman on these matters was very revealing. it was on an informal basis so I will not reveal his name.

But the Tories' tentative questioning of Gordon Brown this afternoon and the news from my contact indicate the deep unhappiness with the continuing futile military strategy. All Tory Opposition Ministers were instructed to read ‘Afghanistan: The Great Game Revisited’ as part of their recess reading.

The Great Game always led to victory for the Afghans and humiliation for the West. This is the inevitable result now as we hurtle blindly towards the inevitable NATO Vietnam. Gordon Brown was magnificent but wrong in the House today. After his exhausting journey of two countries a day, he was bright, tireless and resourceful at the Despatch Box. He swatted the questions on the EU summits with complete mastery of the half hearted opposition.

On Afghanistan Gordon has convinced himself but few others. The Tory frontbench pussyfooted. Some of us condemned the policy. My line is a familiar one for readers of this blog. He had announced 300 extra troops. There was no hint on whether he wished join the Obama surge. Hansard records,

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): The previous increase in British troops in Afghanistan two years ago resulted in an increase in the deaths of our brave soldiers, from a total of seven to a total of 132. Is there not a grave danger that an increase in the number of troops means more targets for the Taliban? Is not the best way of consolidating the gains made in Afghanistan to embark on a new policy, based not on a military victory but on tackling the causes of terrorism with a peace strategy?

The Prime Minister: I should point out to my hon. Friend that our strategy is based on complementing the military intervention that is necessary to keep peace in Afghanistan and maintain democracy with other measures that will build up the confidence of the Afghan people so that they are enabled to govern themselves. That includes, as I have just said, training the Afghan forces and police, as well as building up local government, working with the tribes to create a means by which localities are properly governed and cleaning out corruption from the centre—on which I have pressed President Karzai, and why our multi-agency task force is going in. It also includes giving Afghan people a stake in their future—by helping them to become wheat farmers, for example, rather than farmers of drugs and narcotics—whether they are in villages, towns or in the countryside. That is our strategy for Afghanistan. It is necessary that we have the number of troops to deal with the Taliban, but it is also necessary that we train the Afghan army and police and that we invest in building the facilities that are necessary so that people have a stake in Afghanistan’s future.

His answer was courteous, defensive and unconvincing. Veteran Tory Peter Tapsell was as magnificent as always. He recalled his earlier prophecies of today's lamentable situation. He asked Gordon Brown if he was seeking the invasion of Pakistan.  The other Tories are muttering and plotting. They are nervous about appearing unpatriotic. But we are near the point when they will condemn the war. At the moment, it is support with weak praise.

Another tragedy involving a large number of British casualties will push them over the edge. Meanwhile the tragic futility of sending soldiers on missions to die in foreign fields continues. They are sacrifices to political cowardice.

A former Tory MP who is now a Labour Minister asked me tonight why I thought the Tories were about to change their policies. I told him that they lacked all conviction in today's exchanges.

'They have no convictions on anything,' he told me. It's all about opportunism.' 

He should know.

Comments

[Huw]

For a noble project to bring democracy, equal rights and freedom to Afghanistan, 133 troop deaths would not be too much although a long and serious pause for thought would have to be taken at the 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths, never mind the deaths since.
As a "gimme" to the US who wanted to hit someone, anyone, after the September 11th terrorist attacks the loss of 133 British Troops is stupid and the Afghani civilian deaths criminal.
For Heroin dealers, the British troop deaths are probably considered a price worth paying, given the record harvests of poppies Afghanistan has been able to produce since the invasion, although admittedly even they might complain that the occupation to ensure poppy production increase may have been too succesful as it has driven heroin prices right down.
Credit does need to be given to the poppy growers themselves though, this year brought drought to the northern part of the country leading to a 19% decrease in land under cultivation, but they did manage to minimise the loss in production to 6%.
If government or businesses could equal that kind of efficiency what a world we would have.

It seems, crime just leads to more crime.
What a waste of lives, money and resources.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Adam for the ICOS link. It's new to me.

I have tried to get the Government to fac up to the dreadful failure of our military exercise in Afghanistan - in spite of the heroism of British soldiers. What has been achieved at the cost of 133 deaths?

It's sometimes forgotten that the Taliban did not control all the country in 2001. The Warlords than ran the North with Western support.

[Huw]

Quite right John
apart from the "our thrift" bit
Chinese people's thrift.
As the European nation with the lowest level of savings and highest levels of personal indebtedness, the thrift was most decidedly not ours.

