184 deaths. Five more than the total of British deaths in the Iraq war. I could not face 24hour television today to see the Donkey Ministers braying the tired platitudes to explain away eight more deaths in Helmand. Meanwhile the soldier lions perish.
Nick Clegg has bravely moved towards reality. He mentioned 'lives being thrown away. ' It's a start Nick. The conscience of the political class is ossified, trapped in denial, afraid to see the dreadful truth. British soldiers are dying in vain in a hopeless cause.
Watch for the self-serving excuses from the Tory cheerleaders of the incursion into Helmand. They cannot accept responsibility for the deaths so they claim:-
'It's the equipment - blame the Government.
Not enough troops- send in more targets for Taliban bombs.
If we give up now the 184 will have died in vain.
The full script of my speech on Wednesday is below.
8 July 2009 :
2.30 pm
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): This is a very sombre moment, Mr. Chope.
We have heard of the unprecedented deaths of seven of our soldiers
within seven days. All our emotions are churned up by that, and there
is sadness at the brutal deaths of seven unique young men. There is
admiration for their bravery and professionalism, which we all salute,
but there is also anger at some of the political decisions that have
been made, which have led us to the carnage of NATO and Afghan
civilians on a scale that was not anticipated.
We have heard today, from the new Secretary of State, that he will be resolute in the face of the situation. I believe that we are on the point of change in public opinion, in the same way that there was a change in public opinion in America when the body bags were returning in large numbers from the Vietnam war. I believe that public opinion will be tested and that the public will ask why this country should pay a disproportionate share of what is known as the blood price in Afghanistan. That, I do not believe, will be tolerated, and I believe that other questions will be asked about whether we can continue and tolerate those deaths on such a scale.
The Secretary of State today said: “For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan must be made secure”. That is a repeat of comments made by past Secretaries of State, meaning that there is somehow a threat of terrorism to Britain because of the Taliban. That is part of the canard that it is much easier, or more plausible, to repeat old myths than to reveal a new truth. That is a myth: there has never been any Taliban plot against any western European city. There have been al-Qaeda plots, and the two are conflated, but there is no risk to us from the Taliban.
As was vividly revealed in James Fergusson’s book “A Million Bullets”, the Taliban are fighting us because we are the farangi—the foreigners—in their country; they are fighting a jihad to expel us from their country. James Fergusson
tells a story about a conversation he had with a top leader of the
Taliban, who told him, “I’ve got three small children, but I don’t
visit them very often because I don’t want to love them, or for them to
love me, because if they do it’ll be a greater loss when I die.” JamesFergusson
asked him, “Do you want to die?”, to which he replied, “Of course I
want to die; I want to die like my father, my grandfather and my
great-grandfather died, fighting in a jihad against thefarangi.” That is why they are fighting us. Their ambitions and their antagonism to us do not stretch beyond their own lands. They also made the point to James Fergusson
that, “We are fighting you.” They would not kill him because of their
tradition of hospitality and courtesy to strangers, but they asked him,
“Wouldn’t you fight people who came to your land and killed your wives
and children?” That is the reality of the position that we are in.
I shall concentrate on Helmand, because I believe that what
happened there was a great turning point. I am grateful to see here in
the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for EastKilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
(Mr. Ingram), who was the Minister answering a debate on this subject
in March 2006. Having gone through the wonderful pack that the Library
has prepared for the debate, which gives details of all the debates on
this issue in recent years, I see one compelling truth: the Government
and the main Opposition have always been wrong in their forecasts, and
the critics have nearly always been right.
The intervention in Helmand took place in 2006, at which time the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), said that he hoped it would last for only three years and that not a shot would be fired. That phrase will be part of our history for a long time. To be fair to him, he pointed out the dangers, but his view was that the British should go there to ensure that reconstruction could take place, and that if there was any shooting to be done, it would be done by the Americans. However, others took a different view at that time. In a 2006 debate on this issue, it was said that what we were doing was as futile and as dangerous as the charge of the Light Brigade. This time it was
Blair to the right of them,
Hollered and thundered,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of the shadow of death
Into the mouth of Helmand
Drove the five thousand.”
We
now know that, since Helmand, more people have died there than died in
the charge of the Light Brigade. At that time, the war, or
intervention, in Afghanistan was going fairly well. Only
seven British soldiers had died in five years, and five of those were
in accidents, but since Helmand, 176 British lives have been lost. It
was said then that we were stirring up a hornets’ nest, and that is
what happened, but the Government blundered on, and the lives of our
British troops have been sacrificed because of that.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): No doubt the hon. Gentleman heard Prime Minister’s questions today; did he notice that the Leader of the House refused to call the engagement a war, and twice called it a mission instead? Would he, like me, feel more comfort if there was a definite, well-planned exit strategy for this war? Does he agree that other NATO countries, particularly our European neighbours, are not sharing their part of the burden in front of the fire?
