When Tony Blair was omnipotent….

 

It was simple and clear in 2001.

Tony Blair was in messianic mode, clad in a cloak of infallibility. His prime objective was to build a blood brother relationship with the Republican Bush as he had with the Democratic Clinton. Rage at 9/11 found its expression in the delusion of Western omnipotence. Osama Bin Laden had to be found. The tinpot regime in Afghanistan had to be toppled for protecting him. This 13th century society had to be transformed into a Scandinavian democracy minus corruption and the drugs trade.

Tony Blair explained to the Commons that 90% of the heroin used in Britain comes from Afghanistan. He said the country was riddled with corruption and had the second worst deaths in childbirth rates in the world. Not an inch of progress has been made in 11 years on all three of these issues. In most areas the vast sacrifice of Western blood and treasure has made conditions worse.

The International Crisis Group reported that violence and the billions of dollars in international aid have brought wealthy officials and insurgents together. As a result, "the economy is increasingly dominated by a criminal oligarchy of politically connected businessmen".

The negatives column in the Afghan war's balance sheet does not get any shorter. So far, the conflict  has cost the lives of 407 UK troops, 3,000 coalition troops, between 14,000 and 34,000 civilians, created millions of refugees, and opened up a black hole in Western economies that has sucked in more than $500bn dollars. Afghanistan costs the US around $10bn (£6.3bn) a month; and Britain paid £4.5bn last year.

What has been achieved by the war?

Bin Laden has been killed - but not as a result of NATO action in Afghanistan. The killing of Bin Laden has demonstrated that special forces, police work and drones are a far more effective weapon against terrorists than wars.

Schools have reopened with almost 80,000 children enrolled today, virtually double the number in 2007. Two-thirds of Afghans now have access to basic health services – up from 8 per cent during Taliban rule; more than 1,000 judges, 200 of them women, have been trained; and elections, albeit increasingly corrupt ones, are routinely held.

Violence is at record levels, a dysfunctional government is plagued by corruption, and a police and army riddled with illiteracy and dependent on coalition support, Afghanistan is anything but stable. Despite billions of dollars being poured into creating an Afghan army and police force capable of fighting the Taliban little has been achieved.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called Afghanistan: The Impossible Transition, says that the idea of transition by 2014 is "unrealistic" and warns: "If the transition were carried out, it would provide a considerable boost to the insurgency and, ultimately, the defeat of the Karzai regime." Over the past two years, the security situation has deteriorated in the border provinces, according to the report. And President Karzai is showing increasing signs of moving closer to Iran and Pakistan.

The prospect of settled peace is an illusion. Canada and the Netherlands have withdrawn their troops without detriment. The UK should do the same.

 

Comments

[Ad]

Paul, you are right to say that police work and co-opertation between intelligence services are the key to preventing terrorism. However, I think it is wrong to place trust in drone strikes. It seems to me that drone strikes are the exact opposite of actual police and intelligence work because they simply bomb people from a remote distance. In other words it is retreating into command bunkers and killing (largely innocent) people with impunity instead of actually co-operating with other agencies to identify and arrest terrorists.

Drones I think are actually an impediment, allowing as they do the secretive attacking of people at great distance. The foundation of counter-terrorism has to be police work and co-operation between intelligence services as we agree. But drones are used simply to bomb houses, usually of innocent people, based on faulty intelligence and the itchy trigger fingers of those who want to use them.

Drones are quite simply a tool preferred by those who love violence. They are hateful to those who live in the areas where they are used and cause resentment. Is the best solution to terrorism really to bomb the houses of those with suspected links to the Taliban?

I agree otherwise with the substance of your article. There is a complete lack of truth about this war in that a supposed democratically elected parliament does not reflect the overwhelming public opposition to this war. Instead these two-faced politicians spout foolishly optimistic and arrogant falsehoods. It is as if they actually believe their 'resolve' in repeatedly stating their aims can alter the outcome of this war.

I will state it again that this war has become a war against the Afghan people. The grievences of the insurgency are nothing to do with wanting to launch terrorist attacks on Britain. They are to do with being bombed by NATO, being abused by NATO forces in night raids, unemployment and lack of alternatives, as well as hatred of a currupt government and its military.

[HuwOS]

"The killing of Bin Laden has demonstrated that special forces, police work and drones are a far more effective weapon against terrorists than wars"

Surely, if we learn anything from the killing of Bin Laden, it's that though terrorists may make the people of the US cringe and whine like curs their yellow streak doesn't prevent them shooting unarmed old people in the face anywhere or anytime they feel like it.
That is of course, if they can spare the time from more indiscriminate murder which they can safely do from some bunker miles, countries or someday even continents away from the men, women and children whose lives they destroy, thanks to the gamelike technology of drones.