[John]

The excellant Ascent of Money programme on Channel 4 makes the point that we have been here before and should have known better.
Deregulation allowed finanacial institutions to use our savings as collateral. They gambled with the credit they were allowed to acquirebecause of our thrift then consequently lost the lot.
Any guesses who picks up the pieces? We do. I doubt a better scheme could be devised to take money off the working man put it into the pockets of the financial institutions who then paid themselves a fortune in bonuses and then get off scot free while we foot the bill.
Stealing from the poor to pay the rich.

[Graham Marlowe]

"Although the future is certain to be dreadful here, the great majority of the population rightly blame the problems on the global crisis with its origins firmly in the US."

Yes. Typical New Labour strategy Paul. Brown was always first to take the credit for anything good where the economy is concerned, but always seeks a fall guy when things go wrong. It also has something to do with the greed of bankers in this country, too, and the vgreed encouraged both by the previous Tory and current ToryLite government

[Adam]

The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) has released a report on the situation in Afghanistan. It offers analysis and strategic and tactical recommendations to the Pentagon and NATO military:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m49492&hd=&size=1&l=e

This quote shows the futility of sending more troops to 'deal with the Taliban':

'According to research undertaken by ICOS throughout 2008, the Taliban now has a permanent presence in 72% of the country. Moreover, it is now seen as the de facto governing power in a number of southern towns and villages. This figure is up from 54% in November 2007, as outlined in the ICOS report Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink.'

This quote looks at the numerous policy failures that have led us to the edge of 'a precipice':

'Over the past three years, ICOS’ research and analysis portfolio has catalogued a series of mistakes made by the international community in the quest to pacify an insurgency. There have been some signs of progress, such as opening the international debate on sending more troops, but also a stubborn adherence to failing policies such as military actions leading to civilian casualties, lack of effective aid and development, and support for aggressive poppy crop eradication programmes.

The inability of domestic and international actors to counter the entrenchment of the insurgency in Afghanistan is deeply troubling, and the failure of NATO’s political masters to address the realities of the security situation in Afghanistan has taken the country and the Karzai government to a precipice.'

These 'failing policies' were identified by many a long time ago, including yourself Paul. Mr. Brown rightly identifies corruption as a key problem, as well as the lack of development.
It is too little too late though as the country is clearly overun, with Kabul itself almost surrounded according to the ICOS report.

[Paul Flynn]

Although the future is certain to be dreadful here, the great majority of the population rightly blame the problems on the global crisis with its origins firmly in the US.

[Paul Flynn]

A frequently repeated comment from Afghans is 'you have the watches, we have the time.'

Most of the money being spent ends up in the pockets of the new millionaires in Kabul. The financial cost is enormous.

[John]

LONDON (Reuters) - The cost of British military operations in Afghanistan will rise by 54 percent this year, a parliamentary committee said on Monday, as it called on the government to better justify the expense.

According to figures provided by the Treasury, costs will rise to 2.32 billion pounds in 2008/9, from 1.51 billion in 2007/08 as Britain focuses its attention on the worsening Afghan conflict.

madness

[John]

With the country falling over the precipice of finanacial ruin we still think it valuable to send our troops to be killed on foreign fields and for what?
Very soon we will need them over here if the forecast of the head of the IMF is right that we will see severe civil unrest as more people lose their houses, jobs and dignity...what a mess.

[Graham Marlowe]

P.S: You might as well name him:

"A former Tory MP who is now a Labour Minister asked me tonight why I thought he Tories were about to change their policies. I told him that they lacked all conviction in today's exchanges.

'They have no convictions on anything,' he told me. It's all about opportunism.'

Was it Quentin Davies or Shaun "wheres my butler?" Woodward.

Oh yes GREAT "Labour" figures

[Graham Marlowe]

Very sadly Paul, I think you can take that as read.

If New Labour has been good at one thing - apart, of course, from closing down Post Offices and making sure their rich property developing friends escape legal action when they are caught making donations in other peoples names - it has been fawning to whomever happens to be in the White House: Clinton was Blairs best mate and then he managed to fall in love with the Bush idiot, so you can be more than certain Brown will snuggle up to Obama. I think we should readjust our feelings on Obama - the same old, same old (Robert Gates) seems to be the order of the day, and we have the added "attraction" of the screeching of Mrs Clinton to look forward to. Asking America to change is as futile as trying to get a leopard to change it's spots.