Paul Flynn: We do not have wars any more; we rarely declare war, so the nomenclature that we use is misleading. But, certainly, by any standards, this is a war. We have always had an excessive share of the burden—quite unreasonably. We are not the policemen of the world, and our young men are not there to be slaughtered in order to correct every injustice that takes place in the world.
I am a member of the Western European Union, and I have spoken about this issue in Hungary and several other countries in Europe, including France and Germany. The view there is that they will not go to Afghanistan to do the dying. They will go there to do police work and other jobs, but they will not put their young soldiers at risk of being killed in a war that they know to be futile. I think we should accept that view. Some people did not accept that a year ago, but I believe that everyone accepts it now.
In 2006, there were voices—not just politicians’—saying that what was being done would be a calamity, and was a mistake that would rank in British history as having been as bad as Suez and the UK’s decision to join Bush’s war in Iraq. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, who led 16 Air Assault Brigade inHelmand, before the real trouble began said:
“There is not to my mind an insurgency in Helmand. But we can create one if we want to.”
It
was a peaceful area, and we created the insurgency by our presence
there in 2006. Ministers sleepwalked into the hornets’ nest of Helmand
and changed what was a manageable situation in Afghanistan into one
that is now unwinnable.
After eight years, what progress have we made? What is this brave new world of Afghanistan that we are now asking our soldiers to die for? Certainly, there have been advances, for example, worthwhile advances in education, particularly in the education of girls. There is a frail embryo democracy and there has been some reconstruction, but the democracy itself is so frail and fragile that the Economist Intelligence Unit classified it as the134th least democratic nation out of 167 countries. Progress has been painfully slow.
Corruption—to clean out the state—was one of the reasons that we went in there. Integrity Watch Afghanistan tells us that of the $25 billion given in aid to Afghanistan only $15 billion have been spent and for every $100 that have been spent, only $20 reached the Afghan recipient. However, there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires in Kabul and those two events are connected. Transparency International UK points out that Afghanistan has slipped from being119th in the international table of corruption to 154th out of 159 countries. So, we have gone backwards in that area.
President Karzai’s half brother, Wali Karzai, is head of Kandahar’s provincial council and is widely believed to be the source of drug trafficking and trade eastward beyond Kandahar. Many people in the Afghan Government and many of the provincial leaders are up to their neck in the drugs trade. What progress have we made in human rights that justifies us calling our young men to go to Afghanistan to die?Karzai refused a pardon to a young man who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for accessing an article on women’s rights on the internet. However,Karzai did pardon a group of young men who were found guilty of gang-raping a 13-year-old girl. Those trials are very rare in Afghanistan because if such a case comes before the courts, it usually means the disgrace of the victim. Yet, he pardoned those who gang-raped a 13-year-old girl. A law to legalise rape in marriage was approved byKarzai in spite of western protests, and a father murdered his daughter for having a passing acquaintance with a NATO soldier. The Afghan Government refused to intervene because it was an honour killing.
The very distinguished woman MP in Afghanistan, who has now been suspended from Parliament, Malalai Joya, visited this country last year to accept a human rights prize. Her judgment is that the rights of women in Afghanistan now are worse than under the Taliban. Is it really sensible to ask our soldiers to die for those human rights, which are the result of eight years of our presence there?
On
drugs, Tony Blair was fond of saying that Afghanistan was a terrible
state because 90 per cent. of the drugs on the streets of Britain came
from there. I have heard almost every Secretary of State down the years
say exactly the same thing. In some years, we have spent £90 million of
our taxpayers’ money and in some years, up to £260 million of
taxpayers’ money to eradicate drugs. That is British money. We led the
field in the elimination of drugs. However, the result is that we have
had the three biggest harvests of drugs ever in Afghanistan and the
money spent has made no difference. There has been no reduction; the
only reduction that takes place is when the price of wheat goes up and
there is a higher market for that. The market for heroin is flooded
throughout the world. There has been one change as a result of the
misuse of taxpayers’ money: the price of heroin on the streets of this
capital and every capital in the world has gone down and it is much
easier for people to become drug addicts.
