16 November 2009: Guardian
The debate about Britain's future role in Afghanistan is under scrutiny as never before, with rising military and civilian casualties, and increasing political disquiet over strategy in the region. Here six experts spell out their fears, and potential solutions
We should stay: 'It would be crazy to give up now'
Colonel David Benest, retired Parachute Regiment officer, who served as a British counter-insurgency adviser in Kabul
Let's leave aside for the moment this issue of whether this is necessarily defending the streets of Britain, that's for Gordon Brown. The Afghan defence ministry announced last week that they believe the security situation is getting better, not worse. They're looking at being in complete control of security in four years' time, which I would probably go along with. There is this absurd notion that you can't win a counter-insurgency. I have studied the last 12 British counter-insurgencies, since 1900, and we did manage to achieve a peace of some sort in every one of them, most recently Northern Ireland. We've always had this awful period of getting things very badly wrong before we seem to turn the corner, and I think that's what is happening now. It would be crazy to give up now.
Nigel Adderley, defence analyst, International Institute for Strategic Studies
We are ingrained in a complex situation in Afghanistan and it would be totally inappropriate to pull out now. At the moment, Isaf troops are operating in an area of the country that is largely ungoverned. If troops begin to leave it is quite clear that others will move in. Al-Qaida is pretty well under the cosh and has been largely pushed back into the ungoverned areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani army is at this moment mounting a big offensive against them. If we vacate the Afghanistan side of the border it is quite clear that al-Qaida will move back in a big way. Although we should not overestimate its command and control structures this would represent a big boost [for al-Qaida]. To those who say none of this will impact on our day-to-day lives in the UK, I would ask them if they want another 9/11. I would also question the argument that we should withdraw and divert the money we save into improving security in the UK. How would this work – are we going to spend it at Dover? Terrorists are not going to march up to our borders and declare their intentions.
Andy Hull, senior research fellow in international security, Institute for Public Policy Research
To leave prematurely would be irresponsible, so the big questions centre on the policy direction we should be taking in Afghanistan. The prime minister needs to make clear what the country has to look like before we can leave. The international effort needs to be dispersed, co-ordinated and legitimate: dispersed in the sense that diplomatic moves need to be made to bring other powers – such as China, India and Russia – more prominently into play; co-ordinated in that the many international partners involved work to the same plan, and legitimate in that we have to abide by international law and seriously question the drone attacks over the border in Pakistan which are extra-judicial killings causing grievous collateral damage. There are certainly risks in engaging with the Taliban, but we should have channels of communication open for when negotiations make sense. Finally, we need to think very carefully about the job description of the president and see if that is the best way for today's Afghanistan to be governed.
We need a change of course: 'What exactly are our aims in Afghanistan'
Dr John Mackinlay, department of war studies, King's College London
Gordon Brown's case for being in Afghanistan hinges on security on the streets of London. At the moment we are running two campaigns: one is an expeditionary campaign in Helmand, the other is a domestic campaign in the UK. But the expeditionary campaign is antithetical to the domestic campaign, because it pisses off your average Muslim punter in Bolton. If you have to give one campaign primacy, as sure as night follows day it must be the domestic campaign. If there was an endless stream of people seeking to attack this country and they all came from Helmand province you would certainly go to Helmand to shut them down. But out of the 90 people who are in the slammer at the moment on proven terrorist charges, not one single one of them comes from Helmand. Afghanistan is the recruiting sergeant for what is happening in the UK. The really disingenuous thing is that really, being in Helmand is the price we pay for being at the top strategic table with the Americans. But no politician has the courage to go down to the funeral and tell the grieving mother, the reason your son died is that we have to pay that price to get strategic intelligence and special favours from the Americans.
Dr Antonio Giustozzi, LSE, has worked for the UN in Afghanistan and returned there a number of times
Just thinking in terms of defeating the Taliban tactically does not lead anywhere. It's one province, Helmand, out of 34. Even winning Helmand would not resolve anything, if the rest of the country is going down the drain. The real problem is not troops yes, or troops no. The problem is this: what exactly are our aims in being in Afghanistan, and how do we want to achieve them? The current tactics are really down to political despair, because they don't know what to do with [Afghanistan's President] Karzai. There is a tendency to run away from the problem and find surrogates like more troops. Nothing can work if there is no working relationship with the Afghan partners. If you don't have an overall strategy and a reliable partner, it's just a matter of time before everything collapses. At this point I don't see any real alternative to negotiating with the Taliban. It's not the ideal outcome, but the more you wait the higher the price, as the Taliban are getting stronger and stronger.
John Rees is author of Imperialism and Resistance (Routledge, 2006) and co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition
Afghanistan is the very definition of an unnecessary war. The Taliban have rebuilt their strength because most Afghans do not want foreign occupation, and now have a permanent presence in 80% of the country. Even the US ambassador in Kabul does not want more troops deployed and 73% of the British population in the last poll want the troops home within a year. Some say there will be a civil war if we leave. But we intervened on one side of a civil war when we invaded. We ensured that corrupt and disgraced warlords of the Northern Alliance beat the Taliban. Last week a leaked British government memo argued that the Karzai government would have to negotiate with the Taliban. The only thing that will be achieved by staying in Afghanistan is that more Afghans and more British soldiers will lose their lives while they wait for the absolutely inevitable conclusion to be reached by our politicians: only Afghans can solve Afghan problems.