When David Loyn
recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, he
said that 60 per cent. of the police are heroin addicts in Afghanistan
and virtually all members of the Afghan army use cannabis. Those are
our allies in our war against drugs. Afghanistan drug exports are worth
£3.4 billion. For a cut of that, the Afghan officials and the police
allow free passage along their roads. They allow public land to be used
for growing drugs and they protect the drug dealers. The main source of
the Taliban’s funding, which is certainly hundreds of millions of
dollars, comes from the drug barons. They come to the Taliban and the
money is used to buy weapons to attack our troops. Does anyone
seriously believe that such an anti-drugs policy can ever change or be
successful? Such a policy has failed for everyone during the past eight
years—in fact, the money has had no effect whatsoever. The market out
there is untouched by our interventions and activities—it is a hopeless
cause.
We could all acknowledge that we cannot win by military means in Afghanistan, and that we have to win by persuading the Afghans that we are there for their own good. We need to win the battle for hearts and minds. I have received a reply today from the new Secretary of State for Defence that points out that we do not collect statistics on the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. However, as far as we can, we should do that because every one of those deaths is a problem to us and every one of those deaths means a family that is hostile to the mission of NATO. Happily for us, the United Nations calculates that just last year, 826 civilian casualties resulted from NATO activity and 1,160 civilian casualties resulted from the activities of the insurgents. We know that all those deaths are a defeat to us. Will we now learn the lesson—perhaps the Americans have—that hearts and minds cannot be won by bombs and bullets?
Another independent source of information on Afghanistan is UNICEF, which points out the sad fact that hundreds of schools have been closed in the south and that most of the country’s polio cases are in the same region. Where there is a lack of security, vaccination dives. Afghanistan has the world’s third highest child mortality rate, with 257 of 1,000 children dying before they are five. Only two other nations in the world are worse. Afghanistan also has the world’s second highest maternity mortality rate with around one in eight women dying because of child birth and, according to UN figures, most cases are preventable. Those are horrific pictures. Considering the amount of money—the great tsunami of dollars and pounds that have been poured into the country—things have not got better; in many areas they have got worse.
We have discussed the terrorist threat before, but we need to call on the Government to provide the proof. Where is the evidence that we are protected against terrorist threats in Britain because we are in Afghanistan? I can think of none and I have not seen any produced, but that canard is repeated again and again as if it were a truth. Today it was used as a justification for the loss of seven lives in seven days. I press the Minister to tell us what he thinks the evidence is for that claim, which I am sure will continue to be repeated.
Our present
position is very interesting because, just a year ago, there were signs
that we would have to adopt a different policy. Exactly a year ago, I
was in the Pentagon and I was told by the religious right and the oldneo
-cons that we will be in Afghanistan for generations. Others said that
no invading alien army has ever won a battle against a local
insurgency—a very chilling argument to make. The only possible
exception is Malaya, but that insurgency did not have any popular
support; it just represented a small tribe.
The way that these things go, we are likely to end up with one of two possible outcomes. One is that a deal is done: something happens and negotiations take place which will give us a chance to consolidate and preserve the gains made in education and reconstruction while making concessions on government concerns and the NATO presence. I believe that that is achievable. The alternative is that we run out in the same way the French did fromDien Bien Phu , the Americans did from Saigon and the Russians did from Kabul. In 2001, a fellow member of the Council of Europe, a Russian, slapped me on the back and said, “Ah, you British, you are very clever. You’ve conquered Afghanistan. We Russians did that. It took us six days. We spent billions of roubles there. We had 120,000 troops there. We killed 1 million Afghans and lost 16,000 of our own soldiers. We ran out, and, within a short period, there were 300,000Mujahedeen around Kabul. It will happen to you.” That was in 2001, and the Russians are now looking at us and saying that we are making the same mistakes as they did.
A year ago, there was hope of drawing in other European states, as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) suggested. That is gone; it will not happen now. A year ago, our UK ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, stated:
“American strategy is destined to fail”,
and warned that increasing troop levels would serve only to
“identify us even more clearly as an occupying force and multiply the number of targets”.
He urged the presidential candidates not to get bogged down in Afghanistan. America’s top general at the time, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, said:
“We’re not going to win this war.”
He went on to state:
“If
the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and
talk about a political settlement, then that’s precisely the sort of
progress that concludes insurgencies like this.”
There are
hopeful signs in the election of President Obama. He was committed to
the surge by an election promise. On 9 February, an early-day motion
was put down in this House pointing out that a surge in troops in
Afghanistan would mean a surge in fatalities. It is no comfort to see
that the prophecy was accurate; it was certain to happen. We have had
the surge of troops, which was based on the conclusion that if a surge
worked in Iraq, for very different reasons, it might work in
Afghanistan. Politically, President Obama had no choice but to become
involved in the surge, but he has done other things that are far more
promising—for example, he got rid of his previous NATO supremo and
appointed General StanleyMcChrystal , who has used words that have
never been used before about Afghanistan. He used the word “defeat”,
and we must consider the possibility of defeat. No one in America had
ever dared to utter such a word, but GeneralMcChrystal uttered it, and
he is a practical soldier. He used another word that is important to
us: “exit”. We must now concentrate not on a perpetual war—a war
without end—but on looking for practical ways of getting out. The main
reason our soldiers are dying is not the wickedness of the Taliban;
they are dying because of our presence in Afghanistan. We should look
at previous insurgency wars that have taken place and learn from their
results.
We are at a tipping point today and this week. Public opinion will suddenly become aroused. There are exact precedents for that in other parts of the world. We know of the anger that was expressed about our reasons for going to Iraq. There was virtually universal approval of the reason for our going to Afghanistan in the early stages, but, in my view, if there had been a debate and a vote in this House, there would not have been approval for the incursion intoHelmand province. That was the disastrous turning point that turned a manageable situation into what we have now: one in which it is impossible to win.
I conclude by paying tribute to the soldiers.
I speak as the proud son of a soldier who faced the enemy on many
occasions. This House sent those young men and women to Afghanistan. It
was our decision, and we should confront it. I was called on Friday by
a reporter from the Wales on Sunday newspaper who asked whether I was
proud that there were more Welsh troops in Afghanistan than there have
been in any British operation since Malaya. I said that, yes, I was
proud of their bravery and professionalism, but that I worried that the
outcome would be the loss of more Welsh lives.
I recall the words that are on the side of the beautiful Welsh war memorial in Cardiff:
Dros fôr fe aeth i farw.”
For
his country, he gave his oath, over the sea he went to die. Let us for
a moment recall the names of those who went over the sea to die. They
all have families and relatives who are now suffering a wound that will
never heal.
They are: Ben Babington-Browne, Dane Elson, David Dennis, Robert Laws, Rupert Thorneloe, Joshua Hammond, Sean Birchall, Paul Mervis, Robert McLaren, Cyrus Thatcher, Nigel Moffett, Stephen Bolger, Kieron Hill, Robert Martin Richards, Jordan Rossi, Petero Suesue, Jason Mackie, Mark Lawrence Evison, Ben Ross, Kumar Pun, Adrian Sheldon, Sean Binnie, Tobie Fasfous, Dean Thomas John, Graeme Stiff, Christopher Harkett, Michael Laski, Tom Gaden, Paul Upton, Jamie Gunn, Stephen Kingscott, Darren Smith, Daniel Nield, Richard Robinson, Tom Sawyer, Danny Winter, Travis Mackin, Chris Reed, Liam Elms, Benjamin Whatley, Robert Deering, Stuart Nash, Aaron Lewis, Steven Fellows, Damian Davies, John Manuel, Marc Birch, Tony Evans, Georgie Sparks, Alexander Lucas,Krishnabahadur Dura, Neil David Dunstan, Robert Joseph McKibben, Yubraj Rai, James Munday, Nicky Mason, Jason Lee Rawstron, Gary “Gaz” O’Donnell, Justin James Cupples, Barry Dempsey, Wayne Bland, Peter Joe Cowton , Jonathan Mathews, Kenneth Michael Rowe, Jason Stuart Barnes, James Johnson, Dan Shirley, Michael Norman Williams, Joe John Whittaker, Sarah Bryant, Sean Robert Reeve, RichardLarkin, Paul Stout, James Bateman, Jeff Doherty, Nathan Cuthbertson, Daniel Gamble, Charles David Murray, Dale Gostick, James Thompson, Ratu Sakeasi Babakobau, Robert Pearson, Graham Livingstone, Gary Thompson, John Thornton, David Marsh, Damian Mulvihill, Damian Stephen Lawrence, Darryl Gardiner, Lee Johnson, Jack Sadler, John McDermid, Jake Alderton, Alexis Roberts, Phillip Newman, Brian Tunnicliffe, Ivano Violino, Craig Brelsford, Johan Botha, Damian Wright, Ben Ford, Christopher Bridge, Aaron James McClure, Robert Graham Foster, John Thrumble, David Hicks, Tony Rawson, Michael Jones, Barry Keen, David Atherton, Alex Hawkins, Daryl Hickey, Dave Wilkinson, Sean Dolan, Thomas Wright, Neil Downes, Paul Sandford, Mike Gilyeat, Darren Bonner, Daniel Probyn, George Russell Davey, Simon Davison, Chris Gray, Michael Smith, Benjamin Reddy, Ross Clark, Liam McLaughlin, Scott Summers, Jonathan Holland, Mathew Ford, Thomas Curry, James Dwyer, Richard J. Watson, Jonathan Wigley, Gary Wright, Paul Muirhead, Luke McCulloch, Mark William Wright, Craig O’Donnell, Steven Johnson, Leigh Anthony Mitchelmore, Gareth Rodney Nicholas, Allan James Squires, Steven Swarbrick, Gary Wayne Andrews, Stephen Beattie, Gerard Martin Bell, Adrian Davies, Benjamin James Knight, John Joseph Langton, Gary Paul Quilliam, Oliver Simon Dicketts, Joseph David Windall, Anare Draiva, Jonathan Peter Hetherington, Bryan James Budd, Sean Tansey, Leigh Reeves, Andrew Barrie Cutts, Alex Eida, Ralph Johnson, Ross Nicholls, Damien Jackson, Peter Thorpe, Jabron Hashmi, David Patten, Paul Bartlett, Jim Philippson, Peter Edward Craddock, Mark Cridge, Steven Sherwood, Jonathan Kitulagoda, Robert Busuttil, John Gregory, Darren John George, and a solider who is yet to be named who died yesterday.
May they rest in peace.
I guess all your regulars are on holidays Paul, which must be a little depressing when you are posting your speech on what is a very big deal
Congratulations on the speech , well said even though I am not in agreement with the angle you take on it.
Fundamentally we both want the troops out, if for different reasons.
I still feel the bloodprice that is being paid is being paid by the Afghans and everyone else is a far distant also ran when it comes to it.
I also think it would take british deaths in the thousands to awaken any concerns with the general public.
Many would have to see Afghan deaths in the millions to be at all discomfited by our actions.
Posted by: HuwOS | July 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Don't worry Huw, I'm still here,
I may still sicken you, but never fear.
We may have been quiet but our hearts are bleeding,
Paul's recent posts make such dismal reading.
There's little in 'em to be argued or cussed,
Paul's got the situation well sussed.
It's just a pity that his dishonourable mates,
Don't see that our troops have too much on their plates.
Equipment and numbers far below needs,
Get stuck in or pull out is what this fight needs.
As these heroes get killed our leaders delay,
And hope for an answer, maybe the next day.
Here's some help from this tactical old chancer,
You never know, it may be the answer.
The Government must heed General Officer Soldiers.
They know best and it was me that told youse.
Posted by: Jolly Roger | July 11, 2009 at 03:28 AM
Thanks Huw and Jolly. Helmand is one of the most disturbing issues of my political life. When we invaded peaceful Helmand three years ago, I was the only parliamentary Cassandra forecasting disaster. It's breathtaking to re-read the stupid optimism of Government and oppositions at the time.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 11, 2009 at 07:33 AM
Sorry I havn't been commenting on your admirable contribution to the protest against the Afghan war.
This war started in 2001, I was 9 at the time and has been going on for almost as long as I can remember. Back a few years I remember people saying that these soldiers were giving their lives for our safety. However I couldn't help but feel the war had only endangered us further especially after the 7/7 bombings.
Yet, I can't help but feel that all this war has brought is lack of liberty in our nation. I say this because the anti-terror laws prevent the full right to protest, one of the founding principles of liberty.
"To give up ones liberty for ones safety is to give up both."
So are these brave men really fighting for our safety? It saddens me to say it, but no, they are not, there is little hope to be gained from this war.
I wish you the best of luck in gaining opposition to the war on Afghanistan, specifically Helmand, you certainly have many who will support your cause Paul. Good Luck.
Posted by: Chris Carter | July 11, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Could i add just how much i support your brave stand , Paul
Bernard
Posted by: beetee | July 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Thanks very much Chris and beetee. The news is so awful and without hope that it is difficult to concentrate on anything else.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 11, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Well done Paul this is an obscene tragedy perpetuated by our Political masters on our behalf.
They continue to shed blood onto our hands needlessly. Our loss of soldiers is indeed shocking but those of the ordianry Afghans seem more so. We have now stored up so much hatred and created new enemies by this action that we will be paying for it for many decades to come
Posted by: John | July 12, 2009 at 09:00 AM